Are Beards The Mark Of The Beast?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

You answered her question with a question.
But so you know, we teach that Jesus will receive a spotless church and we better be prepared when that day comes. We teach that we can and must perfect our attitude, spirit and in doing so we will be able to also bring our bodies under subjection. "Walk it the Spirit and we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh". So perfect as in pleasing to God,yes. But perfect as in glorified not yet.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, please have a little mercy on those of us who can't stomach this sort of "churchianity". Yes, we'd rather stay home, read our Bibles, and pray with family. Or we'd rather meet with small groups of other believers in homes, coffee shops, parks, at work, in restaurants, etc.. Or, we might even seek other means of fellowship over the internet and various other social media.

The Sunday Show just isn't everyone's cup of tea.

Honestly, there are more references to churches gathering in smaller groups in homes for teaching and fellowship throughout the NT than there are references to large buildings, salaried pastorates, choirs, special songs, foot stomping, hand clapping, the chicken dance, concert style lights & smoke, steeples, and all that jazz.

And when you've been ostracized over a beard or some silliness by the institutional church, you begin to realize that church is far more than what they're selling anyway. It's about being a people walking in a spiritual kingdom that is separated from the world, even its incorporated religious institutions. The beard actually becomes a blessing. A tool God used to wake you up to what is real verses what is fake, contrived, governed by human tradition, opinion, and institutional "identity". You begin to realize how many "Christians" are being conformed into the image of some tradition or institution and not Christ Himself.

Since there is nothing in Scripture about beards being prohibited or required for NT saints, the moment you hear the droning condemnation of beards, you can know instantly that you're in a church that isn't focused on the book, but rather, they are focused on their own traditions and worldly organizational identity.

A - as I have said before, I have seen plenty of people take the road you are on.
And everyone of them has lost their children.
DID YOU HEAR ME?
EVERYONE OF THEM HAS LOST THEIR CHILDREN!
But, you know better than I do.

[n david]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

That came from my Pastor and his Pastor and Elder was high up in the UPC organization, and that was one of the huge reasons we left.

I'm not just saying something I heard from a forum or in the streets. He said he could no longer look himself in the face in the morning and hold that office. That's what I'm basing this off of.

I'll leave it at that. Believe me or don't believe me is fine. But btw we didnt join the WPF either.

So, this isn't anything of which you personally can testify to. This is something you've heard from so and so, who heard from so and so and on and on it goes.

I have several family members who are licensed UPC. I know many licensed Pastors and district officials. One of my good friends here is a district official who attends meeting at HQ, so I will certainly talk with him about your accusation. There may be liberal churches which don't preach dress standards, but I don't know of a single church which preaches any other salvation than repentance, baptism and receiving the HG.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

A - as I have said before, I have seen plenty of people take the road you are on.
And everyone of them has lost their children.
DID YOU HEAR ME?
EVERYONE OF THEM HAS LOST THEIR CHILDREN!
But, you know better than I do.

What is the youth retention in your church?

It is my understanding that the average youth retention in the UPCI was only between 18%-20% in 2015. I'm not sure about what it is today, but let's assume it is at least around the same. This means that even in UPCI churches 80%-82% of the youth leave church upon adulthood, the marker typically being graduation from high school. Yes, based on this, the UPCI is losing as much as 82% of their youth.

What of the remaining 18% to 20%? Are they truly "Christlike"? Are they mere drones to advance the forms and fashions of the organization? Do they walk in true grace and spiritual power? Who knows? Certainly some do. But if what Scripture states is any indicator, most likely it is a minority of even those who are still in the pews.

As far as house churching goes... what constitutes "retention"? A lifelong faith in Christ. House churches typically don't mandate a form or fashion, so their style of dress etc. isn't a factor in our considerations. It is their faith. Do they continue to read the Bible? Do they continue to pray? Do they continue to love Jesus? Do they continue to strive to love others as themselves? While many house church families have children who, like their parents, do not attend an institutional church. So, that isn't a benchmark. In the last house church network I attended, nearly 67% of the youth graduated and moved on to attend Cedarville, a local Christian university, or Earlham College, and maintained ties to their local network also. Those are actually better statistics than the UPCI as a whole, as far as mere retention goes. And that's not even counting those who don't go to college who continue to fellowship, go off to attend a traditional church, get married, or open their homes to form their own house church. I'd say that house church statistics are flipped compared to the UPCI. We probably loose roughly 12% to unbelief.

