The Past is Future:

Benefits of our Apostolic Heritage

Stunned and saddened, my wife and I sat through the Memorial Service at General Conference and heard of the many ministers who departed this life, taking their stories with them. My mother, brother-in-law and aunt were among the names remembered, but beyond the sense of loss, a profound understanding of spiritual wealth slowly dawned on me.  They left us far more than they took away. 

Heritage is that vast body of knowledge, traditions, stories, practices and values that has been handed down to us from the past.  Like a luxuriant tapestry, it is interwoven with meaningful experiences, symbolic events and deeply significant relationships, all of which exert a profound influence upon our present identity.  While obsolescence may push many aspects of the past into irrelevance, the underlying spirit, principles and values remain timeless.   Capturing the essence of these qualities makes reflection on the founders of the modern Apostolic movement richly rewarding.

The exponential pace of change in our present world often distracts us from the importance of the past.  Technological advances, for instance, make daily life today so different from that of a generation ago that many of us feel a huge disconnect from former eras.  New methodologies, new philosophies and new widely-held values drive us even further from the way our parents and grandparents did things.  Many not only want to distance themselves from them, they actually harbor disdain and ridicule for them.  We make a huge mistake to dismiss our heritage as irrelevant to the twenty-first century.  Such a response violates scriptural principles, depletes our moral resources and skews our judgment about our own era.  The past has much to teach about our future. 

In our day when some are intent on “rocking the boat,” we need to take a fresh look at our Apostolic beginnings.  Embracing the benefits of our heritage doesn’t mean studying history, although historical experiences may prove extremely helpful to our understanding.  History concerns itself primarily with an intellectual knowledge of who, when, where, what and how of major events and developments.  Curiosity alone may be enough to study and enjoy history.  A full appreciation of our heritage, however, involves a genuine gratitude for the struggles of our forbears and a re-commitment to the core values and convictions that provided their motivation. 

Our heritage revolves around the personalities of leaders in the early Apostolic movement.  Howard Goss, E. N. Bell, Frank Ewart, R. E. McAlister, G. T. Haywood, Andrew Urshan and many others were colorful and dynamic personalities of our past.  Their fervor and passion were key to the early successes of the Jesus’ Name cause, and the accounts of their ventures, often at great expense and against unbelievable odds, drove the movement forward.  Their stories provide a vital source of inspiration to us today.

But the personalities were only part of the story.  The way Apostolic beliefs developed from scant beginnings to full and comprehensive tenets of faith inspire us as well.  Doctrines central to our message followed a path from initial revelation to increasing enlightenment, and people today are edified and instructed as they understand these developments.  Each challenge had its breakthrough moments, and the evidence of divine blessing in the way it worked out serve to enhance our appreciation for them. 

Pentecostal pioneers accomplished much as they established organizations, built congregations, started Bible colleges, opened up mission fields and experienced tremendous revivals.  Added to these are reports of miracles, healings and great moves of the Spirit still thrill people today.  It is highly informative to outline the specifics about our pioneers that deserve our undying gratitude.

They believed: They possessed a passion they had for doctrinal truth that became an insatiable hunger.  They read, studied, debated and researched the Bible into the wee hours of the night, never seeming to get enough.

They pursued:  They insisted on pursuing truth and getting to core doctrines, regardless of where the path led them.  The “San Antonio Experiment” in which tongues was observed to be the evidence of the Holy Ghost baptism illustrated how they put the scriptures to the test. 

They left:  Like Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees, our forefathers left careers, positions and associations for the sake of truth.  For some who were accomplished and already recognized as leaders in their respective churches, this represented a significant loss of livelihood.  They walked by faith in a very literal sense.

They sacrificed:  Many of the pioneers held a bedrock conviction that worldly possessions and financial concerns were unimportant.  They often embarked on cross-continent missions with nothing but change in their pockets and an apple or a cracker to eat. 

They confronted:  They demonstrated an exemplary boldness in opposing powerful forces that they believed were wrong.  Many, like Goss and Haywood, withstood even the Pentecostal titans of the day in order to show their devotion to scriptural truths.

They separated:  Their consecration to God pervaded every fiber of their lives: their speech, their clothing, their intake of food and drink, the way they spent their leisure time and the amount of time they dedicated to God.  They possessed a desire for singular purity in living lives totally given to holiness and separation.

