Dissatisfied Member of a future WWPF Church

[ForeverBlessed]

Originally Posted by Minty

When you have been born and raised in the UPC, it is hard to just drop out. It is very disturbing because families, friends and churches are being torn apart. I know that several of the ministers leaving have different view points and things that they don't allow their congregations to participate in. Christmas for one...some leaving even allow trees and others condemn you to hell for having one. What about colored shirts (ok for some but not others)? Wedding bands? How long will this new organization be united before they split because of something else?

You are so right, and I believe they will eventually have division among their own organization. That is just the nature of people... that is why everyone should focus on what they do have in common as an org and get along with each other.... let the trivial things go. Especially when it doesn't have to do with salvation.

I am more liberal than I was raised...but I was born and bred in this organization (4th generation and even I can't make a break). I totally understand the uneasy feeling that saints in these churches might be feeling. It is dividing families... and I don't think anything is worth the dividing of families.

I see a lot of faults in the UPCI... but I have choosen to look at all the good that they do and choose to remain a part of a UPC church. Change is very difficult for me... it took me over a year to make a move from the church I was raised in, to another UPC church where the views were more aligned with how I believed on these more trivial things.... and now some 4 years later, my home church is progressively changing.

Because they had no real Biblical arguments to support some of the changes in standards, like the introduction of the doctrine of uncut hair on women and no slacks on women- they often would exaggerate about a perceived decline in morals around them. Suddenly, everyone had "gone Charismatic" or "backslid" into some error.

Whoa--some things are totally sound scriptural doctrine and not arbitrary--they are not just manmade 'standards' of the UPCI. Hopefully I misinterpreted what you were saying here, that it's ok for women to cut their hair and wear pants??? A lot of pastors have 'preferences' that they may teach their flock that can be argued one way or the other, but some things are fully supported by, yea even commanded by God's Word and will never change regardless of the WPF, UPCI, or whoever and the cutting of women's hair and distinction between the sexes are a couple of them!! God Bless!

[Rev]

Originally Posted by CaliG

Because they had no real Biblical arguments to support some of the changes in standards, like the introduction of the doctrine of uncut hair on women and no slacks on women- they often would exaggerate about a perceived decline in morals around them. Suddenly, everyone had "gone Charismatic" or "backslid" into some error.

Whoa--some things are totally sound scriptural doctrine and not arbitrary--they are not just manmade 'standards' of the UPCI. Hopefully I misinterpreted what you were saying here, that it's ok for women to cut their hair and wear pants??? A lot of pastors have 'preferences' that they may teach their flock that can be argued one way or the other, but some things are fully supported by, yea even commanded by God's Word and will never change regardless of the WPF, UPCI, or whoever and the cutting of women's hair and distinction between the sexes are a couple of them!! God Bless!

"Because they had no real Biblical arguments to support some of the changes in standards, like the introduction of the doctrine of uncut hair on women and no slacks on women"

You must really pick and choose the threads you read because there have been many scriptures posted on those topics!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by CaliG

Because they had no real Biblical arguments to support some of the changes in standards, like the introduction of the doctrine of uncut hair on women and no slacks on women- they often would exaggerate about a perceived decline in morals around them. Suddenly, everyone had "gone Charismatic" or "backslid" into some error.

Whoa--some things are totally sound scriptural doctrine and not arbitrary--they are not just manmade 'standards' of the UPCI. Hopefully I misinterpreted what you were saying here, that it's ok for women to cut their hair and wear pants??? A lot of pastors have 'preferences' that they may teach their flock that can be argued one way or the other, but some things are fully supported by, yea even commanded by God's Word and will never change regardless of the WPF, UPCI, or whoever and the cutting of women's hair and distinction between the sexes are a couple of them!! God Bless!

Hey, thanks for the kind words. And I agree very much with the part of your post that I bolded above. However, in the history of the United Pentecostal Church, women wearing slacks and having uncut hair is a "new" teaching for most of the fellowship.

I have seen family photos from the late 1940's of women you would probably know wearing slacks at outdoor events. Also women cutting their hair was never a prohibition until recently. All of these represent things that were added to the holiness and doctrines of the Oneness movement. Prohibiting men's facial hair is another example.

