Resolution 4: The Trojan Horse?

[SDG]

Some believe that resolution 4, amended or not, is the Trojan horse that will set off a chain reaction that will result in the ultimate end of the UPC as a "holiness" organization.

I personally don't think that if it does pass ... that the organization ,as we know it , would totally abandon dress standards immediately ... or even in the next 20 years. This doesn't mean that there won't be progressive changes, however. I foresee a movement that will become more principle-based rather than rule-based.

A friend recently told me that tradition, after God, is the most powerful force in the church. There is too much tradition standing in the way for such a drastic change. I do think, however, there would be a move for increased autonomy given to local churches in regards to dress standards ... even more than today.

What say ye?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

...
A friend recently told me that tradition, after God, is the most powerful in the church. There is too much tradition standing in the way for such a drastic change. I do think, however, there would be a move for increased autonomy given to local churches in regards to dress standards ... even more than today.

What say ye?

My opinion is that each church should be autonomous when it comes to "standards" but that causes problems to some conservative pastors because they don't want people from their churches being around people from other churches who don't dress like they do.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Sam

My opinion is that each church should be autonomous when it comes to "standards" but that causes problems to some conservative pastors because they don't want people from their churches being around people from other churches who don't dress like they do.

Then they'll just leave ... but some would stay .... other factors would keep them in place.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Some believe that resolution 4, amended or not, is the Trojan horse that will set off a chain reaction that will result in the ultimate end of the UPC as a "holiness" organization.

I personally don't think that if it does pass ... that the organization ,as we know it , would totally abandon dress standards immediately ... or even in the next 20 years. This doesn't mean that there won't be progressive changes, however. I foresee a movement that will become more principle-based rather than rule-based.

A friend recently told me that tradition, after God, is the most powerful in the church. There is too much tradition standing in the way for such a drastic change. I do think, however, there would be a move for increased autonomy given to local churches in regards to dress standards ... even more than today.

What say ye?

I believe I was the friend that told you that, and it's true. After God, tradition is the most powerful force in the church.

The world is not waiting for us to debate technology, they are just moving on without us. The church can utilize a media tool that the world relates to, or we can completely disconnect from one of the most powerful tools ever invented to shape hearts and minds.

It is really that simple.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I believe I was the friend that told you that, and it's true. After God, tradition is the most powerful force in the church.

The world is not waiting for us to debate technology, they are just moving on without us. The church can utilize a media tool that the world relates to, or we can completely disconnect from one of the most powerful tools ever invented to shape hearts and minds.

It is really that simple.

So this technology debate has little to do w/ holiness?

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

So this technology debate has little to do w/ holiness?

To some it is about holiness. To all others it is about fear and control.

The Bible tells us, COMMANDS us, not to hold to the traditions of men...

and its sad that a church that claims itself as Apostolic can't follow that simple of a command...

There is quite obviously no Scripture that says 1950 America is the "perfect culture" that we should adhere to for all time. Quite frankly its an absurd, stupid, ethno-centric, and self-centred world view that creates that kind of thing...

Its absurd to claim that we should ignore societal norms because norms were different 100 years ago... Guess what? Norms were different in 0 than they were in 100 AD, too, and the church kept right on trucking with the society that they lived in... For that matter, norms in Jerusalem were quite different than norms in Rome, but the church kept right on going in both of those places... In fact, they mixed in enough in those places that the church survived even though it was illegal to be a Christian, so obviously sticking out like sore thumbs wasn't thier intention...

This is what you need to ask yourself about every single one of our rules... and that is this, if Christians were killed on the spot when the world/government/whoever found out that they were Christians...

- would you make your wives/daughters wear skirts everywhere even though everyone else in society wore pants meaning that they were going to be the first martyrs...
- would you make your wives/daughters never cut thier hair, making them stick out meaning that they were going to be the first martyrs...

And remember, all of these things are done without direct commands in the Bible... Yes, we aren't to cross-dress, but since we aren't getting our definitions of men's and women's clothes form Ancient Israel or 1st Century Rome, why was 1940s America chosen???

And, yes, it says a woman's hair is for a covering, but it doesn't explicitly say not to cut it at all... Imagine how hard it is for your wife/daughter to take care of a full head of hair down to her knees with all the modern convieniences we have... Now imagine someone doing it 2000 years ago when they didn't wash thier hair but twice a year or so...

The point I'm trying to make... If you wouldn't follow a rule when you were hiding from the law because being a Christian were illegal, why in the world would you follow it now when its legal to be a Christian?? If you wouldn't attack someone who believe in a trinity if you were both on the run from the government for professing Christ as your saviour if it were illegal, why are you doing it now???

The convienience and ease and niceties of life in the rich west has afforded us so much, and part of what it has afforded us is the ability to argue over stupid petty things like "Should we advertise on tv?"

Do you really think that Paul and Peter were going to split over something as stupid as television when they were on the run for thier lives? No. They came to a compromise and they sought God regardless.

And its sad that all our excess garbage has given us an inability to come together and worship God with others who do the same over things that are so stupid and petty...

[Brett Prince]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

To some it is about holiness. To all others it is about fear and control.

And to others it is neither. This issue is not so simple as to categorize it as purely "holiness," "fear and control," "competition," or "a level playing field." For many, it is a number of these issues wrapped up into one.

But, looking at the Forward responses, it seems to me that it is evident that is something else to some, and that is simply..."the unknown." There appears to be a majority of those who responded that are willing to take a step into the unknown in what they consider a controlled and exploratory manner. This may not be the drastic step some are desiring, but it would seem to be a good middle ground for a start, and allow others to get used to a smaller change before asking for more.

[StillStanding]

I believe if the Pentecostal outpouring that happened in 1906 would have happened THIS year, we would not have a problem arguing over TV and the holiness standards from the 1950's!

[chseeads]

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84

Do you really think that Paul and Peter were going to split over something as stupid as television when they were on the run for thier lives? No. They came to a compromise and they sought God regardless.

Even in Paul's day the church had issues of opinions.... Paul and Barnabas split over John Mark. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocritical actions. It's nothing new.