September 21, 2004

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

Upcoming Travel, Conference Schedule, and Mormonism Presentation

Well, good morning, good afternoon, wherever you are. Welcome to The Dividing Line. We are live today. We will not be here, just so you all know, we'll not be here on Thursday afternoon because we're heading off down to Texas.

I guess that's why we were playing the music we were playing in the pre-feed and just getting in the mood, being down there, down south at the Founders Conference, speaking seven times. They're just going to pour me back on the plane, sort of like when I went back to Pennsylvania.

I was speaking seven times in just a matter of days. Thankfully, the last time I speak is just going to be on Mormonism, so I can just sort of put myself on autopilot and just sort of go through that one.

But anyway, we're going to be talking about, well, let's see. Topics here are, my headphones are doing their wonky thing again. Oh, what was that? Oh, someone even called. Oh, one missed call. Boy, I wonder, I wonder, I wonder, I wonder.

Oh, okay, it was somebody else. Never mind. Justification and sanctification, new perspectives on Paul. Notice the plural, new perspectives. Suffering and sanctification, knowing God's will. Then I'll be preaching Sunday morning, doing the Sunday school, and then the Mormonism presentation on Sunday afternoon and returning on Monday.

So we should have the regular schedule as far as the Dividing Line goes the week after this. I am doing my level best to avoid any commentary whatsoever on other issues in regards to Christian students having their rights trampled on in schools today, because we're not quite ready for me to talk about things like that, and those of you in the channel know what I'm talking about.

So it's really hard to get your mind off of something when it's right there. But we'll do our best. 877 -753 -3341. Yes, I'm preaching on Sunday and Sunday school, Sunday morning, and then they have a meal.

They've promised me fried chicken and corn on the cob, and I'm going to try to hold them to that because you just can't get good stuff like that. And then they have an afternoon service at 2 o 'clock where I'm going to do my presentation on Mormonism, the video presentation PowerPoint.

So that's what we're going to be doing. So anyways, that's what's going to be coming up this weekend in the Dallas area. The information is on our website as to how to get there and who to contact and all that kind of neat, fun, wonderful stuff.

877 -753 -3341. Despite my repeated request that the information be reposted to me, as to our phone calls, that has not been done, because oh, there we go. Very good. Let's see. That only took four minutes.

Four minutes. There you go. If you want to get a job with Barry Young here locally, you're not going to be able to get it because the board op not only has to be faster, but he has to be able to say really short monosyllabic words too, and that's how that works.

So anyway, let's go ahead. And someone somehow has managed to get into the program right off the bat. And the reason will become apparent here in just a moment. We generally don't have too much trouble with congested phone lines.

But let's go ahead and go up to my hometown. Actually, I was born in Robbinsdale, which is a suburb of Minneapolis. And let's talk with Todd. Hi, Todd.

Phillips, Craig, and Dean and the Trinity

Hey, James. How are you doing?

What a voice you have. You should do radio.

Hey, well, that's what I do, and right now I'm shaking in my boots. Normally I'm doing your job. Calling in is really weird.

It is scary out here. Yes, and not only that, but I have control over the phone line and you do not.

Well, I'm going to try to avoid heresy. I do have some questions for you, though, sir.

Yes, sir.

We've got a little scuttlebutt going on in our little hometown here of Minneapolis, St. Paul. You're maybe familiar with Phillips, Craig, and Dean.

Just a little bit.

Yeah.

Well, they're coming to town, and there's going to be thousands of folks who go see them. Now, we've heard some different tales told about Phillips, Craig, and Dean. We have conflicting reports about their theology on the Trinity, and I am hoping, sir, that you can clear up the confusion for us.

Well, sadly, yeah. But, you know, it's interesting. We did a program. In fact, I'm looking at my blog right here, and I don't know if you've had an opportunity to access this, but if you go to my blog archives, you will see that we did a program with Steve Camp, and we had Campy on the air to discuss this very issue back in July.

And he has done everything that he can, and if Steve Camp can't get through to somebody, then I don't have much of an opportunity to either.

Okay, first of all, that's the first thing I want to address with you.

Yes.

They claim that nobody's ever tried to contact them.

That's completely untrue. I personally have corresponded with one of the three, and we have documentation sitting on the web.

