CHAPTER XXIII
FEARFUL EMPLOYEES
THOSE WHO ARE TRUSTING IN THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL OF "LIVE AS
YOU PLEASE" WILL BE UNPLEASANTLY SURPRISED AT THE JUDGMENT DAY.
|
DOES "FEAR" PLAY ANY ROLE IN A CHRISTIAN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH
GOD? ARE ONENESS PENTECOSTALS TREMBLING "EMPLOYEES" OF A "PERFECTIONISTIC
GOD"?
DOES BEHAVIOUR MATTER TO GOD?
PERMISSIVENESS,
HOLINESS AND FEAR // RESULTS OF
THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL // GOD'S
CALL TO SEPARATION AND HOLINESS // A CLEAN CHURCH
// CULTURAL ISSUES // GOLDEN
CALF OF THE PERMISSIVES // OPENING A CAN
OF WORMS // HOLINESS AND HAIR // OTHER
POINTS OF HOLINESS // SMOKING // ALCOHOL
AND WINE // MOVIES AND TELEVISION // CLOTHES
AND APPEARANCE // WHERE WILL IT STOP?
// IS GOD CONCERNED? // LIBERTY
VS. OBEDIENCE // EARLY FATHERS AND HOLINESS
// CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA // TERTUILLIAN
// CYPRIAN // ARNOBIUS //
HOLINESS AND THE CROSS
PERMISSIVENESS,
HOLINESS AND FEAR
Because Oneness Pentecostals have a healthy respect for Christs' commandments,
believe in holy living, and strive to conform to what God expects Dr. Boyd
ridicules them in the following words:
"In the Oneness view, salvation is not a relationship between a passionately
loving Father and his undeserving children. It is more like a relationship
between a meticulous perfectionistic employer and his fearful employees
" (Boyd, p 145).
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who has ever been
to one of our camp meetings, General Conferences, or revivals knows what
joy and blessing we enjoy in our relationship with God. Do "fearful employees"
shout, leap, and dance in the presence of a "meticulous, perfectionistic
employer?" If you want to see fearful, depressed, and somber facial expressions,
just visit the churches where Luther, Calvin, and St. Augustine's spiritual
descendents hold sway, namely the "mainline" Protestant and Catholic Churches
of today. Those men, who according to Dr. Boyd, preached such a "beautiful
and freeing" gospel, have produced a brood of the most "unjoyous" worshipers
imaginable. They don't even start to "lighten up" until they're back on
the front steps of the church after service and heading for lunch! Many
of them can't wait to get Outside and have a cigarette to relieve their
tension (or boredom.) Why do the "fearful employees" of Oneness have more
to shout, sing, and dance about than the descendents of those "great reformers,"
who preached such a "freeing gospel?"
A healthy "fear of God" however is what the nation, the church,
and the family need in this day and hour. The Bible teaches that a certain
Mount of "fear" is necessary to a healthy relationship with God!
Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left
us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it
(Hebrews 4:1).
Be not high minded, but fear: for if God spared
not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee
(Romans 10:20-21).
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed,
not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your
own salvation with fear and trembling (Phillipians 2:12).
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man
(Ecclesiastes 12:13)
And just in case someone wants to claim that "Grace" is incompatible
with "Godly fear" the writer to the Hebrews states: "
Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably
with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews
12:28-29).
RESULTS OF
THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL
The sad results of "permissiveness" can be seen in our schools and
homes today. We are a nation which can no longer distinguish between right
and wrong, the clean and the unclean. We have a "pro-choice" philosophy
which sanctions every kind of wickedness, as long as it is a personal decision
exercised by a "free moral agent." Freedom to do what you want, without
restriction, is the underlying premise. In this type of thinking, the real
enemies are any who would dare attempt to tell someone what they should
or shouldn't t do. Authority is out; unrestrained freedom is in! Things
are not wrong; they are only wrong for some!
