Could Apostolic become the Obamas' permanent church?
June 16, 2008
MARY MITCHELL marym@suntimes.com
If Barack and Michelle Obama are shopping for a new church home, Apostolic Church of God must be on their short list.
On Sunday, members of Apostolic greeted the Obamas with an outpouring of affection despite the backlash two other prominent Chicago ministers associated with Obama have endured.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee delivered a "tough-love" Father's Day speech to an overflow audience that filled the balcony and spilled into adjacent meeting halls.
"If we are honest with ourselves, too many fathers are also missing. Too many fathers are MIA. Too many fathers are AWOL . . . missing from too many lives and from too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, and they are acting like boys instead of men," Obama said.
"Coming from a man's man; coming from our community; coming from someone who could talk about his own father, he was the best man for the job," said Donald Sturges, who is a father.
"I was inspired. I was motivated."
Rousing welcome
The congregation seemed to take all the hoopla of metal detectors and the media throng in stride.
In an introduction that touched on the broad themes of the Obama campaign, Bishop Arthur Brazier, who recently retired as senior pastor and turned the reins of the church over to his son, gave Obama a rousing welcome.
"He's a man who has given all of his adult life to helping people. He is concerned about the poor. He is concerned about the working man. He is a true patriot, and he has done something in this country that I thought I would never see," Brazier said.
"I am filled with emotion because I have lived through some very tough times in America, but the America today is not the America of yesteryear, and I don't think it behooves us well to keep talking about the past," he said.
Brazier, who drew heated criticism from political activists in the past for his support of Mayor Daley over black challengers, is a sharp contrast to Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and even the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Catholic Church.
Part of living history
Both Wright and Pfleger got caught in an unflattering media spotlight after harsh remarks they made about race ended up on YouTube and as fodder for Obama's opponents.
Brazier, who transformed a large swatch of Woodlawn through a redevelopment company that built affordable homes in the area, pointed out that while the "struggle" goes on, "America is a great country."
In his speech, Obama used his slow start among black voters to illustrate a point about parenting.
"It was interesting how many people would say, 'Barack we love you, man . . . but we just don't think a black man can be elected president.' We had already defeated ourselves before we got started," he said.
Not anymore.
Waunetka Clark brought her 10-year-old son, Demarcus, to see living history.
"One day he can tell his children and his grandchildren that he was part of this defining moment," she said.
Source (http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/1007812,CST-NWS-mitch16.article)
ACOG Site (http://www.acog-chicago.org/)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't remember if we discussed Obama's speech when it happened, but I've only lately started hearing rumours (unsubstantiated) that ACOG might be one of the churches the Obama's make their home after their messy splity with Trinity.
For those unfamiliar with ACOG, it belonged to the PAW for many years, until recently. It baptizes in Jesus name and preaches Spirit infilling. Bishop Brazier is one of the leaders, though, who advocated more dialogue with Trinitarian pastors, including invitations to speak, and also held to a doctrinal position of eternal security. My limited understanding is that the church is quite active in Chicago and similar in stature and influence to Trinity there. Also, I believe Obama is friends with Bishop Brazier, and I know that Brazier supports his candidacy.
Still...it's interesting at the least. Assuming Obama will win (which isn't a lock, but is looking more likely) the presidency, of all the presidents in my lifetime, the two who have had the strongest connection to the Apostolic movement have been Bill Clinton and now, perhaps, Barack Obama.
Interesting, yes. Hmmm....
n/a
He can go to an Apostolic church, but that doesn't make him an Apostolic. But, even if there was a Holy Ghost filled, Jesus Name baptized politician running, that doesn't necessarily mean that he'd be a good President. People who are idiots before they get the Holy Ghost are still idiots afterwards; they're just saved idiots.
Quote from: HolinessPK on July 11, 2008, 10:07:54 PM
Many guys have beards and mustaches, including the pastor and bishop.
