Stuff Apostolics Like

#245-"If we save just One soul, this will all be worth it."

2011-11-29T14:04:00.000-08:00

I am averaging 0.333333333 ( Repeating, of course) posts per month over the last three months and yet the little stat thermometer says I am getting 150 visits still a day (save Thanksgiving)? Perhaps they are all just computers visiting my site a random and reading about these strange people called "Apostolic," in hopes that if one day they can speak in tongues, they too will also became humans....

Second confession: I am starting a multi-person blog.... This is challenging. I am having to do things. I don't like this. If you or anyone you know who knows anything about writing code in Wordpress, and is okay with getting absolute zero monies for their work, then please contact me. I will pay you via means of a personal handwritten letter and/or a collage. Because I am making collages lately man.

Post?

Post:

When I was a kid and not long ago, there were/are many whispers around the church about revival. The revival was coming. We knew this. You still know this. The revival still has not come. The revival is coming man.

But revival could not be created by human hands. This is the problem. If you try causing revival, the revival will not come. Because you can't trick God about revival. You can't go and make a flashy church service to get kids to come and think they feel God when all they were really feeling was a pretty soloist on the stage singing softly in a darkened room about how much God loves us. Because That's just not cool. And God won't dig it. So even if you get people to come to the church, it may not be revival. Because what the increase in numbers really means is just how eager you are to get people in their seats to convince yourself that the revival is here.

So if the revival was coming, God would have to do it out of his free power, you just had to sit and wait....

(and I'm all like, "Yo neo-calvinists, isn't it pointless to pray and fast for revival if God is sovereign?" Someone explain this to me)...

Except we couldn't wait, because if the revival is decided by God, church would be so boring....

We had to do something!

So we would talk and scream and sing....

The Revival was near. Get excited. Give high 5's. Dream of the pulpit. Rescue little puppies. The revival is coming. Even if it wasn't really coming. Even if the revival still hasn't come. The revival was coming. The Revival is fast approaching.

And if the revival still hasn't come, blame it on the spiritual demons oppressing our regions (But I thought we just said God is the one who dictates the revival and not demonic spirits)...

And after a year, we have a whole new string of prophets coming to our church telling us that the revival is coming. And we're like yes. And the prophets are like, yes! And we're like Truth! And they're like, "yeah, we know." And then in one accord, we shout "REVIVAL!"

And the revival, must have gone to the wrong address. Because we are still here. And the revival is not here. But it's coming. It's on it's way. The revival must be sidetracked with visiting an old aunt or something.

And eventually, we start hearing the same sermons twice from two different prophets five years apart. And their both about revival. And one person says, this is confirmation from the Lord that the revival is still on it's way. We just need to wait. But something is getting suspicious to you.

People are leaving.

Friends are leaving.

They are going to the church elsewhere.

Their departure is that neighboring churches revival. At least one half of the Apostolic churches in the area are having a revival. Sure your church is shrinking, but the revival is somewhere close!

And the pastor is saying things. Encouraging things. About those who stay will be apart of the revival. Something about remnant. We are waiting. Anticipating.

Except if people left. And some arrive. That doesn't equate to revival. The summation of this process is a little less than zero.

And yet if a new family comes from a different church because they didn't like the stance on movie theaters in their old church, we conclude, "THIS IS PROOF THAT THE REVIVAL IS HERE!"

Two months later they are telling us "It's coming!"

After awhile we are strangling each other. Biting hands. Saying swear words when we stub our toe.

The Revival is coming...

And eventually, we get tired...

And someone gets sick of not doing anything...

So someone suggests we pray and fast...

And someone is like "I thought God decides the revival."

And the other person is like, "Yeah, but if God wants to do something and our flesh is in the way, he can't do something."

And I'm confused.

And we pray. And fast. A lot. Twice a year. For long ranges of time. Prayer is awesome. Things happen. We are praying for the revival. No one is coming.....

Months of fasting. Months of prayer meeting. Months of prayer lists. We are working so hard....

We are getting red faced about it. Trying to convince ourselves that somehow we can spin the absence of the revival as a good thing. We just need more Faith! More Prayer! More Holy Ghost Power!

And i'm sure God's chuckling. And if he's not chuckling, I am chuckling...

Because there's the book of Acts.

The Book of Acts is our favorite book...

And this kind of rhetoric about the "Soon coming revival" isn't there. Because the revival is here. it's never left. It's not an event at all. Jesus died. He rose. Acts 2 happened. That's it.

To silly ourselves about some kind of mystical revival to confirm how awesome we are is absurd.

And here's the swan song of it all:

There will be that day when a lot of people will be investing their time and effort into a special church project. Perhaps a play. Perhaps a children't service. Perhaps a series of "revival" services.

And the saints will be working hard. And sweats will be broken....

And just before this special event takes place. In this case a Youth Rally. There will be a prayer meeting. And the leader of this event has told us all along, that God had confirmed that this special service and the scheduled bowling function afterwards was the Will of the Lord and as being under God's authority, this event was sure to head us on the correct path to saving souls....

And we nod our head, kind of like YEAH! (And a voice in the back of our head says, "haven't we heard this before."

And as everyone is secretly questioning the actual confirmation of the Lord in their head, the main leader of the event hears this whispers within everyone's head. Well he doesn't actually hear them. But he knows that everyone is thinking this because he just gave the same speech in this prayer meeting that we had all heard 50 times before from different ministers about this Revival character.

And I'll say here and now, that if this Revival character is always running late for our expectations and seems to have a 1,001 and excuses of why he hasn't come yet, then maybe I don't want to be this Revival character's friend at all...

And that's when we hear the Event leader say with a choked up throat, "Listen to me kids... If we save just One soul.... This willl all be worth it. Just one! One soul. I don't need a revival . I just want to be in God's will. And God's will may be to have us all hear just to save that one soul."

And I'm laughing by now.

Except the saints are nodding their head...

One?

One Soul?

I don't have a problem with one soul being saved.

But come on. You know you have lost when you are alluding to this imaginary "one" in your mind.

Which allows enormous amount of energy to be spent working and driving to get these events going. All for the "One" soul who may not even exist....

And during the service...

That One soul never came....

And perhaps that One soul would have came if we tried not being so headstrong about "how church was to be done" but whatever.

I'm leaving church now. Revival was a terrible virtual friend.

And as much energy we spend trying to "wait for the revival" and trying to reach that "One" we could have stumbled on something that actually worked. And it would have made us uncomfortable. But we wouldn't have to wonder how to spin the story in the mean time.

Peace out, I'm going to the movie theater.

#244- I Corinthians 11:15

2011-09-12T16:38:00.000-07:00

Yeah that one verse about that one issue regarding functionality, adaptability, proportionality, actuality, and sometimes magic.

#243-Soul Winner Guilt and Glory

2011-08-29T16:00:00.000-07:00

The Guilt

You can already hear it. That altar-call plea for you to go out and bring in the sheaves. Because if you don't, on Judgment Day, your co-workers and your neighbors are going to look at you with wide-pleading eyes, demanding of you, "Why didn't you tell me I needed to speak in tongues to get here?!" Then you'll be left, shrugging your guilt-laden shoulders, hanging your head in shame because apparently, you were too ashamed of Jesus to recount Peter's Pentecost sermon to people. Think you're gonna hear "Well done thou good and faithful servant?" Guess again, playa. The best thing for you to do is start inviting people to church left and right to avoid gettin that spiritual blood on your hands. After all, the Bible says inviting people to church is the first step to saving their souls . . . oh, wait.

The Glory

High-five, dude! Bob from accounting finally gave in and got a taste of that Holy Ghost FI-ya! All those "If you don't pass this message on, you're ashamed of God" chain emails you forwarded to him worked. YOU were the one who invited him to church. YOU were the one who shared Acts 2:38 with him. YOU were the one behind him rubbing his back, whispering holy sweet nothings into his ear as he prayed for the Holy Ghost. It was because of YOU, dawg. YOU should get the credit for this baby. Go ahead and etch another notch in your soul-belt. Pastor's gonna make you saint of the month!

The Real Deal

If one of your neighbors doesn't hear the Word from you, that doesn't mean that your neighbor is going to be lost for all time and it's going to be your fault. God isn't willing that ANY should perish, and if someone hungers and thirsts after righteousness, God will make it His business that they be filled. He doesn't need you to do it. If you fail to fulfill the imperative to share the gospel, He can and will find somebody else. Your apathy is not going prevent the will of God from being done. And if you do share the gospel with your neighbor and he becomes born again, it's not to your credit. God definitely used you, but remember, He's the only one who saves.

#242 - Calling Contemporary Worship Music "Jesus Is My Boyfriend Music."

2011-08-28T20:15:00.001-07:00

Wow. It's been a minute since I've lifted my fingers to post here, but, in an attempt to go back to that old landmark, and since we're talking about praise & worship, I figured I'd throw in my $0.02 (which actually costs more to produce than it's worth but . . . ah, well. Take it up with the US Mint.)

In this conundrum we Aps have found ourselves in, this bitter divide between old-school and progressive (or shall I say "stick-in-the mud, divisive, legalistic curmudgeons" and "bitter, emergent, liberal compromisers"?) one of the many scads of issues up for grabs in an attempt to define who the Real Apostolics are is music.

The more the music reminds you of them old time days, them days when C.R. Dinkleton (because all Real Apostolics have two initials before their last names) would preach up a dusty storm in the buggy heat and tarry in the brush arbor, the more likely you are to be ready when that trumpet sounds.

The more the music relies on acoustic guitar and the lyrics include silly references to Jesus as a lover and wonderful savior who kisses the earth and rains down His warm and fuzzy mercy and mushy grace and blessings, the more likely you're on your way to you-know-where in a you-know-what. Or at least on the road to compromising. And ooh, Lordy. If you're a Real Apostolic, you wouldn't want that. No siree.

#241- The Imperial Praise Team

2011-08-16T18:36:00.000-07:00

There are situations and then there are Situations. I think we are dealing with the former here, but I could be wrong.

Once upon a time, the Platform served as the facilitator of the distribution of Prestige within the Church. There was the Pastor. And then the elders. And then the Platform Musicians. While the spiritual demand was not nearly as high for the platform musicians, their place on the platform was a testament to the relentless Ego of men and women to claw their way to fame. If you don't know how to preach in the UPC, dont fear, because you can always try and become a musician.

There the stakes are much more glorious and far more violent than the tyranny to be a speaker. TO be a UPC musician does not mean you have to be called to it. All that's requested is that you have a drive to be a musical force....

I'm wandering. I will go back. I apologize.

Okay, the point is the Praise Team Man.....

At the likes of Bible Colleges and big churches, there is a healthy bit of competition to look good and sing good so people will notice you. Of course to get noticed you need to be on the platform, singing.....

A hierarchical ladder is thus created within our ranks where the best looking and/or the best singers can sing.

And the Ego's, my goodness.... The Egos of the Platform. You should know about them..... But that's a different post which I will probably always be too lazy to write about....

But there are also people who love worshipping the Lord. I don't want us to forget about them. They exist.

But the real controversy, to me at least, is the decay of the Praise Team as we know it. Traditionally, the Praise Team consisted of 3-4 singers on the platform leading the church in wonderful chorus.

But, alas, we live in a day of tolerance... Where kids are forced to enjoy bike rides with helmets on their head and one can no longer say the word "handicap." And likewise, within tolerance, there are no winners and losers.... There are just people who really believe in themselves and others who have less faith in themselves..... It is not a coincidence that those who "believe in themselves and chase after their dream" are also ridiculously good looking or gifted with an amazing amount of physical talent.

The point is, with the rise of a society of tolerance, we have lost the platform to tell people they are bad.

