Mark Johnston Drops from UPCI, Garner Next???

[DAII]

The recent list published in the Forward of pastors and ministers dropping from the fellowship includes:

Mark Johnston
Vince Larson

Johnston who preached a stirring message at GC in 2007 and was subsequently the target of a General Board member's (Chester Wright's) letter to then Bishop Haney ... alluding to MJ being an emergent.

The Motown boys are on the move.

***** Jeff Garner MAY BE in the process of dropping out *** will this be official in the coming days ????

[pelathais]

It's sad to see that the UPCI is still guided by the angriest and most intemperate voices.

... of course, the second name you listed seems to have pretty much shown himself out the door a little while back.

[deacon blues]

The last BOTT I attended MJ preached a fine message about Jesus. In fact I was beginning to regret attending the conference until that message. I knew God sent me there to specifically hear that Word from the Lord. I was dumbstruck that people were offended at the message. The sermon basically said that Jesus was what this is all about. That people "would see Jesus". That the only people who got in the way of people who wanted to see Jesus were the Pharisees. MJ preached if we want people to see Jesus we have to fight against a Pharisee spirit. I was in complete agreement. I was convicted to fight the Pharisee in me. I believe all people of faith have the potential to become religious, self-righteous, steeped in tradition, hypocritical Pharisees. I took the message personal and embraced its truth. Others evidently took it personal and were offended. It was the beginning of the crucifixion of MJ.

Funny thing. You would think the "Jesus Only" people, the "people of the Name", the people with the great revelation of who Jesus is would rejoice at such a message. But I guess the Pharisee part hit a little close to home for some and they didn't like the reflection in the looking glass of the Word. They decided to forget what manner of man they saw in that reflection.

And, as history bears out millions of times before, the messenger is targeted, despised, marginalized, defamed, deemed dangerous and toxic. Strange that preaching Jesus, the blood and the cross makes someone a pariah. Preach anything, but don't preach Jesus! There's no other choice. Preach for the praise of men or preach for the applause of heaven.

Burning at the stake, hanging, drowning, firing squad, excommunication, kicked out, pressured out, starved out, crucified, whatever---the end result is the same. The Machine will destroy you. Okay a little dramatic, but you get the picture. MJ will do fine. He's a good man and will keep preaching Jesus. A good church will continue to move forward.

For those of you that want to preach Jesus for those who would see Jesus, keep on keepin on. But be warned, hell takes notice of the Jesus Preachers. Be vigilant, be alert. But take heart: the gates of hell will not prevail.

[Fiyahstarter]

I've been privileged to hear Mark Johnston. The UPCI lost another great one.

[aegsm76]

That the only people who got in the way of people who wanted to see Jesus were the Pharisees.

From a Biblical standpoint, is this correct? I'm not at home to do any research, but it seems like all of the religious groups were at fault. I know we like to target the Pharisees, but seems like the other groups were just as much as fault as well.

[Justin]

According to some of the comments on a Mark Johnston youtube video, He's been out of the UPC for a few months:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt2bAW4ZwLw

"He is not UPCI anymore....he has totally went off the deep end and has no doctrinal stance based on his website.....
Drew2Cute 3 months ago"

"..is he still with UPCI..? I'm asking as I'm unable to locate him in the UPCI Church Locator.
YoMamaWearzArmyBootz 4 months ago

[MrMasterMind]

So the entire constituency of the UPC ministers under the age of 35 in now in the 300s and dropping?

[DAII]

So the entire constituency of the UPC ministers under the age of 35 in now in the 300s and dropping?

less than 5% ...

[Justin]

So the entire constituency of the UPC ministers under the age of 35 in now in the 300s and dropping?

less than 5% ...

Sources?

[MrMasterMind]

less than 5% ...

They are witch hunting themselves into extinction.

[StillStanding]

less than 5% ...
:eek::eek::eek::eek:

[DAII]

***** Jeff Garner MAY BE in the process of dropping out *** official in the coming days ????

[DAII]

Jeff Hennigan and Jim Kilgore next?

[mizpeh]

Maybe they (those dropping out of the UPC) will form a loose alliance, then Keith will have a place to belong. :)

[POWERUP]

The last BOTT I attended MJ preached a fine message about Jesus. In fact I was beginning to regret attending the conference until that message. I knew God sent me there to specifically hear that Word from the Lord. I was dumbstruck that people were offended at the message. The sermon basically said that Jesus was what this is all about. That people "would see Jesus". That the only people who got in the way of people who wanted to see Jesus were the Pharisees. MJ preached if we want people to see Jesus we have to fight against a Pharisee spirit. I was in complete agreement. I was convicted to fight the Pharisee in me. I believe all people of faith have the potential to become religious, self-righteous, steeped in tradition, hypocritical Pharisees. I took the message personal and embraced its truth. Others evidently took it personal and were offended. It was the beginning of the crucifixion of MJ.

Funny thing. You would think the "Jesus Only" people, the "people of the Name", the people with the great revelation of who Jesus is would rejoice at such a message. But I guess the Pharisee part hit a little close to home for some and they didn't like the reflection in the looking glass of the Word. They decided to forget what manner of man they saw in that reflection.

And, as history bears out millions of times before, the messenger is targeted, despised, marginalized, defamed, deemed dangerous and toxic. Strange that preaching Jesus, the blood and the cross makes someone a pariah. Preach anything, but don't preach Jesus! There's no other choice. Preach for the praise of men or preach for the applause of heaven.

Burning at the stake, hanging, drowning, firing squad, excommunication, kicked out, pressured out, starved out, crucified, whatever---the end result is the same. The Machine will destroy you. Okay a little dramatic, but you get the picture. MJ will do fine. He's a good man and will keep preaching Jesus. A good church will continue to move forward.

For those of you that want to preach Jesus for those who would see Jesus, keep on keepin on. But be warned, hell takes notice of the Jesus Preachers. Be vigilant, be alert. But take heart: the gates of hell will not prevail.

Right on the money!!!! Well said.:thumbsup

[crakjak]

Preaching Jesus and His ability to save to the uttermost has alway been an offense and stumbling block. Why? It takes the control out of the hands of men and returns it to God, and empowers the pew like nothing else! God is at work and WHO will hinder Him???
"The Walls are Coming Down" "...like a rolling stone, the cross before me, no chains on me"!!!! Chris Tomlin

[Justin]

So the entire constituency of the UPC ministers under the age of 35 in now in the 300s and dropping?

less than 5% ...

Sources?

Bump.

[pelathais]

That the only people who got in the way of people who wanted to see Jesus were the Pharisees.

From a Biblical standpoint, is this correct? I'm not at home to do any research, but it seems like all of the religious groups were at fault. I know we like to target the Pharisees, but seems like the other groups were just as much as fault as well.

Well, let's just consider the New Testament, and the NT only for a moment.

What "other religious groups" were involved in criticizing and attacking the ministry of Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry in the Gospels? ... nobody?

In the specific case cited, "... We would see Jesus..." (John 12) we have an example of a group of "Greeks" (most likely Hellenized, and thus ritually "unclean" Jews) asking to see Jesus. This request is handed up a sort of chain of command among the disciples and we are never told whether the "Greeks" got to see Jesus at all.

We are told however, that Jesus Christ is to be glorified and that "the Prince of this world shall be cast out." Thus, it appears, Christ is to become the "Prince" of all men - whether they are ritualistically kosher or not.

The text continues a discussion where some question Jesus' testimony based upon their own understanding of the Law. Jesus corrects their understanding and once again asserts His own Primacy.

... but, we are never told whether or not the "Greeks" got to see Jesus. From the context, I guess they did, eventually; when Jesus was "lifted up."

[pelathais]

Jeff Hennigan and Jim Kilgore next?

Those "backsliders" with their "filth?"

Why is it ... Why do the radical and "hard-core" standards kind of guys in the UPC and WPF sound more and more like the "Old Steve Winters?" It seems that even Winters finally got tired of that rap and decided to relax and even "rock out" a bit.

... a crazy kind of a bit, but the guy has certainly tamed his vehemence and rhetoric. Now, to hear someone called "filth" you have to go to General Conference or read a WPF website.

[scotty]

Those "backsliders" with their "filth?"

Why is it ... Why do the radical and "hard-core" standards kind of guys in the UPC and WPF sound more and more like the "Old Steve Winters?" It seems that even Winters finally got tired of that rap and decided to relax and even "rock out" a bit.

... a crazy kind of a bit, but the guy has certainly tamed his vehemence and rhetoric. Now, to hear someone called "filth" you have to go to General Conference or read a WPF website.

WOW, i remember him, he tuff to read/listen to.

[Dagwood]

The last BOTT I attended MJ preached a fine message about Jesus. In fact I was beginning to regret attending the conference until that message. I knew God sent me there to specifically hear that Word from the Lord. I was dumbstruck that people were offended at the message. The sermon basically said that Jesus was what this is all about. That people "would see Jesus". That the only people who got in the way of people who wanted to see Jesus were the Pharisees. MJ preached if we want people to see Jesus we have to fight against a Pharisee spirit. I was in complete agreement. I was convicted to fight the Pharisee in me. I believe all people of faith have the potential to become religious, self-righteous, steeped in tradition, hypocritical Pharisees. I took the message personal and embraced its truth. Others evidently took it personal and were offended. It was the beginning of the crucifixion of MJ.

Funny thing. You would think the "Jesus Only" people, the "people of the Name", the people with the great revelation of who Jesus is would rejoice at such a message. But I guess the Pharisee part hit a little close to home for some and they didn't like the reflection in the looking glass of the Word. They decided to forget what manner of man they saw in that reflection.

And, as history bears out millions of times before, the messenger is targeted, despised, marginalized, defamed, deemed dangerous and toxic. Strange that preaching Jesus, the blood and the cross makes someone a pariah. Preach anything, but don't preach Jesus! There's no other choice. Preach for the praise of men or preach for the applause of heaven.

Burning at the stake, hanging, drowning, firing squad, excommunication, kicked out, pressured out, starved out, crucified, whatever---the end result is the same. The Machine will destroy you. Okay a little dramatic, but you get the picture. MJ will do fine. He's a good man and will keep preaching Jesus. A good church will continue to move forward.

For those of you that want to preach Jesus for those who would see Jesus, keep on keepin on. But be warned, hell takes notice of the Jesus Preachers. Be vigilant, be alert. But take heart: the gates of hell will not prevail.

Very well-said! I think that deserves a standing ovation...:highfive

[Jermyn Davidson]

Can someone PLEASE post a picture or link to a picture (non-youtube) of Pastor (Evangelist) Mark Johnston?

Does anyone know if this guy has like a raspy quality to his voice? If so, I remember him from Jacksonville, NC-- many years ago.

Thank you!

[The Lemon]

Well...I was actually alluding to MJ on one of my posts this morning. That being two prominent pastors in the state next to me (Deleware) had pulled out. I'm not into name dropping...but since the cat is out of the bag...Anthony Trout was on that list as well and his church is huge in Dover, and his dad is huge in the Delaware district.

I both know and have heard MJ preach, he is amazing and not only zealous for God but has a tremendous passion for people. I have not heard him for awhile now, but I would imagine him being the same way.

From what I see, they are loosing younger preachers like a cut jugular. The sad part is I don't believe it has to be this way.

[Fiyahstarter]

I am from Delaware and know both of these pastors (AT and MJ). I don't know if they have or have not dropped their UPCI licenses...nor do I care... But I DO KNOW they are both anointed men of God and as strong as ever in their work for the Kingdom.

[Charnock]

I can confirm that the men mentioned have dropped their license. Their names are in the Forward under the "No Longer Affiliated" section.

[Charnock]

Johnston was/is a very powerful speaker. Trout is from Pentecostal Royalty. The Trout name is huge in the northeast.

[pelathais]

Can someone PLEASE post a picture or link to a picture (non-youtube) of Pastor (Evangelist) Mark Johnston?

Does anyone know if this guy has like a raspy quality to his voice? If so, I remember him from Jacksonville, NC-- many years ago.

Thank you!

http://www.yourjourney.tv/#/who-we-are/pastors

dunno about how raspy his voice is lately, however.

[Fiyahstarter]

Johnston was/is a very powerful speaker. Trout is from Pentecostal Royalty. The Trout name is huge in the northeast.

The UPCI definitely lost two jewels when they lost AT and MJ. Also, AT's wife sings like an angel...so make that three jewels.

[Charnock]

The latest Forward lists 63 newly licensed ministers.

Unfortunately, it also lists 16 ministers as deceased, and 79 ministers who have written to drop their license.

THIS LIST DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY MINISTERS WHO HAVE LET THEIR DUES LAPSE.

63 added.
95 dropped.

And this does not include those who leave quietly, by not paying their dues. Many men leave this way because they do not want their name published in the "No Longer Affiliated" section.

[pelathais]

The UPCI definitely lost two jewels when they lost AT and MJ. Also, AT's wife sings like an angel...so make that three jewels.

I am saddened a bit. I worked with AT briefly, long ago. I really wish these guys would have stood their ground and fought back against the mean-spirited and unjust attacks they received. Someone needs to stand up to the bullies out on the Apostolic/Pentecostal playground.

... but then again, when push came to shove for me, I was silent as I got shoved around and quietly demurred to the boneheads. In the end, all that will be left of the U.P. of C. will be the boneheads. Unless, those boneheads go out and found another WWPF type thing.

[pelathais]

The latest Forward lists 63 newly licensed ministers.

Unfortunately, it also lists 16 ministers as deceased, and 79 ministers who have written to drop their license.

THIS LIST DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY MINISTERS WHO HAVE LET THEIR DUES LAPSE.

63 added.
95 dropped.

And this does not include those who leave quietly, by not paying their dues. Many men leave this way because they do not want their name published in the "No Longer Affiliated" section.

Is the Froward Magazine still quarterly?

[Fiyahstarter]

Can someone PLEASE post a picture or link to a picture (non-youtube) of Pastor (Evangelist) Mark Johnston?

Does anyone know if this guy has like a raspy quality to his voice? If so, I remember him from Jacksonville, NC-- many years ago.

Thank you!

Jermyn,

I wouldn't say his voice was raspy.

You have to listen fast when Mark Johnston talks! LOL. But my advice is, DO LISTEN FAST because you won't want to miss a word of it. I could listen to his sermons three or four times and probably pick up something I missed each time. They are so packed full!

[Charnock]

Is the Froward Magazine still quarterly?

Every other month.

Truth is, the UPC has less ministers now than it did five years ago.

[pelathais]

Every other month.

Truth is, the UPC has less ministers now than it did five years ago.

I guess Leonard Westberg's "bowel movement" has become more like the runs.

[POWERUP]

I am saddened a bit. I worked with AT briefly, long ago. I really wish these guys would have stood their ground and fought back against the mean-spirited and unjust attacks they received. Someone needs to stand up to the bullies out on the Apostolic/Pentecostal playground.

... but then again, when push came to shove for me, I was silent as I got shoved around and quietly demurred to the boneheads. In the end, all that will be left of the U.P. of C. will be the boneheads. Unless, those boneheads go out and found another WWPF type thing.

Bump:thumbsup

[Fiyahstarter]

I am saddened a bit. I worked with AT briefly, long ago. I really wish these guys would have stood their ground and fought back against the mean-spirited and unjust attacks they received. Someone needs to stand up to the bullies out on the Apostolic/Pentecostal playground.

... but then again, when push came to shove for me, I was silent as I got shoved around and quietly demurred to the boneheads. In the end, all that will be left of the U.P. of C. will be the boneheads. Unless, those boneheads go out and found another WWPF type thing.

I doubt anyone ever bullied AT... LOL.

[Charnock]

I recently let my license drop.

I know of six other ministers whom I am close to in both age and ideology who have done the same.

They're sick of it.

[DAII]

The UPCI definitely lost two jewels when they lost AT and MJ. Also, AT's wife sings like an angel...so make that three jewels.

