Questions of identity are at the very core of any organization’s existence: “Who are we?” “What connects us to each other?” “What is our common mission?” These questions are foundational to progress.
But there are many in my generation who struggle with our identity. We know why we go to Willow Creek conferences or join church planting networks, but we wonder why anyone would ever go to district council.
Unlike Lutherans or Methodists we can’t find our identity from the writings of our founder. The Pentecostal movement has never had a single charismatic leader, similar to Luther or Wesley. Rather the “identity” of the movement was energized by a common experience of the Holy Spirit.
Because the identity of the early Pentecostals was rooted in these very powerful but personal experiences, their children cannot simply rely on their parents’ experiences to find their identity. Pentecostalism only works for one generation. After that it is Pentecostal in name only… unless there is another revival.
In my lifetime the AG has defined itself primarily as “Evangelical Pentecostalism,” or perhaps more accurately as “Evangelicalism plus tongues.” The more we have been accepted the more we have had to emphasize our distinctiveness - “We are more than evangelicals!”
But does an identity like that really motivate anyone in my generation?
Increasingly the AG identity has been expressed only in terms of a rational doctrine that can too easily confine the supernatural move of the Spirit into a formula. The logic goes something like this: the key to Spirit baptism is tongues, the key to revival is Spirit baptism, the key to church growth is revival. Without tongues there can be no Spirit baptism, no revival, no church growth.
The truth is that the key to the Pentecostal movement was never tongues but a passionate pursuit of God for an empowering work of the Spirit to carry forth the Great Commission of Jesus.
Meanwhile, as we held tightly to our distinctive doctrine, we gave up many of the things that really made early Pentecostalism special. Our distinctive doctrine became all that defined us and the real character, contribution, and impact of the movement was lost.
According to Margaret Poloma’s sociological report on the AG, these accommodative forces have eroded any distinct AG identity that could have developed from a well-articulated Pentecostal theology and sense of identity.
“The experiences of the early Pentecostals that challenged the sexist and racist culture of early 20th century America could have paved the way for later disciples to make significant contributions to changes in women’s roles and civil rights. Its early pacifist stance could have provided a plank for the peace movement. Its suspicion of rigid denominationalism in the face of a democratized baptism of the Spirit could have provided a platform for ecumenical activities. None of this happened, in part due to the isolation of Pentecostals during the first half of the 20th century. Once they moved across the tracks to a more comfortable lifestyle, contemporary followers lost sight of Pentecostalism’s unique identity as a marginalized people upon whom the Spirit released His power and presence in the earliest years of the 20th century. As they made the journey from pilgrims to citizens, AG pastors seemed to take on the political voice of the Fundamentalist-Evangelical church expressed through the Republican Party.” – Margaret Poloma
If the AG is going to continue to grow in the future, we need a paradigm that can better reflect the unique qualities of our past -- qualities that could better fit a post-modern paradigm than a modern one.
In order for this fellowship to succeed we need to be more than “more than evangelicals.”
I believe it will be up to the next generation of leaders, working closely with the next generation of pastors, to help redevelop and redefine our identity. The question is, will they creatively adapt the best insights of Pentecostal spirituality to the time in which they lead?
What do you think? What is it that truly defines us? Why are we in this fellowship with each other?
I am an AG minister and I believe speaking in other tongues…
I am an AG minister and I believe the Baptism of the Holy Spirit…
I am an AG minister and I believe the Baptism of the Holy Spirit… (check all that apply)
About This Site
84 comments:
Great post.
The defining factor of the Pentecostal movement in the last 100+ years has been the "more" factor.
Parham wanted "more" than divine healing power.
Azusa pilgrims wanted "more" than just the holiness experience of sanctification.
The great evangelists of the 1920's-1940's wanted "more" than just another salvation campaign.
The list goes on and on; but so does our present identity crisis. The historical Pentecostals wanted a "mystical more;" the intangible outbreak of divine power.
With the modern Pentecostal movement's desire to align ourselves with evangelicals (of whom we have so much in common) and even some fundamentalists (a fundamentalist is an evangelical who forgot to take their prozac), we have also aligned ourselves with their defining factors--and in turn lost sight of ours.
This is why so many A/G churches make no room for the "mystic more" in their standard one hour Sunday morning services; we are afriad--even ashamed to publically admit our desire for "more."
Desiring "more" is perceived as abnormal to many--certainly for those who have personally forgotten what "more" is like.
God help us as kingdom leaders to have a new hunger that exceeds our dignity.
Those we lead will then see and hunger and a new cycle of Pentecost will be born.
Paul:
At the close of this thought-provoking post, you ask two questions: "What is it that truly defines us? Why are we in this fellowship with each other?" These are logically distinct but related questions.
What fundamentally defines Pentecostalism is its emphasis on Jesus as Savior, Healer, Baptizer, and Soon and Coming King. Although Pentecostalism has roots in the Wesleyan Holiness and Fundamentalist movements of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, it flowered into a different tree. Although our Holiness and Fundamentalist predecessors believed that Jesus saved, healed, baptized, and would soon return, they embedded these beliefs in a different theological matrix. Both believed Jesus saved. Both believed Jesus healed (at least in the apostolic era). Both believed that Jesus baptized in the Holy Spirit (though for Fundamentalists, this was part of conversion, and for Holiness people, part of entire sanctification). But neither, in my opinion, believed that these were all experiences to be had today by all believers. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever was the watchword of Azusa Street. He saves. He heals today. He baptizes for holiness and service. And right now we live in the last days before his coming. Right now we can experience the outpouring of God's eschatological gift.
This distinctive theological matrix was tied to our distinctive spiritual experience: baptism in the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues (Articles 7 and 8 of the Statement of Fundamental Truths). Whereas Fundamentalists (and many evangelicals still today) speak of the Holy Spirit as a point of doctrine, Pentecostals speak of it as a person to be experienced. The Holy Spirit points all people to their need of Jesus the Savior. The Spirit brings people to physical wellness at the hands of Jesus the Savior. The Spirit consecrates and empowers us through Jesus the Baptizer. And the Spirit awakens us to the realization that we are living in the last days, that time is short, and we have an urgent commission to make disciples of all nations.
Obviously, we are evangelicals. Apart from Articles 7 and 8, our Statement of Fundamental Truths is generically evangelical. But it is our relentless focus on Jesus as experienced in the power of the Holy Spirit that makes us more than evangelical. In my opinion, evangelicalism is becoming increasingly politicized and psychologized. It needs to be Pentecostlized, i.e., it needs to be reminded that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever--not just in our doctrine, but in our lives. (And by the way, lest anyone think I'm being old-timey here, we should beware of limiting the Spirit's work to speaking in tongues. In our Statement of Fundamental Truths, tongues is the initial, physical evidence of Spirit-baptism. But the ongoing, substantive changes wrought by Spirit baptism are what truly matter. Do we experience God more deeply? Practice holiness more actually? Evangelize more effectively? In too many of our churches, people speak in tongues but don't evangelize, take proper care of their bodies and the needs of the poor, make progress in personal holiness, or live in awareness of the shortness of time.)
Since we're talking about authentic Pentecostalism, I would be wary of Margaret Poloma. As excellent a sociologist of religion as she may be, she has a definite agenda. She believes, for example, that the Holy Spirit is leading the church toward the acceptance of committed same-sex relationships. I'm not saying she's wrong in her critique of past Anglo-Pentecostal racism, but I am saying that we need to be wary in citing her as an authority on Pentecostal practice.
Why, then, to answer to your second question, are we in this fellowship together? Admittedly, we don't have a single, dominant founder (Luther, Calvin). Nor do we have a strong, overarching theological tradition. (Unlike Calvinism, for example, Pentecostalism is not a total world-and-life view.) But we do have a distinctive experience of Jesus, which we believe is rooted in the New Testament, visible in moments of church reform and revival through the ages, and experienced by millions worldwide today. We are in this fellowship together because our experience of Jesus draws us together.
Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. That insight ignited Azusa Street, and in our current context, can ignite spiritual, moral, and social change today too. As we consider the election of our next set of leaders, not to mention the general direction of our denomination, let us make sure we're keeping the experience of Jesus--considered in its totality--as the touchstone of our thinking.
George
I might be in the minority here on this one. In my opinion, the fight for maintaining a distinction is exactly what is causing the extinction of the charismata. The need for a “label” is what makes our theological position non-sustainable. If we truly believe, as Gordon Fee writes, that Spirit-empowerment (and everything that goes with that) is at the heart of being a follower of Christ… then we should be settled with being called Christian. I believe he had it right in God’s Empowering Presence; Paul did not make distinctions. To be Christian, according to Paul, was to be filled with the Spirit. To lack this filling, was to lack Christ altogether. There was no such thing as a believer without the empowerment of the Spirit. The need, however, to set ourselves apart breeds arrogance and imbalance in our constituency.
When I entered seminary, I roomed for 4 years with a couple of Presbyterians and a Catholic. (Sounds like a joke in the making, I know) It was only after we got past our battles of doctrinal differences and started sharing our similarities that they opened to believing God for the charismata and I opened to learning the discipline of exegesis and realizing that the church was not born in 1906. The four of us graduated as “Christ-followers” who wanted to win the world for His kingdom and not for our individual denominations.
I understand all the fears about us going “the way of the Methodist.” I, too, read my “Enrichment” Journal. But I’ve gotten to the point where I skip past any of the writings by our GP (save George Wood’s articles) since I’m tired of hearing how the decline of the charismata to below 16% of our movement is because the local preacher has not “fought for it.” Not the case. What has happened is that upper-level leadership has grasped these truths as "our own", and yet have not allowed our own to talk about it. We have raised our interpretation of the Scriptures to the level of infallibility and have shut down any further progressive revelation. Is it “initial” and “physical?” Sure. But why the need for such limiting language? What about the emotional and psychological? Are these components of humanity untouched by empowerment? Does our definition of the experience leave a post-modern world staring at it in confusion?
So obviously I’m not suggesting we cease teaching the truths of living out the gifts, just that we quit teaching them as “our” truths. They’re not ours. Proof of this is the immense success the ALPHA course is having in the arena of Spirit-baptisms at their retreats. If one of the main goals of the gospel was to break down barriers and “make the two into one,” … do we really need to split that into the “Pentecostal One” and the “Baptist One,” and so on?
Let’s embrace Christ, and teach the new converts that a prayer language, divine healing, and an expectation for the supernatural are all NORMATIVE for being a Christian… not for being a Pentecostal.
I’ll be expecting the letter tomorrow from Springfield requesting my credentials.
Lane
That's a good word. I think that our fellowship lacks that distinctive identity, and us younger ministers feel it. We fight to make our own way, to ignore District and General Councils, to find some common ground between the 22-year old fresh out of college and the 60-year old who has been in ministry for 40 years.
Since our fellowship began with a shared experience of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and since we call that our "distinctive", it seems to me that we must have that shared experience as a whole. We seek the God with a reckless abandon to fill what's lacking in our identity as a fellowship.
On an unrelated note, it feels sooo good to have a place to discuss our fellowship that sincerely seeks the best of it. It's not bash this/bash that, and it's not "praise the machine". It's honest, it's discussion.
It's appreciated ;).
Tim -
Great thoughts! I agree that Pentecostals need could make more room for the "mystic more" in their services. But the real question is how do we take that "more" beyond any church service?
Sunday night revival services with people "tarrying" at the altar are tremendous, but I'm more concerned about Monday - Saturday! How can we ensure these powerful experiences of the Spirit go beyond the church and into the world?
George -
Thank you so much for your comments! You have given us a wonderful insight into our identity.
The eschatalogical nature of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a beautiful paradigm for our future!
One question - many Christians believe the "end is near." Look no further than in the success of the Left Behind series. But this has not necessarily caused Christians to engage in Christ's urgent mission.
Rather it has fueled an escapist mentality that says "its all going to burn." So what we do to the planet, how we deal with social injustice, and even how we spend our money doesn't matter as long as "the gospel" is being preached.
I would echo your last comment, we need to make sure that we're keeping the experience of Jesus - considered in its totality - as the touchstone of our thinking. We also need to keep His Gospel - in its entirety - at the center of our mission.
I agree with what Lane Douglas has said. Futher I am of the school of thought that the Gift of the Holy Spirit is giving to all followers of Christ occuring at the time of salvation ( 1 COR 2:13). Why are we so bent on looking at evidence being glossolia. It is interesting that the we cannot find the phrase "baptism in the Holy Spirit" anywhere in the Scriptures.
The word "baptism" means to immerse or submerge. It potrays an act of God when a sinner experiences forgiveness and the Holy Spirit immerses or submerges him into a new life of freedom, hope and future in Christ Jesus.
This is the work of the Holy Spirit that occurs at salvation. So at salvation we are baptized by the Holy Spirit. Read Ephesians 1:13. The scriptures dictate that we be filled with the Holy Spirit no where does not mention being baptized with the Holy Spirit. Notice the difference between baptized by and baptized with the Holy Spirit.
Speaking in tongues and other gifts are available to all those who want more of the filling of the Holy Spirit. He is a gentleman and He gives more to those who need more.
Paul,
Thanks for the interaction. You have aske d the million dollar question!
Pentecostal spirituality has traditionally been less concerned about polished presentations and manicured lawns than it is with the lostness of humanity that can only be reached in the Spirit's power. I'm not advocating the death of excellence, but I do see a wholesale buying-into of the "form without power" model.
The answer, I believe, is to follow (and personally become) spiritual practitioners first; to be led by and begin to lead by implementation rather than some vague "it can happen but it probably won't" philosophy.
Pentecostal ministry has gotten so far from its roots that the people we replicate now look more like us than the first century church.
Your question to me was, "how do we carry Sunday Pentecostalism on to Monday-Friday implemetaion. Practioners reproduce practitioners. Philosophers reproduce philosphers.
If there is no time to model the "mysitic more on Sunday, it will not be expected on Monday. If we as leaders do not personally implement spiritual power in our personal lives, why would we anticipate those who follow us to do so?
The answer again falls to leadership on every level--which is why these elections matter so much.
I heard someone talk at one point about the fact that people relate together more today based on methodology than around theology.
My sense is that theologically we are very much aligned with each other, with some minor disputes on balance and emphasis.
Methodology is where there is an identity crisis. Someone told me once that there are three main methodological streams within the AG. I don't know if this is correct or not?
Traditionalists - those committed to maintaining the programming, schedule, and culture of our heritage.
Seeker-Motivated/Missional - those who lean away from pentecostal sub-culture, and more toward the methods of growth in the seeker/purpose-driven/emerging church. In this stream there is a desire for the essence of the book of Acts without the sub-culture of old time pentecost.
Renewal/Charismatics - those who were impacted by Brownsville and other such movements. These are impacted by the broader Charismatic movements/Faith Teachers, etc. They are less like the stream that came out of the early 1900's and more like the stream birthed in the 50's and beyond.
Then there are those of us who have pieces of all three streams in our ministry. We are trying to make them all work together effectively.
I think we have identity crisis that has to do with methodology. Due to this we struggle to have meaningful conversations between the streams because we often don't speak the same language and we have a tendancy to make sacred the our 'methods of choice'.
There is no way to make these streams all agree together. But we can make room for each and for any new wave the emerges from here. The question is how?
