Category: Oneness Pentecostal | Page 21

Colorado United Pentecostal Sex Abuse Cases Part 1

Part fourteen of a series of articles.

(Some statements in this article are what have been alleged by one witness, though there are several others which have corroborated events. There have been no convictions as the case mentioned here was not reported to the police and to my knowledge, the alleged perpetrator has not admitted guilt.)

Many now wonder if there has been a habit of covering up and denying child and sexual abuse in evangelical churches in general—if there is something in the evangelical DNA that makes us hesitant to deal with accusations quickly, openly, and truthfully when there is the suspicion of grave sin in our midst. – Mark Galli

In writing this series of articles, besides all the situations I already knew, others have contacted me about additional instances of sexual abuse in the United Pentecostal Church. Since starting this series, I heard about ones coming from a well-known church in Colorado, which started sounding all too similar to what I have heard about Calvary Gospel Church in Wisconsin regarding failure to report. Between the two sets of asterisks below is what a person remembers from one of the alleged instances. In looking into this situation, I conversed with several people, including eyewitnesses to the service described in this report, and based upon their accounts I do not doubt this took place.

Prior to this event, the wife of another youth pastor had allegedly committed adultery with a member of the youth group, though he was of age, possibly in his mid 20s, and it appears to have been consensual. The couple divorced. It has also been alleged that in the 1990s, the pastor found out that the man who was playing the role of Jesus in “The Messiah,” an Easter production, was having an affair. It is claimed that after the discovery the pastor allowed him to continue in the role as it was close to when the play was being presented. These are not the only troubling situations surrounding this church and they don’t all pertain to sexual matters. One individual shared with me that in their opinion they have never seen a more corrupt district than the Colorado District of the United Pentecostal Church.

**************

Growing up, we seemed to have a revolving door when it came to youth pastors. They would come and go frequently, and it was always heartbreaking when you got attached to a new youth pastor only to have them disappear in a year or two.

Then, a young, cool youth pastor was announced. He and his wife were the epitome of good looking, well-bred UPC ministry. His adorable wife was the envy of many young girls for her gorgeous dark hair and fashionable clothes, while the youth pastor himself was what many young girls hoped their husband would look like one day. They toted around a sweet chubby cheeked baby boy that we all fell in love with and begged to babysit. We were smitten.

For almost two years, I thought we had finally hit the jackpot with who I will refer to as Youth Pastor X. Things seemed to be going amazingly well, the youth group was thriving, and we felt loved and cared about by leaders at our church.

Then, one Sunday evening, they weren’t at church, which was really odd, as they had just been at youth service the Friday evening before so they couldn’t have been out of town. At the end of the church service, the pastor of the church stood in the pulpit and said we would be having an all church meeting and he asked our visitors to leave at that time because of the sensitive nature of what he needed to say.

One by one, confused visitors exited the sanctuary with the assistance of church ushers who made sure they had exited the building before the meeting began. Dread sat thick and heavy in my chest. This wasn’t the first time we had a meeting like this. It usually meant that someone was being publicly kicked out of the church.

Slowly, my pastor began explaining that our beloved Youth Pastor X had been asked to resign his position at the church. He did not go into a lot of detail but did say that we were not allowed to have any contact with him or his family and that they were currently packing their moving truck and would be leaving the state immediately.

Questions started swirling in my head…what did they do? Was his wife caught wearing pants? Were they going to movie theaters? This was terrible! And we weren’t even allowed to say goodbye!

As my pastor continued to talk, it was disclosed that misconduct had occurred which left them no choice but to ask Youth Pastor X to leave. No further information was shared, though the pastor did take a few questions that he answered very vaguely.

As the next few days came and went, the truth of the story began to circulate. Youth Pastor X was having a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl from the youth group. The strange thing? The fault was entirely pinned on the 14-year-old girl. She was labeled as promiscuous and a bad seed. Everyone knew that she was a bad kid, and this just proved it. She must have come onto Youth Pastor X and he had no power against her. She had a spirit about her and the devil was working in her to ruin Youth Pastor X’s ministry. She was ostracized from the youth group, we all looked at her as though she had ruined his ministry.

