A History of Christian Doctrine #3 - Online Christian Library
A History of Christian Doctrine #3 - Online Christian Library A History of Christian Doctrine #3 - Online Christian Library
A History of Christian Doctrine frequenting worldly amusements where there were lewd displays contrary to the Spirit of holiness. . . . Their differences in conversation, dress, worship, witness, and so on were . . . important to their sense of identity and belonging. Their intense sense of the otherness of God and his coming kingdom seemed to drive them to find ways in which to bear witness to that in their daily life. . . . Dramatic conversions and deliverances were the rule. It was eventful because of the sharp distinction and the costs that had to be counted. But if there were tears and travail as one was born into the new “world” on the way to consummation, there was also great joy. . . . Witnessing drew the line between the church and the world and invited the world to cross the line. In his early Pentecostal ministry, Charles Parham purposed to live by faith, not to incur debts, not to solicit money, to share all things with coworkers and people in need, and to love those who opposed him. He taught the paying of tithes. He opposed worldly practices such as theater attendance, dancing, and warfare. 169 He did not specifically discuss matters of adornment and dress in his writings, however. Apparently he was not opposed to the wearing of some jewelry, 170 although pictures of his early followers reveal a conservative, modest appearance. Holiness was an important theme at Azusa Street. Seymour was moderate on specific issues, not wanting to divert the preaching of the gospel into excessive emphasis on rules. The Apostolic Faith, however, did report about converts who gave up their jewelry, and it warned against various worldly amusements such as 146
Trinitarian Pentecostal Organizations gambling, playing cards, and going to horse races. (See chapter 1.) Florence Crawford, a leader at Azusa Street and later founder of her own organization, took a strict stand on a number of matters: 171 Ministers could neither solicit funds nor receive regular offerings. An offering box near the church entrance sufficed. Her members not only relinquished dancing, card playing, theater attendance, smoking, and drinking, they also distanced themselves from those who practiced such activities. Proscribing all makeup and short hair for women, Crawford enjoined modest apparel and insisted that slacks, shorts, and short sleeves were inappropriate for women. The Second Work Trinitarians historically took a strict stand on holiness of conduct and dress. In recent years, most of them have moderated or abandoned these positions, although a minority of members still adhere to them. As an example, the Church of God formerly opposed all jewelry. In the 1950s a controversy arose over wedding bands, and the church decided to allow them. There was a steady relaxing of the “practical commitments,” until in 1988 the church officially eliminated its rules against going to movies, wearing makeup, wearing jewelry, and women cutting their hair. 172 The Church of God of Prophecy maintained a more conservative position on these issues than its parent body. In the 1950s it took a stand against members owning televisions. In its “Advice to Members” (1968), it specifically prohibited shorts in public, rings, lipstick, 147
- Page 95 and 96: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations W
- Page 97 and 98: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations m
- Page 99 and 100: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations I
- Page 101 and 102: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations p
- Page 103 and 104: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations C
- Page 105 and 106: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations i
- Page 107 and 108: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations M
- Page 109 and 110: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations p
- Page 111 and 112: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations w
- Page 113 and 114: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations t
- Page 115 and 116: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations N
- Page 117 and 118: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations j
- Page 119 and 120: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations b
- Page 121 and 122: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations i
- Page 123: Oneness Pentecostal Organizations b
- Page 126 and 127: A History of Christian Doctrine ton
- Page 128 and 129: A History of Christian Doctrine den
- Page 130 and 131: A History of Christian Doctrine tri
- Page 132 and 133: A History of Christian Doctrine 5,3
- Page 134 and 135: A History of Christian Doctrine in
- Page 136 and 137: A History of Christian Doctrine wat
- Page 138 and 139: A History of Christian Doctrine lat
- Page 140 and 141: A History of Christian Doctrine gro
- Page 142 and 143: A History of Christian Doctrine Hol
- Page 144 and 145: A History of Christian Doctrine two
- Page 148 and 149: A History of Christian Doctrine goi
- Page 150 and 151: A History of Christian Doctrine bat
- Page 152 and 153: A History of Christian Doctrine All
- Page 154 and 155: A History of Christian Doctrine A f
- Page 156 and 157: A History of Christian Doctrine tod
- Page 158 and 159: A History of Christian Doctrine The
- Page 160 and 161: A History of Christian Doctrine add
- Page 162 and 163: A History of Christian Doctrine vie
- Page 165 and 166: 6 Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy In c
- Page 167 and 168: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy relati
- Page 169 and 170: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy orphan
- Page 171 and 172: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy Word o
- Page 173 and 174: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy must h
- Page 175 and 176: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy Barth
- Page 177 and 178: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy and or
- Page 179 and 180: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy and po
- Page 181 and 182: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy presen
- Page 183 and 184: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy Only h
- Page 185 and 186: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy Evalua
- Page 187 and 188: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy Since
- Page 189 and 190: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy nous C
- Page 191 and 192: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy God an
- Page 193 and 194: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy 5. Its
- Page 195 and 196: validity is not very intense at thi
Trinitarian Pentecostal Organizations<br />
gambling, playing cards, and going to horse races. (See<br />
chapter 1.)<br />
Florence Crawford, a leader at Azusa Street and later<br />
founder <strong>of</strong> her own organization, took a strict stand on a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> matters: 171<br />
Ministers could neither solicit funds nor receive<br />
regular <strong>of</strong>ferings. An <strong>of</strong>fering box near the church<br />
entrance sufficed. Her members not only relinquished<br />
dancing, card playing, theater attendance, smoking,<br />
and drinking, they also distanced themselves from<br />
those who practiced such activities. Proscribing all<br />
makeup and short hair for women, Crawford enjoined<br />
modest apparel and insisted that slacks, shorts, and<br />
short sleeves were inappropriate for women.<br />
The Second Work Trinitarians historically took a strict<br />
stand on holiness <strong>of</strong> conduct and dress. In recent years,<br />
most <strong>of</strong> them have moderated or abandoned these positions,<br />
although a minority <strong>of</strong> members still adhere to them.<br />
As an example, the Church <strong>of</strong> God formerly opposed<br />
all jewelry. In the 1950s a controversy arose over wedding<br />
bands, and the church decided to allow them. There was<br />
a steady relaxing <strong>of</strong> the “practical commitments,” until in<br />
1988 the church <strong>of</strong>ficially eliminated its rules against<br />
going to movies, wearing makeup, wearing jewelry, and<br />
women cutting their hair. 172<br />
The Church <strong>of</strong> God <strong>of</strong> Prophecy maintained a more<br />
conservative position on these issues than its parent<br />
body. In the 1950s it took a stand against members owning<br />
televisions. In its “Advice to Members” (1968), it<br />
specifically prohibited shorts in public, rings, lipstick,<br />
147