Not at all. Beautifully done. They say that you're lying.

Yeah, well, you know, it would be nice if I could actually get that in direct writing, because then I could actually respond to it, and to respond to it directly, which so far that has never been provided to me.

If you go to my blog, I have the Phillips, Craig, and Dean controversy revisited again. I provide citations, interestingly enough, that came directly from going to the Phillips, Craig, and Dean website, and then going to the Who We Are, and then following their own web links to their own churches.

And I provide right there the citations from their own materials of modalistic definitions of the Trinity. Now, none of these churches are any longer members of the UPCI, the United Pentecostal Church International.

If you're familiar with the movement, you know that back in the early to mid -90s, there was a great split, and it was over what's called a holiness letter. The pastors were asked to sign this holiness letter that said they would not do these certain things, and there was a split, and a number of churches came out of the UPCI, United Pentecostal Church International, that were, shall we say, very worship-oriented.

Some have even abandoned the distinct UPCI soteriologically, that is, Jesus' name only, baptism for salvation, and speaking in tongues for salvation, speaking in tongues being necessary for salvation.

But they still hold to the modalistic view of the doctrine of the Trinity. And I document right here on the web, we believe in one God who is eternal in His existence, triune in His manifestation being both Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that He is sovereign, absolute in His authority.

Now, part of the problem here is, unfortunately, Todd, I don't want to slur the entirety of Christian radio, but the fact of the matter is, I think you wouldn't argue with me that a lot of folks who sit behind microphones or make decisions in Christian radio stations today would have a hard time providing an orthodox definition of the Trinity.

Would you agree with that?

Hold on, though. I've got to interrupt you, sir, to ask you a very specific question.

Yes, sir.

We have tried to contact Phillips, Craig, and Dean. They won't do a radio interview with us. We were hoping to get the two of you actually on the radio together.

That would be wonderful.

We could just talk it out and resolve this silliness once and for all. We can't seem to make that happen. All right. However, we do have an e-mail that they sent out to somebody who is concerned. I would like to read this e-mail to you.

And, sir, would you please tell me where there is wiggle room?

Okay.

All right.

Neither the group nor the individual members of Phillips, Craig, and Dean believe in a modalist approach...

Hello?

What happened?

Ah.

Perfect timing.

Hello?

Yeah, I'm right here.

Okay. All right.

You dropped out. As soon as you started reading, they believe in... I heard the existence. Then it disappeared.

Something maybe went goofy with the telephone.

Okay.

Neither the group nor the individual members of PCD believe in a modalist approach to the Trinity.

Right.

They believe in the existence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the three in one. I'll stop right there.

What does that mean? See, this is the problem. The three in one. Three what? Manifestations or persons?

Well, okay, fair enough. But here's the words I'd like to focus on. They do not believe in a modalist approach to the Trinity.

Right.

That seems pretty definitive.

Well, the question that I would then ask is, why then do the official statements of faith of the churches in which they are the senior ministers give a modalistic view of the Trinity, which I just read?

Triune in his manifestation being both Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That is modalism. That is not the existence of three divine persons. And let me mention something. I have offered, I have written the questions that would need to be answered by Phillips, Craig, and Dean to know whether they were in point of fact confessing the historic Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity or not.

And I have put the questions out there that no person who is a modalist could ever answer yes to.

Okay.

But as you've discovered, we can't get that level of discussion and dialogue going. And so, you know, I've got nothing against these guys, but the fact of the matter is, if they're not modalists, then they need to remove the modalistic definitions of the Trinity from the statements of faith of the churches in which they are the senior ministers.

I mean, if you went to my website at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, if you went to the website of the church where I'm an elder, Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, and you found the statement of faith there, the London Baptist Confession of Faith, and that gives you the history of the historical doctrine of the Trinity, that's what I believe.

I wouldn't allow there to be a modalistic doctrine of the Trinity in my statement of faith. And so, it's not like this is new. This is the exact same definition that is currently on Randy Phillips' website.

He put in an email in 1999 to someone who wrote to him in response to an article I wrote in the CRI Journal. So nothing's changed since 1999. Five years later, it's the exact same definition. It's still modalistic, and it would be so easy, so, so easy to get rid of this whole problem.