:yikes:
You're kidding - beards and mustaches??!!! And they would dare to even call themselves Christians....
/me passses through whistling trying his best to behave..
I secretly think he thought being associated with a church would win him political points until the preacher started shooting off his mouth. Now he's goin' to some other church to make points. Don't put a lot of store in someone attending church because most of the polticians we hear really aren't fully true believers. Just another thing to try to win voters.
A while back, I decided to grow a mustache. I liked it - as a matter of fact, almost everyone but my wife liked it.
In May, I went of Family Leave @ work due to the imminent birth of our son. Due to my work schedule, I hadn't been able to attend church much for several months. I showed up on Wednesday night after starting my leave and was standing in the foyer talking with a couple of the men when one lady showed up and asked me, "What is that on your lip?"
Well, ask a stupid question and I'll give a flippant remark. I replied, "I was working around the house the other day, making a few repairs, when I punched a hole in the ceiling and some dust fell out, landed on my face, and now I can't wash it off and it seems to be growing." :hypocrite:
She looked at me incredulously and said, "Now you're not only going to hell for that mustache, but you're going to hell for lying, too!"
Of course, a lot of people simply rely on what they have been told for generations, NEVER stopping to look for themselves in the Bible to see if facial hair is forbidden (it's not).
BenJammin
Quote from: BenJammin on July 12, 2008, 03:07:49 PM
A while back, I decided to grow a mustache. I liked it - as a matter of fact, almost everyone but my wife liked it.
:clap2: :clap: For your wife! I don't like facial hair. It DOES look ok on some, but as long as I don't have to hug or kiss it, that's fine with me.
I think the facial hair thing came about in the 60's because of the hippies being so rebellious and church folk weren't to look rebellious. That's no longer an issue, so I don't have a problem with it. 'Cept what I already said.
Quote from: titushome on July 11, 2008, 11:37:34 PM
Quote from: HolinessPK on July 11, 2008, 10:07:54 PM
Many guys have beards and mustaches, including the pastor and bishop.
:yikes:
You're kidding - beards and mustaches??!!! And they would dare to even call themselves Christians....
*smothers a laugh*
:beret:
.?
Neither one. Being Jews, they would have been circumcised at eight days old. Paul had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16.
A year or so ago I was working nights at work, so I was away from the bosses, so I let my beard grow out...when I went home I had a nice goatee..my wife loved it. If it ever becomes acceptable in the UPCI or WPF, whatever I'm in, I'll be the first to become a fur-bearing Pentecostal.
And then later Paul went on how circumcision is nothing and isn't necessary. There is a time and a place to do or refrain for the sake of other(s). But that is not all the time. Some are simply sinning happily and blame others for it. Some choose to be offended cause their carnality is pacified.
If Suzie wears sandles and Bob is lustful over her feet, who's fault is it? Suzie is not going to stand before God and He tell her she'd make except she showed her toes/ankles around Bob. No. You can't give eternal life to anyone, nor can you rob them of it. They freely recieve or deny it. We should be careful not to offend and we should not be easily offended. It amazes me that when you are trying your best to live for God and are in the Holy Ghost, you rarely are offended; what's that say about those who are so offended? Because we war not against flesh and blood. So Suzie cannot be the stumbling block for Bob, his lust is. And I wish folks would stop trying to justify their flesh and just stinkin' overcome their own sins. Cause we can do ALL things through Christ... When we're doing that, every one is accountable, but there is Balance. But if it's not in the Bible (ie: anti-facial hair) then it doesn't hold up as offending someone, they have sin they need to deal with. On the same token, if it's not profitable, sin or not, why do it? Recreation is profitable, art is profitable, fellowship is profitable, is facial hair? I don't know. My hubby would say yes. :freaky2:
Who can separate us from God? only ourselves.
If your brother has a firm conviction against something, I think that it is good to abstain from such thing while in his presence. If you know about his conviction, and yet intentionally do it around him, that shows a problem in your heart. Within reason, I think we should acomodate each others convictions.
