Experto Creed

News

2009-05-01T23:59:00.000-07:00

New link! Check out "Christ My Only Hope"...another ex-Oneness Pentecostal's blog

New post! Why I Left Pentecostalism in Testimonies ..."the staggering enormity of the deception into which I had fallen"...Caroline from PentecostalFreedom.org shares her story

New post! The slightly deaf god in Worship and why the UPC has to speak louder to wake him

New post! Pastors & Pimps and the monarchy of legacy-makers in sheep's clothing

- What does the Bible have to say about the role of tongues? See Corinthians in Salvation for the reasons why speaking in tongues cannot be evidence of salvation...

- New Post! Reader Writes in The Trinity. How Oneness misses the amazing story of a Father sacrificing his own Son for sinners...

- Visitors from 57 different countries have visited Experto Creed since June! From the USA to Iran to the Faroe Islands, there is a global interest in this site's message. We are not alone!

- New Post! Songs in Worship. UPCI obsesses over their "superior" doctrine and their songs and vocabulary reflect this...

- Sandbars, "My Story", is now available at PentecostalFreedom.org. Special thanks to Caroline, Bernie and others who have been working long before Experto Creed to create a cohesive online, Christian community ministering to the needs of fellow ex-Pentecostals. Together, with our readers, we know we are not alone.

- New Post! Thrones in The Trinity. Oneness theology maintains there is only one throne in heaven, and Jesus is sitting on it. Sixteen New Testament scriptures beg to differ...

- New Post! Transformers in Salvation. A former UPC pastor shares his thoughts on salvation and what it means to be labeled a "backslider".

- Article on I Corinthians 12-14 has been updated and revised. Why doesn't UPC (and other Oneness churches) follow Biblical guidelines for the use of tongues?

- Sandbars (My Story) has been updated & revised. Why UPC Bible Quizzing is the precise reason I'm no longer Oneness Apostolic...

About EC

Experto Creed, Latin for "Trust Me", seeks to be a website resource for individuals who feel trapped in Oneness Apostolic theology. Created in 2006, EC is a byproduct of the passion and pain I experienced when attempting to separate from the United Pentecostal Church. Having been raised in UPCI and spending the first 22 years of my life celebrating all things Pentecostal, God's definite direction out of Apostolicism caused me a lot of angst, questioning, and disbelief. It was a test of my belief in his sovereignty but the beginning of a wonderful transition out of legalism into freedom.

Today, I seek to be a resource for my family and friends and for those who need answers to the many questions left unanswered by Oneness and Apostolicism. A wise man once said, "You'll never argue anyone into religion, and you'll never argue anyone out." If you're part of a Oneness Apostolic group and that is all you desire, this site is not intended for you. But for those who are seeking answers to your questions, attempting to resolve lingering doubts, or need spiritual strength and encouragement, I hope you find this site helpful. One person leaving Oneness for agnosticism is one person too many. And for outsiders who are curious about the belief system, I simply say, "trust me."

Mission

To fully know, worship, and enjoy the God who sacrificed His only Son for those whom He loves.

2 Corinthians 1:4b - "...that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God."

Sandbars

2009-04-30T23:37:00.000-07:00

While surfing the web, I came across a website of whose existence I was unaware - a site called whyileft.org, another young man's explanation to his family and friends concerning why he left the United Pentecostal Church. A prominent section of his site was entitled "My Story" and explained his process of leaving the UPC. While reading it, I realized that the story of my journey out of UPC, perhaps the most powerful communicator of this website, even the reason I maintain, is significantly lacking. After all, aren't we supposed to share our stories to "comfort others as we have been comforted"? Certainly, many will not see my story as "comfort," but it's my hope that the many, many individuals who legitimately question Oneness Apostolicism will find this article (and website) helpful.

Quizzes
I was raised a 5th-generation member of the United Pentecostal Church, International. My great-grandfather pioneered several churches in Louisiana and my grandfather pastored for several decades in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas. Growing up, I was continually reminded of my "Apostolic heritage" and it became a source of pride for me in some ways. My family was beloved in the church I was raised in - my father was the Sunday School Director and my mother the Music Director - and I saw my parents embody true, loving Christianity on many, many occasions. As a family, we were conservative, but my sister and I were also encouraged to think for ourselves. I remember many discussions about an aspect of a preacher's sermon my parents didn't agree with and scripture was always required to strengthen any argument or position. But, of course, the line was drawn at Apostolic beliefs - those were untenable, unquestionable, and rarely researched.

At the age of eight, I entered the United Pentecostal Church's Junior Bible Quizzing program and began memorizing 250 scriptures in the book of John. The next year scriptures to be memorized covered "Apostolic Doctrine"; the next year was Acts. I was attracted to the competitiveness Bible Quizzing offered and the chance to succeed. What I now realize, however, was that it was also the beginning of the Holy Spirit putting his seal on me, teaching me about God and his word. During the 11 years I quizzed, a conservative estimate is that I memorized around 3,500 different scriptures, comprising the entire books of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, I & II Timothy, Titus, and I & II Peter and portions of Psalms, Proverbs, Mark, John, Acts, and Romans. These scriptures impacted me at a very early age but would haunt me later when I began asking answerless questions.

By the time I was in my early teens, I began to question the entire concept of Oneness theology, one of the cornerstones of the UPC. It seemed obvious to me that Jesus was not his own Father and the entire point of Oneness theology was lost on me. I simply didn't see it as a heaven-or-hell issue. The few scriptures that were supplied to support Oneness like "I and my Father are one," and "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One," didn't seem to refute any notion of a triune God. Although this process was in its infancy, it didn't become a full-fledged dilemma until about five years later. I mostly kept my questions to myself and employed nearly every means possible to convince myself that the "Truth", as it was presented to me, was indeed true.

Immersion?
As a freshman in college, I relocated to the Baton Rouge area to attend LSU and the Denham Springs First Pentecostal Church. There, attempting to affirm the Truth, I connected almost instantly and found myself directing the youth choir, coaching quizzing, leading an on-campus student ministry, and involving myself in nearly every church-sponsored activity. In this church I was immersed in Oneness doctrine on a weekly basis as well as a few unsavory diatribes directed toward people of other faiths, Christian and non-Christian. My trinitarian leanings, no matter how much I attempted to control them, began to surface. Scriptures memorized in Bible Quizzing stood out to me; I questioned everything I heard. Among my UPC friends, I became known as "The Trinitarian" and was encouraged to be less vocal about scriptures that disprove Oneness theology "because it might damage my reputation." Questioning Apostolic doctrine was an unwelcome activity but I couldn't damper the insistent questions I faced.

Frequently on Sunday nights I tried to reconcile the night's sermon with scripture, and sometimes that happened with success. Other times, particularly when there had been "tongues and interpretations" that very clearly did not align with Scripture, I was unsuccessful. The entire time I carried a mantle of self-imposed importance, trying to hide my growing disbelief because I was perceived as a leader in the youth grouop.

Double Jeopardy
During my five-year tenure at the Denham Springs church, nagging questions that haunted me expanded to include why is there so much venom from the pulpit directed toward Muslims, Catholics, those involved in homosexuality? Why do the "tongues and interpretations" given during service conflict with scripture? Why do we have to use manipulation to convince people to "become saved" (particularly after September 11th)? Why do we only rehash the same scriptures over and over and ignore the ones that challenge Oneness?

I allowed myself to dwell on these questions, but frequently on Sunday nights, when there was a "move of the Spirit" and my emotions ran high, I felt guilty for ever thinking the Oneness Apostolic movement was anything less than the God-ordained plan for Christianity. The Sunday night adrenaline rush, which every UPC adherent can relate to, was a powerful antidote to acting on my questions. But like all emotions, the Sunday night adrenaline rush does little to quiet mental unease and is absolutely worthless when confronted with powerful scriptures.

During this time, I was often curious why God chose the methods he apparently chose for what I was told by my pastor was his church. Why would God have an interest in whether women wore pants given the myriad of cultures in the world? How does dancing in the Spirit really glorify him? Why would God be anti-TV, but not anti-internet? I certainly understood that man's laws can be markedly different than God's, but I'd been taught that all of the rules and "standards" were at the divine inspiration of God and questioning them was akin to questioning God. I wasn't quite yet ready to question Him, although that time was coming.

The beginning of the end...
In the fall of 2003, some UPC friends invited me to attend a service for college-age young adults at Healing Place Church, a large non-denominational, trinitarian church in South Baton Rouge. I experienced their worship, their fellowship, and their teaching and it was an eye-opening experience. From a child, I had been conditioned to think of non-Apostolic "Christians" as a cold, callous, ill-informed, and dying group of people, yet here was irrefutable evidence to the contrary confronting me. Attendees genuinely worshipped God, and while it lacked the dancing in the Spirit, there was a tangible electricity in the air I'd come to associate with the Spirit. A conversation I'd had two weeks prior flooded my mind: a UPC friend confided in me how ashamed she felt while riding in a car with a Christian, non-UPC coworker. The coworker honestly shared her faith and her genuineness and joy struck my friend, who felt intimidated and insecure in her own faith when compared to her coworker. The coworker's faith was complete and mature, as-is, and without some of the unique things UPC considers vital. As I stood in the enormous sanctuary, filled with non-dress code-abiding trinitarian worshipers, I thought about that conversation. I realized how big the Body of Christ is and how little UPC knows about it. I felt terrified because I was literally watching everything I'd been taught, everything I had come to associate with myself, everything I claimed to be, slowly start to crumble, and I dreaded the thought of communicating this to my family and friends.

The Rebellion of Goatees
My questions coalesced and in October of 2003, over lunch with a close relative who is still UPC, I mustered up the courage and confided that I no longer believed UPC or Oneness Apostolic doctrine to be accurate. She shared some of my concerns but asked me to stay, "just in case I was wrong." I promised I'd think it over. You see, I thought I had to stay in UPC and pretend to agree with its doctrine in some sort of inflated, grandiose protection of those whom I led in youth choir, quizzing, and within my own family - evidence of my hypocrisy and denial.

This coincided with a particularly harsh Sunday morning sermon delivered by the Senior Pastor in which some very derogatory comments and gestures were made, mocking a very serious sin struggle. I was mortified and personally injured by his insensitivity and abuse of the pulpit. A complete lack of love, tact, and education had finally embodied one too many sermons for me. Incensed by what I had heard, I walked out of the sanctuary during his sermon, went home, and finally confronted what I didn't want to admit. I knew God was leading me out of the UPC, but I was terrified of the unknown, the black hole of ex-UPCism, the shame placed on "backsliders" whose ranks I would all-too-soon join. But I missed the point.

That morning, I realized that I was living a lie - I had acknowledged that the Oneness Apostolic doctrine was fundamentally, fatally erred, and my maintenance of its status quo was deceitful and harmful to me and even those around me. In retrospect, I sincerely believe God was confronting me, not over UPC's doctrinal issues, but about my own hypocrisy and denial. I was not yet a believer in Christ and I knew it, and that was terrifying.

