A Balanced Approach to Appreciating Secular Arts

And a voice spoke to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common" Acts 10: 15

Years ago, I preached a sermon centered around this passage in a Homiletics class - that sermon dealt with the diversity of people in the Body of Christ.  However, as I use this passage today, it deals with something a little more relevant to the times, as a major debate has raged for some years over this issue.  What I am about to say is not going to endear me to some people on both sides of this issue I will discuss, because I will be stomping on some spiritual toes on both sides.  Thing is though, extremes exist on both ends, and neither extreme is edifying to the Body of Christ.  I have read literature dealing with both sides of this issue - some of which I will be referencing - and some of what was said troubled me as it was spoken in either ignorance or was misinterpreted by one side or another as a self-granted sanction for their viewpoints.   As I will show though, neither the Bible nor the Church condones the extremes, but rather the balance.  

I want to begin this with a history lesson that our priest inspired me with a couple of weeks back.  In the 8th century, a controversy rocked the Church called the Iconoclastic Heresy, and it basically said that any image, etc., was not "Christian" and therefore must be destroyed.  The people responsible for this based their assumptions on a Biblical prohibition about "graven images," and it was taken to an extreme due to noting some abuses of iconography as objects of worship (which is also forbidden by the Church).  It got to a point that even a cross on a church was an object of contempt.   Into this fray steps St. John of Damascus, a monk who also served as an advisor of sorts to the Muslim caliph of Jerusalem and as such understood what extreme iconoclasm could lead to.   St. John cleared up the controversy by saying that the worship of images as deity were the issue, not the images themselves, as no one can comprehend the likeness of God.   Therefore, he recommended that we exercise discernment in the way we use images, but did not say they should be prohibited.  Below is an excerpt from his Apologia Against Those Who Decry Holy Images which more adequately expresses his view:

You see that He forbids image-making on account of idolatry, and that it is impossible to make an image of the immeasurable, uncircumscribed, invisible God. You have not seen the likeness of Him, the Scripture says, and this was St Paul's testimony as he stood in the midst of the Areopagus: "Being, therefore, [8] the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art, and device of man." (Acts 17.29)

These injunctions were given to the Jews on account of their proneness to idolatry. Now we, on the contrary, are no longer in leading strings. Speaking theologically, it is given to us to avoid superstitious error, to be with God in the knowledge of the truth, to worship God alone, to enjoy the fulness of His knowledge. We have passed the stage of infancy, and reached the perfection of manhood. We receive our habit of mind from God, and know what may be imaged and what may not. The Scripture says, "You have not seen the likeness of Him." (Ex. 33.20) What wisdom in the law-giver. How depict the invisible? How picture the inconceivable? How give expression to the limitless, the immeasurable, the invisible? How give a form to immensity? How paint immortality? How localise mystery? It is clear that when you contemplate God, who is a pure spirit, becoming man for your sake, you will be able to clothe Him with the human form. When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His [9] form. When He who is a pure spirit, without form or limit, immeasurable in the boundlessness of His own nature, existing as God, takes upon Himself the form of a servant in substance and in stature, and a body of flesh, then you may draw His likeness, and show it to anyone willing to contemplate it. Depict His ineffable condescension, His virginal birth, His baptism in the Jordan, His transfiguration on Thabor, His all-powerful sufferings, His death and miracles, the proofs of His Godhead, the deeds which He worked in the flesh through divine power, His saving Cross, His Sepulchre, and resurrection, and ascent into heaven. Give to it all the endurance of engraving and colour. Have no fear or anxiety; worship is not all of the same kind. Abraham worshipped the sons of Emmor, impious men in ignorance of God, when he bought the double cave for a tomb. (Gen. 23.7; Acts 7.16) Jacob worshipped his brother Esau and Pharao, the Egyptian, but on the point of his staff.* (Gen 33.3) He worshipped, he did not adore. Josue and Daniel worshipped an angel of God; (Jos. 5.14) they did not adore him. The worship of latreia is one thing, and the worship which is given to merit [10] another. Now, as we are talking of images and worship, let us analyse the exact meaning of each. An image is a likeness of the original with a certain difference, for it is not an exact reproduction of the original. Thus, the Son is the living, substantial, unchangeable Image of the invisible God (Col. 1.15), bearing in Himself the whole Father, being in all things equal to Him, differing only in being begotten by the Father, who is the Begetter; the Son is begotten. The Father does not proceed from the Son, but the Son from the Father. It is through the Son, though not after Him, that He is what He is, the Father who generates. In God, too, there are representations and images of His future acts,-that is to say, His counsel from all eternity, which is ever unchangeable. That which is divine is immutable; there is no change in Him, nor shadow of change. (James 1.17) Blessed Denis, (the Carthusian [i.e., Pseudo-Dionysius]) who has made divine things in God's presence his study, says that these representations and images are marked out beforehand. In His counsels, God has noted and settled all that He would do, the unchanging future events before they came to pass. In the same way, a man who wished to [11] build a house would first make and think out a plan. Again, visible things are images of invisible and intangible things, on which they throw a faint light. Holy Scripture clothes in figure God and the angels, and the same holy man (Blessed Denis) explains why. When sensible things sufficiently render what is beyond sense, and give a form to what is intangible, a medium would be reckoned imperfect according to our standard, if it did not fully represent material vision, or if it required effort of mind. If, therefore, Holy Scripture, providing for our need, ever putting before us what is intangible, clothes it in flesh, does it not make an image of what is thus invested with our nature, and brought to the level of our desires, yet invisible? A certain conception through the senses thus takes place in the brain, which was not there before, and is transmitted to the judicial faculty, and added to the mental store. Gregory, who is so eloquent about God, says that the mind, which is set upon getting beyond corporeal things, is incapable of doing it. For the invisible things of God since the creation of the world are made visible through images. (Rom. 1.20) We see images in [12] creation which remind us faintly of God, as when, for instance, we speak of the holy and adorable Trinity, imaged by the sun, or light, or burning rays, or by a running fountain, or a full river, or by the mind, speech, or the spirit within us, or by a rose tree, or a sprouting flower, or a sweet fragrance.

(from the following source - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/johndamascus-images.asp)

What St. John is saying here, in so many words, are two things:

1.  Iconography and symbols are a part of human nature, and are abundant in Scripture.

2.  Discernment is the key attribute in all these matters.

In other words, it is not a sin, nor against God's will, to utilize symbols and iconography, but we must discern its proper use.   That being established, let us see how that relates to us today.

Although the original Protestant Reformers were not guilty of this necessarily, there has been almost a resurrection of the Iconoclastic Heresy among contemporary Fundamentalist Protestants since I would estimate the mid-1800's.    It is largely due in part to an emphasis on a literal interpretation of Scripture coupled with Romophobia and also a reaction against the rise of theological liberalism at around the same time.   While their motives are good, many Fundamentalists have taken this to some odd extremes.  One area I want to address is music.  Just this week, I received in the mail a pamphlet from an independent Baptist ministry called Liberty Gospel Tracts based out of Michigan dealing with the issue of music.  It is a correspondence course they offer on Practical Christian Living, and it basically is a lesson designed to show the student what godly music is.  Like much of this type of literature, it has its positives and negatives.  On a positive note, it does address quite well the incursion of worldly music into the Church and its damage, but on the negative it proceeds to condemn all music, secular and sacred, that doesn't conform to the standards of the author of this study.   The author, for instance, takes great labor to point out the less-than-perfect lifestyles of composers such as Beethoven, and out of that concludes that basically Beethoven was some sort of homosexual transvestite who wore long hair, and that people who listen to composers with long hair are going to hell for some weird reason.   I have heard a lot of this talk before, and frankly feel it is a type of iconoclasm.  And, now, I wish to address that.

