Overcoming the accuser of the brethren
There are a few phrases that we have allowed modern day preachers to speak over the body of Christ which I sense are sent from satan to compromise the message of Christ. Why sent from satan? Because it is his style to take the word 'wicked' and make us use it to mean 'good'; it is his style to take the word 'bad' and turn it into a descriptor of something we like.
So what words are these: "sanctified folk" and "church folk". I sense an anger against people who still believe in the outward working of the inward power of the Holy Spirit in a believer's life. The strategy is to erode the outward distinction of a daughter of Sarah and a son of Abraham (1Peter 3:5-7), the church of Jesus Christ and the children of satan.
What is missing from this attack on people who take a fundamentalist view on modesty, who can tend to be religious, strict but not loving, is the redress that makes clear that whether or not people decide to be religious in the worse sense, there is still merit in a holiness dress code.
First, the enemy challenged the church on the "chicken or egg" argument as concerns adorning. So we heard things like, "you do not need to tell people how to dress, the spirit will teach them in time". We were told not to attempt to scale a fish before it is caught. The result in many places was the eventual disappearance of discourse on dressing and modesty. It has been tagged as 'clothesline ministry'. What the devil is basically saying is, "shut-up about dressing", why, because God's speaks about it. The Apostle Paul informs us however, that 'he gave some teachers' (Ephesians 4:11).
Second, the enemy enticed preachers who were brought up in a tradition of the "holiness" church, often through the bitterness of their own experiences to hit out against the place of their upbringing. It so happens that most of the congregations of these churches do not look like the congregations that they were raised. There is often little difference between the converted and the unconverted in apparel.
The result is that such preachers, in an attempt to be more loving than their teachers, have in fact disregarded the principle of love. Paul encouraged the church at Corinth that if they came across brethren that would not eat meat sacrificed to idols as a matter for their faith, do not cause conflict over this (1 Corinthians 10:28). Why? Because to those whom idols are not held in any regard it does not matter, but to those who do it does. It is therefore not important enough to cause a division because you know in your heart that he has lost and gained nothing for not eating that meat- so why make a point of argument over an issue that has no impact on the soul. So in attacking the beliefs of people who hold particular views on holiness, if your view is that they are nothing worsened for acting on their beliefs, it is akin to preaching against a man who chooses not to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
Herein lies, not only the hypocrisy, but the deception of satan, that preachers would divide a congregation by referring to "sanctified folk" and "church folk", as if the word 'sanctified' is defunct and has no place in the life of modern day believer, and is if the word 'church' as a descriptor is negative. The preacher is there to warn the people: if there are any descriptors of kingdom people it is wise or foolish, sheep or goat (Matthew 25:1,2, 32). We should not allow for the perversion of words that hold relevance to the perfection of the body of Christ.
It is satan who is seditious. It is satan who is the accuser of brethren (Revelation 12:10). Why have we allowed preachers to get away with dividing the church of God in this way? It is satan who has caused preachers to believe that people prefer a watered down version of the gospel to put bums on seats and offering in the plate. We ought not to preach to get bums on seats but souls in heaven!
Satan is defeated, this accuser is cast down. Let's not get so low as to get our messages from him.