This evil leaven, I'm afraid, is also permeating the thinking
of many so-called evangelicals and other assorted varieties of Christendom
The crop is starting to come in and it is fearful to behold. The doctrine
that "behavior" or "performance" is not the issuer and not "even related"
to salvation, has fueled every sinful lifestyle that now dares to parade
under the banner of Christianity.
I taught a young girl in high school who was well entrenched in
that philosophy. She claimed to be a Christian and did much to try to "lead
others" to accept Christ. One day I observed her "witnessing" to some classmates.
When they didn't agree with her 'witness' she proceeded to "cuss them out!"
I was shocked and asked her about such 'behavior. I was quickly informed
that the Lord was not uptight about such things She had "prayed about it"
and the Lord had shown her they were only ''words" (four lettered, at that)
and if they relieved her anger it was all right to use them. We are saved
by grace you see! And besides, in this philosophy God is only dealing with
"her" and not "her behavior," which is not "even related" to salvation.
Shall we go on?
I had a man in my office once, who was not a member of my congregation
(Thank God!), who claimed to have a ministry of "adultery." Yes, you heard
me correctly. He was a member of an "Evangelical Free" church, whatever
that signifies, and had been caught "fooling around" with a married woman.
He calmly explained how he was a sincere Christian, had "accepted Christ
as his very own personal savior" and studied (?) the Bible regularly. I
asked him to explain his "present difficulty." Without the sign of a blush,
he explained he did not feel 'condemned" at all.
He viewed his work as some sort of ministry. These women were "neglected"
by their husbands, and had very low "self-esteem." They felt "undesired"
and "unloved." He just filled that void in their lives and "helped" them
to realize their true worth before God!! He helped himself also, of course!
In my naiveté, I tried to explain to him about sin and judgment.
All to no avail. For I was informed that such reasoning was "legalism"
and he was naturally free from such "bondage." God is not "evaluating us"
on "performance," we are told, for he is a God "who loves and saves on
the basis of how he performs, not on the basis of how we perform" (Boyd,
p. 219).
GOD'S
CALL TO SEPARATION AND HOLINESS
God is very clear in the Word that his people are to be different
from the sinners which surround them in this world. We are called to separation
and Holiness. Indeed, we cannot be God's people unless we "come out from
among them." This was his policy for Israel in the Old Testament and is
repeated for the Church in the New Testament:
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye
separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive
you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters,
saith the Almighty. (I Cor. 6:17-18).
Being "received" as a "son" or "daughter" is conditioned upon separation
and "coming out from among them." This is not to be misconstrued to mean
that we should become hermits or recluses, hiding in our homes, lest we
meet a sinner! We are "in the world," but not "of the world." In fact,
our responsibility is to witness and be moral examples to the unsaved.
A CLEAN CHURCH
But we cannot tolerate sinful life styles in our churches, regardless
of how much Dr. Boyd thinks behavior is not the issue and we should not
"reject" anyone. All are welcome, but all must change and conform to scriptural
life style or be dis-fellowshipped. We do not advocate the "big tent" philosophy
that teaches there is room for every opinion and life style. That may be
all right for the Democratic Party, but it will not do for the church of
the Living God. We would rather "affirm" the Word of God, than sinful life
styles. We are not going to become the country club for fornicators, perverts,
radical feminists and abortionists! Many churches today "shelter" everything
in their membership. They have fulfilled Revelation 18:2 and become "the
hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird."
And because Oneness churches wish to maintain a clean membership, and because
we deal with "disorderly walks" according to the Bible, we come in for
some severe censure from Dr. Boyd. He writes:
"The performance oriented God who loves or damns because of behavior
tends to create a people who accept or reject each other ('and outsiders')
because of behavior. For again, we always tend to mirror the God we worship
" (Boyd, p. 194) .