Contrary to some interpretations of Fundamentalist writers, I personally do not think it necessary to eschew everything that is secular.  After all, God gave all humanity the creative ability, intellectual capacity, and other attributes to produce quality art, music, literature, etc.   And, this is an attribute given to Christian and non-Christian alike.   By celebrating a good composer's work, or listening to a quality piece of music, one affirms God's creative ability of making us imago Dei.   So, if you happen to like Beethoven - he did compose some great music! - it will not send you to hell, I can assure you!  Also, if you like admiring the "Mona Lisa," go for it - good art doesn't send you to hell either.   However, it doesn't mean there are not exceptions or boundaries, as we after all as Christians are new creations and we have to be careful, and I now want to address that.

As I have mentioned, creative ability is something God has given to all humanity, and it is an integral part of our nature.  A significant aspect of that is having a sense of taste and appreciation for beauty and other aesthetic qualities of something a fellow human being creates.   That being said, we have a responsibility as Christians to appreciate the best of these attributes and we should definitely encourage the creativity of others.   That being said, we should also reject anything that prostitutes that creativity, and this includes anything that defiles God or nature, as well as anything that is contrary to the teachings of the Church or Scripture.   One thing I do not feel that responsible Christians should have much to do with - although it is up to the Holy Spirit, not me, to convict them - is rock "music."   Rock is technically not even a music, as it lacks a lot of the attributes of music and also goes against the scientific laws and principles God has established.   It also is contrary to the Christian life as it expresses rebellion, has no real creativity involved in its performance or creation, and in many cases it also openly projects values that are contrary to the Christian worldview.   Some of our Fundamentalist friends tend to focus as well on the lifestyles of some of these people, and as a result they often catch up into the net classical composers and others as a way of justifying their own iconoclastic tendencies.  I oppose rock music for a different reason, because if it were just the lifestyles, then I am afraid that would also rule out many Fundamentalist heroes of the faith as well - for instance, the writer of this Liberty booklet I mentioned earlier also esteems J. Frank Norris (a Fundamentalist Baptist preacher from Texas who shot a man in cold blood on a train), John R. Rice (a racist), Jack Hyles (late pastor of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN, and innovator of the bus ministry who also was subject of allegations of some serious sexual indiscrepancies), and Charles Haddon Spurgeon (a man who smoked big stogies and drank brandy - not sins in themselves, but they are to a Fundamentalist Baptist!).    And, if lifestyle was the standard of what we could listen to, watch, etc., we would all be in some trouble, based on Romans 3:23!  A person who has a less-than-perfect lifestyle can still create good things - take Bunny Berigan, who was one of the greatest trumpeters of the Swing Era; he died as a chronic alcoholic in 1942, but still produced some great music.   My issue with rock music is that it lacks any type of creative quality, and now I want to address that to people who are within the Church who seem to think it is acceptable to bring this stuff into the Church.

The "Worship Wars" of the past 30 years or so in American Christianity have a root that is deep, and funny thing is that the same people I just talked about that condemned Beethoven are themselves directly responsible for all this.    Although that may seem a stretch, let me explain.  The Fundamentalist emphasis on eschewing what they feel is "against Scripture" has produced a type of iconoclasm, but it is an iconoclasm with two sides.  The one we have just dealt with, but the second has come about as a result of many new developments in the past 30 or so years in Christianity.  With the emergence of such things as Rick Warren and his "Purpose-Driven" movement, as well as televangelism, the Contemporary Christian music industry, the "Seeker-Friendly" church, the "Emerging Church" movement, and also an increasing secularization among American Christians, there has arisen a new type of iconoclasm, and this one has disasterous consequences because the emphasis has shifted from "getting back to Scripture" to making the Church more conformed to culture.   How is this connected to the Fundamentalists, who not only oppose a lot of these other things but have even been targets of them?   Well, unfortunately, it is the same mentality that drives both movements, although I must admit that I do share some convictions with the Fundamentalists on many things.   The common factor with both of these camps is an iconoclasm that centers upon the hatred of one word - TRADITION!  Both groups - the Warrenites and the Fundamentalists - rail in their literature, in scathing terminology I might add, against what they call "traditional Christianity."   The only difference is that the Fundamentalist seeks, in their view, to get back to Scripture while the Emergent/Purpose-Driven/Seeker Church proponent seeks to deconstruct and redefine Christianity in their own image, which they feel is their interpretation of what the New Testament Church is about.  Despite noble ideals on both sides, both are so wrong.    And, here is why.

The Church as an institution is first and foremost the mystical Body of Christ, and as such it exercises an unique role granted to it by Christ Himself, who is its head, to preserve both the best of our humanity as well as transcending it by reflecting God's Kingdom.   What that entails is a propensity for growth, and it is totally possible for the Church to adapt new hymnody, new technology, and other things God has gifted individuals with creating.   That being said, over the centuries the Church has utilized the talents of many great classical composers in its liturgy and hymnody, and it has also utilized the best in artistic expression.   St. John of Damascus made that point abundantly clear as he refuted the iconoclasts, and indeed had it not been for the Church, Western civilization may have been lost.   I challenge some of my friends in the Fundamentalist camp in particular to give Dr. Alvin Schmidt's book Under The Influence (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 2001) as well as D. Jame Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe's book What If Jesus Had Never Been Born (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997) for more about that.   Also, St. John of Damascus, and his courageous stand against the Iconoclasts, is worth a study as well - if it weren't for people like him, the Renaissance and for my Protestant brethren the Reformation would not have happened.   So, as the Fundamentalists attempt to eschew certain things, and the Emergent Church people attempt to deconstruct the legacy of the Church, they need to understand they do so in great ignorance and with great consequence.   As the Church continues until the coming of its Master in glory one day, it will continue to adapt certain things to its heritage - that is inevitable.  But, the things it adapts should never contradict or destroy its witness, nor should its past legacy be thrown out.  The idea is to build upon the foundation, not to rip apart the foundation with each generation.   Ultimately though, it is about discernment.   We are mandated to do two things as commanded by I Timothy 2:15:

1.  Presenting ourselves approved unto God without shame

2.  Rightly dividing the Word of truth.

As I contemplated writing this, I received some insight into this verse I have never thought about before, despite the fact it is one of the first Scripture verses I ever committed to memory.  First, presenting ourselves approved unto God without shame.   One, this means we should always rejoice in the great legacy of the Church and its works, and we don't have reason to be shamed or afraid of them.  Many modern Evangelicals and Fundamentalists fall short of this, due to the fact they have a misunderstanding of the "traditions of men" Scripture talks about.  They seek to throw out the right traditions a lot of times while either creating their own or holding onto the wrong ones.   This has robbed many Christians of a great blessing.   Second, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.  What this entails is exercising godly discernment.   Many American Christians are impaired when it comes to this, because you either have the Fundamentalists eschewing the good things or the Emergents adapting the bad ones, and both miss it by infinity.    Also, there is a lot of muddying the waters when it comes to these matters too, because everyone these days seems to set themselves up as "armchair theologians" and in a sense they have become their own "popes."   This is why you have many Fundamentalists and Emergents throwing out Beethoven for different reasons but the same motive - one seeks to eschew while the other seeks to replace, and in the end both are wrong!  Discernment again is the key factor - in adapting or utilizing a new hymn, etc., in the Church, there are two important questions that must be asked:

