Traditions

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Dagwood

With all due respect, LadyRev, please tell me why some traditions within the apostolic movement are in place. Although I'm not as blatant with disregard toward some people's traditions, I am inclined to play the context card myself since so much of what's been in practice has been taken out of context.

Traditions also tie into the standards doctrine, especially with regard to appearance. When we hear of "remove not the old landmarks," just what landmarks are being spoken of? Was the issue of standards/appearance what they were speaking of? I have my own traditions, as I'm sure others do too: reading the Bible, praying, corporate worship/involvement in the church, fellowship, etc. However, when it comes to standards, well I suppose I have those too; most of the people I know and go to church with dress like me, and me like them. It's just not micro-managed to a specific style/appearance...

Again, traditions are usually not bad, in fact they are something that binds families together in many cases. An example would be "Grandpa always cuts the turkey first on Thanksgiving" or any others associated with holidays. No one would dare take the carving knife away from grandpa (unless of course he is acting reckless with it and even then you probably wouldn't) yet everyone knows it is still JUST tradition. When tradition enters the church in the form of doctrine it becomes something much much more dangerous. Steve Pixlers sermon on facial hair is one of the best studies on this subject when he attacked the concept of teaching a doctrine which may be good for that time but often gain a life of their own, devoid of all context, once the original reason for teaching it is gone.

And no, I will NOT go the intersection at 1st and Main Street! If it was good enough for my great granddad, it is good enough for me!

[The Lemon]

I'm sorry but it seems to me that alot of "religious" traditions are persuasive antics designed to get people to buy into exclusive uniformity and are propped up with the mystical manifestated feeling that if we dress this way, attend this much, talk like this etc. then we are in right standing with both God and His church.

The problem is so many traditions are subjective...both the ones we like and the ones we dislike. Tradition itself is not even the core issue, it is the fact that in religious circles tradition alot of times trumps sound doctrine and is often matched equally with Biblical Doctrine based on past "experieces" with God. Some experiences have little to do with a move of the Holy Ghost, but have more to do with the feeling a person gets with inclusion into the group.

I have seen God move in and out of my particular persuasion (Apostolic). God is not bound to anything but His Word. We often try to bind Him to our interpretations however, simply because He moved on us at a given time, and therefore we automatically use that as justification for everything from what we were wearing at the time to who was preaching the message. The bottom line is God is God and His Word is the final authority..not our personal interpretive traditions we often use to measure each other and other Christians with..

[Dagwood]

Originally Posted by The Lemon

I'm sorry but it seems to me that alot of "religious" traditions are persuasive antics designed to get people to buy into exclusive uniformity and are propped up with the mystical manifestated feeling that if we dress this way, attend this much, talk like this etc. then we are in right standing with both God and His church.

The problem is so many traditions are subjective...both the ones we like and the ones we dislike. Tradition itself is not even the core issue, it is the fact that in religious circles tradition alot of times trumps sound doctrine and is often matched equally with Biblical Doctrine based on past "experieces" with God. Some experiences have little to do with a move of the Holy Ghost, but have more to do with the feeling a person gets with inclusion into the group.

I have seen God move in and out of my particular persuasion (Apostolic). God is not bound to anything but His Word. We often try to bind Him to our interpretations however, simply because He moved on us at a given time, and therefore we automatically use that as justification for everything from what we were wearing at the time to who was preaching the message. The bottom line is God is God and His Word is the final authority..not our personal interpretive traditions we often use to measure each other and other Christians with..

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I can't help thinking of those who proclaim the "ancient landmarks" holy....

None of those "landmarks" even existed before about 1937 or so - except Jesus' name baptism and "speaking in tongues" as evidence of the HG which came about around the turn of the last century. Neither is hardly "ancient."

I find it striking that the rhetoric used to substantiate these innovations (for that's what they really are) is so similar to the Southern rhetoric used to support slavery and then, later, Jim Crow.