The Trouts are great people ... saw them from afar at the Global shindig

[DAII]

I recently let my license drop.

I know of six other ministers whom I am close to in both age and ideology who have done the same.

They're sick of it.

I would say those leaving range from 35-45

[Jermyn Davidson]

http://www.yourjourney.tv/#/who-we-are/pastors

dunno about how raspy his voice is lately, however.


Thank you.

This is the man I remember. I was so impressed with the way the Lord used him in our services when he was there. My Pastor at time (Pastor Gilbert) was-- our whole church was!

I think I may have the cassette tape recordings somewhere too (in storage).




Jermyn,

I wouldn't say his voice was raspy.

You have to listen fast when Mark Johnston talks! LOL. But my advice is, DO LISTEN FAST because you won't want to miss a word of it. I could listen to his sermons three or four times and probably pick up something I missed each time. They are so packed full!

Defintely in agreement here!

I remember thinking man this guy is not much older than me and he is such an INTELLIGENT and ANOINTED preacher!

I remember thinking that he had to be special for this young man to be preaching at our church-- Pastor Gilbert was a very special Pastor to me.


It's times like this when my reflections on my time in Jacksonville, NC are so positive. We prayed for Mark Johnston, for him to bring a word from the Lord, before he even showed up. I remember being so glad when he came and wishing that he would stay. Man, there were some really good times in Jacksonville, NC.


That UPCI church in Jacksonville, NC had some AWESOME services-- very powerful moves of God in the lives of so many people there! I'm convinced that the main reason for this is that so many of the people in our church prayed so often.

The UPCI church in Jacksonville, NC was a praying church!

I would listen to then Evangelist Mark Johnston's tapes in my car over and over again when I was stationed at Camp LeJeune.

[DAII]

I got to meet MJ at the Global shindig for the first time ... was surprised he and his wife had been reading some of my rants ...

They are CLASSY folks.

[Jermyn Davidson]

I think I remember giving my Mother his tapes to listen to. She enjoyed listening to him and asked if he was on staff at the church I attended in Jacksonville, NC.

I think she wanted to see if I could ask him to come and preach at my parent's church in MD.

[pelathais]

I doubt anyone ever bullied AT... LOL.

It's not the "In Your Face" type of bullying and intimidation. These "bullies" don't have the guts. Instead, it's the letter writing and campaigns of gossip and character assassination.

Do you think Chester ever had the guts to say what he wrote to KH directly to MJ's face? No. That's not how these guys operate.

That's why I think it would be very beneficial to all if we ALL stood up against these types of attacks. Make them bring it out into the open in a forum where they will be held accountable.

[Charnock]

I predict it won't be long until we hear a conference sermon about "all these emergents leaving the organization." Of course, there will be a lot of glee in the preacher's eyes when he says "Thank God and Greyhound they're gone!"

[aegsm76]

I guess Leonard Westberg's "bowel movement" has become more like the runs.

Pel - I don't think you can hang this one on him. I believe that what he meant to happen with the org was stopped by the way NAU handled the affirmation statement.
I think this goes right back to the TV vote, which so far has appeared to be more of a symbolic vote.
This led to the loss of some far right churches, which then resulted in the entire org moving further to the right. Now you have the reaction from the more left-leaning churches who are not happy.
Sort of an interesting study in group org politics and I would like for someone to complete an in-depth look at it, with some facts and figures.

[GraceAmazing]

Oh. My. Word.

I had heard that these men were leaving...

I remember feeling like we were the only ones leaving back in 2008...I now realize how wrong I was about that feeling! Sad to say, I do think more will leave...

So, I guess my hubby and I should join Global?!?!? That seems to be the place to be if you leave! :D:D:D:D

[Fiyahstarter]

It's not the "In Your Face" type of bullying and intimidation. These "bullies" don't have the guts. Instead, it's the letter writing and campaigns of gossip and character assassination.

Do you think Chester ever had the guts to say what he wrote to KH directly to MJ's face? No. That's not how these guys operate.

That's why I think it would be very beneficial to all if we ALL stood up against these types of attacks. Make them bring it out into the open in a forum where they will be held accountable.

Fight City Hall? Is that considered proper in a religious organization? Especially if the challenges were in areas considered "salvational".

For the record.... I do NOT know why either of these gentlemen left UPC. I didn't even know they had until now...

[Praxeas]

Those "backsliders" with their "filth?"

Why is it ... Why do the radical and "hard-core" standards kind of guys in the UPC and WPF sound more and more like the "Old Steve Winters?" It seems that even Winters finally got tired of that rap and decided to relax and even "rock out" a bit.

... a crazy kind of a bit, but the guy has certainly tamed his vehemence and rhetoric. Now, to hear someone called "filth" you have to go to General Conference or read a WPF website.
Regarding SW, not really Pel. He is just as vitriolic as before

[The Lemon]

Anyone on here that is close to maryland and deleware want to pm me? Would love to chat!!

[Praxeas]

I recently let my license drop.

I know of six other ministers whom I am close to in both age and ideology who have done the same.

They're sick of it.
Can you explain "sick of it"? What exactly is causing you guys to let your license drop

[Praxeas]

BTW is Richard Gazowsky still licensed?

[Socialite]

The last BOTT I attended MJ preached a fine message about Jesus. In fact I was beginning to regret attending the conference until that message. I knew God sent me there to specifically hear that Word from the Lord. I was dumbstruck that people were offended at the message. The sermon basically said that Jesus was what this is all about. That people "would see Jesus". That the only people who got in the way of people who wanted to see Jesus were the Pharisees. MJ preached if we want people to see Jesus we have to fight against a Pharisee spirit. I was in complete agreement. I was convicted to fight the Pharisee in me. I believe all people of faith have the potential to become religious, self-righteous, steeped in tradition, hypocritical Pharisees. I took the message personal and embraced its truth. Others evidently took it personal and were offended. It was the beginning of the crucifixion of MJ.

Funny thing. You would think the "Jesus Only" people, the "people of the Name", the people with the great revelation of who Jesus is would rejoice at such a message. But I guess the Pharisee part hit a little close to home for some and they didn't like the reflection in the looking glass of the Word. They decided to forget what manner of man they saw in that reflection.

And, as history bears out millions of times before, the messenger is targeted, despised, marginalized, defamed, deemed dangerous and toxic. Strange that preaching Jesus, the blood and the cross makes someone a pariah. Preach anything, but don't preach Jesus! There's no other choice. Preach for the praise of men or preach for the applause of heaven.

Burning at the stake, hanging, drowning, firing squad, excommunication, kicked out, pressured out, starved out, crucified, whatever---the end result is the same. The Machine will destroy you. Okay a little dramatic, but you get the picture. MJ will do fine. He's a good man and will keep preaching Jesus. A good church will continue to move forward.

For those of you that want to preach Jesus for those who would see Jesus, keep on keepin on. But be warned, hell takes notice of the Jesus Preachers. Be vigilant, be alert. But take heart: the gates of hell will not prevail.

I remember that message. Stirring!!!!

MJ went out with a bang... this prime-time message, and then the General Conference "I'd Rather Be a Hero (to one) Than a Celebrity (to thousands)."

[Socialite]

BTW is Richard Gazowsky still licensed?

:slaphappy

[CC1]

http://www.yourjourney.tv/#/who-we-are/pastors

dunno about how raspy his voice is lately, however.

I watched the commercial for "The Journey" and am not surprsed these guys are leaving the UPC. Nothing I saw in that video "looked" UPC and in the Mothership looks are a huge part.

It is interesting how hard it is for most traditional Oneness Pentecostals to even consider a different paradigm of church than church as something you dress up to the hilt for.

I had this discussion with a UPC relative a few months ago. She thinks it is terrible that a Preacher would preach without a suit and people would go to church dressed casually. She honestly sees it as disrespect to God. Believes the old mantra that you must dress up for church to "offer God your best",etc,etc.

I tried to explain to her that these people were not disrespecting God but looked at their relationship with him as more friend than someone you had to dress up for to impress.

[pelathais]

Pel - I don't think you can hang this one on him. I believe that what he meant to happen with the org was stopped by the way NAU handled the affirmation statement.
I think this goes right back to the TV vote, which so far has appeared to be more of a symbolic vote.
This led to the loss of some far right churches, which then resulted in the entire org moving further to the right. Now you have the reaction from the more left-leaning churches who are not happy.
Sort of an interesting study in group org politics and I would like for someone to complete an in-depth look at it, with some facts and figures.

Yes, while I agree (I think we agree) and I don't think the events under discussion are directly related at all to the 1992 resolution brouhaha; the spirits and the attitudes do resemble one another, IMHO anyway.

When I heard Bro. Westberg say that, it wasn't just in the context of the '92 resolution, though it was just before that conference. It was said in the context of of ... and you other guys that are lurking, maybe you can help me out ... but the context was, "Every movement needs to have a bowel movement every now and then..."

This attitude just strikes me as being emblematic of the whole mentality behind the radicals in the UPC/Apostolic movement. CW's open letter condemning his "neighbor" MJ can be seen in the same light.

[pelathais]

BTW is Richard Gazowsky still licensed?

I heard he was "certified."



:highfive

[DAII]

I remember that message. Stirring!!!!

MJ went out with a bang... this prime-time message, and then the General Conference "I'd Rather Be a Hero (to one) Than a Celebrity (to thousands)."
Dude's my hero!

[Socialite]

Of course MJ was the scapegoat for many WPF preachers, who scoffed at the UPC for what they considered "their future posterboys." So they rolled out their campaign song, "A Preferred Apostolic Future."

[DAII]

Of course MJ was the scapegoat for many WPF preachers, who scoffed at the UPC for what they considered "their future posterboys." So they rolled out their campaign song, "A Preferred Apostolic Future."

E Tu Chester?

[*AQuietPlace*]

I recently let my license drop.

I know of six other ministers whom I am close to in both age and ideology who have done the same.

They're sick of it.
Sick of what?

[pelathais]

I watched the commercial for "The Journey" and am not surprsed these guys are leaving the UPC. Nothing I saw in that video "looked" UPC and in the Mothership looks are a huge part.

It is interesting how hard it is for most traditional Oneness Pentecostals to even consider a different paradigm of church than church as something you dress up to the hilt for.

I had this discussion with a UPC relative a few months ago. She thinks it is terrible that a Preacher would preach without a suit and people would go to church dressed casually. She honestly sees it as disrespect to God. Believes the old mantra that you must dress up for church to "offer God your best",etc,etc.

I tried to explain to her that these people were not disrespecting God but looked at their relationship with him as more friend than someone you had to dress up for to impress.

It always struck me as being something of a holdover from when we were "on the wrong side of the tracks." I heard a lot of sermons about how "Pentecost has arrived!" when I was young. We were "respectable people" now.

I also remember Denver Stanford preaching at GC once (early '80s?). He repeatedly emphasized a point about a conversation he had with someone "on the streets" of Boston. Some guy evidently had approached him while he was handing out tracts, read the word "Pentecostal" and commented on the fact that Bro. Stanford "didn't look like one of those."

Bro. Stanford said in his sermon, "I had a shine on my shoes and a crease in trousers and he said, 'You don't look the part (Pentecost).'" This was in the era when a preacher who wanted to "really show what God could do" would leave the farm and move to the big city and win souls.

It was nice that these guys left the farm and all to win souls. It's just rather trite of the movement to get the "crease in my trousers" stuck in its craw.

*** AND - I don't mean to tie the good brother DS (named above) to any ornery opinions and the like. It's just his sermon at GC (along with the success he was blessed with at the time) seemed to somehow sum up a certain feeling that we all seemed to have at the time.

[mizpeh]

I recently let my license drop.

I know of six other ministers whom I am close to in both age and ideology who have done the same.

They're sick of it.What are you sick of?

[Truthseeker]

Sick of what?

Maybe sick of not being able to wear trendy t shirts with jeans that have holes at the knees to church???:happydance

[mizpeh]

Maybe he is sick of this:

"On the other hand there is that sectarianism that is concerned with purity of doctrine and practice as a condition of community to such a degree that division of community inevitably ensues like the cells of a developing embryo. The most delightful literary description of this sectarianism that I’ve come across is found in Garrison Keillor’s fictional narrative Lake Wobegon Days where the narrator recalls the history of his Brethren tradition. The following passage is drawn from pages 155-6:"

We were “exclusive” Brethren, a branch that believed in keeping itself pure of false doctrine by avoiding association with the impure. Some Brethren assemblies, mostly in larger cities, were not so strict and broke bread with strangers—we referred to them as “the so-called Open Brethren,” the “so-called” implying the shakiness of their position—whereas we made sure that any who fellowshipped with us were straight on all the details of the Faith, as set forth by the first Brethren who left the Anglican Church in 1865 to worship on the basis of correct principles. In the same year, they posed for a photograph: twenty-one bearded gentlemen in black frock coats, twelve sitting on a stone wall, nine standing behind, gazing solemnly into a sunny day in Plymouth, England, united in their opposition to the pomp and corruption of the Christian aristocracy.

Unfortunately, once free of the worldly Anglicans, these firebrands were not content to worship in peace but turned their guns on each other. Scholarly to the core and perfect literalists every one, they set to arguing over points that, to any outsider, would have seemed very minor indeed but which to them were crucial to the Faith, including the question: if Believer A is associated with Believer B who has somehow associated himself with C who holds a False Doctrine, must D break off association with A, even though A does not hold the Doctrine, to avoid the taint?

The correct answer is: Yes. Some Brethren, however, felt that D should only speak with A and urge him to break off with B. The Brethren who felt otherwise promptly broke off with them. This was the Bedford Question, one of several controversies that, inside of two years, split the Brethren into three branches.

Once having tasted the pleasure of being Correct and defending True Doctrine, they kept right on and broke up at every opportunity, until by the time I came along, there were dozens of tiny Brethren groups, none of which were speaking to any of the others. http://randalrauser.com/2011/01/keep-your-eye-on-those-so-called-christians-down-the-block/

[pelathais]

Maybe sick of not being able to wear trendy t shirts with jeans that have holes at the knees to church???:happydance

Charizard strikes me more as the type to wear neoprene hip-waders to church instead of torn jeans.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Maybe he is sick of this:

"On the other hand there is that sectarianism that is concerned with purity of doctrine and practice as a condition of community to such a degree that division of community inevitably ensues like the cells of a developing embryo. The most delightful literary description of this sectarianism that I’ve come across is found in Garrison Keillor’s fictional narrative Lake Wobegon Days where the narrator recalls the history of his Brethren tradition. The following passage is drawn from pages 155-6:"

http://randalrauser.com/2011/01/keep-your-eye-on-those-so-called-christians-down-the-block/
Wow.

Just wow.

[pelathais]

Maybe he is sick of this:

"On the other hand there is that sectarianism that is concerned with purity of doctrine and practice as a condition of community to such a degree that division of community inevitably ensues like the cells of a developing embryo. The most delightful literary description of this sectarianism that I’ve come across is found in Garrison Keillor’s fictional narrative Lake Wobegon Days where the narrator recalls the history of his Brethren tradition. The following passage is drawn from pages 155-6:"

http://randalrauser.com/2011/01/keep-your-eye-on-those-so-called-christians-down-the-block/

It is worth pointing out that much of our theology, especially our Dispensational eschatology, comes to us from the Brethren Movement.

[pelathais]

Wow.

Just wow.

You said it. Of course Mizzie said it first, but she's not talking to me due to some taint I bear so it is with your "Wow" that I must converse.

[mizpeh]

It is worth pointing out that much of our theology, especially our Dispensational eschatology, comes to us from the Brethren Movement. Good to know, Pel. Do you suppose there is a correlation between sectarianism and dispensational eschatology?