Let me ask you a little theological question. Do you ever do that on your radio program?

Once in a while.

Okay.

Classic modalistic heresy, Sabellian heresy, would be one god appearing, if you will, successively in three different... I'm going to read you another line, though, from Phillips, Craig, and Dean, and you tell me how this provides some wiggle room.

Okay.

All right?

They write this. If you were to attend their concert, you would find they address the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the present tense at different moments throughout the event.

Well, the UPCI position, which those churches came out of, is not the way you described it as historical Sabellianism in that way. The UPCI position was, and this is reflected in the statement, being both Father and Son.

The Son, in oneness theology, is the human nature of Christ, whereas the Father is the divine nature of Christ.

Oh, so he was just human when he was on a soul for instance?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. He was two persons during the incarnation. He was the Father and the Son. The Son is not a divine person, but the Father is. Jesus was both the Father and the Son, so he was two persons.

The prayer life of Christ is one of the most problematic issues for United Pentecostal theology, because it just simply doesn't make any sense. But you've got to remember, from their perspective, the Son, considered as the Son alone, did not exist eternally as a divine person.

Jesus Christ was both the Father and the Son, and hence they could say he existed eternally as a divine person, but only one part of him that is the divine part of him.

I'm not even sure that I understood that, but maybe you'll help me clear it up a little bit. They believe, I'm reading their document again, they believe that when Jesus was on earth, God the Father was absolutely reigning as scripture notes in heaven.

When Jesus prayed in the garden, he was speaking to his Father. Where's the wiggle room?

Well again, since in United Pentecostal terminology, yes he was speaking to his Father, because he's two persons. He is both the Father and the Son. And the incarnation, see the question that would need to be asked, and I've been asking this since my article came out, I think it was 1998.

Here's the simple question, that if they won't talk to me, maybe you can answer this, okay? Aside from why they have modalistic stuff on their website, and their staff members all came from UPCI schools and things like that, here's the question that needs to be asked.

Did the Son, as a divine person, distinguishable from the Father, exist for all eternity? Not merely as an idea, but as an active divine person. There's the question that will rip the mask off of any type of quote unquote wiggle room or anything else.

This goes directly to the heart of the issue. Did the Son, as a divine, not merely an idea, not as a human nature, not as a plan, but did the Son, as a divine person, exist eternally prior to his incarnation upon the earth?

That's the question that needs to be asked. And that could be answered so simply.

Okay, now help me out. James, I'm a little bit foggy on this still. Because I'll tell you, you really have to engage your brain on this to follow along. It can be so foggy, and it can be so tricky. You said that their understanding is that, explain again, during the incarnation, who they believe that Jesus was on earth.

Okay, the historic modalist, when I say historic, the UPCI, United Pentecost Church, since they're split from the Assemblies of God, and this is where these churches came from, the viewpoint that has predominance amongst them, and you're going to find some various views about whether the Logos was a plan or things like that.

But the majority view, the view that would be defended today by, for example, Dr. Bernard, who is the head of the Irshon Graduate School in St. Louis for the United Pentecost Church denomination. In his book, The Oneness of God, he presents the idea that Jesus is two persons.

That you have the human aspect of Christ, who is the Son, and you have the divine aspect of Christ, who is the Father. The Son has not eternally existed as a divine person, because that is simply the human nature.

So when Jesus is praying, he's praying to the Father. And the Father remains, in most of this teaching, omnipresent. So they could say he's in heaven, but he's also incarnate in the Son as well. So you can't spatially locate God in that way.

But the idea is that Jesus is God because he is indwelt by the Father. That is what makes him God. The Son is not, by his own nature, a divine person.

Okay, that cleared it up for me. But then let's get back to that prayer business. So then that sounds a little bit wacky, that Jesus being the Father with a Jesus body, if you will, is praying to himself?

That has always been the problem. I mean, you can go back to a paper I wrote long before I ever heard of Phillips, Craig, and Dean, in response to Dr. Bernard on the subject of oneness theology. And one of the key areas I focused upon was the inability of classical oneness theology to provide a meaningful synthesis of scriptural passages dealing with the prayer life of Christ.

