#223-Apostolic Heritage (and a course in semi-bad logic)...

To continue with a well intentioned critique of our movement and what Apostolic Identity has come to represent which began in the previous post, let us look now at the History of Our Movement in the Twentieth Century and it's impact on our Identity...

I would need more than two hands to count the number of services that have defended the need for conservation of the Apostolic Tradition via those who have led us here (e.g. "We keep the tradition because it's part of our Identity which was slaved over by those who paved the way for us. Thus we cannot vacate this Hard-Earned Identity Now!")....Generally then, those who preach the need of "carrying the mantle" and "staying the course" preach as if they are certain the history of our movement is on their side....sometimes speaking right in line with the pioneers of our movement, and sometimes butchering the message of those who spoke before us who are rolling over in their grave because their message is being taken out of context....

I love our heritage. I really do. I could lecture at a given instant for a good 15 minutes or so upon request about what I admire about our "Apostolic Pioneers" and how I am in awe at times as I read about their struggles with grasping the revelation of our Truth.

However, I can't help but wonder how these Apostolic Giants from our past would reply to their identities being talked of by us as a Catholic would talk about a Saint. Would it be something similar to Paul's "Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you" response in ACts 14 to the crowds declaring him and Barnabas, "gods?"

But I may be overstating it here....

What I cringe about though is a Pastor's sermons regarding the need to carry the tradition of our past when our very movement was not based on tradition, but rather going directly against Tradition itself. The rise of Pentecostalism in the early 20th century was revolution in it's own right that warred against the fundamentalist tendencies of the time which believed miracles and gifts of the spirit (such as tongues) were no longer available today.

But an even more rebellious stand was made by the Oneness Pentecostals (e.g. Urshan, Ewart, etc...), as they rejected the Trinity, which kind of had upwards of 1650 years of tradition behind it.

I can recall being in a few sessions about doctrine and the person leading the session would quote books from the 1800's of other movements such as the Methodists reading about the modesty of dress and the need for separation of gender and what not, and the session leader was saying that we as Apostolics are more in line with the traditions of doctrine in other movements than the movements themselves currently are....And on the same note the session leader would say our doctrine has centuries of evidence of it's acceptance behind it...longer than our movement had been around...

Every time I hear such logic i want to slam my forehead against a cactus and let the blood from the damage of the cactus needles drip down my forehead as the session leader continues to speak...just to...you know...change things up a little....

Because the reason we are Apostolic is because we are not Methodist....and history....or evidence of traditions through the centuries speaks nothing to us....Because more importantly, while the Methodists of the 1800's may have had similar standards that we do that they have since lost, there is a canyon of difference in our core theologies outside the standards: Primarily, they believed in the Trinity. We do not. We believe in Baptism in Jesus Name. They do not.

So if one wants to demonstrate the power of tradition as a source of argumentation, they cannot logically do so by picking and choosing which points of similarity they will source for their argument, when our entire theological core contradicts at other points, and further once again, to be Apostolic means the loss of power to the voices of history.....So why would we try playing that game?

I know i am being harsh, and I prayed about these past two posts believe you me. But if our movement is going to maintain and even grow, some inconsistencies have to find the exit door now or within the next 15 minutes (I'm looking at you "argument against facial hair").

The other difficulty is the obvious statement that we are in a different culture now than we were 50 years ago and we must adjust our methods accordingly without compromising the Message itself. And we do so...

-Back then, bowling alleys were a no no. Bowling Alleys are generally accepted these days within our movement (though you will never find me in one because I have a personal conviction against them which really means I personally hate the sport of bowling and was looking for a good excuse not to have to go them).

-Movie theaters, while generally not allowed, are becoming more and more popular as acceptable venues for some churches to allow their congregation to attend as a point of relaxation, etc... (and the realization that Make outs don't happen there ever)....

-Shorts are about as acceptable as movie theaters (maybe even more acceptable)...

-Somehow pajama pants for ladies have slipped in the back door as permissible even though the argument for them is entirely self-contradictory and more problematic than any of the above objects of debate listed above.

What I am getting at...is if we are preserving the Apostolic Identity as much as we say....but at the same time allowing some freedoms via cultural expectations, etc... Are we not just dictating what the definition of the Apostolic Identity of our Heritage is according to how it fits our own lifestyles/church cultures, etc...To clarify, if I was a Pastor and I said "Maintain distinctions because that is what we are asked to do by our movements forefathers," what those distinctions are is completely up to my discretion. Thus I can say "men wear pants because that's part of our identity" and at the same time say "I don't think there is anything wrong with our youth going to a bowling alley or someone having facial hair on the platform" even though facial hair and bowling alleys were not allowed in past generations by our movement's forefathers. I hope you see the contradiction at this point: History as an authority to our distinctions (as problematic as it is for us to use such rhetoric) does not determine Apostolic Identity, but we are simply determining Apostolic Identity in the Name of history since we are picking and choosing what is and is not taboo in our culture.

Come Back On Tuesday for more...Yes, it's already written....I promise it will be there...