I resigned from the Youth Choir, but my resignation was refused. I was deemed "too valuable" to let go. In rebellion, I grew a goatee, wandered in late to church, and sat in the back. I felt very detached, isolated, and confused. You see, my spiritual house had been built on the UPC sandbar of superiority and arrogance, and the rising tide of the Holy Spirit had washed it away. Uncertain where to look for higher ground, I was spiritually homeless. I was unprepared to embrace the doctrines of mainstream Christianity, primarily because I didn't know enough about them and because of the lies I believed regarding them.

Through sheer providence - a testament of God's sovereignty - in February of 2004, I was able to relocate to Memphis, Tennessee. I pounced on the opportunity because I was floundering. While I saw it as a weak excuse to get away from the Denham Springs church, I believe God orchestrated it to teach me more about him.

Blinders
In Memphis, I began attending a large, contemporary Baptist church - Germantown Baptist. The pastor, Sam Shaw, was fiery, educated, and tactful and his sermons challenged me to become a better Christian and to know the God who sacrificed his only son for me. Oneness can't acknowledge that God. The emotional hype and manipulation was gone and I was suddenly free to worship God how I felt most comfortable - in my heart. I was surrounded by a body of true believers who lacked the legalistic, conceited disdain of a dress code and the shock of that lasted for several years.

For the first time in my life, I was in a Bible-believing church. I was surrounded by a group of men with ironically biblical names who took special care in discipling me. They did not rush my process out of UPC mindsets. Even though I was physically removed from UPC services, I found it difficult to transition my thoughts and expectations out of UPC doctrines. Scripture after scripture confounded me and I went to the men who discipled me, questioning them about their meanings. Early 2004 was a time of intense growth for me, and it was during this period that God began to open my heart to the answers to the questions I had been asking for years. No, Jesus is not his own Father. No, God is not a jack-in-the-box we can conjure up by chanting "Jesus." Yes, Jesus died for all my sins, past, present, and future. No, the church did not disappear from the earth altogether prior to 1900 (the first instance of speaking in tongues in modern history). Yes, I can absolutely be assured of my salvation for all eternity. Yes, God predestined me from the foundation of the world to be conformed to the image of his son.

On July 8, 2004, while sitting on my bed one morning quietly doing a devotional in the books of John and Romans, it hit me. The magnitude of God's grace, the depth of his love, the joy of justification, the hope of sanctification, and the reality of being his carefully designed creation suddenly became crystal clear. I knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, I had a Heavenly Father who had been weaving the fabric of my life, even the years spent learning UPC doctrines. I knew that it would all work together, even the disparate pieces that remain today.

On December 4, 2005, I met my future wife in Sunday School, a young lady who embodies the essence of feminine holiness and grace, even though she has never lived by UPC's dress code. She practically oozes the Holy Spirit, even though she has never spoken in tongues. And she walks by her faith on a daily basis, even though she never memorized Apostolic doctrine in Bible Quizzing. She is my hero in the faith.

God continues to reveal his grace to me everyday and I find nuggets of truth hidden in places I never noticed. For example, recently my mentor commented on a verse from Romans 10 I've come to know well, "...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." "Who raised whom from the dead?" he asked. In the five years since leaving UPC, I'd never thought to ask whom they believe raised Jesus - who was dead - from the grave.

If there is one thing I've learned in my post-UPC years, it's that no church is perfect. As human beings, and collectively as churches, we naturally erect blinders to the things that are challenging or that we perceive as threats. Denial is much easier than confrontation. While I'm certain that the process of ridding me of my blinders will be a lifelong task with which God will deal with me, my story thus far is how God, and only God, used UPC's blinders, Bible Quizzing, to reveal his true character to me.

Why I Left Pentecostalism

2009-04-22T06:13:00.000-07:00

By Caroline W.

I was seventeen years old when I first began to question Pentecostalism. My older brother was already away at college, and I was in my senior year of high school. Facing this transitional period of my life, I began to wonder: what happened? All my life I had been told that the Great Tribulation was imminent, that we were heading into a great Last Days revival of mighty miracles and signs and wonders even in the midst of persecution, and ultimately, the return of Christ. I was told that God would do great things if only we believed, that we would cast out demons and heal the sick and raise the dead.

I had lived in constant expectation, always expecting some mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit that was just around the corner but never quite here yet. I had fasted, prayed, worn old-fashioned clothes, and believed with all my heart . . . and yet it was always to no avail. God never seemed any closer. The miracles never came. The prophecies were never fulfilled.

I was only seventeen, and yet I felt worn out. I had spent my entire childhood feeling that God was somehow just out of reach, that I wasn't quite doing enough to win His favor. But, despite my best efforts, I seemed always on the verge of hell. I had tried everything that I knew to try, but none of it was enough.

I sorted desperately through my memory for some sign that God had done something, anything, that proved that He really was with me more than with other people who weren't even trying so hard . . . but there was nothing. In fact, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that, in all my seventeen years of Pentecostal life, I had not witnessed a single real, definite miracle.

I began to look at other families in a different light. I had always been told how lucky I was to grow up in a Pentecostal/ Charismatic family where we were so full of the Holy Ghost. But now I began to actually wish I had been born to different parents. I envied the teens who wore nice, normal clothes, went to movies, and chatted on the phone with friends. I realized how much I had missed out on over the years, running around from one church to another putting on performances and pretending we were doing great things for God. I wished my life was simple and fun, without the terrible fear always haunting me that I would lose the blessing of the extraordinarily-easily-offended Holy Spirit.

Those thoughts sent me into a spiral of depression. I thought surely it was a sign that I really was doomed to hell that I would even wish that I didn't have to think about God and ministry and healings and miracles with every waking thought in order to barely maintain my salvation.

It was finally utter exhaustion that brought me to the point of giving up on Pentecostalism. I simply stopped trying. I felt that it was pointless anyway, since I never seemed to get anywhere.

It was only when I stopped trying on my own that I was at last able to see things for what they really were, and I began to finally comprehend the staggering enormity of the deception into which I had fallen.

I started reading the Bible and theology books, and I discovered something extraordinary: the Pentecostals were wrong. As much as I had had the Bible crammed down my throat all my life, I had never really read it before just to see what it said, without any agenda to prove something to somebody. I found a God spoken of in the Scriptures who was not anything like the God preached to me by my parents and by Pentecostal pastors.

The God of the Bible was not some weak, desperate deity waiting for people to get everything right so that He could unleash His powers. The Bible spoke of a God who held the fate of the entire world in His hands. After all, who had fasted and prayed for the flood that He had poured out on the world in Genesis? No one . . . and yet, God had done it. How had Saul prophesied when he clearly had never gone through the agonizing process of surrendering himself to God and becoming a worthy vessel? In fact, God seemed to always do as He pleased. But the most amazing discovery of all . . . that God seemed pleased to save me.

It was all there in the Bible that I had carried with me all my life: salvation by grace, not by works--a gift of God, Christ who loved us and died for us while we were yet in our sins. For the first time, I saw the mercy of God to sinners. God didn't demand that we come to Him blameless and completely surrendered before He could save us. He called sinners and He forgave them their sins.

Why had God never seemed any closer for all my trying? Because He was always there . .. His divinity is never diminished by my humanity. Why had my works never seemed to win His favor? Because salvation was always free and His favor always unmerited.

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound,

That saved a wretch like me,

I once was lost, but now am found,

Was blind, but now I see.

_____________________
Taken with the author's permission from her website at PentecostalFreedom.org

Carolyn also maintains a blog, The Unlikely Calvinist, about her experiences in Pentecostalism and her transition into Reformed Theology and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

The slightly deaf god

2009-04-18T22:31:00.000-07:00

Sound familiar?
Thomas A. Fudge, in his manual for debunking UPC myths aptly entitled Christianity Without the Cross, discusses the importance of music in UPC churches. Devoting over 20 pages to this topic, Fudge examines some of the most basic hymns of the "Apostolic" faith as well as contemporary (at the time of publication) songs sung by choirs like IBC - songs like "Jesus on the Main Line," "I Have Been Born Again," and "There Will be Light". Fudge writes:

The expressions of worship appeared to be a powerful collective religious experience facilitated through music. Indeed, Pentecostal altar calls are seldom without music and the powerful move of the Holy Ghost is rarely observed without the presence of music.... It was a 'peak experience' for Oneness Pentecostals characterized by worship fulfillment and intense expression. The ethnography of Pentecostalism is revealed here and the kinetic and proxemic dimensions of ritual worship likewise find expression and possible fulfillment. (Fudge, 2003, p. 311)

Essentially, Fudge is suggesting that a Pentecostal church service depends almost entirely on music to metaphorically "set the stage." Indeed, even the Holy Ghost, at least the kind Pentecostals worship, appears to move almost exclusively through music. I ask my still-UPC friends, what role does music play in your church? Where was the music on the Day of Pentecost?

That aside, the "hymnology" and musical expressions of worship in the UPC and similar denominations also tend to be extremely repetitive. In my wife's first (and only) attendance at a UPC church service at The Church of Omaha, she was struck by the repetitiveness of the songs - something even I had failed to consider in my post-UPC years. Fudge almost understates this by writing, "The same message, the essential message [in a song], is repeated until it becomes part of the evolving fabric of the movement representing a Pentecostal lingua franca. Repetition does not diminish the potential for strong, emotional responses, rather it heightens the possibility" (Fudge, 2003, p. 313). Other authors have been far less kind, accusing UPC of inducing mind-altering states in congregants through significant repetition (see a chilling video here).

Below is a video from The Pentecostals of Alexandria of a song entitled "Shake the Foundation" (this was popularized by non-UPC, gospel artist John P. Kee). I am quite familiar with this song, having taught it to both the Denham Springs Youth Choir and the Leesville Adult Choir in 2002, a year and a half prior to leaving UPC. At the time the song seemed rational and logical because it would stir up "praise"; now, it seems plastic, fake, and little more than ill-disguised hype.

Notably, the young woman introducing the song and responsible for whipping the worshipers up into a frenzy, asks, "Is your praise loud enough for God to hear you tonight?" Wait a minute - did I hear that correctly? "Loud enough for God to hear you"?! Has God gone deaf? Is he waiting for us to hit just that right decibel before he'll respond?! [disclaimer: I have not met this young lady and I'm certain she's an extremely nice person. Her sincerity is well-noted and enviable. Her theology, however, is rather shaky].

She continues, "Your praise...can 'loose' somebody standing next to you." So then where did I get that "God" is the one who does the "loosing"? And the hard-of-hearing-God theme continues: "I want you to give God the loudest praise, so that a 'suddenly' and an 'immediately' can happen in this room tonight. The loudest praise that you can [give]...lets him know that you want him to come right now, in this room..."

Three observations
First, and this will irritate quite a few of my non-UPC readers, how does UPC justify its literal interpretation of the passages on the length of women's hair in First Corinthians, yet ignore passages in the same chapter that discuss it being a "shame" for a woman to speak in church? Hear me out, I am not advocating that women become second-class citizens in our churches in any form. I have taken this into consideration when choosing a church to attend after moving cross-country because I don't want to be part of treatment of women that is disrespectful and chauvinistic. Regardless of my feelings on this issue, however, it seems considerably disingenuous to claim that the passage on hair is applicable in the modern culture while claiming that Paul's writings about the reduced role of women in First Corinthians, First Timothy, and Titus do not apply.