1.  Does this conform to both Scripture and Tradition?

2.  Is this something that gives our best to the Lord?

These two things are a measuring-rod for the utilization of anything - new hymnody, new books, etc. - that is candidate for adaptation into the life and spirituality of the Church.  That being said, I have some thoughts to elaborate upon.  First, let me assure you all that it is not wrong to listen to secular music or enjoy anything of a creative nature in a secular setting.   That being said, I must also say though that not everything that is part of secular culture is appropriate for the Church - I like Guy Lombardo's music, for instance, but it doesn't need to be part of the Mass of our parish!    Second, some things however are not really things a Christian needs to be participating in, secular or sacred - rock music, pornography, drugs, etc.  Reason is, these things are not compatible with the Christian worldview and don't have a place in either the individual life of a Christian or in the corporate/institutional life of the Church, and that is why I do not advocate using rock music (or rock-inspired music) in a church setting.   An individual who wants to listen to rock music outside the church walls, whether secular or CCM, needs to take that issue up with God themselves, as it is a matter of personal conviction in that regard - some people have the strength to listen to that stuff, while others need to stay away from it.  I feel the same way about alcohol consumption - the Church has never condemned alcohol consumption, and enjoying a glass of wine with dinner will not eternally damn your soul, be rest assured!  It is the abuse and over-indulgence of alcohol that the Church condemns, just as over-indulgence and abuse of anything is wrong - it falls under the sin of gluttony, but in the case of alcohol, it can also impair your health and judgement if abused.   Rock music, too, is not something that should be indulged in, just because of what it represents and where it comes from.  Unlike other forms of music, which stay within convention and often grow and evolve (jazz is a good example of this), rock music has not evolved, but has devolved - it is the only form of musical expression I know of that has actually gotten worse the longer it is around.   And, its attributes are like a bad terminal virus in that they infect other musical forms and "dumb them down."   It actually makes almost perfect sense, for instance, as to why the Rick Warren advocates and the Emerging Church camp encourage using it - they have similar motives!  Warren, Erwin McManus, Brian McLaren, and others of this mentality seek to "devolve" and reconstruct Christianity in their image, and they want to do away with anything that is part of the Church's legacy.  And, they use rock music to do that to the Church's hymnody, because rock music is about the same thing.   That is why it doesn't belong in Christianity.   But, Fundamentalists are equally guilty - they rightly eschew rock music, but in their frenzy to divest themselves of what they dub the "traditions of men," they also throw out some beautiful hymnody of the Church because it is either "too catholic" or "too pentecostal," or some other thing that doesn't conform to their standards - and, that is the key phrase:  their standards (ie: traditions of men)!  Thing is, the Church's musical tradition and hymnody allows for a great deal of diversity - it stretches over hundreds of years, and encompasses every age, culture, and situation.  I myself pretty much listen to a diversity of Christian music, ranging from Ethiopian Orthodox liturgical hymnody to the Blackwood Brothers, and all of it is in conformity with the teachings of the Church Catholic as well as being artistically acceptable.   It is OK, remember, to use more than your brain in the worship of our God - He tells us to worship him with all our being, and that includes all of our senses;  it is all throughout the Psalms.  So, when both the Emergent crowd and the Fundamentalists start throwing out things because they are "too traditional" or they attach an allegorical meaning (particularly Fundamentalists when it comes to the use of incense in worship - it's all a symbol to them) to practices they otherwise would say are "too Catholic" (the ugly beast of Romophobia raises its head again!).  But, those things in their literal context allow us to worship in spirit and in truth, because God endowed us with these senses - so, in that context, who is actually violating Scripture then when it comes to the use of incense??   Looks to me like our Fundamentalist friends may have a little problem there, being they claim to be literalists - again, discernment comes into play. 

We have said a lot here in this teaching, and I hope you all get something out of it.  Some on both sides of the issue are going to be offended, but if you fall into those categories, I admonish you again to read I Timothy 2:15 and make an application of what it says in lieu of the Church's teaching and Biblical context.   God bless you until next time.



Holding Onto Spiritual Legacies Without Burning Bridges

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or by our epistle (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he shall not depart from it (Proverbs 22:6)

It has been a while since I have given a good teaching, and today as I thought a lot about what to say, the Lord gave me the above verses based on something I have been wanting to address for some time, and I wanted today to finally tackle this issue. 

I was reading an article yesterday that my spiritual mentor, Fr. Eusebius Stephanou, wrote entitled "The Dead End of Convert Infatuation" (http://www.stsymeon.org/archive/thedeadendofconvertinfatuation.htm) in which he addresses the surge in converts to the Orthodox Church from many Evangelical and Protestant traditions.   He says, basically, that many converts are so enamoured with their new "discovery" (quotations mine) that they burn religious bridges behind them, and like Fr. Eusebius, I feel this is unfortunate.   Of course, this is nothing new, as in the past many converts to Evangelical, Fundamentalist, or Pentecostal denominations from Catholic backgrounds did the same thing - everything "Catholic" all of a sudden became something evil and nasty, and as a result a religious experience which was supposed to give them much joy instead fostered bitterness and a nasty spirit of unforgiveness.  I remember in particular a professor I once had in college by the name of Dr. Andreas Carrodeguas.   Dr. Carrodeguas was a former Benedictine priest who at some point became born again, and when he did he basically became so vitriolic towards the Catholic Church that his own bias colored his classroom manner, and although I liked the guy and respected his great mind (he was a brilliant scholar) I was personally offended by his attitude.   I don't know what it is about American Christians and their converts on the mission field, but it just seems like for some bizarre reason they want to eschew their past when they leave one church and join another.   I myself have had that temptation too, but overcame it.  Perhaps some of these people had bad experiences, which I can understand, but for the most part it seems as if the person who is responsible for converting them is more than often the blame - I have seen evangelists, lay discipleship workers, and others spew some rather venomous (and blatantly wrong!) junk from Sunday School classrooms and pulpits, and what they are saying has little to do with the Gospel and its message.   And, as you will see momentarily, this is not a problem that is exclusive to Pentecostals and Evangelicals - liturgical traditions have their fair share of this too.

I have invested a lot of time combatting many things over the years of writing these articles, and as of late I have taken great lengths to expose the errors of modern fads such as the "Purpose-Driven" movement and the exploits of many popular TV preachers.   However, today I want to take a little break from doing that and address my own people, as there are some housecleaning issues we need to take care of in our churches too, and one of the worst is this whole thing of "Convert Infatuation," to use Fr. Eusebius' term for it.   The two verses you seen me quote earlier have a lot to do with correcting this problem, and hopefully some who are guilty of it will take what I say to heart.

Beginning in the 1970's, there was a great move among Evangelicals and Pentecostals to rediscover the "ancient Church."   As a result, literally thousands of them have found their way into Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and independent liturgical Church traditions, and I am part of that.   I feel that this is a move of God too, because God is calling His Remnant Church together and in order to go forward in this case we need to rediscover a heritage so many of us have rejected.   Converts come into liturgical/sacramental Churches in many ways.  The most recent of course has been the Convergence Movement, but long before that sincere Christians have been led, through the readings of the Church Fathers and other venues, into the sacramental/liturgical tradition.   This is actually a good thing, for in doing so many of these people - I myself am among that number - have enriched their own Christian walk.   But, just like in the past when Evangelical soul-winners aimed to convert Catholics, some things have happened that created  problems.  For one, when some are "converted" to Orthodoxy or the Catholic Church, they are told that previously they were not really Christians and therefore to hold onto any former convictions (no matter how Scriptural) would be considered a heresy, and therefore they were discouraged from preserving a spiritual legacy they already had.  This is particularly true among converts to Orthodoxy, who like Fr. Eusebius correctly points out often "burned bridges" when it came to their past.   Unfortunately, as Fr. Eusebius also notes, it created problems on both sides - the converts almost always became so enamoured with externals that they grew legalistic and even antagonistic towards other Christian denominations, and their attitudes re-enforced some already bad attitudes on the part of Orthodoxy that should have been dealt with and eliminated generations ago.   As a result, some converts lose something that is precious.   Bishop Malcolm Smith, himself a convert from the nondenominational Charismatic movement to the Anglican tradition, once said that there are two issues that plague Christians when they encounter other Christians of different traditions - one is Romophobia, in which some former Catholics as well as some misinformed cradle Evangelicals literally bristle when words such as "sacrament," "Eucharist," or "Liturgy" are mentioned.  The other, however, is what he called Charisophobia, meaning some former Evangelicals getting equally chagrined when something smacks of too much "emotion" for them, or God forbid, anyone talks in any way that is too "Protestant" in an Orthodox parish!  There is obviously a breakdown in communication somewhere and someone was taught wrong when stuff like this happens, and what happens is the introduction of something that Charismatic Episcopal Church bishop and veteran missionary Fr. Philip Weeks calls "The Three Young Ladies" - mis-understanding, mis-communication, and mis-trust (Philip Weeks and Hugh W. Kaiser, Non Nobis Domine! The Convergence Movement and the Charismatic Episcopal Church {Maitland, FL:  Barnabas Ministries, 1996} p. 62).   These things go against what we are admonished in the Collect for Peace in the Morning Prayer service of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (p. 17) when it invokes "O God, who art the author of peace and lover of concord."