No charges were ever filed. Youth Pastor X was allowed to leave the state without a tarnish against him.

**************

At the same time, if the many charges prove to be true to a larger extent than they currently acknowledge, it would be sad and troubling—but not without hope if it leads to truth-telling and repentance. The truth of sin that leads to repentance is one of the most glorious moments in our life in Christ. – Mark Galli

From what former members have shared, in this church it has been the normal procedure to dismiss any visitors in order to address members in regard to problems. The pastors are known for cutting off contact between members and anyone they feel is dangerous to the church.

The identity of the girl was never officially revealed by the pastor but there were people in the church who knew it. One person shared that her and the youth pastor were caught kissing while they were on a youth conference trip up in the mountains, possibly at Winter Park. It is alleged that she had a crush on him and pursued him and that she left the church for awhile after he was sent away. She has been in and out of that church since then.

Two others have shared with me they thought she was 15 or 16 at the time, not 14. Regardless of whether it was 14, 15 or 16, the legal age for consent to sexual activity in Colorado is 17. The victim was only 16 years old in 1998 and wouldn’t have been 17 until the first third of 1999 when this youth pastor was no longer there. The youth pastor was 28 in 1998. Despite these facts, there are some with ties to the church who will tell you that what happened was consensual. They are in grave error because according to the law, that was impossible. A minor cannot give consent and especially not a minor when the other party is in a position of trust.

The law, which in my opinion needs to change, does allow that someone under 15 can consent to have sex when the person is not more than four years older. In addition, a 15-16 year old can consent as long as the other person is no more than ten years older. (I am uncertain as to when the near in age rules went into effect. Regardless, the age difference between the two exceeded both rule exceptions.) What also comes into play in a case such as this one is when the perpetrator is in a position of trust. Examples of a person being in the position of trust are pastors, teachers, doctors, etc. A criminal charge of sexual abuse is more serious when it involves a position of trust. [Because there may be other sexual abuse victims from Colorado reading this, some may wish to review this PDF document, which covers the law, statutes of limitations and potential sentences and was valid as of at least 2015. You may also wish to read this article of why it is important to report possible cases of sexual assault.]

As I’ve written elsewhere, ‘if you are interacting with a sex offender who is admitting he or she has harmed someone, and you feel yourself being pulled to feel sorry for this person instead of, or more than, the victim, it is probable that an experienced victim-stancer is manipulating you.’

“Many well-intentioned people feel sympathy for an offender and advocate for them with the victim and/or the victim’s loved ones. They remind victims that their abusers are created in God’s image no matter what harm they have done. For the victims and their loved ones, this is a bizarre, surreal, and wounding experience because it echoes and reinforces the grooming of the abuser. – Maureen Farrell Garcia

One person alleged they were told by the pastor that this man was dismissed due to impropriety issues with money. However, the youth pastor privately shared that he had been dismissed due to inappropriate contact with a minor. It has also been alleged that the pastor told him to leave Colorado immediately and if he did so, no further action would be taken against him. This was never reported to the police. The youth pastor did not hold a UPCI license at the time.

This youth pastor was married in 1993 and felt a call to preach in his teen years. He attended the Jackson College of Ministries, a UPC operated Bible college which has since closed. Serving at this Colorado church while in his mid to late twenties, it appears he held the position from 1996 through 1998. Some dates I received were slightly different, but all narrowed it down to the mid to late 90s. He was definitely gone in 1999 as the next youth pastor was serving during the time of the Columbine shootings.

Besides all of this, it is very disturbing that this youth pastor became licensed a few years later after moving to another district just southwest of Colorado, during the time when Tommy Hudson was the Superintendent. It doesn’t matter whether or not he ever again did something similar. As was explained in a previous article, when a person is guilty of an immoral sexual act, they are forever ineligible to be licensed. In this alleged situation, besides adultery, we have a sexual assault of a minor. This man is first seen in the 2002 UPCI Directory, which is reflective of him receiving license in 2001. It is interesting to note that the Directory indicates he received ordination, which isn’t the level a newly licensed minister usually receives. In 2002 he became the associate pastor of a church. Just a few short years later in 2005, he became the pastor of a different church and remains in that position as of the writing of this article. Two to three years after taking over the church it became non-affiliated. (There are two types of UPCI churches: affiliated and non-affiliated.)

