Because of the Times

It’s Friday morning, after BOTT.  I am worn out.  But, it’s a good tired.  I have never been to a more incredible, relevant conference than this one.  I haven’t blogged for a while, mainly because my schedule has been so crazy, and it messes with my mind.  I had to write this report, though, and let readers know that the spirit of unity and comraderie was unprecedented in any conference of my recent memory.  Nothing was said over the pulpit about the current goings-on in the UPCI and I think everyone really appreciated that.  It was just worship, Word and wonder!  Anthony, Wayne Huntley and Mickey Mangun are must haves for DVD’s, and, of course, Jeff, but get them all if you want the full flavor.

The people who came to the conference spoke loudly for unity by just being there.  All of the HQ executives were there (KH, JJ, PM, RK, plus FMD Dir., HMD dir, Youth dir. and most of the RD’s), and supts. from at least thirty districts were there.  Many missionaries were there.  As I absorbed the atmosphere, it dawned on me that this is exactly where I want to be…not Alexandria or BOTT, but the fellowship of the brethren who don’t have an agenda, who are not breathing down your neck, but are just wanting to love God together with you.  I know it can and should get a little more defined than that, but that sentiment lies at the core of my response. 

The Manguns pulled off another masterpiece.  In their leadership, they truly serve us all.  They deserve all the thanks in the world for their sacrifice and excellence.  

When you are rebutted...

The preceding thought I posted in this column has come under rebuttal by an individual.  His written objection gives me an appropriate opportunity to respond in a generic way.  I do not choose to refute the particular points he made, but I defend his right to disagree with me.  I do want to  talk about the composition of an effective rebuttal.  

An effective rebuttal needs to take the context of the article or speech into account.  Ignoring the context in which a person’s point was made can easily lead to false assumptions and making statements that appear ludicrous.  Certain points I made, for example, were drawn from my cultural experience in the UPCI that others in the organization would readily recognize.  Had the article been written to non-members, I would have explained some things more thoroughly.  Also, the context and history of the issue itself should have been understood before launching a critique. 

An effective rebuttal needs to be expressed in the same tone as the original article.  I tried to write my article in a respectful, persuasive manner.  I may not have succeeded, but that was certainly my intent.  When the objection is put in harsh, sarcastic terms, it fails to unseat the contentions made in the article.  I have no idea what the intent of the rebuttal’s author was, but it seemed more reactionary to me than a sincere attempt to correct any problems in my article.

An effective rebuttal should engage the main points of the article and provide solid evidence that they are wrong.  It is not enough to simply criticize them, as though they should never have been made in the first place.  It is not enough to try to discredit the author.  It is not enough to make fun of the subject and hold it up for ridicule.  Dismissing contentions as silly without proving exactly why they are silly will never be effective.

An effective rebuttal should demonstrate that the writer truly understands the subject in its entirety.  An outsider’s view, a bird’s eye view, a hearsay view or the view of a preconceived notion all fail to negate the points.  The communists, for example, routinely misunderstood the culture and fiber of America during the cold war.  Their criticism came off as inane to American citizens who were a part of this country. 

An effective rebuttal should not advance new arguments that were not a part of the original article.  If the one who objects wants to develop his own affirmative article, he needs to do exactly that.  Otherwise, he flings out quick-hitters that he hopes will score points, but they have no effect on the original article.  If someone has legitimate criticisms of the UPCI, for example, let him write it out fully, document his points, provide proper examples, complete his thoughts and open his work up for others to criticize.

All this being said, I still defend anyone’s right to launch a rebuttal on anything they wish.  They should remember, however, that their writing will come under the same scrutiny that they placed on the work of others.   I learned a long time ago that I had better make sure of my thinking when I write something for the reading consumption of others.  I know that my work will be judged.  I never resent the process.  I do intend to be a part of the process, from beginning to end.  I find it all extremely enjoyable.  -JMJ

Serious business. . .