Quote from: SippinTea on July 12, 2008, 08:29:19 PM
Quote from: titushome on July 11, 2008, 11:37:34 PM
Quote from: HolinessPK on July 11, 2008, 10:07:54 PM
Many guys have beards and mustaches, including the pastor and bishop.
:yikes:
You're kidding - beards and mustaches??!!! And they would dare to even call themselves Christians....
*smothers a laugh*
:beret:
I know huh... they're actually choosing to be like Jesus in terms of their facial hair? Noooo - we can't have THAT!!
Facial hair in the UPC in Australia is a non issue. There are many ministers there with beards or goatees.
I find the whole thing pretty ridiculous ;)
Quote from: dnr1128 on July 13, 2008, 04:51:17 AM
a problem in your heart.
I can't judge another's heart. However, sometimes the fruit they show make it blatantly obvious what their motive and thoughts are. Example: on the new EA site, a guy links to me right off the bat. I don't know him and am not sure why he did. I go visit his page and he's got a pic of himself in knee-length shorts and there is also an article he wrote defending it. It's pretty obvious he's trying to "prove" something and get others to agree with him so he'll feel justified. I feel the same about many who wear facial hair. They get so stinking defensive about it. :roll:
Are shorts and facial hair wrong? Yes......
WHEN the heart is corrupt, they are. When does the heart get corrupt? When we disobey the man (pastor) we've supposedly submitted ourselves to who asks his flock not to do these things, when we are out to prove a point to others who don't do and/or wear such things.....and the list can go on.
Quote
Within reason, I think we should acomodate each others convictions.
The best attitude and posts on this topic I've seen. Thanks, dnr!!
Quote from: nicolejoy on July 13, 2008, 09:20:00 AM
I know huh... they're actually choosing to be like Jesus in terms of their facial hair? Noooo - we can't have THAT!!
You're kidding, right? When's the last time you met a man with facial hair who was wearing it "to be like Jesus"?? :laughhard:
i think whatever our opinion of obama is, he's going to be our next president. he's making all sorts of history. we will never know him as an individual man, but as the first black president.
regardless of his depth of conviction in an apostolic sense, the church in the article is doing something to change their city. they are practicing what Jesus commanded us to do as a church.
all my long hair and skirts won't change the crime in my city if i keep it in the four walls of the holy sanctuary. a church that gets in the streets and changes a violent, crime infested neighborhood is going to please God more, regardless of what they are wearing.
all that said, a president who wants to make changes to the things that are wrong in this country NEEDS to be connected to a church that is teaching fundamental principals. he can make a HUGE difference to a generation of young men just learning how to be a father and a leader.
i haven't decided to vote for him, but i am not sure i will vote against him, either.
.
I feel the need to (agreeably) disagree with our Lovely Lady Bapka, Newkris: Not only do I not think Sen Obama being elected is a foregone conclusion, but I think it's becoming, at the moment, anyway, DEcreasingly likely he will be elected.
I think his movement to the center in the last week or two, combined with some fairly obvious waffling, is hurting him with his base.
He's never going to get some conservative and even moderate votes, IMO, no matter how much courting he does. He MIGHT be able to hack off enough former Hillary supporters, or his own base with moving to the center, that they stay home election day.
Church-going visits in election years impress me not: if he starts regulalry attending an Apostoilic church, that would be great news.
In the case of Sen Obama and his former pastor Wright, I don't think you can sit under a pastor 20 years, make him your campaign's spiritual advisor, and yet have nothing to do with the basic tenets the man preaches.
YMMV
John :waving:
If I were a betting man, I'd be putting money on Obama. He's more than likely to be the next president. Essentially this is a do-over of the 1996 election between Dole and Clinton; a young, charasmatic dem versus an older, politically established war hero. With his mantra of "change", whatever that means, Obama appeals to the current sentiment of frustration with politics in general. Most people just don't have the critical thinking ability to ask "what kind of change are we talking about".
