David Bernard Weighs In on General Board Decision

[Whole Hearted]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

JR Ensey, I believe.

It was Elder Ensey, I have that book in my library

[scotty]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

So this is my conclusion then...

lets see... beards on Apostolic men wasn't wrong beard before the 60's hippie movement, but it became wrong after the 60's because hippies had beards. Hmm... ok...

And now, 4 decades later, its still wrong in many UPC churches.... because of a hippie culture of 40 years ago that doesn't exist today in any meaningful way.

Yeah...that makes a lot of sense (not).

Whatever happened to "the whole gospel to the whole world"? When the UPC is known more for its rules and standards, than for having powerful moves of God, something is very wrong.
this is only known to the UPC bashers on this forum...lol

So then what started the facial hair ban if not the hippie era??

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by scotty

Guess we could say the same about homosexuality

That wouldnt be a strong argument at all. Not even close.

The issue is cultural relativism. There is no cultural relativism involved the biblical stand on homosexuality. Homosexuality is explicitly clearly spoken against in the bible. Pants are not. The Israelistes didnt even wear pants (men or women) when Moses wrote his words in Deut 22:25

Its speaks of men not wearing womens garments, and vice versa.
What counts as a "women's garment" is culturally relative.

Men wear kilts (a form of skirt) in Scotland, but no one considers it a woman's garment. East Indian women have worn pants for hundreds if not thousands of years, and they were never considered "men's garments".

Men and women both wore robes in bible days, but womens robes were distinguishable from men's robes.

[Jehoram]

Getting back to this...

3. The UPCI Position on Holiness and Separation from the World. The General Board had an extended discussion of the importance of maintaining our identity as a holiness movement and upholding our positions in this area as stated in the Articles of Faith. There was a consensus that we need to reaffirm these teachings, and the general superintendent will write a letter to our constituency to express our commitment to them. At the same time, the General Board concluded that it is not enough simply to reaffirm our position, but we must implement practical ways to teach biblical holiness. To accomplish this goal, various means will be employed, including publications, General Conference, Global Impact, and other methods. On a related note, the General Youth Division presented some exciting plans for Youth Congress in 2009 that will incorporate this goal in a positive way while avoiding some problems and concerns that have occurred in the past. The General Youth Division will also develop platform guidelines for Youth Congress and Bible Quizzing participants.

It is telling that the UPC is now a movement that is consistently looking back. Always focused on what was. Anxious to emulate traditions of yesteryear in the hope that the same blessings our ancestors recieved will somehow transfer to us - if we follow their pattern perfectly.

We forget that, in the early stages of our movement, we were rogues, cutting edge, wild. Our worship was considered far outside of the mainstream. But we looked just like the rest of the world. Look at a group picture of any street scene in New York between 1900 and 1960 and you will notice that there is very little difference in "the church" and "the world."

Pentecostal men wore the same sort of suits as wordly men. The same hats. The same hairstyles. Our women looked no different than wordly women.

It wasn't until the sixties and seventies that we became so rigidly set against "worldiness." If you will notice, we are stuck in a time warp. Our ladies and men still look like that pre-sixties culture.

The cutting edge aspect of Pentecostalism has been replaced with dead, dry tradition. Tradition that strangles the movement of God in our fellowship. Tradition that is an insidious enemy that subverts fulfillment of the great commission.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by scotty

So then what started the facial hair ban if not the hippie era??

I believe it was first the "beatnik" and then the hippy era but I could be wrong. It would be interesting to go back and see at what juncture OP' started preaching against facial hair since we know many of the Pentecostal Pioneers had it.

Maybe it was a reaction to Stalin and Hitler having facial hair in the WWII era?

If you look at popular culture like movies throughout the 20th century not very many leading men had facial hair after Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Clark Gable.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by scotty

So then what started the facial hair ban if not the hippie era??

(first off...you might want to edit that post above. You're quoting me as saying words in blue [about "upc bashers"], which I didnt say)

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

Getting back to this...