Paul:
I think what happens with escapist eschatologies is that they focus on "soon and coming" rather than "King." The kingdom of God is the heart of Jesus' gospel preaching. And God's kingdom (his authority and power to rule the world he made) is total. It applies to every aspect of our lives. When we say, "The kingdom of God is at hand," we are pressing people to make a decision about Jesus in every area of their lives. What's interesting is that whereas the imminence of the kingdom of God in the Gospel fueled Jesus' desire to heal the sick and help the poor, for too many today, the coming kingdom fuels paranoid interest in middle eastern politics. Jesus is king, right now. He saves, heals, baptizes, and commands. And his commands extend to every area of life. As Abraham Kuyper once put it, there's not one ince of creation to which Jesus does not point and say, "mine." So, evangelism? Yes. Healing? Yes. Baptism? Yes. Social concern? Absolutely yes.
George
Lane:
I had a similar experience at Fuller, i.e., realizing my "mere Christianness" in light of my interaction with other non-Penteocstal believers. And like you, Fee's work has showed me that the Spirit's work is normal and normative. The only church is a church empowered by God's presence.
George
This is one of the biggest philisophical/theological battles currently going on in our church. The idea was well spelled out by Paul:
"The logic goes something like this: the key to Spirit baptism is tongues, the key to revival is Spirit baptism, the key to church growth is revival. Without tongues there can be no Spirit baptism, no revival, no church growth."
The focus has been for many years at this church a seeking of the "experience" of the physical showing or feeling of God showing up. For years they have had "alter" times and prophesy and personal prophecy and etc. Followers of current trends and authors that push these views.
What I saw when I came in was many of those that were the "spiritual" ones were emotionally disturbed (about half) and there was much of what I call "spiritual abuse" going on with personal prophesy. They were so focused on being spiritual and the most spiritual, that the whole idea of Christianity became summed up in the experience or feeling of God.
Every answer was the silver bullet or pixy dust that we could sprinkle around and fix everything all at once. You know the type, just bring in this speaker or if we just become like toronto or brownsville or Benny or etc. etc. etc. Yet for the most part, the church has become a clanging symbol in our community. Fanatics with no love or impact on the community. Conference chasers that talk about how great the spirit moved at this speaker or that one yet the fruit never seemed to materialized in their personal life but wanting that agenda for the local body.
This may be kind of harse, but is IMHO a regular occurance in our fellowship that much of the spiritual ones are very unbalanced.
More extreme focus on this isn't going to help. Not that we need to cast out the Holy Spirit or tongues for that matter. It is in the Bible I do believe it. I think we need new wine for new wineskines. Some where along the line we lost the balance between experience and function. This postmodern generation (I really hate that term but it sums it up here) has more value in the proof or validity of the faith more then it does in the experience.
Don't show me you are spiritual because you have tongues, good for you (I do too)...but really...I don't care..., show me you are spiritual because you have given your life to follow Jesus and the love and fruit that surrounds you is the evidence of the sanctification.
Yes tongues may be the initial physical evidence but in my opinion the greater evidence is a life that is impacting and changing the world and the people around you (non-believers), while you aren't at church!
George says, "evangelicalism is becoming increasingly politicized and psychologized. It needs to be Pentecostlized [sic]. . ."
We have heard the term "Pentecostal distinctive" used to describe what makes us unique in the greater evangelical world. What is the Pentecostal distinctive? Is it a particular theological emphasis? Or is it behavioral?
I think the answer is yes and yes. Certainly, we have a theological distinctive in Articles 7 and 8 that is a defining difference from other evangelicals. But the theological position is not some esoteric understanding of Scripture -- it is a statement of faith in support of a divine and mystical experience that was shared by those who came together to become the Assemblies of God.
We cannot divorce the theology from the practice of it, or vice versa. The two must go hand in hand. For our evangelical brothers to embrace the theology of Spirit baptism (or filling, empowerment, enduement of power -- choose your phrase of preference, let's not get pulled down the rabbit trail of semantics), and to reject the experience of Spirit baptism, is incomplete. Likewise, for Pentecostals to experience Spirit baptism without understanding the theological basis and ramifications of it is also deficient.
Pentecostalism has grown exponentially in the 20th century, both in the US and worldwide: why? It is not because of our theology. It is because of our reliance on the work of the Holy Spirit to manifest the power of God in signs and wonders. The reason that we are seeing decline in our fellowship, and in greater evangelicalism, is because we have ceased to embrace the power of Holy Spirit in practical expressions; it has become primarily a doctrine of the mind, not the feet.
Now, back to George's statement. If both pentecostal theology and practice are true, then Evangelicalism needs to be "Pentecostalized". How can we do that? One way, which is our current approach, is to fellowship with evangelicals and hope we "rub off" on them. This approach has been sporadically successful, as we have seen charismatic renewal movements birthed in many mainline Christian denominations. Another, more radical approach, is to become the diaspora and assimilate into the greater evangelical church, to promote change internally.
Practically, I believe the former course is the way to go. So did our founding fathers and mothers. When the Pentecostal revival of the early 20th century erupted, it permeated the Fundamentalist/Holiness/Evangelical world across denominational boundaries. But most churches decided to reaffiliate, realizing that it was more difficult to change a denomination than it was to change the world.
So where does our focus lie today? Are we trying to change evangelicals, change our own organization, or change the world? And, if our aim is change, how do we accomplish it? By intellectual engagement, by methodological reform, or by the promotion and practice of the Pentecostal experience in power?
Blessings,
David W Barnett
Fort Worth, Texas
www.pentecostalleader.com
PS I have posted comments on all thirteen proposed resolutions for GC on my website. We need to consider and debate the resolutions with the same vigor with which we debate our future leadership.
I know that for me, the A/G has found it's identity in tongues, period. I have also found that as the tongue practitioners decline in our churches, our leaders turn up the heat on "instantaneous" tongue speech as a requirement for true Spirit baptism.
Meanwhile, we've lost our world-shaking zeal along with our young leaders who want to shake off the dust of the spiritual abuse and spirit-filled snakes they endured while growing up.
Pentecost, at the core, is about Presence. The Presence of God in us, in our gatherings and in our activity. This ought to be the rallying cry of our movement.
We aren't reproducing Pentecostals in our churches because our pastors aren't intelligent, passionate Pentecostals and we have sold out for methodology that draws crowds but doesn't do so well at growing followers of Jesus who depend on and practice His Presence, or living on mission for Jesus.
My conviction is that, until we release the tongues focus we will continue to put the emphasis on the wrong syllable. That will cause us to continue clinging to our past while our young leaders abandon us for movements that are missional in focus rather than historical.
By the way, I speak in tongues more than you all and desire profoundly that the people in our churches discover, exercise and cherish this amazing gift. In case you missed it, that's not a vision that can inspire people into a Kingdom-building movement.
Paul,
After reading your most recent post, I think maybe I'd like to nominate you as GS. It's been a while since I've read anything that pegs us as precisely as what you wrote this morning. By the way, I'm not sure that all who were in favor of shunning Margaret Paloma when she spoke to us with a prophetic voice would feel the same way today, having seen her assessment proven more accurate as each year passes.
Those who feel we are only evangelicals who believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit and healing have confused us with Spirit-filled Baptists. Although Pentecostalism does identify closely with many aspects of the evangelical movement, there are other characteristics of evangelicalism that should appall us.
While racism and bigotry have thrived within many evangelical camps, Pentecostalism found its birthplace in racial diversity. Today, racial unity still thrives within authentic Pentecostal gatherings while racism has found a home in some A/G congregations that have failed to understand that authentic Pentecostal experience and prejudice cannot coexist.
Who we are must have much to do with who we were and even more to do with whom we aspired to become. I pray that the Lord, in His mercy, places in leadership people who understand that.
Butch
What a great conversation. Doesn't it feel good to bring this topic out into the open without feeling like you're touching the Ark?
