DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,

[pelathais]

There is an article that caught my attention in the Winter/Spring 2010 edition of CLC's magazine The Cross. It's a brief essay which I have posted as JPG images below.

In the article, the author compares the "Apostolic Brand" (without actually using that phrase) with the very successful Coca-Cola brand. You can read the article for yourself in less than a few quick minutes.

If you have a hard time reading the text from the pop ups here on AFF, right click the images and download them to your desktop (RIGHT CLICK -> SAVE AS...). You can then use whatever image viewing program you have locally to enlarge the images. I believe the resolutions are sufficient to be enlarged to just about any reasonable need.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Brother David

There is an article that caught my attention in the Winter/Spring 2010 edition of CLC's magazine The Cross. It's a brief essay which I have posted as JPG images below.

In the article, the author compares the "Apostolic Brand" (without actually using that phrase) with the very successful Coca-Cola brand. You can read the article for yourself in less than a few quick minutes.

If you have a hard time reading the text from the pop ups here on AFF, right click the images and download them to your desktop (RIGHT CLICK -> SAVE AS...). You can then use whatever image viewing program you have locally to enlarge the images. I believe the resolutions are sufficient to be enlarged to just about any reasonable need.

Read it. While interesting, the premise of comparing Coke/New Coke to Apostolic holiness standards is blatantly false, or maybe it isn't so much false as it is TRUE, meaning it is nothing but a marketing gimmick. A brand that people are used to and lose all compass direction when it is taken away. Take 1950's fashions clothing fashions and stick with it ad infinitum. We now realize that when you remove ancient landmarks, aka, 1950's holiness fashions, we find that for many the emperor has no cloths since their entire faith is based on it. "How CAN I be saved if I cut my hair or own a television?" is the underlying thought of many. So yes, there would be a huge falling out of those who have no foundational base for their Christianity.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Read it. While interesting, the premise of comparing Coke/New Coke to Apostolic holiness standards is blatantly false, or maybe it isn't so much false as it is TRUE, meaning it is nothing but a marketing gimmick. A brand that people are used to and lose all compass direction when it is taken away. Take 1950's fashions clothing fashions and stick with it ad infinitum. We now realize that when you remove ancient landmarks, aka, 1950's holiness fashions, we find that for many the emperor has no cloths since their entire faith is based on it. "How CAN I be saved if I cut my hair or own a television?" is the underlying thought of many. So yes, there would be a huge falling out of those who have no foundational base for their Christianity.

Let's all go back to the old landmarks when Coca Cola had cocaine in it.

[pelathais]

"Suddenly doctrinal truths are less important than being relevant."

This cliché complaint against "relevance" is ubiquitous among those promoting the "Apostolic Brand©." Given the overly vague and often differing definitions available for "relevance" the author's own overly vague charges appear to be some sort of secret code for an initiated elite and not for general reading.

Since the magazine was sent - unsolicited - to my home and addressed to one of my children I feel that it's important that I speak up.

Just what are you talking about, Eli? Give me some examples. You do understand that your own institution is often criticized for its "compromise" because its charter specifies that "Acts 2:38" not be taught as salvific, don't you? Or do you intend to stray from those old paths?

"Holiness has taken a backseat to acceptance."

Since I am often lumped into that group by your apparent peers - the "Guardians of Holiness" - I do take a certain umbrage to your tone.

I resigned from the UPC rather than participate in a cover up of another man's adultery. I was fired from my job and my family suffered greatly from that event. I took a stand for real holiness - and it was not "accepted" by your religious organization. I have only found "acceptance" among those you condemn for "compromise." Can you imagine how upside-down your world of "compromise" appears to me now?

I prefer real holiness to the games.

"Churches are now designed around a community model rather than the Book of Acts."

The church in the Book of Acts was a model of community! - See Acts 2:44, Acts 4:32 and Acts 6:1-3.

"... tepid preachers have watered down the message of righteousness..."

That can and does happen just about anywhere and at any time. However, where do you see such a trend among Oneness churches on this issue? You are beating your own straw man here.

"... pastors are refusing to proclaim the new birth according to Acts 2:38..."

This is Orwellian! Again, your own institution's charter states that "Acts 2:38" shall not be taught as salvational. Given the differing opinions on the matter, why can't you accept the differences as real and honest.

Instead you besmirch pastors who have an honest disagreement with you on this as "refusing" to line up with your opinion. Why don't you close this magazine for a moment and take a look at the cover?

