Boat Rockers

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Thank you for an excellent post Brother Reed!  Let me make just a few
comments.

> There was a mixture of organized opinion on what constituted the new
> birth message. 

This is a very important historical fact.  There was no consensus of
opinion about the New Birth issue in the Apostolic movement in the
1940's.

>  The Pentecostal Church Incorporated and the Pentecostal Assemblies of
> Jesus
> Christ were about to merge. Preachers had their feelers out and in a
> quest for
> Apostolic fellowship, we were seeking for anyone that was
> fundamentally sound.

I take this to mean that any preacher who "was fundamentally sound"
would be received as a minister in the new organization.  So, by
inference, the UPC received Apostolics ministers who did not believe
that Acts 2:38 was the new Birth as fundamentally sound.


>  When we met at Brother I. H. Terry's store-front church to discuss
> the coming
> together merger, we listened to arguments for and against our coming
> together.
> Brother Terry and Brother Sherman Langford spoke for the merger and
> Brother
> Hurley against it. 

Once again, there is no consensus here!

>The church had once been a pet shop until Brother
> Terry
> converted it to a church. In his zeal for the Oneness message, he
> placed a
> sign in the window which read:  "All Trinities are going to hell."

Don't know if I should comment on this action of a beloved Apostolic,
but doesn't it seem a little radical?  Is this the kind of rude,
ignoant, wild, and inconsiderate behavior which later in the article our
Brother says is justified in order to establish Apostolic truth?

>  Brother Jimmy Davis and myself did not approve of the merger on the
> grounds
> that a number of the P.C.I. brethren did not believe in the
> essentiality of
> the Holy Ghost. Both before and after the merger, the same question
> kept
> coming up,  "When is the blood applied?" Many contended that it was at
> the
> alter. We knew this to be true, but their understanding was that the
> Holy
> Ghost baptism was not essential for salvation. Our group contended the
> blood
> was applied throughout the Tabernacle service and it was not complete
> until
> the ritual was finished.

Isn't this interesting Brother Reed?  Two Apostolic organizations were
going to merge and many in one organization did not believe that the
Baptism in the Holy Spirit was essential for salvation.  It seems that I
have been criticized by you for pointing this reality out!

>  Those fervored Apostolic preachments that were heard in the valley's
> fellowship meetings, (we called them  "Battleship meetings") reminded
> me of
> the wars that Josephus wrote about, only on a miniature scale. Our
> Pentecostal
> forebears left us with a mixture of creeds and beliefs.  Annihilation,
> British
> Israel, and soul sleep were thrown up for grabs. One preacher told me
> he
> handled snakes. He emphasized the plural word there, saying one was
> not
> enough. Another said he preached with a Gila monster in his shirt.
> Church
> boards were hewn down and women preachers had their calling uncalled.

These are some very extreme examples of Apostolic theology of the
period.  Personally, I think the beliefs of most were reflected in the
articles of faith adopted at the merger.  None of the above radical
positions were adopted!

>
>  We took turns "taking a text" on those whom we reckoned as our
> enemies--the
> compromisers.  If none were present, we tested the belief and patience
> of one
> another.

Why must we assume that Apostolics who believe differently than us must
be "compromisers" and our "enemies"?  This statement is very
inconsistent with the precious paragraph which acknowledges that there
was no Apostolic consensus, no normative Apostolic theology, by which
one could could label someone a compromiser and perceive them as an
enemy.  This could only be done if ones own theology was perceived as
correct while all others were totally wrong!  Shouting "but we have
Bible for it!" just doesn't make it here Brother Reed!  There was a very
broad area of commonality in beliefs which made the merger possible. 
Obviously, those who chose to label others as comnpromisers and enemies
were disenchanted with the merger.  They desired to contend for for
their own theological distinctives to the disunity of the body!  


>  And yet, at that time, this had to be, for silence works nothing out.

This is a very profound truth about the need for dialogue.  Why do we
want to silence those with whom we disagree and not seriously try to
discuss our differences especially with those of the household of faith.

> Our
> search was for the faith once delivered to the saints. 

This is as it should be.  But do we every really stop searching?  Do we
ever possess all of God's truth in these fallible earthen vessels?


>At the
> meetings, every
> minister was given time to say a few words. I soon learned how
> illiterate a
> number of us were.  It seemed a number of us could not tell time.  On
> home
> made pine slat benches and cheap folding chairs, the saints sat
> transfixed as
> an assortment of Pentecostal pronouncements were hurled at them.  In
> concrete
> block coliseums or in batten board arenas, Apostolic gladiators
> sallied forth
> to slay lions of error and giants of compromise. Every thrust of their
> unctioned spear-like words seemed as though the Christians were once
> more
> embattled at Rome.
> 

Perhaps we could modify this and have the saints sitting before their
computer monitors reading higher-fire posts!

>  With the merger now but a few months past, one could not expect total
> agreement.  Indeed, there are a number of things we have not agreed on
> to this
> day and may never be settled. Overall, a positive message took form
> and for
> the most part, was settled on.