The rules in the UPCI Manual are clear- if one has been sexually immoral, they are not qualified to hold license, nor to minister in a United Pentecostal Church.

You will find a complete list of articles in this series by clicking here.

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

Why Oneness Pentecostals have Salvation Wrong (Acts 2:38) and you should Avoid It

Salvation has been a topic for eons – both in the Christian religion and other spirituality based religions. Societies and people across the pages of history have asked the question, and attempted to answer, the age-old question, “What is there after death? Is there an afterlife? If so, how do I enter it?”

For modern Oneness Pentecostals, they believe they have revealed, re-discovered, dug up and reformed the ancient ‘truth’ of Scripture, how one makes it to heaven, pleases God, obeys the Scripture, is justified, and finds true holiness, something that was supposedly closed off from mankind for centuries due to paganism, false doctrine and the likes of the Roman Catholic church.

Recently, a young man and his wife contacted me on the YouTube channel asking what my thoughts were on the Acts 2:38 message taught by Oneness Pentecostals, known as their salvation doctrine (soteriology). They wanted to leave the United Pentecostal Church for all the legalism and dogma (false doctrine) but were confused about attending other churches that didn’t teach Acts 2:38.

If you are not familiar with the evolved doctrines of the Oneness Pentecostal church (Evolved because it has changed many times since 1901ad at its inception) on Soteriology, Acts 2:38, in a nutshell, means that you deny the Trinity, that you are baptized in Jesus Name only, not in the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost (this is a forced effort in denying the Trinity), that you repent by adopting their holiness standards (woman never wear pants, cut their hair, etc), and that you speak in tongues (initial evidence) as the gift of the Holy Ghost.

While this doctrine can be explained in multiple ways, both favorably and unfavorably, I have determined it to be incorrectly dividing the Word and placing upon people a yoke that Scripture did not demand and more importantly, the divergent doctrinal error cascades to many more doctrinal errors.

Also, important to note that I am purposed to equip the children of God to spot doctrinal errors. I’m not bitter, or vengeful, nor attacking any one ‘faith’. I’m not attacking anything, I’m focused on correctly dividing God’s Word.

There are many doctrines of Scripture that can be debated, questioned, given the ‘we will never understand that’ brush off, but Salvation is a critical aspect of Christianity and getting this right is paramount to our experiences with God.

First and foremost, Scripture makes it abundantly clear that our justification is by the obedience of one man (Romans 5:19), not of our own, and that it is faith in Christ alone that produces the grace that saves us (Ephesians 2:8). There is more to the Christian life, but the root of ‘how do I get saved’ is found in fully trusting in the finished works of Christ on the Cross. Grace is a gift, not a paycheck.

By way of example of the error of Oneness theology, let us examine vs 37 of the Acts 2:38 narrative to see if it lines up with the entire picture of Biblical salvation.

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

I want to compare this to Acts 16:30 which says, “And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

In the case of Acts 2:37 you have a band of Jews that just witnessed a miraculous event and then heard the preaching of Peter that condemned them for taking part in rejecting the Messiah. After being convicted that they had done something wrong, they asked, paraphrased, What are we going to do about this??

Here, Peter answers with the hallmark platform of the Oneness Pentecostal Church;

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ” ~ Acts 2:38, KJV

In the case of the Philippian jailer of Acts 16, who just witnessed an equally miraculous event, the question was specifically asked, “What must I do to be saved?”, which was not the case in Acts 2:37. We can make logical leaps, but I’m of the opinion we must take Scripture at face value.

Now – it is evident that Peter gave a pretty salvific response to the Jews, dwelling in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, speaking on forgiveness of sins, receiving the gift of the Spirit, being baptized, etc. Yet, something has to be wrong with the Apostle Paul in Acts 16 if that was the message for the Gentile Church because he did not repeat the same answer to the Gentiles. Or, something is wrong with the Oneness Pentecostal interpretation.