[Sabby]

The last BOTT I attended MJ preached a fine message about Jesus. In fact I was beginning to regret attending the conference until that message. I knew God sent me there to specifically hear that Word from the Lord. I was dumbstruck that people were offended at the message. The sermon basically said that Jesus was what this is all about. That people "would see Jesus". That the only people who got in the way of people who wanted to see Jesus were the Pharisees. MJ preached if we want people to see Jesus we have to fight against a Pharisee spirit. I was in complete agreement. I was convicted to fight the Pharisee in me. I believe all people of faith have the potential to become religious, self-righteous, steeped in tradition, hypocritical Pharisees. I took the message personal and embraced its truth. Others evidently took it personal and were offended. It was the beginning of the crucifixion of MJ.

Funny thing. You would think the "Jesus Only" people, the "people of the Name", the people with the great revelation of who Jesus is would rejoice at such a message. But I guess the Pharisee part hit a little close to home for some and they didn't like the reflection in the looking glass of the Word. They decided to forget what manner of man they saw in that reflection.

And, as history bears out millions of times before, the messenger is targeted, despised, marginalized, defamed, deemed dangerous and toxic. Strange that preaching Jesus, the blood and the cross makes someone a pariah. Preach anything, but don't preach Jesus! There's no other choice. Preach for the praise of men or preach for the applause of heaven.

Burning at the stake, hanging, drowning, firing squad, excommunication, kicked out, pressured out, starved out, crucified, whatever---the end result is the same. The Machine will destroy you. Okay a little dramatic, but you get the picture. MJ will do fine. He's a good man and will keep preaching Jesus. A good church will continue to move forward.

For those of you that want to preach Jesus for those who would see Jesus, keep on keepin on. But be warned, hell takes notice of the Jesus Preachers. Be vigilant, be alert. But take heart: the gates of hell will not prevail.

Praise GOD for this word, brother.

[Charnock]

I recently let my license drop.

I know of six other ministers whom I am close to in both age and ideology who have done the same.

They're sick of it.

Can you explain "sick of it"? What exactly is causing you guys to let your license drop

Sick of what?

What are you sick of?

Hypocrisy.
Politics.
False doctrine.
Legalism.
Hatefulness.
Religious Pride.

[BeenThinkin]

Hypocrisy.
Politics.
False doctrine.
Legalism.
Hatefulness.
Religious Pride.

Is that all? .... (Yep, been there, done that and have the Tee shirt to boot, but it's short sleeve so I can't wear it to Gen Conf. if I was of the mind to go! NOT! :heeheehee

Been Thinkin

[mizpeh]

Hypocrisy.
Politics.
False doctrine.
Legalism.
Hatefulness.
Religious Pride.

What did you think of BOTT?

[Charnock]

What did you think of BOTT?

Overall, it was very good.

Mike Williams message was my favorite, but Mark Morgan was very good as well.

DKB used the term Apostolic Identity no less than three times in his fifteen minute message, and Jeff Arnold couldn't stop using words like poop and bastard, not to mention insulting everyone from the host pastor to the politicos in attendance.

Other than that, I enjoyed the experience.

[pelathais]

Good to know, Pel. Do you suppose there is a correlation between sectarianism and dispensational eschatology?

Definitely. Just look at the UPC. How did they respond when faced with an apparently "competing" eschatology (Partial Preterism)? They immediately divided and kicked out the PP's.

Tim LaHaye is perhaps the one most responsible for popularizing Dispensationalism in recent years. Read his earlier books, "The Battle for the Mind" and "The Battle for the Bible." He draws some very exclusivistic boxes around what he thinks is "correct" belief and "incorrect" beliefs.

Dispensationalism depends upon a very literal interpretation of the entire Bible. Dwight Pentecost's book "Things to Come" - which was used as a prophecy text in most UPC Bible Colleges at one time or the other - emphasizes the need for a consistent literal interpretation.

Every disagreement about obviously symbolic passages, disagreements about the meanings of symbols used in "literal" passages, the constant frustration in attempting to reconcile dates and chronologies... it all leads to innumerable divisions whenever one side or the other claims that "God told me so..."

[BeenThinkin]

Overall, it was very good.

Mike Williams message was my favorite, but Mark Morgan was very good as well.

DKB used the term Apostolic Identity no less than three times in his fifteen minute message, and Jeff Arnold couldn't stop using words like poop and bastard, not to mention insulting everyone from the host pastor to the politicos in attendance.

Other than that, I enjoyed the experience.

Jeff Arnold needs to go back to doing magic tricks..... he wasn't as insulting when he was doing that! Oh, wait! Maybe he was!

Been Thinkin

[pelathais]

Jeff Arnold needs to go back to doing magic tricks..... he wasn't as insulting when he was doing that! Oh, wait! Maybe he was!

Been Thinkin

Hah! You are a brother if you were around that long ago.

[BeenThinkin]

Hah! You are a brother if you were around that long ago.

Yep! He made a fool out of me one day.....moving around dots on a card! I suddenly thought I had it figured out and he acted like I had and then made a fool out of me in front of everyone! So come to think about it.... he was a smartaleck even then! lol

BT

[DAII]

Hypocrisy.
Politics.
False doctrine.
Legalism.
Hatefulness.
Religious Pride.

Your bitter and have an agenda

[Jason B]

Your bitter and have an agenda

And a compromiser with a charismatic cherry on top ;)

[scotty]

And a compromiser with a hairy charismatic cherry on top ;)
.

[Jason B]

The latest Forward lists 63 newly licensed ministers.

Unfortunately, it also lists 16 ministers as deceased, and 79 ministers who have written to drop their license.

THIS LIST DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY MINISTERS WHO HAVE LET THEIR DUES LAPSE.

63 added.
95 dropped.
And this does not include those who leave quietly, by not paying their dues. Many men leave this way because they do not want their name published in the "No Longer Affiliated" section.
:eek:

[aegsm76]

Hypocrisy.
Politics.
False doctrine.
Legalism.
Hatefulness.
Religious Pride.

I don't like these either.
I think you can find these in any religious organization.
And if we are truthful, we can find these, sometimes, when we look in the mirror.
Truth be told, I've found these more in GIB's than in the organizations.

[Dagwood]

Praise GOD for this word, brother.

Deacon Blues' steel sharpens my steel, for sure!:thumbsup

[deacon blues]

From a Biblical standpoint, is this correct? I'm not at home to do any research, but it seems like all of the religious groups were at fault. I know we like to target the Pharisees, but seems like the other groups were just as much as fault as well.

Well, I feel like the point he was making was that the Pharisees juxtaposed to Jesus created a contrast. The Pharisees were supposed to represent the way to God as leaders of Judaism. Jesus became the way to God.

[deacon blues]

Well...I was actually alluding to MJ on one of my posts this morning. That being two prominent pastors in the state next to me (Deleware) had pulled out. I'm not into name dropping...but since the cat is out of the bag...Anthony Trout was on that list as well and his church is huge in Dover, and his dad is huge in the Delaware district.

I both know and have heard MJ preach, he is amazing and not only zealous for God but has a tremendous passion for people. I have not heard him for awhile now, but I would imagine him being the same way.

From what I see, they are loosing younger preachers like a cut jugular. The sad part is I don't believe it has to be this way.

There will always be a UPC I think. There will be enough young men and women to fuel the future. Perhaps they will stagnate in growth, perhaps its already here. I really don't know the raw numbers. A General Board member told me several years ago the preachers under the age of 30 numbered less than 600. The peak for the UPC was probably the 70s and 80s.

[brianmidwest]

Maybe they (those dropping out of the UPC) will form a loose alliance, then Keith will have a place to belong. :)

We do have a place to belong. It's called the church. Any of the rest is extra at best, hinderance at worst. Very sad.

[Carpenter]

Yep! He made a fool out of me one day.....moving around dots on a card! I suddenly thought I had it figured out and he acted like I had and then made a fool out of me in front of everyone! So come to think about it.... he was a smartaleck even then! lol

BT

He was here in the big city preaching Times of Refreshing...I called it times of depressing or oppressing...but I digress...and folks made excuses that he had a late flight yada yada yada, but there he was using all those funny little enduring phrases like "idiots who let faggots in the White House..." amen. :D

[Carpenter]

Hey...the youngsters love all the emotional belonging stuff, change happens when they mature and begin to realize that real life isn't a pew jumping exhausting parade... When the UPC sucks the idealism out of folks, they are more than willing to bolt.

[brianmidwest]

When an organization's main purpose becomes growing the organization, it will eventually see it's end.

We need a leadership points to the Savior, not a HQ.

[revrandy]

I'm staying the UPC... for now...

I still think the good outweighs the bad...

Mark Johnston...and those guys made their choices...

[Trouvere]

Mark who????
take note.....some of us don't pay any attention to who is who in Apostolic circles we just work for Jesus and are too busy to care........can I get an Amen from all of you out there who are so busy you barely have time to get online any more at all?????

[Withdrawn]

I've been out of UPCI for about 4 years now, never was licensed. But I can assure you that this post was the saddest and closest to home that I've read in a long time! Thank you, Mizpeh!

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1019562&postcount=64

If this doesn't describe not only the UPCI, but the OP movement as a whole, I just don't know what does. Let's get back to the basics, folks. And by "basics," I don't mean all the stuff we add to the gospel.

Jesus said, "Go make disciples." He didn't say make converts and indoctrinate them with the dogma and tradition of our sect.

[Socialite]

I've been out of UPCI for about 4 years now, never was licensed. But I can assure you that this post was the saddest and closest to home that I've read in a long time! Thank you, Mizpeh!

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1019562&postcount=64

If this doesn't describe not only the UPCI, but the OP movement as a whole, I just don't know what does. Let's get back to the basics, folks. And by "basics," I don't mean all the stuff we add to the gospel.

Jesus said, "Go make disciples." He didn't say make converts and indoctrinate them with the dogma and tradition of our sect.

:shockamoo

[Hoovie]

I've been out of UPCI for about 4 years now, never was licensed. But I can assure you that this post was the saddest and closest to home that I've read in a long time! Thank you, Mizpeh!

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1019562&postcount=64

If this doesn't describe not only the UPCI, but the OP movement as a whole, I just don't know what does. Let's get back to the basics, folks. And by "basics," I don't mean all the stuff we add to the gospel.

Jesus said, "Go make disciples." He didn't say make converts and indoctrinate them with the dogma and tradition of our sect.

Amen. I feel the same and also used Garrison Keillor recently to make that point...

[Jack Shephard]

When an organization's main purpose becomes growing the organization, it will eventually see it's end.

We need a leadership points to the Savior, not a HQ.

Wait....you mean the Savior's foot stool isn't in MO?

[mizpeh]

I'm staying the UPC... for now...

I still think the good outweighs the bad...

Mark Johnston...and those guys made their choices...Did you forget to add, " ...and God bless them, prosper them, and lead and guide them into all truth."?

[Socialite]

Did you forget to add, " ...and God bless them, prosper them, and lead and guide them into all truth."?

:lol

[CC1]

According to some of the comments on a Mark Johnston youtube video, He's been out of the UPC for a few months:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt2bAW4ZwLw

"He is not UPCI anymore....he has totally went off the deep end and has no doctrinal stance based on his website.....
Drew2Cute 3 months ago"

"..is he still with UPCI..? I'm asking as I'm unable to locate him in the UPCI Church Locator.
YoMamaWearzArmyBootz 4 months ago

I hear great things about MJ but if this video clip is his usual speaking style I would last about 5 minutes in a service with him preaching. What is it with the screaming? Why do preachers think they have to do that to be powerful and effective or "annointed"? Arghhhh!!!!!

[notofworks]

I hear great things about MJ but if this video clip is his usual speaking style I would last about 5 minutes in a service with him preaching. What is it with the screaming? Why do preachers think they have to do that to be powerful and effective or "annointed"? Arghhhh!!!!!


How thankful I am that I was delivered from doing this!! :shockamoo

One of the funniest things to do would be to stand up in front of our church and preach like this. They would look at me as if I were from Mars.

[ReformedDave]

How thankful I am that I was delivered from doing this!! :shockamoo

One of the funniest things to do would be to stand up in front of our church and preach like this. They would look at me as if I were from Mars.

:thumbsup

[mfblume]

:thumbsup

:thumbsup

[*AQuietPlace*]

How thankful I am that I was delivered from doing this!! :shockamoo

One of the funniest things to do would be to stand up in front of our church and preach like this. They would look at me as if I were from Mars.
They might just think you'd drank your 5 hour energy that morning. ;)

[CC1]

How thankful I am that I was delivered from doing this!! :shockamoo

One of the funniest things to do would be to stand up in front of our church and preach like this. They would look at me as if I were from Mars.

I think 99.9% of people in general would look at you that way if you did that!

Perhaps being untethered from the Mothership will help MJ understand his preaching doesn't have to be performance based or done for response. Results is much better than response!

[papapraiz]

I hear great things about MJ but if this video clip is his usual speaking style I would last about 5 minutes in a service with him preaching. What is it with the screaming? Why do preachers think they have to do that to be powerful and effective or "annointed"? Arghhhh!!!!!

I am pretty sure MJ has changed his preaching style ... actually, he told me personally that he had changed preaching styles. Listening to his podcast on the church website confirm this ... cc1 you would be right at home. :spit

[CC1]

I am pretty sure MJ has changed his preaching style ... actually, he told me personally that he had changed preaching styles. Listening to his podcast on the church website confirm this ... cc1 you would be right at home. :spit

And his old UPC fans will probably be very sad as they will think this means he has lost his "annointing" (I mean we all know the louder you preach the more annointed you are!):happydance

[Falla39]

and his old upc fans will probably be very sad as they will think this means he has lost his "annointing" (i mean we all know the louder you preach the more annointed you are!):happydance

Not!!

[CC1]

[/b]

Not!!

LOL!!! I have a relative who is a UPC preacher. He is one of the finest men I have ever met. I have known him since he was just out of his teens. In person he is one of the most mild mannered easy going people you will ever meet.

Somehow I had managed to never hear him preach over the 15+ years he had been in the family then a few years ago that opportunity came up. Another relative came up to me and said "I have to warn you that not only is he a screamer but he doesn't even build up to it - he is hollaring from the first sentance of his sermon!". I was pretty surprised and thankful for the warning. Sure enough he came out of the gate screaming from the first word and ended the same way!

I have no doubt his preaching style is a result of the mentors he was around during the formative years of his ministry. He is not doing it for show, etc.

[deacon blues]

"Anointed"

[canam]

[/b]

Not!!

Im fond of saying he done stopped preachin and gone to screechin !That is why i like the Bookers,Alvears,Coons, styles, for the most part .Raise your voice to make a point, drop to almost a whisper, it forces you to listen up.

[crakjak]

I think 99.9% of people in general would look at you that way if you did that!

Perhaps being untethered from the Mothership will help MJ understand his preaching doesn't have to be performance based or done for response. Results is much better than response!

I remember when I was so desperate for spiritual excitment that this type preaching was ah...exciting. But now, I keep trying to catch the meat and heart of it, then it is over leaving me grasping!!!

Don't know MJ, maybe video is from "...a place far, far away...a long, long time ago..."

[Socialite]

I don't mind (sometimes) the preaching rhetoric that has been created by the Christian sub-culture, that includes cadence in the voice. There's definitely a time and place for that :)

[Falla39]

LOL!!! I have a relative who is a UPC preacher. He is one of the finest men I have ever met. I have known him since he was just out of his teens. In person he is one of the most mild mannered easy going people you will ever meet.

Somehow I had managed to never hear him preach over the 15+ years he had been in the family then a few years ago that opportunity came up. Another relative came up to me and said "I have to warn you that not only is he a screamer but he doesn't even build up to it - he is hollaring from the first sentance of his sermon!". I was pretty surprised and thankful for the warning. Sure enough he came out of the gate screaming from the first word and ended the same way!

I have no doubt his preaching style is a result of the mentors he was around during the formative years of his ministry. He is not doing it for show, etc.

