Category: holiness standards | Page 6

Spiritual Abuse as Trauma (Part 2)

Defining the different types of abuse seems unnecessary, but there are many people who do not know what constitutes abuse of another.

The golden rule, “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” just doesn’t seem to be enough to enable human beings to learn how to treat one another. Although there are multiple reasons for this, the most simplistic response is to say that many people have been so misused themselves that they have little frame of reference as to how to treat themselves or one another. There is a saying I hear often, but do not know who to credit. It says “Hurt people hurt people.” In my line of work, I have observed that to be true. Usually, a cycle of abuse may be several generations long.

Since I work in the state of Arkansas, I have chosen to use some definitions that are handed out in that state. The Arkansas Legal Services Partnership defines emotional abuse as “behavior that undermines the other partner’s sense of self-worth.” It further defines psychological abuse as “isolating a partner from friends and family, and causing fear by intimidation and threats.”

As expected, there is no definition listed for spiritual abuse. However, many of the individuals who have experienced spiritual abuse could place their experiences quite literally in either of the above-mentioned definitions.

When a person leaves a spiritually abusive environment, it is often difficult to know how to act in the real world. The individual’s sense of self worth was so wrapped up in what they did for the church or in the identity of wearing certain clothing styles, that there is a transition period of time where they feel like they are a “nobody,” or completely irrelevant. A process of healing must begin, where they can begin to discover that they still have a lot to offer and that they are important just by being themselves.

Many abusive church groups isolate their members from friends and family who are “unsaved.” Oftentimes, members are forbidden from visiting other churches, going to ballgames, theaters, or other places of entertainment where one might normally spend time with family or friends. Not only that, many are told specifically that it doesn’t matter if their family drove across the United States to see them or not, they must tell visiting family members to either come to church with them, or they must leave the visiting family members at home alone, in order to not miss a single service at the church. There are specific things members are told not to discuss with family members, in some cases. In other cases, they are told to not talk to or associate with family members or friends who leave the group. If they have non-group members that are friends, the activities and the time they spend with those friends is limited. If members are spending time with non-members at all, it is expected that they will be endeavoring to convert them. This type of isolation has the effect of adding to the “brainwashing” effect of the group.

Fear and threats are levied to intimidate individuals to obey the rules of the group. Perhaps the greatest threat is being removed from any type of service or leadership for not “following the rules” or “toeing the line.” In some cases, this gets so extreme that a person is not allowed to be an usher because they watched a movie at a friend’s home, if movies are against the rules. In another case, it might be that they are not allowed to sing in the choir because they have a two inch split in their long skirt. Some pastors preach that young people have to have pastoral permission to date one another. Even when they start dating, they cannot ever go to a restaurant or to any venue alone, but always with a chaperone. In addition to these rules, they cannot hold hands, hug, or kiss at all until at their wedding. These rules are enforced by threats and intimidation. If you do not follow these guidelines, you will be “in rebellion” to the “man of God” placed over you, and you will go to a “devil’s hell” for your rebellious spirit. In the meantime, you will be shamed and shunned within the church group. If you are not a rule-follower, you will be banned from dating those who are rule-followers.

Do we need an additional title of “spiritual abuse” in order to recognize these behaviors for the abusiveness they are? I think not. The very fact that these methods are designed to control another person and limit their contact with those outside the group should be cause for concern.

In a nutshell, abuse is taking someone’s power away. Stepping into another person’s life to command it is not only controlling, but it is abusive.

Spiritual Abuse as Trauma (Part 1)

********
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.

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.

The Dress

It was camp time, and I, as usual, didn’t have much money for the fancy evening clothes that most people my age would be wearing. Looking through the thrift stores, I found one dress. It met all the requirements: 3/4 sleeves, mid calf, not too fitted, high necked. It was a beautiful antique green-gray with a cream background, and it fit me perfectly.

Since having been kicked out of my previous church because my former pastor “felt in his spirit” that I was “lusting after” him, I hadn’t felt like looking very pretty. I had started, in my mid 20s, dressing in bulky dress jumpers a size or two too large, in dull or dark colors. This wasn’t modesty, though I didn’t know it then. It was humiliation and depression and a very unhealthy body image.

I wanted to look pretty in a way, but I was also very embarrassed about looking good. Wasn’t that immodest? Would I look sexy? I never wanted to be accused of causing a man to lust again. But I also wanted to look attractive. I saw other women my age at church. They didn’t dress like I did, and they weren’t accused. They were admired. And then I found the dress.

I questioned whether I should buy it. It looked absolutely great on me… and I wasn’t sure if that was great or terrible. But I loved it so much and I loved the way I looked in it. So I bought it. And the last night of camp, I wore it. I was a little self conscious in it, because I knew I looked good, but worried that it showed my figure more than my bulky jumpers, but I was also very happy with it. And so I shouted through the Friday night service and went back home the next day, very happy with my week.

And then came Sunday morning. The pastor’s wife taught our Sunday School class, and that morning she dedicated the class time to discussing how someone in the class had worn something terrible on Friday night. It was too fitted. It showed way too much. The person who wore it should have worn a girdle. She was so embarrassed for her…. For me. I was a size 6-8. I was 20-something with no kids. I’d never married. And the dress, apparently, though she never named me, was bad. I never wore the dress again.

Looking back now, I have to wonder what her problem was. I wasn’t dressed badly. I actually was dressed more like everyone else than I’d been in several years. I met all the rules of the dress code. Did she pick up on my self consciousness and exploit it? Was she jealous? Or was it just pure spite? If she was really embarrassed for me, if she really cared, wouldn’t she have come to me privately and expressed her concern, rather than spending Sunday morning detailing her embarrassment of the unnamed person to the class? (And wouldn’t she have done the same for whoever it was, if it wasn’t me?)