Second, the amount and level of both hype and repetition should be obvious. The song "Shake the Foundation" has 4 words total. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but my point remains. Notice the mosh pit up front at the altar. It's quite clear that praise, in the UPC/Apostolic/Charismatic paradigm, is equivalent to rabid physical manifestations found only in clubs, high school dances, and the Crazy Fan Section of professional sports venues.

Finally, it appears the young lady in the video is actually correct about having to be louder so God can hear them. Eerily reminiscent of Elijah's taunts to the Prophets of Baal to sing louder - perhaps he's sleeping? - this video reminds me that the UPC God that demands loud praise, rote obedience to a strict dress code, belief in the schizophrenia of Jesus Christ (I am my own Father), and the necessity that one babble in a non-language repeatedly to be saved is a god, not God. This is not the God of the Bible. This is not the God who lovingly, tenderly sacrificed his son for our eternal (and pre-existent) salvation. This is not the God who made a covenant with Abraham. This is not the God who promises "I will be with you until the end of the Earth."

No, this god is slightly deaf. A bit slow on the uptake (hence the repetition). And remarkably legalistic. He, after all, is the UPC god.

Pastors & Pimps

2008-11-27T10:54:00.000-08:00

A beyond-disturbing glance into the pastoral leadership of UPC churches

Sometimes I've wondered why no one ever talks about how UPC pastorates tend to be monarchies - that is, a man pastors a church until he retires or dies, at which point the pastor's son becomes the pastor. This can last for generations. It's important to note that education is completely disregarded for UPC pastors - there are no requirements for seminary degrees, Bachelor degrees, or anything beyond a mere "call" to preach. This, obviously, can have drastic consequences as pastors lack necessary qualifications to lead congregations, knowledge of scripture upon which to base followers' relationships with God, and simple education about one's culture and position within it.

Furthermore, there is no biblical precedent for the handing of pastorates from father-to-son. There are very clear New Testament guidelines for church leadership and selecting pastors, and none of them even remotely revolve around pedigree. There is a disclaimer, of course, that not all UPC (or WWPF, AlJC, etc) churches are monarchistic - in fact, most are not. But this trend definitely exists to a disturbing degree.

Consider, for example, some of the largest Oneness Apostolic churches in the nation, keeping in mind this is a mere sampling of occurrences:

Christian Life Center, Stockton, CA - 3 generations of monarchy
The Pentecostals of Alexandria, Alexandria, LA - 3 generations
Life Tabernacle, Houston, TX - 2 generations
The Pentecostals of the Twin Cities, West Monroe, LA - 2 generations
First Pentecostal, Denham Springs, LA - 2 generations
Bethel UPC, Long Island, NY - 2 generations
First Pentecostal, Jackson, MS - 2 generations
Cornerstone UPC, Ocala, FL - 3 generations
Abundant Life, Ft. Wayne, IN - 2 generations
First Church, Pearland, TX - 2 generations
Christian Life Center, Gaithersburg, MD - 2 generations

The two largest churches in UPC - Alexandria and Stockton - each represent 3 generations of father-son-grandson pastoral leadership. These two churches alone represent a combined 1% of all UPC adherents in the U.S.

This practice of passing leadership positions within the same church from father-to-son, with no inherent qualifications necessary other than genealogy, should pose considerable concern for UPC church membership. As well, keep in mind that church governance within the UPC, like most Charismatic churches, is shaky at best. In my 23 years in UPC I never officially was offered membership (it was presumed), attended a single business meeting (there was only one held in all those years), and never voted for the addition or removal of any church leaders. While exceptions exist, of course, UPC generally does not have positions of deacon or elder, leaving most important financial, spiritual, and polity decisions up to a single person - the pastor - with little accountability.

What does this have to do with biblical matters? The shocking lack of education within the UPC is pandemic. UPC youth are generally discouraged from continuing their education beyond high school, and the ones that do usually depart from the faith. Sadly, though, the vast majority of educated UPCers wind up in a paradoxical atheist-agnostic position, isolated from any body of believers. Within the church, this lack of education and training is promulgated from the pulpit. Senior pastors, whose resumes contain little more than a "call" from God and their family tree, proffer their services, prejudices, and ignorance about the rest of Christianity, relying on their simple "formula" allegedly found in Acts 2:38. All the while, their followers, isolated from true biblical guidance and doctrine, are led astray by legacy-makers in sheep's clothing.

For a truly disturbing view of this (and the socialization of hype), watch this video.

Reader Writes

2008-10-01T21:47:00.001-07:00

Today a reader, presumably of the Oneness persuasion, left a comment on a post in The Trinity. The reader raised some excellent points I feel are worthy of an entire post. The comment is posted in parts below, in italics, and my response follows.

"Mother of three beautiful boys" writes:

So according to the trinitarian belief, would I be correct to say that there WAS One God at the beginning of time, until He added Jesus?

No. There is, was, and will always be one God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit collectively make up one God. That said, there are three distinctive characteristics and personalities within the Godhead that the vast majority of Christianity refers to as the Trinity. Where did God come from? We don't know - it's beyond our comprehension. We DO know, however, that Jesus predates time:

John 8:58: "I say to you, before Abraham was, I am"
John 17:5: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."
John 17:24b: "...my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world."

is the only begotten son of the Father:

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son..."
Hebrews 1:5 [referring to Jesus]: "For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'? Or again, 'I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son'?"

can only do what the Father does:

John 5:19: "So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing..."
John 5:21: "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him."
John 5:30: "...I can do nothing on my own..."

and created the heavens and the earth

Colossians 1:16: "For by Christ all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible..."].
Hebrews 1:2: "God has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."

I have yet to see a Oneness explanation for John chapters 5 and 17. It is simply irreconcilable with the Oneness position.

------

Should we understand "at the right hand of God" literally; could this be figuratively speaking about authority/power?

So let me get this straight: when Stephen was dying and he said, "I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:56), what he really meant his last words to be were...what? Furthermore, you neglected to add the verb that often appears before "at the right hand of God", sitting, in Mark 14:62, Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Ephesians 1:20, Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 1:13, Hebrews 8:1, and Hebrews 12:2. Consider the contexts of these verses: ALL of them are making the case for the sonship of Christ.

No, these verse are by no means metaphorical, and it's obvious why Oneness pastors steer clear of them.

------

One major thing that has always confused me about the trinity is if there are 3 distinct personalities of God, how do we know which "person" to pray to?

There are no biblically recorded prayers to either Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Everytime Jesus taught someone to pray, or prayed himself, it was always directed at his Father (consider Luke 22:42 and Matthew 26:39 in particular). That said, it would be very difficult to make an argument that one shouldn't pray to either Jesus or the Holy Spirit. This seems to be one area in which the Bible is remarkably silent, and thus we are left to our own conscience. However, prayers to the Father are common, and we directed to make our requests to Him, citing the work and the name of Jesus:

Matthew 6:6 - When you pray, pray to your Father
Matthew 6:9 / Luke 11:2 - Our Father, who is in heaven...
Ephesians 3:14, "I bow my knees before the Father..."
Colossians 1:3, "We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you."

Clearly, no one in these passages is directing his prayers to Jesus. Furthermore, we are assisted in our prayers by the person of the Holy Spirit: Romans 8:26 - "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words."

I am uncertain how this is either an argument for or against the Trinity.

------

And why even mention the name of Jesus today, if he served his purpose at the time he was upon the earth to die and wash all sins, then He fulfilled his "role". Now where is "he", or what is His purpose now? Did Jesus now become the "spirit"?

This question is quite surprising. Sometimes it's apparent that Oneness adherents believe that other "Christians" do not believe in Christ. Jesus Christ's work is the cornerstone and the foundation of the Christian's faith. But it is very different from the perspective Oneness Apostolicism takes.

You see, we believe that Jesus Christ died for ALL our sins (Hebrews 10:11-17), past, present, and future. There is nothing that we can do to make God love us more or less, and this includes the realm of sin, and thus not sinning. Romans teaches us that Christ's work justified us and began the process of sanctification in our lives. When God looks at us, it is through the innocent blood of Christ. Christ purifies us, cleanses us, and we take on his righteousness. Hebrews 10:14 - "For by a single offering, Christ has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." Go ask your pastor if sin will keep you from heaven. If he says yes, then the death and resurrection of Jesus means little to him.

This contrasts quite starkly with the Apostolic view that Christ's death merely gave us the opportunity to pursue God - that Christ's death purged our old sins, but our present and future sins are on us. The road to sanctification in the Oneness, Apostolic camp requires, among other things, rigorous adherence to a strict holiness standard and the belief that sin - any sin - will doom one to hell.

Why do I call on the name of Jesus? Because when I sin - and I always will - I "have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," (I John 2:1). Jesus lives, he advocates for those he loves, and he's waiting to return for his bride, the church. As far as where is he, see my post here. And no, Jesus is not the Holy Spirit.

------

I fully am persuaded He, God, came to this earth Himself. Why would He not? Because He didn't want to? Because He couldn't?

It's remarkable that Oneness Apostolics go to such great lengths to explain away the Trinity, and in the process they lose amazing glimpses of the incredible love of God. For one thing, we see an incredibly clear picture of the as-yet future crucifixion with Abraham and Isaac.

God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son - the one Abraham was promised and who had done nothing worthy of death. Abraham was willing and Isaac submitted to his father and to God. This is incredible faith that both showed - Abraham was willing to sacrifice someone he'd waited his entire life for and Isaac was willing to be killed, simply by faith. This is both an amazing foreshadowing of what was to come and, through Abraham, also a horrific glimpse into the pain that God the Father must've experienced watching his Son be crucified and suffer. Oneness misses this.

God the Father loved us so much that he sent his only Son, his perfect, sinless Son, to die the most horrible death imaginable to humans. And for whom? For dirty, wicked, sinful people like us. The Father loved Jesus - we see this at Jesus' baptism and particularly at his crucifixion - and the pain he experienced watching Jesus die I have no doubt was exponentially greater than anything humans can experience; and yet he did it. He allowed it. He loves us that much. Oneness miss this too.

------

Lastly, I think it is good to keep in mind that the UPCI is an organization of ministers, not saints/church members. This is important when discussing some of the lifestyle standards that the UPCI upholds for their ministers.-Mother of 3 Beautiful Boys

Well...the UPCI Ministerial Manual begs to differ:

“We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people [referring to members of UPCI churches] indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing, women cutting their hair, make- up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music.

Furthermore because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church.”

No, the fundamentalistic rules of the UPCI are not limited to pastors: they apply to every member of every UPC church, regardless of what individual pastors teach.

Songs

2008-09-08T23:33:00.000-07:00

Irony in the comments
A recent comment on another post here on EC posed the question to me personally, "Why do you feel it necessary to be so critical and bitter toward another Christian group?" The commenter felt defensive because this site intensely questions the foundation of the Oneness faith he holds close. The great irony of the commenter's post was his own intense criticism of the church I attend (of which he knows nothing), followed by the question above. Clearly, self-awareness was slightly lacking in the passion this site stirred up within him.