3. The UPCI Position on Holiness and Separation from the World. The General Board had an extended discussion of the importance of maintaining our identity as a holiness movement and upholding our positions in this area as stated in the Articles of Faith. There was a consensus that we need to reaffirm these teachings, and the general superintendent will write a letter to our constituency to express our commitment to them. At the same time, the General Board concluded that it is not enough simply to reaffirm our position, but we must implement practical ways to teach biblical holiness. To accomplish this goal, various means will be employed, including publications, General Conference, Global Impact, and other methods. On a related note, the General Youth Division presented some exciting plans for Youth Congress in 2009 that will incorporate this goal in a positive way while avoiding some problems and concerns that have occurred in the past. The General Youth Division will also develop platform guidelines for Youth Congress and Bible Quizzing participants.

It is telling that the UPC is now a movement that is consistently looking back. Always focused on what was. Anxious to emulate traditions of yesteryear in the hope that the same blessings our ancestors recieved will somehow transfer to us - if we follow their pattern perfectly.

We forget that, in the early stages of our movement, we were rogues, cutting edge, wild. Our worship was considered far outside of the mainstream. But we looked just like the rest of the world. Look at a group picture of any street scene in New York between 1900 and 1960 and you will notice that there is very little difference in "the church" and "the world."

Pentecostal men wore the same sort of suits as wordly men. The same hats. The same hairstyles. Our women looked no different that wordly women.

It wasn't until the sixties and seventies that we became so rigidly set against "worldiness." If you will notice, we are stuck in a time warp. Our ladies and men still look like that pre-sixties culture.

The cutting edge aspect of Pentecostalism has been replaced with dead, dry tradition. Tradition that strangles the movement of God in our fellowship. Tradition that is an insidious enemy that subverts fulfillment of the great commission.

And for all of our moaning about being separate (which I would argue has little to do with our look), it is amazing that beehives were acceptable in the sixties and seventies. Leisure suits and unkmept hair was acceptable in the seventies. Poofs were okay in the eighties, perfectly reflecting the "big hair" styles of the day.

We pretend that we are separate in our look but we fool ourselves.

We are not "separate." We are fruity. We only hold on to a few silly rules that are as useless in combatting sin as a leaf is fighting a whirlwind.

[ChicagoPastor]

Originally Posted by CC1

The first UPC church I visited where I saw facial hair on the men who were saints and even ushers was Bro. Kershaw's church in the Dallas area back around the late 80's or early 90's. I remember being surprised there were ushers with mustaches.

I have been told there are a lot more churches now that allow facial hair on men which makes sense as I can't imagine on what pretext a pastor could tell a new convert who had a mustache or beard for years that they had to shave it. It would strictly be a test of theiir committment since there is no bible or logic for it.

I don't say anything about facial hair. I have people on the platform that have facial hair....

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Ron

Interesting thing is this, and I will be fileted for saying it.

If you look at Gay publications, pictures in the newspaper, pics of them celebrating thier lifestyle (remember Vancouver is called San Fran North)
There are a high percentage that have beards!

Something to consider.

Actually, no. Not worth considering at all.

Subarus are known to be very popular cars in the lesbian community.
(http://www.aaronjjohnson.com/Articles/subaru.html) (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2004_Nov_9/ai_n8689924)

So now what? Should we start preaching against driving Subaru's now?
See how ridiculous we can get with this stuff?

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

And for all of our moaning about being separate (which I would argue has little to do with our look), it is amazing that beehives were acceptable in the sixties and seventies. Leisure suits and unkmept hair was acceptable in the seventies. Poofs were okay in the eighties, perfectly reflecting the "big hair" styles of the day.

We pretend that we are separate in our look but we fool ourselves.

We are not "separate." We are fruity. We only hold on to a few silly rules that are as useless in combatting sin as a leaf is fighting a whirlwind.

I never cared for poofs our fancy hair styles, I much prefer people keeping it simple.