Every year it seems I end up talking to some student about a faith crisis they're in because someone from the UPC is evangelizing them. I wrote a little on this last year (it's on my archive site www.kenschenck.com). I may actually write up a formal response sometime--this isn't it.
Today I just want to make it clear what bugs me about the UPC.
First, I like the people I know in it. I think they're good people. They're vibrant. Indeed, the main attraction of the church that there's something going on there. And then there's the certainty both of what they believe and about what is true in general. In an uncertain world of grey, that's a plus.
Second, the fact that they speak in tongues doesn't bug me. Tongues is a pan-religious phenomenon that has been around forever. We have literature that indicates some ancient Jews spoke in tongues. There are Muslims who speakin tongues. And of course many Christians speak in tongues. I would never accuse someone of being demon possessed for speaking in tongues.
Acts clearly sanctions tongues, particularly understood as speaking in other languages that one hasn't studied. Bill Faupel, who used to be a librarian at Asbury, did his doctoral dissertation on how the individuals in Topeka in 1901 who mark the beginnings of the modern charismatic movement 1) were holiness folk seeking the Pentecostal blessing understood as a second work of entire sanctification and 2) thought that they were speaking in human languages. Evidently many of them actually went to foreign countries thinking that they would be able to spread the gospel to them because of their experience of tongues. Of course they failed miserably.
Paul addresses tongues as a problem in the Corinthian church (they don't even make his list of spiritual gifts in Romans 12 where tongues is not at issue, an indication that tongues was not high on Paul's list of priorities). He says not to forbid speaking in tongues--note the trajectory he is moving in: away from tongues but don't forbid, not toward tongues but don't promote. In the flow of that argument 14:1 is a continuation of 12:31, which indicates that prophecy is a "greater gift" while tongues is one he is not saying to eagerly desire.
I'm getting off topic. My goal was not to "put the gift of tongues in its place," although this is my attempt at an objective assessment of tongues. Tongues simply is not a major emphasis of the New Testament and the New Testament would not look the way it does if a Pentecostal had written its books. It's easy to get lost in an exegetical forest of interpreting individual verses. Indeed, the exegetical ethos of our circles fosters a spirit of "reading into the text."
I'll be the first to admit up front that my holiness background did exactly the same thing. But there is no single place in the entire Bible where the "second work of grace, entire sanctification doctrine" is laid down the way I heard it preached growing up. If a holiness preacher of my background had written the New Testament, it would not look the way it does. I step back and conclude that there is some myopia at work here.
But the speaking in tongues does not bother me. I truly believe that those who speak in tongues are experiencing God and how can that be anything other than a blessing, to have such a clear moment of divine engagement. Those with the gift are truly blessed in this regard. No better and definitely not more spiritual, but blessed. I can live easily with this feature of the UPC.
Third, I can live with their heretical views of the Trinity. I'm a proto-Pentecostal as we've said, so I'm more interested in the heart than the head. If God always corrected everyone's head then all Christians would believe the same thing. They don't.
Of course this group thinks all Christians think the same way. But in effect this leads them to believe that the only true Christians were the original church and members of their church since the early 1900's. I'm sure just on the percentage of human beings whose head is hard wired for tongues that a certain percentage of all humans speak in tongues at any one point in history. So we know there have been Christians in all times who have spoken in tongues (and Buddhists and members of mystery cults in ancient Greece).
BUT, we don't know of any Christians who were modalists who spoke in tongues, let alone who were baptized in the name of Jesus only, until the early 1900's.
Similarly, as a New Testament scholar I can say they're going the wrong direction with regard to the New Testament. The debate in the NT is whether the early Christians even believed Jesus to be divine in the same way as God the Father. The debate is not whether Jesus and God the Father are different individuals. It is not until the late 200's that modalism emerges as one potential solution to how Jesus and God the Father can both be God.
This puts them in the strange position of being the only Christians in the history of Christianity who are going to heaven.
But I can live with their head being a little off.
Fourth, it doesn't bother me that they think I'm not a Christian. I understand how religious ideas work. I know it's not personal. I'm sure that some of them think they're "holier than thou" but I bet the best of them aren't. There's nothing wrong with believing you're right. The logical consequences are that I'm wrong and not on my way to heaven.
But I can live with that, because I know I am. The Spirit bears witness with my Spirit that I am a child of God. And of course, as usual, there is no mention of tongues in 1 John (or John, or Matthew, or Mark, or Luke, or 2 Corinthians, or ....), so I will only conclude that this verse involves tongues if I bring that idea to the text with me. The Bible doesn't say it.
So I can live with them saying I'm on my way to hell.