LOUD does not equal anointing! I want to hear what is said. Some seem to think that if you're not responding loudly to
their loud preaching, you're not WITH them or your getting TOO quite. If they've got something to say, I want to HEAR
it! If listening (quietly) hinders what a preacher has to say, it might be the anointing is missing. That might cause him/her
to feel inadequate! If the anointing of the LORD is there, there should be no need to feel inadequate, lacking or otherwise, just because people are listening quitely.

I remember a night, many years ago, our late pastor father called the church to prayer. He said, "In fact, that might be all we do tonight is have a good prayer meeting". In the midst of the prayer meeting, his backslidden son slipped in the door and came to the alter, knelt down and wept his way back to God. Our father and mother had wept and prayed for this brother, who was not living at home, single. He had become involved with friends, etc., that had not influenced him for good.

Just prior to our brother walking in the door, while down praying, another brother spoke and said, "That which you have prayed for, is nigh, even at the door! The door opened and in walked our brother who came and knelt at the alter.

Don't tell me it is all in a loud shout, loud speaking, or even talent! THE ANOINTING still breaks the yoke of bondage! Sincere, honest prayer is sorely needed today.

Falla39

[NorCal]

The only thing you can Preach is "The Gospel" unto the sinners. Everything else should be Teaching to the Saints. If you are not Preaching Salvation unto repentance, then slow down and teach the saints. Anointed teaching is better then "Preaching to the Choir".

[canam]

LOUD does not equal anointing! I want to hear what is said. Some seem to think that if you're not responding loudly to
their loud preaching, you're not WITH them or your getting TOO quite. If they've got something to say, I want to HEAR
it! If listening (quietly) hinders what a preacher has to say, it might be the anointing is missing. That might cause him/her
to feel inadequate! If the anointing of the LORD is there, there should be no need to feel inadequate, lacking or otherwise, just because people are listening quitely.

I remember a night, many years ago, our late pastor father called the church to prayer. He said, "In fact, that might be all we do tonight is have a good prayer meeting". In the midst of the prayer meeting, his backslidden son slipped in the door and came to the alter, knelt down and wept his way back to God. Our father and mother had wept and prayed for this brother, who was not living at home, single. He had become involved with friends, etc., that had not influenced him for good.

Just prior to our brother walking in the door, while down praying, another brother spoke and said, "That which you have prayed for, is nigh, even at the door! The door opened and in walked our brother who came and knelt at the alter.

Don't tell me it is all in a loud shout, loud speaking, or even talent! THE ANOINTING still breaks the yoke of bondage! Sincere, honest prayer is sorely needed today.

Falla39

PS how did i forget Bro Holmes :) Ill think of others !

[Falla39]

Bro. Holmes??

[Jay]

I enjoy listening to Bros. Booker and Coon as they preach and teach. I have heard Bro. Booker get excited and get to preaching with great energy. ;)

My Pastor, who is also my father, does not does not raise his voice very often in his preaching, and not like some of the others, but he has the same anointing as those who do. There have been times when he has called out sin that there was no way that he could have known, or he has addressed issues that only the church he was in knew. There are many types and styles of teaching and preaching, and it takes all of them to make it.

[Jay]

I am very sad to see that Bro. Johnston has gone the way that he did. One of the last Youth Camps that I attended had him as the evening preacher. I still have somewhere the messages that he preached. I then heard him at the '07 conference and took much of what he had to say to heart. I must say that I feel that he has gone a long way from the anointing that he once had.

The UPCI is not moving quickly enough in the direction that many of the hard left in it desired to go. This could be why a number of them are also leaving. The leadership under Bro. Haney started to emphasize the standards after the vote, and the drift (while not checked) was slowed. I would imagine that one day the more moderate of the liberals that left will rejoin the UPC once it has drifted out to where they are more comfortable with it.

[canam]

Bro. Holmes??

Joel Holmes the one and only, one of the best !

[CC1]

I am very sad to see that Bro. Johnston has gone the way that he did. One of the last Youth Camps that I attended had him as the evening preacher. I still have somewhere the messages that he preached. I then heard him at the '07 conference and took much of what he had to say to heart. I must say that I feel that he has gone a long way from the anointing that he once had.

The UPCI is not moving quickly enough in the direction that many of the hard left in it desired to go. This could be why a number of them are also leaving. The leadership under Bro. Haney started to emphasize the standards after the vote, and the drift (while not checked) was slowed. I would imagine that one day the more moderate of the liberals that left will rejoin the UPC once it has drifted out to where they are more comfortable with it.

How in the world would you "feel he has gone a long way from the annointing he once had"?????

That is a very presumptive statement. Has he lost his annointing just because he has left the UPC? By the word "feel" I assume you mean "think" and I am just trying to figure out how you would have enough knowledge to come to that conclusion.

[Falla39]

Joel Holmes the one and only, one of the best !

I guess I was wondering how my post had anything to do with Bro. Holmes!

See Post #115

Falla39

[CC1]

I guess I was wondering how my post had anything to do with Bro. Holmes!

See Post #115

Falla39

Plus to my knowledge Joel Holmes has never been UPC so why would his name even come up in this thread? LOL.

[canam]

Oh whaaat evaa ! picky picky ,someone mentioned screamers,nothing about orgs. i mentioned non screamers ,nothing about orgs.chillax people !

[Jay]

I said what I did because I watched him preach with power and fervency. What I saw when I went to his website broke my heart, for it was apparent that he no longer held what he once had. I do not know anything about the interior of his church, nor what it looks like, nor anything about his people, but I can see where he has gone by looking at what he has become. However, I would like to see pictures or something so that I could catch a glimpse of his church services.

As I said, what I saw broke my heart. I have to wonder if he has followed after some of the other patterns the "church" world is setting as well.

[Praxeas]

I said what I did because I watched him preach with power and fervency. What I saw when I went to his website broke my heart, for it was apparent that he no longer held what he once had. I do not know anything about the interior of his church, nor what it looks like, nor anything about his people, but I can see where he has gone by looking at what he has become. However, I would like to see pictures or something so that I could catch a glimpse of his church services.

As I said, what I saw broke my heart. I have to wonder if he has followed after some of the other patterns the "church" world is setting as well.
Please describe what you saw

[Socialite]

I said what I did because I watched him preach with power and fervency. What I saw when I went to his website broke my heart, for it was apparent that he no longer held what he once had. I do not know anything about the interior of his church, nor what it looks like, nor anything about his people, but I can see where he has gone by looking at what he has become. However, I would like to see pictures or something so that I could catch a glimpse of his church services.

As I said, what I saw broke my heart. I have to wonder if he has followed after some of the other patterns the "church" world is setting as well.

Was it his beard? His wife's attire? Because those things are soooooo telling :)

I jest. But I can't be sure who the "church world" is that you refer to, nor do I know what you saw that concerned you so much.

All that I know of MJ today is great and wonderful things.

[Jay]

I do not know anything about his wife and her manner of clothing and/or adorning herself. But when I studied the website, I saw nothing that advocated any form of doctrine; there was little or nothing of substance in the way of a statement of faith or belief. Further, I have been wrestling with the topic of beards and mustaches, but I did not feel that his helped to mark him as being separate from the world or the things therein. Further, I heard no passion or caring in his voice. I felt as if I were watching another cookie cutter mega-church style pastor. The type that will say only good things and not name a single sin, whose churches fill, but whose people never leave behind most of their sins.

I also looked at his blog area, and never once did I see anything that spoke of the amazing transformational power of the Holy Ghost or the Name of Jesus. I saw nothing that would ever mark him as being anything more than a Rick Warren style minister.

He spoke of joining him upon a journey, but he never truly said as to where nor what the ultimate goal of the journey was. Many are the people who journey on this road, but only a few people are going to make it to Heaven which is to be the final goal.

I have written none of these things to be harsh and mean spirited, and I hope that I have not come across so. I remember him as a man who while preaching had a passion and fire for the things of God. I see him again preaching with eyes that would flash under the power of God. You would feel as if he knew exactly where you were, and had a message straight from Heaven itself. It is this that I no longer see.

Not all preachers have that, but I thank God for all of them in their sundry gifts. If I remember correctly, it was after his message in 2007 that God explicitly told me what it was that he wanted me to do and made His will known to me.

These are the things that I no longer perceived, and if that is not what you want, I understand. But it will be those very things that I shall mourn now as lost from among the people.

[mfblume]

Further, I have been wrestling with the topic of beards and mustaches, but I did not feel that his helped to mark him as being separate from the world or the things therein.

I found it to be an erring notion that our appearance and the way we dress is intended by God to mark us as separate from the world. If you think about it, no where in the entire bible is appearance designated to indicate we are distinct from the world. That is a man-made tradition that has somehow become scripture when it is not even in the scripture.

Jesus said our love for one another is what tells the world we are his disciples, not the way we look. To me, it's just like the Roman Catholic Church's emphasis on prayers to Mary to think that the way we dress shows the world who we are. It's not in the bible.

[NorCal]

I found it to be an erring notion that our appearance and the way we dress is intended by God to mark us as separate from the world. If you think about it, no where in the entire bible is appearance designated to indicate we are distinct from the world. That is a man-made tradition that has somehow become scripture when it is not even in the scripture.

Jesus said our love for one another is what tells the world we are his disciples, not the way we look. To me, it's just like the Roman Catholic Church's emphasis on prayers to Mary to think that the way we dress shows the world who we are. It's not in the bible.

Modesty is biblical. Specific standards of modesty are not. The only distinction that should be made (biblically) is between the sexes.

[aegsm76]

Modesty is biblical. Specific standards of modesty are not. The only distinction that should be made (biblically) is between the sexes.

Tell that to the Apostle Paul.

[NorCal]

Tell that to the Apostle Paul.

LOL, Pretty vague there.

Paul said : 1 Timothy 2:9—In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

So where is the SPECIFIC Standard of Modest Dress? He just said Modest Apparel.

[mfblume]

Modesty is biblical. Specific standards of modesty are not. The only distinction that should be made (biblically) is between the sexes.

Agreed. But it is never said to show Christians are distinct from the world. That is my point.

[NorCal]

Agreed. But it is never said to show Christians are distinct from the world. That is my point.

Other then a Godly woman would not wear "that which pertaineth unto a man".

[Socialite]

Other then a Godly woman would not wear "that which pertaineth unto a man".

Yes, let's talk Deuteronomy shall we.... have a few hours? :)

Also, would love to see you post a photo of yourself wearing some women's pants.

[mfblume]

Other then a Godly woman would not wear "that which pertaineth unto a man".

The bible still does not say that this detail is mean to distinguish a christian from the world. Where are the words in passages associated with appearance similar to "By this shall all men know you are my disciples"?

[faithit166]

Other then a Godly woman would not wear "that which pertaineth unto a man".

amen morcal,

[mfblume]

amen morcal,

Wrong. No scripture says modest dress or engendered dress shows the world we are Christians. Where do you guys get this from? The bible says men look like men and women look like women and everyone be modest. BUT NOT TO LET THE WORLD KNOW WE'RE SAVED. Just for good old sensibility's and goodness' sake!

[Pressing-On]

Agreed. But it is never said to show Christians are distinct from the world. That is my point.

I think that you said you view the passage in I Corinthians 11 as wearing a veil. Isn't that a distinction between the church and the world?

[mfblume]

I think that you said you view the passage in I Corinthians 11 as wearing a veil. Isn't that a distinction between the church and the world?

I see this as a veil, but that is a cultural thing and veils were common and still are among muslims, etc. It is an eastern thing, not a Christian thing, really. Today in our culture, veils do not make someone think of submission of the woman, So it is moot here in our part of the world. Paul appealed to them to abide by things that the world abode by. It was shocking to the world to see women unveiled since the world even did that! lol

But no where does the bible say to dress a way to appeal to the world to show them we are Christians. That is my point. Doing something the bible said does not mean it is for the world to know we are Christians. There are other reasons than for the world to know we are saved. Somehow this idea was added to the bible that these things tell the world we are saved, when that is not their purposes. ONLY LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER is meant to show the world who we are. Let's take Jesus' words and stick with them and not add to the bible. It's like many apostolics have left the words of Jesus and exchanged them for words about clothing. Scary.

[Pressing-On]

I see this as a veil, but that is a cultural thing and veils were common and still are among muslims, etc. It is an eastern thing, not a Christian thing, really. Today in our culture, veils do not make someone think of submission of the woman, So it is moot here in our part of the world. Paul appealed to them to abide by things that the world abode by. It was shocking to the world to see women unveiled since the world even did that! lol

But no where does the bible say to dress a way to appeal to the world to show them we are Christians. That is my point. Doing something the bible said does not mean it is for the world to know we are Christians. There are other reasons than for the world to know we are saved. Somehow this idea was added to the bible that these things tell the world we are saved, when that is not their purposes. ONLY LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER is meant to show the world who we are. Let's take Jesus' words and stick with them and not add to the bible. It's like many apostolics have left the words of Jesus and exchanged them for words about clothing. Scary.

But, if the Bible is telling us to do something (short hair on men, veil or long hair on women), isn't that a distinction for us?

Of course, it doesn't make us saved. I am only staying saved as much as I submit myself to God. But, really, if the Bible is instructing us to do anything, it is a separation from what the world is doing. It is a mark for us, isn't it?

[mfblume]

But, if the Bible is telling us to do something (short hair on men, veil or long hair on women), isn't that a distinction for us?

Distinction is involved, for sure. But to show the world we are saved? No. To show who is male and who is female. lol

Of course, it doesn't make us saved. I am only staying saved as much as I submit myself to God. But, really, if the Bible is instructing us to do anything, it is a separation from what the world is doing. It is a mark for us, isn't it?

I do not believe so. We have to be careful about these things. Those who claim clothing is a mark of Christianity often overlook what Jesus explicitly stated was a mark. And the true distinction for being saved is buried with something else.

Think of it. Pharisees uses apparel for distinction of serving God, and Jesus said they were whited sepulchers. Jesus had to stress to them the heart. This is the VERY problem we see with stressing clothing as distinction to the lost.

[mfblume]

When Jesus spoke of what the world sees to know we are saved, it is something they do not need to be trained to recognize we are saved. They automatically get the impression of God when they see believers loving each other. But to see people with certain forms of hairstyles and clothing does not bring GOD to their minds. The world would have to be taught that long hair on a woman means she is a Christian, because that is not what comes to their minds when they see long hair. Same with modest apparel. The world does NOT think of Christianity when they see modest apparel unless they were first somehow taught that. And then it only becomes a certain denomination's way of uniformity, in their minds.

I had a sinner say to me once that Pentecostal girls wear long hair and dresses. That town had a large UPC church in it. Had the church been tiny and few attended there is no way he would know it was a pentecostal thing. Word simply got around. Did it tell him they were Christians? Not it told him they were from a specific denomination. This gets the organizationally minded believers going, but it does not effect a reference to God. He simply saw them as adherents to a certain denomination.

But compare that with love for one another. Loving one another goes beyond apparel for identity and into an entirely different and meaningful level. It points to God. It touches hearts. God is "LOVE". He is not "modest clothing of long and short hair". Jesus and the apostles led by the Spirit picked their words carefully. And we have to be careful to notice what REASONS they actually stated for certain things. And the only one that touches the world, that the world immediately knows is God, is love for one another. It's an instinct in the human spirit.

Think of a tiny church in a town and the believers there have an incredible love for one another. Compare that with a tiny church with dress standards. The church membership in town would be so small that the reputation would not work. The commoners would not see the dress standard and think "spiritual". But they sure would connect the love of God with God!

[Pressing-On]

Distinction is involved, for sure. But to show the world we are saved? No. To show who is male and who is female. lol



I do not believe so. We have to be careful about these things. Those who claim clothing is a mark of Christianity often overlook what Jesus explicitly stated was a mark. And the true distinction for being saved is buried with something else.