"Our Southern Heritage" and "Our beloved institutions and rights..." Give me a break. My family was from the South and was very much a part of Southern History and even fought to establish our rights in the Revolution. There are road signs and historical landmarks marking the homes, battlefields and other sites where my family lived and died.

One famous ancestor's home is even a "Living Museum" now - complete with paid African-American actors portraying the "slaves" who allegedly lived on that plantation: But according to all the church records and Federal and State census materials, my ancestor never owned a slave. Not one. He called his home "Harmony Hall" because he was one of those wacky religious and national utopiarians.

I know this sounds like a bit of a tangent - but it's just an example of how convoluted some people's "history" has become. "Slavery" wasn't a "Southern Heritage." Most Southerners suffered economically at the hands of the ruling slave aristocracy. We were happy to see it go. Jim Crow was a racist innovation and NOT something that had had longstanding support in Southern communities.

Forbidding women to cut their hair was an innovation of the 1930s. The "pants" thing, though based upon older worldly customs, was added at about the same time.

"Ancient landmarks." "Our Godly Heritage..." Gimme a break. Those guys just make stuff up and then call it an "ancient landmark."

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by The Lemon

I'm sorry but ...

Don't say, "sorry." You're right on.

Like RandyWayne said, "devoid of context" these things really are just plain silly. Well, I added "just plain silly..." but RandyWayne was right on, too.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by LadyRev

Ah but of course! When you have nothing else, throw out the "context" card!

The fact remains that scripture is plain that not all tradition is bad. On the contrary, it strongly encourages some traditions to be maintained.

Of course, I know you aren't talking about throwing out "all" traditions. Just the ones you don't like or agree with. I believe that cuts to the chase of this thread.

Nuh-uh! The "chase of this thread" to which we can and should "cut" is the impositions of Non-Biblical traditions which are then enforced with the dire warning that you're going to hell unless you comply.

Forbidding women to trim their hair or to wear "bifurcated garments" are just two examples. The prohibition on men wearing "facial hair" or having hair that goes over the top of their ears are a couple more. You well know that this list is lengthy, ever-changing and oftentimes something people have to guess at when they travel around the country.

Wedding bands - "okay?" "forbidden!" or just something we're not supposed to talk about? I attended a wedding this past weekend that was officiated by a guy from up around your neck of the woods - you probably know him or at least have heard of him. He's now "independent" and lives across the lake from you (a big lake) and is "staff" at that big "independent" church there.

This guy made several remarks emphasizing the "Apostolic heritage" of the bride and groom (both "5th generation" Apostolics) and the importance of our "Apostolic doctrine and heritage." He then went on to perform a "Ring Ceremony" as part of the wedding that the young couple had planned themselves.

When I was a UPC minister performing weddings (and this was largely a "UPC affair"), I was told sternly by my pastor to NOT do "Ring Ceremonies." So, just what is the "ancient landmark" involved in this one?

What about women's hair? Sister Bertha Clinton founded Emmanuel Pentecostal Church in Mesquite, Texas, in 1940. Sister Clinton was filled with the Holy Ghost and much zeal for the Lord. Sister Clinton wore her hair in an old fashioned manner for her time which illustrated her roots in the early Pentecostal revivals. That hair style was called a "bob."

They had to remove her picture from the EPC website- and the "Ancient Landmark" it represented when C.M. Becton died because so many folks from around the country were looking up EPC on the web.

http://www.epcmesquite.com/?i=8731&mid=1000&id=187400

"Don't remove SOME of the Ancient Landmarks?" Is that our message? But we're free to remove the ones we don't like - like Sister Bertha Clinton?

[Dagwood]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Nuh-uh! The "chase of this thread" to which we can and should "cut" is the impositions of Non-Biblical traditions which are then enforced with the dire warning that you're going to hell unless you comply.

Forbidding women to trim their hair or to wear "bifurcated garments" are just two examples. The prohibition on men wearing "facial hair" or having hair that goes over the top of their ears are a couple more. You well know that this list is lengthy, ever-changing and oftentimes something people have to guess at when they travel around the country.