House church families don't count kids lost if they don't attend a Sunday Show. What we look for is basic Christian living. Personally, for my kids, I want to see a "Spirit filled" Christian living. That will be something to see evolve as time progresses. The key in house churching is to maintain a relationship wherein faith is shared with your kids. If at 25 I ask my son, "Noah, check-in." (A term used in our house church for open up and tell about your spiritual condition), if he states, "Well, I've struggled with going to fellowship the past couple months because of class (or work), but I do continue to read my Bible and pray. I've talked about Jesus to five of my classmates. I'd like God to make a way for me to have more fellowship.", in house churching... that's a win. We just need to help the boy find some Christian fellowship be it weekly or monthly.

We don't insist that they dress like wedding cake toppers and attend an institutional church, dancing to the Sunday Show every weekend, or count them as lost if they don't.

[n david]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

We left the UPC for these very reasons. Beside the UPC being in decline, I'm not talking about members they have like 30 million world wide I'm talking about Spiritually. The Affirmation statement thing I added that because it will happen they don't follow it all the way for the most part anyway, and are against it as you just demonstrated.

The UPC isn't dying. Period. It's not dying in members or licensed ministers, nor is it dying spiritually. That's what people who aren't in the UPC like to claim. They would like to see the UPC die and fail so they could puff out their chest and say, "See, I told you so!"

There was a man I used to know and was close to once who became a Pastor and decided he wanted to be seeker friendly and relax the dress code. He didn't stay the Pastor very long.

Dress standards are still being followed and still being preached.

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

We left maybe about a year and 1/2 ago, since then our church has been strongly blessed by God. Kenneth Haney and Western Apostolic Bible College released that doctrine mostly on the State of California around the Stockton area. Where its headed after that I don't know, but you did post a quote of Brother David Bernard also being supportive of it.

Actually Aquila posted a short quote which made it appear Bernard supported it. I posted a longer quote in which Bernard made his view of salvation clear. Here it is again:

“""Sincere profession based on a faulty concept of Christ is not enough; one must believe and obey the gospel. False prophets and cultists profess Christ, but they are not saved. According to Jesus, some people will sincerely profess Him, believe that they are saved, and even profess to perform miracles in His name, but they will not be saved because they did not obey His Word (Matthew 7:21-27). Many will profess to know Him and even to have enjoyed His presence but will not be saved (Luke 13:25-27).

We cannot impose demands that the Bible does not support, nor can we make exceptions that the Bible does not grant. Precisely because God is sovereign in granting salvation, we must limit ourselves to the clear teaching of Scripture. If God has plans that go beyond what He has revealed to us in the Bible, that is His prerogative, but we have authority only to teach the plan God gave to us in the Scriptures.We have no right to offer false or uncertain hopes based on wishful thinking, speculations, reasoning, philosophy, or doubtful interpretations of difficult passages. We cannot make exceptions for situations that arise from failure to follow biblical teachings and examples.

“What must I do to be saved?” The New Testament answer is to exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, by repenting from sin, being baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, receiving the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking in tongues, and continuing to live a holy, separated life by the power of the indwelling Spirit.” (David Bernard)"""

Once again, you're wrong.

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Long story short the UPCI was a great organization but it has seen better days. Not number wise, not popularity, but in the glory of God that was upon it. Say what you want but our church has got the glory stronger then ever since we left that organization.

This is funny.

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

(Notice to anybody in the UPCI no hard feelings this has nothing to do with the people, or the churches, but the leadership is not what it use to be historically..) I'll leave it at that.

Gimme a break. All your accusations are about the people. The licensed ministers and the congregants.

[n david]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

As previously stated, I fellowship both UPC and WPF. Both Orgs are doing well in my opinion. Both orgs have their own issues, which I will not go into here, because that is not the point.
Insofar as to the UPC supporting the "light doctrine" that is false.
If you have "proof" that it is true, present it.
But if not, quit making accusations without proof or just based on what you happened to hear that someone else heard.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

NDavid… I'm only talking about some of the fakery I've personally witnessed in pulpits. I know there are good churches. I was simply mentioning a pet peeve of mine. I assumed that you guys would oppose such phoniness also. Why the push back?

For one, you took umbrage with EB judging the looks of the home church, but then turned around and judged people who appear happy and shake your hand as "fake" and ministers as fake.

My push back is because it seems you have cast the whole "institutional church" as such. You're not singling out the very few (and yes, in Apostolic churches I would argue there are not many ministers who do what you accuse them of doing.) ministers who may do this. Instead you've lumped them all together.

Now, at one time I did personally know a man with whose mannerisms and conduct I disagreed. He was a skirt chasing evangelist who, like Jesus - he loved them all and like the devil - he was trying to get them all. He would be clowning around, then take the mic and transform before your eyes. This white dude would suddenly have the cadence and voice of a black preacher.