And thus Praise Singers keep singing. Bad Praise Singers. And no one has the guts to tell them to their face, "hey kid, you don't have what it takes." Now I am all for Bad Praise Singers. Give me a team of mutant singers still worshiping God in spite of themselves, and I guarantee you the Holy Spirit will be there because they won't be able to fake God being there. It's a platform of the Talented musicians who try to perfect their craft that I am deeply suspicious of.....

Anyways, in this age where one can't say "Bad is bad" but rather "Bad just means Try harder" the one symptom that goes unchecked is the Ego. Now we have a day where Bad singers think they are just as good as good singers, and good singers just talk behind the back of the Bad Singers smirking at how stuck up the Bad Singer is.

What's the point? Well the analysis above is my one theory for what I observed in a video of youth Congress....

Evidence Here:

In the above image, there are 10 "Xs." Each X designates a Praise Singer. Now if each X is a Praise Singer, and there are Ten 10 Xs, then if my math is right, there are 10 Praise Singers for the worship service at Youth Congress. That's right, 10 praise singers....

Now, perhaps the need for ten was simple: There were bad praise singers originally, and the only hope of drowning their voices out was MORE PRAISE SINGERS. Perhaps Phil Specter had it right when he invented the "Wall of Sound." The more praise singers, the more that bad disappears.

I highly doubt this theory...... Because I know most of those singers on the platform (if not all) are indeed good singers....

So perhaps what we see, in this age of tolerance, is the inability for someone to pick the best singers over the really Good singers....

Maybe, but i'm not even convinced of that....

I don't know what's going on, but ten praise singers is definitely not necessary. I can't hear the difference between two voices, let alone ten voices.

Keep in mind that Youth Congress is just an example (which has always had a cluster of singers way beyond the designated four), and that I have observed the trend of the Imperial Praise Team who is always growing in numbers at many churches and youth rallys.

So this problem only results in more questions: At what one point does a Praise Team stop being considered a Praise Team and start being considered a "Praise Choir?" If we have passed that point, then the only reason we still call the Praise Team a "team" is because it still implies a distinguishing of personalities and faces on the platform. Once a choir is formed, the individual identity is crushed to a mass of formless faces. Egos couldn't stand that.

Is anyone else noticing this problem or is this in my head? And if your church needs someone to come in and tell a few girls "hey, I know you mean well, but your voice doesn't mean well to our ears," I am your guy. I will do the job for fifteen dollars flat.

#240- Finding Boyfriends at Big Church Events

2011-08-11T11:43:00.000-07:00

Alternative Title: Kind Suggestions for the female gender on securing that future husband at the ballroom melodramas of our organization (from the perspective of a male).

#1- No Circus Hats

In spite of precedent this year, and by precedent I mean, Royal Weddings, there are no circumstances in here or in heaven that large and absurd hats would be permissible to wear. Especially when one is trying to keep a boyfriend or look for a boyfriend. Wearing absurd hats, much like absurd head pieces is a simple sign for us men that says "Future Cat Lady." There is a reason the USA revolted against the British almost 250 years ago. And I suspect funny hats are one of those reasons. Don't nullify our revolution ladies. Trust me, you will get our attention if you wear weird hats to church, but the strare you will receive from us will have nothing to do with a desire to talk to you. Rather we stare at you to burn you at the sake.

#2- Don't obsess over what you wear. We won't notice your clothes.

So ladies don't obsess over it, if a guy compliments your attire. If this man does compliment your clothes, he is not someone you want to date. Trust me. He is probably gay. Or at least slightly gay. He would make a great friend to have though.

#3-Pray. Just don't do so too loudly.

#4- Be Victorian.

While us Apostolic men aren't romantic knights ready to sweep you off your feet, we still will appreciate you living as if you were from a a period where being reserved and "ladylike" is culturally acceptable. Of course we won't reciprocate the gesture and thus won't end up like the heroes of the Jane Austin novels, nonetheless, we want you to stay back in that past. We highly encourage you to read Little Women. We highly encourage you to watch the Anne of Green Gables series. Transform your lifestyle as outlined in said book aka: Stay quiet and only speak when spoken too (certainly don't talk politics). Just keep your expectations low for the rest of us. Laugh at our jokes. Blush when we make eye contact. Show no ambition. This is what it is to be a preacher's wife:

"I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, ¹⁰ but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

¹¹ A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵ But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." - I Timothy 2:9-15

#5- Wear Make-up. Just don't call it Make up.

Don't make the devil's paint noticeable. Just put enough make-up on so that we won't notice that you are a walking contradiction. If we have to notice your make up, you are an embarrassment. If you don't put on make up, we may get put off by the zits. This is a very thin tight rope to cross, and we appreciate the balancing act.

#6-Be Holy

If you catch us checking out girls in tight clothes or short skirts, don't be offended. We are only judging those Jezebels. It's nothing against you. Holiness is more beautiful no matter if our eyes tell you otherwise.

#7- Be in Attack Mode

It's the 21st century. Us men hate making the move. Save us the perspiration and ask for our number. Some men probably will get put off by this, but this just proves that said man is sexist.

#8-Ruin the Competition

"Accidentally" pour water on the head of a competing female a little higher in the hierarchy or stick a live blow drier against the hairdo of any girl who may get more attention than you. While said girl may still end up getting more attention than you, their own insecurity will hinder their desire to be in the spotlight or be "available" for pursuit. Remember, "survival of the fittest."

#9- Do Wikipedia research on Books of the Bible
Of course you don't have to read the Bible outside of the simplicity of Psalms or Proverbs, but acting like you read the bible is worth mega-points.

#10-Don't confess your a Bible College Student.
IF you do, we will assume the worst. And if you go to secular college, make fun of Bible College students.

Bonus: Ladies, if you are not part of the Apostolic Ruling class, and thus not "elite" do not be deterred by your lack of fame. The pastor's daughters, the IBC Praise Girls, and the rest of the "in" crowd are plastic. Ruminate this truth. Take aim on them. Steal their men with ruthless cruelty. Break hearts. You are the daughters of God.

#239- Youth Congress (Again)

2011-08-02T18:00:00.001-07:00

Video to prepare for Youth Congress, on the Eve of Youth Congress....

(more posts coming in coming days about youth congress)...

#238-Describing Backsliding as "Taking the Easy Way Out"

2011-07-11T20:07:00.000-07:00

Editor's Note:
Also the picture above arrived in my inbox last night with the caption: "For those apostolic hipster men that want to stay modest."

Which entirely deserves a good old Al Pacino "Whooo-Ah!"

Also Another blog from another anonymous blogger... I like it:

Last night I indulged in some late night revelry with a friend of mutual appreciation for one another’s life paths. After a short while our conversation segued to the topic of how we are treated at church and major church functions. For the most part we’re kindly greeted, given a passive aggressive invitation to church “anytime” and casually dismissed.

What is most interesting, though, is when the preacher has direct knowledge or relationship to us. Often a message is given in which we are described (indirectly and/or ambiguously, so as not to directly call us out) as “knowing better”, “having been raised right”, and “just wanting to take the easy road.”

Now, all of these statements are insulting, and we’ll get to the first two statements, but the last is the most problematic. Growing up in Pentecost is easy. Sure, someone occasionally doesn’t understand why you look slightly different, but if you have a good personality and a sense of humor you can quickly circumvent the social ramifications of not conforming. Even recently, non-conformity, aka “hipster style”, has taken off, so there can even sometimes be a level of respect for your willingness to stand out. Over all, it really isn’t that bad. Oh I know, there’s exceptions to every rule, and I’m sure you all have stories you heard about someone getting gum in their hair or their skirt pulled up, but in reality those stories are by no means common, or the norm. In reality, if you’re like most of us, you went to school, kept to yourself, didn’t participate in extracurriculars because your youth pastor demanded you at church all the time, finished school, and that was that. Past high school there really is hardly no examples of why being Apo is hard. (Except being a guy in the summer when you’re sweating through your jeans and looking for a walk in freezer to stand in for about an hour)

But that’s why they think we walked away. Because it’s “easier”.

Yeah that’s it.

As if it's so difficult to have your religion laid out for you neat and tidy, never having to read, showing up three times a week, doing what you’re told, abiding by a dress code, never asking questions, and being told everything is black and white, cut and dry, finite and inarguable. That’s so hard.

As if it's so easy to study for yourself, admit everything isn’t black and white, have questions you don’t know the answer to, come to grips with the fact that you were (or may have been) spiritually and emotionally abused, not know what you believe about God, not know what to think about religion, and just not know and be able to admit “I don’t know.” Yeah that’s easy.

Wait. No it isn’t. As a matter of fact, those two should be reversed.

Pastors, please stop doing this. It’s insulting for you to make these claims, and this is why we don’t want to come to your church. When we do, you make your ENTIRE CONGREGATION sit through your brow beating session about us. There are broken people there who really need a word, and you spend the whole sermon condescending us.

And aside from that, it isn’t that simple. When you tell us “we know better” and “we were raised right”, all you’re doing is damaging your own credibility, and making us not want to come back. Editor's addition: Can we not say that if we were raised in your church and we backslide, that our "rebellion" is a symptom of your leadership?

You look at us and say “they were raised right.”

While we’re sitting there thinking “we weren’t raised right, we were instructed by people who don’t study to learn, but simply to back up their own existing points.” Some of us (albeit not all) resent the way we were raised, and the churches we were raised in. We feel robbed of our childhoods and teenage years. We feel cheated.

So when you say “we were raised right” what you're really saying is “we know your questions and choose to ignore them.”

And “they know better.”

Better than what? We know better than to wear pants and cut our hair because you’ve taken some obscure passages, tweaked them, given them your ‘best guess’, passed it off as black and white biblical law? We ‘know better’ than to do our own reading and studying because everything that wasn’t written by a oneness Pentecostal author is heresy?

No.

I could go on but there’s one more subject I’d like to address on the issue of ‘backsliders’ (or refugees, depending how you look at it).

Those of us who grew up in church played the same games you all play now. When someone leaves we were encouraged to say, “I miss you” and invite them to church.

So when WE leave, and you start doing that to us, we see right through it, and it, again, insults us. We don’t need an invitation to church. We can go whenever we want. The passive aggressive, thinly veiled disappointment behind “We miss you, you should really come to church and see us” condescends us and makes us not want to come that much more.

Lastly, I have a friend who stopped going to church. He is gay. Frequently church people will see him in public or post on his facebook wall and give the “We miss you, come to church” rhetoric, and he has come up with the best response, which usually knocks the people for a loop. He says “I probably won’t come to church, but we can get coffee or dinner whenever you want.” There have been a few people (wonderful wonderful, good hearted, gracious people) who have taken him up on this, and they are really just being a friend, not trying to ‘win’ him back, and have dinner with him frequently. But there have been many more who dismiss the invitation. Because they don’t care. They aren’t interested in being his friend. They just want to be the one who gets the five bonus points with Jesus for converting him back.

If you REALLY want to prove your worth, and be an exemplary Christian to people who stop going to church, stop inviting them to church, talking to them about church, cramming church down their throat and just have a casual coffee or dinner. They might take you up on it, but they’ll probably dismiss your church invitation, because they can see right through it.

#237-Charting Apostolic Fashion

2011-07-05T10:01:00.000-07:00

Editor's Note: A friend asked me if he could post on youth congress' predictions. I said yes. He asked to be anonymous. I consented.

The above is a picture of Columbus and crew doing what the White man does best.... Command and Conquer. Imperialism. Etc...

Except now we do it through material elitism and an Apostolic Identity that seeks to obfuscate any identity that does not find one going to church in a suit and a tie, with a clean shaven face.

And you think it's a coincidence that Congress will be happening at COLUMBUS, OHIO this year? Pssssst.

The Fashion Predictions of North American Youth Congress.