Concord is a Latin term which means "same heart."   We as Christians are one in Christ - one Body, one Church, and one Holy People (Romans 12:4-5, and Ephesians 4:11).  Therefore, we need to start acting accordingly.   Despite what some legalists in the Orthodox Church in particular may say (not just picking on them, as Catholics, Anglicans, and Protestants all have their fair share of them too!) they are not the perfect Church.  Yes, they may have the fulness of the Sacraments, and yes, they may have ancient roots going back to the Apostles - I fully affirm and believe both are true.   But, over the years, Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church have both been infected with a similar legalism that Jesus found 2000 years ago among the Jews, and it is just as ugly to look at in both cases.   Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for these attitudes, and the Gospels are filled with accounts of Him doing so - would He not similarly hold us accountable for the same sin, being His nature is immutable (Hebrews 13:8)?   This problem, I feel, is a root sin in the Church today, although it has been taken different directions - the "Emerging Church" movement, for instance, seeks to divorce itself of all its heritage, and thus is barely recognizeable as Christians.  Converts to other churches oftentimes fall into the same trap on a lesser scale - in their zeal and sometimes bitterness, they eschew any trappings of their former affiliations, even condemning them as something evil or heretical, and do so often at their own loss.   A godly heritage is precious, and as we grow, we need to appreciate where we came from as well as where we have arrived.  

That being said, I have a word for the converts today.   Especially in America, it seems like in recent years the church has installed revolving doors, and a great migration has happened between churches - Evangelicals are becoming Catholics and Orthodox, and Catholics and Orthodox are becoming Evangelicals.   Let me say that all three traditions have validity as genuine expressions of the Christian faith, and none are perfect and therefore have something to offer each other.    I myself am a convert to the Catholic tradition from the Pentecostal movement - I was raised in a Holiness/Pentecostal environment, got my degree at an Assemblies of God College, and have walked with the Lord as a Christian for 26 years, of which 17 I have been a Catholic Christian.   I am about as fully Catholic as anyone - I believe in the Mysteries (Sacraments) of the Church, I love the beauty and reverence of her liturgy and worship, and I have even come to have a strong Marian leaning, as the Holy Theotokos has impacted my life personally in a great way.  But, there are many wonderful things I would not trade for the world when it comes to my spiritual roots - I still know and believe in the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, and not only teach about the gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit but fully practice them.   I love good old-fashioned Southern Gospel music, as well as a good tent meeting, and if the preaching is inspirational I value and appreciate it.   And, I also feel all of this can be integrated into my own spiritual walk, because it is all a part of my testimony.   Like many, I have had bad experiences in my former church tradition too - especially coming out of the Pentecostal tradition, you experience a diversity of things; the good, the bad, and the ugly!  I have seen it all, and some of the worst of it repulses me to this day, but I also know it is not representitive of all Pentecostals either.   And, as I grow in understanding, I fully believe and have come to the conclusion that the sacramental and the Pentecostal are not only compatible, but they actually need each other!  And, for some of the legalists on both sides of the issue, I appeal to history - the first and oldest Pentecostal movement happened in a sacramental/liturgical context in the 1830's with the Catholic Apostolic movement.   Also, it must be mentioned that one of the earliest Pentecostal pioneers in the UK, Rev. Alexander Boddy, was an Anglican clergyman with distant ties to John Wesley (more on that momentarily!) who visited the Solovetsk Monastery in Russia.   While there, he looked at the icon written into the dome of the cathedral, and it depicted a scene from the day of Pentecost with the descent of the Holy Spirit.   He later saw this as a reference to Acts 2, and that the Holy Spirit and its empowerment was not just for the Apostles or priests, but was for all believers - he later became one of the founders of the Elim Church in England, one of the oldest Pentecostal groups there.  The impact Orthodoxy had on his life - he wore an Orthodox cross he received in Russia, and was even proported to venerate icons he brought back with him from there even after becoming part of the Pentecostal movement (see Bishop Kalistos Ware's well-documented paper on this entitled "Personal Experience of The Holy Spirit According To The Greek Fathers," which can be found at http://silouanthompson.net/2008/08/personal-experience/).   It is time we brought this all back together as Boddy and others saw it. 

And, speaking of John Wesley, let's talk about who he was for a moment, shall we?   John Wesley is often touted as the founder of the Methodist Church, and a significant segment of the Evangelical tradition - Pentecostals and the Wesleyan/Holiness movement - view him as a spiritual father of their movements.  Yet, would he be an Assemblies of God, United Methodist, or Nazarene minister if he were alive today?  What I am about to say will shock many on both sides of this issue, because John Wesley in reality not the person many Evangelicals who claim his legacy say he was!  For one thing, Wesley never founded the Methodist Church, and for all his life he and his brother Charles were both Anglican clergymen.  But, not just any Anglican - they were high-church Anglo-Catholics who would have actually resembled more of the priests in my own Anglican Catholic Church I am part of than they would have the typical Methodist or Nazarene congregation.   For one, Wesley prayed the Rosary, which also indicated he had a high regard for the Theotokos, whom he also believed was ever-Virgin (as did many of the Protestant Reformers, I might add).   Also, he was an avid reader of the Church Fathers, in particular the Macarian Homilies and the writings of St. Ephrem.   Regarding the latter, he wrote in his 1756 "Address To The Clergy" about St. Ephrem that he was "the man of a broken heart,"  meaning that St. Ephrem had a humility and total devotion to God that often he was broken before God (see Gordon Wakefield's article, "John Wesley and Ephrem Syrus," which can be accessed at www.bethmardutho.org,  where it was originally published in 1998 in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies.   I had referenced this before in a scholarly paper I wrote years ago about the doctrine of initial evidence and the Syriac Christian tradition).  I would go also as far as to say that the inspiration for the Wesleyan doctrine of second-blessing sanctification, or "Bible Holiness," had its roots in the Eastern Christian idea of theosis - if you will read Wesley's classic work, On Christian Perfection, and compare it to, say, St. John Climacus' work The Ladder of Divine Ascent, you may see some parallels that surprise you!  As we really delve into the practices of the ancient Church, one finds that in a lot of ways it had much in common with both Catholics and Orthodox as well as Pentecostals, but it also was vastly different from them in that it didn't carry all the baggage and legalism - not that the early Church was perfect, but its leaders seemed to be more spiritually discerning than many today are, which should be an alert to us that maybe it is we who are wrong and not them.   More things could be cited here - for instance, several Anabaptist monastics including the Ephrata Cloister in Pennsylvania and the Eckerlin Brothers in my native West Virginia - that show some seemingly incompatible traditions may have more in common than they thought!  Too bad so many on both sides fail to recognize it, and instead you have Orthodox listening to the likes of people like the late Fr. Seraphim Rose (an unrepentant homosexual convert to Orthodoxy from mainline Protestantism) while Evangelicals listen to years of bad rehashed garbage that has its roots in the writings of Alexander Hislop and Lorraine Boetner.   The Seraphim Roses and Alex Hislops have produced disciples like Frank Schaeffer and Jack Chick, among others, who thrive on crazy speculations and skewed history in order to justify their own biases, and these people do no one any service in doing so.  That being said, I have some concluding remarks.