So we must not reject, but rather tolerate in our church membership
every person who claims to be "unconditionally" saved. What other conclusion
can we draw from what he has said? If we don't reject, then we must accept;
and this acceptance cannot be contingent upon behavior, for that would
be performance oriented. Therefore, welcome aboard ye drunks, harlots,
blasphemers and addicts. There's room for all. Leave your behavior at the
door and pick it up on the way out! If God affirms you, dope, booze and
all, so do we!
Paul certainly did not agree with this; here's what he had to
say:
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company
with fornicators... but now I have written you not to keep company; if
any man who is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater,
or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such an one no not
to eat. (I Corinthians 5:9-11)
Dr. Boyd says we "tend to mirror the God we worship." We don't mind that,
for we worship a God of Holiness. Jesus himself told us that if a brother
would not accept church discipline, let him be as a "heathen man and a
publican " (Matthew 18:16-17). In Zion's navy, you "shape up" or you "ship
out."
CULTURAL ISSUES
The Gospel of Permissiveness needed a mechanism whereby all Holiness
requirements mentioned in the New Testament could be set aside. It would
never do just to simply say the Bible was "uninspired" and therefore fallible
on these points. That's what the modernists do and has a distinctly unchristian
ring to it. No, something else must be found, something more palatable
to conservative sensitivities. They Couldn't wait too long, for Holiness
was closing in on them; their new converts were asking why certain scriptures
weren't practiced. Finally, a discovery was made that would work just fine.
Although it came from an unlikely source, and had never been used before
in "evangelical circles," it seemed to fit the bill. It was called "cultural
issues!"
This device for setting aside scripture was first popularized
on a wide scale by the Metropolitan Community Church, the religious organization
of homosexuals. When confronted with Paul's strong denunciations of homosexual
life style in Romans, they insisted it was all a "Greco-Roman" cultural
issue that no longer applied to present day homosexuals.
Their historically inaccurate explanation ran something like this:
Homosexuality in Paul's day was practiced in the pagan temples between
devotees and specially trained male prostitutes, as part of heathen worship.
That was the "cultural setting." Seeing this no longer is the setting for
homosexual activities today, Paul's condemnation doesn't really apply.
He was only concerned with homosexuality in a Greco-Roman temple-prostitute
milieu. Therefore, ipsit dixit, homosexuality is o.k.! In this manner the
modern Gay Church sets aside a portion of scripture they don't agree with,
while still claiming to believe in the Bible. Of course, any historian
will tell you the whole argument is fallacious, for homosexuality was also
practiced in the same settings it is today, and Paul made no distinctions
in his proscription.
GOLDEN CALF OF THE
PERMISSIVES
But modern day evangelicals saw something they could use in this
cultural argument, regardless of the trash can out of which it was fetched.
Now they could set aside those nettle-some holiness texts by relegating
them to the category of cultural issues that no longer apply. What a sigh
of relief was breathed in the camp of the permissives when this golden
calf popped out of the fire! It was worth the wait! All that was needed
was a little "cleaning up" and some trim work around the edges.
Dr. Boyd uses the "cultural issue" in appendix c. He wants to
employ it to get Pentecostal women to cut their hair. For he feels,
"if one can help a United Pentecostal Church International woman see
the error of this teaching, one may help her experience more of the freedom
before God that Christ has won for her" (Boyd, p. 223).
Yes, she might go on to the freedom of abortion, divorce, feminism, and
promiscuity. For they too are being classed as "cultural issues." I read
no where in the Bible that Jesus bled and died that women might wear short
hair. Just where was this "freedom" won by Christ before God?
This is the "crack" in the truth he hopes to use to start a chain
reaction, which ...
"may help free the person from the authority of the group altogether"
(Boyd, p. 223).
The goal is always the same, eliminate authority. And the battering ram
that he hopes will be successful to open up this crack is the "cultural
issue" argument, hot out of the homosexual furnaces of the M.C.C. He writes
on page 226:
"Whatever interpretation of this passage one arrives at, this does
not in and of itself tell us how the passage is to be applied today."
He concludes with:
"...there is no good reason to assume that this is anything more than
a cultural issue."