With North American Youth Congress just a hop, skip and a jump away I thought I’d take it upon myself to do something a little different this year. In years past I’ve waited until after Congress to write about and discuss the years fashion choices. But this year I thought I’d try to make a few predictions, and we’ll see which ones pan out. (Please excuse that these predictions apply only to the men. I know nothing of women’s fashion, and the ladies always look the same to me. Crazy, but the same none the less)

It seems that among certain sects of the fabulous UPCI that there is a constant struggle to distance ones self from looking too bougie. This often means adopting extremely campy articles and accessories to set ones self apart from the majority. In years past this has been lapel flowers, flooded pants, vintage waistcoats, combat boots and the male equivalent of jeggings. This year promises to be no different. A quick look at the J&HP Lookbook can provide some insight as to what we might see.

First prediction: The Ascot.

Ah yes, the ascot. The rich mans popped collar. Because nothing quite says “I think very highly of myself” like 1920s fashion, that no one else, including the fashion savvy of New York, London, Milan and Madrid, is wearing. Be forewarned at youth congress this year; you didn’t accidentally get transported back in time by a magic blow dryer. That guy really is wearing something that people haven’t worn since the collapse of The Ottoman Empire.

Second prediction: An Assortment of Silly Hats

Expect to see not only the newsboy caps, but fedora’s

Trilby’s,

Pork Pie Hats,

and bowlers.

I won’t even be surprised if one or two gentlemen rocking a top hat. (That’s not a joke, we’ll see it eventually) I expect the super secret, invite only VIP room to resemble the first class lounge of the Titanic, including a string quartet and an old guy with a monocle.

Third prediction: Men’s Spats

Since most people have no clue what that is I’ve included a picture. Spats are the white things covering this gentleman’s shoes. (This picture was taken in the VIP room of 2009 youth congress) Now I know what some of you are thinking. That’s a stretch. No one would really wear those. I thought the same thing the first time I saw a daisy on a lapel, but I was unfortunately mistaken. Spat’s and top hats – mark my words – they’re on their way.

Fourth prediction: Knickerbockers / Plus-Fours / Parachute Pants

If you were like me, you watched the halftime show of the Superbowl this year and thought “What is Usher wearing? He looks like he just escaped that hospital from It’s Kind Of A Funny Story.” But if you were really saved, you thought “Youth Congress outfit idea!!” I don’t really know what to say about this one other than to encourage anyone who sees it to point and laugh.

Now, there will probably be much more outlandish fashions than I could ever predict, but the general theme is still there. A small, very small, percentage of young men at Youth Congress this year will be dressed like they just played 9 holes with William Howard Taft.

I often enjoy it when I spot one of our prized young men and their ridiculous attire. Part of me laughs, part of me throws up in my mouth, but part of me just wants to know why? Are they trying to get attention? Reactions? Do they really think they look good? Low self-esteem? Too high of self-esteem? That’s what I can’t figure out. Any normal, sane, logical person with even a sub par knowledge of current fashion looks at the predictions I made and thinks “Yeah right, no one would wear that”, but there are a few people in our movement who see those things and think “My swag would be at five million! You’re not ready for the swaggy swag I’m about to bring in my spats and pork pie hat!”

I just don’t get it.

#236-Repetition

2011-06-30T11:52:00.000-07:00

A Pastor's welcoming message to the guests first service.

Hello, welcome to the Apostolic church service. God will be here. It's good that you are here. Join us, as we worship God.

This first visit will be nothing like you have seen before. It will be awesome.

Why? Because we are Apostolic, that's why.

Don't know what Apostolic means?

Just read Acts 2 and you'll know where we come from.

Sure the sun won't be darkened, nor will the moon be drowned in blood like Peter describes in the Last Days.

Heck, we don't even have the tongues of fire that's described.

But we do have the Truth. and God. And our Apostolic Identity. This is important.

Also don't include the last few verses of Acts 2 that describe the Apostolic experience as having Communion daily or having all possessions in common. That's just not realistic to our capitalistic society.

But trust us, we're as Apostolic as you can get without being a communist.

Also read Acts 2:38... it's kind of a big deal.

Also, let me reiterate.... it's about to get CRAAAAAAZY UP IN HERE. This is part of being Apostolic.

The same pastor's message to the same guest's fifth church service.

Welcome Back again!

It's great having you.

I noticed you are still dressed like Jezebel?

Don't worry about it. If you still aren't trying to dress like us in six months then we'll talk. Because the Holy Ghost and Brother Steve will provide you with the necessary information to tell you how to dress, which will end up being dressing like us. Because we are Apostolic and we have the truth.

If you don't listen to the verses Brother Steve shows you then it means you don't have the Holy Ghost.

You have a question?

(Pause to hear question)

Ah yes... today's service....Our CRAAZZYY Apostolic services...

Funny you should mention it.

Yes, I know what you mean... About how the craziness seems as repetitious here as going to the bathroom on a daily basis for everyone else...

But I guess..... (scratches head)..... Well, geeze...

I guess that's how God chooses to work!

Yes! God happens to work the same two ways in each and every service... Either you will feel sad and cry because you did something naughty or you LOVE GOD JUST THAT MUCH (at which point the music will correspond perfectly with this remorse)

Or God happens to make you dance yourself Clean (at which point the music will once again seem to match PERFECTLY with what God is doing)....

I assure you this is how God wants it....

The program of craziness is the way God wants it, and the normalization of the craziness you speak of is just a secondary, unintended consequence of God's Pentecostal SPONTANITY!

We have SUITS Too!

And the Truth....

And if you don't like the way our CRAAAAAZY service is, then i'm afraid you don't have the truth....

So come and get crazy, and if you happen to get bored, consider that boredom as part of the Cross you have to bear in order to sacrifice yourself to God's Truth.... Where is a better place to learn sacrifice than at God's house?

(pause for another question)

No! You are not the Temple of God. This building is.

#235- Being Balanced: The Unbearable Lie of "the Middle Ground"

2011-06-16T15:28:00.000-07:00

Maybe, I have wrote about this topic before. I have no clue. I don't remember yesterday. Thus it's impossible for me to remember the content of this blog.

The point is, I realized on the day before yesterday that one of the worst kind of horrorshows for our movement is when someone confesses that filthy illusion that they consider themselves "in the middle" of the Left or Right "spectrum" within our movement, or more specifically.... When someone claims a point or a stance that actually means something, a Man in the Middle chimes in that "We Must maintain a balance and keep the other "end" of the argument in mind." And then that convictionless person rambles on about not straying to far to the left, or too far to the right, but Keeping our eyes towards heaven....

And God's will, happens to be the middle?

Did I miss something?

No I didn't.

So before I continue, this kid below is reminding you and me, that if there is anyone we should be pointing the finger at within our movement, it is the "man in the middle who authorizes balance" above all...

Because the Man of the Middle is a Very very Bad Man.

Why? Not because the man in the middle is insensible, because in all respects, The man in the Middle is the most sensible.

But rather, this sensibility and "balance" and argument from being "practical" and making sure we are not being too extreme, too radical, too liberal, or too conservative is too sensible...

So sensible, that the Man in the Middle struggles from actually believing anything other than they want things to stay the same so they can keep their job, or line themselves in such a way to be next in line for a job from a predecessor who, also happens to be in the "Middle."

Except this middle doesn't exist.

because I think i am in the middle.

and you probably think you are in the middle.

And I think i am balanced.

You do too...

No one wants to be an extremist..

Except the most extreme person that exists today, is the person who claims to be balanced and in the middle in their beliefs, but in reality, this means, "I am lazy."

Because, as neutral, and balanced as the Man in the Middle claims to be, he does have a very Strong Position that bases itself in one doctrinal point: Any action one way will cause a negligence of the other side (one Extreme is "Legalism" and the other extreme is "The social Gospel/Emergent" movement).

Therefore, while the Man in the Middle claims to be balanced and without bias, his bias is more than anyone else's bias towards the Left or Right....

The Man in the Middle believes above all else in the Powers that Rule the Air in the Here and Now. The Man in the Balance worships the gods of capitalism, hierarchy, and not caring enough for anyone who doesn't step into their church walls. Because action means change, and when you want change, you cannot do so by maintaining a Middle ground...

Because the Middle Ground really means "I am allowing the hypothetical sins of the Legalists or the Emergents support my laziness to believe in nothing..."

But laziness, and inaction really mean that you fully support the way things are now...

Except God hasn't come back....

And our witness is dwindling...

We will rot as a movement if we listen to the voice of complacency spoken by the Man in the Middle.

But most horribly....

The Bible will have none of this nonsense...

Jesus doesn't talk about balance, maintaining the Middle, or any such nonsense....

Find me the scripture that supports "the middle ground" in the Bible.

You probably wont.

Why? Because this parasite of "balance" that is so common amongst ourselves today isn't biblical...It's a business-fiction to justify the lack of care for things outside our immediate comfort.

As for the practicability of the middle? Where is the middle ground for Hitler's Nazi germany on one end and Churchill's England on the other end?

Let me see.... if The Brits killed 0 Jews. And the Nazi's killed 6 million Jews. THen the Middle Ground would be 3 million Jews....

And you may say that my example is extreme, but that point is very clear.....

In regards to some or many evils, a Middle Ground is very much a sinful position. Finding the middle in the present age, says nothing about How God will judge us, because the sins on one end may be so bad hypothetically, that any kind of compromise with this radical evil end will result in the damnation of those who proclaimed it's middle.

Ramble about balance a lot Middle Man, so you can sleep easy tonight....

The sins of the world are waiting to fall on your shoulders.

#234-Domesticating God so that we can be sure we have God.

2011-06-13T13:41:00.000-07:00

First first: If we want God to live with us, we must teach him to abide by our routine of life:

Maybe it was a month ago. Maybe more. I don't really remember to remember time or dates these days. The point is, I was on the phone with a friend who requested his name remain anonymous for this post. Beneath the surface.

This mysterious friend, made an observation amongst many others he has made to me over the years, that within Apostolic Pentecostal churches, "the point of worship service is no longer to make you feel the Holy Ghost." But rather, the proper goal for most worship services these days is "to make you feel like you feel the Holy Ghost."

The quote may seem like simple words games, but I would argue the extra "like you feel" is a very important distinction. The point would be that within worship services, pursuit of God and encountering God are no longer the thing pursued. Of course, everyone would say that encountering God is the whole purpose of the worship service (or perhaps it is the more absurd belief that worship service is done to "Lift Him Up!"), but if we take a step back and reflect....we may realize that within some worship services, the pursuit of God has become secondary within the worship service, and replacing the pursuit of God and the drudgery such a pursuit would demand is a new found monster in our ranks: replacing the THING ITSELF (God) with the APPEARANCE of God, and after the fact, we hope that after we have experienced the surface appearance of God in our hearts or with our eyes, we may actually convince ourselves that we encounter God Himself.

In the old days, we assumed that if we were happy, God must be making Himself right at home and thus Himself was happy....

In other words, in the old days, we could speak of old Pentecostal worship services as such: "It looked like an old fashioned Pentecostal outpouring, it felt like a Pentecostal outpouring, and therefore it really was a Pentecostal outpouring."

But these days, we should be saying "It looked like a Pentecostal outpouring, it felt like a Pentecostal outpouring, and therefore we know the worship leaders were really good and the song selection even better."

And thus what we must acknowledge, though we are not ready to most of the time, is that just because we are happy....it does not mean God is happy...

And if you question my claim, you are free to rebuttal anonymously below, .... but before you do answer, these questions.... Answer it with thought: Why do we need music in worship service? Why can't we have a worship service in silence? Why is silence so awkward in church? How come we can only take silence when either it is announced by the Pastor that we are about to meditate on the Lord silently, or we have worshiped our hearts out long enough as a church, that just when we get physically exhausted, God has a worshipful rest of silence waiting for us and the exhausted musicians?