While saving the discussion of whether UPCI - like most fundamentalist groups - can tolerate criticism for a later date, I wanted to explore the concept of criticism and bitterness within UPCI toward other "denominal" doctrines and organizations, and believe me, it is rife. It is a well-known fact that UPCI and similar Oneness Apostolic organizations do not believe that other Christians are saved. Salvation = speaking in tongues + baptism specificially in the name of Jesus + obeying the dress (and even then, you only might be saved). The end result of this is that other Christians are ripe for proselytizing because they (and I) are unsaved. Pastors often feel the need to differentiate themselves from other churches, and criticism often occurs from the pulpit. This is an obsession for many, many pastors. For example, Anthony Mangun of The Pentecostals in Alexandria, LA recently accused Trinitarians of believing in three gods in a sermon available on his church's website. Similar anecdotal evidence abounds - just ask any ex-Pentecostal.

Another language. Must be the tongues
The vocabulary Oneness organizations use to describe other Christians is often derogatory as well. Consider these terms:

- "Trinitarian" - someone who, according to UPC adherents, believes in three gods. Trinitarian is not a word in the vocabulary of mainstream Christianity.
- "Denominal" - a pseudo-Christian who does not acknowledge Oneness
- "Worldly woman" - a pseudo-Christian female who does not abide by the dress code
- "Theologian" - an insult to anyone labeled this. There are no theologians in Oneness for obvious reasons
- "Cold, dead, dry" - synonyms for a "denominal" worship service. My favorite phrase, "The only sound in those churches is the sound of ivy growing on the walls"

Euphamisms abound, but the crux of this post are songs sung in Oneness services. Both of the songs below are in common use in UPC and belie both the bias toward "pseudo-Christians" and the intense urge UPC feels to defend itself from criticism. UPC in this regard has an enormous chip on its shoulder and a debilitating inferiority complex.

Not exactly affirming...
Let Me Tell You Who Jesus Is - this song was popular 10-15 years ago and sung in virtually every UPC church. It remains one of the rousing tunes of the faith.

Lyrics of interest:

Chorus:
Let me tell you who Jesus is,
He's the Rock of all Ages,
He's the Alpha and the Omega,
He's the Heavenly Father,
The beginning and the end,
Much more than this my friend,
He's the Son of Man,
He's coming back again

Verse 2:
Well many people today love Jesus,
But they don't know who He is,
They put him second place in the Godhead,
They've got some strange ideas.
If Jesus Christ created everything,
Has all power my God can give,
If Jesus Christ is Lord of All,
How can He be number two?

Bridge:
I know Jesus is the Father,
I know Jesus is the Son,
I know Jesus is the Holy Ghost,
And all these three are one

This song is remarkably unnuanced and needs little explanation. The implications are obvious - Trinitarians have "some strange ideas" and, despite their love for him, have no clue who Jesus really is. The bridge is forthright: Jesus is his own Father.

And another song
I am a Pentecostal

Lyrics of interest, particularly Verse 2:

Verse 1
We've been known to get wild, let our hair hang down,
Drink till we get merry, rolling on the ground,
We've cranked up the music, and we've danced all around,
Shouting hallelujah as his glory came down,
It's just our style, the way we do our thing,
We're the Pentecostals baptized in Jesus' name

Chorus
I'm a Pentecostal, I am not ashamed,
Just read the book of Acts, We are still the same,
We worship only one God, Jesus is his name,
We are Apostolic in every way

Verse 2
Some think we're crazy, others think we're strange,
But when I got this Holy Ghost I could not contain,
More exciting than a party, higher than a drug,
It's the greatest feeling being washed in his blood,
If you're tired of traditions, religion's done you wrong,
You're feeling dry and empty, no longer have a song,
The story is not over, things for you can change,
You can feel the fire burning as the Spirit fans the flame,
There's millions who have come and millions on the way,
They're leaving their dead churches for this Pentecostal faith,
There's a hunger in the world that gets bigger everyday,
They're crying out for Pentecost, that is why I say...

This song hit UPC after my departure and, frankly, verse 1 paints the denomination in a rather bad light. This video is of the choir from the California church formerly pastored by the current UPCI General Superintendent, Kenneth Haney. It is the largest UPC church in the U.S. (attendance is around 3,000 to my knowledge) and is arguably the most influential. The chorus leaves no doubt that Trinitarians worship more than one God and do not believe the book of Acts. Verse 2 is forthright in its assessment of "traditions, religion's done you wrong," and the blatant use of the word "dead" to describe other churches.

My point? (and I do have one)

Can you imagine a Presbyterian choir song attacking Lutherans? Or a Baptist one attacking Methodists? It is one thing to affirm one's faith through songs of worship; it is entirely different to use songs in church to attack, belittle, and condemn.

UPC goes beyond the realm of healthy Christian behavior, both in their proselytizing attempts and in their obsessive, forthright condemnation of other churches. This, of course, means little to them since they believe their own particular strand of theology is completely right and all else so wrong, it is doomed to hell. However, UPCI's constant defense of what they believe, continual rehash of the Oneness doctrine, and perpetual emphasis on how they are absolutely right should give every adherent cause for concern. Overstating something to that degree reveals doubt and a significant level of fear. It reeks of a group delusion that, unless constantly and obsessively affirmed by all participants, will crash to the ground. Warning sign #224.

Thrones

2008-08-26T18:25:00.000-07:00

One sitting on the throne

UPCI vociferously claims that there is only one throne in heaven, and that Jesus is seated on that throne. This is primarily founded on Revelation 4:2, which will be explored at the end of this article. Meanwhile, consider these 15 scriptures Oneness theology notoriously ignores. If there is no distinction between Jesus and his Father, how can he be seated at his own right hand, and why would the Bible even make such a claim?

But....

Mark 14:62a - Jesus is responding to the question, "Are you the Son of the Blessed?" Jesus replied, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power..."

Mark 16:19 - "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God."

Luke 22:69 - "But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God."

Acts 2:33a - "Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit..."

Acts 7:55 - "But [Stephen], full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God."

Acts 7:56 - "And [Stephen] said, 'Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God'."

Romans 8:34 - "Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us."

Ephesians 1:20 - "that [the Father] worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places."

Colossians 3:1 - "If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God."

Hebrews 1:3b - "After making purification for sins, [Jesus] sat down at the right hand of Majesty on high." It's apparent from the context of this chapter in all English versions of the Bible that Majesty, here, refers to God the Father. Regardless, this dovetails perfectly with Acts 2:33.

Hebrews 1:13 - In reference to the Father speaking to Jesus, "And to which of the angels has he ever said, 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'?"

Hebrews 8:1 - "Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven."

Hebrews 11:12-13 - "But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet."

Hebrews 12:2 - "Looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God."

I Peter 3:22 - Jesus, "who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him..."

Now consider Revelation 4:2 - "At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne." There is no discussion of the who the "one" is which is sitting on the throne. The remainder of the chapter proceeds to describe the various individuals/beings seated around this heavenly throne. Chapter 5 opens with the one sitting on the throne having a scroll in his right hand. Unfortunately, there was no one present at the time worthy to open the scroll; that is, until verse 6, which proceeds to describe a "Lamb" standing, "as though it had been slain," whose blood ransomed the People of God. This is a clear reference to Jesus Christ. While I will be the last to assert I know perfectly what this chapter is describing, there are a few things that are obvious to the reader. The main thing is that it is not Jesus who was seated on the throne discussed in 4:2. This may shock some people, and this is not meant in any way to denigrate Jesus or his New Testament role in salvation. However, I can only rely on what the Bible says, and it makes it clear in Revelation 5 that Jesus was not the one seated on the throne in Revelation 4.

From the rest of New Testament scripture, however, we see that, up until Revelation 4, Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God the Father, praying for us continually. This gives the believer hope that, not only did Jesus rise from the grave, he is our heavenly advocate and his blood has already washed away all of our sins - past, present, and future.

Transformers

2008-08-23T11:12:00.000-07:00

Below is an excellent article Bernie Gillespie, a former UPC pastor in Ohio, wrote in 2005, presumably in response to someone concerned about his faith and salvation. Because I - and ex-UPCers like myself - face many of the same questions and concerns, I found his post extremely helpful and timely.

You may access this post in its original form here and it appears here on EC with Bernie's permission.

Response to "Saddened"
Dear [Anonymous],
I appreciate your concern about my spiritual welfare. That is one of the main reasons for my web site. I am concerned about the faith and spiritual welfare of folks who need to understand the biblical meaning and power of the Gospel. I understand when you say you are sad over my testimony. Please let me humbly say that you need not be sad for me. I am resting in Jesus and trusting him completely with all my soul. I know it is disturbing to read about someone who used to believe what you presently believe. However, rest assured that I am not in spiritual trouble. Christ is all and all to me and I look to him alone.

Many of the comments you made I have addressed with articles on my web site. Many people just read part of my testimony, written 10 years ago, and they write me to give me a piece of their mind, without looking further into the answers that I have already written and made available. I ask that you understand my faith in the whole journey, and not from reading one part of it.Also, I say this kindly, and not to argue, but it is patronizing and impolite as a Christian to tell them "First of all, you are wrong and deep down you know it. You do not fully believe what you are teaching now, there is no way you possibly can when you know truth." No, I don't know I am wrong deep down. Yes, I do fully believe what I am teaching. You judge my motives without doing the hard work of reading my articles and pointing out with Scriptural study why I am wrong. I guess that means I am wrong because you say so. That's a frail reason for saying I am wrong. [We could argue 'round and 'round in an immature way saying, "You're wrong," "no, you're wrong." But the test is whether we speak what Scripture teaches. I am confident that the Bible teaches that I am right with God by trusting in the life, death and resurrection of my Lord Jesus Christ for my salvation. I believe that is what Scripture teaches. If I am wrong, then show from Scripture where that is wrong]

Besides, the whole issue is not whether I am right or wrong. It is whether Jesus is sufficient. You say that you believe we are saved by grace and faith but "that is not all". My friend, that is all. It is by grace alone because only God in Christ could take away our sins on the Cross. It is by faith alone because Christ "finished" it and all that is left for me is to trust in what he has done. Scripture teaches: "Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith." Paul states in Romans 4:2-5 "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." We are righteous through faith in Christ. It is by faith because Christ has done it all. That is what the Bible means by grace. And because salvation is by grace the only part we play is to receive it. As Paul clearly states in Romans 4:16 "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace."