In his footnotes on page 233 he refers to Dr. Fee's reference to it as
a
"cultural assumption and a 'natural feeling' that they shared together
as part of their contemporary culture."
OPENING A CAN OF WORMS
It's all "cultural," they say, and can therefore be ignored as binding.
But they've opened quite a "can of worms" with this cultural argument and
many are already "wiggling" their way into the pews. Marriage is after
all another cultural issue. David and Solomon had many wives; Moses permitted
divorce; no marriage ceremonies are recorded, etc. So maybe the marriage
passages in the Bible, as well as the divorce ones, were only applicable
to that "Greco-Roman cultural setting." Hence, we find many so-called Christians
"living together" without benefit of clergy. They go to church and feel
fine about it; and of course, they are "affirmed" and "accepted' at such
ecclesiastical watering holes. After all, this may be another one of those
"freedoms" Dr. Boyd tells us Christ has won for us before God!
Abortion can be defined, and is being defined, as another "cultural
issue." They argue God prohibited it in the "Israelitish culture," because
they needed an increase in population to survive. But today, in our overpopulated
world, this "cultural necessity" does not apply. Now we can add the brutal
dismembering and scalding of infants in their mothers womb to the list
of freedoms that have been won for us over such "legalistic cultural baggage"!
The list can go on and on -- right into hell. Then I wonder how
the cultural setting will feel! Strange that God would take up so much
space in the New Testament to write about things that had no eternal standing.
And why would Paul direct his doctrine on women's' hair, not to just the
Corinthians, but to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus
Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." (I Corinthians 1:2) Sounds transcultural
to me!
HOLINESS AND HAIR
The fact is none of Paul's arguments for long hair on women are "culturally
related." He spoke about the woman's long hair as "power on her head, because
of the angels" (I Corinthians 11:10). Were they "Greco-Roman" angels, who
attended church at Corinth between flights? He said a woman's long hair
was her "glory." Is he referring to the "glory that was Rome and the grandeur
that was Greece?' Isn't it more logical that he had in mind what he wrote
in the 20th verse of the 6th Chapter: "Glorify God in your body." He also
appeals to the original creation of man and woman as part of his carefully
reasoned argument (v. 9). That's precultural, unless of course, one wishes
to argue that Eden was located in Corinth and Eve was a "Grecian maid."
It is often overlooked, but Paul prefaces the whole hair discussion, by
classifying it with the "ordinances" that should be kept (v. 2) and shortly
after informed them that his writings were the "commandments of the Lord
" (14:37).
For Centuries, nearly 2,000 years, long hair was considered the
Christian standard for women. When "bobbing" of hair came into vogue in
the 1920's my grandmother cut her hair, but feared her own mother's disapproval
and tried to conceal it. This was never just a Pentecostal thing. I well
remember a Baptist lady I knew who worked in the shoe store where I shopped.
She knew nothing of my religious beliefs on this question, so her remark
was not tailored for me. She mentioned she was going to get her hair cut
that afternoon, and then some what apologetically added, "the Bible really
doesn't want me cutting my glory, you know." Where did she get such an
idea? From reading the Bible of course, like all of Christendom did for
centuries!
Some of the strongest arguments for long hair on women have come
from the Sword of the Lord Publications, founded by the famous Baptist
preachers Dr. John R. Rice. His daughters were famous for their long hair,
and displayed it publicly when he taught on this subject. Yet Dr. Rice
was far from being a Pentecostal, Oneness or otherwise.
OTHER POINTS OF HOLINESS
The Oneness movement comes in for more Boydian criticism because
of our stand against smoking, drinking, dancing, movies, and television.
He says:
"Any form of smoking or dancing, any use of alcoholic beverages and/or
any attendance at movie theatres is regarded as strictly immoral. Televisions
are always frowned upon, if not expressly forbidden, especially for ministers
" (Boyd, p. 218).
To which I say "Amen" and "Amen."