In fact, Paul outlined a very different salvation message to the Gentile believer, the Philippian jailer, and he repeated this same message dozens of times in all of his writings: “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:31)

Now, I want to use an argument that the Oneness Pentecostals use all the time in this vein of thought, who will often counter the argument opposing Acts 2:38 (Salvation) with this question, “IF Peter was preaching false doctrine in Acts 2 the other 11 Apostles would have called him out because Scripture says, ‘And Peter, standing with the eleven’ (Acts 2:13).”

Likewise, in Acts 16:31, Scripture said that Paul and Silas both answered the jailer on how to be saved, “And they said…” They were in agreement – and that wasn’t to repeat Acts 2:38. Acts 15 shows Paul and Barnabas and the entire elder council of the Christian Church speaking of what it takes for a Gentile to be saved. False doctrine (and legalism) was being rooted out of the Christian Church from the very beginning.

The Day of Pentecost, Signs, and Wonders

The real reason I’m writing this is is an examination of the upper room experience in Acts 2, to highlight the eisegetical error of this theology. As miraculous as this event was, Scripture does not portray it to be a repeatable event, and this highlights the error of the Acts 2:38 salvation doctrine of the Oneness Pentecostal church.

When Acts 2:38 says, ‘and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost‘, this has been interpreted (eisegetically) by Oneness Pentecostal theologians as speaking in tongues, or as they call it, the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. This is a belief that when one receives the Spirit of Christ, i.e. the gift of the Holy Ghost, they will, as seen in the upper room, speak in other tongues as the Spirit gives them utterance.

Indeed, they have made the claim that if one does not speak in tongues, they have not received Christ, they are not saved, and heaven will not be their home until they do. Their soteriology is wrapped up in the signs and wonders gift of speaking in another language.

But – is this what that Scripture really means? Two examinations of both events prove this to be patently false. If Paul told the jailer to speak in tongues in order to be saved, we could take that message and run with it. If the elder council of Acts 15 said to speak in tongues, we could run with it. If Paul taught the Church of Ephesus “For you are saved, by grace, (which is received when you speak in tongues)…” we could take that message and run with it.

But that is not what Scripture declares.

First and foremost, we see this evidenced immediately following Peter’s preaching. Don’t forget, Peter did NOT say that the gift of the Holy Ghost was ‘speaking in tongues’. This is an amalgamation of examples where people did speak in tongues on several occasions in the book of Acts (Cornelius Acts 10) so thus, every one will/must. Is this true?

Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

It is commonly accepted by theologians and scholars that vs 41 indicates 3,000 people became new converts, Christians in the aftermath of Peter’s message. If 120 were in the upper room speaking in tongues, with cloven tongues of fire sitting upon them, with reverberating rushing mighty winds seen and heard by all – imagine the attraction that 3,000 people repeating that event would create?

And yet – Scripture simply says they were baptized and added to the church. This is miraculous! Imagine today a town of 100,000 having THOUSANDS converted to the faith in one evening? Miraculous.

But, did they speak in tongues?

The Signs of the Upper Room Experience

If the Acts 2 experience at Pentecost was a repeatable event, to the degree that it was tied to an individual believers salvation experience, then we would be wise to follow it exactly as exampled in Scripture. Let’s take Scripture at face value.

Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Act 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

The three signs of the Pentecostal experience are these:

The Spirit was preceded by the rushing mighty wind. The Greek word here for ‘sound’ is ēchos and it means literally ‘a loud or confused noise, that is, a roar‘. If you have ever stood on the ridge of the Grand Canyon you have heard a rushing mighty wind. The upper room would have been similar.
The Spirit was preceded by cloven tongues like as of fire. This was something that appeared to all of them, not an apparition only visible to a single person. These have been described by scholars as scintillations, lambent flashes of fire that appeared throughout the room, splitting licks of fire that sat upon each person.
The tongues that were spoken by each recipient was an immediately translated known language. There was and must be someone in the audience that recognized the language being spoken. This was not a private ‘prayer language’ as some Charismatics call what is now known as babbling, nor a language of angels.