I really understand where you are coming from, though, because I used to believe exactly as you. It was not because I got smarter, or someone argued me out of my position. It was when God totally stunned me with the truth of the real nature of salvation in the Bible, despite my own "assumptions" and convictions. He opened my heart to how wrong I was about the real nature of the Gospel. He made me understand what made the good news such good news. I cannot take the slightest credit. I was locked into my view. Only God could have changed my heart.What was that change? It was coming to a greater understanding of what Jesus did for me on the Cross. Before, I only saw the remission of sins in the work of the Cross. I failed to see the imputation of Christ's righteousness by that same work of the Cross. That was a major transformation of my understanding. Too many Christians have no clue about the imputed righteousness of Christ to those who believe (Romans 4; Philippians 3). Before God showed me the Gospel, I also believed that Jesus died to "make salvation possible." I thought that Christ did all He could to make it possible for us to be saved, but then, we had to do our part through obedience to receive that salvation. I taught that Jesus was the sacrifice, but we had to obey specific things before that sacrifice would take effect.

So I preached those wrong beliefs with deep conviction, even though Christ said on the Cross: "It is finished." I told people they still had to obey Acts 2:38 before it was really finished. I didn't truly understand what Acts 2:38 truly means. I thought I did. I shouted what I understood from the pulpit. But, I found that I was only repeating what other men had put in my mind. I'm afraid this is so for many who in the UPCI. They are following what a few men came up with in 1913. The real truth of Acts 2:38 is about Christ and him alone. It's about how all who turn away from the sin in trusting in their own selves or religion to save them and turning to Jesus in faith and trust in him as Savior and Lord (which is true repentance) are forgiven by Jesus. Baptism then, is seal or guarantee – an assurance – of the believers' forgiveness. Finally, according to the promise of God, we are assured of the abiding presence of the Spirit. (The point of the Holy Spirit is not what we must do to "get it," but the fact that God in grace gives him to indwell in us. I believe the UPCI misses the whole point on this.)

These things are granted by God to all those who are united to Christ by faith. While in the UPCI I had turned the real grace God, as taught in Acts 2:38, into a set of qualifications for marking who is in and who is out. That is the anti-gospel - preaching focused on who is not saved. The biblical Gospel is a message of hope that we are saved if we trust in Christ alone. Peter found out he was wrong in Acts 10 and 15 about qualifying people. When God sent him to the Gentiles he was showing him the greatness of God's grace. Peter learned he was wrong about the Gospel as he explained to the council:

"Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 15:7-11)
The way I used to teach while in the UPCI was: "If you trust in Jesus, that gets you to the door, but now unless you are correctly water baptized, and speak with tongues, you cannot truly obtain salvation." That is a major error and contrary to all the teaching throughout Scripture concerning God’s character, and the nature of salvation by Christ alone. Peter says that God purified their hearts by faith, but the UPCI says that God purifies their heart by obeying three steps, continuing to stay spiritual (what is more spiritual than trusting in Jesus?), continuing to obey, by following the "holiness" standard (too much of which is not based on a single passage of Scripture), and then maybe if they are ready and prayed up at the Rapture they might go. (This is the UPCI message of hope. If I do all the UPCI teaches, I hope I make it).

That is not good news. That is another ladder to heaven like all other religions. [We used to sing, "We are climbing Jacob’s ladder, ladder." This is an insight to how we changed the message of Scripture and the meaning of salvation. Jacob never climbed the ladder in Genesis 28. The angels came down to him. Jesus did not bring us a ladder to heaven. He said, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who cam from heaven – the son of Man." (John 3:13) Later, Jesus said: "I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." (John 1:51 NIV) Jesus came down the ladder to save us. He came down from heaven to bear the wrath of our sins and conquer death to take us up to Heaven. That's good news. We are not able to climb up Jacob's ladder; and we don't need to since Jesus has come down to us. Paul makes it clear:

"But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Romans 10:6-10 NIV)
God opened my heart to understand that my salvation was finished by Christ, 2000 years ago at Calvary, and not by anything that I can or should do now. This is major problem for people in the UPCI. They don't understand the relationship between grace and works. Paul states: "For by grace are ye saved through faith ... For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works ..." (Eph. 2:8, 10). We are not saved by works. We are saved by grace through faith unto good works. Good works are the fruit of salvation not the requirement.

Even my faith today is simply trusting that what God did for me in Christ is sufficient and true. I trust in Jesus who is my Lord and Savior. My faith is a gift from God (Eph. 1:8), and is not something by which I merit what Jesus did. This truth was a wrecking ball to my theology, because like most Oneness Pentecostals, I really believed and preached more of a works-righteousness than I was willing to admit. Whenever one says that we must add something, either that we do, or that someone must do for us, to the work of the Cross of Christ, then one is adding human effort to Jesus' perfect sacrifice. One may not believe that is what they are doing. But it is so nonetheless.

How do we test it? We test it by answering this question: Does a person have to do anything to contribute to their salvation, or do they simply trust in what Jesus has done? The answer to that question will reveal the truth. Once I really understood the biblical truth of the Gospel, I was amazed that I had actually thought that baptism was an act of salvation. Why, because baptism is not important? Absolutely not! Baptism is necessary for every believer that has ever trusted in Jesus. Jesus commanded it and we must obey Christ as a true disciple. However, it is necessary to show our faith in Christ, and not to obtain our salvation. Imagine how anyone could add anything, even baptism, to make Jesus' work more perfect. But Hebrews states: "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:14) To say that we are saved only after baptism is to say that Jesus did not finish it at Calvary, and that we must finish it because we are not perfected by the one offering of Jesus. How can we ever finish what we did not start? How can we improve on what is already perfect?

My friend, you are concerned about me and I truly appreciate that. I am also concerned about you as Paul was about the Corinthians: "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." (2 Corinthians 11:3-4) The most religious, moral and pious group of people can fall into the error of preaching another Gospel than Jesus and the Apostles gave us. We can receive "another gospel" as though it is the true Gospel, when in fact it has fallen away from the "simplicity that is in Christ."

You have asked me some questions. I close with some questions I would like you to think about. These are not to stir up more contention. Nor do you have to answer these questions to me. I ask them to encourage you to think about your beliefs in ways in which you are not normally challenged. My hope is that you ask these questions of your self, in your own heart and mind:

How do you know you are saved? Is it by what you have done, or what Christ has done?

Is grace totally a free gift or just partly free with a conditional part that you have to work out as a Christian?

Are you saved by grace or grace (what Christ has done) plus works (what you must do)?

What obedience do you think contributes to your salvation?

Are you right with God by the steps you take or the steps which Christ took on the Cross? Is it by faith, trusting totally in Christ and not in yourself, or is it partly trusting Christ, while trusting your efforts to do the rest for which Christ is not enough?

What is your righteousness before God? Is it the righteousness you have produced by the Holy Spirit? Or is it by the righteousness produced only by Christ’s obedience in his life and death on the Cross?

Finally, what is your assurance for Heaven? Is it that you have followed the right doctrine, are part of the correct movement, or obeyed the correct doctrines? Or is it that Jesus is your only way to the Father and you have nothing but Jesus to offer before Him? In other words, is Christ sufficient for you, and is He your all and all? (emphasis and formatting added)

How one answers these questions really shows the basis of one’s salvation.

Thank you for writing and for taking the time to read my response.

Respectfully,

Bernie Gillespie

Dance Away

2008-08-03T23:08:00.000-07:00

My post, Pentecostal Hype, stirred up some emotions...

Two readers comment:

"If you go back to the Old Testament you will find when David was bring back the ark of the covenant in 2 Samuel 6:14-23 you will see why the UPCI worship in this way also in Psalms 149 & 150. The Bible was written as a whole book, now with that being said there are things in the Old Testament that yes God changed. "

...and...

"In reference to 'dancing,' didn't David dance before the Lord? Also, if this is as you say only an 'emotional release,' maybe that is the 'blessing' God is giving. After all, an emotional release, letting go of burdens, is an extreme blessing. Just a thought."

My response:

Both of you hit a theme of David "dancing" before the Lord. The Bible certainly affirms that and evens adds "with all his might" in the ESV. I don't believe there's any question that David danced on several occasions - and even in worship to God. This certainly raises important questions for the Church - namely, should we be dancing, and if so, how?

The Apostolic church, drawing on its early roots in the poor, oppressed South, borrowed many traditions from popular folk culture in the early 1900s. One of these was the tradition of "dancing in the Spirit" that still manifests itself regularly in Oneness churches as well as several other predominantly African American denominations like the Church of God in Christ. In these services, congregants are encouraged to become demonstrative in their worship, to "praise" God for His mighty acts. Worship in the heart alone - as scripture advocates - is discouraged; we must become "fools for Christ" (as I've heard in many a Campmeeting) and literally act that out. The crazier the dancing, the more Christ is glorified, and David is held up as a shining ideal of this out-of-control behavior.

My question is this: if this is truly what God demands of us, wouldn't there be something - anything - from the New Testament record that confirms this? Wouldn't Paul have given strict instructions about dancing in the Spirit somewhere, oh say around I Corinthians 12? Wouldn't Peter have referenced this in Hebrews, or even Acts? But there's nothing - only silence from New Testament scripture concerning dancing in the Spirit and acting the fool for Christ. Paul is clear, though, in I Corinthians 14:39 where he writes, "But all things should be done decently and in order." I believe this refers to everything about the way we gather together for corporate worship, and the chaos and danger that results from a nightclub-like environment in churches clearly violates this principle.

It's interesting to me to note that several strains of Christianity are using the Old Testament scriptures to justify choreographed dance moves that occur during the worship services. At a notable church in Omaha, the dance team, consisting of half a dozen middle aged women dressed in black, perform their choreographed moves in the aisles of the sanctuary, gyrating to the rhythms of Chris Tomlin songs. Why does the UPC frown on this? Because David's moves were allegedly spontaneous and unchoreographed? Let me remind you...David danced naked...

Community Chapel, a former UPC megachurch outside Seattle, encouraged dancing in the Spirit in the 1970s. The only issue was, individuals were encouraged to dance with their "spiritual connections" who, likely as not, were opposite sex individuals who were not their spouses. This ultimately led to disastrous consequences, not only for the church, but for many members' marriages and their families. In it all, the pastor maintained it was glorifying to God for individuals to dance before God [he had up to four spiritual connections, all female and 20 years younger than himself, and none were his wife]. For a fascinating read, begin here and here.

In all of this, I believe we have lost sight of the purpose of worship. The controversy isn't about dancing. It's about hype. Review the video I posted here, listen to the beat of the music, the repitition, and tell me this isn't reminiscent of bars and clubs (or vice versa). Tell me the people dancing onstage aren't sending subliminal messages to the crowd about how they should be "worshipping". Tell me there isn't a mosh pit mentality occurring down front. Tell me this isn't "decent and in order". If you can honestly answer no to all these, dance away.

A Video is Worth 10,000 Words

2008-07-29T10:34:00.000-07:00

Warning: this video is mildly disturbing

While you won't see any Oneness Apostolics here, definite similarities exist. For a Oneness version, see an earlier post here.

The direct relationship between this type of "worship" and occult practices is startling! When did this become worship? It's bizarre at best and clearly evidences a complete lack of discernment.

My critics will argue that the occult is a counterfeit version of what Christ intended (i.e. the Oneness version), and I would agree - IF there was one shred of biblical precedent for this.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 - "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."

