DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,

[Jeffrey]

I believe it was was one of those sermon links on another thread where the preacher tried to make the case: scripture gives us timeless principle, church leadership is responsible for making timely application.

This is how they explain positions as follows:

Alcohol abstinence
Cigarette smoking
Night Club/Dance Club attendance

for some:
Movie Theaters
Movies
Television
Sleeve length
Dress length
Dresses over pants
Mixed "Bathing"


etc....

With the idea of Pastoral Authority being what it is for most OP's, this is an easy answer for them.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by DAII

Justin, what we find is two waves crashing at the merger when it came to how to view and teach holiness.

Initially, the PCI manual's verbiage on Holiness was adapted at the merger.

This is how it read in the PCI manual and the UPCI manual at the merger:



Notice they simply reiterated scripture with little commentary .... and this inferentially allows an indivual pastor to interpret and apply bible-based holiness as they deemed in their local congregations.

Quite frankly we cannot call these "revelations" new ... as we can find many who held dress standards before 1948 ... especially as taught and documented by some of the radicals of the pre-cursor Holiness movements.

These arguments regarding Holiness were very much part of the theological discussions among Methodists and others with Wesleyan roots in the 1800's and the turn of the century.

What we dont find .... is a pre-defined laundry list in the Articles Faith until nearly a decade after the merger .... until the resolution process was properly utilized and appeals by some who wanted "stronger" language to apply to all across the fellowship were institutie

.... in 1954 an amendment was added...

The Article of Holiness was amended to its present day language.

What is nefarious ... I believe .... is the attempt to whitewash and present the facts as if we were lockstep in what is the majority view today.

We find leadership of the pioneering OP Apostolic generation to hold markedly distinct views on Holiness and the New Birth ...

This is more about the will of a few or even a majority imposed on the rest of the organization ...

With direct democracy, comes as our founding fathers wrote about in the Federalist papers, the tyranny of the majority.

Maybe not, but if each pastor made application that he felt was best, in effect, we'd have almost the same thing, with a half cup of tolerance and a half teaspoon of graciousness. Not much would be different.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by DAII

Justin, what we find is two waves crashing at the merger when it came to how to view and teach holiness.

Initially, the PCI manual's verbiage on Holiness was adapted at the merger.

This is how it read in the PCI manual and the UPCI manual at the merger:

(PCI manual, circa early 1940's)

Notice they simply reiterated scripture with little commentary .... and this inferentially allows an indivual pastor to interpret and apply bible-based holiness as they deemed in their local congregations.

Quite frankly we cannot call these "revelations" new ... as we can find many who held dress standards before 1948 ... especially as taught and documented by some of the radicals of the pre-cursor Holiness movements.

These arguments regarding Holiness were very much part of the theological discussions among Methodists and others with Wesleyan roots in the 1800's and the turn of the century.

What we dont find .... is a pre-defined laundry list in the Articles Faith until nearly a decade after the merger .... until the resolution process was properly utilized and appeals by some who wanted "stronger" language to apply to all across the fellowship were institutie

.... in 1954 an amendment was added...

The Article of Holiness was amended to its present day language.

What is nefarious ... I believe .... is the attempt to whitewash and present the facts as if we were lockstep in what is the majority view today.

We find leadership of the pioneering OP Apostolic generation to hold markedly distinct views on Holiness and the New Birth ...

This is more about the will of a few or even a majority imposed on the rest of the organization ...

With direct democracy, comes as our founding fathers wrote about in the Federalist papers, the tyranny of the majority.

From the experience of my family it is a "new" thing and looking at how the "dress code standards" were introduced and promulgated among OPs the photographic evidence does show it to have been an innovation across the movement.

That doesn't discount the fact that, as you've stated, there were many from the Wesleyan Holiness movement that brought along their ideas.