Because very clearly, Christ identifies himself as a divine person over against the Father. In passages like John 1 .1 and in John 17, Father, glorify me together with yourself with the glory which I had in your presence before the world began.

Those are the words that one person says to another person, and they're in reference to the pre-incarnate state. These are very, very clear, and that's one of the reasons I might mention, Todd, in passing, that we have had a standing challenge to Dr. Bernard at the Urshon Graduate School to engage in public debate on this issue.

We've only done one debate on this with Dr. Sabin in 1999. You may have seen the John Ankerberg show where Walter Martin and E. Calvin Beisner debated Urshon and Sabin many, many years ago. Obviously, Walter died in 1989, so it's been some time in the 80s, on the subject of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Well, I also debated Sabin on this same issue, and he, by the way, defended the same viewpoint that I have just expressed to you, though he too has left the UPCI, as many other people have. And so that issue of Christ's communication with the Father is a tremendous difficulty for modalistic theology.

And, you know, I would love, honestly, Todd, I would love to have Phillips, Craig, and Dean do two things. A, answer that question I gave you before, and then B, pull the modalistic definition of the Trinity from their websites.

If they were to do that, I and Steve Camp and everybody else would be the first ones to swing it from the flagpole that Phillips, Craig, and Dean have done these things. But the fact of the matter is, when my article came out, Randy Phillips responded in an email with the exact same definition that is currently on his website, and it's a modalistic definition, and there's no one who could possibly argue that it's not.

And therefore, whatever they're saying now, to me it sounds just a tad bit hollow if you leave those things sitting on your website, and then you have active links directly to them. I mean, I just went to their website and followed it, and there it is.

All right, I want to read to you another statement from them. This is their canned response to people who ask about this issue. PCD as a group does not publicly discuss doctrine in any way beyond that which is stated in the Apostles' Creed.

Well, one of the reasons you had to have the Council of Nicaea, and then one of the reasons you had to have the Council of Chalcedon, is that the Apostles' Creed is not sufficient to address the issues of the full deity of Christ and then the existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate and distinct divine individuals.

And so, that's nice, but that says something right there. I mean, if that's the lowest common denominator, and to say we don't discuss anything past that means our music likewise cannot address any theological truths beyond the lowest common denominator.

Here's the next sentence. Because PCD desires to continue having a multi-denominational ministry, they do not have the luxury of publicly discussing their personal doctrinal beliefs without offending someone and ultimately causing division that is not their calling.

Why, if they're Trinitarians, would that cause division unless their entire desire is to maintain a multi-dimensional, or multi-denominational, i .e., Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian churches' ministry?

I mean, if they were to confess the doctrines of the Trinity, the only people they'd be offending would be non-Trinitarians, right?

Well, that seems pretty clear.

Yeah. So, doesn't that actually say the opposite of what maybe they were intending to say?

Here's what the manager says. What I can say is that because of the intense public scrutiny, that's you, James, many years back, they've allowed me to share one specific point, and they will not say anything beyond this because of their close family and relationships with people who remain a member of their past UPC denomination and doctrinal history.

Thankfully, every major Christian ministry that has addressed this issue with us directly has come out in support of PCD based on the facts and personal discussion with the guys.

I'm sorry. That's just simply not the case. I wrote an article for the CRI Journal. They stand by that article. And, you know, Steve Camp did everything he could to try to get a conference call or a conversation going with these folks and met a stone wall.

And if Campy can't get through that, then I'm not going to get through it either. Like I said, I would be more than happy to appear with them. I'd be more than happy to ask these questions of them. And if they would be willing to answer those questions and to remove the modalistic teachings from their websites and say, hey, we embrace the doctrine of the Trinity, we believe that it is in point of fact a biblical truth and that it is important to worship, then I would be the first one to want to trumpet it.

Because you know what? I don't know if you read my article in the CRI Journal when it first came out, but do you remember what it said at the beginning? I was listening to them. I like their music. I mean, that's the kind of music I listen to.

And I would love to hear that part of their coming out of the UPCI has been to abandon these things. The problem is, the last time that Randy Phillips addressed this issue in an email, he gave a modalistic definition of the Trinity.

And that very same definition, word for word, is on his website today. Now, that tells me there's a problem. I'd love to see it addressed.

Okay, how about this? You, sir, are being nitpicky.