It now appears that a number of ministers have chosen (or are in the process) to sever their connections with the UPCI.  It reminds me of a family that left our church ten years or so ago.  They originally came to us because they found new truth and they were drawn by the excitement and power of the Spirit of God that they felt in our services.  In the last couple of years before they left, they were poisoned by a book they read that bashed the holiness movement, calling it all unnecessary and repressive.  This family adopted the same attitude as the author of the book and announced to me that they were leaving.  I was unable to dissuade them.  The difference between their coming and their going was this:  They came because of something they liked; they left because of something they disliked.   Which motivation was the most powerful and legitimate?  The first, of course.  When people move because of a negative emotion, they not only lack the force of conviction and excitement, they obsess on the things they don’t like.  It is far better and healthier to go to something than to leave something. When a person’s main motivation is negative, he tends to fall in with whoever shares the same view.  Nothing else matters.  And so, predictably, this family lost their convictions about doctrinal truth, about integrity in character and about a Biblical lifestyle.  They only look for people and groups who don’t like holiness standards. 

Those who leave the UPCI because they dislike resolution #4, will join others who share the same dislike.  Their common bond will not necessarily be the things they like, but it will be the one thing they don’t like, namely, the UPCI.  While they may deny this, it will show up in their sermons, their conversation, their literature and their celebrated causes.  They may preach about outreach, but they will qualify it as being better than the UPCI.  They may build congregations, but they will tout them as being holier than the UPCI.  They may form a new organization, but they will promote it as being “preferred” over the UPCI.  The UPCI will always be their reference point.  They will try to make it different, but it will never be any other way.  Why?  Because their very raisons d’etre is a negative emotion against the UPCI.  A good way to test this is to ask them the following question:  Why are you leaving the UPCI?  Their answer will be some form of criticism of the UPCI.  They will not say, “Because we have found something better.”  They may intend to create something better, but that ideal does not yet exist.  In my opinion, it never will.

For those ministers who have a history with the UPCI, a negative reaction to the UPCI will always have relevance.  They will get energized when they hear their former organization criticized.  I fear for the the next generation, however.  Their kids will grow up without that history.  Thus, bashing the UPCI will have little or no relevance to them.  It will become annoying, petty and dated.  One day, they will ask their elders, “Dad (or Grandpa), why don’t you get as excited about preaching about the cross or Acts 2:38 as you do about bashing the UPCI?”  Lest someone think I am engaging in wild, unfounded speculation, I would remind them that I have seen it all happen before.  Over time, it is hard to sell a negative thought. 

I appeal to all who think they will be better off if they leave.  Please think long and hard before you make such a radical move.  Your decision involves much more than a reaction to resolution #4.  You will affect the lives of your families, your congregations, and your community.  You will force every aspect of your spiritual identity to become a function of one small point… a point that will soon be even more moot than it already is.  The chasm into which you will leap contains many more hazards than the one you think you are escaping.  If you want your ministry to revolve around doctrinal truth, a holiness lifestyle, worldwide outreach and aggressive evangelism, stay with the people you know.  The UPCI, with all its imperfections and manifest inequities, still represents the premier choice for Apostolics in the 21st century. 

Reactions...

I have been both troubled and relieved at the general reaction to the passing of Resolution #4 at the General Conference.  As many ministers know by now, there is a meeting planned in Tulsa, OK at the end of January, ostensibly for those who no longer feel comfortable fellowshipping with UPCI ministers.  The grapevine has it that the attendees have plans to begin a new fellowship in order to determine a “preferred” Apostolic future.  Some have projected an attendance of 2000 ministers.  If so, it would be a huge gathering of ministers for almost any meeting in oneness history.  The General Conference has reached that number only on rare occasions.  Because of the Times, in Alexandria, has drawn about 2500 ministers plus spouses in the past.  BOTT is probably the biggest ministerial conference going in our ranks, with exception of the GC.  I have received two mailouts on this meeting, and, interestingly enough, I would guesstimate that they got their mailing list from—-where else?—-the UPCI! 

Two letters have been sent out from ministers who have taken great offense at the passing of the resolution.  I’m not sure how many others they officially represent, but I’m sure they express the feelings of many preachers.  Neither of them said that they would leave the UPCI.  As of this moment, I am only aware of one minister who has terminated his fellowship over this issue. 

