Whaaaaaaatt???? What's happening in Canada??

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

I am still looking for AJB's tape on hair from his 1982 series on "Separation." I found and listened to the tape on "Television," but I can't find any others from the series. The television tape would blister the hide of a lot of preachers in the new UPC.

Contrary to the protestations of a few, I don't know of one person, family or otherwise, that was "used" in the church, with cut hair, during that era. He inherited a lot of cut hair in a later church, but in those days you wouldn't sit under his teaching and believe you were going to Heaven with bobbed hair. I certainly didn't.

I am going to ask him by email and see what he says. I will PM you the answer.

[Subdued]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The actual thought, though, is whether or not pants ARE an abomination. The bible never said that. It said men's apparel on a woman is an abomination, and vice versa.

So we must ask ourselves whether or not "pants" are men's apparel at any given time in history. We know cultures change and so does the "standard" of what and what not is men's or women's apparel. And then there aree the opinions of whether or not something is the current thought for men's apparel.

At one time pants were neither men's nor women's apparel. NOBODY WORE THEM. God never gave Adam "breeches", nor Eve. He clothed them with COATS. As time went on, cultural variation began. And then what was considered masculine or feminine changed. One day, who knows when (?), pants came into being. Culture CHANGED for that to occur. So, who is to say culture WILL NOT CHANGE again, or has not already changed?

Someone responds saying, "But modesty is still modesty." Amen! So God's people are adominished to retain masculinity and feminity in respective modes of apparel, while maintaining MODESTY all the while. When cultures change, men's apparel will not be what it was at one point, but modesty must still be maintained with whatever we consider men's apparel. Same with women's apparel.

My point is that PANTS were not labeled as men's apparel in Deut 22:5. That is because God knows CULTURES CHANGE along with what specifically is considered men's apparel, while modesty remains.



I never said wearing pants was an abomination when I gave my example. That was not an issue.

CULTURES CHANGE. And it will always be that it is an abomination for a woman to wear "men's apparel", and vice versa. But WHAT EXACTLY THAT APPAREL is will CHANGE. We cannot insert PANTS or ROBES or SARI'S in for MEN'S APPAREL. So the BIBLICAL truth is to maintain feminine and masculine distinction in dress, AND REMAIN MODEST in it all. It is abomination for a woman to wear men's apparel. Let's let the bible say what it actually said.

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I am going to ask him by email and see what he says. I will PM you the answer.

While you're at it, why don't you tell him to sign up here. He's probably going crazy trying to be retired, and I could use some help setting everybody straight here.

Can you imagine anybody trying to say that the pioneers in New Brunswick were slack on standards?

I remember one dear elder brother who got anointed at a fellowship in the eighties and preached against the "Readers Digest."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

While you're at it, why don't you tell him to sign up here. He's probably going crazy trying to be retired, and I could use some help setting everybody straight here.

Can you imagine anybody trying to say that the pioneers in New Brunswick were slack on standards?

I remember one dear elder brother who got anointed at a fellowship in the eighties and preached against the "Readers Digest."

HAHA! He may get a kick out of this.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Is this the reincarnation of the Canadian Thread?

If so, it will be a refreshment indeed.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

While you're at it, why don't you tell him to sign up here. He's probably going crazy trying to be retired, and I could use some help setting everybody straight here.

Can you imagine anybody trying to say that the pioneers in New Brunswick were slack on standards?

I remember one dear elder brother who got anointed at a fellowship in the eighties and preached against the "Readers Digest."

[Nina]

Originally Posted by mfblume

So we must ask ourselves whether or not "pants" are men's apparel at any given time in history. We know cultures change and so does the "standard" of what and what not is men's or women's apparel. And then there aree the opinions of whether or not something is the current thought for men's apparel.

At one time pants were neither men's nor women's apparel. NOBODY WORE THEM. God never gave Adam "breeches", nor Eve. He clothed them with COATS. As time went on, cultural variation began. And then what was considered masculine or feminine changed. One day, who knows when (?), pants came into being. Culture CHANGED for that to occur. So, who is to say culture WILL NOT CHANGE again, or has not already changed?

Bro I read somewhere that during Aristotle's lifetime he was one of the first to wear pants and was looked down upon for it.

I wish I could find the link,

Nina

[Thumper]

Well this has been an interesting thread indeed. Thad called me prior to begining this thread to see if I could confirm, deny or illuminate what was happening. Unfortunately I could not. BC is not exactly the epicentre of oneness pentecostalism in Canada and I am not really conected to what is going on in and around the churches in this area much anymore. What I did tell Thad, and perhaps some of you easterners could add to or correct what I'm saying, was that there was an administrative change that took place somewhere in the middle 90's that created the UPC of Canada and made it somehow distinct from the UPCI. Now I stand to be corrected on this but I was told it was primarily just a housekeeping matter to legalize all the funds that were flowing to the UPCI from Canadian churches. That it would in no way changed the relationship that local churches or ministers had with the various ministries and governance of the UPCI.

I guess my question would be what do the people who are driving this idea see being accomplished by it? My perspective, being primarily western, would see it as being a way of keeping funds at home and being utilized for local and national projects that are otherwise ignored by those in Mecca. It was always my feeling that an inordinant amount of money went out but precious little ever came back. FMD not withstanding because those funds are not intended to come back to fund local ministries but things like CFC, SFC, SOC etc were always presented as national ministries to the local church but they never seemed to find their way to our local church or any church that I knew of.

I wonder if there is anyone of our fine Canadian UPC friends who post here who might know how much is raised by these ministries vs. what returns back to the district and local church.

I think it would be a very interesting look. Again my perspective is skewed because I have been in never neverland out here on the coast and the things that take place out east were very rarely given any prominance out here. Also, having been away from the UPC for over 7 years now means that things may have changed out here and maybe they lavishing money on the local assemblies promoting evangelism.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

I am still looking for AJB's tape on hair from his 1982 series on "Separation." I found and listened to the tape on "Television," but I can't find any others from the series. The television tape would blister the hide of a lot of preachers in the new UPC.

Contrary to the protestations of a few, I don't know of one person, family or otherwise, that was "used" in the church, with cut hair, during that era. He inherited a lot of cut hair in a later church, but in those days you wouldn't sit under his teaching and believe you were going to Heaven with bobbed hair. I certainly didn't.

That is what EF told me and also Elder McElroy.

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by TopDog

This was all discussed at some length back on FCF/nFCF......

Having been part of the UPC for many years, but now living in Alberta and having been to many ACOP churches both here and back in New Brunswick, I would have to agree in part with your statement regarding the ACOP's Godhead stance.

I personally know ACOP ministers who baptize in Jesus name, and others in Jesus name AND FSHG together. The ACOP seems to offer such a degree of latitude in this area that even though many likely baptize in Jesus name they would be mildly amused to hear that folks consider them to be "oneness". I don't think they've institutionalized the oneness versus trinitarian "thing" to the extent that other groups have. They don't see baptism in 'Jesus name as making them "oneness" as other groups would - or in making them NOT trinitarian as some groups may perceive. They have OTHER priorities..... :sshhh

My two cents......(BTW - I happen to agree with them even though I don't currently attend an ACOP church)

I personally do not baptize in the name of Jesus Christ because I associate doing so with the Godhead. I do so because it is the only name in which I have any authority to baptize anyone. Even if I was Trinitarian, I would still baptize in the name of Jesus Christ.