They worked:  They gave themselves tirelessly to building the kingdom of God, above and beyond the call of duty.  It was not unusual for them to have two or three services a day for weeks at a time. 

They loved:  They loved God with a consuming love, often to their own physical suffering and hurt.  Every waking moment was filled with conversation about God, prayer, witnessing, worshipping and anything that would benefit the kingdom of God. 

Our heritage must be given prominence in this modern era.  It is a formidable standard by which we must judge our own devotion, but it is also a fabulous resource of inspiration and challenge.  The sobering question for us is this:  If they did so much with so little, can we be satisfied accomplishing so little with so much? 

Questions about the UPCI

To My Dear Young Friend, 

Since you have written me a veritable treatise covering a range of subjects and asked questions with regard to most of them, I cannot be brief in my reply.  My answers may not be satisfactory to you at first, but I believe that in the end, I will have fully engaged your concerns.  I may be more philosophical than you may like.  I only hope I can be as persuasive as you were inquisitive. 

I will begin with the old saying that sometimes we cannot see the forest for the trees.  The UPCI is not a tree farm, nor is it a contrived collection of uniform trees; it is a fertile forest with all the traits and characteristics of a natural wilderness forest.  It consists of old growth trees, young saplings, a rich sampling of species and once beautiful trees now hollow and lifeless.  The uniformity of a true forest can only be observed and appreciated when taken as a whole.  If you go tree by tree, you will be disappointed almost as often as you will be delighted.  But, for every disappointment, you will find something inspirational or even beautiful.  In fact, you will find more good than bad, more strength than weakness and more beauty than ugliness as evidenced by the fact that the forest is still alive and well. 

The UPCI will not stand up to the withering scrutiny of a perfectionist’s microscope.  Its growth has progressed in spurts, in uneven and inconsistent alterations and occasional losses.  Our successes have been checkered with failures.  Sometimes we have been knocked to our knees in matters of doctrine, character, public embarrassments and political turmoil.  Only a fool would deny that this organization has suffered many problems, many of them self-inflicted. Yet, after every blow we have staggered back to our feet and kept walking.  We have, and will continue to upgrade our policies and revisit our articles of faith.  The process has been too slow for some, too fast for others and painful for all of us.  Some have highlighted our flaws, declared them unacceptable and jumped ship.  Others have swept our flaws under the proverbial rug and denied that they even existed.  Neither approach is right.  In the end, we must accept the fact that our organization is as much a work in progress as are individual Christians.  

What do we do in our local churches when we face dilemmas of compromise?  What do we do with people who sin presumptuously or who act stupidly?  Banish them from our presence?  No.  We work with them.  We make concessions to timing and teaching, we overlook their idiosyncrasies, and we make difficult judgments about their status.  Yes, sometimes we have no choice but to disfellowship some, but that is a last resort, and it is usually because they have become toxic to the body.  Ultimately, however, we must treat them as precious souls for whom Christ shed His blood.  At what point did Jesus excise the Judas tumor from His band of disciples?  Even when He knew precisely what was in Judas’ heart, He still reached out to him and called him friend.  What about the rest of the disciples?  Go down the list of epithets that Jesus hurled at them—faithless, perverse, unbelievers, hard-hearted, offensive, even Satanic!  But Jesus loved them in spite of their faults and kept honing them into worthy ambassadors for the gospel.  Why should it be any different for ministers and churches?  

Moreover, with whom or with what other organization should we compare our own?  Do we have another in mind, another group that meets every specific criterion that we arbitrarily select?  If our shortcomings are too egregious to tolerate, where will we flee?  Where is this group that is far more in keeping with standards of excellence, this group that manifests every quality lacking in the UPCI?  The truth is, it exists only in the nether regions of imaginations and in our unrealistic expectations.  I submit to you that a careful perusal of the constitutions, manuals and bylaws of every organization, whether sacred or secular, would reveal inconsistencies and troubling contradictions, especially if they are juxtaposed to the actual practices.  If perfection is required, then all of us would be lonely indeed, because the only perfection we may find stares back at us from our mirrors.  Those who protest this charge by saying that they never claimed to be perfect have nevertheless declared themselves more perfect than the UPCI.  This is the inescapable conclusion to which critics must eventually come.  Let him that is most perfect cast the first stone. 