Think of it. Pharisees uses apparel for distinction of serving God, and Jesus said they were whited sepulchers. Jesus had to stress to them the heart. This is the VERY problem we see with stressing clothing as distinction to the lost.

I agree with everything that you have said. My point was not that it proved we are saved.

But, again, there is a marked distinction in the Bible. Whether the distinction is presented negatively or positively, there is still a distinction between the church and the world.

[mfblume]

I agree with everything that you have said. My point was not that it proved we are saved.

But, again, there is a marked distinction in the Bible. Whether the distinction is presented negatively or positively, there is still a distinction between the church and the world.

A distinction is there for sure. But I am talking about what we do in order to show the world we are saved. That is the issue to which I responded.

[Pressing-On]

A distinction is there for sure. But I am talking about what we do in order to show the world we are saved. That is the issue to which I responded.
Right, I understood what you were responding to.

I was coming, solely, from the point that we cannot ever overlook that there is an apparent distinction involved.

The using of that distinction, as a salvational method, is a whole other subject to me. Because, it normally, IMO, clouds that we do have a distinction involved at all.

[mfblume]

Right, I understood what you were responding to.

I was coming, solely, from the point that we cannot ever overlook that there is an apparent distinction involved.

The using of that distinction, as a salvational method, is a whole other subject to me. Because, it normally, IMO, clouds that we do have a distinction involved at all.

I think everyone knows there is a distinction, anyway. The world hates and we care. The world mocks God and we worship Him. The whole issue is distinction. I really do not see how distinction can be buried if we tried, without simply denying God altogether. But giving a message to the world about who is saved is another story altogether.

[Pressing-On]

I think everyone knows there is a distinction, anyway. The world hates and we care. The world mocks God and we worship Him. The whole issue is distinction. I really do not see how distinction can be buried if we tried, without simply denying God altogether. But giving a message to the world about who is saved is another story altogether.
I agree!

[Esther]

I found it to be an erring notion that our appearance and the way we dress is intended by God to mark us as separate from the world. If you think about it, no where in the entire bible is appearance designated to indicate we are distinct from the world. That is a man-made tradition that has somehow become scripture when it is not even in the scripture.

Jesus said our love for one another is what tells the world we are his disciples, not the way we look. To me, it's just like the Roman Catholic Church's emphasis on prayers to Mary to think that the way we dress shows the world who we are. It's not in the bible.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

:thumbsup:thumbsup

I think everything we do and how we look is also involved. Not just love alone. That is, of course, the basis of everything - love. But, IMO, it's like the gifts of the spirit. We operate in them, but the basis of our operating is and needs to be centered in love.

[Socialite]

I think everything we do and how we look is also involved. Not just love alone. That is, of course, the basis of everything - love. But, IMO, it's like the gifts of the spirit. We operate in them, but the basis of our operating is and needs to be centered in love.

Thus saith, PO. :)

It's not just the basis, it's the width, depth and breadth of it. It's all-encompassing.

Wearing sleeves to your elbows, requiring brown pantyhose only, no pants, and making sure you consciously go to great pains of looking different than the church down the street is not the sign of a disciple.... it's a sign though :)

[*AQuietPlace*]

But, if the Bible is telling us to do something (short hair on men, veil or long hair on women), isn't that a distinction for us?

Of course, it doesn't make us saved. I am only staying saved as much as I submit myself to God. But, really, if the Bible is instructing us to do anything, it is a separation from what the world is doing. It is a mark for us, isn't it?
He wasn't telling them to do something different than the world was doing, he was telling them to DO what the world was doing. It wasn't a mark of separation - quite the opposite.

[Socialite]

He wasn't telling them to do something different than the world was doing, he was telling them to DO what the world was doing. It wasn't a mark of separation - quite the opposite.

Profound point.

[Pressing-On]

Thus saith, PO. :)

It's not just the basis, it's the width, depth and breadth of it. It's all-encompassing.

Wearing sleeves to your elbows, requiring brown pantyhose only, no pants, and making sure you consciously go to great pains of looking different than the church down the street is not the sign of a disciple.... it's a sign though :)

I wasn't coming from the perspective of standards. But from the point of modesty, we do have a distinction set by the Word of God. We always seem to say or think that our outward appearance is not discussed, but was discussed.

And my opinion is that every man/woman should live by their convictions and I don't question someone's convictions. It's none of my business and my convictions are not anyone's business either. :)

[Pressing-On]

He wasn't telling them to do something different than the world was doing, he was telling them to DO what the world was doing. It wasn't a mark of separation - quite the opposite.

I don't think so. That doesn't even make sense. The Apostles preached a distinction.

I'm sure the whole "world" wasn't doing this:

1 Timothy 2:9 "I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety," (NIV)

1 Timothy 2:9 "And I want women to be modest in their appearance." (NLT)

1 Timothy 2:9 "I would like for women to wear modest and sensible clothes." (CEV)

[Socialite]

I don't think so. That doesn't even make sense. The Apostles preached a distinction.

I'm sure the whole "world" wasn't doing this:

1 Timothy 2:9 "I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety," (NIV)

1 Timothy 2:9 "And I want women to be modest in their appearance." (NLT)

1 Timothy 2:9 "I would like for women to wear modest and sensible clothes." (CEV)

Yes, it makes sense. Paul's reference to what seems natural/normal, is appeal to not shaming the husband (not according to Church teaching, but social more), etc.

Our separation affects how we even clothe ourselves, though I'm not sure that's as glaring a recognition/contrast as many preach it, force it, command it to be.

[Pressing-On]

Yes, it makes sense. Paul's reference to what seems natural/normal, is appeal to not shaming the husband (not according to Church teaching, but social more), etc.

Our separation affects how we even clothe ourselves, though I'm not sure that's as glaring a recognition/contrast as many preach it, force it, command it to be.
Yes, I agree! :thumbsup

[Esther]

I think everything we do and how we look is also involved. Not just love alone. That is, of course, the basis of everything - love. But, IMO, it's like the gifts of the spirit. We operate in them, but the basis of our operating is and needs to be centered in love.

Exactly.

[Esther]

He wasn't telling them to do something different than the world was doing, he was telling them to DO what the world was doing. It wasn't a mark of separation - quite the opposite.

Somehow I don't think this is what you mean in the entire of not being different.

If you are saying they didn't dress different than the world, I for the most part agree with you. But a blanket be like the world is not what Jesus preached.

[Pressing-On]

Somehow I don't think this is what you mean in the entire of not being different.

If you are saying they didn't dress different than the world, I for the most part agree with you. But a blanket be like the world is not what Jesus preached.

I think they may have dressed, somewhat, different or Timothy wouldn't have raised the issue and given the teaching that he did. It would be the same circumstances with us today. Two blouse choices - one low cut, one not. Two skirt choices - one short and tight, one not. Two pant choices - one tight and one not. Worldly and Christian choices. We make them today.

IMO, he wouldn't have said what he did if he wasn't contrasting the issue with what he saw as an outside influence. If everyone was dressing the same and it was all peachy keen, I don't think Timothy would have addressed what he wanted from them.

[mfblume]

He wasn't telling them to do something different than the world was doing, he was telling them to DO what the world was doing. It wasn't a mark of separation - quite the opposite.I don't think so. That doesn't even make sense. The Apostles preached a distinction.


As far as 1 Cor 11 is concerned, the world WAS doing that, though. The custom of everyone in that part of the world was a woman wearing a veil to indicate submission. And Paul also noted that any woman felt it was a shame to be bald, in the world or not.

[Pressing-On]

As far as 1 Cor 11 is concerned, the world WAS doing that, though. The custom of everyone in that part of the world was a woman wearing a veil to indicate submission. And Paul also noted that any woman felt it was a shame to be bald, in the world or not.

From what I have read and studied, I found that, from the earliest times, the custom of wearing a veil was not observed by all peoples of the Middle East. I haven't ever read otherwise.

[papapraiz]

We have discussed those that have left the UPC. Who are the young progressive pastors and leaders in the organization and where do they pastor?

[mfblume]

From what I have read and studied, I found that, from the earliest times, the custom of wearing a veil was not observed by all peoples of the Middle East. I haven't ever read otherwise.

The muslims show that, and if we study 1 Cor 11, the note is that even the world honoured the covering, and the christian women were starting not to. It was all about offending outsiders. Check the commentaries. They show a good witness of that.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Look up in the greek what the word covering means in 1.COR. 11.

[Pressing-On]

The muslims show that, and if we study 1 Cor 11, the note is that even the world honoured the covering, and the christian women were starting not to. It was all about offending outsiders. Check the commentaries. They show a good witness of that.

I was looking at a couple of things in I Cor 11.

(2)Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (paradosis), as I delivered (paradidomi) them to you.

"ordinances" (paradosis/root: paradidomi) being defined as "tradition" - the idea of being handed down. He uses the same definition in verse 23, "...that which I also delivered..." (paradidomi), regarding the Lord's supper, and in II Thessalonians 2:15, "...hold the traditions (paradosis).

I don't think that Paul could possibly be pointing to conformity to whatever customs were going on in Corinth. It was too diverse for that. To say he is actually wanting them to look like the world, I cannot agree with that at all. And he couldn't be wanting conformity to Jewish custom, because the women, generally, covered their faces. He is not asking that of them. He seems to be attempting to set out a particular custom for the church as is indicated by verse 16. In his correction to them, he seemed to be addressing what they were doing wrong and saying that it was not a custom in the churches of God.

(16) "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

One other note, even though not all women of every culture wore veils, they certainly did allow their hair to grow long. As a sign of disgrace it was cut short. Prostitutes in the Jewish, Greek and Roman culture would sometimes cut their hair as a sign of their disgrace. Even though veils were not universal to all customs, long hair certainly was.

[Socialite]

We have discussed those that have left the UPC. Who are the young progressive pastors and leaders in the organization and where do they pastor?

Clarify, who are who?

[mfblume]

I was looking at a couple of things in I Cor 11.

(2)Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (paradosis), as I delivered (paradidomi) them to you.

"ordinances" (paradosis/root: paradidomi) being defined as "tradition" - the idea of being handed down. He uses the same definition in verse 23, "...that which I also delivered..." (paradidomi), regarding the Lord's supper, and in II Thessalonians 2:15, "...hold the traditions (paradosis).

This does not contradict what I proposed. He taught them to not offend the sinners who, themselves, knew women ought to wear veilings. He taught about offenses in 1 Cor 10. Check it out.

I don't think that Paul could possibly be pointing to conformity to whatever customs were going on in Corinth. It was too diverse for that.

I believe you this might be said due to the bent of the pentecostal tradition that clothing is meant to distinguish us from the world.

To say he is actually wanting them to look like the world, I cannot agree with that at all.

I am saying that his point is to not offend, not urging them to look like the world. Following him as he followed the Lord, as mentioned in the first few verses, falls in context after chapter 10 which speaks of offending others.

And he couldn't be wanting conformity to Jewish custom, because the women, generally, covered their faces. He is not asking that of them. He seems to be attempting to set out a particular custom for the church as is indicated by verse 16.

The only thing different about the church and the world here is that MEN AND WOMEN covered themselves in Jewish custom, not just women as in the church.

In his correction to them, he seemed to be addressing what they were doing wrong and saying that it was not a custom in the churches of God.

(16) "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

One other note, even though not all women of every culture wore veils, they certainly did allow their hair to grow long. As a sign of disgrace it was cut short.

I disagree. It was a shame to embalden themselves. Shorn and shaven does NOT simply mean to cut short. It means to make bald with scissors and razor, respectively.

:D

[Pressing-On]

This does not contradict what I proposed. He taught them to not offend the sinners who, themselves, knew women ought to wear veilings. He taught about offenses in 1 Cor 10. Check it out.
The context of the offense that I Cor 10 is referencing is the sacrificing to idols and the food served at any feast you may be invited to. He says to eat, unless the host is specifically saying that the food had been offered in idol worship. I don't think that has anything to do with chapter 11. Although, the principle of offending is a good principle to teach.

I believe you this might be said due to the bent of the pentecostal tradition that clothing is meant to distinguish us from the world.

I am saying that his point is to not offend, not urging them to look like the world. Following him as he followed the Lord, as mentioned in the first few verses, falls in context after chapter 10 which speaks of offending others.

The only thing different about the church and the world here is that MEN AND WOMEN covered themselves in Jewish custom, not just women as in the church.
How could they be offending such a diverse culture by taking off their veils? The Greek women didn't wear them during prayer. Why would they care?

He is teaching the opposite of Jewish custom then, with the men. He is telling them to NOT be covered during prayer and you are saying they were covered in Jewish custom. Also, Jewish custom dictated the covering of the face for the women. He isn't demanding that of them in the passage. So, that is a bit confusing.

I disagree. It was a shame to embalden themselves. Shorn and shaven does NOT simply mean to cut short. It means to make bald with scissors and razor, respectively.:D
You could be right if Paul is logically explaining that you have to use scissors to shorten the hair enough to shave it all off. Because, there is no way you can make someone totally bald with a pair of scissors. A razor, yes. Scissors, no.

If he is not implying that, then he is meaning to cut it short or shave it all off. It looks like, to me, that is what he is meaning, because of how he instructs the men to have short hair. He doesn't say bald.

[Socialite]

Why do discussions about 1 Cor 11 give me the hives and make my stomach turn?

I'd start with this piece of consideration for ANY epistle. We are eavesdropping into one side of a letter, where (most often) Paul is correcting something happening in the community (time of worship, of in general). Does it sound like, or is it congruent with history, that Paul is dealing with an issue of women cutting their hair?

The concept of modesty has much to do with general society (the world). It's general society that helps define things culturally, it gives them meaning, etc... At some point, general society saw men wearing britches. At some point, women wearing their own type of britches. Some cultures still wear head coverings. Some shake hands with the right, some would find it offensive to shake with the right hand. Some cultures find it offensive for a woman to show her ankles. Some cultures bow when they greet someone, others they kiss, and still others they offer a hand. The church was instructed toward modesty (appropriateness) and was admonished to faithfully represent the Graciousness of God that has been made known to us. We do that, not by bidding a culture war, but by making peace with all men -- and if there be any "culture war" it has far more to do with debunking worldly thinking (rejecting social/economic systems as ways to value others, rejecting hatred, rejecting jealousy, wrath, caring for the poor, living honorable lives --- which means, valuing one's body, not giving it to multiple sexual partners, honoring the partner God has provided, or honoring one's own body until such a time as God provides, not living a life as a drunkard, but kept together, sober, vigilant, always seeking that which is good, right and lovely.... yes, that was the longest run-on sentence ever.. the end.)

[Pressing-On]

Why do discussions about 1 Cor 11 give me the hives and make my stomach turn?

I'd start with this piece of consideration for ANY epistle. We are eavesdropping into one side of a letter, where (most often) Paul is correcting something happening in the community (time of worship, of in general). Does it sound like, or is it congruent with history, that Paul is dealing with an issue of women cutting their hair?

The concept of modesty has much to do with general society (the world). It's general society that helps define things culturally, it gives them meaning, etc... At some point, general society saw men wearing britches. At some point, women wearing their own type of britches. Some cultures still wear head coverings. Some shake hands with the right, some would find it offensive to shake with the right hand. Some cultures find it offensive for a woman to show her ankles. Some cultures bow when they greet someone, others they kiss, and still others they offer a hand. The church was instructed toward modesty (appropriateness) and was admonished to faithfully represent the Graciousness of God that has been made known to us. We do that, not by bidding a culture war, but by making peace with all men -- and if there be any "culture war" it has far more to do with debunking worldly thinking (rejecting social/economic systems as ways to value others, rejecting hatred, rejecting jealousy, wrath, caring for the poor, living honorable lives --- which means, valuing one's body, not giving it to multiple sexual partners, honoring the partner God has provided, or honoring one's own body until such a time as God provides, not living a life as a drunkard, but kept together, sober, vigilant, always seeking that which is good, right and lovely.... yes, that was the longest run-on sentence ever.. the end.)
I'm not the one that steered the conversation this way. Some are advocating that there is no distinction in dress taught in the Bible and I disagree. The distinction the Apostles taught was "modesty". So, yes, Christians have a distinction from the world and it involves more than just our conversation/behaviour.