And another important innovation has been the idea that "There Has Always Been an 'Acts 2:38' Church Throughout History." The pioneers all felt that they were resurrecting truths that had been lost for centuries and none of them claimed to have been perpetuating an apostolic succession. This greatly influenced the development of the "Light Doctrine" and its corollaries. When the "Light Doctrine" was abandoned as "compromise" it became necessary to invent an alternate reality where the "Three Step" program had always been heralded.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Maybe not, but if each pastor made application that he felt was best, in effect, we'd have almost the same thing, with a half cup of tolerance and a half teaspoon of graciousness. Not much would be different.

But we would not have the Westberg resolution ... and other appeals to "legality" and unanimous across the board affirmations that are still signed hypocritically.

I'm sure group dynamics would still lead to certain districts ... and regions holding a view but returning to the Holiness article at the merger would disengage some of the conflict and return to the original intent and glue of the merger to not contend to the disunity of the brethren, imo.

[DAII]

The WPF schism would not have happened ... the likes of LB, the Godairs, and others either would have left in trickles earlier ... or would have joined orgs with TV prohibitions ...

But as it stands ... their gripe along legal grounds has merit when one looks at the inconsistency of the "TV for ministry" allowance compared to today's Holiness article and stance against TV.

The changing of the Holiness article ... has self-sabotaged the org and has rooted out some good people while making others feel disgruntled to see it not properly enforced.

The original vagueness was wise, imo, and 100% bible-based.

[Jeffrey]

I agree it was wise and Bible-based.

I'm just looking at what would be different. You hit a on a few points yourself.

If there was still an open fellowship of PCI and PAJC, and tolerance on differences of holiness standards (including hair), I would suspect that PAJC crowd would lose their voice. From talking with so many, it seems there are hundreds of men that just play the game, talk the talk, though in their heart of hearts they are nothing close to PAJC in doctrine. It amazes me. Wisdom or dishonesty? I guess it depends on who you ask.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I agree it was wise and Bible-based.

I'm just looking at what would be different. You hit a on a few points yourself.

If there was still an open fellowship of PCI and PAJC, and tolerance on differences of holiness standards (including hair), I would suspect that PAJC crowd would lose their voice. From talking with so many, it seems there are hundreds of men that just play the game, talk the talk, though in their heart of hearts they are nothing close to PAJC in doctrine. It amazes me. Wisdom or dishonesty? I guess it depends on who you ask.

A culture of disfellowship has been nutured through the years since many have fed a blood-thirsty focus on the minors rather than the majors, imo.

Making men to lie and promote disunity on the basis of letter of the law but not the Word of God.

It is the reason that in 15 years the net growth of the UPCI has stagnated ... and why there is a revolving door whle losing pillars with seasoned experience.

Returning to their roots would allow men to preach their conscience while staying in fellowship with like-minded men ... allowing the fellowship we all love to flourish.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I agree it was wise and Bible-based.

I'm just looking at what would be different. You hit a on a few points yourself.

If there was still an open fellowship of PCI and PAJC, and tolerance on differences of holiness standards (including hair), I would suspect that PAJC crowd would lose their voice. From talking with so many, it seems there are hundreds of men that just play the game, talk the talk, though in their heart of hearts they are nothing close to PAJC in doctrine. It amazes me. Wisdom or dishonesty? I guess it depends on who you ask.

Isn't hypocrisy a sin? I thought it was.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Justin

Isn't hypocrisy a sin? I thought it was.

It is ... and I can name a handful of men in full compliance of today's Holiness article. Some of them just left.

And makes our friends, brethren and family members liars, imo.

[Jeffrey]

Justin hypocrisy is a claim to righteousness, a boastful slapping of the chest, all the while a heart that is insincere and far from God. I wouldn't quite make the stretch of them handling the situation the way they do to "hypocrisy." But close

There's so many men that continue to sign the affirmation statement that it befuddles me. I have had conversations with them. Some of these have held "high positions" -- some high enough rank in the UPC fellowship that it would blow your mind. If you asked them if Billy Graham would be in heaven, they wouldn't hesitate to tell you "yes." But back @ conference, you wouldn't ever know it by the rhetoric they use.