Why is God's encounter with us dependent on the songs we play? Why do we have to have music to worship as a church? What if God is talking and we were so busy producing his appearance with our worship music that we miss his still small voice?

The point is we are making a habit of our worship. Or we have been making God a habit for some time. So much so, that without thinking we go through the movements of worship service, thinking that if God is meant to be encountered it must be through our own stage, through our human constructed habits involving music and loud noises, that coincidentally enough, pleases our Westernized, middle class- ears all the more...

Bible Portion for the day:

I Kings 18:26b-29: Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

²⁷ At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” ²⁸So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. ²⁹ Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

And if our God is the God of Truth as we say. And if we possess the FULL Truth in knowledge and revelation....Then couldn't we say, God's appearances are in a way dependent on how we allow him to appear in our worship services? That is to say, is God, who we know in full truth, limited in some way to present himself in the world by the manor we set forth for God to appear within our worship services?

If God wanted to appear in a different form or in a new revelation, He couldn't do it because he is dedicated to us in our revelation of Him. And thus even if He did appear in a new way, we wouldn't listen, because we HAVE GOD in Spirit and in Truth. Thus if there was something new, it would mean that the Truth we possess now isn't the Full Truth.

But we have the Full Truth! And thus God wouldn't appear in any other way than in the manor He has already shown us....

And therefore, in our worship services, God is restricted to appearing in the manner we set forth.

God is God. But we are His People. And we have Confiscated His Sovereignty. Unless what we mean by sovereignty is rather that God is free to do all things, and those things he happens to be free to do, coincide with what He has already revealed to us He Will do....

We of course know this is nonsense... we know that we don't have the Full grasp of God even if we tell ourselves we do. Similar the way we don't really dictate God's appearances to us as a Body of Believers, but yet we act out a formula for a worship services that gives the appearance that we are encountering God.

It's not that God is never encountered in our worship services, but rather in the consistency of how our worship services go (slow songs create one kind of atmosphere, whereas fast songs do something else within us), we are pretending like our favorite style of music and worship happens to be God's favorite style of music and kind of worship. Yet we know God is not bound by our ways, and thus He will manifest Himself in ways that make us uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean He's not there.....

If we know all this, the question is, why aren't we experimenting more? Why aren't we trying to realize different forms of worship within our church walls themselves that other people may say works for them? Thus we have unity in our diversity that doesn't pretend that God only appears in our comfortable perimeters to worship...

And if we aren't for this.....then isn't it safe to say we are domesticating God? making him out of our own image? Making God out to be something palatable that is convenient with our own tastes and habits? As much as God doesn't like being made out into an image of human hands, I think it would be all the worse to make God out to be an image in the likeness of our very own image....

If we are to really let God be God, and not just be the God we dictate him to be, this means something quite uncomfortable....

But maybe we do need to release God back out into the wild....or else not only will we die in the process, as the Catholics, and the Jews, and anyone else who closed off God, but perhaps in some way, God dies too..

#233-The Fashionable, yet Sensible Youth Pastor...

2011-05-18T12:03:00.000-07:00

Dear Saints and Sinners,

My silence has no cause.

You are still near to my heart....

And today, I offer you a project that was constructed in the name of SAL. It's SAL's first original movie (which is not original one bit).

Fondly,

#232-The People who noticed there was something "different" about you...

2011-04-20T14:46:00.000-07:00

This post will be brief...And no it is not the post I promised in my previous post about "the Fortunate Son," but that's because I know some of my limits, and one of those is not to write about your target when you are angry....

One of the staples about an Apostolic defense of Holiness is the classic line about how a certain Apostolic woman was out and about, and some random stranger walked up to them and asked either A) if the woman was Apostolic or B) Pointing out that there was something different to said Apostolic Woman....

Now, the first previous response on my part is that what really stinks about such a testimony is that I, as a male, am excluded from such a delightful experience....Nor have I ever met an Apostolic Man who has testified of some onlooker noticing the "holiness" within the male...

Apparently God is a feminist who only lets woman enjoy the fruits of holiness and separation....

But there is something that isn't talked about amongst the people who testify about the random stranger at the store who noticed the "difference" of the Apostolic Female...

Does that observant stranger ever "get saved?"

Of course, I am sure there have been such instances of "Salvation" by clothing, but I would argue most of the instances I have heard of, wherein an Apostolic is noticed for their holiness...there is no "follow-up" testimony of the observant stranger going to church...

So what the Apostolic separation "difference" tends to result in is the observant stranger politely saying, "I see what you're doing, and I want you to know that I know that you are oddly dressed."

Don't believe me?

My sister, who has never cut her hair and always wears skirts to her public school has been the source of this revelation....

She has gone over countless instances with me through the years of how people have certainly noticed the Apostolic Difference, and then after finding out that aforementioned differences are a result of her dedication to God and her beliefs, the person gives a polite grin and not-so-slyly remarks about how that's either "really cool" (which really means "I will tolerate you") or more aptly says something to the effect of "oh, I would hate to be apart of your religion." (mind you these are high-schoolers, so such offensive remarks are the norm)

So these separation that is supposedly intended to "draw" people to God offends my sister of having any witness whatsoever....

This is quite similar (but on a wider scale) of my experience in high school wherein I would wear gym pants to gym class, and get called "pants" throughout the class and laughed at for my strange beliefs. It would be beneficial to note that while everyone wore shorts in my gym class, I was the one who was frequently "pansed" in class which basically means someone would come up from behind me and proceed to pull my pants down in front of the whole gym class to get a laugh out of my "holiness."

Now people normally would say that what me and my sister experience was the burden of holiness, and the cost of being different. I understand this. But for the life of me, I cannot recall one person being lauded to offend people out of wanting to come to church because of their holiness standards in the Bible....

To clarify, my dilemma is not against Holiness standards. It's simply a rant against the testimony that some Apostolics get noticed in public because of their holiness standards.....while it can be a good thing, it seems to be publicly received in my experience as a deterrent towards my witness...

And my last question is, are standards the excuse for some of us not to witness...since our witness is in our clothing?

#231-Liberal Youth Pastors (A Lament to why the liberal position within the UPC is simply a codeword for: "Apostolics who say much, believe in little, and spend their lives designing sermon artwork on a computer")

2011-04-11T12:06:00.000-07:00

It's the Creedence Clearwater Revival week here on Sal which means music from one of my favorite 60's bands...

Something at the turn of the millenium went terribly wrong. I'm not precisely sure what it is, but I can guess:

Liberals Apostolic preachers started reading books.

And while we were taught all our lives about the immense reward for reading, I want to go back ten years or so ago and tell those liberal preachers "whatever you do, don't read a book."

And I mean it.

Because, it's not that reading is in itself bad...

But rather, Apostolics have an amazing ability to walk into any bookstore and somehow bypass all literature that could indeed change themselves or change the world, they manage to come out with the weirdest, overpriced Christian inspirational book there is because the author was the pastor of a megachurch, and the design of the book is eye-catching and the title of the book is offensive. Shocking. Disturbing. And almost always, the book promises to change your life or cause Holy Ghost fireworks, or make you see Christianity in a whole different light. All of this translates to in actuality is that the book offers just another spin on a certain Biblical verse, a life-altering habit that will enrich your walk, and a jaw dropping story to two.

In other words: The book will be the next young minister's sermon for a youth service or youth rally (if the book is long enough, it can be a preaching series making being a minister that much easier!)

Seriously, I have higher hope for a 4 year old to be a fan of the films of Bergman or Hitchcock before a Liberal Apostolic Youth Pastor is caught reading F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ayn rand, or Melville....

......

And just because I lost my train of thought watching the Tigers play baseball, I have decided to make a flow chart instead to calculate what exactly you should read if you are an Apostolic...

Basically the idea of being a liberal youth pastor involves whether or not you have the attention span to read.

If you don't have a good attention span, listen to a podcast of your favorite non-Apostolic preacher.

If you have a short attention span, and hate woman, you should listen to Mark Driscoll and also believe in predestination.

If you like woman, you should listen to a large number of other preachers depending if you want to be more theological oriented (e.g. John Piper) or want to be talk about helping poor people but doing nothing about actually helping (e.g. Rob Bell). ..

But if you want to think yourself of the educated type of youth pastor, read books with disturbingly large font that are under 200 pages that talk about how a certain, hip pastor was able to help the poor and watch his church grow three fold in church growth.

And then the actual books.... what do they end up actually doing? You know, those "fluff" books that I have been talking about? Well, all they do is make one feel guilty and cry about how little they are doing and condemn other preachers and peers for not reading those same books and therefore not feeling equally as guilty as the liberal youth pastor for being lazy and doing nothing. The best case in point: Francis Chan books. The dude is pretty cool, i suppose....

But what he does well is talk about how much of a burden he has for the lost and poor, etc....and how he actually did something about it. And then we as Hip, Apostolics read the book and see that we don't have the same burden as him which makes us cry and feel guilty so we can say we "finally" have a burden and now we can recommend Francis Chan to everyone, but after a month of reading the book and recommending it to all our friends, we have done nothing but whipped ourselves on the back for our lack of care...*I owe this point to fellow SAL writer Chady Hosin*

So essentially, all being a liberal UPC youth pastor tends to amount to is condemning conservatives for not caring about the poor (True) and reading books that make you feel insufficient, but in the end, doing nothing about it....

There is one more think that is frustrating about the Liberal UPC youth pastor, but that will come later on in the week...and here's the hint

Arise ye young generation....the Revival is at hand

Fin.

#230-Grace? (And this is what we can do when we are in love with ourselves aka as if we keep on doing this, I would rather join the Black Panthers).

2011-04-06T07:42:00.000-07:00

Appealing to grace when all you do is pray and go to church is almost as bad as a Nazi defending the Holocaust by pointing out how much the German economy had blossomed in the first decade of it's reign of power, and how low the unemployment rates were during that same period.

Okay, I jumped ahead of myself.

The thing I LOL at more than gnostic Pentecostals these days is when people rail on Acts 2:38 plan of salvation as works-based and thus heretical .

(cue awkward music):

These people who argue that being Apostolic Pentecostal is the same as not understanding the love of God (because, they say God's love isn't earned)....

These people who argue that salvation is found in faith and faith alone.

These people who have hijacked the very definition of love and manipulated it to simply meaning tolerance of others who we were told to not like by our parents in the past.

These people who happily point you to Romans 3-4 and Paul's exposition of faith via Abraham and the book of Galatians...

These people who end up talking about grace and love, fluffy clouds and Care Bears when they talk about their Christianity...

These people....

Psst...

Such corruption of grace and love is one of the most reviling theologies this side of the Enlightenment.

This very "grace" is talked about as "freeing" and tolerant is no grace at all.

Rather such grace treats the cross as an absolute debacle in which the message of Christianity is manipulated into a doctrine of "You may, but you don't have to because your saved because you once upon a time closed your eyes and apologized for what you did."

Now before I rant on, let me be clear...

Talking of God's grace as a thing to be sought is just as pathetic as someone seeking tongues to be saved. Grace, like tongues is not to be sought. It is to be received.

The point for the grace-monger who flaunts grace as the trump card to why a non-Apostolic Pentecostal Christianity is better than an Apostolic Pentecostal Christianity is inevitably a wicked system that allows for indifference and apathy in the name of Christ.

One who flaunts grace surely does not know grace.

The ones who know grace are the ones who are militantly acting in response to the Grace and love received at the cross.

This is why there are two kinds of liberal, ex-Apostolic Christianity...the ones whose sole selling point is the one that is purely reactionary who sell a Christianity based entirely in preaching that Christianity "is not that hard" and do so under the banner of grace in which the results is a pahetic indifference to the cross since it's all based on "belief."