It's been helpful for me to teach our church the beauty of spiritual language in its own right. It isn't just a necessary means to an end or something you have to have in order to know you have something else (the baptism in the Holy Spirit). It is a beautiful experience that can enrich your prayer life. So cool to see people from various backgrounds come into our church plant and realize that there personal times of prayer and worship can actually be empowered by heaven.
There's a huge difference between someone who seeks Jesus' promise driven by the fear that they need to speak in tongues in order to "make membership," and the person who really believes the experience will be beautiful and beneficial.
And we've got to keep the spotlight on Jesus and His cross. Unfortunately, when we dig our heels in and fight for tongues, we inadvertantly turn the spotlight away.
George, I love your focus on Pentecost through the person of Jesus. Awesome. Let's point our loudest megaphone toward Him!
Apropos of this conversation, my dad wrote an article four years ago called "The Substantial Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit." It's accessible at his blog on this page: http://georgeowood.com/templates/System/details.asp?id=22125&PID=165686. You have to scroll down a bit to find it. I've also posted the full text on my blog.
Wow, Paul! What a great post and discussion.
I'm afraid I don't think very hard about these things, but I worry about them without knowing what I'm worrying about. I like that we can discuss them and even come up with solutions.
I strongly agree with Brad's thought on focusing on receiving tongues rather than on receiving more of God. I have seen this become a frustration for people. Even at NCU, I had a friend who felt separated from others because she did not speak in tongues and had prayed for it fervently. It is hard NOT to focus on the receiving when you are in a situation like that.
On a side note: I think I will be sad if this "temporary site for Assemblies of God ministers to openly discuss the future of the AG" actually closes. I appreciate the thought provoking conversations we are having especially when it is something I haven't thought enough about.
And won't we always have a future? I hope so. Maybe it should not be a temporary site. As long as we continue to talk about the issues and not specific people in charge, it could continue to be a very good thing.
We could change the world!
Couldn’t agree with you more, Brad. I’ve been so wrapped in the discussion that I have failed to say “thanks” to you and the gang for moderating.
And George, thanks for the comment. It’s good to know that I am not the only person who was deeply humbled to realize that I did not possess a corner on the market of Christianity in school.
Butch… not sure I can agree with you that Pentecostals have done better at racial unity than other denominations. While we all appeal to the ethnic blending at Azusa Street because it makes for great history, the Assemblies, since its’ inception, has not exactly done a great job at this. Our executive leadership is still lily white at the top today as it has been since 1916. And while there are many things about evangelicals that appall us… are there not as many things about Pentecostals that should appall us as well? I guess I still don’t understand the fervent desire to try and separate ourselves as the “holiest” group among the bunch.
I do think, however, that there is a terminology to develop that can keep us grounded as “Christians” while placing the focus more on the methodology of scriptural interpretation than on our power levels. If there is a distinctive, (though I don’t like the term)… I think it is, as Stronstad and Fee note in their writings, in our exegesis rather than in our experience. In other words, where we are different is not in what God has given us… but rather in how we choose to read His Word. After all, isn’t this exactly what led Parham and Ozman to seek for what they did?
or something you have to have in order to know you have something else (the baptism in the Holy Spirit)
See, this is where we are running into trouble. Maybe I have misunderstood you, but this statement is false. You DO have to speak in tongues to know you have received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Why is that becoming so hard for us to preach/teach? What is wrong with that? Why encourage an experience (Baptism in the Holy Spirit) without the means of identifying its occurrence. Tongues is the verifiable, observable experience that lets us know it has happened. Pretty it up all you want. Candy-coat it anyway you please - but to preach anything less is to not uphold our fundamental truths. The A / G is doomed if we moved away from this distinctive doctrine. We will be evangelicals with nothing more.
Pentecostalism: Upgrade, but Save the Data
Whether the Pentecostal Movement is in crisis (as some believe), it is definitely at a crossroads. As the movement advances into its second century, it faces certain issues that threaten to attenuate its vitality.
Some of these issues surfaced when a limited number of Pentecostal pastors, educators, and students training for ministry responded to my one-question survey:
“What issues do you think Pentecostals face as they move into the twenty-first century?”
Responses included race relations, women in ministry, styles of worship, ecumenism, universalism, the influence of the Charismatic Movement, an indistinct hermeneutic, an ambiguous theological rationale for Pentecostal distinctives, relevance of Pentecostal doctrine to the current culture, neglect of eschatology, changes in missionary strategies, the need for social action, lack of integrity among leadership, worldliness, the breakdown of the family, postmodernism, institutionalism, and the need to maintain Pentecostal distinctives.
While the survey was informal and limited, a slight deviation in focus between the age groups was discernable.
-- Those above 35 years of age universally mentioned the need to maintain Pentecostal distinctives.
-- Those in the below 35 years of age category did express concern over Pentecostal distinctives, but with less frequency. Interestingly, the younger group mentioned concerns that were not raised by those who were older—breakdown of the family, integrity of leaders, relevance of Pentecostal doctrine to the current culture, and social action.
Pentecostalism has arrived at that point when the visionary founders (Eric Hoffer would call them “true believers.”) are dying and being replaced by third and fourth generation leaders who inherited their tenets and practices without spilling blood in the crucible of revolution. The Pentecostal Movement has reached the organizational stage when it is facing the ecclesiastical dangers of institutionalism and anarchism.
How will Pentecostal leaders respond to the current situation?
Institutionalism? Institutionalism occurs when an organization takes action to preserve its existence, often at the expense of the mission and purpose for which it originated. Will leaders legislate loyalty to the institution? Will leaders develop a bunker mentality—hunkering down to await the assault of the “barbarian hoards” of the fourth generation? Will leaders compromise standards and relinquish distinctives to hang onto the bodies, budgets, and buildings that give the appearance of success? History demonstrates the ineffectiveness of institutionalism at perpetuating movements. Where then does the Pentecostal Movement turn?
Anarchism: Must emerging leaders adopt what Brian McLaren calls “an anarchist ecclesiology”? Anarchism feels little loyalty to the organization and perceives the institutional church as a hindrance to spontaneity, community, and mission. Anarchists think it is best to demolish and rebuild. Must the Church be demolished and rebuilt from scratch every hundred years or so?
Is there another alternative?
Upgrade, but Save the Data! I just purchased my 10th computer in sixteen years. With the advances in technology, computers frequently need upgrading or replacing. Despite the upgrades or replacements, that which was truly valuable was always saved—the data—my sermons, syllabi, class notes, and financial records. Can the Pentecostal Movement upgrade while saving its valuable distinctives? Can it advance without damaging or losing the precepts, passion, and praxis of the pioneers? Can the Church periodically sort out and cherish the non-negotiables of the faith? Can it discard, replace, or upgrade the obsolete or superfluous traditions and structures? Can the Church insure that all generations have the opportunity for radical conversion and for the Holy Spirit to “pour new wine into new wine bags” (Matthew 9:17, NCV)? Surely, with God’s help it can.
David Arnett, Professor/Church Planter
Jeff said:
There is no way to make these streams all agree together. But we can make room for each and for any new wave the emerges from here. The question is how?
This is the the battle. And it seems that there are many that hold to position 2 & 3 Missional and Renewal. If you talk to any of the church planting groups or the boot camps for church revite/planting you hear a more diverse and reasonable view on the approach to ministry.
But the matter of fact is that the traditionalist view seems to be the primary one coming out of Springfield. The official view from Charles Crabtree (Commisioner on Discipleship) is that Sunday School will play a key role and the cure for our lack of discipleship in the AG. View the article Here
In my opinion I don't agree. Sunday School to me seems to be dying, it use to be a vital role in dicipleship but the traditional model doesn't seem to be working for the intended purpose.
