unholy (revised)

A couple of days ago, I published the original version of this essay, titled, "unholy."  With the publication of this revised version of that essay, I intend to remove from view, but still preserve in archival form, the former, that is the original, version.  I have not herein altered in any way the wording or content of the original version, except, only, I have added some important and relevant commentary in this revised version.  The added content is appended to the end of this essay, as there noted.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Look carefully, if you will, at the above photo.  That young woman's manner of dress and her personal appearance is actually considered, by a sizable number of professed Christians, to be inappropriate for a Christian woman!  So offensive is her dress and appearance, in fact, that she would actually be prevented, by leaders of some churches, from participating in certain activities within her own church ~ all in the name of "holiness."

Throughout the past few months, I've been attending a church that seems to care very much about personal holiness.  (I will hereafter refer to that church, euphemistically, as the Church of Right Conduct ~ or CRC, for short.)  In that church, much emphasis is placed upon the idea that Christians should exhibit "holiness" in their outward conduct.  Christians should behave in ways markedly different from the world of unsaved persons; which, the Church of Right Conduct refers to that as living a "set apart" life(style).  In principle, I would say that I agree with that idea.  Except, when one carefully examines how that the terms "holiness," and "set apart," respectively, are defined by that church.

What does the word "holy" mean?  How is that term defined?  It is explicitly defined by the text of the Bible: where the Word of God states, in many different places and ways, that God is holy.  Just as the Bible declares that "God is light," and "God is love:" in the exact same way are we given to understand what is "holy."  God is holy.  Whatsoever comports with God's character and will: that is holy.

Evidently, though, the good folks (and I mean that) at CRC understand "holiness" as something very different from what I understand the Bible to mean.  As a matter of fact, not only has that church expressed what it is they mean by those terms, "holiness" and "set apart," but they have done so in the context of having codified (instituted as law) their own, unique definition of those terms.

In a document titled, "Music for the Master" ~ which document includes a section titled, "Platform Standards," the Church of Right Conduct states (among other things):

"The goal of playing music or singing in the church is...to minister to the congregation.... Ministry is a privilege.  One earns this privilege by living an exemplary life....

"A platform is designed so that the congregation can see and hear those who [are on the platform].... It isn't just the music that sends a message to the congregation, it is how the musician/singer appears and acts.

"What goes on on the platform is a statement of what that church believes.  Our church believes that salvation leads to a separated [or, "set apart"] life.  Our platform should reflect that.

"Remember that the Choir loft is "holy ground." "

Throughout all of my Christian life, I have believed that the essential goal of playing music and singing spiritual songs (in church) was to minister, as a body, to the Lord.  In the course of which, the whole body of saints assembled is then edified by the Spirit of God, in response to the saints' worship.  But the Church of Right Conduct declared, as shown above, that the "goal of playing music or singing in the church is...to minister to the congregation."  In fact, according to the CRC, it is the purpose, of musicians and singers, to "send a message" to the congregation.

That "message" consists not only in what music is played and sung but, no less important, by means of the personal appearance of the musicians and singers.  That message, furthermore, is so important that a raised platform has been provided, which enables those who are "privileged" to be allowed on that platform to be better heard and seen, by those who are among the congregation.

And not just any ordinary platform has been provided for that purpose.  Indeed, even those who are privileged to be allowed on that platform are admonished (by the Church of Right Conduct) to consider that the platform ("Choir loft") itself is "holy ground."

Then, is everywhere else in that church unholy?

What is that ground whereupon stands the congregation of the Lord?  

In view of the fact that only a "privileged" few are allowed to stand upon the "holy ground," so they can then "send a message" to the congregation: What else can be inferred from such published statements and actual practice, except, that those who are among the congregation ~ who supposedly need to have a message sent to them ~ are not themselves worthy to stand upon the holy ground?

Why are "ordinary" Christians, at the Church of Right Conduct, not allowed to be on the platform?  And, to be sure, they are not.

They are not allowed on the platform, who do not expressly agree to comply with the CRC's 'code of right conduct' ~ as that is codified in the "Platform Standards;" some of which regulations are as follows (most are paraphrased, for conciseness):

MEN

• All shirt sleeves should at least reach to the elbow
• Tie is required for leaders
• Dress slacks required ~ no denim is allowed.
• No sports shoes (e.g., tennis shoes) are allowed.
• "Wedding and class rings allowed;" else, no jewelry
• Hair is not to be "over on ears or collar or eyebrows"

WOMEN

• No slacks or divided skirts
• Skirts should not have slits that reveal back or front of knees
• "No denim."
• "Hose should be worn at all times."
• No jewelry (except, wedding and/or class rings)
• "No color or feature accentuating make-up (Mascara, blush, etc.)"
• Sleeves should reach to the elbows 

At the end of the section titled "Platform Standards" for Women, there then follow three full pages describing "Guidelines for the Modest Woman."  Anyone can thus readily see that the young woman represented in the photo, above, is not a "modest woman."  Judging from her dress and appearance, she is not merely immodest but she is unholy (according to the Church of Right Conduct's codes).  For, she:

• is wearing denim;
• is not wearing hose;
• is not wearing shirt sleeves to her elbows;
• appears to be wearing a slight amount of makeup

Wicked Jezebel, she!  Such a woman should not ~ indeed, will not ~ be "privileged" to "minister," certainly not on the "holy ground" at CRC.