And then there are the liberal ex-Apostolics who actually believe in grace and love and thus works faithfully to such an Event as God dying on the cross....these people know at their core that Christianity is no "selling point." They just work without disdain towards their past.

On Paul...

Paul's anger at circumcision is because it was authorizing a religion that based salvation in something other than that offered through death and resurrection of Christ. The thesis of Romans is not about how salvation is faith-based. No. He was simply saying initial salvation is not based on merit, but subsequently it's not based on a simple mental consent that at one point in time Jesus died and was raised again. (Note: I went off into a page and a half rant here in my notes about Paul and faith, with positive praise here for Paul Tillich, David K. Bernard and Pauline Pneumatology...except this has nothing to do about grace...but if you want to know what I was referencing, please find a copy of Bernard's paper on soteriology or read Paul Tillich's History of Christian Thought and it's discussion of reformation and Lutheran theology. Both say about the same thing, and both annihilate the deadlock of the faith/works debate with logical dedication to the work of the Spirit in the matter (without finding themselves in a Calvinist "predestination" argument))...

But my rant amounts to this: The entire thesis of Romans then leads us to Romans 8 where we are LED by the Spirit in Romans 8. Being "Led" means we are in the process of being saved and through the cross, the GAP is opened up in each one of us to FOLLOW what the Spirit wants us to do in each one of us.

This means, that as outlined in Acts 2:38, to come upon Salvation, there must be Action in response to the Event of the Crucifixion. The Situation is Urgent and we indeed are to Work in Response to His Love. Our salvation is dependent on our Action (poo-poo this point all you want, but I have never known a love that doesn't search endlessly to demonstrate a loving response to the One whom they Love from the One who loves them). We as christians are not the Kings of the World, but rather the Servants to the World, ministering to the poor and those who are alienated and lonely from the same world which they were birthed from.

Rant

Christianity demands action. Grace is not at the heart of Christianity. Grace is subsequent to the Cross.

For Grace-Mongers, conservatives are the excuse to do nothing since taking action outside of displaying the fruit of the Spirit is a "work." (This is similar to the fact that for some monstrous Apostolics, the existence of backsliders and liberals is an excuse to do nothing except "be holy.")

The difference between the grace-monger and the Gnostic Pentecostal I spoke of last week is that the gnostics think they are doing something in their prayer but excuse themselves from actually doing anything within our material world. The grace-mongers just simply admit they are doing nothing and say "yeah we should do more, but Love Wins and thus we don't have to do anything."

Grace-mongers aren't actually speaking of Christ's love when they flaunt grace and love. They are talking about tolerance. That's the dirty secret us liberals don't want to tell the conservatives. Love for us (or them) is too hard a concept, especially when it says we have to LOSE OUR LIFE AND CARRY OUR CROSS. Love then for them is just an excuse to escape it's absolute dedication past going to church. This "grace" love just tries making Christianity palatable and mushy. That is, "grace" love is is weightless. And thus, this "grace" love ceases to be Christianity at all. Rather Grace-mongers heist the divine command for faithfulness to the cross in revolutionary upheaval of the powers of the world and replace it with an easy, moralistic positive humanism to which "loss," "death," and "obedience" to fidelity to the cross is cast to the seas.

I'm not saying Apostolics are any better off, but at least they still revere Christian Love enough to admit they aren't doing a good enough job with it.

Give me the Apostolic who sees the Love for your neighbor as yourself as a nearly impossible command to be pursued and thus tries it anyways over the liberal who thinks love means "politeness" and tolerance of the person as they stand in their nature.

For the Grace-monger, Christianity simply means having faith that Christ died and resurrected and in response we "love" our neighbors by asking them how their day went and giving five dollars to a homeless man here and there and saying "Grace wins."

The grace-monger will freely quote the phrase "work out your own salvation" conveniently forgetting the words at the end of the verse "with fear and trembling."

Now the accusation is that i am now a legalist or something to the effect...very well....my entire point of this post is that Grace should be the cause of our Action which is a response to that loving grace. To point to grace as an excuse to do nothing entirely obliterates what God's grace was intended for: To be reconciled so we can reconcile others.

Just as if proclaiming the Truth or Christ means nothing unless such declarations are actively lived out through dedication to redeeming and emancipating our Neighbor from the chains of bondage, death, and sin, so too, is proclaiming the grace of God useless unless it is lived out in a vigilant, never ceasing love in action.

Anything less than love accompanying our Truth, Grace, and our relationship with Jesus is pure delusion and self-flattery.

#229-Where do we go from here?

2011-04-01T10:18:00.000-07:00

This is a very serious post. I didn't really mean for it to be, but it just happened. This has been on my heart now for what feels like an eternity, and I finally manged to write some of what I felt down. This isn't all that I feel though, but this was as concise as I could be for the time being. Just bear with me as I go solemn.

Just an aside after my first aside: but, I am posting this at work. Hopefully I do not get fired.

Now as we all know, Pentecostals, because they cannot wear jewelry or other fun things like colored nail polish, tend to go overboard on ordinary things like clothes and shoes. It explains why men have cutesy little bowties made out of floral designs and women have mounds of ruffles on their shirts, jackets, skirts, and purses.

I don’t really understand the ruffle. In my opinion, it causes one to look like King Louis XVI or his wife, Marie Antoinette. This, in and of itself, is disturbing because that bunch of royalty were known for their ridiculous extravagances and tendencies to ignore the little people of France. “Let them eat cake!” Marie Antoinette famously cried. Meaning that she was completely ambivalent about the people of France who were currently starving and wearing rags. The people have no bread? Let them eat cake.

This reminds me of today. Today is all about the “saved” generations staying saved and in their finery. “Let them stay lost!” we cry. Because in all honesty, who wants to take time to dirty their hands and win a soul? Who wants to take time to reach out to the community around them? No one. That would require us to step out of our ruffles. It would require us to look beyond our insipid, fleetingly attractive appearances and delve into a matter that is greater than ourselves. Basically, it would require us to stop playing dress up.

See, this is where I have such a problem with Pentecostals. We sing about “giving ourselves away so He can use us” (just a side note, but the lyrics of that song beg to be misinterpreted) or “coming back to the heart of worship, where it’s all about Him”, but have we really done that? Have we stepped outside our Pentecostal boxes?

Youth Congress of 2009 was about “Going Beyond the Normal” or some such inspirational nonsense. But when I went, I saw nothing but repetitions of the same vanities. I saw nothing that actually went beyond any kind of normal, except for the odd explorations into large flowers, ugly bowties, and skinny jeans.

I don’t really have a point to make here, except that if we cannot learn to cast aside our “ruffles” and throw ourselves, heart and soul, into what really matters, then the Revival that God has promised us will never happen. And we will sit in our pretty churches with our pretty appearances and die on the inside.

I want to do more than just make it to heaven. I want to win a soul. I want to do something for the Kingdom of God – more than ever, I want to be so consumed with doing the the will of God that I get to the point where nothing else matters. I don’t want to be worried about the number of ruffles on my skirt or if my shoes match my purse. Those mindless trivialities are not for the children of God and they are most certainly not for the unsaved world that has no idea about the love and purpose of Christ.

This post started off about ruffles and how ridiculous they are. In reality, a ruffle is just a ruffle. In the larger sense, however, it stands as a symbol of a much bigger outward problem. My question to you today is this: what will you do? What will you do as you sit here and read what I have to say? Will you go to another youth service? Will you seclude yourself into the four walls of your church and NEVER, EVER allow yourself to reach a lost world? Or will you move? Will you shake off the stupidity that we have cloaked ourselves with, forget about our failing attempts to keep up with the world, and then go after what really matters? Like maybe someone who needs God? Someone who needs a helping hand, a caring heart?

This is the generation that will carry us into the future. We have everything before us. The tools to reach out are literally within our grasp. So, I ask you. Where do you go from here?

#228-Jesus, the Drug and the Holy Ghost Infilling Announcer...

2011-04-01T09:20:00.000-07:00

First, the post on grace, and liberals and other stuff that i promised is still coming. It's just in two of the posts I sounded like a pastor. And a pastor is the last thing I ever wanted to be. I was using words like justification, and grace and discussing Paul's theology, and it was just very uncomfortable for me. I need time to adjust...as I compromise my position and values...

Anyways, In the meantime, I remember a message as I was growing up, both in church, and on television (yes, I was one of those kids who was raised amongst episodes of the Simpsons and violent video games)...

The message was kind of obvious....

So all they thought they needed to do to keep us from doing drugs was crack an egg over a pan, and somehow we were supposed to take them at their word, that if you ever do drugs.... the next thing you know...

Your head will be broken up and you'll see you're brain scattered all over the cement in your last moments on earth, because you did drugs...

Or it got a little more complex...

Because now there were cartoon turtles telling us to not do drugs.

In church, it was a little more refined....

It went something to the effect of a middle aged man, telling us of his days in the world in Sunday School Class...

The strange man would elegantly speak on matters of his past, and the drugs he did, and the depression he found himself in. There would usually end up being some breakdown at the lowest of low points....perhaps the man tried committing suicide or he nearly overdosed, or Satan came and talked to him during one of his drug trips.....

All of this is right and well...

Drugs aren't good. The World is not good. Sin is terrible.

But then usually, in the testimonies, there would be a twist towards the end...

The Twist was something to the effect of Holy Ghost/Jesus being a better high than all the drugs they tried in the world...

God is the best of all Possible Drugs?

So thus when I was 9, every other kid in my Sunday School Classes was speaking in tongues like it was the easiest thing in the world, and there were pats on the back after the 5 or 6 year olds sobbed their little eyes and the nearby mother's bobbed their head in approval.

There was of course the Sunday School teacher all the kids loved, and it was that person usually designated to be the Holy Ghost Infilling Announcer...they would find the kids who appear on the brink of Holy Ghost Party in their Belly...and when that kid was selected (only the ones who had not spoken in tongues before), the announcer would bend down as if to descend like an Angel into the Holy Ghost Inferno waiting to happen.... (because when you're a kid, loved Sunday School Teachers are bigger than angels)...

.And when you, the praying child would stand there in the altar wondering how much longer this thing has to go on until the parents will be satisfied by your prayerful effort or until God finally remembers He had an appointment to enter into you 15 minutes ago and He is SOOO Late!...So when you wonder these thoughts for the 100th time in prayer you crack your eye lids open after wondering how much longer you gotta stand here, and you see that that LOVED SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER is praying with you. There isn't a better motivator to seek GOd for all he's worth than seeing your favorite Sunday School Teacher's ear right in front of you with a smile the size of Texas across his face...

And kids would seem to go through this routine weekly....

And i was perplexed because i would run through this gauntlet on a monthly basis (usually whenever there was a visiting preacher because "visiting preacher" means "stronger God" for some reason), and I would not feel my tongue move one rumble outside of my own will...

but nonetheless i did know that when I got the Holy Ghost, and spoke in tongues I would experience the BIGGEST High of my life because that weird ex-druggier teacher told me the greatest drug in life is God... and God, the Drug, is LEGAL! Meaning I, little 9 year old me, wouldn't even get in trouble for trying that stuff...

Except when I finally got the H.G. (that's "Holy Ghost"), it was cool....

But i can assure you, my mental state did not ever enter into "Trip mode...."

The Holy Ghost got me a lot of approval amongst church folk, but I assure you....it was nothing close to what i imagined the greatest drug ever would be like...

So by the time I was ready to taste the world and I found out that the World wasn't completely "valueless" in terms of the resulted happiness and fun...

I was so ticked off at ex-druggie Sunday School Teacher, because the world was in fact fun....

And the vices of the world, in terms of the buzz I felt was greatly in "feeling" than the Holy Ghost....

And I didn't have to wait at the altar for a half hour to "feel anything."