Fifth, what really bugs me is the faith crisis they throw others into who aren't as sure as I am. And that's why I feel the need to put the group into proper perspective at some point. What do you call a group that stands outside the historic faith of the church as a twentieth century off shoot of a historical movement particular to its time that doesn't know how to read Scripture in context and thinks only its members are Christians. You call it a cult.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
You keep saying that you don't have a problem with points A,B,and C, but don't you think that those are the very things which throw people into a faith crisis? If you're not going to fault the UPC for their heretical views, then you can't really fault them for living them out either. Feel free to disagree.
Well, put it under the category of what really bugs me. Aspects of what precedes bugs me too, just not as much.
P.S. I think my buggeredness by the other things was surely not so thinly veiled.
wow... i don't believe I've ever heard you be that strong toward a group before ... I do say that you have compelling thoughts with it.
So here's my question ... whith those arguments particularly--"What do you call a group that stands outside the historic faith of the church as a twentieth century off shoot of a historical movement particular to its time that doesn't know how to read Scripture in context and thinks only its members are Christians. You call it a cult--
where would you place the "church of christ"?
Aaron, I don't know all the particulars of the Church of Christ--I always find these groups confusing (Christian Church, Church of Christ, instrumental, Church of Christ, non-instrumental, etc...). Isn't the main quirk that if you aren't baptized in their church (which they deny is a denomination, it is just the Church of Christ, period) you're not saved? I would say they're cult-ish, maybe slightly more orthodox than the UPC. You and others might know the formal definition of a cult better than I do, but I think "everyone who isn't a part of my church is going to hell" is one of the clues.
I've met some really nice people who were in bondage to a cult like the UPC...but they are still a cult. Like the Mormons though they are a "Christian cult"--but cult nonetheless. And, like all cults they are an engaging minority that recruits the weak and unstable by telling them they are not christian if they are not in their cult speaking in tounges and baptised thiir ows special way. It is a baloney group at best, and a dangrous anti-Christ cult at worst.
ooh ooh could someone please run with Drury's thinking and blog on a "Christian cult." Let's define it, that could be rather fun I think. Then again, my brain is fried this week from trying to figure out this whole Greek Participles thing so my humor may not be all that humorous to anyone else at this point.
Here's some definitions from a few sources.
(1)Cult--adherents of an EXCLUSIVE system of religious beliefs and practices (wordnet.princeton.edu)
(2)Cult-- In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. (wikipedia)
(3)Cult--Merriam-Webster points out that it comes from the Latin word that simply means "strong adoration."
Problem is, I think most of any religious group with any kind of hard claim to truth would fall into these categories.
I don't think my fellow peers and professors would be as ok as you are with their incorrect thinking. That's because correct doctrine gets you to heaven right? Do you think the UPC draws a certain type of people? People who 1. think they have to be right (fight the postmodern world!) 2. People who like to exclude others different than themselves 3. People who read the NT, picking and emphasizing certain passages to suite their ideologies. <-- that's what I think, but then again I was trained not to read the Bible that way.
I was getting really excited at the end, I thought you were going to call them something else besides a "cult." I'll say it, but I am probably going to far, and people are going to be mad at me but...I think their heretics.
Thought provoking post. While I certainly can not defend the positions of the UPC, I don't quite agree with your depiction of the tongues issue in general. Some time ago, I wrote my own viewpoint concerning this gift. You can find it, if interested, at the following url: http://pastorburt.lifewithchrist.org/permalink/21103
Ahh the UPC. O fall cults they are my favorite. They never come to my door, they don't wear nametags, and are generally the nicest people you could want to meet. As for the kind of people who are drawn to this "church", I think it's people who have a hard time with grey issues and options. They want a simple, straight forward approach and they have no aversion to rules.
I am not sure if this applies to the UPC (or just the Pentecostal churches I have experienced in the past) but I think we are missing something on the "who gets sucked into this?" question:
Many of the fringe of "normalcy" tend to flock to Pentecostal churches. In one church I have attended several times, there congregation members have not turned into being a little more radical and on the edge...they were that way when they go there. These churches tend to attract those who are accepted elsewhere. If someone has a charismatic (and perhaps even fanatic) bent to them, they tend to be shunned out of good theological places. Pentecostal churches turn into holding pens for these type of people, who just want to be accepted. In the midst of acceptance, they slowly FUSE (IWU buzzword of this weekend) with bad theology.
This is not the case with every UPC member I am sure. But I bet it happens.
John-
You're not going to far when you call them heritics because that's what it is. Granted so are some other "more accepted" beliefs in the American church (cough 5 pointers cough). I think that being called a cult is a much stronger statement than being called a heritic. Bounds gave me a red H on my chest every other week ;-).
Mike-
I think that the most important word you used there was exclusive. I think hardline conservative Christian groups, the Church of Christ, and the UPC can all fall into this if not careful.
Dr. Drury-
I agree so are there any other prominate groups that you would put into this "christian cult? Or are there other groups who look like they could slide that way?
Post a Comment