Christian women wear hose!  And holy men wear ties!  And no Christian should ever wear anything made of denim!  Tennis shoes?  Are you kidding me?  And what's that on your wrist? a watch?  Watches are not on the approved list!

Tragically, so many churches like CRC wonder why it is that they are losing their own youth; not even to mention the inability of such churches to draw others into their fellowship.  If the culture defined by the Platform Standards is "holiness," then why not join the Amish?  Their rules make the CRC's Platform Standards appear downright licentious, by comparison.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Where did the idea of "Platform Standards" come from?  Scripture  nowhere suggests that anything resembling an elevated platform should be utilized in the churches, or in any way in the service of God.  Of course, the use of platforms is not inherently objectionable.  Unless ~ as, in fact, it is the case, that the use of such becomes something which creates a sort of class distinction between “ministers” and “lay persons.”  Allowing only certain persons to be on the platform implies that they are somehow more spiritual or holier than “ordinary” members in the church ~ who, for reasons explicitly related to the Platform Standards, they are not allowed on the platform during services.

Since there is no Scriptural warrant nor justification for instituting anything like "Platform Standards," there is then no Scriptural authority for imposing the same.  The Bible does not give to any church leader(s) the right to dictate how that Christian persons must dress, in order to be used of God in the ministry of the body of Christ, that is to say, in the assembly of saints.  The Bible reveals that every child of God has the capacity (by virtue of the indwelling Spirit of Christ) to contribute something of spiritual value, in the assembly.  The Bible furthermore insists that every  Christian should have the liberty to minister his or her respective spiritual gift(s), whensoever the saints are assembled together.

Instead, CRC's Platform Standards have a powerful effect to limit ministry opportunities to include only those who are allowed on the platform, and to suppress practically all other manifestations of (the Holy Ghost’s) ministry that should otherwise be expressed amongst the congregation; with very few exceptions.  Of course, I do not mean that the assembly should become a freewheeling, Charismatic circus.  But I do mean that those Platform Standards engender certain expectations in the minds of everyone in the church; which expectations are alien to the doctrines and the spirit of the New Testament.  In other words, the institution of those Platform Standards ~ together with the stated and implied philosophy related to the platform and the regulations pertaining to its use, creates a certain culture within the church, which culture is schismatic.

All professing Christians should, of course, be instructed in godliness.  That's why we have the Word of God.  Beyond the clear instructions of Scripture, though, questions of dress and/or appearance can and should be addressed discretely, on a case by case basis, in the event that some individual may demonstrate either a lack of understanding, or (God forbid!) a lack of concern, for the counsel of Scripture.

What purposes are the Platform Standards intended to serve?  The stated purpose of the Platform Standards is to “send a message to the congregation” of (what constitutes) “a set apart life.”  Such practice, however, suggests that those who are among the congregation are not living a “set apart life;” else, why are they barred from serving on the platform?  The practice furthermore suggests that those who are allowed on the platform are those who do live “a set apart life;” the proof of which is their manner of dress and appearance.

Yet, I have certain knowledge that many if not most of those who regularly appear on the platform at CRC do not dress according to the Platform Standards at all other times.  Are they really, then, living “a set apart life?”  Or are they living a set apart life ~ albeit, only when they are on the platform?  So, are Christians allowed to dress one way when amongst the world, but they must dress differently when in the church?  Is that what constitutes “a set apart life?”  Is that true holiness?  Nevertheless, except they conform to certain draconian rules involving dress when they are in the church, then they are not allowed to minister from the platform ~ nay, they may not even so much as stand upon the “holy ground.”  What else is such policy and practice, if it is not hypocrisy?  And what else is that, but leaven in the church?

I have occasionally observed, furthermore, that the Platform Standards have not been consistently enforced, at CRC.  There have been numerous instances when that some have appeared on the platform, who were not in compliance with those Standards.  To make those Standards a condition for service; but, then, to inconsistently and prejudicially enforce those Standards: promotes not unity in the church but, rather, division or, at least, discord.

I know, too, how that my own children have been hurt and confused because the Church of Right Conduct insists on imposing the Platform Standards, as a requirement for their participation in the youth choir.  When I discussed that question with those whom, I was told, their approval is required, I was informed that: 1) my children are "not ready" to be on the platform; and, 2) their participation in the youth choir is conditional upon my (our) endorsement of, and commitment to, the Platform Standards.