Video posted by LetUsReason.org

What Not to Wear on the Good Ole Gospel Ship

2008-07-27T17:31:00.000-07:00

Or, The Dress Code on the Highway to Heaven

As most of my readers know, the UPCI and Worldwide Pentecostal Fellowship (WPF) are currently undergoing a split of sorts over UPCI's lax "holiness standards" - i.e. their dress code is becoming more lenient according to WPF's staunch criticism. While the controversy began over the much-maligned support of UPCI for churches' advertising on television, this was merely the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The hardline malcontents who are now the core leadership of WPF have claimed for years that the UPC was going to hell in a handbasket because women's dresses were becoming shorter (to the knee), members were not disfellowshiped for owning a TV, and (gasp!), some young people were listening to "worldly" music. In short, WPF accuses UPC of "going charismatic" and abandoning the God-given dress code.

FLDS adherents. The similarities are striking.

This God-given dress code - also known as "holiness standards" - includes the much-discussed prohibitions against women cutting their hair, wearing pants, wearing jewelry, or using cosmetics (for more info and other posts on this subject, click here). To go straight to the source, from the Articles of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church International: We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all wordly sports and amusements; and unwholesome radio programs and music. Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes (all emphasis is my own). Since television displays these "evils" and is thus included in the no-no list, I question why no prohibition against malls, grocery stores, or the freeway with its billboards? I digress.

Perhaps what stands out to me the most is In Search of Holiness: Series in Pentecostal Theology, Volume 3's assertion that not abiding by these rules against such evils as dances, makeup, and sports is sufficient to keep one out of heaven. I quote: "remember that a bad attitude will keep you out of heaven just as surely as any violation of outward holiness" (pp. 9-10). Wait - did you read that correctly? Any violation of outward holiness will keep you out of heaven!!! So when the pastor says men shouldn't wear white socks, you better listen if you want to go to heaven! (This is a Pentecostal legend.) And the prohibition against men showing any part of their leg means business! (While women can wear skirts below, at, or to the knee, depending on the strictness of your pastor.) And I'm certain there will be plenty of time in hell for tuning your TV to TLC's What Not to Wear. And oh what was I thinking when I grew a goatee??

Satire and sarcasm aside, this raises some extremely important theological questions. Clearly, this elevates the role of man's law - in this case, the UPC or Worldwide Pentecostal Fellowship law - above that of Christ. If our salvation is dependent upon our obedience to a strict dress code, then why did Jesus even die? I repeat myself here.

Scriptures to consider:
Isaiah 64:6 - all our righteousness is like filthy rags, even the adherence to the strictest of dress codes
Ephesians 2:8-9 - our righteousness comes by faith alone, not by works
Romans 4:5-6 - our right standing before God cannot be earned

As Dr. H. Wayne House so eloquently phrases it here, "Our staying saved is the work of Christ on our behalf: it is foolish and insulting to the Spirit of grace to haughtily imagine that our righteousnesses will be more important than Christ's in keeping us saved."

Beware, dear friends, of the arrogance of self-salvation. Remember the Pharisees. And above all, turn to Christ for your righteousness and holiness, not that of the United Pentecostal Church or the Worldwide Pentecostal Fellowship.

Worldwide Pentecostal Fellowship and Holiness

2008-03-15T21:18:00.000-07:00

A Sunday morning service at Second Presbyterian in Memphis

A major UPCI split has become reality
A new Oneness, Apostolic, holiness organization has thrust itself upon the hard-line conservatives among UPCI's ranks - the "Worldwide Pentecostal Fellowship". WPF leaders have chosen to disfellowship themselves from the UPCI in some cases, and ride the fence in others, after the much balley-hooed decision by the UPCI to allow churches to advertise on television. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, the television decision represented to the malcontent hardliners all that has become wrong with UPCI: their "lax" holiness standards. [8/26/08 edit: WPF is finding itself more and more isolated. Robert Martin, Superintendent of ALJC, condoned using television to advertise, saying: "And to use every means, including modern media (television, radio, Internet) to accomplish this task. For example, we are currently producing several first-class, cutting-edge television commercials that will be made available to all of our ministers and churches." The complete interview can be found here.]

Never one to give UPCI much credit, I almost feel sorry for Kenneth Haney and other UPCI leaders for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and receiving the flack from the WPF. However, both of them have missed the holiness boat, and after seeing the WPF in action, I have been forced to admit the UPCI isn't as bad as it could be.

For instance, take a look at these WPF guidelines for Bible Quizzers:

1. No facial hair on men.
2. Ladies shall wear skirts below the knee in length (when seated or standing). No low-cut dresses, tops, or blouses will be permitted.
3. All Bible quizzers shall refrain from wearing jewelry of any kind.
4. Sleeves should be worn below the elbow. No cap sleeves will be permitted.
5. All participants in the ABQ ministry shall maintain Christian decorum at all times and at all places (restaurants, hotels, etc.) during ABQ events.
6. All churches affirm the doctrinal and holiness tenants of the WPF’s articles of faith.

Now, you may ask, what do these kinds of rules have to do with biblical holiness? And why has the Worldwide Pentecostal Fellowship made such a big deal out of television? I will entertain you with my best guess.

That's Not Holiness - That's Asceticism!
Asceticism, according to our friends over at Merriam-Webster, can take on two definitions: 1 : practicing strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline 2 : austere in appearance, manner, or attitude. This is not a new concept and manifests itself in virtually every culture and religion. On its face, there's nothing inherently wrong with asceticism - it can accomplish good things for an individual. When it comes to Godliness, however, asceticism is nothing more than the works of the flesh and an arrogant assertion that our holiness should be good enough to save ourselves.

The Apostle Paul attacks asceticism in Colossians 2 primarily because it requires one to bypass the ultimate sacrifice - Jesus Christ. If my holiness comes from own actions and appearance, Christ's death is meaningless. Consider Colossians 2:20-23:

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

Asceticism and human regulations are of no value in preventing sin, and if I may be so bold, and in living a holy life.

Peter similarly addresses holiness in I Peter 3:3-4:
Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

Think about it: if UPCI and WPF are right about holiness and that it comes through a strict dress code involving no facial hair on men, sleeves to the elbows, skirts below the knee (for women), and no shorts (for men), isn't that asceticism and making our "adorning" external? Peter's point was simply that holiness comes from the heart - not from a physical appearance and certainly not from a denomination-wide, strictly enforced dress-code. Paul's point was that such human regulations do nothing to stop our struggle with sin.

UPCI, WPF, and all my other legalistic friends out there, isn't it time to get back to the true holiness of our precious Christian faith - the sinless, spotless sacrifice of Jesus Christ? The sacrifice which we did not, do not, and will never deserve. The only begotten Son of God who saved us through faith -- not our own doing; the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. We are sinful "and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment".

Titus 3:5-7: God our Savior saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

So why the stress about television? About why women have to wear skirts? About why men can't have facial hair? It's all an arrogant attempt to save ourselves through asceticism, through the performance of self-denial and rote obedience to pastors' teachings.

And that, my friends, rejects the work of the cross and the impartation of Christ's holiness to us. If I can make myself holy through a dress code or refusing to watch (or advertise) on television, Christ need not have died.

From the Comment Bag

2008-02-16T22:08:00.000-08:00

An Experto Creed Reader said...
From http://www.upci.org/about.asp, The UPCI holds a fundamental view of the Bible: "The Bible is the only God-given authority which man possesses; therefore all doctrine, faith, hope, and all instructions for the church must be based upon and harmonize with the Bible" (Manual of the United Pentecostal Church, 19). The Bible is the Word of God, and therefore inerrant and infallible. The UPCI rejects all extrabiblical revelations and writings, and views church creeds and articles of faith only as the thinking of men.

They self-describe their manual as the thinking of men, and point to the Bible as the beginning and end of doctrine. Seems very prudent saying, "Hey, this is what we collectively think, but that it is not eternally binding. If you have questions of the eternally binding, go read your Bible. Seems simple enough to me. ;)

You know, the idea of a church taking a stand may scare some people. And the exact scripture you use will be quoted in every instance or everyone that disagrees with whatever that stance may be. It's used by most (not saying you, I don't know you that well) as if they were "get out of jail free" cards to do as they please regardless of sound scripture against. It's the exact same logic "progressive" churches use to justify homosexuality, disregarding what the Bible clearly says, and I'm not talking Old Testament.

Funny, I never read how the councils from 300-500 A.D. attached that same disclaimer to inform us correctly that their trinity doctrine was nothing more than the thinking of men. I bring this up as I see this is one of your interests. So, let me give you one of the challenges to the trinity that I've never seen answered:

Trinitarians argue that the "Trinity" is taught by the bible. And yet, this appears to be a marked departure from the beliefs actually held by anyone in the bible. If this is not true, where are the Trinitarian Jews? If the Trinity is a "further revelation" as some claim to explain why there are no Trinitarian Jews, then obviously it became high controversy and would need to be explained by scripture with real accounts, just like Circumcision had to be dealt with. Jews are strict monotheists, and so any idea of a Trinity would need extremely explanation of why it isn't pagan. Where is such an explanation, or is the thought that Jews just abandoned strict monotheism overnight without explanation?

If we are going to discuss doctrinal policy using Sola Scriptura (meaning "by scripture alone"), how can you explain these discrepancies similarly? Note: I'm sure you are already aware of the beliefs that the "name" (Matt. 28:19) is Jesus (by comparison, and by 'requirements' such as Acts 4:12), and that invalidity of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7). So, beyond basing doctrine off of an invalid scripture (added later) and one that can be interpreted literally (by scripture alone, no private interpretation) to be interchangeable (by the logic that scripture will never contradict) with Acts 2:38, is there any other "water" to the trinity theory?

God bless, and I'll try to keep an eye on this thread if you wish to respond. I do admire those willing to jump into spiritual matters with open arms. Far too many don't care for doctrine or scripture. I'm glad to see your interest.

My Response...

Thank you for your comment. You make some good points and I'm willing to respond to those. Since you seem to be coming at this from a Oneness perspective, perhaps you'd care to take a gander at the questions for Oneness theologians I posed earlier in the blog?

First, with regard to the UPCI Manual, the teachings of the UPCI are widely admitted to be "suggestions" or "nonbinding", as you say. If that's the case, perhaps its strong language should be reworded? The Bible makes it quite clear that convictions are a matter of the heart and left to the guidance of the Holy Spirit; however, the passage from the manual on television I quoted allows for no such ambivalence or personal discretion. Phraseology like "we wholeheartedly disapprove", "admonish all of our people", "taken a positive stand", and "our strong opposition" plainly indicate the stance of the UPCI that, while not biblical itself, is (according to them) drawn from scripture. Yes, there is definitely a difference between the Bible and the UPCI Manual - and that's exactly my point. This passage illustrates an unhealthy, and if I may be bold, an ungodly perspective: legalism. Christians were never called to be legalistic, just as we were never called to be hedonistic.

