Letter from Bro. Chester Wright to Bro. Haney

[Indy]

Originally Posted by CC1

Putting aside for a moment the conclusions drawn by he letters author I am apalled that he made it personal by using another UPC Pastor as an example by name.

That is crass, unethical, etc, etc.

He could have made his point without making it personal.

When you're right/Wright when it comes to truth, none of that matters. Ethics can be bypassed at any time when you're defending truth.

[Elizabeth]

Does anyone know if this letter was sent out to all licensed UPC ministers?

To be fair to Bro Wright, I am sure when he wrote the letter, if he did, he didnt know it would be posted on AFF.


I personaly don't have a problem with it being posted, there is a lot there I think is important to talk about.

[Sam]

Well, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm gonna make two points.

1. Originally the Apostolic/Pentecostals were what we on this forum call one-steppers. They did not believe water baptism and Spirit baptism were the new birth and they did not believe that water baptism and Spirit baptism were necessary for salvation. That teaching came along later and has now permeated much of the Oneness Pentecostal movement. That some are now going back to what we call the "one-step" plan of salvation just means that people are getting back to their Apostolic/Pentecostal roots.

2. Clothing and jewelry rules were not that important to early Apostolic/Pentecostals. This is a quote from "The Winds of God." which was written by Ethel Goss and is about the early Pentecostal movement (1901-1914) in the life of her husband Howard A. Goss.The copyright date is 1958. Howard Goss was, and is, considered a pioneer and a hero by quite a few people in the Pentecostal movement although many today would have no idea who he was.

In the early years of the Pentecostal movement a group of workers would go into an area and preach. They would go with no church invitation and no financial backing. They felt like they had a message to preach and that God would supply their needs. Their message was salvation, sanctification, healing, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It was called the Apostolic Faith even though it had nothing to do with later teaching on Oneness and baptism in Jesus' Name. Later it would be referred to by some as Full Gospel. Some times they could afford a building to hold meetings in and some times even a separate place to stay. Finances and food came in by the grace of God.

On page 69 of the book he talks about the way they dressed which is in marked contrast to the way some of the preachers preach about standards, clothing, jewelry, etc today. Years ago we used to refer to this as "clothes line preaching." Now I guess it's just considered preaching on standards.

"We did not wear uniforms. The lady workers dressed in the current fashions of the day, ...silks...satins...jewels or whatever they happened to possess. They were very smartly turned out, so that they made an impressive appearance on the streets where a large part of our work was conducted in the early years.

"It was not until long after, when former Holiness preachers had become part of us, that strict plainness of dress began to be taught.

"Although Entire Sanctification was preached at the beginning of the Movement, it was from a Wesleyan viewpoint, and had in it very little of the later Holiness Movement characteristics. Nothing was ever said about apparel, for everyone was so taken up with the Lord that mode of dress seemingly never occurred to any of us."

[U376977]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

We read the doctrine of the younger generation that CW is concerned with here on AFF all the time. It's the one-stepper doctrine of salvation. I just finished reading a good article by Jason Dulle on evangelical vs pentecostal soteriology. If you read it, put the term, one-stepper, in place of evangelical. http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstu...vangelical.htm

I'm not sure that being relevant is something to be afraid of.

Originally Posted by HappyTown

More power to these young minister! What used to be is no longer working, the young minister realized this, people are no longer fooled into believe standards are salvation, the fear factor no longer has the power it once held. The internet has open many eyes to the real truth on such matters as stated above, more so then T.V ever would!

I think some are misunderstanding the term "relevant" and "relevancy movement." Unless I misunderstand what is written about in the letters, they are talking about "MORAL RELEVANCY."

Young people are taught this in schools. It is also called "Situational Ethics." Where right and wrong are determined by the whole scenario and each individual can decide what is actually right, moral and ethical.

Schools teach this by supplying a scenario and then ask questions about what is right and let the children decide.

For example, if you saw an obviously rich woman walk out of a store and she dropped a $100 bill, would it be alright for you to keep the $100 since she was rich and did not really need the money? Yes or No? There is no "right" answer! What if instead of keeping the $100 you handed it to a homeless man who was panhandling on the corner? Right or Wrong? There is no "right" answer! What if you knew the woman got rich by dishonest means, would you keep it then? Right or Wrong? There is no "right" answer!

As opposed to believing in a set of principals and living by them. If theft is wrong then keeping the $100 would be wrong EVERY TIME in the above scenarios.

Imagine trying to govern a church thru "relevancy" or "situtional ethics" instead of thru biblical principal. I think this is the concern of the writers of these letters. ???

