Quote:
Originally Posted by n david
So "revival" isn't waiting on the beard prohibition to cease. Beards have nothing to do with whether or not there's revival.
|
I don't believe the beard prohibition is hindering revival. That would be silly. In fact, that would be as silly as saying that allowing or requiring beards could bring revival. lol
What I am saying is that the goofy, backwards, and twisted up mindset that enshrines the traditions of man and teaches them for "doctrine" is what hinders revival. Yes, this hinders revival as much as any "sin" in the camp. One might as well teach one must wear a tin foil hat to church, and denounce anyone who doesn't as not being "Apostolic". Foolishness is foolishness. And sadly, we've perpetuated foolishness with good intensions. We've sincerely not wanted to be rebellious, disrespectful to leadership, or to be divisive. All those are good intensions. But, we've created a climate that is cowardly with addressing the traditions of men. Oh, we're good at addressing brazenly false doctrine. We're good at loving the principles of modesty. We're very open to spiritual gifts and the baptism of the Holy Ghost. We're also militantly loyal to baptism in the name of Jesus. All these things are great things! But... we're WEAK and COWARDLY when it comes to challenging men who have taught for doctrine the traditions of men.
We need a "Bible Revival". If something isn't "biblical", we should chuck it. And whomever whines, sneers, mocks, or throws a hissy can just do so. This is about being loyal to the Word of God over the words of men.
Quote:
 Revolutionary??? In that prior to the early church there was no early church? IMO revolutionary is not a word I would associate with the early church. It wasn't a political revolt. There was no insurrection or rebellion.
|
When I say "revolutionary" I'm not talking so much about politics. It was revolutionary in that in one body you had Jew and Gentile worshipping together. All were equal in Christ, man, woman, rich, poor, free, bond. These are revolutionary concepts that were not so common in that day and age. Think of the revolutionary notion of the "Good Samaritan". Jesus picked one of the most hated, deemed immoral, and heretical class of people to be the righteous and compassionate man of the story. And in the process, Jesus also condemned the shallow religiosity of the priests and the Levites, making them the unrighteous and uncompassionate characters of the story. Jesus was shattering the lines, condemning traditions of man, empty religiosity, and shallow theology of the majority in the religious establishment. Christ's teachings were so revolutionary, they began plotting to kill Him. This is what I mean by revolutionary.
Oh, I'm sorry, but yes. Many established mainline churches condemned early Apostolics for their tongues, clapping, dancing, praising, crying, "emotionalism", mixture of "jazz" styled music, inclusions of drums, etc. They also condemned early Apostolics for their acceptance of black ministers, racially mixed congregations, allowing women to prophesy, and their radical insistence that one be rebaptized in the name of Jesus.
Those were VERY revolutionary ideas in that day. They were shattering racial lines, gender lines, and even class lines, in that the poor and the wealthy worshipped together in those early brush arbor meetings. They lived looking forward to latter day outpouring, revival, and the salvation of millions. Those early Apostolics didn't spend their days, picking at their belly button lint, reflecting on the good ol days and styles of the 1950's, condemning stupid things like beards. They were serious about sin.
Dare I say it... some would rather rant and rave over beards, television, the length of clothing, etc... than preach hard against actual sin. Oh, we do well to condemn sexual sin, because we're a sexualized culture. Yes, in the world, they do nothing but talk about sex, sex, sex. In the church, all we do is preach against and condemn sinful sex, sex, sex. What about greed? What about pride? What about extortion? What about lack of compassion?
The only time I hear a sermon that even mentions compassion, is when the excuse is given that it's actually "compassionate" to beat people up with the truth. And while sometimes that's correct... it's not always correct. Compassion often requires patience and grace for the hurting, the struggling, the wounded in soul and body. I haven't seen that very much in my experience rather it be in a church, or even on these forums.
We have a lot of preaching on "Apostolic Identity" which is basically making an "idol" out of our historical heritage. It conforms us into the image of ourselves, measuring ourselves by ourselves. We need to break loose from that mess and be conformed into the image of Christ alone.
Quote:
|
Again, bad word to use. You're trying to apply a word which refers to political overthrow of government to a spiritual thing.
|
Expand your understanding of your vocabulary...
revˇoˇluˇtionˇarˇy.
[ˌrevəˈlo͞oSHəˌnerē]
ADJECTIVE
1.involving or causing a complete or dramatic change.
"a revolutionary new idea"
synonyms: thoroughgoing ˇ thorough ˇ complete ˇ total ˇ entire ˇ absolute ˇ utter ˇ
There are political revolutions, social revolutions, revolutionary new ideas, products, methods, visions, etc.
Think about it... in the early to mid 1900's blacks and whites worshipped together in Pentecostal services. Black men like William Seymour preached up a storm in mixed congregations that were denounced by the "proper" established mainline churches. There are even old pamphlets condemning Pentecost for mixed worship, promising that Pentecost would become filled with the "
abomination of mixed babies".
I think we forget out "revolutionary" early Pentecost was. And we read the Scriptures and take for granted some of those things that elaborate on the equal value of all men regardless of gender, race, or class. Those were very radical and revolutionary ideas at the time. In fact, this was one of many factors that influenced preachers in the North to argue that no man could be a practicing Christian pressing into full spiritual maturity and not take a stand against the institution of slavery in our republic. The Quakers and others were notorious for their passion for abolition. Whiles yes, the Scriptures mentioned and gave instructions regarding how to behave in a slavery ridden culture, the ideals of Christianity itself are such that eventually slavery would come to an end among any truly "Christian" people.
We are living our lives based on the romanticized sentimental reflections of yesterday. How can the church be ready to embrace the harvest the future holds, if she's walk backwards, fixated on the past???
Linear Mode