Second, with regard to Trinitarian Jews: there are Trinitarian Jews - Messianic Jews. Orthodox Jews naturally do not believe in the Trinity because they do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. They are not Oneness either. Monotheism and Oneness are not the same, just as Polytheism and Trinitarianism aren't the same. One can't believe in the Trinity and reject the Deity of Jesus Christ. You say that no one in the Bible held the belief on the Trinity, but is that true? What of Paul when he writes, "Grace to you and peace, from God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ" in nearly every one of his Epistles? And what of the multiple passages from Acts, Romans, and Hebrews which speak of Jesus having ascended to Heaven and being seated at the right hand of the Father? And what about John 5? Proverbs 30:4? I Timothy 3:16? I think Oneness errs in church history when they assert that the Trinity came about in 300 A.D. That is, in fact, wrong - that's when the word "trinity" was coined, but the concept, arguably of course, dates back to Genesis 1.

With regard to scripture contradicting Acts 2:38, my response is that while scripture will never contradict itself, it will definitely contradict our interpretation of it. That said, I firmly believe UPC's interpretion of Acts 2:38 is wrong and conflicts with many other scriptures about the necessity and sufficiency of faith and confession. Where in Acts 2:38 does it ever imply salvation? What about the fact that prophecy (not speaking in tongues) is more often linked to Holy Spirit infilling in Acts 2 alone? Isn't it treacherous to balance an entire theology off an interpretation of a single scripture, to the detriment and conflict of the entire rest of the New Testament?

Finally, I agree that too many churches are unwilling to take a stand. My own denomination, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, has nearly doubled in size this year, not because of exponential growth, but because the mainline Presbyterian denomination (PCUSA) has become so unwilling to take a stand on anything, they now are willing to deny the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ and entire churches are leaving en masse for the EPC. However, it would be fallacious for us to say that we ought to move to the other extreme, to take a stand on everything. That, to me, is equally offensive. We were never called to have rules governing every aspect of our lives, or uniform dress codes, just as we were never called to hedonism or complete self-indulgence. There IS a middle ground, and sadly UPC and PCUSA have both missed it entirely, but in very different ways.

Winding up a long response, thank you for your interest, and I look forward to conversing with you on these topics in the future!

Pentecostal Hype

2007-10-05T23:31:00.000-07:00

When did this become Biblical?

A "praise break" from a recent Because of the Times conference at The Pentecostals of Alexandria in Alexandria, Louisiana:

One of the notable dancers, and the man speaking at the very end, is Jonathan Suber, former UPC pastor in Bogalusa, LA, and missionary kid from Africa. He has since left the UPC, was based out of Kenneth Phillips' charismatic church in Austin, Texas, and is now at non-denominational (albeit former UPC) Faith Tabernacle in Shreveport, LA.

Regardless, my question is what's the Biblical basis for this kind of "worship"? Where in the New Testament do we find any examples of the church behaving like this? Where do we find God asking for this? What about this makes this worship?

A careful study of worship reveals it's true meaning lies in how we conduct our lives on a daily basis, in the mundane events. Praise, on the other hand, is glorifying God for His attributes and actions. This dancing/mosh pit fits neither of those categories, and is more a relic of tradition than anything remotely biblical.

From my time in the UPC, we were always taught that people who were dancing were "getting a blessing." I can speak from personal experience that that's more of an emotional release than a blessing. Study the music, the actions of those leading the service, the beat, and the emotional energy. It is purely emotional - nothing more.

Emotions wear off; worship does not. Which does God request? Which do you think God prefers?

The Evils of Television and Theaters

2007-09-23T19:58:00.000-07:00

A Direct Quote from the UPCI Ministerial Manual

“We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing, women cutting their hair, make- up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music.

Furthermore because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church.”

“Inasmuch as the United Pentecostal Church International has taken a positive stand against television as an instrument of Satan to defile the church with worldliness through the viewing of movies and other programs which are contrary to holiness and separation unto the Lord, be it therefore resolved that the use of video be strictly limited to those areas in which motion picture cameras and projectors are traditionally permitted to be used; namely, in taking of pictures of families, friends and church activities, and the viewing of education, religious, or inspirational films which are consistent with wholesome Christian principles.”

“Be it further resolved that we restate our strong opposition to the viewing of all worldly motion pictures and video films as are being shown commercially in theaters and on television for entertainment purposes for the ungodly masses, and the use of them in any form for God’s people.”

(all bolds and italics are added)

The arrogance and legalism of this is horrifying. Reading from Romans and I Corinthians quickly repudiates this nonsense:

Romans 14:1: Don't quarrel over opinions (the above statement is nothing more than an opinion)

Romans 14:12: Each one of us will give an account of himself to God (therefore, let us choose our entertainment in accordance with our conscience and leading of the Holy Spirit. Independently.)

Romans 14:17: For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (directed at those who claimed the "true" Christian should not eat or drink certain things because of its relation to paganism)

Romans 14:22: The convictions that you have, keep betweeen yourself and God (plainly said!)

...and the clincher... I Corinthians 10:29: "For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?" (with regard to the legalists who claimed Christians should not eat certain food)

I'm fully aware of the rebuttal to this which says, "But those rules were written by old school people 50 years ago." Not true. These rules were updated one year ago at General Conference. I know all UPCI pastors do not abide by these rules, nor enforce them in their churches. But this thinking is indicative of a legalistic society more concerned with separating "the church" from "the world" than considering God's true command for holiness - a holiness that comes from the heart, that is not a uniform dress code, that is not a blanket rule against television, that does not cause divisions because of an individual's conscience, that is independently determined and applied.

As Paul writes in Romans16:17-18, run from this type of thinking: "Watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive."

Oneness theology and the myth of 3 gods

2007-08-19T19:55:00.000-07:00

The Polytheistic Heathens Strike Again

On July 29, 2007, Anthony Mangun, Senior Pastor of The Pentecostals of Alexandria in Alexandria, LA, preached a sermon entitled "Miracles are Still Happening." Despite the fact he preaches a name-it-and-claim-it gospel of health and wealth (which I will save for a later post), he briefly touches on Oneness Theology toward the end of his sermon and references a myth Oneness preachers love to promulgate among their congregation: anyone who denies Oneness beliefs believes in three gods. Loosely building on James 2:19 which states, "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder," here is a transcript of his remarks:

Anthony Mangun: "Everybody ready? Finish this scripture: 'The Devil believes in...'"
Audience: "One God"
AM: "How many?"
Audience: "One!"
AM: "One God, and what?"
Audience: "Trembles."
AM: "Where did the Devil come from?"
Audience: "Heaven."
AM: "Heaven. Good. Don't you think if there's three up there he'd a told ya he trembles over three? He said but, 'over that one God, I tremble.'"
AM: "How many devils do y'all think there are? One. Well I don't think it takes three gods to whip one devil. I think Jesus is the name that can handle ever demon and devil that there is."

By condemning those who disagree with their particular brand of "Jesus-only" doctrine as polytheistic, preachers like Anthony Mangun teach that all who believe in the trinity believe in three gods. Clearly, if Jesus is his own father and spirit, then those who believe otherwise are no better than the polytheistic, heathen idol worshippers the Israelites were constantly beating off the walls of their cities. In this way, the battle lines become distinctly drawn - the "us versus them" mentality becomes ingrained, and those who adhere to it believe they are being beseiged by the polytheistic, trinitarian, mainstream churches of their communities. Thus, all who disagree with Oneness Theology become ripe for proselyting and evangelizing.

At best, Mangun should admit there are scriptures that do not align with his theology. Under his rationale, Jesus himself was polytheistic (see my post below on John 5). And Mangun's own doctrinally-laden Acts 2 speaks of Jesus being "exalted at the right hand of God" (vs. 33). Hebrews 12:2 reinforces this, "looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and IS seated at the right hand of the throne of God." Again, Romans 8:34b, "Christ Jesus is the one who died - more than that, who was raised - who IS at the right hand of God, who indeed IS interceding for us."

Perhaps Anthony Mangun and all who cling to Oneness theology should consider these verses, particularly Romans 8. Jesus WAS raised, IS at the right hand of the Father (how could he possibly be at his own right hand?), and IS interceding for his bride - the church. If Jesus were his own Father, to whom would he be interceding?

If belief in the three personalities of the trinity makes me polytheistic, so be it. Biblical congruence is the most important thing - not a hardsell, dogmatic doctrine.

I Corinthians 12-14

2007-08-10T17:24:00.000-07:00

On Tongues and Interpretations

First Corinthians 12 gives basic instructions about the role of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit in the church. Paul begins the chapter by saying, "I do not want you to be uninformed"(v. 1) and references the Corinthians' former lives as pagans serving mute idols (v. 2). All the gifts, Paul writes, come from the "same God who empowers them all in everyone," (v. 6) and are given for the "common good" (v. 7).

Paul then lists the gifts operational in a New Testament church: wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discernment, tongues, and interpretation of tongues. "All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills" (v. 11). Paul then makes an argument that the church is made up of many individual parts, serving different functions, with different gifts from the list above (vs. 12-19). If all have the same gift, Paul writes in verse 19, "where would the body be?" If all speak in tongues, where's the body and its diverse functioning?

In 12:27-31, Paul writes that there is a gift heirarchy, to phrase it poorly, and that we should desire the "higher gifts" (v. 31). The higher gifts? Apostles, prophets, teachers. The last two gifts mentioned? Tongues and the interpretation of tongues (v. 30). In Paul's mind, tongues and their interpretation is not a higher gift, and therefore not one we should seek after.

Chapter 14 is much more explicit about the role of prophecy and tongues in the church, building on the foundation Paul laid in chapters 12 and 13. Prophecy, according to Paul, is for people's "upbuilding and encouragement and consolation" (v. 3), while tongues are to build up the one who speaks in them. Therefore, tongues are not for the edification of the church of God: "So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air." Hence, an interpreter is needed to inform others what has been said; otherwise the tongues are useless (vs. 11, 12).

Paul is direct in verse 19, probably because he knew the Corinthian church was being tempted to place undue importance on speaking in tongues: "Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue." Tongues are a sign for unbelievers (reference Acts 1:8 where "power" was to fall upon the church to be witnesses).

I Corinthians 14:27-28 is inexplicable in Oneness Apostolic theology: "If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God."

Therefore, to appropriately use the gift of tongues, it must meet several conditions:

It must be a tool for witnessing, for minstering to unbelievers (v. 22)
Two - three at the most - should speak in tongues (v. 27)
Each one should speak in tongues in turn (v. 27)
There should be an interpretation (v. 28)
If there is no interpretation, tongues should not be used (v. 28)

Paul finishes the chapter by saying, "all things should be done decently and in order," an obvious reference to the appropriate use of tongues in church. It's clear from earlier in the chapter precisely what Paul intended by "decently and in order" - one at a time, not to exceed three, with an interpretation.

Nowhere in this chapter does Paul make an allowance for if tongues are evidence of salvation - clearly he did not believe that, otherwise why would he put a limit on it? Simply, any church that does not abide by these regulations in regard to tongues is not emphasizing decent or orderly worship.