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by U376977

I think some are misunderstanding the term "relevant" and "relevancy movement." Unless I misunderstand what is written about in the letters, they are talking about "MORAL RELEVANCY."

Young people are taught this in schools. It is also called "Situational Ethics." Where right and wrong are determined by the whole scenario and each individual can decide what is actually right, moral and ethical.

Schools teach this by supplying a scenario and then ask questions about what is right and let the children decide.

For example, if you saw an obviously rich woman walk out of a store and she dropped a $100 bill, would it be alright for you to keep the $100 since she was rich and did not really need the money? Yes or No? There is no "right" answer! What if instead of keeping the $100 you handed it to a homeless man who was panhandling on the corner? Right or Wrong? There is no "right" answer! What if you knew the woman got rich by dishonest means, would you keep it then? Right or Wrong? There is no "right" answer!

As opposed to believing in a set of principals and living by them. If theft is wrong then keeping the $100 would be wrong EVERY TIME in the above scenarios.

Imagine trying to govern a church thru "relevancy" or "situtional ethics" instead of thru biblical principal. I think this is the concern of the writers of these letters. ???

I think you're wrong. No one said anything about moral relevancy. I'm sure these pastors uphold morals and ethics. What is being discussed (and feared) is an invasion of relevant teaching/music/apparel/etc. into the ranks of an organization that has prided itself on separation from the world.

[HappyTown]

Originally Posted by Sam

2. Clothing and jewelry rules were not that important to early Apostolic/Pentecostals. This is a quote from "The Winds of God." which was written by Ethel Goss and is about the early Pentecostal movement (1901-1914) in the life of her husband Howard A. Goss.The copyright date is 1958. Howard Goss was, and is, considered a pioneer and a hero by quite a few people in the Pentecostal movement although many today would have no idea who he was.

In the early years of the Pentecostal movement a group of workers would go into an area and preach. They would go with no church invitation and no financial backing. They felt like they had a message to preach and that God would supply their needs. Their message was salvation, sanctification, healing, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It was called the Apostolic Faith even though it had nothing to do with later teaching on Oneness and baptism in Jesus' Name. Later it would be referred to by some as Full Gospel. Some times they could afford a building to hold meetings in and some times even a separate place to stay. Finances and food came in by the grace of God.

On page 69 of the book he talks about the way they dressed which is in marked contrast to the way some of the preachers preach about standards, clothing, jewelry, etc today. Years ago we used to refer to this as "clothes line preaching." Now I guess it's just considered preaching on standards.

"We did not wear uniforms. The lady workers dressed in the current fashions of the day, ...silks...satins...jewels or whatever they happened to possess. They were very smartly turned out, so that they made an impressive appearance on the streets where a large part of our work was conducted in the early years.

"It was not until long after, when former Holiness preachers had become part of us, that strict plainness of dress began to be taught.

"Although Entire Sanctification was preached at the beginning of the Movement, it was from a Wesleyan viewpoint, and had in it very little of the later Holiness Movement characteristics. Nothing was ever said about apparel, for everyone was so taken up with the Lord that mode of dress seemingly never occurred to any of us."

Very true Sam, my granny has shared pics with me from her youthful days, they wore what everyone was wearing. In her church pics the women have short hair wearing jewelery , makeup. She has pic of women from the church wearing pants while picking berries, with the pastor!

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Sherri

I think you're wrong. No one said anything about moral relevancy. I'm sure these pastors uphold morals and ethics. What is being discussed (and feared) is an invasion of relevant teaching/music/apparel/etc. into the ranks of an organization that has prided itself on separation from the world.

In a nut shell! Exactly!

[Neck]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I have a huge problem with this being posted.

This is private communication.

WD Minister, what purpose do you have in posting this?

I worry about "men of god" like you.

I have close family who are directly related to Chester Wright.

He has always been a man for the dramatic.

He would not pen a letter to be delivered only to the Sup.

Just like his letter on the TV resolution last year.

A letter that I agreed with.

In this case though he disrespects a group of men and he writes.

"The majority of those involved with Tulsa are older ministers whose potential long term impact is minimal."

I think Chester Wright needs to check his relavance at the door.

I still have a wonderment about me as I search for the relavance of the UPC "Movement".

Jesus Christ our Lord is not confined to the ever slow march of this movement.

God is relavant and his church will be relavant.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by U376977

I think some are misunderstanding the term "relevant" and "relevancy movement." Unless I misunderstand what is written about in the letters, they are talking about "MORAL RELEVANCY."