There is more bible FOR facial hair than AGAINST it. But, that doesn't delete the principles of Christian liberty that Paul very clearly espoused. Unfortunately, those in the fellowship who are more liberal tend to enjoy flaunting their "liberty" in the face of those who are more conservative, and expect the latter to merely tolerate them, even put up with the liberals ignoring the majority opinion in favor of their pet resolution. I digress. lol The basic principle is this: If my brother has a conviction that I don't share, I DO NOT have license to flaunt my liberty in his face. God expects me to respect his conviction enough to temper my behavior and actions while in his presence.
Quote from: yosemite on July 12, 2008, 10:12:15 PM
facial hair is not wrong unless it offends someone, then it is wrong!! so i'll have to agree with holinesspk. wasnt it peter that had himself circumcised so that he would not offend or was it paul?
oh dear god - you just offended me. so are you going to go to hell now?
maybe it depends on one's experience, which way they see the same coin. I haven't yet met anyone who flaunts facial hair or shorts for that matter, not sure I know church folks personally that wear shorts though.
I have seen the opposite, lots of sinful, lustfulness being justified by the "I can't help it, so and so is causing me to stumble." And then a ridiculous amount of "standards" so that others are 'protected from temptation.' :roll: Since when does some one else CAUSE us to sin? When did sin stop being a choice and become a forced action by outside influence, reguardless of the fact that we have the very Spirit of Him that overcame sin?
I agree, to be mannered, considerate of other's beliefs, but my point was and always will be -balance. Otherwise our salvation turns into accomodating others instead of pleasing God.
exactly mellowyellow. and instead of truly being happy in this life, we find ourselves miserable, because we are constantly living other people's ideals instead of our own god given desires.
.
.
IMO, the banning of facial hair is part of the 'traditions of men'.
God created a man to have a beard. This does not appreciatively differ from the 'bit missing' after circumcision - God also created men whole in that regard - and both have to do with maleness, yet one of them differs significantly in that removing it symbolized a man's separation unto God (or 'holiness' if you will) from the lust of the flesh.
The other one is a sign to the public that a person is indeed male. One does not have to do anything to grow one other than be male. Men are not born with the ability to grow jewelry, or to manifest women's clothing, nor any of the other things forbidden by scripture. Nor are they born with a razor in hand.
One of them exists above the collar line, too - so unless one is suggesting that men should wear a 'beard veil' to keep people from being offended...
Second, the practice of scraping one's face bare did not originate with the Hebrews. In the Middle Eastern region, it was popularized by the Romans, who borrowed it from the Greek culture they so admired.
The Greeks were notorious for sexual perversions, it was a stereotype of the day, pointed out by the Roman satiricist Juvenal.
Therefore I postulate that growing a beard is more in keeping with God's plan for males than scraping the face bare to appear younger.
I am offended when people get offended by beards.
.
We are wandering into standards issues which is a :nono: We tried politely to guide the conversation back to the issue, which is Did Obama turn Apostolic?
.
Quote from: Tsalagi on July 14, 2008, 12:14:37 AM
IMO, the banning of facial hair is part of the 'traditions of men'.
God created a man to have a beard. This does not appreciatively differ from the 'bit missing' after circumcision - God also created men whole in that regard - and both have to do with maleness, yet one of them differs significantly in that removing it symbolized a man's separation unto God (or 'holiness' if you will) from the lust of the flesh.
The other one is a sign to the public that a person is indeed male. One does not have to do anything to grow one other than be male. Men are not born with the ability to grow jewelry, or to manifest women's clothing, nor any of the other things forbidden by scripture. Nor are they born with a razor in hand.
One of them exists above the collar line, too - so unless one is suggesting that men should wear a 'beard veil' to keep people from being offended...