So here in lies the issue. The official stance, that which the resources are poured into (time, energy & $$) doesn't seem to be working in the real world. I can see us finding a balance in all three and surviving together but not when the official stance is hardline traditional. Resources need to be flowing to new models that haven't been thought up yet. Not continuing a once vital program but adapting to the "next" vital way of doing things.
Brad said:
What a great conversation. Doesn't it feel good to bring this topic out into the open without feeling like you're touching the Ark?
I not sure about the ark thing but a couple of guys in an old sedan and dark suits showed up wanting to look at my sermon notes and mentioned something about "...just remember...you checked the box!." Then they were gone. ;)
Pentecostalism: Upgrade, but Save the Important "Stuff"
Whether the Pentecostal Movement is in crisis (as some believe), it is definitely at a crossroads. As the movement advances into its second century, it faces certain issues that threaten to attenuate its vitality.
Some of these issues surfaced when a limited number of Pentecostal pastors, educators, and students training for ministry responded to my one-question survey:
“What issues do you think Pentecostals face as they move into the twenty-first century?”
Responses included race relations, women in ministry, styles of worship, ecumenism, universalism, the influence of the Charismatic Movement, an indistinct hermeneutic, an ambiguous theological rationale for Pentecostal distinctives, relevance of Pentecostal doctrine to the current culture, neglect of eschatology, changes in missionary strategies, the need for social action, lack of integrity among leadership, worldliness, the breakdown of the family, postmodernism, institutionalism, and the need to maintain Pentecostal distinctives.
While the survey was informal and limited, a slight deviation in focus between the age groups was discernable.
-- Those above 35 years of age universally mentioned the need to maintain Pentecostal distinctives.
-- Those in the below 35 years of age category did express concern over Pentecostal distinctives, but with less frequency. Interestingly, the younger group mentioned concerns that were not raised by those who were older—breakdown of the family, integrity of leaders, relevance of Pentecostal doctrine to the current culture, and social action.
Pentecostalism has arrived at that point when the visionary founders (Eric Hoffer would call them “true believers.”) are dying and being replaced by third and fourth generation leaders who inherited their tenets and practices without spilling blood in the crucible of revolution. The Pentecostal Movement has reached the organizational stage when it is facing the ecclesiastical dangers of institutionalism and anarchism.
How will Pentecostal leaders respond to the current situation?
Institutionalism? Institutionalism occurs when an organization takes action to preserve its existence, often at the expense of the mission and purpose for which it originated. Will leaders legislate loyalty to the institution? Will leaders develop a bunker mentality—hunkering down to await the assault of the “barbarian hoards” of the fourth generation? Will leaders compromise standards and relinquish distinctives to hang onto the bodies, budgets, and buildings that give the appearance of success? History demonstrates the ineffectiveness of institutionalism at perpetuating movements. Where then does the Pentecostal Movement turn?
Anarchism: Must emerging leaders adopt what Brian McLaren calls “an anarchist ecclesiology”? Anarchism feels little loyalty to the organization and perceives the institutional church as a hindrance to spontaneity, community, and mission. Anarchists think it is best to demolish and rebuild. Must the Church be demolished and rebuilt from scratch every hundred years or so?
Is there another alternative?
Upgrade, but Save the Data! I just purchased my 10th computer in sixteen years. With the advances in technology, computers frequently need upgrading or replacing. Despite the upgrades or replacements, that which was truly valuable was always saved—the data—my sermons, syllabi, class notes, and financial records.
Can the Pentecostal Movement upgrade while saving its valuable distinctives?
Can it advance without damaging or losing the precepts, passion, and praxis of the pioneers?
Can the Church periodically sort out and cherish the non-negotiables of the faith?
Can it discard, replace, or upgrade the obsolete or superfluous traditions and structures?
Can the Church insure that all generations have the opportunity for radical conversion and for the Holy Spirit to “pour new wine into new wine bags” (Matthew 9:17, NCV)? With God’s help it can.
David Arnett, Professor/Church Planter
www.davidarnett.com
are we really so insecure that we need our own "A/G identity"? that's a disgusting and arogant thought.
i like what Jeff Leake wrote - we're lined up theologically but we'll never be united methodologically - i'm fine with that. diversity in our creativity keeps things fresh, alive, and unique.
we wouldn't want each of our children to have the same exact personality & ability. so, I'm sure our Father doesn't want that for HIS church either.
anyways, we "youngAG's," aren't so different than our predecessors - just look who's leading in the voting.
"The apple, STILL, doesn't fall far from the tree"
Tongues....
This has become a great meeting place of different opinions. Hope this become a permanent website.
If we are hearing the cry of this generation we will do all we can to preach truth with objectivity rather than build a movement based on the emphasis on tongues.
Lets preach love, unity,holiness and work to get the job of the Great Commission done. My problem is that the AG brand stands out as a group caught up on the emphasis on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. If this continues to be how we are perceived we will have lost the next generation that would have rather have us focus on redemption,forgiveness and unity.
We also need to be a voice on issues like poverty, racial equality, issues of the pro-life movement and the epidemic of AIDS/HIV.
Since when did the baptism in the Holy Spirit become the primary defining factor of our "fellowship". I remember learning we were different because our goal was to share JESUS with the whole world - not defend the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Jeff,
You said "There is no way to make these streams all agree together. But we can make room for each and for any new wave the emerges from here. The question is how?"
That's a great point. I think we (Springfield) could do more to encourage diversity...amongst methods. We celebrate our ethnic and cultural diversity as far as it relates to red, yellow, black, and white. But I don't see the mixture of our methods celebrated. What makes this fellowship great is that you can have hip churches that meet in night clubs (theliftnashville.com), movie theaters (theaterchurch.com), and buildings that resemble arenas (phoenixfirst.org). There are traditional country churches, slick buildings that ooze 21st century evangelicism, and all stops in between.
It has to be okay to not wear ties, to do altar calls differently (or not at all if another method works), or to take communion with doritos and redbull!
The issue I have is why don't we do more to promote and celebrate liberty in methodology? There are still preachers who speak out against canceling Sunday night services. This cooperative fellowship is supposed to be about empowering the local church. I think true celebration, education, and empowerment regarding diverse methods is how we can make sure there is room for the new waves.
It has been interesting to hear the contributions to this discussion. However, it appears we are discussing an issue that Paul himself had to deal with in the church in Corinth.
11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Is it possible we have our eyes on the wrong thing? Why do we need a charismatic leader to give us our identity? Isn't that found in Christ? If we are experiencing an identity crisis could it be that it's on a more personal level than an organizational level? By trying to figure out what makes us distinct (or not depending on which side of the argument you are) have we taken our eyes off of what is important? Namely, the ministry of Christ in our midst? Have we forgotten that Jesus said He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it? And unless the Lord builds the house we labor in vain?
I would encourage you to read this article by T. Austin Sparks entitled "The Greatness of the Church". It has been very challenging to me personally.
http://www.austin-sparks.net/english/000429.html
Some of you need to do a study on Assemblies of God history. It has always been primarily about evangelism and missions - evangelism and missions done through the power of the Holy Spirit! Our distinctive doctrine has always been Spirit baptism with tongues being the initial evidence. If we lose that, what does that make us then? Sure, let's talk about racial equality, poverty, AIDS/HIV, etc. That would be good. However, our primary focus needs to remain Spirit-empowered evangelism and discipleship. We need to preach the Pentecostal message with the same zeal Peter did on the day of Pentecost ("This is that..." Jesus crucified and risen again).
I am afraid for our fellowship. I am afraid we will lose our power and anointing.
Sorry Art good!
I am sorry you belong to the school that rather look at history than move ahead. Lets forget the past and lets be the history makers for this century. We thank God for the history of AG but lets not be bound by traditions. Holding on tongues doctrine will not save the world. There is battle on for the souls on this generation. Lets be passionate about reaching them where they are in a language they understand.
Lets understand the culture. This is a different century brother.
"Lets understand the culture. This is a different century brother."