Young people are taught this in schools. It is also called "Situational Ethics." Where right and wrong are determined by the whole scenario and each individual can decide what is actually right, moral and ethical.

Schools teach this by supplying a scenario and then ask questions about what is right and let the children decide.

For example, if you saw an obviously rich woman walk out of a store and she dropped a $100 bill, would it be alright for you to keep the $100 since she was rich and did not really need the money? Yes or No? There is no "right" answer! What if instead of keeping the $100 you handed it to a homeless man who was panhandling on the corner? Right or Wrong? There is no "right" answer! What if you knew the woman got rich by dishonest means, would you keep it then? Right or Wrong? There is no "right" answer!

As opposed to believing in a set of principals and living by them. If theft is wrong then keeping the $100 would be wrong EVERY TIME in the above scenarios.

Imagine trying to govern a church thru "relevancy" or "situtional ethics" instead of thru biblical principal. I think this is the concern of the writers of these letters. ???

I think that Chester Wright is now showing he is one of those older ministers he bashes in his letter.

Speaking of those in Tulsa.

It has always been a fear in the UPC that the next generation will be more relavant.

I sense fear in his letter that the youger men are going to stand up and question the relavancy of "Chain and Ball doctrine".

As we all like to call it Standards.

[1Corinth2v4]

Originally Posted by Minister_WD

Bro. Haney,


Greetings in Jesus Name! I am writing to express to you my very great
concern about the "relevancy movement" in the church world and the impact
that it is having on the young ministers of our movement. Let me state that
while I am concerned about the Tulsa thing. Its potential impact upon our
movement is minimal compared to the impact that the relevancy movement is
having upon our next generation of preachers. The majority of those
involved with Tulsa are older ministers whose potential long term impact is
minimal. But, while we are so concerned about them and their exodus, while
our attention is focused on them, the adversary is deceiving a significant
portion of our younger generation who are our future.


Let me share some things which I have discovered in just a small amount of
time while doing some research and checking:First, a significant portion of these young men among us are questioning"when the blood is applied." The result of their "searching" is that they have concluded that it is applied at repentance, producing the conclusion that Water Baptism and Receiving the Holy Ghost is NOT necessary for salvation. They have concluded that all "holiness" is Phariseeism - that all of our standards are traditions of men, traditions of an older, out of date generation. This thinking is already affecting young men from Every area of our nation. I have several in my district that at leaning this direction. I have talked to several men from different areas of the country and it is happening to men they know as well.


Second, this group wants to reach the world through "relevancy" or
"relating" to the culture of this generation. A man who preached this past
General Conference uses people in ministry in his church who have NOT been
baptized in Jesus name and who have NOT received the Holy Ghost. He also
uses people in positions which represent his church to the public with NO
holiness standards at all. You can see for yourself atwww.thepointonline.tv and www.yourjourney.tv While I am not intending to single him out specifically, he is a very visible representative of the direction that many of our young men are going. Using him gave all of them a feeling of vindication and accreditation. There are many "buzz-words" associated with this new version of the manifestation of an old deceiving spirit. They think we older guys don't know the language, so therefore when they preach they say things that they expect that we will understand one way, while those "in the know" understand that they are saying something very different to them.

The relevancy movement is changing "church" to appeal to this generation
(their specific target generation is the 20-29 year olds). While I have a
great desire to see this generation reached also, I do not think that we
have to preach in tee shirts and blue jeans to reach them. Much of what so
disturbed the General Presbyters that they expressed about the Youth
Convention at last year's General Conference is not an isolated event, nor
just a trend. It is a movement - the relevancy movement. (Googleing
"relevancy" will shock you.) (By the way, the name "The Journey" is the
most "up-to-date" name for churches that are a part of the relevancy
movement - again, Google - "the journey church" and see for yourself.)
Bro. Haney I know that you are aware of my desire for progress. I have no
loyalty to religious traditions. I deeply desire to eliminate everything
from our doctrine and practices that are not completely founded upon the
Word of God. Therefore, I hope that you will understand and give some
credence to the concern that I have, since I have never been one for
maintaining the status quo. This email is written by someone who does
believe that change is positive. I am for changing the things which can and
should be changed. However, I am not for changing our Apostolic message,
only our un-Scriptural, non-Apostolic, ineffective methods.


I am deeply troubled in my spirit by these things and felt the need to
express them to you. I do not know if there would be anytime in the agenda
at the Board meeting to discuss this at all, but I pray that there is.
Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy communication.
I pray that the Lord is blessing and keeping you. I look forward to seeing
you in a few weeks.

Chester Wright

Maryland-DC District Superintendent

AMEN