I wonder these thing now, looking back. I recently lost weight and needed new clothes. The ones I had were so large they were falling off of me. And every time I go to try on clothes that really fit, I think of that dress from nearly 20 years ago, when I was condemned for feeling pretty.

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

The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 1

I was reading an article 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, the majority of which do not relate to anything I have ever seen applied to them in regard with being Pharisaical. For instance, he mentions the Pharisees were outraged that Jesus healed on the Sabbath–and of course, Apostolics wouldn’t do likewise. (Yet if some stayed home on a church night, there are Apostolics who would become enraged.)

The article was entitled Are Apostolics Pharisees? and was written by Gary R. Trzcinski, an ordained minister in the UPCI. How would you respond to the following?

Pharisees dressed for the approval of their culture. The scribes (probably including many Pharisees) arrogantly walked through the markets in their long-flowing, extravagant robes (Luke 20:46). The other Jews were impressed by the Pharisees’ status and power exemplified in the clothes they wore. Apostolics in modern Western cultures, on the other hand, are often criticized and harassed for their modest-length apparel and gender-distinctive clothing. It would be much easier to surrender to the sensual trends of the world, but we have chosen rather to submit to the Word of God (Deuteronomy 22:5; Isaiah 47:1-3; 1 Timothy 2:9-10; 1 Peter 3:3-5). The Pharisees dressed for the approval of their culture; Apostolics dress for the approval of God.

While some may believe this, is it what we see? Do we see people in the UPC dressing this way in order to avoid the wrath of others within their church? Do we see them dressing this way in order to keep their position in the church or to not be viewed as backslid or in rebellion? How many there change their dress because of what others thought or because they didn’t want to take the chance that their salvation may rest upon their keeping these dress codes? If all this is taking place, how then is it dressing for the approval of God?

What he fails to note is that many Apostolics dress for the approval of their pastor and/or other church members. Some dress that way because they have been taught that to do otherwise will cause them to be lost. [While many will claim they do not teach standards as matters of salvation, the manner in which some teach them shows otherwise. One Apostolic recently demonstrated this when he wrote in a discussion board, “Holiness standards will not save you by themselves, but you will be lost without them.”] Others dress that way, not because they believe it is what God wants of them, but do so because they feel they must obey the pastor. Some do it simply to fit in with other church members. And there are others who follow these rules because they must in order to participate in certain church activities, like sing in the choir or teach Sunday School. To believe that all Apostolics follow these teachings “for the approval of God” is to be blind to all the other reasons.

“Apostolics in modern Western cultures, on the other hand, are often criticized and harassed for their modest-length apparel and gender-distinctive clothing.” I think that more so, people on the outside view some of their apparel as strange, old-fashioned, out of place and at times even immodest or dangerous. (Think climbing up ladders in a dress or skirt or swimming in jean skirts.) I don’t believe the average person goes around harassing them. In fact, their men don’t stand out from many in society. It’s the women that get hit the most with these outward teachings.

While some think people will be attracted by how the women stand out, it sometimes repels people. I am reminded of an incident that happened to a friend after they had left their Apostolic church. She was in a store one evening when she witnessed a woman from her former church verbally ripping into a clerk for doing what her manager said instead of doing what she demanded. After she left, my friend went up to the clerk hoping to say something that would let her know that it was OK and that she would stand up for her if need be. The clerk looked my friend up and down- she was still dressing like she had in her Apostolic church, just as the rude woman was- and she drew back with such pain and fear on her face.

Through the years I have also heard instances where Apostolics have treated wait staff at restaurants very poorly and were stingy with tips, sometimes not leaving anything or leaving a tract. I witnessed this myself with some members of my former UPCI church. Sometimes Apostolics will come in a large group to eat after a service, but not long before a restaurant is going to close. While they would recognize them coming by their clothing, employees would cringe when they saw them, knowing what was to come.

Of course these examples do not apply to every Apostolic. I personally have no problem with anyone who wishes to dress the way the UPC teaches; go right ahead. But don’t force it on others, don’t judge or look down on those who do not dress likewise, don’t teach these as biblical mandates, and don’t attach anyone’s salvation to following them. That is when these beliefs become problematic and abusive.

The person who wrote this article ignored the reason for the most criticism they receive. That is because of what I just shared about not teaching them as biblical mandates or forcing them on others, etc. In this manner, they are like the Pharisees. The Pharisees had additional rules and regulations for what God had set up. These were often placed on an equal or even higher level than the Scriptures. When you say things like “you will be lost without following these,” you are adding to what the Bible teaches and following in the footsteps of the Pharisees.

“It would be much easier to surrender to the sensual trends of the world, but we have chosen rather to submit to the Word of God (Deuteronomy 22:5; Isaiah 47:1-3; 1 Timothy 2:9-10; 1 Peter 3:3-5).”

I won’t address each of the verses presented as none of them teach their prohibitions. Note how when it comes to things of ‘the world’ they can pick and choose. TV was a big no-no, but grab that computer and go into cyberspace. The same reasoning they used to ban TV can be used for the Internet and computers–and even to a greater extent. When ministers were not permitted to own a television set, some did anyway, hiding it in their home and yet teaching against it in services.

They aren’t supposed to be going to Hollywood produced movies, but many watch them on their phone or YouTube or rent the DVD. They aren’t supposed to be like the world and yet some will dress in expensive designer clothing (or worse yet, counterfeit items), use Coach handbags and wear alligator shoes. Some women wear things in their hair that would be condemned to wear as jewelry on their clothing or body.

There have been ministers which taught vehemently against certain things but when it came to their children, the rules changed. There have been women who have cut their hair, yet wear it up to conceal that fact. In this manner, they are once again like the Pharisees, guilty of hypocrisy.

The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 2
The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 3

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