***UPCI's Anthony Langston's New Book: Holier Than God ***

[BobDylan]

I would like to make a few observations here. Disregarding whether or not the writer Langston made some venemous remarks... why couldn't he have simply held his beliefs, did what he was going to do to build a church, then in retrospect say "Hey, here is the approach we took, and here is the results we got!" The proof is in the puddin' so-to-speak! There are several things he stated that in my opnion are accurate, right on, but he comes accross as confrontational to those who hold "traditional" values. If he wouldn't have had this confrontational approach, I think his "thesis" would have been better received and considered by those who have entertained many of the thoughts he suggests but are apprehensive about diverging from the "traditions" they have received.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I would like to make a few observations here. Disregarding whether or not the writer Langston made some venemous remarks... why couldn't he have simply held his beliefs, did what he was going to do to build a church, then in retrospect say "Hey, here is the approach we took, and here is the results we got!" The proof is in the puddin' so-to-speak! There are several things he stated that in my opnion are accurate, right on, but he comes accross as confrontational to those who hold "traditional" values. If he wouldn't have had this confrontational approach, I think his "thesis" would have been better received and considered by those who have entertained many of the thoughts he suggests but are apprehensive about diverging from the "traditions" they have received.

It's been a long time, but I remember him to be rather "confrontational" in his manner and approach.

He's a good guy, and I think that the confrontational approach that you perceive here may be a result of him coming to the conclusion that "the proof is in the puddin'" (as you say). I think he's comparing the "puddin'" of the 1920's and etc. with the "puddin'" of the 1950-1960's and saying we need some of that "older stuff."

Basically, it sounds like a challenge for so-called "traditionalist" to rethink the timeline of their traditions. As I've always said, the "conservatives" of our movement are not really conservatives. They are not conserving the past, but rather introducing innovations that they have insisted "God told them." I hear Langston and his generation recommending that we move on now that those innovations have failed. By "moving on" he's really saying, "Let's go back..." Back to the first years of the Pentecostal revival in North America, and most importantly: back to the New Testament teachings and practices of the Apostles.