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 bathing, use of tobacco and alcoholic beverages.” In 1963, the Ohio District reaffirmed, with only one dissenting vote, its standard of holiness as stated in its constitution and bylaws: “We oppose all appearance of evil . . . such as immodesty in dress, bobbing or undue dressing of the hair; . . . attendance at picture shows, dances, roller rinks, places where mixed bathing is permitted, use of tobacco, and the use of cosmetics which change the natural appearance.” Also in 1963, the Southern Missouri District (home of Springfield, the headquarters) added a statement against makeup in its list of qualifications for church membership: “Applicant must disapprove of, and refrain from participation in worldly amusements, theaters, movies, cards, dancing and use of make-up, etc.” 176 Oneness Pentecostals have remained the most conservative on issues of practical holiness, although there is some variation in beliefs and in the local implementation of standards. In its Articles of Faith, the UPCI opposes “theaters [movies], dances, mixed bathing or swimming, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music” and ownership of television. A position paper on holiness further explains the meaning of modest apparel: people are not to wear ornamental jewelry or clothing associated with the opposite sex. Other position papers take a stand against abortion, gambling, homosexuality, transcendental meditation, and ungodly, worldly use of computers, the Internet, video equipment, and other technology. 177 Most of the other major Oneness groups have had similar teachings. For instance, in 1963 the PAW opposed 150
Trinitarian Pentecostal Organizations “all unnecessary jewelry, such as rings (not including wedding rings), bracelets, earrings, stick-pins, and flashy breast pins . . . showy colors in dress, attractive hosiery, short dresses, low necks, short sleeves (that is, above the elbow), and bright ties.” 178 In recent years, however, there has been greater variation among many of these groups. The PAW, for example, has many members who wear jewelry and makeup and many others who do not. To some extent, this trend has extended to doctrine, with a few PAW ministers espousing unconditional eternal security and even elements of trinitarianism. Many early Pentecostals, especially those who came from the Holiness movement, opposed all remarriage after divorce. The wife of J. H. King, IPHC leader from 1900 to 1946, left him shortly after their marriage in 1890. Because of his conviction against divorce and remarriage, he remained celibate until she died, remarrying only in 1920. While the AG allows divorce and remarriage in the case of marital unfaithfulness, it will not license anyone who has divorced and remarried and has a previous companion still living. The UPCI allows remarriage for the “innocent party” and will grant ministerial license in such a case, although it recommends that ministers do not remarry after divorce. Most of the early Pentecostals were pacifists. For example, the AG, PAW, and UPCI adopted official statements supporting the government but opposing the taking of human life in warfare. 179 The AG eventually abandoned this position, however. The UPCI retains this view in its Articles of Faith but treats the matter as a “conscientious scruple,” and today many ministers and members are not pacifists. 151
- 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 146 and 147: A History of Christian Doctrine fre
- Page 148 and 149: A History of Christian Doctrine goi
- 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
- Page 197 and 198: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy Patter
- Page 199 and 200: 7 Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
Trinitarian Pentecostal Organizations<br />
“all unnecessary jewelry, such as rings (not including<br />
wedding rings), bracelets, earrings, stick-pins, and flashy<br />
breast pins . . . showy colors in dress, attractive hosiery,<br />
short dresses, low necks, short sleeves (that is, above the<br />
elbow), and bright ties.” 178 In recent years, however, there<br />
has been greater variation among many <strong>of</strong> these groups.<br />
The PAW, for example, has many members who wear jewelry<br />
and makeup and many others who do not. To some<br />
extent, this trend has extended to doctrine, with a few<br />
PAW ministers espousing unconditional eternal security<br />
and even elements <strong>of</strong> trinitarianism.<br />
Many early Pentecostals, especially those who came<br />
from the Holiness movement, opposed all remarriage<br />
after divorce. The wife <strong>of</strong> J. H. King, IPHC leader from<br />
1900 to 1946, left him shortly after their marriage in<br />
1890. Because <strong>of</strong> his conviction against divorce and<br />
remarriage, he remained celibate until she died, remarrying<br />
only in 1920. While the AG allows divorce and remarriage<br />
in the case <strong>of</strong> marital unfaithfulness, it will not<br />
license anyone who has divorced and remarried and has<br />
a previous companion still living. The UPCI allows remarriage<br />
for the “innocent party” and will grant ministerial<br />
license in such a case, although it recommends that ministers<br />
do not remarry after divorce.<br />
Most <strong>of</strong> the early Pentecostals were pacifists. For<br />
example, the AG, PAW, and UPCI adopted <strong>of</strong>ficial statements<br />
supporting the government but opposing the taking<br />
<strong>of</strong> human life in warfare. 179 The AG eventually<br />
abandoned this position, however. The UPCI retains this<br />
view in its Articles <strong>of</strong> Faith but treats the matter as a “conscientious<br />
scruple,” and today many ministers and members<br />
are not pacifists.<br />
151