SMOKING
He says we are opposed to "any form of smoking. Just what "forms"
does he approve of? Is it the form that causes lung cancer, or the one
that causes emphysema? Perhaps the form that gets you "high? My curiosity
is really peaked! All the forms I know are deadly. The United States government
requires all cigarettes to carry warning labels explaining their deadly
poisoning effects. Their advertisement on television and radio is prohibited.
If anyone has ever seen a person die of lung cancer, as I have, they would
never think twice about this standard. It is a horrible and agonizing death,
perhaps only exceeded by the emphysema death in its horror. Suffocating
for air is no pleasant experience. The direct causal link between smoking
and these dreaded plagues is too well established to be debated at this
late hour. The Bible says:
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and
that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of
God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple
ye are (I Corinthians 3:16-17).
Is the true church to permit members to defile the temple of God, which
is his body, and not say a word, even though it means his destruction?
Are we to do less than the United States government which even forbids
smoking in post offices? The Greyhound Bus Company will immediately put
you off the bus if you smoke. I have seen it. Are we to have a lower standard
than Greyhounds just so believers can enjoy the "freedom they have in Christ"
to poison themselves (and those near them!)?
Only eternity will reveal how many people were saved from a cruel
and early death through the strong stand the Apostolic movement has taken
against this killer. And conversely, only the great Assize of the Ages
will reveal how much pain and suffering was caused through this "freedom
in Christ" heresy being advocated.
ALCOHOL AND WINE
As for alcoholic beverages, the same can be said. It does not matter
what form we are talking about, from Mad Dog Wine to Martini and Rossi.
It's all responsible for misery and suffering. Every alcoholic started
out with "just one social drink." Every child crushed under the wheels
of a drunk driver can trace the cause back to "just one social drink."
How many homes wrecked, marriages ruined, bodies maimed, and reputations
soiled because of the "sparkling cup." Thank God Oneness Churches stand
strong and firm against this liquid devil.
I know many will argue in favor of wine, citing the wedding of
Cana, and Paul's advise to Timothy. For some people the only scripture
they know is, "Take a little wine for thy stomach's sake." Wine is a neutral
term in the Bible. It can mean either alcoholic or non-alcoholic. Pharaoh's
butler squeezed the grapes directly into Pharaohs cup and gave it to him.
That was certainly not alcoholic wine (Genesis 40:11). The Bible talks
about the wine that is "in the cluster" ( Isaiah 65:8). That is certainly
not alcoholic! Take that "for your stomach" if you must!
The Bible warns against fermented wine and beverages (those that
give "their color" and "move").
Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow? Who hath contentions?
Who hath babbling? Who hath wounds without cause? Who hath redness of eyes?
They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look
not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the
cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent,
and stingeth like an adder (Proverbs 23:29-32).
All these '"freedoms" the Oneness movement will spare you if you adhere
to its standards I remember reading the testimony of a young lady
whose marriage and life were nearly ruined by drink. She was converted
in an evangelical church and gave up alcohol as part of her repentance,
as did her husband. She went to work at a Christian bookstore, where her
fellow employees were very "advanced spiritually" and were not under "legalistic
bondage." They enjoyed their "freedom before God" to drink and invited
her to join them. At first she was shocked, but soon it was explained to
her that "behavior" like this was not related to salvation, really has
nothing to do with it. To make a long but sad story short, her marriage
was nearly destroyed and two of her fellow employees developed serious
drinking problems. Fortunately she saw the light on this in time and returned
to her happy "bondage" of total abstinence. "Can a man take fire to his
bosom and not be burned?"
MOVIES AND TELEVISION
We used to begin our discussion of these twin evils by answering
inquiries about "What's wrong with television and movies?" Now we can begin
by asking our inquirers, "what's right with television and movies?"
And the answers are becoming more difficult for them to provide.