Equipped with this view of the miraculous event of the day of Pentecost, we must then approach the modern day sign of ‘tongues’, through the lens of the Oneness Pentecostal movement that calls it the ‘initial evidence‘, and ask the question, “Does it actually match the biblical model they claim to be following?”

Looking at this scripture and theology of the Oneness Pentecostal religion under the microscope of Scripture we find a virus or an infection in the teaching. To claim that the ‘gift of the Holy Ghost’ is a repetition of the Acts 2 upper room experience doesn’t line up with the Word.

Having been in this religion for 15 years and being connected with hundreds and thousands of Oneness Pentecostals, I can tell you that no one, ever, received the ‘gift’ evidenced in the fashion of the upper room experience. It has never been preceded with a rushing mighty wind, never was it accompanied with cloven tongues visible to all around, and most importantly, NEVER was it a known language that was immediately recognized by someone surround the event.

The only argument to support the Oneness theology on this topic is to say, ‘it’s changed’. To express that it changed is to then dismantle the entire theology. To claim that it did not change is to then admit that they, and no one else is repeating the biblical event as exampled in Acts 2, and thus, have made up their own experience or are disobeying Scripture.

Conclusion

The conclusion is that the ‘gift of the Spirit’ is not the supposed initial evidence of speaking in tongues. In fact, Scripture makes it clear that the gift of the Spirit is the eternal promise (Ephesians 1:13) seal we receive upon believing in Christ. That the fruit of the spirit is the evidence of that gift, and finally, that the promise and hope of glory (Colossians 1:27) is the result of that gift.

Scripture also tells us that the ‘gift’ of God is free, and it is salvation. (Ephesians 2:8) Ephesians 4:7 tells us that each of us is given a measure of grace according to the gift of Christ. James 1:7 tells us that the gift is given by God and comes down from Him, who never changes.

We didn’t beg for this gift, we didn’t have to exert and stress and beg and scream and cry for it, we received it by faith! Freely we have been given this grace. In fact, 1 Peter 4:10 tells us that every man who has this gift is responsible for sharing and ministering the grace and freeness of God’s love to one another – being stewards of this gift.

As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. ~ 1 Peter 4:10

Scripture never indicates that the gift is the event or outcome of speaking in tongues. This outlines both the falsity of the Oneness Pentecostal theology surrounding the Acts 2:38 narrative, but more important than any of that, illuminates the wonderful miracle of grace – that it was given to us freely, because of the obedience and love of Jesus Christ and that the real gift of the Holy Ghost is His presence with us, working for us and granting us the fruit of His Spirit, which is Love, Joy, Peace, Longsuffering, Gentleness, Goodness, Faith, Meekness, and Self-Control – against such God has no law!

Blessings

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 3

This is a continuation from Part 2. Thoughts are based off the article, Are Apostolics Pharisees? written by Gary R. Trzcinski, which appeared in the September 1996 Pentecostal Herald (now called Pentecostal Life, the official magazine of the United Pentecostal Church) which addressed the issue of whether Apostolics (Oneness Pentecostals) were Pharisees. The author gave 29 points as to why they were not.

Below is an excerpt:

Pharisees never criticized Jesus or His disciples for their physical appearance (hair, modesty, ornamentation). We do not find one verse of Scripture where they ever condemned Jesus and His followers for the way they looked. Many Pharisees were waiting to find one flaw in Jesus so that they could discredit Him and His teachings. If there would have been something wrong, the Pharisees would have found it. But they found nothing. Why? Because there was nothing to find, nothing to criticize.

The Pharisees were somewhat holy looking on the outside but extremely unholy in their hearts. However, Jesus was holy both inside and out. He was the perfect man. “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1).

Why is it that the Pharisees didn’t criticize their appearance? This argument actually works against what the author has stated about being different from ‘the world.’ If Jesus and the disciples looked distinctly different from ‘the world,’ as the UPC teaches we in North America must do today, then would they not have pointed this out? It is somewhat misleading to state they were looking for one flaw as they pointed out several in Jesus and his disciples. They took note that Jesus ate and spent time with sinners, they reprimanded them for eating with unwashed hands and said Jesus was gluttonous and a winebibber…so would they not have made note of any appearance which stood out from those around them? Could it be that Jesus and his followers appeared like ‘the world’? Or are we to believe there was a difference in the definition of ‘the world’ some 2000 years ago?