Anytime you try to talk about this subject, it gets taken right back to "standards", which is very annoying. LOL! I just wanted to talk about what the Apostles were teaching.

The Apostles preached a distinction.

I'm sure the whole "world" wasn't doing this:

1 Timothy 2:9 "I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety," (NIV)

1 Timothy 2:9 "And I want women to be modest in their appearance." (NLT)

1 Timothy 2:9 "I would like for women to wear modest and sensible clothes." (CEV)

[Aquila]

I'm not the one that steered the conversation this way. Some are advocating that there is no distinction in dress taught in the Bible and I disagree. The distinction the Apostles taught was "modesty". So, yes, Christians have a distinction from the world and it involves more than just our conversation/behaviour.

Anytime you try to talk about this subject, it gets taken right back to "standards", which is very annoying. LOL! I just wanted to talk about what the Apostles were teaching.

Christians are to be a modest people. Simple. We don't wear that which is designed to provoke lust or to be noticed. Specifics aren't mentioned. Those will be largely cultural.

I currently attend a church wherein the pastor wears causual cloths to preach in and the congregation is also rather causual and the women do wear contemporary clothing, but modest. When I visited my oldtime holiness Apostolic church I was a bit taken aback... I saw far more leg in the holiness church. The ladies wore their skirts and dresses just below the knees and their shoes were typically attractive pumps, heels, etc. Some weren't even wearing panty hose, and their legs looked waxed.

I mean... the women in the church I go to now wear shirts and blouses that aren't that much different from the holiness women I know. They most often wear jeans or pants that show virtually no skin. I'm finding it almost more modest than the holiness church I used to attend. But that's just me.

[Aquila]

The following picture represents the typical standards of the holiness church I attended:

http://www.fpcwichita.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/youth-team-2.jpg

The following picture here represents the typical dress of the church I currently attend:

http://www.ypunite.com/wp-content/uploads/christian%20youth%20groups.jpg

The holiness group have ladies showing far more skin, especially on the legs.

[Hoovie]

The following picture represents the typical standards of the holiness church I attended:

http://www.fpcwichita.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/youth-team-2.jpg

The following picture here represents the typical dress of the church I currently attend:

http://www.ypunite.com/wp-content/uploads/christian%20youth%20groups.jpg

The holiness group have ladies showing far more skin, especially on the legs.

Thats sort of funny Aquila... I mean, the second pic certainly appears to have lower temperatures with most wearing coats and all... :)

[Aquila]

Thats sort of funny Aquila... I mean, the second pic certainly appears to have lower temperatures with most wearing coats and all... :)

True... lol I didn't notice that.

The shirts would be relatively the same. However, the ladies in the church I attend now would be wearing blue jeans and look more like the girl on the far left. My point is primarily the legs. Even in cooler weather... you'd see as much leg as the first pic among Apostolic ladies.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Somehow I don't think this is what you mean in the entire of not being different.

If you are saying they didn't dress different than the world, I for the most part agree with you. But a blanket be like the world is not what Jesus preached.


I was speaking particularly of the practice of veiling.

No, Jesus didn't preach to be like the world - but I think his definition of 'be different than the world' is much different than what we usually hear preached.

This seems more along the lines of what Jesus taught:


----------------------------------------------
1 John 2:16 New Living Translation (©2007)

For the world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world.
----------------------------------------------


Even the whole 'modesty' thing that Paul was teaching would fit well with this passage. It's not about our jewels and fancy clothing, it's about our spirit, our attitude, what we love, what we boast about, what we want people to notice.

I really believe that separation from the world is about our spirit, about what our goals are in life... a whole lot more than it is a list of clothing regulations. I'm becoming frustrated with so much focus on clothing.

[Socialite]

I was speaking particularly of the practice of veiling.

No, Jesus didn't preach to be like the world - but I think his definition of 'be different than the world' is much different than what we usually hear preached.

This seems more along the lines of what Jesus taught:


----------------------------------------------
1 John 2:16 New Living Translation (©2007)

For the world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world.
----------------------------------------------


Even the whole 'modesty' thing that Paul was teaching would fit well with this passage. It's not about our jewels and fancy clothing, it's about our spirit, our attitude, what we love, what we boast about, what we want people to notice.

I really believe that separation from the world is about our spirit, about what our goals are in life... a whole lot more than it is a list of clothing regulations. I'm becoming frustrated with so much focus on clothing.

I want to post that scripture in the "poor people" thread.

[mfblume]

The context of the offense that I Cor 10 is referencing is the sacrificing to idols and the food served at any feast you may be invited to. He says to eat, unless the host is specifically saying that the food had been offered in idol worship. I don't think that has anything to do with chapter 11. Although, the principle of offending is a good principle to teach.

The theme of offense is carried from chapter 10 into 11. This is why the words of following Paul has he followed Christ are mentioned in chapter 11.

It is also why Paul does not mention the term SIN in conjunction with the covering. He was saying that as much as it is the normative cultural manner for women to not be bald, so they must go by the OTHER normal manner for women to be veiled. Doing so in prayer was something Paul added, but women in Israel wore veils to show submission as the men wore caps as well.

How could they be offending such a diverse culture by taking off their veils? The Greek women didn't wear them during prayer. Why would they care?

The sinners would see Christian women not covering their heads in religious prayer and would be shocked.

Here is what women in that day looked like:

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/women/livia_clothing2asm.jpg

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/women/liviacoincamden.gif

"In Greco-Roman culture, both women and men wore head coverings in religious contexts."

This is shown below in this pic-- notice they are sacrificing -- a woman and two men, including Emperor Augustus, are sacrificing at the "Altar of the Lares":

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/women/augustusaltarvrsm.jpg

One reference I found said, "If Paul wanted the Corinthian women prophets to wear head coverings in worship, he may have been asking that they follow the customs of the dominant culture.".

It's like a Christian doing something totally shocking to the world, when the world would not even do that. The Corinthians seemed to have problems with this as noted in 1 Cor 5 where they tolerated a man committing fornication with his father's wife which the world would not even tolerate!

He is teaching the opposite of Jewish custom then, with the men. He is telling them to NOT be covered during prayer and you are saying they were covered in Jewish custom.

Exactly. That is the case for the men. But the men were not the problem in Corinth. It was the women.

Also, Jewish custom dictated the covering of the face for the women. He isn't demanding that of them in the passage. So, that is a bit confusing.

Please show bible for women REQUIRED to cover their faces. It is not in the bible.

Here is where I came to grips with my present conclusions. Paul rebuked women in Corinth for not wearing covering. Let's not say WHAT the covering is for argument's sake. The point is he rebuked them. Now, you do not rebuke someone for something if they had not already been taught it. But try to find where in the Bible they were taught about coverings outside of a rebuke, for them to have a reference in the bible that they should have been abiding by. It's not there. Conclusion: It is outside the bible in the customs of the day.

You could be right if Paul is logically explaining that you have to use scissors to shorten the hair enough to shave it all off. Because, there is no way you can make someone totally bald with a pair of scissors. A razor, yes. Scissors, no.
Scissors, yes

That is what the word SHORN literally means. To make bald by scissors.

Definition: shorn
Part of Speech Definition
Adjective 1. Having the hair or wool cut or clipped off as if with shears or clippers; "picked up the baby's shorn curls from the floor".[Wordnet]
2. Being bald, hairless, bare or naked. [Eve - graph theoretic]
3. Being bereft. [Eve - graph theoretic]

Think of SHEARING SHEEP. They clip as close to the skin as possible, not merely trimming. SHORN is to SHEAR. Paul had his HEAD SHORN for a vow. Paul always had his hair short since he taught men ought not have long hair. But for him to SHEAR his head for a vow required him to do something aside form the norm. And scholars agree it was to embalden him. So SHORN cannot simply mean to cut. You CAN embalden with scissors. That is what SHORN means.

If he is not implying that, then he is meaning to cut it short or shave it all off. It looks like, to me, that is what he is meaning, because of how he instructs the men to have short hair. He doesn't say bald.

SHORN means to make bald.

What does shorn mean?

Shorn means to have the hair or wool cut or clipped off as if with shears or clippers.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_shorn_mean

A good way to understand shorn is to ask how much wool is removed from a sheep when they are shorn.

Really, I think the ONLY people who think SHORN means cut are folks already accustomed to the tradition of not cutting hair at all. No one else would conclude that. So bias is involved, IMHO.

[Pressing-On]

The theme of offense is carried from chapter 10 into 11. This is why the words of following Paul has he followed Christ are mentioned in chapter 11.
I'll look at it again, which I've done several times already, but it looks to me that he has changed the subject and moved on to another topic. So, right now, I'm not totally in agreement with you. And I am not arguing about this, just knocking around some ideas.

It is also why Paul does not mention the term SIN in conjunction with the covering. He was saying that as much as it is the normative cultural manner for women to not be bald, so they must go by the OTHER normal manner for women to be veiled. Doing so in prayer was something Paul added, but women in Israel wore veils to show submission as the men wore caps as well.

The sinners would see Christian women not covering their heads in religious prayer and would be shocked.

Here is what women in that day looked like:

"In Greco-Roman culture, both women and men wore head coverings in religious contexts."

This is shown below in this pic-- notice they are sacrificing -- a woman and two men, including Emperor Augustus, are sacrificing at the "Altar of the Lares":

One reference I found said, "If Paul wanted the Corinthian women prophets to wear head coverings in worship, he may have been asking that they follow the customs of the dominant culture.".

It's like a Christian doing something totally shocking to the world, when the world would not even do that. The Corinthians seemed to have problems with this as noted in 1 Cor 5 where they tolerated a man committing fornication with his father's wife which the world would not even tolerate!

Exactly. That is the case for the men. But the men were not the problem in Corinth. It was the women.

Please show bible for women REQUIRED to cover their faces. It is not in the bible.

Here is where I came to grips with my present conclusions. Paul rebuked women in Corinth for not wearing covering. Let's not say WHAT the covering is for argument's sake. The point is he rebuked them. Now, you do not rebuke someone for something if they had not already been taught it. But try to find where in the Bible they were taught about coverings outside of a rebuke, for them to have a reference in the bible that they should have been abiding by. It's not there. Conclusion: It is outside the bible in the customs of the day.

I don't think I am saying, "required" as much as it was just done. Here we have women covering their faces and we have women who wore no veils at all:

"The veil was the distinctive female wearing apparel. All females, with the exception of maidservants and women in a low condition of life, wore a veil. They would usually never lay it aside, except when they were in the presence of servants, or on rare occasions. When traveling, women may throw the veil over the back part of their head, but if they see a man approaching, they place it back on it's original position. Thus Rebekah, when she saw Issac approaching her camel caravan, covered her face with her veil (Gen. 24:64-65). When women are at home they do not speak to a guest without being veiled and in the presence of maids. They do no enter the guest's chamber, but rather, standing at the door, they make it known to the servant what is wanted (See II Kings 4:12-13). It is well to remember that prostitutes went unveiled. When a woman kept her veil down, it was forbidden for anyone to lift it, but she was free to do so if she chose." Manners and Customs of Bible Lands


Scissors, yes

That is what the word SHORN literally means. To make bald by scissors.

Definition: shorn
Part of Speech Definition
Adjective 1. Having the hair or wool cut or clipped off as if with shears or clippers; "picked up the baby's shorn curls from the floor".[Wordnet]
2. Being bald, hairless, bare or naked. [Eve - graph theoretic]
3. Being bereft. [Eve - graph theoretic]

Think of SHEARING SHEEP. They clip as close to the skin as possible, not merely trimming. SHORN is to SHEAR. Paul had his HEAD SHORN for a vow. Paul always had his hair short since he taught men ought not have long hair. But for him to SHEAR his head for a vow required him to do something aside form the norm. And scholars agree it was to embalden him. So SHORN cannot simply mean to cut. You CAN embalden with scissors. That is what SHORN means.

SHORN means to make bald.

What does shorn mean?

Shorn means to have the hair or wool cut or clipped off as if with shears or clippers.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_shorn_mean

A good way to understand shorn is to ask how much wool is removed from a sheep when they are shorn.

Really, I think the ONLY people who think SHORN means cut are folks already accustomed to the tradition of not cutting hair at all. No one else would conclude that. So bias is involved, IMHO.
Why does the bias always have to be interjected here? It's just a word being defined. And, logically, it's two tools being used. Blade shears or scissors don't take off all of the wool from a sheep. That's a little different than what a razor can do.

[Pressing-On]

The following picture represents the typical standards of the holiness church I attended:

The following picture here represents the typical dress of the church I currently attend:

The holiness group have ladies showing far more skin, especially on the legs.

Thanks, Aquila. We are discussing scripture. I'm not interested in a tit for tat comparison of church groups. If God didn't direct me to your church, it wouldn't make much difference what they were wearing. :)

[Pressing-On]

Scissors, yes

That is what the word SHORN literally means. To make bald by scissors.

Definition: shorn
Part of Speech Definition
Adjective 1. Having the hair or wool cut or clipped off as if with shears or clippers; "picked up the baby's shorn curls from the floor".[Wordnet]
2. Being bald, hairless, bare or naked. [Eve - graph theoretic]
3. Being bereft. [Eve - graph theoretic]

Think of SHEARING SHEEP. They clip as close to the skin as possible, not merely trimming. SHORN is to SHEAR. Paul had his HEAD SHORN for a vow. Paul always had his hair short since he taught men ought not have long hair. But for him to SHEAR his head for a vow required him to do something aside form the norm. And scholars agree it was to embalden him. So SHORN cannot simply mean to cut. You CAN embalden with scissors. That is what SHORN means.

SHORN means to make bald.

What does shorn mean?

Shorn means to have the hair or wool cut or clipped off as if with shears or clippers.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_shorn_mean

A good way to understand shorn is to ask how much wool is removed from a sheep when they are shorn.

Really, I think the ONLY people who think SHORN means cut are folks already accustomed to the tradition of not cutting hair at all. No one else would conclude that. So bias is involved, IMHO.
And, BTW, I forgot to add this to my post.

1 Corinthians 11:6 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

You'd have to translate that as:

1 Corinthians 11:6 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be bald or bald, let her be covered."

Why would Paul use the word twice like that, if the definitions are the same? Aren't you saying that shorn and shaven mean the same thing?

[mfblume]

I'll look at it again, which I've done several times already, but it looks to me that he has changed the subject and moved on to another topic. So, right now, I'm not totally in agreement with you. And I am not arguing about this, just knocking around some ideas.

It is a change of subject, but the theme of offense carries on into the issue of custom.



I don't think I am saying, "required" as much as it was just done. Here we have women covering their faces and we have women who wore no veils at all:

"The veil was the distinctive female wearing apparel. All females, with the exception of maidservants and women in a low condition of life, wore a veil. They would usually never lay it aside, except when they were in the presence of servants, or on rare occasions. When traveling, women may throw the veil over the back part of their head, but if they see a man approaching, they place it back on it's original position. Thus Rebekah, when she saw Issac approaching her camel caravan, covered her face with her veil (Gen. 24:64-65). When women are at home they do not speak to a guest without being veiled and in the presence of maids. They do no enter the guest's chamber, but rather, standing at the door, they make it known to the servant what is wanted (See II Kings 4:12-13). It is well to remember that prostitutes went unveiled. When a woman kept her veil down, it was forbidden for anyone to lift it, but she was free to do so if she chose." Manners and Customs of Bible Lands

Why does the bias always have to be interjected here? It's just a word being defined. And, logically, it's two tools being used. Blade shears or scissors don't take off all of the wool from a sheep. That's a little different than what a razor can do.