To say that the "no slacks on women" and no "cutting of women's hair" are "things are fully supported by, yea even commanded by God's Word and will never change regardless of the WPF, UPCI, or whoever;" is to reveal a sad oversight on your part in reading the Word of God. In fact, "pants" and "slacks" etc. were not even invented or used until long after the Bible had been written.

These topics have been discussed endlessly here. And so far, still no scripture can be shown to "command" anything in this regard.

But I wish you well. I was glad to see your post.

You must really pick and choose the threads you read because there have been many scriptures posted on those topics!

Actually, I do pick and choose the threads I read since I am a brand new member of the forum--I was really only commenting on the aforementioned comments of 'Pelathais', not the opinions or former postings of any one else, but thanks for your help! Blessings!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Rev

"Because they had no real Biblical arguments to support some of the changes in standards, like the introduction of the doctrine of uncut hair on women and no slacks on women"

You must really pick and choose the threads you read because there have been many scriptures posted on those topics!

Nope, you'll probablly even find me posting in those threads.

I do realize that the words 'slacks' and 'pants' were not mentioned in the Bible--however, the distinction between the sexes is as old as the written Word itself. My family too has been in the UPC since nearly the beginning, and as long as I can remember women have been taught against the wearing of pants and cutting of their hair.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by CaliG

I do realize that the words 'slacks' and 'pants' were not mentioned in the Bible--however, the distinction between the sexes is as old as the written Word itself. My family too has been in the UPC since nearly the beginning, and as long as I can remember women have been taught against the wearing of pants and cutting of their hair.

By way of introduction, let me say this: Neither my wife nor our teen aged daughter have ever cut a single hair on their head in the course of either of their entire lives. Not one hair, not ever.

But that's not a "commandment" that I enforce or one that they observe. It is a custom. They do it because they feel that they are honoring God by that practice. Their salvation doesn't depend upon it, but there is an extra element of power in their lives that they feel they might not otherwise have. The point is, they are free to do it, or not to do it. So when they do it - it comes from a heart that is free.

Also, my wife and daughter don't wear slacks. The "commandment" here involves "that which pertaineth to a man..." and vice versa. I've never seen a man wear a pair of pink ladies jeans (and I don't want to!). But my point is THAT would be wrong.

Pants were invented by pagan horsemen of the Northern latitudes. They represent a garment style that is often more modest for a woman than a skirt. As long as the "pants" are feminine and "pertain" to a woman, then they are women's apparel. The enforcement of a stricter code is based upon misogynist elements within our broader culture and really is new to much of the OP movement (by "new" I mean in the last 60 years or so).

I have family members that work in the health care industry. These ladies wear scrubs. Skirts are available, but are frowned upon for many reasons of safety, etc. Also, the scrub pants are just more modest for a lady.

I teach the principle of a distinction between boys and girls to my boys and girls and the result is pretty much the same as what the "clothse line" preacher gets. But my kids are my friends and they take away with them principles that will apply no matter what the world throws at them.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Hi Nathan. I'm not a UPC minister nor do I even "fit the mold" in many ways, but that's their loss.

Anyhoo, I do have some strong sentimental attachments to the UPC. I genuinely love my family's new pastor (UPC). I also spent a lot of my life going back and forth to and from St. Louis when I was a UPC minister and I would like to think that those parts of my life were not wasted somehow.

"UPC" is kind of a brand name. It's like finding a box of genuine Kellogg's Corn Flakes at a hotel overseas or a cold bottle of Coca Cola in the Yucatan. You know what to expect after "experimenting" with the local cuisine - and there's a lot of comfort in that.

And so, alot of people will get stirred up about anything changing and losing the "UPC" brand indentification. Of course "change" is what the WPF profess to be stirred up about as well.

For me, it's just the fact that since they didn't do "Step #1" right (recruiting) then all the other steps are doomed to procede along a predictable and disappointing path. A lot of others who feel the same way deserve to have their voices heard. I would encourage them to speak out.

I come from the same background. When it comes to a UPCI church. Your voice is trained not to question direction or authority.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Neckstadt

I come from the same background. When it comes to a UPCI church. Your voice is trained not to question direction or authority.

Yes. And in my travels, some of the "scary" types of churches tended to be ones that ran afoul of the UPC. Almost all of the so-called "anti-cult" horror stories you see on the Internet involve churches or preachers that were in trouble with the org in some way. So "UPC" became something of a "safety" rating. But even then you have to be wary. But to be fair, I guess; you really should be wary wherever you go.