And let's throw out a century's worth of Pentecostal experience, along with the realization that Biblical New Testament Christianity is to be Pentecostal which involves tongues?
No thank you. Go ahead and destroy our fellowship if you like. I'll have no part in it.
Do I think our fellowship needs to focus on evangelism? Yes - in the power of the Spirit. Do we need wisdom to reach this generation? Yes - and that wisdom will come from the Holy Spirit of God who "searches the deep things of God."
Do I believe we need to move forward into the future? Yes, but in doing so we must never forget our roots. Where we come from, and what we believe.
It’s “orthopathy” according to Steven Land that is the unique contribution of Pentecostals. All Evangelicals believe in “orthodoxy” (right doctrine) and “orthoproxy” (right ethical practice)—but Land suggests that Pentecostals bring to the table, “orthopathy” (right-deep emotional response to God) and that produces a dynamic that empowers both orthodoxy and orthoproxy.
The danger though is allowing the tail to wag the beast—deep emotion becomes emotionalism and we emphasize “tongues” instead of the dynamic of empowerment for witness that Jesus promised.
Orthopathy works in all settings—it is the great leveling force of the Spirit. Rich recognize their impoverished spiritual condition; poor become enriched and find their low condition no longer keeps them from fully functioning in the church. Women, men, young, old, red-yellow-black-white—all can be empowered by God’s Spirit to teach about the character of God and the lifestyle of the believer.
Additionally, the Spirit remains contemporary with culture—because Jesus continues to “weep over Jerusalem—San Francisco—Springfield” longing to be the shepherd of wayward sheep. Unfortunately, many Pentecostals have settled for “civilizing” people (according to polite 1950’s society—no smoking, drinking, dancing, movies, etc.) instead of “Christianizing” people (feeding poor, visiting prisoners, healing sick, delivering people from addictions, etc.) and teaching them to be apprentices of Jesus (instead of Donald Trump).
The right mix of ortho-doxy, pathy, proxy—teaches people to find their vocations (God-callings) and to do what Jesus would do if he had our jobs, our families, our churches, and lived in our communities. Every believer (Pentecost) is “called” and equipped by God’s Spirit to walk out their callings first at home (loving and serving their family), at work—40 hours a week following God into a chosen “vocation” being God’s hands, eyes, feet, etc., at church (serving its ministries) and in the community (salt and light—healing broken people—loving them till they ask us why).
It’s orthopathy—not emotionalism (or the experience of tongues) that defines the Spirit’s work in our lives. “Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls; all your waves and breakers have swept over me” (Ps. 42:7)
Steven Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom, Sheffield—1993.
Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century, Perseus—2001.
Steve Smallwood
What a great discussion!
I recently posted a different reason why tongues are important on our blog, namely prophtic confirmation.
I'm not usually right, but perhaps it will generate some thought.
timenloe.blogspot.com
Blessings!
The call to forget our history shows our ignorance and immaturity.
I did not like history in high-school in fact I hated it. But with time comes wisdom and I have come to believe like so many great educators history shapes our future.
Consider what G. K. Chesterton once said...
"The disadvantage of men not knowing the past is that they do not know the present. History is a hill or high point of vantage, from which alone men see the town in which they live or the age in which they are living."
In all of the debate about the post-modern church we would do well to remember the wise words of Solomon in Ecclesiastes...There is nothing new under the sun.
Mans greatest need is to be restored in fellowship with God. That is a super-natural act of the Holy Spirit and nothing less. We can present the truth of the Gospel but the Holy Spirit must bring the revelation.
May God have mercy on our churches and our nation if we forget our history.
"Movement instead of a monument"
As we look ahead may we be encouraged by what the Word says
" The glory of this latter house shall be greater than the former..." - Haggai 2:9
If we continue to look at our past remember Lot's wife she became a mounument instead a movement.
Let the world see as an movement focussed on Christ rather than a exclusive club of "tongues only".
I know this is deep water, but I’ll jump in
Several years ago, one of our executive leaders asked me a in a public forum, “Is initial evidence an issue in India?”
In the moment, I could only respond with an image. If the work of the Spirit is a river, Indian believers are so hungry and desperate to be in the middle of the river that they have no time to stand on the shoreline arguing over where the river begins. The focus on the edge of the river is a luxury for those who have no great need or hunger to get into a fullness of life in the Spirit for daily mission.
As long as we view Pentecost primarily as an event/a moment that occurs in church, we can view it as a luxury for those who desire it. But the more we challenge ourselves to take the love and power of Jesus Christ daily to those who are poor, bound and blind in our cities (Jesus’ mission in Luke 4: 18) – where we will face the power of our enemy head-on, the more we – all generations - realize the need for His empowerment for daily mission. We do not know how desperately we need His Spirit unless we are engaged on the fault line between darkness and light. The empowerment of Acts 1:8 is inseparable from His mission. To lose sight of that is to risk sacralizing a “distinctive” rather than mobilizing the church to our “raison d’etre” in His power.
Do we want our children and grandchildren to seek for the fullness of His Spirit? Let’s let them walk with us into our city streets, the red-light districts, prisons, the places where the bondage of Satan’s power is tangible to take Jesus’ love and pray prayers of deliverance. Participating in His mission outside our churches, they begin to realize that they (and we) have no power to preach Jesus and see lives changed without His awesome power. (Our desperation or distinctives . . . I wonder which is more motivating to a hunger for God and His Spirit that He has promised to fill?)
If the AG is having an identity crisis, could it be that we as individuals and churches have lost sight of our reason for being?
Passionate about His purposes and enabled by Pentecost,
Beth Grant
Great discussion.
In the post, Paul observed: "We know why we go to Willow Creek conferences or join church planting networks, but we wonder why anyone would ever go to district council."
We belong to the Willow Creek Association, we attend the Catalyst Conference, and we buy the Nooma videos for a different set of reasons than we belong to the Assemblies of God for.
The first set of things is fundamentally about us and our needs - it's about personal growth and renewal and growing our ministries.
The second thing (being AG) is about collaborating in the cause of global mission. As I recall, that was a (the?) primary motive for the gathering in Hot Springs - to provide a hosting organization for evangelization of the world.
So the driver for our life together is neither doctrine nor methodology - it is a global agenda.
And so our conversation about doctrine and methodology gets tweaked. The question of doctrine becomes "What is the minimal set of beliefs we need to engrave in stone to ensure that we are actually engaged in the same mission?" The question of methodology becomes "Where do you minister and what must you do to accomplish the mission in that context?"
And the comments above are very helpful as regards these two questions.
But please, please, please, please, please remember that our fellowship is about missions - both foreign and domestic. I'm sure it's been in the back of everyone's mind, but I haven't noticed the terminology being used much.
One more thing - if we pursue our global vision with passion and wisdom then our movement will become a place where others come in order to learn how to experience personal and ministry growth. In other words, we'll be the Willow Creek Association or the Acts 29 Network or the Catalyst conference or the Passion gathering of the future. It will be the byproduct of our mission.
But if we fix our attention on how to turn the Assemblies of God into a Willow Creek Association or an Acts 29 Network then we're going to fail at that AND fail at our global mission.
In the same way, if we focus our attention on how to uphold right doctrine then we will lose our doctrine in the long run. The Inquisition isn't remembered for advancing the faith.
Beth:
Another great response! Perhaps we argue so much about tongues as initial physical evidence because that's all we have left of our original Pentecostal vitality. But Pentecostalism is about the fullness of the Spirit--ministering as Jesus did to the last, the lost, and the least. Perhaps, then, we're so focused on tongues because we're not ministering to the last, the lost, and the least. It's a way of staying connected to the one part of our Pentecostal heritage that does personally challenge our lifestyles.
George
George
Great thought provoking post and some great comments.