Wedding bands - "okay?" "forbidden!" or just something we're not supposed to talk about? I attended a wedding this past weekend that was officiated by a guy from up around your neck of the woods - you probably know him or at least have heard of him. He's now "independent" and lives across the lake from you (a big lake) and is "staff" at that big "independent" church there.

This guy made several remarks emphasizing the "Apostolic heritage" of the bride and groom (both "5th generation" Apostolics) and the importance of our "Apostolic doctrine and heritage." He then went on to perform a "Ring Ceremony" as part of the wedding that the young couple had planned themselves.

When I was a UPC minister performing weddings (and this was largely a "UPC affair"), I was told sternly by my pastor to NOT do "Ring Ceremonies." So, just what is the "ancient landmark" involved in this one?

What about women's hair? Sister Bertha Clinton founded Emmanuel Pentecostal Church in Mesquite, Texas, in 1940. Sister Clinton was filled with the Holy Ghost and much zeal for the Lord. Sister Clinton wore her hair in an old fashioned manner for her time which illustrated her roots in the early Pentecostal revivals. That hair style was called a "bob."

They had to remove her picture from the EPC website- and the "Ancient Landmark" it represented when C.M. Becton died because so many folks from around the country were looking up EPC on the web.

http://www.epcmesquite.com/?i=8731&mid=1000&id=187400

"Don't remove SOME of the Ancient Landmarks?" Is that our message? But we're free to remove the ones we don't like - like Sister Bertha Clinton?

Whether or not you're on the other forum (GNC), I don't know. But your post above would definitely be a good alternative response to some of the things that have been posted there. I've said my stance on it, even bringing some of my thoughts to this particular thread/forum.

I know some Emmanuel folks really well; used to go to church with some of them when they were at other area churches nearby. Makes me wonder if they have any knowledge of Sis Bertha Clinton (I do not, other than what I've heard which matches what you said above) the way you've explained it above, or if they would even dare engage in such conversation. I don't know. If anything, it would probably be a waste of time to strike one up.

[LadyRev]

Originally Posted by Dagwood

With all due respect, LadyRev, please tell me why some traditions within the apostolic movement are in place. Although I'm not as blatant with disregard toward some people's traditions, I am inclined to play the context card myself since so much of what's been in practice has been taken out of context.

Traditions also tie into the standards doctrine, especially with regard to appearance. When we hear of "remove not the old landmarks," just what landmarks are being spoken of? Was the issue of standards/appearance what they were speaking of? I have my own traditions, as I'm sure others do too: reading the Bible, praying, corporate worship/involvement in the church, fellowship, etc. However, when it comes to standards, well I suppose I have those too; most of the people I know and go to church with dress like me, and me like them. It's just not micro-managed to a specific style/appearance...

Which traditions are you asking about? I don't mean any disrespect either but if you are asking about dress/appearances traditions, I'm quite frankly sick of such discussions. They accomplish nothing. They really don't even qualify as "discussions". They are bashing sessions and nothing more.

Sometimes its not even limited to dress/appearance issues it goes into other areas such as praise and worship and then things really start going to the pig pen.

[Margies3]

Originally Posted by LadyRev

Ah but of course! When you have nothing else, throw out the "context" card!

The fact remains that scripture is plain that not all tradition is bad. On the contrary, it strongly encourages some traditions to be maintained.

Of course, I know you aren't talking about throwing out "all" traditions. Just the ones you don't like or agree with. I believe that cuts to the chase of this thread.

You know, Catholics could look at us as Protestants and say that we threw out the traditions we didn't like or didn't agree with.

Talk to any Amish person about the importance of keeping the traditions they've held on to for generation after generation.

What makes Apostolics any different in that kind of thinking?

[LadyRev]

Originally Posted by Margies3

You know, Catholics could look at us as Protestants and say that we threw out the traditions we didn't like or didn't agree with.

Talk to any Amish person about the importance of keeping the traditions they've held on to for generation after generation.

What makes Apostolics any different in that kind of thinking?

Ummm...having been raised Catholic I could easily answer the question but I don't care to go there.