But that judgment, concerning my children's "readiness;" as well as those stipulations involving the Platform Standards: not only impugns my children's Christian character.  But that judgment and those conditions, furthermore, implicate the Christian character, as well as the maturity of judgment, of both my wife and me.  Are not we Christian ‘enough’ to determine whether our children are “ready” to serve the Lord with their life and spiritual gifts?  And does our standard of holiness, regarding our children’s manner of dress and appearance, not measure up to the Church of Right Conduct's standards?  Are we then using different Bibles?  Or are we, perhaps, not the sort of Christians that that church wants to have fellowship with?

To be sure, there is something unholy going on at the Church of Right Conduct.  But it has nothing to do with the fact that my children and I sometimes wear bluejeans; or, that my wife and daughter wear makeup; or, that my teenaged son's hair touches his ears.

Rather, it is unholy to break a young girl's heart, by forbidding her participation in the church youth choir.  It is unholy to make a new family ~ which doesn't quite measure up to some arbitrary standards of "holiness," to feel like second-rank members in the church.  It is unholy to respect manmade traditions, especially, when those have been shown (which they have even before now been shown) to hinder the will of God and the working of His Spirit in the church.

And I am sure that it is not only the good folks at CRC who desperately need to hear and to consider these truths.

You might want to take one more, good, long look at the young lady in the above photo ~ and think about how she probably feels about not being allowed to sing in the church choir, because of the way she looks.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(The following was not included in the original version)

In the earliest days of the nascent Church, there arose a very important debate amongst the Apostles and elders of the Church who had gathered together in a great conference with the Church in Jerusalem, for the express purpose of determining the mind and the will of God concerning Gentile converts.  The substance of that ground-breaking, apostolic convention is recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts; the full text of which appears, below:

"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.  When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.  And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.  And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.  But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 

"And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.  And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.  And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.  Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?  But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. 

"Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.  And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon [Peter] hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.  And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.  Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.  Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.  For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. 

"Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they [all the Apostles assembled] wrote letters by them after this manner; 

• "The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.  For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. 

"So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation."    (Acts 15:1-31)

No plainer case can possibly be made, than that which the Holy Ghost caused to be recorded for ever in the text of Scripture, as shown above.  Having re-read that passage of Scripture, I feel the fire of God burning in my soul ~ not against any individuals, mind you, but against those hurtful policies and practices which I have herein contended against.

The text of Scripture, above, clearly reveals that the policy and practice, of those who sought to impose upon other Christians not even some arbitrarily concocted set of rules but, in fact, elements of the law of Moses! ~ such policy and practice was condemned not only by the "apostles and elders, with the whole church," in the letter they sent to the Gentile Christians but, most important, by the Holy Ghost Himself!  I said that such policy and practice was "condemned" by the Holy Ghost; because, the Holy Ghost evidently concurred with the judgment of the whole church in council, as expressed in that letter: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost," so says the Word of God.  Importantly, that judgment characterized the practice, of those ~ who tried to impose their own conception of "righteousness" as a set of rules, upon other Christians ~ as having "troubled" the minds of those Christians, yea, even of having had the effect of "subverting [their] souls."

It is no small matter, which I have addressed in this essay.  Yet, I am no one to be accounted of, as if my rebuke amounts to a hill of beans.  But I'm merely pointing to the fact, that the Lord Himself, in His Word, has rebuked such policies and practices! as I have herein explained.
I noted, with great interest, that the Gentile Christians (above referenced) "rejoiced for the consolation" which they received by reason of the apostles' letter, which relieved those Gentile Christians from the misguided will and the hurtful practices of their oppressors.
- - - - - - -The original manuscript of the Constitution of the United States consists in four handwritten pages.  Think about that for a moment: a four-page document has served, for the past 230 years, as the ideological and legal foundation for this great nation and society called the United States of America.  Is that document, then, insignificant?
Likewise, it were a very grave mistake indeed, for anyone to suppose that the 'Church of Right Conduct's' eight-page document (which includes their "Platform Standards") is a trifle.  That document has long served, albeit presumptuously, as the ideological and legal (though it is not legal) foundation for the society and culture of the Church of Right Conduct: which culture is offensive and hurtful in numerous ways.

Doubtless some will object that the Bible, and not the Platform Standards document, is the foundation of the Church of Right Conduct.  But that objection cannot altogether be true; for, it has been proved ~ as this essay explains, that the Platform Standards document is not in agreement with the clear teaching of Scripture but, rather, that document seeks to enforce policies and practices which are explicitly condemned in the Bible.
Thus, so long as the Platform Standards remain in force at the Church of Right Conduct, it cannot be true that the Word of God is revered as the supreme authority in that church.

I have learned, too, that others (plural) besides myself ~ even "years ago" ~ have sought to expose and renounce the CRC's Platform Standards policies and practices, as being contrary to the Word and will of God.

The situation is far worse than even I, at first, supposed....