Yeah, I hear that all the time. And so was the Council of Nicaea, and so was the Council of Chalcedon, and so were the Reformers. I mean, come on, does it really matter whether you believe in justification by faith alone or faith plus works?

I mean, does it really matter? The original nitpicky guy, as far as I can tell, in the New Testament, was the Lord himself when he said, No one comes to the Father but by me. And then the Apostle Paul really got nitpicky when he wrote an entire letter against a group of people who only added one little thing to the Gospel.

Just one little thing. I mean, people today add dozens of things, and they added one little thing, and Paul wrote an entire letter against them. In fact, he anathematized them and all this stuff. Yeah, when it comes to who we're worshipping, and isn't that what we're supposed to be doing in music anyways?

Doesn't it have something to do with worship? Well, who are we worshipping? Are we worshipping the Triune God or are we worshipping a Unitarian God? There's a huge difference between those two. A massive difference.

The Gospel, I believe, is Trinitarian. And that's one of the reasons why, interestingly enough, at least two of the three members of the group still have on their website baptism in Jesus' name only as very important to the issue of whether a person is saved or not.

That also tells me that those churches are still filled with UPCI theology. If they've thrown off the legalism of the UPCI, they've still got the theology there. I'd love to see them move beyond that.

I would much rather just sit down with the guys, quote-unquote, and explain the doctrines of Trinity, answer any questions biblically, all those things, but I'm not within their inner circle. And you know what really should happen?

When they said in that statement that all these ministries, all these churches they've gone to, those are the folks who should have been sitting down and dealing with these issues. I'm just sort of the watchman on the wall, and I look at something and I go, you know what?

That's the modalistic doctrine of the Trinity right there. Consistently, I check things out. I didn't just write that article. I went to their websites, found the consistency, put it in print. That's all there is to it.

I would much rather sit down and talk with them. I'd love to see them come to embrace these things. But you know what? I have no contact with them.

How about this, James? Because the last thing that we want to do is to try to judge the motives of the individuals. So let's just stay away from that. What we're trying to figure out is...

Well, I mean, my motives too. I think they've been brought into question.

Oh, no, you know what? I don't think you're making money off of this deal. I don't think it's an issue of popularity. Besides, that's the realm the Bible says we don't get to get into. We just judge what they do and what they teach.

Is it possible that they do indeed believe in the Trinity? They're just being really immature. They're making some bad decisions. But we can still embrace them because they say enough stuff that sort of sounds Trinitarian.

The immaturity part would be a real possibility in light of the fact that these are churches that came out of the UPCI and honestly, when people come out of a movement, very frequently they don't have a lot of good connections.

That's a real possibility. However, many people, many, many, many people have contacted them and have addressed these issues and to continue to say the same things, to continue to teach the same things over the years since 98 -99, things like that.

There's got to be a reason for this. And I think the reason came up in the previous section you read about the family members. I think what we've got here, and I'm not talking motives here, I'm just talking I think this is why this all fits together.

They don't want to choose between being in Oneness churches and being in Trinitarian churches. They want to be in both.

And so because we are to judge those who claim to be inside of the body, what do we do with them?

Well, good question. And by the way, I don't know if you've been on our website, but there's an excellent long article on our website by Eric Nielsen. Eric has just joined us and I'm going to see if we can put him on the line with us.

He was listening to the program and has called in so that we have even more expertise here. But what do we do? Well, the problem is, as far as I can tell, these churches have no connection to any fellowship of other churches and things like that that could bring any force to bear there.

As far as I can tell, you simply have to put the information out there to pastors who feel it is their responsibility to guard the flock, in essence, and to be careful what they expose their churches to and hope that they are going to examine the information and come to their own conclusions in regards to that.

And obviously those who have their ear, who are listening to Phillips, Craig, and Dean, or talking with Phillips, Craig, and Dean, hopefully they can communicate to these folks and talk with them without the seemingly, I don't know, the nastiness that wasn't a part of my original...

My original article wasn't about them. They were an illustration in an article. My article was on loving the Trinity. I sort of stumbled into this one, as I seem to stumble into a lot of things, by just daring to say no.