It is quite amazing to me that those who magnify our faults also tend to minimize our assets.  For example, we have close to 10,000 ministers and the number keeps climbing.  We attract nearly 20,000 young people to the National Youth Congress every other year.  We have an extensive Global Missions program with missionaries or representatives in nearly 120 countries.  Our world-wide constituency is around three million. We have a compassion services arm that sends hundreds of thousands of dollars in supplies as well as medical personnel to those victimized by natural disasters.  In addition to seven Bible colleges, we have an accredited graduate school that is drawing attention in the seminary community.  We are presently laying the groundwork for a liberal arts college.  We have a growing number of Ph.D’s to provide faculty and administrative personnel for these educational institutions.  We have the only publishing house that serves the greater Apostolic community with literature and printed materials.  We have nationally renowned musical groups and composers.  Nearly every geographical location in the country has a UPCI church within driving distance.  We support our children and youth with Sunday School camps, youth camps and a cadre of children and youth evangelists, and we service many of our other subgroups like men and women as well. All of this, and much more, is exclusively Apostolic in its core doctrinal beliefs, a fact that has no equal in any other organization or association.  These are not boastful statements.  None of them would be possible without the blessing of God on the UPCI.  What I am saying is not that the good compensates for the bad, but that the good must be preserved and enhanced while we do our best to cull out the bad.  

I have had the singular fortune of rubbing shoulders with men in this organization whom I would call some of the greatest Christians in the world.  Many of them chafe over contradictory and sometimes incoherent positions that exist among us.  Yet, because they see this greater good, they are willing to fellowship side by side with people despite major disagreements.  Should I think my brand of Christianity is higher and purer than theirs?  Or is it they who have the greater strain of Christlikeness than do I?  Are their attributes of mercy, forgiveness, forbearance, patience and longsuffering indicative of a closer relationship with Christ than mine?  Is this a fair point to raise?  I think it is.  Jesus Himself said, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” Matthew 23:23.  We have the right and even the obligation to discern differences and make judgments about preferences and convictions. 

With regard to the more specific points, even the most legalistic and literal minds among us give room for interpretation in almost all of the references you make.  Worldly sports, amusements and other activities have all been permitted to be defined, within reason, by the districts or even by the local pastors and churches. The sophistication of technology is forcing us to rethink many of our definitions.  Much of the sentiment for or against certain things has historically been regional in implementation, and the emphasis has been weighted against anything that could be construed as or related to a vice, i.e. gambling, smoking, drinking, drugs, and blatant immoral behavior such as fornication or lewdness. The fact is that our bylaws were written in the context of a cultural climate that tended toward extreme, black and white standards.  Even the choice of words used in our manual is unfortunate in the vernacular of the present.  Many of the ideas held by our forbears have passed out of vogue, a fact lately evidenced by the changing of our position on conscientious objectors (still in process).  In 2007, the conference changed the ruling against using television for advertising purposes.  On the other hand, years earlier we strengthened our position on baptism for the remission of sins.  Little by little, our constituency is addressing those rules that we find archaic or out of touch with present realities.  

So, what do we do with a set of bylaws that was written in 1945, sixty-seven years ago?  Even some of them were carry-overs from documents composed long before the merger.  I contend that, as out of date as they may be, we would make a huge mistake by throwing them all out and starting over.  It would cause an upheaval and panic that would backfire on us.  Actually, given time, some things will take care of themselves.  Other things will be addressed whenever the groundswell or the consensus of opinion reaches a point that cannot be ignored.  The principles that gave birth to the rules will always be valid.  We will just have to find a way to give them concrete meaning in accordance with our present culture.  I am at peace with this, even though I am aware of temporary conflicts and/or inconsistencies.  

The so-called holiness standards do not represent my greatest source of angst.  I am much more interested in addressing any lingering racial prejudice, gender inequalities, greed and organizational politics than over the use of technology or what kind of amusements we are for or against.  I believe that fewer are hurt over whether or not I play golf than whether or not I truly love them and treat them with respect.  The truths I embrace about holiness are largely irrelevant if I harbor resentment, jealousy, anger or covetousness in my heart. 

Perhaps what we need the most is to pray the serenity prayer on a daily basis.  “God, help me to accept the things I cannot change, to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”  This letter may not have answered all your questions, but it answered mine.  Maybe that’s all I’m capable of doing.  God bless you and I love you. 

Your Faithful Friend