By mentioning “hair, modesty, ornamentation” the author appears to want readers to link this to standards taught in the UPCI, as if they were being followed by Jesus and his disciples. Yet not once do we read that Jesus taught against jewelry, make-up, cutting hair and so forth. He was silent on such issues that the UPCI feels are extremely important. Similarly, Jesus did not teach or follow the rules which the Pharisees added to the law.

“The Pharisees were somewhat holy looking on the outside but extremely unholy in their hearts.” Actually, they weren’t just somewhat…Jesus said that they made clean the outside of the cup and platter. Anyone can make themselves look good to others in this manner. Consider that the heart of the Pharisee wasn’t really toward God and Jesus pronounced them dead on the inside, yet they were able to present to others the image of a sparkling clean and holy exterior, one they thought would cause people to be envious and look up to them.

Pharisees only cleansed the outward appearance but neglected the sinful human heart. They were righteous on the outside but evil on the inside. They were hypocrites (Matthew 23:25-28); but we abhor hypocrisy. Apostolics seek to clean not only the outward appearance but also the heart, mind, and human spirit. Jesus asserted: “Cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also” (Matthew 23:26). A cleansing of the inside will eventually lead to a cleansing of the outside.

The vast majority of our preaching and efforts center on the redemption of the soul. And yet we would be hypocrites if we willfully neglected those passages of Scripture pertaining to cleansing the outward appearance (1 Corinthians 11:4-16; 1 Timothy 2:9-10; 1 Peter 3:3-4). We follow the admonition of Paul to abstain from all appearance of evil so that we would be sanctified wholly- spirit, soul, and body (1 Thessalonians 5:22-23).

If the inside is clean, then it cannot help but show outwardly–and not simply in our appearance, but more importantly in our actions. This is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life. This is part of the problem in performance oriented churches- they cause people to believe that they must work to make themselves holy and acceptable to God. Don’t cut your hair or wear jewelry and make-up, be sure dresses and skirts fall below the knees, watch your sleeve length and maybe you will be pleasing to God and accepted. Yet the book of Galatians makes it extremely clear that our righteousness will never come from our own works, but it is by faith in Jesus that we are made righteous in the sight of God. If the law was only to act as a guardian until Jesus came, why would we now need any other set of laws to ‘protect’ us or act as a fence to keep us safe? Think about it. Written laws do not change the person. The Old Testament law did not make the people righteous by obeying it as they were not changed on the inside. No list of rules is going to change us either, no matter how good the intentions.

The author claims that Apostolics “abhor hypocrisy” and yet most of us who have been part of them have seen it in multiple ways. There were the ministers that taught against television and owned one themselves or would otherwise have ways to watch it. They teach women’s hair is to be uncut yet some women hide their trimmed hair by wearing it up. They teach against jewelry but wear similar ornamentation in their hair or on their shoes. In some of their churches men are taught they must be clean shaven but the rule can be temporarily bypassed for those who participate in a Christmas or Easter play. How many times have you heard a minister proclaim how people can shout at a sporting event (some are against attending these) and then compare that to how one is to act in a church service? What about the sermons which state smoking is defiling the temple of the Holy Spirit and yet they ignore where the Bible actually speaks against gluttony? These are just a few of the ways in which hypocrisy has been seen in their midst.

I will close with the thoughts of a friend:

You know, as I think about this, it’s not so much the grace thing, as is the need to have something that can be seen. It’s easier to trust in that which can be seen, it is easier to maintain control over what can be seen. When one is seen doing all that is required, then the pastor can rest assured that he has control over that person. When the standards are broken, then the pastor knows for sure that that person needs reprimanding, and many are quite willing to join in on the flogging! I’ve seen this first hand in my former church, especially with the young people.

It’s harder to let go of the reins and let the spirit have his way. Those in control feel that they must be enforcing something or some kind of rule, etc. I think it comes down to more of a trust issue for many in UPC, afraid to trust in that which can’t be seen, unless there is evidence through obedience.