America has the most depraved popular culture of any nation in
the world. By every measurement we have the most violent society. Our prison
population is the largest on earth. Our speech, especially among the young,
is the filthiest of any nation. And the hours spent before television are
the highest of any population on the planet. Any connection? For those
who still have any moral sensibilities left, the most effective argument
against television is to turn it on for 5 minutes! Psychologists and educators
across the land are beginning to reach a consensus that television is the
single most destructive influence in our society. Its comedians are gutter-mouth
filth vendors. Its soap operas are sexual merry-go-rounds. Its sit-coms
consistently and subtly indoctrinate against Christian values and mock
all morality. Its action-adventures glorify murder and violence in the
most graphic way possible. And now with the absolutely abominable "real
life" police and rescue squad series, the audience gets to actually see
"real people" die and be killed in an endless variety of appalling ways.
We've gone beyond acting to "real live death." They are nothing but snuff
films, and televised Roman circuses. Nero would be delighted.
Even the news is biased, being controlled by pro-choice, pro-gay
rights, pro-new age media magnates. Each year they push the limits a little
further in the area of "frontal nudity," "graphic violence" "explicit sex,"
and "profane and obscene speech." And now thanks to fiber optics, not only
will people be watching television, but television will be watching them!
Television is clearly shown in the Bible to be the most effective tool
of the coming Anti-Christ (Rev. 11:9-12; Rev. 13:15). David said in Psalm
101:3, "I will set no wicked thing before my eyes." hall we as Christians
do less? "Whatsoever things are pure, think on these" (Philip. 4:8), and
the networks are not interested in pure things, they're too busy with the
impure.
I remember an Assemblies of God minister remarking how shocked he was
when he went into the ministers prayer room during a convention to seek
the Lord in prayer, and found his fellow ministers gathered around a T.V.
set watching a football game. They explained that it was the "big one of
the season." They probably did more shouting in front of that screen than
they did in church all year.
Movies are just as bad, even worse . Almost every movie is R rated.
(X really). They set world records for cramming the most obscene language
into the shortest amount of time. Some curses are repeated five times in
one sentence. The audience thinks it's hilarious. Hollywood handed out
five academy awards to a movie dealing with a cannibal who skinned women
and dismembered them. A few months before they arrested a man in Milwaukee
who had a collection of human body parts in his apartment. No connection?
Hollywood says "Art imitates life." I say, mass-media shapes "culture,"
or rather "depravity." And what Christian can ever consider supporting
Hollywood's movie industry after that blasphemous, Christ dishonoring,
hell-spawned, "Last Temptation of Christ" film?
We are certainly not ashamed of our stand against such "entertainment."
The true church is a moral lighthouse, called to preserve the standard
of decency and cleanliness in a world that can no longer discern right
from wrong, or cares to. Godly leaders, like the Apostles of old, have
a responsibility to raise a standard.
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is
set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it
under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that
are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see
your good works and glorify. Your father which is in heaven (Matthew
5:14-16).
CLOTHES AND APPEARANCE
Our stand for decent and modest apparel also comes under fire from
Dr. Boyd:
"Moreover, at least in all United Pentecostal Church International
congregations, women are not supposed to wear any kind of make-up or jewelry,
to wear any sort of pants, or to ever cut their hair... and men are to
wear their hair short and, usually, always to wear long pants." (Boyd,
p. 218)
Then he goes on to say something that makes utterly no sense at all:
"In some southern congregations, wearing long sleeve shirts and blouses,
as well as wearing bright colors, is prohibited" (Boyd, p. 218).
I don't know where he is getting his information, unless it's from the
grapevine. I have pastored in the deep South for over 23 years and never
heard of such rules. Perhaps he is confusing us with the Hassidim Jews
of Brooklyn, New York. I suggest he review his research.
The common notion in circulation, which is reflected in Dr. Boyd's remarks,
is that God is not interested in a person's appearance, or a "dress standard."