This was the lie of my youth: The World-Not Fun. The Church-Fun.

So when I test the worldly waters, and find out they're fun, I very easily acknowledged that by comparison, the church was not fun whatsoever.

And I backslid, because some ex druggie turned Sunday School teacher had mistaken the high he felt in getting the Holy Ghost as what Christianity was about....

Oh but he was SOOO Wrong!

And this would be my message him back then if I knew then what I know now:

And this is not a rant against the Holy Ghost whatsoever. Because when you meet me i will talk your head off about the theoretical/Pauline implications of being baptized, and getting the Holy Ghost if you ask...

And nor am I saying that when the sunday school teacher, ex-druggie got the Holy Ghost, he didn't really feel as good as he said he did. No.

What I am saying and asking is, why are we putting the Holy Ghost and Christianity in conversation with the vices of the world, in terms of "which has a better buzz?"

The Holy Ghost is not a drug.

The Holy Ghost (although I could be mistaken) is never talked about in the Bible in terms of "Feeling."...or "the greatest happiness in the world." Or something to that effect.

Christianity is completely different and on a different plane than the drugs and vices of the World. And partly because I was raised as Christianity being "the best" drug/happiness/lifestyle/fun on earth, I got out of their so quick when I realized that in my own honest experience, the drugs/happiness/lifestyles/fun of the world were better than that of the claims of Christianity...

It was only when I realized that Christianity is not about comparison or "the better of the two options" but rather is on an entirely different foundation (e.g. God dying on the cross and resurrecting), then I could begin to "unlearn" the Holy Ghost as a drug, and relearn Christianity proper....

#227-Gnostic Pentecostals? Maybe. Hopefully Not.

2011-03-23T09:46:00.000-07:00

There are two things I giggle at these days. This will be one of those:

A kind of gnostic Pentecostalism that forfeits itself and the Christian duty to reconcile the world and serve. By gnostic I simply mean a kind a Pentecostal who believes in a "secret kind of wisdom" that is revealed to them by God that is distinct from that which may be discerned by the Word of God (e.g. "God has revealed to my that Spirit X is attacking us and holding us back from revival.").

We all know it is Christ hanging dead from a tree that saves us. However, for the gnostic Pentecostal, they would be much more comfortable with Christ's sacrifice being done in intense prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (though that scene is remarkably moving). Christ however did not bring salvation by praying for a revival vis-a-vis breaking spiritual strongholds in the mystical "spiritual realm" that sets up a kind of Christian dualism. Instead Christ brought salvation and restoration by allowing us and our sins to kill him. We killed God and only in that innocent body of the dead God-Man can we find the awe-inspiring love that he intended for us. Yet these Gnostic Pentecostals for reasons that I find comedic, cannot grasp that Christianity is absolutely about action in the here and now. Instead they find strength in prayer and talking to God and also sometimes deluding themselves into thinking there is some authority in uncut hair other than simple obedience, if they interpret I Corinthians 11:1-16 as a universal command.

Christianity should not be an escape, but rather a confrontation with the world separated by a holiness unto God. But for gnostic Pentecostals, they avoid the confrontation with the world and escape instead to confront an enemy which nobody can see. For Gnostic Pentecostals,

To confront Satan as the problem of why our church is not growing is much easier than to actually try engaging with a culture and world that is foreign to us.

In other words, Gnostic Pentecostals live their Christianity in prayer acting like that does anything to saving the world instead of actually taking action in saving the world. It is not that praying does nothing, but along the lines of Kierkegaard, prayer doesn't change God, but rather prayer should change the one who is praying. Thus in terms of saving the world, talking with someone about God or helping someone out with a chore around their house will be much more productive in terms of redemption than simply praying for them (of course prayer is a good supplement).

The reality though, for such Gnostic Pentecostals, they preach much, pray more, tell themselves about themselves about having the full truth (which apparently resides in a "spiritual realm") and follow a strict moral code based in Biblical obedience. They do all this so they can excuse themselves from doing anything of actually acting out a love for their neighbor (other than hosting a promotion Sunday on their very church grounds).

Thus such a brand of Pentecostalism (though this is certainly the exception amongst our populous) talks much to God and to themselves so they don't have to do anything. Love for your neighbor for them is done in prayer for them and sending warm Christmas cards or a text message saying "I have been thinking about you...Love you."

Thanks for that!

I'll take Jesus and a sacrifice that isn't defined by simply dealing with love by way of a prayer and complaining about split-ends...

#226-Putting Dead Birds in Your Hair

2011-03-21T18:50:00.000-07:00

First things first: Welcome back housekeeping.

I have notebooks full of posts for this blog right now...e-mails to myself for posts, post-it notes about posts, posts about posts in the draft form in this blog.... Needless to say I have some stuff unleash. But it ain't gonna be pretty...

Things I have written about in these "top secret" posts:

The affinity for us to preach against minimum requirements (and the logical delusions of grandeur mixed in with such a sermon)
Gnostic Pentecostals (where I use such a word "dualism" and dont repent)
Liberals (including but not limited to the ever illusive "Grace-Monger")

And it's that last bullet point that most of my secret posts are about. Except I kind of rail against those who I have in the past allied myself with. I wouldn't say it's me going conservative. I would say it's me going more philosophical and finding some of the liberal position empty (not that the conservative position is by any means more fulfilling but my previous writings on this blog regarding these shortcomings speak for themselves). So i guess I am explaining my silence from this blog not just on business but also because of hesitation of me getting misinterpreted in the process of my liberal polemic. So as I write the following "SAL-Like" post which isn't concerned with theology, i also want to say, be forewarned that you who once loved me, may end up hating me, and i would ask you to enter into conversation with me in the comment section if you disagree in coming weeks. Also the gnostic pentecostal post will be up Wednesday evening. And then my first "anti-liberal" post will be up Friday.

Now back to dead birds:

(you so need this song right about now, i mean look at the lyrics: Almost cut my hair, it happened just the other day. It's getting' kinda long, I coulda said it wasn't in my way. But I didn't and I wonder why, I feel like letting my freak flag fly.)

The Mystery and my assumptions

There is a great mystery to me amongst the female Apostolic gender (well there are many such mysteries, but this post aims at one of the most confounding mysteries of the Apostolic female)....

It regards their hair.

I would imagine the tendency for an Apostolic female's hair to "conceal" the surprising length of their hair...I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but in terms of self-consciousness, I can imagine the internal agony some females of our movement may feel when out amongst our society and noticing the less-intrusive hairstyles of their secular peers because they cut their hair...

Along this same thought you hear of a girl chopping her hair so it will fall off with wooden blocks, but yet she can innocently say she hasn't cut her hair. More popularly one hears of females in our movement perming their hair as if to "fry" the hair off. Now the ethics of this "short-cut" i care not to discuss here, but the point is such attempts at shortening hair would be more along the line at what i would imagine females in our movement would be tempted to do in their flesh.

The Mystery of Drawing Attention to your Hair

However, there are more popular trends (and this is where the mystery comes in) in our movement wherein the female does the opposite of what I would assume the case: The apostolic female brings attention to her hair and thus makes a visual cacophony of her hair as if on her head rested the Queen of England herself and thus the female wanted the whole world to know that such Royal persons rested within her hair. They decorate their hair sometimes with poofs that could house a homeless community or they add a headband bigger and shinier than a Hollywood premier...there is obviously the equally vulgar idea to stick a huge flower in your hair so that if worse comes to worse, a bee will try eating pollen out of your head. In the late 90's, it was hair-sticks, and I'm told that in the 70's some Apostolic Females placed entire oatmeal boxes in their hair (not joking).

But the idea that has appalled me the most of recent trending in regards to Apostolic females and hair is the title of this post: Putting dead birds (or what appear to be dead birds) in your hair-

Now the tendency may be to shout that this trend should be considered ornamentation or the 21st century version of braiding your hair with gold (a-la I Timothy 2:9), but i say nay. I say that what we are seeing here is modesty in it's most sincerely humbling form:

What can be a better display of humility than volunteering to let your hair showcase the remnants of a bird's corpse? There is a reason most of these dead bird hair-pieces are black and thus more akin to a raven than they are white: because they symbolize death and decay.

In summary then, is not the "dead hair piece" trend that is so popular these days at conventions and Bible colleges, not a living testament to the APostolics taking on the suffering and confusion of their world and wearing it on their heads as if to sympathize with such suffering?

Although I can understand the opposite point of view: Taking anything that is smaller than a tree shrub and putting it in your hair. At which point the "dead-bird hair trend" is just simply a very bad joke on all volunteering Apostolic females who wear the garments that look like dead birds thinking it is fashionable. But seriously, who does that?

#225-Not the 21st Century

2011-02-22T15:23:00.000-08:00

(Picture of Egyptian Revolution)

Here is "Judas" by Depeche Mode...it's so apt for a good listen right now. (Also when is someone going to put 2 and 2 together and realize the album "Songs of Faith and Devotion" by Depeche Mode is stock full of songs worthy of being turned into worship songs)...

I heard about a church service Sunday wherein the preacher preached that the revolution that occurred in Egypt was described as a result of the curse of Pharaoh as described in the book of Exodus. The sermon apparentely went on to talk about what happened in Egypt was at the heart of the ever emerging New World Order because the newly democratic Egypt was allowing Iranian ships into it's canals. Obviously I am missing some gaps in information, but at one point the preacher did rail on the new government which came about from the revolution. And allegedy the "new democracy" was against God's Will. The bottom line of the message seemed to be the tying in of the event of Egypt with the End Times.

I don't even know.

I'm just glad i wasn't there. Had I been, it would not have been out of the realm of possibility to leave the sanctuary, get in my car, and drive it headlong through the church walls to interrupt the sermon in the name of the Egyptian Revolution.

But isn't it just like us to take a revolutionary act of freedom, overthrowing a fascist dictator, as they did in Egypt and put some End Times spin on it?

Instead of celebrating one of the first wars ever in the middle East that had nothing to do with religion, and rather was simply over the freedom of the people themselves (kinda like the American Revolution), we Biblicized the event to something that will make us live in more anxiety as the preacher pointed to the revolution and presence of Iranian ships in the canal as evidence of the Last Days.

And yet more, instead of living in the present and engaging it, we find ourselves twisting the present events (such as the Egyptian Struggle) as an indicator of the future coming doom of Revelation if one is not saved?

Is this not the state of many Apostolics who want to ignore the commands of acting now in the state of things as they are and trying to militantly overthrow the powers of evil that Paul talked about in Ephesians and instead choose to "maintain and conserve" as the holy people we are in order to be prepared for when God comes back?

In other words, in our inability to fully be "in this world but not of this world" we choose to resign ourselves and opt to look forward to some horrible time in the future where 1/3 of mankind will die according to the book of Revelation.

So what Being Apostolic has come to mean in some sense is "look at the past for our Identity" and look to the future where "we will be proven right," and in the mean time preach against anything that tries to do anything in the name of God outside of preaching holiness, the Oneness of God, going door knocking to witness, reading your bible, and praying?

Yes, I am exaggerating this point, but is it not a bid odd that to Be Apostolic means looking ahead to an Apocalypse, and looking backwards to the early 20th century, but hesitantly looks to what we are doing now (of course, we do have missionaries abroad, but that says nothing about us here in America)?

How much do we have to hate people outside our "Full Truth" to prefer to "preserve" ourselves for the rapture that could come at any moment than risk our lives for the people in need right now?