I have come to believe that true Christians will bear witness of one another via the Holy Spirit that indwells them (or is supposed to).   And, true Christians are found in all Christian churches - I value my Evangelical and Pentecostal brethren that I know personally who are great prayer warriors and live lives that reflect the presence of Christ.   Likewise, I know many wonderful Catholic and Orthodox Christians - I was personally mentored by Fr. Eusebius Stephanou, and also count among my spiritual influences the late St. Padre Pio, both of whom were two of the greatest spiritual giants of our time - and they bless me as well.  God's Remnant is found where he chooses to call them, and no amount of legalism and triumphalist bias will change that fact - some of these legalists in the churches are going to be in for a rude surprise one day when they finally realize who God really called to be His disciples!  And, in these times when people of faith have a lot more opposition and challenges - we get attacked for our position by the poisonous environments of Corporate America, where many of us have to work to pay our bills, as well as on social media such as Facebook, where speaking your convictions on your own personalized page will often get you thrown to the hyenas who will call you names, slander you, etc. for your point of view - we need to know who our brethren are, and oftentimes the old-time Holiness/Pentecostal may have more in common with the Roman Catholic traditionalist who adheres to the old Latin Tridentine Mass than they will with the typical mainstream Assembly of God church.   The whole point of my writing this is to issue a rallying-call - we need to set aside our legalisms and learn to discern, simple as that.  Until we do so, the Body of Christ will remain fractured and He will be grieved over our pettiness.  However, as we do so, we also need to do so without sacrificing our convictions and our own roots.   God bless each and every one of you until next time.

 

My Take On Discernment Ministries

I remember back in 1993 when Hank Hanegraaff's book, Christianity In Crisis, was released.  At the time I was a sophomore in college, and I was also pretty involved with the charismatic renewal movement.  So, being at that time I liked a lot of those TV preachers, I took great offense with Hanegraaff's assertions that some of them were "cultic."   However, in time, I would come to realize that his concerns were legitimate and when I made the step to become a Catholic Christian, I left most of that behind.   Today, I still have very little to do with much of what is on "religious TV," as I find a lot of it to be just plain ridiculous.  Sadly, there was a time when there were actually good television ministries, but in the past 20 years or so they have gotten worse.   There are still some good ones out there, obviously, but they are few.   I do appreciate the work Hanegraaff has done as far as rooting out error and exposing some notoriously off-base ministries, but Hanegraaff also is a source of concern for me personally as I grow more in my faith, and today it is people like him I wish to talk about a little.

Hanegraaff of course took over where the late Dr. Walter Martin, a stellar apologist whose book, Kingdom of the Cults, is still a classic textbook for studying apologetics.  The organization Martin founded, the Christian Research Institute, has done some amazing work over the years, and after Hanegraaff took over upon Martin's passing, it still has been a valuable resource and has aided many in the pursuit of defending the truth.   However, Hanegraaff has at times gotten a little too pharisaical, and he has fallen into the same trap as other well-meaning organizations - the Southern Poverty Law Center being a radical example - in that he lumps a lot of good ministries and dedicated people of God together with the sham artists; for one, he has practically lumped all Pentecostals and Charismatics in with the likes of Kenneth Copeland and Joel Osteen without any regard for the diversity of thought among these churches and ministries.   His recent target has been actor Kirk Cameron, a born-again Christian who I have a great deal of respect for because he stands for the truth of the Cross and is also a strong voice for traditional family values.  In Hanegraaff's view, Cameron is supposedly promoting "reconstructionism" or something because he simply believes we need to, as a nation, get back to Judeo-Christian values.   And, Cameron is right - we do!  So, what is Hanegraaff's issue?   Ahhh...where do we begin; let's just start at the source.

Hank Hanegraaff unfortunately has turned himself into a modern-day Pharisee, and has obsessed himself with constant witch-hunts against practically everything because simply put he sees himself as somehow a "lone crusader for truth" (to interpret that, it means Hanegraaff thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong).   Also, despite being part of a large Pentecostal/Charismatic church himself (Hanegraaff is a member of Calvary Chapel, Chuck Smith's group that evolved out of the Jesus People in the 1970's and over the years has had a good track record of balance in doctrine, although unfortunately it also has proven to be an inspiration for Rick Warren and the "Seeker-friendly" movement), it seems like our "Bible Answer Man" is one of the most anti-Pentecostal personalities within American Evangelicalism (more so, I might add, than even some of the Sword of the Lord people in Murfreesboro, TN, who are strict independent Baptists!) - or at least that is how he comes across in his writings and broadcasts.   Also, despite his constant dogging of many TV ministries - rightfully so, I may add here - concerning questionable financial practices, in 2003 an issue arose between Hanegraaff and the late Dr. Martin's family over his reported abuses of CRI non-profit status, and Martin's widow even called for his removal in 2000 over issues like this.  ("Casting Stones: Questions About Radio's 'Bible Answer Man' Are Coming From Within," Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2000 and Letter to Editor by Darlene Nesland Martin, "Hanegraaff Wasn't Handpicked," Los Angeles Times, {Orange County Edition}, April 30, 2000.).   Another issue is Hanegraaff's Calvinistic tendencies, which of course have a lot of bearing on his anti-Pentecostal rantings - by what I have read of his stuff, Hanegraaff comes across as a cessationist (meaning that the gifts of the Holy Spirit don't go beyond the book of Acts) and also as a fatalist (he has almost, in his reaction against the excesses of the Word/Faith movement, gone to the opposite extreme by more or less saying that God allows trials, doesn't intervene in them for us, and more or less doesn't answer any prayers).  It is this Calvinistic cessationist/fatalist mentality I feel has colored his judgment, and it comes out quite fully in his writings and on his radio program.  Of course, in that regard he is like a lot of other like-minded mainstream Evangelicals such as Mary Hunt (author of Seven Money Rules For Life who, on a broadcast of "In the Market With Janet Parshall" dated February 8, 2012, told a vulnerable young lady that she and her husband should give up their plans, move in with her parents, and live life flipping burgers at McDonald's - it was the stupidest thing I had ever heard - and she considered this "encouragement!") who have adopted this unbiblical view that we should stoically accept our fate in life, despite how unhappy we may be, and rejoice because "Jesus saved us" and we are going to heaven one day.  Yes, Jesus does save, and yes, we need to be thankful if we are born again at the promise of eternal life, but for heaven's sake - we have things in this life too that need to be taken care of as well, and God hasn't lost that on us.   Phillipians 4:19, for instance, promises that God shall supply ALL of our needs according to his riches in glory (remember, God created the universe, so as the Scripture in Psalm 24:1, the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof!).  Also, people like these "gloomy Gus" Evangelicals fail to recall the Scripture in Matthew 10, which talks about the birds and flowers being taken care of by God, so how much more we are as well.   And, for Mary Hunt and these people who discourage people from pursuing their dreams, I remind them of II Timothy 2:15 - study to show yourselves approved!  That does not mean just efficiency at knowing the Bible, but in our daily lives as well.   God's blessings can be slow, and I myself have been frustrated with the wait out of desperation on occasion I admit, but he still does what he does because of Hebrews 13:8 - Jesus IS the same yesterday, today, and forever!!  Note something here on this though - it talks about supplying needs, not greeds - God is not going to give someone a million bucks, a Rolls Royce, and a palatial Roman villa just because he does have the control over those things.  However, I have seen God do financial miracles in my own life, and I have seen Him work in the lives of others, and Hank Hanegraaff doesn't have the final word on what God can do, and praise be to God for that!!  And, thanks be to God for giving us minds and the opportunities of education, NO ONE has to settle for flipping burgers at McDonald's when God has so much more in store - Mary Hunt, your garbage may sell books, but it is a lie!  God is ultimately in control of everything, and because one of his attributes is immutability (meaning he doesn't change) then his promises - ALL of them! - are still valid for today too, and that includes miracles, gifts of the Spirit, and other things the Bible talks about too.   That being said, let us now tie it all together.