That's all legalism and "culturally related" they quickly tell us. But
God is positively interested in our dress! The first thing God established
for man after the Fall was a dress code. He personally changed Adam and
Eve's "aprons" for "coats" of his own choosing (Genesis 3:7, 21). The last
thing God will do for his people will be to clothe them in the proper attire:
And to her was granted that she should be arrayed
in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness
of saints. (Rev. 19:8)
He told the Old Testament saints how to dress (Deut. 22:5, 11-12). He has
stated in his infallible Word how Christians are to dress in this New Testament
dispensation (I Timothy 2:9-10; I Peter 3:34). There you have it, instructions
on dress from Genesis to Revelation and in the middle! Old Testament, New
Testament, pre-Flood, and post-Rapture. Who dares say God's not interested
in the question?
Our day and age is characterized by nakedness and lewd attire.
And that same "spirit" wants to come into the church house and "de-sanctify"
the place of worship. In many of the "Permissive gospel" churches people
come in outfits they wouldn't dare wear to a job interview. They have no
respect. They flaunt their so-called "freedom," by seeing how "casual"
they can appear. Some of the women look like they're ready to tend bar
while the men look like rodeo stars, all set to rope and brand. If the
church attempts to set a code of decency and respect, they are characterized
as "legalistic." Grad night at Disney World in Florida has a dress code
that the high school seniors must adhere to or they will not be admitted.
Are Goofy and Pluto worthy of more respect than the Father and the Son?
WHERE WILL IT STOP?
I was in two large churches recently in which I saw every outlandish
and indecent outfit imaginable. I saw Christians (?) worshipping God in
"skin-on-baloney-tight" pantsuits, short shorts, ballerina leotards, karate
outfits, muscle shirts, etc. I know of one pastor who permitted his drummer
to sit on the platform with a tee shirt advertising beer! He didn't say
anything, because he didn't want to "lose him." Where will these churches
draw the line? Will they timidly suggest that the young people please not
attend church in bikinis? But then of course they might retort that this
"freedom before God" was won for them by Jesus work on the cross! Do not
think this scenario is ludicrous or impossible. All it needs is time. The
Permissive Gospel preachers have launched their boats out on a Sea of Sodom,
and there's no telling how far they will go. It only takes one straw on
the surface to see which way the tide is drifting.
IS GOD CONCERNED?
God is very much concerned about what goes on inside places of worship
dedicated to him, "Holiness becometh thy house O' Lord, for ever." (Psalm
93:5) He doesn't overlook improper and impious behavior, either. Annanias
and Sapphira found their behavior 'affirmed" in a very unexpected way (Acts
5:1-11). The money changers in the temple had their behavior "affirmed"
in a way they were not looking for also (John 2:13-16). Paul also "affirmed''
one young man's incestuous "behavior" by delivering "such an one unto Satan
for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved " (I Corinthians
5:5), The modern church needs to look at God's "track record" for dealing
with ungodly "behavior" and "performance" before they begin their carping
about all their freedoms and glorious '"liberty" they now have.
PAUL INSTRUCTED THAT YOU SHOULD "WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION
WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING." PHILIPPIANS 2:12
|
LIBERTY VS. OBEDIENCE
It is difficult to catch up with these Christian libertarians; they
hop too fast. When we quote something about Holiness from the Old Testament,
they say "that's the Law of Moses and doesn't apply." So they hop to the
New Testament. When we quote something in the Gospels or Acts they say
"that's not confirmed in a 'didactic portion' of Scripture," by which they
mean the epistles. So they hop to the epistles. When we quote them something
from the epistles on Holiness requirements, they reverberate with: "that's
a cultural issue and doesn't apply for today," and thereby hop completely
out of the Bible! Why don't they simply confess the truth: they are the
children of disobedience and have had their minds made up from the start
that they were going to have it "their way," regardless of what the Word
says, didactic or otherwise!