Let me restate that: I will grow out my hair, and wear a skirt, and willingly go to hell if it would somehow save 5 people for heaven. Of couse that is not realistic, but my point is, if holiness standards are keeping people from believing the Acts 2:38 message, then i will forsake my own Identity of holiness standards for the sake of others. This is what I mean when I say An Apostolic Identity should be Identityless: We should be more hungry to redeem that which is broken and lost than we should be to "maintain" our Identity and the distinctions that implies. It's not that I am saying we need to lose standards at all, but rather if our distinctions are causing us to "be saved" but at the same time are putting us in a state of complacency to which our witness is not acting with urgency to recover the Lost during this "time that remains" then I would argue forsaking that which causes us to be complacent in our proclamations of the Full Truth is entirely what it means to be Apostolic.

As one teacher I highly respect remarked, "Being holy does not mean simply to be taken out of the trash of sin and made clean and then to remain clean until judgment day. Rather, being holy means to be taken out of the trash of sin and made clean then to go right back into the Garbage Dump to pull others out of the same trash heap you came from."

Being Apostolic to me then is not about who we are. But rather what are we doing. This is where it may get uncomfortable. But if someone says they have the "Full Truth" and Jesus inside their soul, then the active urgency to redeem and save that such a declaration implies ought to be present.

This is why Christmas Card pictures of smiling preachers with their smiling familes in lavish homes makes me nauseaus. Their example of being Apostolic is that one can make a nice living being holy, and running around the country preaching to other APostolics about us being Apostolic. Because if their identity is defined by the Apostolic Movement's past, and Acts 2:38 says we can be saved later on in the future for eternity, we mind as well enjoy ourselves here on earth in the present with no worries other than having some good messages to preach and some good anointing along with it...

But I will take the drunkard who finds himself at the altar twice a month on his knees crying out to God with tears rolling down his face, knowing he isn't good enough yet before I will take such an Apostolic Evangelist.

Give me the Acts 2:38 man in the midst of the mess finding himself amidst controversy for his "compromises" as he tries to witness than a man with a nice, freshly mowed lawn studying the book of Psalms for his message on Sunday.

We aren't in Kansas anymore. This is a certainty. So how dare some of us live in a miniature Kansas amidst such chaos?

Prov. 14:4-"Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox."

As this rant ends, let's go back to my original point....how much of our message is focused on the past and the future, and doesn't look to the "Now" and the world around us (so much so that present day news events are only paid attention to if we can fit it into some awful interpretation of Revelation)....

Is not such past/future mentalities a symptom of our inability to keep up with today's world? So much so that we have to live out a sci-fi fantasy or live in the tombs of those who have died before us in order to cope with ourselves and the world around us.
This scene is eerily similar to an episode of the old Twilight Zone, called "Walking Distance" wherein a salesman is down on his luck and can only find his escape of joy in the nostalgia of his past. In this episode the main character is somehow transported back to the time when he was a child, but he himself remains the adult. While he takes joy in this miraculous opportunity to live in the age of his innocense, the "past" is not so ready to accept him. Simply put, the man doesn't fit in and causes disturbances amongst his family and the townspeople (and even his own childhood self that he encounters).

The following scene is the conclusion of the episode where we will see the dad talk to his son as an adult encouraging him to leave the land of "cotton candy and merry go rounds." I think it is very apt representation of what I think we should take to be the voice of our Apostolic Pioneers (the Dad) talking to us Apostolics who are transfixed on maintaing the Identity of a time and culture that has passed us for several decades now (you only need to watch the first two minutes)-

#224-Apostolics who preach to themselves about what we want to tell ourselves about history

2011-02-16T13:17:00.000-08:00

Okay Okay...I know what you are thinking...Because I am thinking it too...With my recent posts about Apostolic Identity, Heritage, and now history, I am trying to once again tear down the UPC and am trying to destroy something because it does not fit my desires for the denomination i grew up in. In short, the accusations that I would be accusing me of right now is that I am back to my old Apostolic Diva ways that does what he wants when he wants and says what he wants to say whenever he pleases because this is his blog and the Lord is on his side...

In short i am kinda like the guy that shows up towards the end of this clip, and every other Apostolic is the guy saying "Don't!"

Naturally, I'm going to say it's a little more complicated than that..

Simply because, if I wanted this movement to fail, I would not have this blog whatsoever. I would remain silent. I am fully convinced the best plan of action for those who have a righteous gripe with any movement or church and want to see the organization fail...they should do nothing or at least vacate the premises quietly. For without an enemy to project the problems of the movement/church (which we all have since no organization is perfect) against, the organization/church would go into itself and realize it's own inconsistencies and fall apart within. This is not a problem unique to the UPC, but is true regarding every organization or party within the world (if there is no bad guy from the "outside" to preach as the source of the problems, then the only answer would be to look in the mirror and see that the source of the problems was not "the world," "culture," "Satan," or "emergents" but rather from within itself). But since I am not for such destruction, I am speaking up. I do have hope for us yet and even hope for myself....It's a bright and shiny day....So I do not mind being thought of as "the problem" or "the enemy" in my critiques...and perhaps in the process, help renovate the inner-piping of our movement if you will...

Anyways...

Going with the same current of the last two posts (and a slight reminder of what i am arguing):

Paul (whose name literally means "small") claims that he will only boast in the Cross alone and not in religious distinction, etc...If being Apostolic means to not be defined by history or culture, then it is not to be defined apart from Christ himself. And this is precisely the Apostolic Identity I will boast in.

Our Past:

This is why I find our pioneers entirely Apostolic in their nature. They aren't concerned with legitimizing their beliefs before the judges of history via prooftexting. Andrew Urshan did not try to justify the Oneness position (which he called the this position a "TriUnity") against history via rhetorical games, but counted it as revelation from God alone. Of course I think the Oneness position is found within the Bible, but when all of Christian history has proclaimed the trinity, what grounds did Urshan and his peers have to base their claims when they saw the revelation of Jesus Name? They were simply without a home to which they could base their claim in the first quarter of the twentieth century. And this became all the more pertinent when the Assemblies of God cast out all Oneness ministers from their organization in 1916 (or 1917, i can't recall). How can one defend themselves when their own brothers in the Assemblies of God fellowship (the only fellowship most of the Oneness ministers had known) have expelled them from their midst?

Was not the position (which was positionless) of our first Oneness Apostolic Pioneers such as Howard Goss, G.t. Haywood, and Andrew Urshan the same kind of position of the Biblical Apostles continually prosecuted against by the first century Jews (without the violence of course)? This is Apostolic Identity. And it was entirely sad, but also entirely revolutionary. Because when one is not focused on reaffirming creeds, reestablishing dogma, and taking pride in a sub-culture, then it is HERE that the Holy Ghost Can work freely because the believer has cast all premonitions aside and said "Thy will be done."

This is why I argue that if we are to recapture the Apostolic Identity of our Apostolic Pioneers, we need not be focused on maintaining the exact doctrine of those in the early 20th century century whose own beliefs were cultivated for their own culture in their own time not cognizant of history (because that would be unApostolic) to which we unfairly pick and choose that which we want to keep and want to throw away, but rather, shaking off Christian history's centuries "progressed" ritualized history (e.g. baptism at 8 days old, the trinity, etc...), an Apostolic Identity recaptures the urgency of now.

Not only is it wrong to reference the authority of the Apostolic pioneers by definition of what being Apostolic means ("to not listen to the haunting whispers of history"), but the proper question of honoring our Apostolic pioneers then is not "what of their Apostolic faith still works today and what can be thrown out?" But rather, the proper question is "what would our Apostolic Pioneers be saying to us if they lived with us today?"

This is why I am appalled at a few instances I have observed where people become disappointed in the "liberal compromising" of some of the sons of past UPC heavyweights who have passed away. Typically what goes on is some fundementalist Apostolic speaks of the "rebellious son" as disappointing their father who was firm on their holiness standards, etc....

I am not kidding, i have seen this or heard of such rhetoric several times! I seriously want to take such fundamentalist Apostolics by their ear like I am a 50 year old mother hearing her teenage son swear and walk them right into the bathroom and wash their mouth out with soap....

Because when people are telling "liberal Apostolics" that they're dad would be disappointed in them, they are not only being UnApostolic by trying to use history as a means of persuasion, but they are also admitting how stupid they were to confuse the rhetoric of the dead Preacher that was shaped by their own unique culture and time as who the Preacher was in his essence. When a Liberal Apostolic says they are working in honor of their father, and do so with some doctrinal alterations, they may not be lying. Because they may have understood something about their father and his personality that other people had missed. The son saw daddy at home. The Fundamentalist Christian saw a man doing a professional job over the pulpit so that he could put food on the table for his son.

Now go back and read that last paragraph and where I refer to "Liberal Apostolic/ son" replace that with "CHristian" and where I mentioned Father, replace that with God. And where i mentioned "fundementalist apostolic," think "first century Sadducee/Pharisseee" and you will see what i am getting at.

And no i am not doing the typical "all apostolics are legalists and pharissees" rhetoric.

A true Apostolic Identity doesn't tell itself stories about itself to itself. Nor is it concerned with preservation and a few church invites along the way. Most importantly, it is not concerned with history. Because, if Paul became so caught up in showing that Jews that Christianity was entirely Jewish and the proper fulfillment of Jewish history, he would never have forgotten about witnessing to the Gentiles. Rather an Apostolic Identity is concerned only with the present since the history of man has been turned on it's head at the cross where God died.

Perhaps a better idea of what I think an Apostolic Identity should be thought of (and it's Identity without an Identity), look to a quote from Rosenzweig about his description of the identity of a Jew today, "In Judaism, man is always somehow a survivor, an inner something, whose exterior was seized by the current of the world and carried off while he himself, what is left of him, remains standing on the shore. Something

within him is waiting."

In this regard, the Apostolic separation from the world is two-fold: 1) Separation From one's world (e.g. being a foreigner without a home here on earth), but also a 2) Separation from one's self ("the exterior was seized by the current of the world and carried off while he himself, what is left of him remains standing on the shore").

This is where an Apostolic Identity is identityless: Since we have been buried in Christ with baptism, the pride in one's "Christianity" or "Apostolicness" is completely unwelcome within our midst, since Christianity is no longer about us in who we are or tell ourselves we are, and the "Full Truth" we possess, but rather we have no claim to such nonsense since all the redemption is not in and of ourselves but it is God's business....

Don't take my words out of context. I am not saying that we need to get rid of the various doctrines within our movement from an antinomian stance. Rather our doctrines MUST be biblically based and also mindful that even the Biblical writers wrote within their own culture and thus had some of their own adaptations that were not meant to be universal (e.g. Paul twice mentioning that women are to be silent in church and they cannot teach). Whether or not our past ministers of our movement wore tutus or suits to church should have no bearing on our Apostolic Identity today, since of course to argue otherwise would be to argue for tradition instead of the Bible.

Example: Beard-

Many will point to the time in history when facial hair was considered rebellious and thus the movement rightfully added the "no facial hair" clause in the 1960's (similar to Paul adding "women shouldn't talk in church" clause because it would have offended non-believers if they ever visited church)...and then within the same breadth the same people who talk of the time when facial hair was rightfully banned will say they don't think it's a sin today.

So here an Apostolic Identity should instinctively say that since it implies that we are not bound by history, facial hair should be freely allowed, and if people get offended then it is because they have misidentified a temporal cultural ethic (no facial hair) as being dogmatic law.....

WE CANNOT EVEN BE IN CONVERSATION WITH THIS MINDSET...WE CANNOT TOLERATE IT. IF ANYONE REFERS TO ROMANS 14, show them a picture of bearded Jesus. And then mention Bearded Jesus died for that person's sins so they be free from the Law of Sin and in return we are to love our brother as ourselves and such love shouldn't have anything against Jesus' beard or a brother who wants to play the drums and also maintain his gender distinction as a male by having facial hair....

Again, the common response to facial hair is "it may not be wrong in itself, but it will offend the congregation so we shouldn't..."