As I have said, I am as much against the excesses and abuses of the Word/Faith teachers and TV preachers as Hanegraaff is - they do deceive people, and they often result to false teachings to do it.  If Joel Osteen and Paula White are so sure of themselves, for instance, then why aren't all their church members driving Rolls Royces and Beamers??  Last time I went by Without Walls' parking lot in Tampa, I didn't see Rolls or Beamers sitting out there - what I saw, for the most part, were used economy cars!  However, I do believe God heals, I do believe in God's provision for needs, and I believe in miracles and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and we can't throw that out because a few huckster TV preachers twist them around for personal gain.  And, not all Pentecostals and Charismatics are like those TV preachers - many of them are simple folk in small churches that see God at work in their lives, and their testimonies speak that.   So, Hanegraaff needs to look at these issues through untainted lenses instead of the rose-colored lens of Calvinistic cessationist/fatalist cynicism, and he needs to research himself better  - he calls himself the "Bible Answer Man," but in many cases he is giving his opinions and not the Bible's answers.   And, it isn't just Pentecostals he's attacking - he has went after people like Jack Chick (I don't agree with Chick on a lot of things, but at least he has a basic, simple Gospel message for the most part in his literature) and Kirk Cameron (another bold witness of the simple Gospel - Kirk was discipled by Ray Comfort, whose approach to sin and the Cross challenge people to self-examination, which is what the Gospel is about in the first place), as well as other sincere ministers of the Gospel.   Hanegraaff has almost become cultic himself, as he pretty much labels as "heretics" people who disagree with him on even the most minor of doctrinal issues.  What I find ironic though is that Hanegraaff has for the most part remained fairly silent regarding real apostates such as the Emerging Church movement and Rick Warren - the latter promotes Chrislam, which is a heresy - and even has endorsed Rick Warren's literature on his program while condemning those who are opposed to it.  Also, I fail to see Hanegraaff addressing other issues - he has been silent on the pro-life front, and seems to be promoting the Communist Chinese government (this he has in common with his most common target, Paul Crouch) and Contemporary Christian Music industry personalities.   While I applaud his standing against things like excesses in the Word/Faith movement, and I support his strong creationist stand as well, Hanegraaff overall comes up short when it comes to being truly spiritually discerning because his observations are often tainted with his own prejudices.  Therefore, I would strongly caution anyone supporting him to be careful, as in many aspects he is no better than those he himself criticizes (fundraising tactics, etc.). 

This was a rather short perspective on something I have been pondering for a while, but I hope it aids you in searching for suitable ministries to support.  That being said, we need to avoid modern-day Pharisees (Hanegraaff), Saduccees (Warren, Osteen, and the "Emerging Church" crowd), as well as the fruitloops and con-artists (most religious television).  Look for sound ministries to invest in if the Lord is laying it upon you to help out someone with financial support, and don't give your money to just anyone - we have to exercise wise stewardship over our giving too, remember!  Any rate, God bless you until next time.

Highways and Hedges Project - Part I: The Holiness Baptist Family.

I have mentioned earlier about the Highways and Hedges project, and as part of it I want to share the history of some oft-overlooked smaller denominations and fellowships with you.  The information I am presenting here is not meant to be comprehensive, but merely a glimpse of the material I will be doing for the bigger project and it also serves to show where my research is coming to this point.  Also, new material comes my way all the time, and as it does updated information is a necessity as well.  That being said, I want to begin this series - which will not be consecutive - with a good synopsis of one group of these churches I have been researching to this point.  

Yesterday in the mail, I got a long-awaited and much-welcomed package from Rev. Robert "Cricket" Watson, who pastors the Antioch Holiness Revival Center in Perry, FL, and is also the moderator of a small fellowship I have had interest in called the Holiness Revival Center Association.  This particular group (hereafter for space sake referred to by initials HRCA) is part of a family of churches that is itself unique and has been of interest to me for many years, and these all have roots in a group called the Holiness Baptists.   Today, I want to share a little bit of the family legacy of this group of fellowships, as it adds a bit of color to the oft-stereotyped field of Pentecostal/Charismatic studies, which although needed, oftentimes focuses more on the histories of large groups like the Assemblies of God rather than these little "highway and hedge" fellowships.   So, it is time to share their story with you here today.

The story here starts with a group called the Holiness Baptist Association, an old body that originated in 1893 in Wilcox County, GA, when a group of Southern Baptists began to teach a more Wesleyan-flavored doctrine of "sinless perfection" which got them duly disfellowshipped from the Little River Baptist Association, which itself dates back to 1880 according to its website (www.littleriverassociation.com).  The Holiness Baptists organized into an association the following year, 1894, and a Dr. S.R. Mitchell served as its first Moderator.   Unfortunately, there are no pictures available of these two pioneering churches to show you here, but for the most part, all of the early churches of this Association were in southern Georgia and northern Florida, where most continue today.   As of 1989, the Holiness Baptist Association reported in their Minutes that they had 29 churches and around 1000 members.  Of the 29, all but one were in Georgia.  

The Pineview Holiness Baptist Church, Tifton, GA - one of the 29 congregations of the Holiness Baptist Association.



Wray Holiness Baptist Church, Wray, GA

Holiness Baptist Church, Waycross, GA

In my research, I discovered that the Holiness Baptist Church in Georgia also has a "correspondent" (this is a uniquely Baptist term meaning that churches can share pulpits, etc.) relationship with two similar Holiness Baptist associations in North and South Carolina.  The North Carolina Holiness Baptist Association is still very much active, and is centered around Hendersonville, NC - Lexis.com research listed two incorporated churches, Union Hill and Clear Creek, both in Hendersonville, that are in this fellowship.   The South Carolina Holiness Baptist Association is centered around Greenville, SC, although headquartered in Columbia, and has three churches in the Greenville area and one in Columbia.   I am in the process of trying to obtain more information on these two associations, as this was recent knowledge, but they are definitely of the same background as the Georgia churches.

Union Hill Holiness Baptist Church and cemetery, Hendersonville, NC

It is also worth mentioning that in Arkansas at the turn of the century, another group calling themselves the "Holiness Baptist Association" existed, but in 1914 they were assimilated into the Assemblies of God, and its founder, W. Jethro Walthall, later served as District Superintendent for the Arkansas District Council of the A/G (Charles Edwin Jones, A Guide To The Study of The Pentecostal Movement, Volume One. {Metuchen, NJ:  The Scarecrow Press, 1983} pp. 267).  This group, however, was unrelated to the existing Georgia group, as it had different origins.  However, it is worth mentioning as a historical note. 

Like many church bodies, the Holiness Baptists were not immune from schisms and disagreements, and two of those occurred in the course of its history.  The most recent of those happened in 1977, which resulted in the formation of the Calvary Holiness Association.   This small fellowship of 14 congregations, centered around Broxton, GA, and similar in many ways doctrinally to its parent body, was formed in 1977 by disaffected members of the Holiness Baptists due to some confidence issues in the trustee committee of the parent body.  Its first moderator was a minister from one of the dissenting churches, Rev. James A. Harrell, and they based their campmeeting tabernacle in Broxton where they have a yearly meeting during the third week in July annually.   Although I have been unsuccessful in getting any print material on this body, they have recently gotten a fairly informative website online that has most of the information on their group available - it is at http://www.calvaryholiness-broxton.org/Home.  They have approximately 1000 members as well, and they are fairly active in fellowshipping with other conservative Holiness/Pentecostal groups, and have a considerable involvement in publications such as The Holiness Messenger, a widely-distributed periodical based out of Oklahoma that has a wide base of readership among many independent conservative Holiness/Pentecostal groups and fellowships (The Holiness Baptists, in particular the Wray, GA, congregation, also participate in this).

The Calvary Holiness Association campground tabernacle near Broxton, GA.