Why should any Oneness church be castigated for lifting a standard
of dress and appearance when the apostles did the same thing, three times,
and in didactic portions of scripture at that! (I Timothy 2:9-10, I Corinthians
11:14-15, I Peter 3:34). We did not "invent" these standards. They are
New Testament, apostolic, and universally applicable. It is the rule of
the apostles, writing under inspiration, which says women are to have long
hair and men to have short, that jewelry and ostentatious appearances are
unbecoming for Christians, and that modest apparel is not only pleasing
to God, but required by him. If what we are charged with is obeying the
Word of God, then we gladly plead guilty. "I delight to do thy will, O
My God: thy law is within my heart" (Psalm 40:8).
EARLY FATHERS AND
HOLINESS
The Early Church Fathers, that Dr. Boyd loves to refer us to, were
extremely Holiness-minded and didn't mind stating it in no uncertain terms
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
Between AD 190 and 202 he wrote numerous books, including, "The Instructor,"
and "Miscellanies. He taught in these books that: clothing must extend
below the knee, men should not appear as women: no earrings, finger rings,
or hair below the eyebrows. This treatise condemns all luxury in dress,
body or manner, including expensive clothes and beauty ointments
TERTULLIAN
About AD 200 Tertullian wrote two books also. One is entitled, "0n
The Apparel of Women," and the other is, "On The Pallium." He recommended
Christian women be adorned by "humility and charity." He condemned fancy
clothing and elaborate dressing of the hair, and urged Christian women
to forgo "The pageantry of fictitious and elaborate beauty." They were
to be "modest" with their natural attractiveness. And like Clement, specifically
condemned the wearing of gold, jewelry, rouge, mascara, and dyeing of hair.
And that was for both men and women!
CYPRIAN
He was bishop of Carthage. In AD 252 he wrote, "On Works and Alms,"
in which he stated that wealthy Christian ladies are to anoint their eyes
with good works and character instead of eye shadow!
ARNOBIUS
He was another North African Christian, who wrote "Against The Heathen"
sometime between AD 304-311. Although there is no known connection between
he and Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Cyprian, there is a remarkable
unity of belief with them. Arnobius states that cosmetics, piercing the
ears, jewelry, and other personal adornment abuse both body and soul. He
particularly railed against men who were trying to alter their appearances
to resemble women (unisex, in today's vocabulary).
From where did all these early writers, (and these examples are
only a few among many) get these Holiness and "dress standard" ideas. Is
it not an unbroken chain right back to the Apostles' teaching in the New
Testament? They are not only in unity with each other, but with the Apostles
Peter and Paul also. They all speak the same thing. It all springs from
the original apostolic teaching. And I might add that all these things
which were so soundly condemned were also very much approved as normal
and proper in that cultural setting of long ago. If these men had swallowed
"The cultural issue" argument used by today's Permissives, they never would
have written what they did. They were swimming against the cultural tide!
The Bible says that in the last day there will be a "Highway," for the
redeemed to walk on. It shall be called the way of Holiness; not the way
of Permissiveness (Isaiah 35:8-10). It shall lead the "ransomed of the
Lord" to Zion, "with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall
obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away." This
is precisely why our enemies can never understand why with all our "rigid"
and legalistic" holiness standards we have the most joyous worship in all
Christendom! The Bible says about Holiness that a fool "shall not err therein."
If a fool cannot err in it, then pray tell what must be the intelligence
quotients of those who cannot even "see" it?
HOLINESS AND THE CROSS
Dr. Boyd says:
"In Oneness theology, the Cross, so far as I've ever been able to see,
does not factor into this issue at all" (Boyd, p. 217).
This is certainly a perfidious calumny to level against us. However, he
did qualify it by saying "as far as I've ever been able to see." We have
encountered his myopia problem before, so we are prepared for it. The cross
factors into our Christian experience much more than it does into that
of the "Freedom Boasters." For while they are content to stare at the cross
and imagine all sorts of ungodly "liberties" it supposedly "won" for them,
Oneness Pentecostals are busy doing what Jesus said to do as concerns the
cross:
If any man will come after me let him deny himself
and take up his cross, and follow me (Matthew 16:24).
Self denial is one thing the Freedom Boasters hate to hear about. If only
the verse had read "indulge himself" they would have no problem.