I think the paradigm that you mention in which we need to be "more than evangelicals" is this: Make sure Jesus is pleased with above all else (including our 'target' audience) - then simply return to genuine hunger for and reliance on God. When we hunger for everything else but the presence of Jesus, we are going to lose that edge that made our movement so effective.
It would seem that we more quickly and willingly rely upon man-made methodology and programs to accomplish what we used to rely on the manifest giftings of the Holy Spirit to do.
In referring to this, Dr. Opal Reddin was spot on when she said, "Pentecostal churches will become redundant. (Churches following these methods) will find too late they were grieving the Holy Spirit. This is one of the main hindrances today to people receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit."
We must peel back the showmanship, slick performances and 'sanitized' church, and lay our hearts bare before the Lord on His altar.
It's this reliance on the Holy Spirit of God that makes us what we are, and a return to that will make us relevant to the lost and enable us to reach people of all ilk and labels.
As an AG missionary I can't help but agree with Glen Davis. As I move around our fellowship I see people focused more on form then power. I have seen overseas when the power of God is present it breaks down barriers. I am not sure that we can design a proper form to reach our culture. Like all missionaries I do try to approach people in a culturally sensitive way, but in the end if the sick are not healed and the demon possessed set free and lives changed radically by salvation I am no better then the local priest or witch doctor. Our theology, and identity does affect how we approach our mission. The next GS beyond age must be a man with a mission. One that looks beyond Springfield and keeping the doors of GPH open. He/she must have a desire to call this church to a power encounter with God.
Great discussion.
Anonymous - I see where your frustrations are. We've all had those thoughts at one point or another (as evidenced by all the comments). But your viewpoint would come off a lot stronger if it wasn't made behind a cloak of anonymity. I don't think anyone is losing credentials becuase of blog comments on this site (oh wait, dark sedan and guys in suits pulling up outside as I type - too funny Chad!).
I agree that our fellowship is at a pivital point in its existence. There IS a need for some new methodologies for the HOW we do things. As culture changes, the church needs to be able to know how to effectively reach the lost. And we need to know how to go find them because we're not going to succeed by waiting for them to come find us.
That said, our history (for better or worse) defines our fellowship. While I think amazing inroads to diversity have been made over the last decade, I would hardly say we've reached true diversity (and I think COGIC and many women in ministry would agree). But we're on the right path. You cannot steer a ship in a new direction overnight.
I also think baptism in the HS and tongues is a vital doctrine of our fellowship. I refuse to abandon that doctrine because it has become unpopular (BTW, I am a twentysomething pastor) or misunderstood. I remember getting licensed and hearing people say, "I don't agree with this doctrine, but I will say what they want to hear so I can get licensed. Then we'll change the doctrine from within." It bothered me then and it still bothers me now.
I'm not suggesting we need to hold fast to doctrine and obey with blind faith. Discussion is good. I for one appreciate hearing other views and explanations on the "why we believe what we believe." I would agree with many of the comments that there are bigger issues to be addressed than the baptism in the HS debate. Thank you Beth for reminding us that the identity crisis may not be a corporate crisis within the fellowship but a personal crisis within the individual.
One final comment: Any chance we can open a discussion on a resolution or two that is going to be voted on? Thanks David Barnett for your comments on your site. I think the resolutions are just as critical to defining us as any elected position. Perhaps discussion on the "relational districts" resolution. I noticed several sponsors are commenting regularly on this site.
Make this a permanent site guys!!! We need a forum like this for the free-thinking and discussion that has taken place for the last few weeks. Thanks for doing this!
Nate McLaughlin
www.elementministries.com
Lane,
I agree with you, entirely. I hope my comment did not leave the impression that I think we have gotten it right in the A/G with regard to racial issues. Some congregations have...many have not.
Butch
Glen…
Really good post. I sincerely appreciated what you had to say.
You touched on something that definitely needs to be discussed, namely, the issue of missions. This is something that has gained more and more momentum over the past several years. The discussion, I mean. It is, in fact, one of the primary factors affecting the fractures and fissures we are sensing in our movement.
The AG has always wanted to define itself as a “missions-minded” movement. That’s fine. But we cannot simultaneously define ourselves as a discipling church if all our eggs are going to be in the other basket. And, I think, this is what we have been discovering.
A letter from Trask 4 years ago defines what I mean. In it, he summarized the failure of the Decade of Harvest. In the 10 year span, our churches reported almost 3,000,000 converts. Yet consequent ACMR reports showed that over 2,900,000 of those could not be accounted for in the following years. In other words, we lost over 97% of those converts. Now the GP (Crabtree) is preaching that our single, largest weakness is discipleship and that, for the first time, the AG is reporting a “loss” and “decline” in growth.
Willow Creek’s benefit has to been to fill in the vacuum that our denomination has created. They have contributed resources on teaching about the spiritual gifts, developing leadership, and being sensitive to the seekers in our neighborhoods. The reason this has been so novel to us is because missions is largely defined in the AG as overseas evangelistic efforts. Sure, we want new people to come into our churches. But let's be honest. We quickly lose interest in them after they have said the sinner's prayer with the exception of imposing our tithing obligations on them. Willow actually takes the necessary steps to see the person developed spiritually.
Now that their conferences have sufficiently attracted our members and influenced their thought patterns, our leaders have awakened to the fact that we, for the most part, do not build or equip believers. And I don't count WBP as an honest effort. That was simply Warren's PDC re-packaged. Here's the kicker... Rather than wake up and smell the coffee, however, we have, like Adam pointing to Eve after the Fall, laid the blame at Willow’s feet for our shortcomings.
Here’s the point. If we are going to be a well-rounded and growing church, the eggs are going to have be equally distributed among the baskets. But the moment that we start trumpeting that what we are about is missions, (or anything else, for that matter) making that the spotlight… something else is going to have to take the back seat. It’s the old classic cliché… you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
While I understand what you are saying, Lane, it is my understanding, based on very limited research, that historically the AG has married Missions to discipleship. From the beginning, participation in Missions, either through actively going on a trip, giving, local outreach to one's neighbor, or whatever, was an expected outcome of the discipleship process. It was in the constant preaching of "more" that Tim referenced that people move from the sinner's prayer to disciples/missionaries. So I guess, in my world, it's not that we must choose between Missions or discipleship driving the bus. Missions must be the expression of our discipleship if we are to reach the world with the message of Jesus Christ.
As to the question at hand, namely, what joins us together, the real problem here is that we have gotten so far from the original movement. When Hot Springs happened, if you wanted a fellowship of Spirit-filled believers who hungered for more of God, you had exactly one choice--the AG. Today, I can walk into my local Ministerial Alliance meeting and I know that a third of the Pastors have experienced the evidence and confidence of speaking in tongues--Baptist, Methodist, and others. They will not preach it, but they will live it. And we are accepted into these circles, even circles of those who do not believe in the evidence of the Baptism as we do. So now if I want to associate and fellowship with like minded believers, I have choices beyond the AG. While this is a good thing--it means that glossalalia has spread beyond our fence line--it also has lessened the necessity of a single, overarching organization.
Perhaps what I am saying is this: Our forefathers have done their job. Tongues is considered more normative now than in anytime in recent church history. But in doing their job, our distinctive doctrine is no longer distinct. The SBC is in the midst of a several year long discussion on the issue of tongues as it relates to their missionaries. Their most recent Superintendent was elected largely because of his stance against tongues, but many of those that ran against him were embracing of tongues as it related directly to Missionaries.
So our distinctive is not as distinct as it once was. So what now? What is our rallying cry now? Do we gather around the plate of being able to publicly proclaim tongues as the thing that unites us? Or do we return to what our forefathers cried out for--a move of God that epitomizes "more"? A move that changes not just our constituency but our community? Where the gifts of the Spirit are normal and expected, including tongues? Where we bump the line of history closer to the return of Christ as His Gospel is preached to our neighbors, members of the third largest missions receiving nation in the world right now?
