Category: legalism

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:

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.

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.

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:

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.