The doctrine of the Trinity that is found in Phillips, Craig, and Dean's websites, on their church websites, is definitely modalistic. And so far no one has been able to demonstrate that that's not the case.

And it could be very, very easily dealt with at that point. Todd, say hello to Eric Nielsen.

Hey Eric, I read your article, sir. Nice work. Hi, thank you. I wish you could be more thorough. It's a little on the long side.

With really fine print.

Yes, I've heard some complaints about that, but I wanted to try and be thorough so that I could be accurate and also be fair to what Phillips, Craig, and Dean were actually saying, and were actually teaching at their churches.

Help me out with this, sir, if you could. Because for some reason, every single time this topic comes up, I get a little queasy in my stomach. There seems to be more here than just, well, we've got some brothers who seem to be a little bit confused.

I don't know what it is. I don't want to enter into the realm of judging their character. But what are we to do, in your opinion? How do we respond to this? They're being played on the radio. They come to town for concerts.

Everybody thinks that they're wonderful, and they think that you're just being a jerk for bringing up such a nitpicky issue. What's going on here?

Eric?

No, these are, and the Son, Trinity with each other, or Trinity as a certain thing. It is not a secondary issue.

And Todd, if I could be enough of a jerk to go ahead and say this, that the fact of the matter is that in large portions of evangelicalism, evangelical churches have become non-functionally Trinitarian.

In other words, while the confession is still a part of many evangelical churches, you will never hear a sermon on the subject. You will not hear any concern about the recognition of the Triune God and salvation.

And so, let's face it, most evangelicals, see, there are three foundational doctrines to the Trinity, Todd. That is monotheism, the existence of three divine persons, and the equality of those persons.

Now, on the first and the third, people will get up in arms. I mean, when the Mormons come by and talk about becoming gods, most evangelicals go, excuse me, but there's only one true God. And when the Jehovah's Witnesses wake you up on Saturday morning and bug you by denying the deity of Christ, you'll go, oh no, wait a minute, a Christ who's not fully divine cannot be the Savior, you don't believe the Holy Spirit's a person, you know, get out of here, you're a member of a cult.

But it's that middle one, the existence of three divine persons and the relationship between those persons, many evangelicals are functionally modalistic to begin with. They don't even know what the doctrine of the Trinity is there, and therefore, a denial of that, they weigh that against the nice beat, and these are nice guys, and they say nice things, and Mercy Came a-Runnin' is a cool song, and we've been singing their praise songs in our church and didn't even know it, and they just throw up their hands and say, is that really that important?

And for many, the answer is, nope, it's not.

All right, I want to, and you respond or not, all right? Because again, I'm hearing all of this, I'm understanding all of this, there's still something that just feels downright strange about this. Are you going that these men are intentionally deceiving the Orthodox body?

Well, the question should be, since I've never spoken to them, the question should be, are those who promote the music of Phillips, Craig, and Dean seeking to avoid a full and complete discussion of their theology so as to protect market share?

And at that point, I would say there seems to be a fair amount of evidence that that is a real possibility, but since they've never even talked to me, all they'll do is talk to other people about me, and I don't even know who they are.

I mean, I don't know anything about the music industry. It's not my area. I'm an apologist, and so I don't even know who these people are. They've never sent this stuff to me, but people keep reading me these statements that skewer me, and the simple fact of the matter is there seems to be evidence that those who want to continue seeing them with this trans-denominational, i .e. trans-Trinitarian Unitarian ministry, are protecting, and the statements are specifically designed to protect their being able to do so.

They could easily disprove that feeling on my part by simply answering the direct questions that have been a part of what I've said about this for a long, long time, and since they keep making reference to me, they do know what I'm saying.

They do know what I've said. They do know what is on the web. They've read Eric's article. They know what's there, and it would be so easy to clarify all this stuff, but they won't do it, and the reason for that, my theory is, probably has something to do with market share and keeping the CDs rolling.

Why else would it be? I can't see any other reason other than, well, we just don't want to cause family problems. Well, you know what? In the early church, believing that Jesus was the Messiah caused a lot of family problems, and in 1 John 2 we are told that if you do not confess the Son, then you don't have the Father either, and remember, in classic Oneness theology, Jesus, not Jesus, the Son as a person is not divine, so there is no confession of the divinity of the Son.