The difference is plain but the conclusion is the same. To remove ALL hair or as much as possible. It's just the definition. BIAS is mentioned because in light of the definition that is all that can account for a variance.

[mfblume]

And, BTW, I forgot to add this to my post.

1 Corinthians 11:6 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

You'd have to translate that as:

1 Corinthians 11:6 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be bald or bald, let her be covered."

Why would Paul use the word twice like that, if the definitions are the same? Aren't you saying that shorn and shaven mean the same thing?

Paul was saying that if the women of Corinth's church agreed that it is a shame for a woman to remove all her hair, whether by shears or razors, then why do they not abide by the other custom as well regarding veiling.

The Bible OFTEN repeats the same notion using different terms in this manner.

[Pressing-On]

It is a change of subject, but the theme of offense carries on into the issue of custom.
I'm trying to agree. I'll have to read it again. LOL!

The difference is plain but the conclusion is the same. To remove ALL hair or as much as possible. It's just the definition. BIAS is mentioned because in light of the definition that is all that can account for a variance.

If bald is the definition, how can you remove ALL hair OR as much as possible? That means that some is left, doesn't it?

Isn't this getting redundant? :heeheehee

[Pressing-On]

Paul was saying that if the women of Corinth's church agreed that it is a shame for a woman to remove all her hair, whether by shears or razors, then why do they not abide by the other custom as well regarding veiling.
I don't know, that still sounds confusing. I don't know why he would describe both tools to get to the point. I'll have to think about it. Thanks for taking the time.

The Bible OFTEN repeats the same notion using different terms in this manner.

Can you give me an example so I could get a better handle on it?

[mfblume]

I'm trying to agree. I'll have to read it again. LOL!



If bald is the definition, how can you remove ALL hair OR as much as possible? That means that some is left, doesn't it?

Isn't this getting redundant? :heeheehee

The point is to remove all the hair. If a razor is not present the next best thing was shears. But the definition says it all and solves it all, really. To make bald by scissors.

[Pressing-On]

The point is to remove all the hair. If a razor is not present the next best thing was shears. But the definition says it all and solves it all, really. To make bald by scissors.
Man, I just don't know. I'll have to think about it. I just don't think scissors can make you bald. They leave some wool on a sheep. I looked it up. LOL!

It just seems to me that if the text is speaking about a man's hair being short, he is probably not using a razor but scissors. And if he is saying a woman's long hair is her dignity, I'm thinking he doesn't want her to have a man's hair cut/style - short hair or a bald head like a man.

Okay, thanks for being a sport! :thumbsup

[mfblume]

I don't know, that still sounds confusing. I don't know why he would describe both tools to get to the point. I'll have to think about it. Thanks for taking the time.
[B]

Can you give me an example so I could get a better handle on it?


Sure! :) I see it a lot in Psalms and similar books. It's almost redundant, but it is used to make emphasis. I would have to take some time and find good examples.

But in the meantime check out scholars:

VINE'S
1Co 11:6
Shorn or shaven (κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι)
To have the hair cut close, or to be entirely shaved as with a razor.


ROBERTSON
To be shorn or shaven (to keirasthai kai xurasthai). Articular infinitives subject of copula estin understood, keirasthai first aorist middle, xurasthai present middle. Note change in tense.

GILL
but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven: as it is accounted in all civilized nations: the very Heathens (a) speak of it as a thing abominable, and of which there should not be one single dreadful example: then let her be covered; with a veil, or any sort of covering in common use.

CLARKE:
but if it be a shame - if to be shorn or shaven would appear, as it must, a badge of infamy, then let her be covered - let her by all means wear a veil. Even in mourning it was considered disgraceful to be obliged to shear off the hair; and lest they should lose this ornament of their heads, the women contrived to evade the custom, by cutting off the ends of it only. Euripides, in Orest., ver. 128, speaking of Helen, who should have shaved her head on account of the death of her sister Clytemnestra, says: ειδετε παρ’ ακρας ὡς απεθρισεν τριχας, σωζουσα καλλος, εστι δε ἡ παλαι γυνη: “see how she cuts off only the very points of her hair, that she may preserve her beauty, and is just the same woman as before.” See the note on 1Co_11:5.
In Hindostan a woman cuts off her hair at the death of her husband, as a token of widowhood; but this is never performed by a married woman, whose hair is considered an essential ornament. The veil of the Hindoo women is nothing more than the garment brought over the face, which is always very carefully done by the higher classes of women when they appear in the streets. - Ward’s Customs.

BARNES
But if it be a shame ... - If custom, nature, and habit; if the common and usual feelings and views among people would pronounce this to be a shame, the other would be pronounced to be a shame also by the same custom and common sense of people.

[Pressing-On]

Sure! :) I see it a lot in Psalms and similar books. It's almost redundant, but it is used to make emphasis. I would have to take some time and find good examples.

But in the meantime check out scholars:

VINE'S
1Co 11:6
Shorn or shaven (κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι)
To have the hair cut close, or to be entirely shaved as with a razor.


ROBERTSON
To be shorn or shaven (to keirasthai kai xurasthai). Articular infinitives subject of copula estin understood, keirasthai first aorist middle, xurasthai present middle. Note change in tense.

GILL
but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven: as it is accounted in all civilized nations: the very Heathens (a) speak of it as a thing abominable, and of which there should not be one single dreadful example: then let her be covered; with a veil, or any sort of covering in common use.

CLARKE:
but if it be a shame - if to be shorn or shaven would appear, as it must, a badge of infamy, then let her be covered - let her by all means wear a veil. Even in mourning it was considered disgraceful to be obliged to shear off the hair; and lest they should lose this ornament of their heads, the women contrived to evade the custom, by cutting off the ends of it only. Euripides, in Orest., ver. 128, speaking of Helen, who should have shaved her head on account of the death of her sister Clytemnestra, says: ειδετε παρ’ ακρας ὡς απεθρισεν τριχας, σωζουσα καλλος, εστι δε ἡ παλαι γυνη: “see how she cuts off only the very points of her hair, that she may preserve her beauty, and is just the same woman as before.” See the note on 1Co_11:5.
In Hindostan a woman cuts off her hair at the death of her husband, as a token of widowhood; but this is never performed by a married woman, whose hair is considered an essential ornament. The veil of the Hindoo women is nothing more than the garment brought over the face, which is always very carefully done by the higher classes of women when they appear in the streets. - Ward’s Customs.

BARNES
But if it be a shame ... - If custom, nature, and habit; if the common and usual feelings and views among people would pronounce this to be a shame, the other would be pronounced to be a shame also by the same custom and common sense of people.
Look at what Gill says for verse six. This is how I viewed it before I read his commentary.

let her also be shorn; let her hair be cut short; let her wear it as men do theirs; and let her see how she will look, and how she will like that, and how she will be looked upon, and liked by others; everybody will laugh at her, and she will be ashamed of herself:

[mfblume]

Look at what Gill says for verse six. This is how I viewed it before I read his commentary.

let her also be shorn; let her hair be cut short; let her wear it as men do theirs; and let her see how she will look, and how she will like that, and how she will be looked upon, and liked by others; everybody will laugh at her, and she will be ashamed of herself:

Amen. But it does not mean to merely trim as though it was down her back and she trimmed off an inch.

ROBERTSON:
1Co 11:6
Let her also be shorn (kai keirasthō). Aorist middle imperative of keirō, to shear (as sheep). Let her cut her hair close.

JOHNSON
For if the woman be not covered. If she defies decorum by an uncovered head, let her go further, and be shaven.

JFB
1Co 11:6
A woman would not like to be “shorn” or (what is worse) “shaven”; but if she chooses to be uncovered (unveiled) in front, let her be so also behind, that is, “shorn.”

HENRY
She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut it close, which was the custom of the man in that age. ...

III. The thing he reprehends is the woman's praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man's doing either covered, 1Co_11:4, 1Co_11:5. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,

[Socialite]

LOL you guys are still contending for a point that was simply an illustration! :lol

That's not even the primary issue in Corinth (cut hair). The issue had to do with a custom during times of worship specifically.

[mfblume]

LOL you guys are still contending for a point that was simply an illustration! :lol

That's not even the primary issue in Corinth (cut hair). The issue had to do with a custom during times of worship specifically.

I agree. But the details must be explained in proper context.

[Aquila]

Amen. But it does not mean to merely trim as though it was down her back and she trimmed off an inch.

ROBERTSON:
1Co 11:6
Let her also be shorn (kai keirasthō). Aorist middle imperative of keirō, to shear (as sheep). Let her cut her hair close.

JOHNSON
For if the woman be not covered. If she defies decorum by an uncovered head, let her go further, and be shaven.

JFB
1Co 11:6
A woman would not like to be “shorn” or (what is worse) “shaven”; but if she chooses to be uncovered (unveiled) in front, let her be so also behind, that is, “shorn.”

HENRY
She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut it close, which was the custom of the man in that age. ...

III. The thing he reprehends is the woman's praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man's doing either covered, 1Co_11:4, 1Co_11:5. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,

I don't know how relevant this truly is, but it was brought to my attention that the Jews typically covered their heads while in prayer and gathered to study Torah. I was once told that it would be a shame for Christian men to pray to God with their heads covered because it would demonstrate that they were still under the Law... hense a denial of the New Covenant. By doing this, they dishonored their "head" (Jesus Christ).

[mfblume]

I don't know how relevant this truly is, but it was brought to my attention that the Jews typically covered their heads while in prayer and gathered to study Torah. I was once told that it would be a shame for Christian men to pray to God with their heads covered because it would demonstrate that they were still under the Law... hense a denial of the New Covenant. By doing this, they dishonored their "head" (Jesus Christ).

Interesting. I was also told that the prayer caps were in mourning over the temple destruction which would also make a Christian man's adorning of one to be inappropriate since it would imply Christ was not the last sacrifice. Not sure how true that is.

[TGBTG]

I don't know how relevant this truly is, but it was brought to my attention that the Jews typically covered their heads while in prayer and gathered to study Torah. I was once told that it would be a shame for Christian men to pray to God with their heads covered because it would demonstrate that they were still under the Law... hense a denial of the New Covenant. By doing this, they dishonored their "head" (Jesus Christ).

Interesting. I was also told that the prayer caps were in mourning over the temple destruction which would also make a Christian man's adorning of one to be inappropriate since it would imply Christ was not the last sacrifice. Not sure how true that is.

Well, cannot speak for the Jewish significances, but in my culture, a man shows respect to a person held in high regards by removing his hat. So 1 Cor 11 does not pose any issues in churches in our culture. Men take off hats during prayer as a respect to God and women put on scarfs during prayer. (Culture in Nigeria anyways...)

[mfblume]

Question 11.1.2: Dress: Why do many Jewish men wear head coverings (variously referred to as "yarmulkas," "skullcaps," and "kipot")?


Answer:

The customary Jewish head covering (for simplicity, we'll call it a
kipa (singular of kipot), although all the terms refer to
approximately the same thing) is a sign of humility for men,
acknowledging what's "above" us (G-d). An additional explanation is
that in ancient Rome, servants were required to cover their heads
while free men did not; thus, Jews covered their heads to show that
they were servants of G-d. It's necessary for men to cover their heads
during certain prayers (whether it be by a kipa or another
headcovering), and for one making blessings all day, it's inconvenient
to keep donning and removing a kipa. In some places, the type of kipa
and way of wearing it expresses affiliation with a particular yeshiva
or political viewpoint. In other places, it doesn't really matter.

Many Ashkenazi rabbis acknowledge that wearing a head covering at all
times was once considered an optional "midat chasidut" [pious act] but
that nowadays, full-time head covering is the norm except under
extenuating circumstances.

Sephardic communities generally did not have the custom of wearing a
kipa all the time.

Some diaspora Jews leave off the kipa at school, work, or when
testifying in court, because of real danger or uneasiness in appearing
in the secular world with an obvious symbol of Jewishness.

Many non-Orthodox Jews (and some modern Orthodox Jews) do not always
wear a kipa. This is because some sources make covering the head by a
Jewish male a special practice of the pious (midat chasidut). However,
these movements do recognize that it is a Jewish way of showing
reference and respect, as well as a positive means of identification
(which can serve as a barrier against assimilation). Some movements
have specific recommendations as to the time that a kipa is worn; for
example, Conservative practice is to cover the head in the following
situations:
* Whenever in the sanctuary of a synagogue.
* When praying and when studying or reading from sacred literature.
* Whenever performing any ritual.
* When eating, since eating is always followed by a benediction.
Some follow the minhag of certain Jewish communities in Germany
where they cover their heads during the blessing before the meal
and during the benedictions after the meal, but not during the
meal itself.

In Israel wearing a kipa also has a social significance. While wearing
a kipa shows that you are somewhat religious, not-wearing one is like
stating "I'm not religious". The style of kipa in Israel can also
indicate political and religious affiliations.

The wearing of the kipah at school and work has increased in recent
years. These are also affectionately called "beanies," "holy
headgear," "Yamahas," "Yid-lids," and "Kapeles." (Similarly, some hair
coverings for married women are affectionately called "shmattehs.")

[mfblume]

FROM http://en.allexperts.com/q/Conservative-Judaism-951/2009/3/Wearing-Yamaka.htm

QUESTION: Can you tell me when the Jewish men first began the wearing of the Yamaka. In studying the Old Testament scriptures I can find no reference of men wearing hats of any kind. I appreciate any information you may have on this subject. In our Bible study this came up & I was requested to see what Information I could find.

Thank you for your assistance.

God Bless you,

Joyce Parnell




ANSWER:

Dear Joyce

Thanks for writing and it is a frequently asked question

The cut-to-the-chase answer is that it is a custom, and it developed after the custom of Babylonian scholars and leaders who covered their heads as a sign of humility, which also distinguished them from others as a "uniform." Because European Jewry generally followed Babylonian law and often custom, it became an Ashkenazi=European Jewry norm. How early did it begin? We do know that it was only a custom and for centuries we have learned that many Rabbinic opinions didn't consider it binding, but perhaps as early as the Talmudic period, post Second Temple destruction.

The new Encylcopedia Judaica edition 2007 includes the following information. I'm providing their entry below:

Best wishes

Rabbi Dov

HEAD, COVERING OF THE

Jewish tradition requires men to cover the head as a sign of humility before God, and women, as evidence of modesty before men, although the Bible does not explicitly command either men or women to cover the head.
Men

According to the description of the priestly garb in Exodus (28:4, 37, 40), the high priest wore a miter (miznefet), and the ordinary priests a hat (migba'at). It was generally considered a sign of mourning to cover the head and face (II Sam. 15:30, 19:5; Jer. 14:3–4; Esth. 6:12). In talmudic times, too, men expressed their sense of grief while mourning by covering their heads, as did *Bar Kappara after the death of *Judah ha-Nasi (TJ, Kil. 9:4, 32b; TJ, Ket. 12:3, 35a). A mourner, one on whom a ban (*herem) had been pronounced, and a leper, were, in fact, obliged to cover their heads (MK 15a), as was anyone who fasted in times of drought (Ta'an. 14b). These people had to muffle their heads and faces. It was considered an expression of awe before the Divine Presence to conceal the head and face, especially while praying or engaged in the study of mysticism (Hag. 14b; RH 17b; Ta'an. 20a). The headgear of scholars was an indication of their elevated position (Pes. 11b); some of them claimed that they never walked more than four cubits (about six feet) without a head covering (Shab. 118b; Kid. 31a; also Maim. Yad, De'ot 5:6, and Guide 3:52). The custom was, however, restricted to dignified personages; bachelors doing so were considered presumptuous (Kid. 29b). Artistic representation, such as Egyptian and Babylonian tablets or the synagogue at Dura Europos, generally depict Israelites, (and later Jews) without head covering. On the other hand, some rabbis believed that covering a child's head would ensure his piety and prevent his becoming a thief (Shab. 156b).