In other words: "well this is a man-made law that really doesn't matter, but it still matters..and after all Paul said not to offend your brother...so we're sorry, but we're going to have to impose this law which we all know really isn't a law."

And thus loving your neighbor really means "sacrifice yourself young ones and lay down your will to have beards (or to wear shorts, etc...) so you can demonstrate that you love your neighbor and your brothers in church is greater than yourself. But as for those who would get offended by facial hair...well they have been in church a really long time and...you haven't...*cough*...well for the love of God please don't find out that General Conference approved of facial hair on the platform two years ago..."

(I would have tried ending this on a happy, lest angry note, but it would have been a deceit on my part and thus disloyal to you the reader....)

Coming Friday- Apostolic Nostalgia complete with a clip from the Old Twilight Zone

#223-Apostolic Heritage (and a course in semi-bad logic)...

2011-02-11T18:30:00.000-08:00

To continue with a well intentioned critique of our movement and what Apostolic Identity has come to represent which began in the previous post, let us look now at the History of Our Movement in the Twentieth Century and it's impact on our Identity...

I would need more than two hands to count the number of services that have defended the need for conservation of the Apostolic Tradition via those who have led us here (e.g. "We keep the tradition because it's part of our Identity which was slaved over by those who paved the way for us. Thus we cannot vacate this Hard-Earned Identity Now!")....Generally then, those who preach the need of "carrying the mantle" and "staying the course" preach as if they are certain the history of our movement is on their side....sometimes speaking right in line with the pioneers of our movement, and sometimes butchering the message of those who spoke before us who are rolling over in their grave because their message is being taken out of context....

I love our heritage. I really do. I could lecture at a given instant for a good 15 minutes or so upon request about what I admire about our "Apostolic Pioneers" and how I am in awe at times as I read about their struggles with grasping the revelation of our Truth.

However, I can't help but wonder how these Apostolic Giants from our past would reply to their identities being talked of by us as a Catholic would talk about a Saint. Would it be something similar to Paul's "Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you" response in ACts 14 to the crowds declaring him and Barnabas, "gods?"

But I may be overstating it here....

What I cringe about though is a Pastor's sermons regarding the need to carry the tradition of our past when our very movement was not based on tradition, but rather going directly against Tradition itself. The rise of Pentecostalism in the early 20th century was revolution in it's own right that warred against the fundamentalist tendencies of the time which believed miracles and gifts of the spirit (such as tongues) were no longer available today.

But an even more rebellious stand was made by the Oneness Pentecostals (e.g. Urshan, Ewart, etc...), as they rejected the Trinity, which kind of had upwards of 1650 years of tradition behind it.

I can recall being in a few sessions about doctrine and the person leading the session would quote books from the 1800's of other movements such as the Methodists reading about the modesty of dress and the need for separation of gender and what not, and the session leader was saying that we as Apostolics are more in line with the traditions of doctrine in other movements than the movements themselves currently are....And on the same note the session leader would say our doctrine has centuries of evidence of it's acceptance behind it...longer than our movement had been around...

Every time I hear such logic i want to slam my forehead against a cactus and let the blood from the damage of the cactus needles drip down my forehead as the session leader continues to speak...just to...you know...change things up a little....

Because the reason we are Apostolic is because we are not Methodist....and history....or evidence of traditions through the centuries speaks nothing to us....Because more importantly, while the Methodists of the 1800's may have had similar standards that we do that they have since lost, there is a canyon of difference in our core theologies outside the standards: Primarily, they believed in the Trinity. We do not. We believe in Baptism in Jesus Name. They do not.

So if one wants to demonstrate the power of tradition as a source of argumentation, they cannot logically do so by picking and choosing which points of similarity they will source for their argument, when our entire theological core contradicts at other points, and further once again, to be Apostolic means the loss of power to the voices of history.....So why would we try playing that game?

I know i am being harsh, and I prayed about these past two posts believe you me. But if our movement is going to maintain and even grow, some inconsistencies have to find the exit door now or within the next 15 minutes (I'm looking at you "argument against facial hair").

The other difficulty is the obvious statement that we are in a different culture now than we were 50 years ago and we must adjust our methods accordingly without compromising the Message itself. And we do so...

-Back then, bowling alleys were a no no. Bowling Alleys are generally accepted these days within our movement (though you will never find me in one because I have a personal conviction against them which really means I personally hate the sport of bowling and was looking for a good excuse not to have to go them).

-Movie theaters, while generally not allowed, are becoming more and more popular as acceptable venues for some churches to allow their congregation to attend as a point of relaxation, etc... (and the realization that Make outs don't happen there ever)....

-Shorts are about as acceptable as movie theaters (maybe even more acceptable)...

-Somehow pajama pants for ladies have slipped in the back door as permissible even though the argument for them is entirely self-contradictory and more problematic than any of the above objects of debate listed above.

What I am getting at...is if we are preserving the Apostolic Identity as much as we say....but at the same time allowing some freedoms via cultural expectations, etc... Are we not just dictating what the definition of the Apostolic Identity of our Heritage is according to how it fits our own lifestyles/church cultures, etc...To clarify, if I was a Pastor and I said "Maintain distinctions because that is what we are asked to do by our movements forefathers," what those distinctions are is completely up to my discretion. Thus I can say "men wear pants because that's part of our identity" and at the same time say "I don't think there is anything wrong with our youth going to a bowling alley or someone having facial hair on the platform" even though facial hair and bowling alleys were not allowed in past generations by our movement's forefathers. I hope you see the contradiction at this point: History as an authority to our distinctions (as problematic as it is for us to use such rhetoric) does not determine Apostolic Identity, but we are simply determining Apostolic Identity in the Name of history since we are picking and choosing what is and is not taboo in our culture.

Come Back On Tuesday for more...Yes, it's already written....I promise it will be there...

#222-Apostolic Identity

2011-02-09T15:49:00.000-08:00

I have nothing new to say. That is why I have stopped writing for the most part.

I ventured to and fro in my mind recently, and read many books, and yet never thought much about this blog. I felt like in some sense it had run it's course. And I think in many ways it has....

But this volume is far from complete, and with that, I will attempt to comment on one of those many Apostolic Projects which will not let me lay down peacefully and forget about this blog. Specifically, the recent and ongoing proclamation of the necessity of having an Apostolic Identity. (Warning: I will not be partaking in the usual comedy routine that has become so ingrained in this blog. Instead you will get a rant. Apologies.).

From what I have gathered in my years in the UPC, the neat thing about us, is that we are A-historical in our Christianity. That is, we reject the history of the Church and it's influence on the interpretation

I have no problem of our proclamation for an Apostolic Identity. My difficulty is how we define Apostolic Identity. If being Apostolic is that of living the Christianity of the Apostles, then it is an Identity that does not look to history nor tradition. We reject the claim of the Church Fathers such as Justin, Origin, and Tertullian as they dogmatically ritualized the Christian Faith, and our rejection is rightfully so. It was the Church fathers after all that defined the trinitarian formula.

If anyone is trying to live out the definition of Luther's protestant proclamation of sola scriptura ("By Scripture Alone"), it is us. But yet somehow, A.I. (Apostolic Identity) has become a tradition of it's own looking to our own movement's pioneers as a resource for our faith. In other words, our definition of Apostolic Identity is one that looks to our 20th century Apostolic heritage. Is this not the same as what the Catholics and most other protestants have done with the early church fathers (whereby religious pioneers are preached as a reference point for authoritative theology)?

And to this idea of an Apostolic Identity that looks to an Apostolic Heritage, I loudly say NO! If to be APostoilc is to reject history, even if that means our own recent history. The Apostles quickly learned in the book of Acts to reject their own Jewish tradition as authoritative for Christianity. It is not that Paul or Peter stopped living the Jewish tradition, for surely they did keep on observing the law past Christianity. But as Paul said, he counted all authority via tradition of the Law dung. To be Apostolic for Peter and Paul meant not imposing tradition itself on non-Jews.

How was a Greek to convert to Christianity if the Apostolic Identity was fully embedded within the Bible and not solely through the cross whereby the Bible was to be believed in past conversion? The Bible was not a source of authority for the Greek, but rather the salvation experience and the message of Christ crucified & resurrected was the basis for faith. Only after conversion was a believer to believe in the authority of the Bible. This is the blessed opportunity of our time for our movement: In the past the Bible was assumed to be true throughout culture and thus the Apostolic Truth could be displayed through the Bible. However, for secular culture, the Bible is not authoritative. Most people see this as a sad state of reality, but I say it is entirely good as it allows us to live more similarly the world of the Apostles whereby the only message that may be believed is the Love for each human being by God based on God dying on the cross.

Thus for me, an Apostolic Identity is precisely an identity without an identity. When I see someone say they are "proud of their Apostolic Identity" then they are completely contradicting the words of the Apostle Paul who said, ""As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of that cross, my interest in this world has been crucified, and the world's interest in me has also died." Galatians 6:14"

Or to put it in other words, the means of defining ourselves through any labeling outside of the Cross is a compromising of the foreign nature we now possess (I like the idea that once we become Christians we are more so aliens from out of this world living as foreigners in a world that is valueless). To say I am Irish, Jewish, white, middle-class, etc....are shortcuts that define me as if I am something. But all of these imply that I am something with an identity. To be Apostolic like Paul is something entirely different, wherein a label or shortcut to who i am stops the pressing on towards the cross that we are to live out on earth....We are never Sufficient or enough in our Christianity here on earth. We must press on as Paul says, "I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead." (and many Apostolics do indeed live this insufficiency in ourselves out)

To pride ourselves in an identity outside of Christ or the Cross then, is entirely unApostolic. This is especially true if it looks to an Apostolic Heritage or Apostolic Culture as a point of pride as well. How dare we try to set up an identity based on the Apostles when the Apostles themselves wouldn't do so.

Don't get me wrong, I am not doing some anti-legalist, liberal hodge-podge about the Grace of God, as surely in coming weeks i will show how much of what liberal Apostolic is entirely deplorable. But what i am arguing that in our preaching of Apostolic Identity, we are treading on dangerous ground that seeks to build a neo-Judaism that isolates it's people from the world and in the process builds it's own Tower of Babel that proclaims a people above the Cross.

Here is the question...in function, what is the value of the Cross for many of us other than the means of a point of bribery, whereby if we do as the Bible instructs (Acts 2:38, holiness, etc...), we don't go to hell and instead go to heaven. Thus the cross is the point whereby we can be bribed into being Christian as to avoid eternal damnation. But yet is this what the Cross is proclaiming? Is this what being Apostolic is about?

To be Apostolic isn't scary. It is wonderful. It is a chance to live out the love of Christ for us on the cross. But it also says we won't pride ourselves in label of being Apostolic. But I would argue Apostolic Identity as we know it in our movement is traditionally an escape to not live in the never ceasing work of making ourselves servants to the forgotten of the world. Rather for those who boast of possessing an Apostolic Identity, and proclaim the need of holiness with such an identity, they do such boasting as a means to do nothing other than displaying a certain attire in public, thinking about witnessing, praying, and reading the Bible.

The reality is the Apostolic Identity as it's traditionally defined is the EASY THING. Standards are not difficult. Praying can be done here, there and everywhere. Bible reading is the best place to Find God's message to us, and telling people about Acts 2:38 maybe slightly embarrassing for some, but it is not impossible.

Professing the Cross and trying to somehow display it's seemingly impossible message through love, living without an identity and never stopping short of this reality is the entirely Apostolic thing and we cannot stop short and act like it is something that we have a firm grasp of. In summary, being Apostolic is acting like we don't "have it" and thus since we don't "have it" we work endlessly trying to "get it" by means of reaching out to others to invite them into such a loving struggle.

#221-Going through a Trial

2011-02-01T18:28:00.001-08:00

Please Watch...

Discuss amongst yourselves...

Or in the comments below...