That is the only one, of the hundreds of ministers I both know personally and have heard minister I would consider fake.

Originally Posted by Aquila

If you've honestly never seen it, that's a good thing. But we all know there are churches with phony emotions in the pulpit, smoke machines, concert lights, and empty hype.

There are churches like that, yes. I would argue that there are very few which are A/P of any organization.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

For one, you took umbrage with EB judging the looks of the home church, but then turned around and judged people who appear happy and shake your hand as "fake" and ministers as fake.

First, I think I want to say something. Just because a man offers fakery in greeting, or feigned tears, moaning, and groanings, behind the pulpit... it doesn't mean that he is a fake. He might be a very sincere preacher with a genuine call on his life. However, much of the theatrics I'm talking about are learned behaviors in church culture. It's like the imfamous "preacher's cough" preaching. "I wanna tell you tonight AHA. That GAWWWWD, has a plan, AHA, for your life, AHA." The preacher preaching has clearly forgotten that the preaching that typified this was primarily from preachers who worked the coal mines and had a genuine "cough" while preaching. And, as things tend to do, it became a beloved form of delivery. And without it, some in the congregation might say the message wasn't "anointed".

I'm only taking issue with the fakery... not the men.

I'm also looking to equalize. It's easy to look at a casual and authentic gathering of house churches and call them a "liberal therapy group" or "hippies", and odds are, nobody will say a word. So, my critique is primarily designed to illustrate the phoniness many of us who do not attend traditional gathers can't stand, and offer a bit of criticism on the institutional church to balance the discussion. I can rant on the institutional church all day, and nothing will make a dent. But, denigrating the house church movement, with so few Apostolics seemingly willing to get involved is detrimental to the movement. The house church movement NEEDS more Apostolics.

My push back is because it seems you have cast the whole "institutional church" as such. You're not singling out the very few (and yes, in Apostolic churches I would argue there are not many ministers who do what you accuse them of doing.) ministers who may do this. Instead you've lumped them all together.

First, good men engage in learned fakery. Second, some are "false shepherds", but I'll be honest, I'm not sure if I've met one who I know was 100% fraud. Third, if it seems I'm lumping them together, I apologize. I'm talking about the system that perpetuates the theatrics. Good men are a part of that system. But nonetheless, the system perpetuates it, and even at times there are social dynamics that encourage it.

Now, at one time I did personally know a man with whose mannerisms and conduct I disagreed. He was a skirt chasing evangelist who, like Jesus - he loved them all and like the devil - he was trying to get them all. He would be clowning around, then take the mic and transform before your eyes. This white dude would suddenly have the cadence and voice of a black preacher.

Yep, I've seen that kind of thing too. It's just theatrics. Mostly contrived, and often learned, and gobbled up by the congregations that enjoy the "style" of delivery. It's a show with Gospel truth peppered throughout.

That is the only one, of the hundreds of ministers I both know personally and have heard minister I would consider fake.

He might be a fake. I'm only talking about the theatrics. Like I said, even sincere men engage in such fakery when it is learned behavior.

There are churches like that, yes. I would argue that there are very few which are A/P of any organization.

You almost hear the contrived and fake opera star vibrato "Hallelujahs" in the beginning of every preaching video, bro. Where you been?

[berkeley]

Sincere fakery. You’re drunk. Go home.

[Aquila]

Then there is the, "Oooooohhhhh, you're not HEARIN' me!" bit. Which loosely translates, "You missed your queue, you were supposed to shout at that!" lol
Makes me feel like I have to apologize for listening intently. lol

It's all good showmanship, don't get me wrong. But it is what it is, a show. Filled with dynamics to work the crowd.

When you come out of a deep house church setting...it's a glaring detail that you can't ignore.

My point is, just because a person, bearded or not, doesn't choose to attend the Sunday Show, it doesn't mean that they are lost, unfaithful, carnal, or spiritually cold. In fact, the very things I'm mentioning feel carnal, contrived, exaggerated, manipulative, etc. to such saints. That's what leaves a lot of us feeling empty, disappointed, frustrated, and disenchanted about "church". It's like watching a theatrical production about church.



Now, as it relates to beards, I look at it like this... the NT presents no requirement to wear a beard, nor any prohibition against wearing a beard. If a man ends up preaching against beards, his message isn't grounded in the book. It's a warning sign that the congregation is being conformed into the form and fashion of their tradition, not Christ Jesus via the Word of God. It's a rather small symptom of a far deeper and most often pervasive problem.