The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 1

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

Shaky arguments

Someone asked something the other day, and since then I keep thinking about the incident that changed my view of the bible and of certain doctrines of my former church completely.

Before I left my former church, I had joined a discussion board that was supposed to be for people who believed like I did. Through the next months, I’d realized that the people who were kindest were NOT the ones I would ever fellowship in person because, though they exhibited the most fruit of the spirit (love joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self control) they didn’t dress the way I thought they should, went to places I didn’t think any Christian should, and even did things and said things I didn’t think any Christian would. It blew my mind that they were the ones, these that I would have judged in person as least Christian, could actually be the most Christ-like.

About nine months after I left my former church, a question was raised on that board about baptism. These questions were typical on the board, but this time one woman was very adamant about her position, and she put others down if she felt they disagreed with her on any point. I didn’t get involved at first, but after awhile she said something that made no sense at all, even from our shared viewpoint. I said something about that. She assumed I was disagreeing with her stance on baptism, and for the next several pages of discussion argued with me about something I already believed! She was so convinced in her mind, just as I’d once been, that if a person didn’t agree with me on everything, they must not be a “real” Christian.

And so we went on to have a several page ‘discussion’ that ended with me radically changing my beliefs and my understanding of several passages. So in short, a Oneness Pentecostal argued so ridiculously for what she believed (and was determined I didn’t) that she actually converted me FROM that doctrine, rather than to it. And she did a really good job of it!

I’ve experienced the same multiple times since. The harder someone argues for their views without listening to any others or even stopping to see what the other person DOES believe, the more likely they are to drive me away from their viewpoint, no matter how much I believed in it. It’s crazy now, looking back on that thread, because what she was saying doesn’t even make logical sense. I see where she inserted a bunch of emojis, particularly when she thought she’d made her point… and unfortunately most often where those points had actually fallen shortest. She really thought she was doing something, posting as she was. I notice the many times she would get upset by a question, restate her point, and then go off on an emotional tangent about how her view was directly connected to how great God was and how she had the truth. And I know there have been times in my life when I did, too. Now I realize that all of my arguments for what I believed must have sounded absolutely stupid to anyone who didn’t believe them. Worse, I was certainly proud of them… and I think that pride probably made them even more off-putting.

I want to post part of the conversation, but it is quite lengthy and dizzying in it’s ‘rabbit trails’. What’s incredible to me though is not how convoluted the whole thing got. It’s that she, in all her pride and zeal, actually preached me away from what she thought I had to believe to be saved, even after I told her I believed it. A United Pentecostal actually taught me why the UPC teaching of Jesus name baptism as the only right baptism was wrong.

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 2

This is a continuation from Part 1. Thoughts are based off the article, Are Apostolics Pharisees? written by Gary R. Trzcinski, which appeared in the September 1996 Pentecostal Herald (now called Pentecostal Life, the official magazine of the United Pentecostal Church) which addressed the issue of whether Apostolics (Oneness Pentecostals) were Pharisees. The author gave 29 points as to why they were not.

Below is a quote from the article:

Pharisees placed their own man-made traditions above the commandments of God (Matthew 15:2-9). Some traditions may occasionally serve a good purpose but may also at times interfere with the plan of God (Matthew 15:1-2). Other traditions are evil because they are worldly: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8). Still other traditions are good because they are biblical: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

Apostolics have truly endeavored to teach and practice those traditions found in the Word of God. Critics may disagree with us concerning our understanding of modesty, for example, and call it human tradition, but Apostolics are making a sincere effort to practice modesty in spite of the world’s traditions.

Our critics, on the other hand, often look no different than the world. Maybe they have chosen to ignore the scriptural principles of modest dress. Or maybe their definition of modesty is not much different from the world’s definition. Evidently, they have ignorantly or willingly chosen to follow the worldly traditions of fallen humanity.