One of the most vocal opponents of the resolution, J. R. Ensey, editor of the “Minister’s Library” magazine, wrote only a very brief response in his latest issue.  It was a non-commital, “wait-and-see” article.  Bro. Mark Parker wrote a letter that he sent out on the internet which appealed to those who were considering a radical response to the resolution.  He urged them to remain in fellowship with the organization, reasoning that this would not have a major affect on us as a whole.  No one who has a conviction against the use of television for advertising purposes would be forced to violate their position.  It was an excellent, balanced letter.

I think that, in the end, few ministers and churches will advertise on television anyway.  Many in rural areas don’t have a real need to use this medium, and others may not have the capability to produce a product that could use with confidence.  I predict that only 1-2% of our constituency will use television advertising in the near future.  Yet, even that small percentage may see results that will make the resolution worth it.  Some will reach literally millions of viewers.  If someone gets saved as a result of an ad they saw on tv, who among us can speak against their salvation?  They will be eternally grateful for someone who reached them with the gospel.

The UPCI needs a balanced constituency.  I have many friends who are on the other side of the issue.  I love them all and I want them to know that we need them to stay with us.  There will be many more challenges in the future that will call for their expressions and convictions to keep us on the straight and narrow.  Actually, I am on the same page with them on almost every other issue.  What a shame to part company over something that may be so insignificant at this. Some say it is the straw that broke the camel’s back.  If it was, it was truly a “straw” in every sense of the word—lightweight, insignificant, of little consequence.  I also wonder where the bulk of the weight came from before the straw hit?

For anyone who contemplates leaving the UPCI, I think it would be a mistake of gargantuan proportions.  First, after the tv advertising issue is no longer viable, what other issues will be front and center?  Will the new fellowship draft a new charter or manual?  Where will it start and what will be its priorities?  I dare say that many will find themselves at odds with their fellow ministers on points that were never before considered.  A large organization like the UPCI has benefits and advantages that will be a long time coming to a start-up group.  If such a move were necessary because of heresy or some extreme issue, then one would simply have to bite the bullet and leave.  This issue, however, provides no such compelling reasons.  In fact, some ministers have been advertising on television for years.  Nothing was ever done about it, but neither has there been anyone stepping forward to claim damages.  This entire protest movement has begun to look more and more like it was manufactured.  One prominent minister has actually stated that resolution #4 was not the real reason for the pull-out.  As for me, I think that in this day and age when the coming of the Lord is so imminent, a political squabble is exactly what we don’t need.  It will cause a distraction from the real business of the kingdom at a critical time in spiritual history.

 Anyway, that’s my take.

Conference notes...

The 2007 General Conference in Tampa, FL will be long remembered for huge decisions and great preaching.  We accepted the proposal to form the Southern California District, we granted ministers and church the permission to advertise on television and Bro. Haney rolled out the Global Imapact initiative.  (I was also asked to serve a third term on the Executive Board as the Executive Presbyter from the Eastern Zone.)  Brothers Haney, Jerry Dean, Mark Johnston, Sam Emory, Tom Foster and Jack Cunningham all preached superbly and with great anointing.  Few conferences have had such a momentous effect on our fellowship.  The music was out of this world.  The violinist from California and the saxophonist from Texas were truly remarkable.  The services flowed seamlessly. 

I was the recipient of a marvelous book review and promo by Cleveland Becton to the entire body of ministers who attended the business session. It paid off handsomely.  The clerks at the Pentecostal Publishing House display said it was the best seller of the conference, selling nearly 450 copies.  It may not have been the best book there, but I definitely had the best book reviewer!

It was great to see all of our friends over the past 40 years at the conference.  We always have a fabulous time there, and this time was especially good because of MaKinzie Manning Jordan.  I have to tell you that Kinzie was the talk of the conference.  Her name was mentioned in a number of the ladies meetings and whenever we had her, we were constantly stopped by people who wanted to ogle her.  Perfect strangers stopped us and took photos of her.  It was fun.

The conference time went by in a whiz.  I hit the ground running with a Board of Publication meeting on Monday, as soon as I arrived at the hotel from the airport.  I didn’t stop until Sunday evening at midnight.  I was so tired when I got home that I haven’t felt like writing this little piece until Friday morning.