Do you notice the name of the magazine? It is called "THE CROSS."

You do remember the Cross of Calvary, don't you Eli? Preach that (1 Corinthians 2:1-2).

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Brother David

"Suddenly doctrinal truths are less important than being relevant."

This cliché complaint against "relevance" is ubiquitous among those promoting the "Apostolic Brand©." Given the overly vague and often differing definitions available for "relevance" the author's own overly vague charges appear to be some sort of secret code for an initiated elite and not for general reading.

Since the magazine was sent - unsolicited - to my home and addressed to one of my children I feel that it's important that I speak up.

Just what are you talking about, Eli? Give me some examples. You do understand that your own institution is often criticized for its "compromise" because its charter specifies that "Acts 2:38" not be taught as salvific, don't you? Or do you intend to stray from those old paths?

"Holiness has taken a backseat to acceptance."

Since I am often lumped into that group by your apparent peers - the "Guardians of Holiness" - I do take a certain umbrage to your tone.

I resigned from the UPC rather than participate in a cover up of another man's adultery. I was fired from my job and my family suffered greatly from that event. I took a stand for real holiness - and it was not "accepted" by your religious organization. I have only found "acceptance" among those you condemn for "compromise." Can you imagine how upside-down your world of "compromise" appears to me now?

I prefer real holiness to the games.

"Churches are now designed around a community model rather than the Book of Acts."

The church in the Book of Acts was a model of community! - See Acts 2:44, Acts 4:32 and Acts 6:1-3.

"... tepid preachers have watered down the message of righteousness..."

That can and does happen just about anywhere and at any time. However, where do you see such a trend among Oneness churches on this issue? You are beating your own straw man here.

"... pastors are refusing to proclaim the new birth according to Acts 2:38..."

This is Orwellian! Again, your own institution's charter states that "Acts 2:38" shall not be taught as salvational. Given the differing opinions on the matter, why can't you accept the differences as real and honest.

Instead you besmirch pastors who have an honest disagreement with you on this as "refusing" to line up with your opinion. Why don't you close this magazine for a moment and take a look at the cover?

Do you notice the name of the magazine? It is called "THE CROSS."

You do remember the Cross of Calvary, don't you Eli? Preach that (1 Corinthians 2:1-2).

Absolutely dumbfounded. The appeals to old paths is what got me ... Eli has bought the sanitized version of what our "fathers handed us" without regard the tolerance forged at the merger .... nor an inkling that its present Holiness article was not always the BRAND.

This is blatant contending towards a view to the disunity of the brethren as clearly spelled out in the Fundamental doctrine ... when he slams the peers in his fellowship for not proclaiming Acts 2:38 as the new birth ... there is NO SUCH rule. To the contrary ... divergence on the matter is what made the merger possible.

Eli has breached his affirmation statement ... I hope unwittingly.

Is this generation of Apostolic branders this clueless? Or lack the integrity and gumption to live up to the sacrifices made by men who were able to set aside differences for the cause of the Cross?

The Coca-Cola Apostolic branding ... is exactly what radicals are seeking to push ... uniformity over unity ... while seeking to disfellowship over fellowship.

This has the same flavor of Paul Mooney's campmeeting sermon in MS last summer and the WeDeclare political faction. The spirit of Westberg lives on.

I point Elder Lopez to Rodney Shaw's blogs that uncover the intellectual dishonesty of those in the movement who use the "emerging" label as the plague ....
http://rodneyshaw.wordpress.com/2009...oes-it-matter/

It's time we get start being ORIGINAL, Eli. Koolaid seems to be the order of the day.

[Will McLeod]

Just curious Dan....Should GOD's "people" have an IDENTITY? Or... are you saying that it is absurd to have an IDENTITY?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Will McLeod

Just curious Dan....Should GOD's "people" have an IDENTITY? Or... are you saying that it is absurd to have an IDENTITY?

I don't know what DAN thinks, but this is what the Word says about an IDENTITY:

John 13:35 "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

Right now the Apostolic church world is failing miserably at this litmus test--both conservative and liberal alike.

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Galatians 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Galatians 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I don't know what DAN thinks, but this is what the Word says about an IDENTITY:

John 13:35 "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
.....

I was going to type virtually the same thing.

[MissBrattified]

I John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

I John 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

I John 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

I John 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

[iceniez]

So Does it apply today ?