UPC, ALJC, PAW, etc.

[n david]

Originally Posted by hometown guy

I for one would rather have conviction preaching then shouting preaching. I love both. I’ve been in Pentecost all my life. Heard some great messages. Shouted with the best but the messages that have impacted my life are the ones where conviction got on me and put me on my face. Those are the messages that are memorials in my life. John the Baptist came preaching repentance telling them they were in sin. He didn’t do it in private. They wanted his head for it because some wanted to keep their “ religion “ and their sin.

I'm good with conviction preaching. I don't like clothesline preaching. Preach true Biblical holiness and leave out the UPC dress code which varies depending on country and church.

[consapente89]

Just want to say this is becoming a very thought provoking discussion and I am enjoying it from the sidelines!

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Antipas

This might be an unpopular question. So, let me apologize up front if it rubs anyone the wrong what. That isn't the intention.

We've talked about pastors holding the line and preaching the line and the challenges they face. And they certainly do face significant challenges. Let's not ever assume that they don't.

But what about those pastors who sincerely are dealing with challenges going the opposite direction?

For example, what if a pastor has sincerely studied Scripture and sincerely feels that a given "standard" is more tradition and isn't biblical or necessary?

How would this pastor shed these traditions off the congregation while facing being called a compromiser by some in the congregation or being slandered throughout his district as "going charismatic"?

What about the heart and soul of the "moderate pastor" (if that's a good description) who is being called to a more strictly "biblical" approach?

Wow such an awesome question.
Lets take facial hair for an example.
It is true that facial hair is not found in scripture as being negative or positive. There is actually affirmation for both in the scripture. We know that Aron had a beard on the other hand we know that Joseph was clean shaven when taken out of Jail.
Also we may need to take into account our culture and what facial hair identifies with.
In recent years a beard has become more of a sculpted piece of art and may look rather nice. But in years gone by (lets say the 60s and 70s) the long hair and long beard identified someone with a rebellious sect called hippies.
So when the hippies were converted the first thing they did was to reject everything that identified them as a hippie, they cut their hair and shaved their faces in many cased without having to be told to do so.
Many of these ex-hippies are in the church today as saints and Pastors and still identify facial hair with rebellion so instead of bringing confusion to the church that is full of old hippies and new saints they feel it is safer for the church to maintain the standard of no facial hair.
So that is one example of "tradition" that is not in the bible but may be better to keep in place for the sake of the church.
I know this does not answer the question you asked but its a piece of the puzzle of pastoring

[n david]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Wow such an awesome question.
Lets take facial hair for an example.
It is true that facial hair is not found in scripture as being negative or positive. There is actually affirmation for both in the scripture. We know that Aron had a beard on the other hand we know that Joseph was clean shaven when taken out of Jail.
Also we may need to take into account our culture and what facial hair identifies with.
In recent years a beard has become more of a sculpted piece of art and may look rather nice. But in years gone by (lets say the 60s and 70s) the long hair and long beard identified someone with a rebellious sect called hippies.
So when the hippies were converted the first thing they did was to reject everything that identified them as a hippie, they cut their hair and shaved their faces in many cased without having to be told to do so.
Many of these ex-hippies are in the church today as saints and Pastors and still identify facial hair with rebellion so instead of bringing confusion to the church that is full of old hippies and new saints they feel it is safer for the church to maintain the standard of no facial hair.
So that is one example of "tradition" that is not in the bible but may be better to keep in place for the sake of the church.
I know this does not answer the question you asked but its a piece of the puzzle of pastoring

The 60s and 70s are LONG past. Facial hair is NOT synonymous with hippies and rebellion anymore. It's ridiculous that people still try to use that as a reason to ban facial hair on white men.

If you want to talk "culture" and give exceptions due to "culture," which is what the UPC has done with its dress code -- then understand that the "culture" today has removed the old stigma of the beard. Executives, Politicians and Ministers now grow facial hair. It is current "culture" for men of all colors and nationalities to grow facial hair.

Actually, this "culture" stuff has no basis in scripture. Paul wrote that we're not Jew or Greek, bond or free, but one body. Just as with the Godhead and New Birth salvation, there should be no variance in the body when it comes to actual Bible holiness. The reason there is points how less it is about Biblical doctrine and more it is about personal preferences.