Furthermore, tongues cannot be necessary for salvation (12:30). Paul even rhetorically asks in 12:29-30 when he describes the diversity of the Body of Christ and the resultant Gifts of the Spirit, "Are all apostles?" Obviously, no. "Are all prophets?" Again, no. "Are all teachers?" I'm sure not! "Do all work miracles?" Clearly not. "Do all speak with tongues?" Hmmm... "Do all interpret?" Not here.

It's obvious from this passage alone Paul never imagined a situation in which speaking in tongues could be equated with salvation. I'm certain he would reference this in Romans 1 where he talks about serving the creation rather than the Creator. Tongues are part of God's creation, and any emphasis on them above and beyond that (salvation) is...well...idolatry.

A Distinction of Powers?

2007-07-10T15:17:00.000-07:00

Oneness Mythbusters

John 5:18-42 is a passage I've never heard discussed from an Apostolic pulpit. Reminscing on my experience in UPC Bible Quizzing, I remembered that when we did the book of John twice, we memorized John 4 and John 6; never John 5. When I heard it preached on about a month ago at the Presbyterian church I attend, I instantly knew why this is an unfamiliar passage to me.

John 5

19 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father[d] does, that the Son does likewise. 20For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. 21For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father.

26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 30"I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.

I Corinthians 15:28 is very similar: "When all things are subjected to God, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all."

Jesus does what he sees the Father doing? And the Father loves his Son? And the Father doesn't judge - He's delegated that to the Son???

Jesus is saying the Father has given him life and authority? And He says of Himself, "I can do nothing on my own"???

I certainly will be the last to claim I know perfectly what these scriptures are speaking of, but it seems rather plain from a biblical standpoint that the Son and the Father are independent of each other, that the Father gives the Son life and duties, and that the Son seeks to implement the will of His Father (remember Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane?). If there is no distinction between the Son and the Father, why is this passage in the Bible? If Jesus=Son=Father, why would Jesus make these comments? How can 1 Corinthians 15:28 be reconciled under this formula?

Questions unanswered by Oneness Theology

2007-07-10T13:18:00.000-07:00

From Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Matthew Slick writes:

Is Jesus His own Father?

If Jesus' will and the Father's will were identical, then why did Jesus express the desire to escape the cup but resigns Himself not to His own will, but the will of the Father? See my article on this.

Was Jesus praying to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane?

If Jesus was praying to the divine side of Himself, then isn't He still praying to Himself?

Why was Jesus not saying, "Not My will, but MY will be done?" if there is only one person and one will involved when He was praying in Luke 22:42 & Matt. 26:39.

If baptism is essential for salvation, then what happens to someone who repents of sin, accepts Jesus as Savior, walks across the street to get baptized but is killed by a car. Does he go to heaven or hell?

If he goes to heaven, then baptism isn't a requirement is it?
If he goes to hell, then faith in Christ isn't sufficient to save him is it?

Since the Bible teaches us that Jesus is in bodily form now (Col. 2:9), then how does the Oneness Pentecostal person maintain that God is in the form of the Holy Spirit? Also, when Jesus returns, will He return in His body? Will God's form then revert to the form of the Son at a later date?

If God is only one person, why did Jesus say in John 14:23, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." If God is only one person, why does Jesus say, "we"?

Oneness theology teaches that God was in the mode of the Father in the Old Testament. God was seen in the OT (not as a vision or a dream or an angel in the following verses: Exo. 6:2-3; Gen. 19:24; Num. 12:6-8). But, Jesus said no one has seen the Father (John 6:46). If they were seeing God Almighty (Exo. 6:2-3) but it wasn't the Father, then who was it?

A "Book of Acts" Church?

2007-07-09T12:47:00.000-07:00

Jerry Dean, pastor of Bossier City United Pentecostal Church, preaches about a "Book of Acts" church, here. He covers the basic Acts 2:1-4, 38-39 - verses which form the foundation of Oneness Apostolic doctrine.

But why only have a Book of Acts church? Why not have a Biblical church?

A true Biblical church acknowledges:
Acts 16:31, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved."
Romans 10:9, "..if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Nothing more, nothing less; no explanation needed. grace plus nothing

I'd like to ask Jerry Dean, if tongues are essential for salvation, what on Earth did Paul mean in I Corinthians 12:30 where he rhetorically asks, "Do all speak with tongues?" Paul answers himself, "Of course not." Tongues, Paul writes, are not the sign of salvation - love is. He then immediately launches into "the better way" - I Corinthians 13, the infamous chapter on love, and the litmus test of Christianity and of Holy Spirit infilling.

And how about this? The Holy Spirit, I acknowledge, is necessary for every believer, but UPC errs when they assert that the "manifestation of the Holy Ghost is speaking in other tongues." Acts 2 more often links prophesying with the receipt of the Holy Spirit than speaking in tongues. Take a look at it...

The Doctrine of the Trinity

2007-07-07T07:12:00.000-07:00

Misbeliefs are always built upon other misbeliefs. They never travel through generations alone, and if left unchallenged, they always spawn other misbeliefs. This post will begin to tackle the most fundamental belief of the Oneness movement, something foundational to every Oneness believer: the denial of the Trinity.

David K. Bernard, a Oneness UPCI pastor, writes in The Oneness of God (1983), “Jesus Himself taught that He was the Father,” and, “If there is only one God and that God is the Father (Malachi 2:10), and if Jesus is God, then it logically follows that Jesus is the Father,” (pp. 66-67). Yet Jesus, in John 8:17-18, says, “In your Law it is written that the testimony of two men is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me,” (ESV). And in John 17:1 and 5, Jesus praying says, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you… And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

I ask every Oneness adherent who perhaps has never considered this before: If Jesus indeed considers himself to be the Father in these verses, why does he specifically compare his relationship with the Father to the Mosaical testimony of two men. Why would he pray to himself if he is both Father and Holy Spirit, and ask himself for glory? And what did Jesus mean by “the glory I had with you before the world existed”?

Traditional teachings by Oneness Pentecostal pastors claim that mainstream Christians believe in three gods. This is simply is not true. Historic Christianity has always maintained that there is only one God, that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. They all three form one God, and no Christian who believes in three gods can claim biblical accuracy.

Consider the Athanasian Creed: “But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one… So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God.” John 8:38 says, “I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father,” and John 20:17, “Jesus said to her, ‘Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Calvin Beisner, in his book “Jesus Only” Churches published by Zondervan, makes the following points:
• nowhere in the Bible is the claim that Jesus is the Father
• Jesus did not teach that He was the Father
• the Bible does not teach that Jesus is the Holy Spirit
• “Attributing the same things to Jesus and the Father does not prove that Jesus is the Father. Arguing so is an example of hasty generalization.”

Furthermore, why would Paul begin nearly every epistle with the standard greeting of, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”? It doesn't make much sense to suggest that Paul was either mistaken or was redundantly referring to the same, exact entity. Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This verse needs no explanation and suggesting, "What that verse really means is..." simply takes the verse out of context.

Oneness theology has always claimed that there is no mystery to the
Oneness Godhead. This is maintained both from UPCI pulpits and in their writings. However, consider I Timothy 3:16 where Timothy explicitly writes, “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of the Godhead.” Explaining the mystery of God away explains God himself away.

Proverbs 30:4: "Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!" {ESV}

Basic Guide to UPCI Teachings

2006-09-29T07:10:00.000-07:00

The Trinity does not exist: based on John 10:30 (Jesus says, “I and my Father are one”), following the premise if the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then Jesus is all three. This is a necessary belief to be able to claim that Acts 2:38 is the scriptural design for salvation.

Speaking in tongues is evidence of salvation. One of the core beliefs of Oneness theology is the idea that a person cannot be saved until they speak in tongues. Oneness theology maintains that Acts 2:38 is the only scripture in the Bible that explicitly tells us how to be saved (Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized all you in the name of Jesus Christ and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’). No other verse in the Bible confirms this claim, nowhere does this verse state that speaking in tongues is the "evidence" of Holy Spirit infilling, and nowhere does this verse claim to be pertinent to salvation. Oneness scholars have a very difficult time correlating this verse to salvation, although it is necessary to maintain that baptism in the name of Jesus is the “fulfillment” of Matthew 28:19 and further “evidence” that Jesus himself is all three aspects of the trinity.

Grace itself is insufficient for salvation. Probably the most concerning teaching of the UPCI is the thought that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross merely gave us the opportunity to pursue him. The onus for salvation is clearly on us, according to this theology, to believe the right things, obey Acts 2:38, and live a life without sin. If this is true, I ask, why did Christ die? Read more here

Adherence to a strict dress-code is necessary for salvation. This belief is based on the multitude of scriptures that reference holiness. Holiness, to a Oneness believer, means women should not cut their hair or wear jewelry (including wedding rings), pants/shorts, makeup, or skirts above the knee; men should not wear shorts (even below the knee) or jewelry or have long hair or facial hair; and everyone should not watch television (some “liberal” churches approve of movies – but not at the cinema), listen to non-Christian music, or drink any form of alcohol. Doing anything that’s forbidden is deemed a sin, and the presence of sin confirms that one is unsaved (i.e. a man who dies with a goatee or a woman who dies with makeup on will go straight to hell). Jason Young at Acts Eighteen has an excellent expository here

Churches who do not agree line-by-line with UPCI teachings are wrong, hell-bound, and ripe for proselytizing. This belief lands Oneness Apostolics in a lonely spot – they have the “full” truth – and often they feel burdened for their “unsaved” sinner friends and family. Other healthy, Christian churches and believers are not believed to have the "whole truth" and not considered to have fully experienced Christ, thus they are excluded in the Apostolics’ perception from being brothers or sisters in Christ. Read this former UPC pastor's testimony

Why am I blogging?

2006-09-17T10:43:00.000-07:00

A quote from Charles Spurgeon

"I believe that many Christian people get into a deal of trouble through not being honest in their convictions. For instance, if a man goes into a workshop, or a soldier into a barrack-room, and if he does not fly his flag from the first, it will be very difficult from him to run it up aftewards. But if he immediately and boldly lets them know, 'I am a Christian man, and there are certain things that I cannot do to please you, and certain other things that I cannot help doing, though they displease you'--when that is clearly understood, after a while the singularity of the thing will be gone, and the man will be let alone; but if he is a little sneaky, and thinks that he is going to please the world and please Christ too, he is in for a rough time, let him depend upon it. His life will be that of a toad under a harrow, or a fox in a dog-kennel, if he tries the way of compromise. That will never do. Come out. Show your colors. Let it be known who you are, and what you are; and although your course will not be smooth, it will certainly be not half so rough as if you tried to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds--a very difficult piece of business that."

I Corinthians 15:10a: But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.

Book Recommendations

2006-09-15T12:03:00.000-07:00

Books to read if you are seeking more information on the United Pentecostal Church, Int'l or other Oneness groups and their theology:

Christianity Without the Cross: A History of Salvation in Oneness Pentecostalism, Thomas A. Fudge

Letters from a Skeptic, Dr. Gregory Boyd (former UPC)

Jesus Only Churches, Dr. Alan W. Gomes and E. Calvin Beisner

Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, Dr. Gregory Boyd (former UPC)

Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis (not specific to Oneness theology, of course, but a great resource for those seeking to leave it)