Brother Reed, I am just about ready to fall out of my chair!  This is
what I have been saying for over a year!  Those you merged to form the
UPCI agreed to disagree!  Their PRIMARY CONCERN was not with a
theological system but with getting people baptized in Jesus Name and
filled with the Holy Ghost.  The positive message of which this Brother
speaks was the Fundamental statement of faith of the United Pentecostal
Church which allows Apostolics to interpret Acts 2:38 in different ways,
as to the New Birth, and as to subsequent to salvation and faith.  These
Apostolics agreed to disagree so that the Apostolic Gospel might be
proclaimed!

And Brother Reed, it blesses my heart to hear another Apostolic say that
these theological differences "may never be settled".

 
>  After a time, for the most part, the Pentecostals took on a
> conservative
> look. The saints followed example.  A foundation was agreed upon that
> conformed to scripture.  Sell all you have to get bible convictions
> while you
> are yet young, for the years have a way of softening a man. Sometimes
> for the
> better; sometimes for the worse.

Brother Reed, the "for the most part" is very important here.  Our
Apostolic Brother acknowledges that there are other Apostolics who did
not assume a "conservative look".  These conservatives agreed upon a
foundation which they believed "conformed to scripture" and kicked their
moderate brethren out of an organization which was born in a spirit of
tolerance for Apostolic diversity. But these moderates did not cease to
be Apostolics because of the political victory of conservatives.


>  WE consciously, or unconsciously, acquire the habits, beliefs and
> mannerisms
> of those with whom we company. 

This is why we, as Apostolics, should be very self critical.  We have
associated our movement with Fundamentalist and Evangelical theology
since its inception.  Isn't it time we develop our own theology!

 The longer I live, the more I
> appreciate
> discovering convictions and Gospel Truth in my formative years. It is
> difficult to take up the slack or change when we grow old. I will
> always have
> a special place for Andrew Baker, Jimmy Davis, and I. H. Terry. They
> were
> dedicated to the Apostolic doctrine. Their steadiness made me strong.
> 
>  I shall not apologize for human spirits that ofttimes were harsh and
> severe.
> In a sense, we were at war, not at a tea party. WE felt that problems
> of
> eternal moment were at issue.  Wars are won by  contest and not by
> ignoring
> the enemy at the gate.

History is written by the victors.  What history have the conservative
Apostolics written?  Let me quote from a previous post:

And let us be honest and see
where it has taken us!  It is estimated that 80% of Apostolic young
people leave the church!  The UPCI has not grown enough in the last 10
years to account for the discipling of its own children into the
denomination!  The Apostolic movement is vilified and labeled as a
cult!  Apostolics endure schism after schism as they separate over every
conceivable doctrine!

> 
>  In looking back, I recall that we were branded as ignorant, rude,
> wild and
> inconsiderate, And yet, by those very means, a foundation for good ,
> sound,
> fundamental doctrine was established.  Truth comes in small measures
> and
> creeds take shape slowly.  A sort of peace lasted for almost half a
> century.
> But now, after visiting the west again, I note something arresting.
> I find
> a resurgence of compromise and rethinking convictions.

Brother Reed, justifying being rude, ignorant, wild, and inconsiderate,
by appealing to a higher principle, truth, is unthinkable.  Why must we
sacrifice some Christian principles to establish other Christian
principles?  Is it all right to lie to preserve the Truth?  Is it
acceptable to misrepresent the positions of others to preserve the
truth? I am just about ready to fall out of my chair again!  Why should
any Christian delight in being rude, ignorant, wild and inconsiderate? 
Is this the way you dialogue with others to sincerely find out what they
Believe?  NO!  This is the way you defeat your enemies, drive them away
from an Apostolic organization or fellowship.  This is exactly what has
happened in the Apostolic movement.  How can you be proud of this?  How
can you teach your young people this? 

Also, is there a falling away from the truth, or a profound disgust with
the way Apostolic truth is presented by rude, ignorant, wild and
inconsiderate Apostolics?  Personally, I would rather fellowship with a
polite, informed, controlled, and considerate Trinitarian than a rude,
wild, ignorant, and inconsiderate Apostolic!  And who do you think will
have a better chance of presenting the Apostolic faith to this
Trinitarian?  Does this Trinitarian have to become  rude, ignorant,
wild, and inconsiderate in order to be Apostolic?

> How sad! Truth once cherished in the burning hearts of a dedicated
> few, may
> one day become parroted  phrases and meaningless creeds, to a
> multitude of
> those who profess to be our followers. Every generation must discover
> truth
> for itself.

And this generation of Apostolics needs to discover the Truth of the
Apostolic faith for itself and not make itself totally dependent upon a
past generation!

Thank you Brother Reed for an excellent post!  I need to go pray for my
Apostolic brethren who glory in being rude, ignorant, wild, and
inconsiderate for the sake of the truth!  Please take the time Brother
Reed and show me from Scripture where this is Christ like.  I really
need help on this one!

Steve (trying my best to be polite, informed, controlled, and
considerate) Starcher