It would have been better for him to use the word modest or immodest as compared to worldly or the world. This thinking about ‘the world’ has been carried to extremes. People use many things which are of ‘the world’ such as houses, cars, toothbrushes, banks, electricity, and so forth—so are we to refrain from *everything* worldly? This is what they try to teach concerning dress and a few other things, but they are inconsistent with its application.

With all the varying cultures, it would be pretty impossible to dress in a manner in which everyone would give 100% approval. For instance, while the UPC women may wear long dresses or skirts, they wear various bright colors. To an Amish woman, this would be improper. How the Amish woman dresses would be immodest to a woman in a strict Islamic group.

It is interesting to note that the missionaries of the UPCI are told not to attempt to change the culture of the countries to which they are sent. (In fact, I have heard that the UPC in other countries is different than here in North America in that they don’t have all the same prohibitions.) Yet in North America where the organization is headquartered, they attempt to do the opposite by teaching things contrary to our culture. While pants are culturally acceptable for women to wear, they teach women are not to wear them.

“Apostolics have truly endeavored to teach and practice those traditions found in the Word of God. Critics may disagree with us concerning our understanding of modesty, for example, and call it human tradition, but Apostolics are making a sincere effort to practice modesty in spite of the world’s traditions.” All Christians should be modest. But where the UPC goes wrong is they attempt to define for everyone what is and is not considered modest and then claim these things are biblical. Worse yet, their own ministers and churches cannot agree on what is modest or acceptable.

Visit one of their churches and they teach that sleeves must be to the wrist, while another will teach somewhere else on the arm. While one church will proclaim that a woman cutting her hair could put her in jeopardy of hell, another does not. One church teaches men are to be clean shaven and the next allows facial hair. One church teaches you may wear a wedding ring and the one in the next town forbids it. They try to wiggle around these inconsistencies by claiming each pastor has the authority to set the standards in their church as they see fit. Yet if what they teach is truly “those traditions found in the Word of God,” then why would there be all these differences between their churches? Claiming these outward standards are based on traditions found in the Bible is incorrect. We find no Scriptures giving specifics on sleeve length, no prohibition against jewelry or make-up, or pants on women, etc., yet we are to believe that all they teach is spelled out in the Bible.

“Our critics, on the other hand, often look no different than the world. Maybe they have chosen to ignore the scriptural principles of modest dress.” Note the assumption made by the author. If you don’t see it as they do, then you’ve chosen to ignore what the Bible clearly teaches and of course you must be dressing immodestly. Then those who disagree are linked to ‘the world.’ I will point out again that their men often look no different than men in ‘the world.’ Where in Scripture is it taught that in dress Christians must look different from those around us? I don’t see any mention where Jesus or the disciples dressed any differently from the other people. Nor do we read something like, “And the people of Galatia immediately knew they were Christians because they dressed in a much different manner than the people who did not know Christ.” If there were such a difference in how Jesus dressed, Judas wouldn’t have needed to point him out as he did when he betrayed him, but would have explained how they would recognize him by the difference in his attire.

“Or maybe their definition of modesty is not much different from the world’s definition. Evidently, they have ignorantly or willingly chosen to follow the worldly traditions of fallen humanity.” Here is yet another negative assumption. It is interesting how it must be one or the other and not that some may simply view the issue differently than they do.

The Handbook of Life in Bible Times by J.A. Thompson states, “For all their piety, they placed great burdens of religious obligation on the ordinary people. They had lost the spirit of the law and turned devotion into a system. God became to them almost a machine, bound to bless the person who carried out the right rituals at the right time. Jesus’ concept of God, however, was of a loving Father who cared for people and provided for their needs, and who asked to be loved and obeyed from the heart and not simply to be recognized by outward and often empty ritual.” The name Pharisees implies ‘the separated ones.’ They wanted to be noticed when they prayed and wanted the best seats in the synagogue and at banquets. They made sure to look somewhat different (by broadening their phylacteries and lengthening their tassels) so they would stand out and be noticed. Jesus taught against them and told the people to beware of their teachings. He said they placed heavy burdens upon people. They defined God’s laws, when God did not state those things, such as dictating what constituted work on the Sabbath and what didn’t. Don’t these things sound like what the United Pentecostal Church has done?

The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 3

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.