The second schism occurred in 1934, when Rev. Luther Turner(8 August 1888-7 September 1979), a Holiness Baptist evangelist based in Salem, FL, founded the Baptist Purity Association which is still based in Salem to this day.   Luther Turner, born near Abbeville, GA, was actually a colorful person and a dynamic preacher who had convictions over the Holiness Baptists using wine or grape juice in Communion - Turner had the conviction that only cold water should be used to represent the Blood of Christ, and he actually became pretty dogmatic on the issue, which became a defining principle of the Baptist Purity Association and its churches later.  Turner's daughter by his first marriage, Ida Gutierrez, self-published an excellent and heart-felt biography of  her father and his ministry entitled Sawdust Trail several years back that is well worth the read - it is a hard book to find, and I was thankful that her brother-in-law and current moderator of the Baptist Purity Association, Rev. Bobby Joe Hires, provided me a copy of it as well as with some other valuable materials for this research. 

The Baptist Purity Church in Salem, FL - headquarters church for the Association.

Dorms at the Baptist Purity Campground outside Salem.





Sermon booklet by Rev. Luther Turner

Rev. Luther Turner(1888-1979), founder of the Baptist Purity Association

The teachings that Luther Turner communicated through his abundant sermon material (Rev. Hires provided me with 2 books of his sermons for this research) can be summarized as follows:

1.  Water in communion instead of wine or juice.

2.  Eschewing consumption of alcohol, tobacco, soft drinks, tea, coffee, chocolate, and chewing gum.

3.  No movies or sports.

4.  Given the Missionary/Southern Baptist roots of both the Baptist Purity Association and its parent body, the Holiness Baptists, Turner also taught the eternal security of the believer in Christ.

5.  Divine healing was highly emphasized, and the use of doctors and conventional medicine was not forbidden but was strongly discouraged.

6.  A Holiness emphasis on sinless perfection, similar to that of other old-time Holiness/Pentecostal groups.

7.  Conservative dress - also along lines of similar Pentecostal/Holiness groups.

8.  Tongues taught as initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as alluded in Acts 2- same as other classical Pentecostals. 

The Baptist Purity Church is mildly Calvinistic, strictly Holiness, fully Pentecostal, and also premillenialist in eschatology, although premillenial in this case definitely is not synonymous with dispensationalist (many similarly-minded old-time Pentecostals were actually post-tribulational, and this seems to be what I understand as well the position of the Baptist Purity teachings on this).  That being said, the Baptist Purity Association, like the Holiness Baptists, is definitely both clearly Baptist and clearly Pentecostal.  And, that was one of the reasons I chose it as part of my project. 

The Baptist Purity Association is still very active today, although it is small in number.  It is primarily centered in north-central Florida, although there are two congregations in Georgia as well.   The stats I have from their 2007 Annual Report have them at 8 churches - 6 in Florida and two in Georgia - but no membership statistics as none are reported in their minutes, although I would estimate that they possibly have an estimated 2000 members total in all their congregations.   They are headquartered still in Salem, FL, where they have an annual campmeeting and quarterly association meetings.  They do even have a church fairly close to us, in Plant City, FL (Sharon Baptist Purity Church) which is pastored by their Association secretary, Rev. Richard Joyner.   Overall, they are actually a pretty fascinating group, and are definitely worth more consideration and study.



In 1966, a schism occurred in the Baptist Purity Association when two of its ministers, Rev. Charles Stephens (1933-2009) and Rev. Riley Pridgeon (1918-2007) chartered the Macclenny Holiness Revival Center Association (later shortened to Holiness Revival Center Association, or HRCA) just outside Jacksonville, FL.  According to a taped interview transcript of Rev. Pridgeon's testimony taken in 2001, the separation from the Baptist Purity Association was a cordial one, and for the most part, most of the doctrine and convictions of the HRCA are pretty much the same as the Baptist Purity Association.   Rev. Pridgeon and his late wife Josephine had a long and fruitful ministry that began in the 1940's, when both of them sang and preached throughout north Florida, and their efforts resulted in the planting of many congregations.   Often subsiding on fish and cabbage and living in tents (at one point, the Pridgeons had only milk and crackers to feed their baby), their road to ministry was a tough one, but it was rewarding for them (Luther Turner, founder of the Baptist Purity Association, also had a lot of early trials, as money was often scarce and they had to rely a lot of God's provision - I have heard this testimony many times from a number of great old-time ministers, and it is an inspiration to me personally).   Their testimony is actually a record of God's provision for them as they did what they believe God called them to do, and it is quite humbling to read things like this in lieu of the "superstar" status many seek today in ministry.   Rev. Stephens testimony is less documented at this point, but he also ministered for many years with his wife, Corliss, and at present she serves as a secretary for the HRCA.  Stephens' daughter, Michelle, is also the wife of the current HRCA moderator, Rev. Robert "Cricket" Watson, who also pastors the main church, Antioch Holiness Revival Center in Perry, FL, which Pridgeon was a founder.  In 1973, according to a letter I received from Rev. Watson giving me some background on the HRCA, the original charter was dissolved although a current charter was filed in 2009 with the State of Florida.  

The Holiness Revival Center Association today currently consists of three congregations - in Perry, FL; Steinhatchee, FL; and Macclenny, FL.   In the past there seems to have been more documented, including one that closed recently in Fitzgerald, GA, but despite the lack of numbers they persist as a fellowship still.   They hold an annual campmeeting in June at the Perry church, and each one of the congregations has its own homecoming service as well.   As of their 2010 Annual Reports, the HRCA lists a total Sunday School attendance at all three of its congregations at about 2,513 people, which for three churches is impressive.   Community outreach seems to be a major factor in these churches' ministries too, especially in Perry, FL, where their activities are very well-documented in the local papers there.   There is also some "correspondent" fellowship carried on with both the Baptist Purity Association as well as an independent fellowship, Full Gospel Assembly in Panacea, FL, pastored by Rev. B.B. Barwick.  It is not known whether there have been any schisms or daughter fellowships formed out of the HRCA, but this is a subject that definitely will be researched in the future. 

Antioch Holiness Revival Center in Perry, FL - headquarters church of the HRCA

Rev. Riley Pridgeon (1918-2007), one of the founders of the Holiness Revival Center Association

Rev. Robert "Cricket" Watson, current moderator of the Holiness Revival Center Association.

This pretty much gives the story thus far on these unique fellowships that form the legacy of the Holiness Baptists that started in south Georgia and north Florida in the late 1800's, and it is quite a legacy as will be that of many groups I will be documenting in the future.   The purpose of these articles and the project as a whole is to tell the story of these groups as a witness to their own interesting and unique heritages, and it is also meant to be more than a scholarly discourse (although it is hoped that scholars will take this material seriously).  I have come to know a number of these people personally, and they are decent, sincere people that really believe they are called to serve God in their respective ministries.  I am not going to say I see eye-to-eye doctrinally with everything these groups teach, and indeed that is not what this project is about, but they are definitely my brethren in Christ and I respect them as such.  As we continue this project, I will be sharing more with you later on other groups and fellowships that are equally unique and interesting, and you too will be enriched with the knowledge of those little "highways and hedges" churches and fellowships no one seems to have taken time to get acquainted with.  Some of you may live in areas where these churches are, and some of you may have even drove past one of their congregations.  Some may even have looked at the church sign and said "Hmmm...that looks interesting!  Baptist Purity; what is that?"  I have taken that basic curiosity, which I too have had, to a new dimension by getting to know the people that are part of that roadside church with the interesting name.   And, hopefully, this will encourage you to do the same, as it is a rewarding experience.  God bless until next time.

___________________________________________________________________________________

I want to take this time to acknowledge the people who have provided much of this information, as without them a project like this is not possible.  First, my thanks to Elder Philip Popwell, of the Antioch Holiness Baptist Church in Brunswick, GA, who provided me with copies of his Association's minutes many years ago.  Also, my appreciation to Rev. Bobby Hires of Salem, FL, for giving me an abundant wealth of printed material on the Baptist Purity Association and its founder, his father-in-law Rev. Luther Turner.  Finally, I acknowledge Rev. Robert "Cricket" Watson and his wife Michelle, who pastor the Antioch Holiness Revival Center in Perry, FL, and also have provided a wealth of information on the HRCA and on the ministry of Rev. Riley Pridgeon, one of its founders.   God bless and be with each of these individuals for their time and generosity.