According to the Talmud (Ned. 30b), it was optional and a matter of custom for men to cover their heads. Palestinian custom, moreover, did not insist that the head be covered during the priestly benediction (see J. Mueller, Hilluf Minhagim she-bein Benei Bavel u-Venei Erez Yisrael (1878),39f., no. 42). French and Spanish rabbinical authorities during the Middle Ages followed this ruling, and regarded the covering of the head during prayer and the study of the Torah merely as a custom. Some of them prayed with a bare head themselves (Abraham b. Nathan of Lunel, Ha-Manhig (Berlin, 1855), 15b, no. 45; Or Zaru'a, Hilkhot Shabbat 43). Tractate Soferim (14:15), however, rules that a person who is improperly dressed and has no headgear may not act as the hazzan or as the reader of the Torah in the synagogue, and may not invoke the priestly benediction upon the congregation. Moreover, the covering of the head, as an expression of the "fear of God" (yirat shamayim), and as a continuation of the practice of the Babylonian scholars (Kid. 31a), was gradually endorsed by the Ashkenazi rabbis. Even they stated, however, that it was merely a worthy custom, and that there was no injunction against praying without a head cover (Maharshal,Page 507 | Top of Article Resp. no. 7; Be'ur ha-Gra to Sh. Ar., OH 8:2). The opinion of David Halevy of Ostrog (17th century) is an exception. He declared that since Christians generally pray bareheaded, the Jewish prohibition to do so was based on the biblical injunction not to imitate the heathen custom (*hukkat hagoi; Magen David to OH 8:2). Traditional Jewry came to equate bareheadedness with unseemly lightmindedness and frivolity (kallut rosh), and therefore forbids it (Maim. Yad, De'ot 5:6).

The covering of the head has become one of the most hotly debated points of controversy between Reform and Orthodox Jewry. The latter regards the covering of the head, both outside and inside the synagogue, as a sign of allegiance to Jewish tradition, and demands that at least a skullcap (Heb. kippah, Yid. yarmulka) be worn. Worship with covered heads is also the accepted rule in Conservative synagogues. In Reform congregations, however, it is optional.

[Meir Ydit]
Women

It was customary for most women in the ancient Near East, Mesopotamia, and the Greco-Roman world to cover their hair when they went outside the home. In biblical times, women covered their heads with veils or scarves. The unveiling of a woman's hair was considered a humiliation and punishment (Isa. 3:17; cf. Num. 5:18 on the loosening of the hair of a woman suspected of adultery; III Macc. 4:6; and Sus. 32).

In talmudic times, too, married women were enjoined to cover their hair in communal spaces (e.g., Ned. 30b; Num. R. 9:16). In a society so highly conscious of sexuality and its dangers, veiling was considered an absolute necessity to maintain modesty and chastity. If a woman walked bareheaded in the street, her husband could divorce her without repaying her dowry (Ket. 7:6). Some rabbis compared the exposure of a married woman's hair to the exposure of her private parts (Ber. 24a), and forbade the recitation of any blessing in the presence of a bareheaded woman (ibid.). The rabbis praised pious women such as Kimhit, the mother of several high priests, who took care not to uncover their hair even in the house (Yoma 47a; Lev. R. 20:11). Nevertheless, covering the head was a personal imposition and restriction from which men were glad to be exempt. According to Sotah 3:8, men differ from women in that they may appear in public "with hair unbound and in torn garments." In Eruvin 100b, one of the disadvantages or "curses" that is cited as an inevitable part of being female includes being "wrapped up like a mourner." Some aggadic sources interpret this custom as a sign of woman's shame and feeling of guilt for Eve's sin (Gen. R. 17:8; ARN2 9; Er. 100b and Rashi ad loc.; cf., also, the opinion of Paul in I Cor. 11:1–16). Girls did not have to cover their hair until the wedding ceremony (Ket. 2:1). It gradually became the accepted traditional custom for all Jewish women to cover their hair (see Sh. Ar., EH 21:2).

In the early modern period the practice of a woman's shaving off all her hair upon marriage and covering her head with a kerchief (tichal) became widespread in Hungarian, Galician, and Ukrainian Jewish communities. Justifications for this stringency were to ensure that a married woman's hair would never be exposed and to eliminate the possibility of a woman's hair rising to the surface during her ritual immersion in the mikveh, rendering it invalid. Opponents argued that shaving the head would make a woman unattractive to her husband. Toward the end of the 18th century some circles of women began to wear a wig (shaytl). This "innovation" was opposed by certain Orthodox authorities such as Moses *Sofer (see A.J. Schlesinger, Lev ha-Ivri, 2 (19283), 109, 189) but continued to be widely practiced. In the early 21st century, a diverse range of customs connected with hair covering are followed by Orthodox Jewish women. Among some modern Orthodox women, there has been renewed interest in various modes of covering the hair after marriage. Many women who are not Orthodox continue the custom of covering their hair in synagogue.

[Theophil]

So the entire constituency of the UPC ministers under the age of 35 in now in the 300s and dropping?

less than 5% ...

Where did you get these figures?

[Pressing-On]

Please show bible for women REQUIRED to cover their faces. It is not in the bible.

I ran across this scripture today and thought of this thread.

KJV - Song of Solomon 4:1 "Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

locks is defined as - tsammah: From an unused root meaning to fasten on; a veil:

So the passage would read: "Your eyes are like doves behind your veil."

The Bible certainly never says it is "required" for a woman to cover their faces (even though women certainly did).

But, neither does the Bible say it is "required" for a woman to wear a veil/vail either, (even though women certainly did).

I think it would be correct to say that Paul is appealing to "tradition" in I Cor 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances/traditions, as I delivered them to you."

From what I have read, it was more of a necessity. During certain seasons, it was too dangerous to expose the head to the rays of sun in Palestine. That is probably how the veiling got started, out of necessity.

[mfblume]

I ran across this scripture today and thought of this thread.

KJV - Song of Solomon 4:1 "Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

locks is defined as - tsammah: From an unused root meaning to fasten on; a veil:

So the passage would read: "Your eyes are like doves behind your veil."

The Bible certainly never says it is "required" for a woman to cover their faces (even though women certainly did).

But, neither does the Bible say it is "required" for a woman to wear a veil/vail either, (even though women certainly did).

I think it would be correct to say that Paul is appealing to "tradition" in I Cor 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances/traditions, as I delivered them to you."

From what I have read, it was more of a necessity. During certain seasons, it was too dangerous to expose the head to the rays of sun in Palestine. That is probably how the veiling got started, out of necessity.

Right. It was not "required" which was my point. It was a tradition that was not ordained of God. Hence, my thoughts on offense, as chapter 10 dealt with the same nature of things.

[Socialite]

I ran across this scripture today and thought of this thread.

KJV - Song of Solomon 4:1 "Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

locks is defined as - tsammah: From an unused root meaning to fasten on; a veil:

So the passage would read: "Your eyes are like doves behind your veil."

The Bible certainly never says it is "required" for a woman to cover their faces (even though women certainly did).

But, neither does the Bible say it is "required" for a woman to wear a veil/vail either, (even though women certainly did).

I think it would be correct to say that Paul is appealing to "tradition" in I Cor 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances/traditions, as I delivered them to you."

From what I have read, it was more of a necessity. During certain seasons, it was too dangerous to expose the head to the rays of sun in Palestine. That is probably how the veiling got started, out of necessity.

ie, cultural.

[Pressing-On]

Right. It was not "required" which was my point. It was a tradition that was not ordained of God. Hence, my thoughts on offense, as chapter 10 dealt with the same nature of things.

I agree that it was a tradition not ordained of God. I may have misunderstood you in the past, but I thought that you adhered to the "veil" as for today.

[mfblume]

I agree that it was a tradition not ordained of God. I may have misunderstood you in the past, but I thought that you adhered to the "veil" as for today.

I did at one point, but then came to a better understanding some time ago, IMO. I feel God corrected me. :)

[Pressing-On]

I did at one point, but then came to a better understanding some time ago, IMO. I feel God corrected me. :)

Thank you. I think you are an awesome person because you are always so honest with your opinions and thoughts. :thumbsup

[mfblume]

Thank you. I think you are an awesome person because you are always so honest with your opinions and thoughts. :thumbsup

Thanks for your kind words. The older I get the more I realize I need to always be open for the Lord to correct me.

[Pressing-On]

Thanks for your kind words. The older I get the more I realize I need to always be open for the Lord to correct me.
I agree! :thumbsup BTW, I came back to add - I might appear to be very stubborn, but I do let God correct me! LOL!

[mfblume]

I agree! :thumbsup BTW, I came back to add - I might appear to be very stubborn, but I do let God correct me! LOL!

Nah, you do not appear stubborn to me. :D

[Pressing-On]

Nah, you do not appear stubborn to me. :D
LOL! Well, my past has left me with the unfortunate inability to trust, hence, my stubbornness. But, I try, for the most part, to be nice while I'm being stubborn. :heeheehee

[CC1]

I agree! :thumbsup BTW, I came back to add - I might appear to be very stubborn, but I do let God correct me! LOL!

Appear? APPEAR?????:happydance

[Pressing-On]

Appear? APPEAR?????:happydance

:toofunny Appear is manifest, it's not an illusion. LOL!

[mfblume]

Something else I will be honest about. When one is in the "fellowship", as I was, that stands for the hair deal with uncut hair on women, etc., one tries as best as one can to substantiate it even when one has doubts about it. It even comes to grasping for straws. The pressure is there most entirely from other ministers to conform to the standard, and not from God nor the Word.

[CC1]

I thought I would bump this thread since it is an interesting one. Anybody have any updaes on any other up and coming young ministers leaving the UPC either to the right with the WPF / GIB or to the left (Lib)?

[CC1]

Here is a link to Mark Johnstons blog from January 26, 2011 titled "When slower isn't better". It is a very interesting insight into his changes from by the book UPC preacher to where he is today.

His take on change, that it is better done faster than slower, flys in the face of all of the advice I have heard and given. However he does make some good points that support his position (at least to a degree). Here is the link;

http://yourjourney.typepad.com/mark_johnston/2011/01/index.html

[papapraiz]

Here is a link to Mark Johnstons blog from January 26, 2011 titled "When slower isn't better". It is a very interesting insight into his changes from by the book UPC preacher to where he is today.

His take on change, that it is better done faster than slower, flys in the face of all of the advice I have heard and given. However he does make some good points that support his position (at least to a degree). Here is the link;

http://yourjourney.typepad.com/mark_johnston/2011/01/index.html

CC! - I agree and wish he had left earlier instead of later!

In the past, I have been in meetings with other young pastors that included MJ and others who have left the organization.

Truly, MJ is truly a gifted preacher and pastor - we all know that. In earlier days, I would speak with him and try to defend him to other people and even had him preach for us. Unfortunately, over the past several years, many of us in the organization began to see changes that we did not want to be a part of. As a result, his circle of friendship dwindled because of the spirit and attitude he displayed during this transition.

He needed to leave the organization for a number of reasons - these two not being the least.

1. He does not believe Acts 2:38 is essential ... a core UPCI doctrine.
2. He became very cynical and critical and I feel out of bitterness would often say things publically and privately that were cutting and disrespectful. I experienced this personally and decided along with others not to be connected with him.

Just my view point for what it is worth.

[amhill261]

Hi I'm new to apostolic friends forum. I'm young person who currently attends a UPCI church although I don't agree with a lot of things this organization does or says.

I was wondering did Wayne Francis leave the UPCI because I think he did?

[Justin]

Hi I'm new to apostolic friends forum. I'm young person who currently attends a UPCI church although I don't agree with a lot of things this organization does or says.

I was wondering did Wayne Francis leave the UPCI because I think he did?

I didn't see him listed on the UPCI website:

http://www.upci.com/churchlocator/searchBy_Pastor.aspx

[CC1]

Hi I'm new to apostolic friends forum. I'm young person who currently attends a UPCI church although I don't agree with a lot of things this organization does or says.

I was wondering did Wayne Francis leave the UPCI because I think he did?

Here is a link to Wayne Francis personal blog. In the "About" section he talks about starting a new church "Authentic Church" in a New York suburb (White Plains if I remember correctly.).

http://fakeisover.com/about/

[mattmds6638]

I can't believe MJ left the fellowship. I was there at GC 2007 when he preached the home missions service. I still brag about that sermon. The UPC lost a great man

[papapraiz]

Job 32:9 Great men are not always wise ...

[Dick Michales]

Garner Who?

[ImThankful]

DeaconBlues. Do you happen to have a copy of that message as I myself would love to hear it.

[mfblume]

Garner Who?

Garner Ted Armstrong.

[Trouvere]

Just a thought but last year Indiana Dist UPCI had a record of ministry to be ordained at Camp. I know...we were up in Indiana during this time.

[Esaias]

Garner Ted Armstrong.

I used to watch him on early EARLY morning tv back in the day... lol

[CC1]

So any more up and coming young UPC preachers leave "The Ark" since this exodus about 3 years ago?

[Jermyn Davidson]

I said what I did because I watched him preach with power and fervency. What I saw when I went to his website broke my heart, for it was apparent that he no longer held what he once had.

Jay, you were criticized when you made this post, but I know what I have seen recently with at least 2 of the preachers mentioned in this thread and the only way to describe it is, "heart breaking".

I am sure I need to check myself, remove the beam from my eyes, and etc, but MAN I am deeply saddened by what I've just seen.


It's not supposed to be this way.

[The Lemon]

Not sure about "Heart Breaking" - maybe a little confused. That said, without sitting down and talking to folks like Mark, and Anthony (to name two who left the Mother ship) - it is in some ways impossible to know exactly why they left and why they changed.

It is easy to pick at them for obvious dropping of certain "standards", but other then that I would think there would have to be some sort of conversation as to intent and motive - not just looking at church websites and drawing conclusions.

Maybe I am missing something??

[CC1]

Jay, you were criticized when you made this post, but I know what I have seen recently with at least 2 of the preachers mentioned in this thread and the only way to describe it is, "heart breaking".

I am sure I need to check myself, remove the beam from my eyes, and etc, but MAN I am deeply saddened by what I've just seen.


It's not supposed to be this way.

Yup. Don't you just hate it when they stop screaming and waving a microphone around and just simply bring the word of God to people in a normal tone of voice? All of the annointing is just gone.:highfive

[Jermyn Davidson]

Yup. Don't you just hate it when they stop screaming and waving a microphone around and just simply bring the word of God to people in a normal tone of voice? All of the annointing is just gone.:highfive

We are brothers in Christ, but we are not on the same page here.

More to it than screaming.

[Jay]

Jay, you were criticized when you made this post, but I know what I have seen recently with at least 2 of the preachers mentioned in this thread and the only way to describe it is, "heart breaking".

I am sure I need to check myself, remove the beam from my eyes, and etc, but MAN I am deeply saddened by what I've just seen.


It's not supposed to be this way.

Wow, I posted that so long ago that I had to rethink what I was saying. Yes, I took some heat for it, but I have recently found the messages that he preached at the Illionois Youth Camp, and I still found myself heartbroken over him.

[Jay]

Not sure about "Heart Breaking" - maybe a little confused. That said, without sitting down and talking to folks like Mark, and Anthony (to name two who left the Mother ship) - it is in some ways impossible to know exactly why they left and why they changed.

It is easy to pick at them for obvious dropping of certain "standards", but other then that I would think there would have to be some sort of conversation as to intent and motive - not just looking at church websites and drawing conclusions.

Maybe I am missing something??

I do not know about Anthony Trout, but Mark Johnston went into the emergent movement, or was at least very strongly inclined in that direction. Much of his website reminded me of the Christ asking the question, "If the blind lead the blind, shall they not both ende up in the ditch?" He went from discussing the absolute truths of the Word, to talking about how we are are on a journey to discover the truth (as if it were as yet unrevealed). This is, as I understand it, one of the indicators of an emergent preacher.