Also, you forgot to mention that Jesus had a beard.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Wow such an awesome question.
Lets take facial hair for an example.
It is true that facial hair is not found in scripture as being negative or positive. There is actually affirmation for both in the scripture. We know that Aron had a beard on the other hand we know that Joseph was clean shaven when taken out of Jail.
Also we may need to take into account our culture and what facial hair identifies with.
In recent years a beard has become more of a sculpted piece of art and may look rather nice. But in years gone by (lets say the 60s and 70s) the long hair and long beard identified someone with a rebellious sect called hippies.
So when the hippies were converted the first thing they did was to reject everything that identified them as a hippie, they cut their hair and shaved their faces in many cased without having to be told to do so.
Many of these ex-hippies are in the church today as saints and Pastors and still identify facial hair with rebellion so instead of bringing confusion to the church that is full of old hippies and new saints they feel it is safer for the church to maintain the standard of no facial hair.
So that is one example of "tradition" that is not in the bible but may be better to keep in place for the sake of the church.
I know this does not answer the question you asked but its a piece of the puzzle of pastoring

Pastors really have to walk a tightrope sometimes. So glad I'm not a pastor. lol

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Antipas

This might be an unpopular question. So, let me apologize up front if it rubs anyone the wrong what. That isn't the intention.

We've talked about pastors holding the line and preaching the line and the challenges they face. And they certainly do face significant challenges. Let's not ever assume that they don't.

But what about those pastors who sincerely are dealing with challenges going the opposite direction?

For example, what if a pastor has sincerely studied Scripture and sincerely feels that a given "standard" is more tradition and isn't biblical or necessary?

How would this pastor shed these traditions off the congregation while facing being called a compromiser by some in the congregation or being slandered throughout his district as "going charismatic"?

What about the heart and soul of the "moderate pastor" (if that's a good description) who is being called to a more strictly "biblical" approach?

As an outsider, I think we should allow them the same leeway as anyone else. So if a pastor thinks a non-biblical rule or standard should be done away with, good on him. I doubt he came to that conclusion without much consideration. How he handles his peers will likely be tricky, but if my pastor is any indication, he just calls "scoreboard." when he is called a compromiser. Ha!

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Pastors really have to walk a tightrope sometimes. So glad I'm not a pastor. lol

Amen to that!

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by n david

The 60s and 70s are LONG past. Facial hair is NOT synonymous with hippies and rebellion anymore. It's ridiculous that people still try to use that as a reason to ban facial hair on white men.

If you want to talk "culture" and give exceptions due to "culture," which is what the UPC has done with its dress code -- then understand that the "culture" today has removed the old stigma of the beard. Executives, Politicians and Ministers now grow facial hair. It is current "culture" for men of all colors and nationalities to grow facial hair.

Actually, this "culture" stuff has no basis in scripture. Paul wrote that we're not Jew or Greek, bond or free, but one body. Just as with the Godhead and New Birth salvation, there should be no variance in the body when it comes to actual Bible holiness. The reason there is points how less it is about Biblical doctrine and more it is about personal preferences.

Also, you forgot to mention that Jesus had a beard.

I understand what you're saying.

But I think Apostolic1ness was pointing out a pastor's challenge with such a tradition, seeing that there are still many older saints in the congregation with deep convictions about the issue... because they lived it. To just embrace beards full hog in some churches could seriously cause a crisis of faith for some who were always taught that it was a "sin" and it was "rebellion". So, the pastor has to be sensitive to that reality.

Now, is that reality the fault of the congregation? No. Of course it is how it was preached back in the day. I think we face a lot of unnecessary hurdles to unity, confidence, bible focus, and organizational politics because of the way things were preached.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Ehud

As an outsider, I think we should allow them the same leeway as anyone else. So if a pastor thinks a non-biblical rule or standard should be done away with, good on him. I doubt he came to that conclusion without much consideration. How he handles his peers will likely be tricky, but if my pastor is any indication, he just calls "scoreboard." when he is called a compromiser. Ha!

LOL

What's "scoreboard" mean?

[hometown guy]

Originally Posted by n david

The 60s and 70s are LONG past. Facial hair is NOT synonymous with hippies and rebellion anymore. It's ridiculous that people still try to use that as a reason to ban facial hair on white men.

If you want to talk "culture" and give exceptions due to "culture," which is what the UPC has done with its dress code -- then understand that the "culture" today has removed the old stigma of the beard. Executives, Politicians and Ministers now grow facial hair. It is current "culture" for men of all colors and nationalities to grow facial hair.

Actually, this "culture" stuff has no basis in scripture. Paul wrote that we're not Jew or Greek, bond or free, but one body. Just as with the Godhead and New Birth salvation, there should be no variance in the body when it comes to actual Bible holiness. The reason there is points how less it is about Biblical doctrine and more it is about personal preferences.

Also, you forgot to mention that Jesus had a beard.

Come to LA area and tell me that facial hair has no roots in rebellion. We have gang members ( including some of my family ) and you can just about count them having mustache and goatees.