Many Are Called, But Few Are Chosen - Some Thoughts.

Yesterday was the fourth Sunday of Lent, and the Epistle reading for the day in Mass (at least in the old Anglo-Catholic lectionary we use at our parish) was in Galatians 4:22-31.   Our priest gave a good homily on this passage, and it got me thinking about some things that I wanted to share here with you today. 

The passage in Galatians is a teaching the Apostle St. Paul gave to his readers about being "called" as opposed to being "chosen," and it centers around the story in Genesis dealing with the births of Isaac and Ishmael.   Ishmael, as the Apostle notes, was born of the flesh to a bondwoman, and thus was in bondage; Isaac though was born of the freewoman and a promise, and thus was the heir of freedom and life.   Reading this passage over the years, there are actually two dimensions to it, one being literal and tangible and the other conveying a spiritual truth through and allegorical interpretation of the verse, and both are correct.  The Bible, you must remember, is not a one-dimensional book, but is rather the written Word (LOGOS) of God Himself, and therefore it doesn't read like any other book.   It is multi-dimensional, for one thing, and one passage can rightly convey two different truths - no human author can do that.   And, this is one of those passages.  

The literal reading of this text is historical fact - there is an enmity between the two physical sons of Abraham and their descendants, the modern Arabs and Hebrews.  It is prophetic in that it aptly describes much of what we see in the Middle East today, and it establishes the divine right of the Hebrew nation to the geographical land of Israel.   The Arabs, the "sons of the bondwoman," are today under a greater bondage, that of the religion Islam.  And, this passage in Galatians says that he who is born of the flesh (Ishmael and the Arab nation) persecutes those born after the Spirit (Isaac and the nation of Israel), and even the text says that this persecution continues even now - have you read the newspaper lately?   To understand that further, we look at a passage in Genesis 16:12, which says that Ishmael shall be like a "wild ass," and that his hand will be against every man and every man's hand against him, as well as the fact that he shall dwell in the presence of his brethren (Israel).  God also says in the next chapter that the sons of Ishmael will have some blessings as well (oil maybe?).   in other words, Abraham and Sarah disobeyed God big-time when Sarah (the free woman) encouraged Abraham to "knock up" Hagar, the "bondwoman," and there has been strife since.   However, throughout most of history, until the seventh century AD, you never heard much about this until a demon-driven camel merchant in Arabia named Mohammed came into the picture, and then a religion called Islam was born that has driven the sons of Ishmael to behave like "wild men" and also has caused their hand to be against every man and every man's hand against them.  More could be said about that, but that is a whole other topic altogether for later.  The GOOD NEWS though is that Jesus Christ came, and through Him - a physical descendant of Isaac through his mother - many of us have become children of the Covenant, including a number of Ishmael's physical descendants - Arabs have been part of the Church since its earliest times, and through the Blood of Christ many of them have been incorporated into the Body of Christ, and thus made heirs to the promise.   Jesus breaks every curse and judgment for those who submit to Him and accept His gift of salvation, and that includes Arabs as well.   And, that leads us to the other truth in this passage.

There is a spiritual as well as a literal dimension to this passage as well, and it has to do with differentiating between two words, called and chosen.   The companion verse that backs this up is found in Matthew 22:14 - "many are called but few are chosen."  Over the years, this has been one of those verses that has created a lot of debate and issue due to misunderstanding of what it meant, and in order to understand it you have to have the passage in Galatians 4 mentioned above.   Our Calvinist friends have used this for centuries to support their doctrine of "limited atonement," or absolute predestinarianism, but this is not what the verse means at all.   If that were the case, there would be no need for the Great Commission in Matthew 28, because evangelism and missions would be futile - we are called to "make disciples of all nations," and also Jesus died as the Agnus Dei, the Lamb of God, for the sins of the whole world, and not just for a select few.   Therefore, it must be understood what this means, and to do that we go to the parable of the feast in Matthew 22:1-14, in other words, the story preceding the passage.  You all remember it well I would imagine - a rich man throws a party and invites all his friends, who beg off for various reasons.  So, although ticked off, he can't waste a good meal, so he has all these people brought in off the street to participate, but one is found without a garment and is thrown out.  The bad dresser aside (a whole other subject for another teaching), the point is that many are indeed invited to come to the table of the Lord, but few actually do.  And, now this is where it gets a little more involved.

When this concept of "chosen" is used, it is more or less in a covenant sense - the choosing goes both ways.  The Lord "calls" all of us, and He "chooses" those who "choose" to accept the call.   In other words, the "Chosen" are those who also make the choice to be chosen.   That, of course, is also a Biblical concept, as it has evolved between to Old Testament and the New - Abraham, for instance, was "chosen" because he chose to follow God, and thus, his bloodline became the conduit through which the Savior, Jesus Christ, brought salvation to everyone else in the world later.  Israel had no choice - because Abraham chose, the whole nation of his descendants, via his grandson Jacob, became a Chosen People (and still are, I might add).  When Jesus came along a few centuries later, something new happened - God had provided a way, through the Chosen, to call us (through Christ) to be chosen as well.   Does that nullify the Jews and their covenant?  Not at all - as a matter of fact, God hasn't forgotten natural Israel, as one day it will be grafted back into the Covenant by the same Jesus who grafted us in; in other words, they will be born again into the Kingdom just as we are, but it will happen in a more dramatic way according to the teachings of Scripture and the Church.  That is why that old worship chorus from years ago, "I Have Decided To Follow Jesus," is appropriate when it comes to this message - we choose to be Chosen!  We in essence also become "blood descendants" as well, because we are made chosen by Jesus' Blood.  Therefore, am I as a Christian a blood descendant of Abraham?  Absolutely - Jesus shed His blood for me on the cross!  I personally consider myself doubly-blessed though, as I am also a physical descendant of Abraham as a descendant of Anusim myself.  One day indeed, the whole thing is going to come together in such a way that ultimately all of us will be blood-bought who choose to accept the call of Christ.   This is a message you don't hear much in today's "Purpose-Driven" nonsense, and apostates like Joel Osteen are also ashamed of the message of the Blood of Jesus because it is "offensive" to them.  But, it is the Blood that makes us the Chosen of God, and only through the Blood is salvation possible.  Anyone ashamed of the Blood or the Cross is ashamed of their faith, and will not inherit salvation in Christ, because He plainly said that those who deny Him will be denied by Him - so, you "Purpose-Driven" people who think the Blood is too offensive to get you the big numbers to make you look good, take notice!  We who are of a sacramental/liturgical mindset are reminded of the Blood every Sunday - we partake of the Body and Blood of Jesus every time we receive the Eucharist, and His Real Presence is in those elements.   I have come to cherish the Cross and the importance of the Blood more so as a Catholic Christian in recent years than I have done throughout most of my Christian pilgrimage, and it has made my faith more alive and I understand better what that is about now.   And, I know now that I was chosen from the moment I said "yes" to Jesus when He called me to salvation 26 years ago in that little Baptist church in Rowlesburg, WV, when I was born again through the Blood of Jesus shed for me and by His Holy Spirit.  Thanks be to God for that too.

So much more could be said about this today, and indeed, the called/chosen subject is something that we as Christians need to understand in order to fully grasp what Jesus did for us all those years ago.  But, hopefully this will be something that will enlighten and encourage all who read this, and may you understand the Blood and its importance in the way Jesus chose you.   And, if you don't know this yet, Jesus has called you to be part of His Chosen - He has died for the sins of the world, and it is a gift that He, as the Agnus Dei, offers to us all.  However, the significance of a gift is not so much in its giving but in its acceptance by the recipient.  And, this is a gift you do not want to pass on, trust me - the alternative is not pretty, as you will die in your sins and spend eternity in eternal hell and separation from a God who loved you so much to even die for your sins.   You are called, but it is up to you to decide to be chosen - make sure today you make the right choice, because it is eternal.  God bless you until next time.