Second, the practice of scraping one's face bare did not originate with the Hebrews. In the Middle Eastern region, it was popularized by the Romans, who borrowed it from the Greek culture they so admired.
The Greeks were notorious for sexual perversions, it was a stereotype of the day, pointed out by the Roman satiricist Juvenal.
Therefore I postulate that growing a beard is more in keeping with God's plan for males than scraping the face bare to appear younger.
I am offended when people get offended by beards.
you know? sometimes . . . i just love you. *smile* you rock.
If everyone had dnr's attitude, they wouldn't have to justify offending their brother.
Thumbs up again, dnr!! :great:
Quote from: Tsalagi on July 14, 2008, 12:14:37 AM
God created a man to have a beard. This does not appreciatively differ from the 'bit missing' after circumcision - God also created men whole in that regard - and both have to do with maleness, yet one of them differs significantly in that removing it symbolized a man's separation unto God (or 'holiness' if you will) from the lust of the flesh.
The other one is a sign to the public that a person is indeed male. One does not have to do anything to grow one other than be male.
Interesting, Tsalagi. But, I have to ask: since circumcision
was something that symbolized "
man's separation unto God (or 'holiness' if you will) from the lust of the flesh", why would a beard not also be something that
used to be used to identify a person as a man?
Quote from: OGIA on July 14, 2008, 02:06:09 AM
If everyone had dnr's attitude, they wouldn't have to justify offending their brother.
Thumbs up again, dnr!! :great:
I truly am shocked! I think this must be the first time in Godplace, Pkministries.com, UPCI.com, or any of the various other evolutionary states of Godplace that somebody has said that. lol Usually I'm getting criticized for stirring the pot, which is what I thoroughly enjoy.
Is Obama turning Apostolic? No, he is not.
No more discussion of beards and facial hair standards in this thread.
John
The title of the thread, and indeed the term "Apostolic" was being used very loosely.
I pointed out that Bishop Brazier holds some "non-traditional" Apostolic views, like eternal security. But they do hold a Oneness viewpoint, and baptism in Jesus name (even if, as I pointed out, he is accepting of those who don't). They are associated with the Apostolic movement, whether they measure up to our standards of Apostolic or not.
Am I suggesting that membership at ACOG makes Obama "one of us?" No. I'm merely pointing out that of the politicians and presidents who have had exposure to Apostolics, albeit "true" Apostolics (by whichever measuring stick) or pseudo Apostolics, isn't it funny that it's people like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton?
Quote from: dnr1128 on July 13, 2008, 06:26:59 PM
If I were a betting man, I'd be putting money on Obama. He's more than likely to be the next president. Essentially this is a do-over of the 1996 election between Dole and Clinton; a young, charasmatic dem versus an older, politically established war hero. With his mantra of "change", whatever that means, Obama appeals to the current sentiment of frustration with politics in general. Most people just don't have the critical thinking ability to ask "what kind of change are we talking about".
I think so too.
Newsman: No more discussion of beards and facial hair standards in this thread.
I didn't think one little off-hand, off-topic comment would get everyone going....
Quote
Newsman: No more discussion of beards and facial hair standards in this thread.
I didn't think one little off-hand, off-topic comment would get everyone going....
Clearly you are unfamiliar with some posters then. ;)
As for the definition of the term Apostolic...I doubt I'd measure up, at least in certain circles. ;) So there.
Quote from: bishopnl on July 14, 2008, 02:48:23 PM
As for the definition of the term Apostolic...I doubt I'd measure up, at least in certain circles. ;) So there.
:hip:
Quote from: Newsman on July 14, 2008, 02:26:33 AM
No more discussion of beards and facial hair standards in this thread.
John
:copcar:
Moderator John gave instructions for this thread.
If those instructions are not followed, the thread will be removed and the offenders dealt with by staff.
:copcar:
:laughhard: No, that man is NOT turning apostolic.. that's a kneeslapper.