To me, our distinctive doctrine is hollow and form with no power if we are not changing our community. We can make a lot of noise about how the Baptism changes us, but what about our neighbor? Does our Baptism change them? If not, then truly that will define us.
It is rather interesting that missions is viewed somehow outside of discipleship. I think that it is because AG missions have focused so heavily on discipleship that has given it strength. My fear is that we will begin to look inward - form, polity, theology, while important can consume a lot of our energy. Truth is the AG has allowed for many different expressions of our faith. While this does cause tension it is also one of our strengths.
When we relegate missions to another program, I fear, we truly are choosing to focus inward. To me Worship, evangelism, discipleship, and sending - is missions. And in my mind the AG. Simplistic yes - but very powerful when you look at only the numbers, not to mention the lives touched.
I just found the FutureAG blog today, thanks to a local pastor. Those responsible are to be commended for taking the risk in encouraging Internet discussion. I am, however, concerned about so many anonymous comments. The age of the blogosphere is not the age of anonymity. We need to not only communicate with honesty but be willing to identify ourselves.
My primary concern is with the declining interest in ministry, particularly pastoral ministry. The Indentity Crisis post and the stats in the Raising Warriors Post should concern every pastor and DS.
Check my stats and research on declining interest in the ministry at our AG colleges. Some suggestions are in my posts, others in my research for those interested. My blog is yestoministrynow.blogspot.com. See the first 12 to 15 posts.
The future GS I pray will challenge the emerging generations to Pentecostal ministry. He along with district officials and pastors will have to overcome the internal and external pressures that are holding back our quality young people in great numbers from preparing in our colleges for ministry and entering the ordained ministry.
I am praying with Brother Trask and a host of others for God's direction and blessing in the upcoming GC.
Chuck Spong, Jeremiah 33:22
JeremyG...
You and I are in agreement. I did not say that we had to choose between one or the other. In fact, I said the exact opposite. My statement was that we needed a balanced perspective where carrying the message to the lost and continuing my own spiritual development were BOTH seen as vital by God.
My post was in response to "Glen" who wrote that what the AG must be about is "missions." When we say this, we create a "spotlight" on one issue which throws a shadow on the other aspects of the Christian faith.
My conclusion was that our concentration on missions, while good, has caused what Richard Keyes called in Finding God at Harvard the "Law of Unintended Consequences." Though we did not mean for this to be the case, the concentration on missionary endeavors resulted in a blind spot which was the spiritual development of the people within our own church. As such, this is why when you go to ag.org, what you see is a concentrated effort to suddenly get back in the game of building disciples.
The new track on leadership at General Council this year is appreciated. And the new Commission on Discipleship website with the small group training material is nice. But c'mon... we're almost 10 years late to this party.
Should "missions" and "discipleship" be tied together? Yes. Are they? Not in my opinion. Carrying the gospel forward is necessary. But there were many, many times where Christ stopped the mission to tell the disciples, "Come away with me." We have not been as wise.
As the Pentecostal Movement begins its second century, it must not give into the seemingly inevitable institutional lifecycle of birth, growth, plateau, and decline. Instead, it must confront the dangers that threaten to attenuate its vitality.
It must do the work necessary to address the issues of institutionalism, the perception of theological ambiguity, and the question of the relevance of Pentecostalism to a needy world.
As it turns the reins of the movement over to an emerging fourth generation, the Pentecostal Movement must remember that it is incumbent that each generation must personally experience radical conversion and the power of the Holy Spirit.
Stories about the “good old days” are not sufficient. The good days must be now. The movement must help emerging Pentecostals to “experience” and cherish the doctrinal and foundationtal victories of the past while challenging them to be open to build on those foundations in whatever way the Holy Spirit may direct as they continually interface with Him.
The movement must recognize that its future and vitality depend on a carefully developed hermeneutic that will govern and validate the formulation of a consistent Pentecostal perspective on pneumatology.
Those who work with young Pentecostals are obligated to show the relevance of a holistic Pentecostal orthodoxy that leads to a Pentecostal orthopathy that will invigorate a Pentecostal orthopraxis—a theology of compassionate evangelism.
If Pentecostalism does these things, the best is yet to come.
Wow! What a fascinating conversation! Some people have been asking if we could make this a permanent blog… after reading through these comments I think we should turn it into a book.
I agree with Lane and others that all Christians should find their identity, first and foremost, in Christ. However, if there were nothing that unites us, no common thread within the organization, then what would be the point in its existence? Many in my generation might say “amen” to that, however, based on the comments above I think there are some exciting reasons to belong to this fellowship.
Historical – We share a powerful story. A story not centered on one or two founding leaders, but a story of the Holy Spirit using very regular people to go around the world and preach the gospel. Even if you are new to the AG, you are a part of this story and with God’s grace it will continue to move forward.
Theological – We share a unique perspective on God and his work in the world today that goes far beyond “initial physical evidence” (George P. Wood, Beth Grant, and others have already written beautifully about this above).
Relational – We are a diverse family. General Councils are a lot like family reunions; you see your crazy uncle the evangelist who talks too much, your great-grandparents who always talk about the “good-old days,” and your cousins who died their hair green and planted a church in a warehouse. It can be messy… but its family.
Missional – We share a common mission to bring the whole gospel to the whole person throughout the whole world. This is the most essential to our identity as a movement. It is the reason we were founded and the reason we should stay together. We all play an important part in this mission whether we are pastors, missionaries, or district/executive leaders.
Can you imagine if the leadership of the next generation was able to harness all of the potential in our pastors and churches and focus that combined energy towards bringing the gospel into every corner of the planet? Would any one of us not want to be a part of something like that?
Great Comments!
As I began my church planting journey less than a year ago, A Pastor of a very large church called me and said “we need your transformational leadership to help cause a transformation in the AG.”.
The truth is I don’t have a passion or calling to bring a transformation to the AG, I have a desire to bring transformation to lives around me. To the broken, hurting, poor, lonely, etc.. I don’t believe the identity crisis is in the fact of being Pentecostal, it is that us, who are future leaders keep trying to label what we are, rather being who we are.
Pentecostal, emerging, post-modern, traditional, AG or Baptist, the truth is, a label does not bring identity, action does. Why is it that we keep trying to convince ourselves who we are, rather than just being. I like Paul, speak in tongues, but it is not my identity, Jesus is, the crisis comes when we keep trying convince ourselves who we are, rather than just being Christ. I know it is naive to say, and elementary to the core, but imagine the transformation that could take place to our fellowship if we spend as much time loving the lost as we did discussing the future GS, because if we are still searching for identity then the GS will make a huge difference to us. If we have our identity than we will make a huge difference to others, regardless.
Just a thought!
Shayne Walters
www.thechangingchurch.com
Beth,
Thanks for your words. Very powerful, really made me stop and think. It seems like if we all just let the spirit be the spirit and all sought God first then we would be OK with differences in methods. We are so caught up in how it should function. Is there hope for a middle ground?
You said:
Do we want our children and grandchildren to seek for the fullness of His Spirit? Let’s let them walk with us into our city streets, the red-light districts, prisons, the places where the bondage of Satan’s power is tangible to take Jesus’ love and pray prayers of deliverance. Participating in His mission outside our churches, they begin to realize that they (and we) have no power to preach Jesus and see lives changed without His awesome power. (Our desperation or distinctives . . . I wonder which is more motivating to a hunger for God and His Spirit that He has promised to fill?)
I find it very interesting that you used these words. Actually floored me. One of the main points in my sermon this morning titled Following Jesus: Where would Jesus hang out, I talked about how the party and Levi's would be like hanging out at a party of owners of businesses in the Red Light district and how we should be more like Jesus.
Commenting on this paragraph: "Unlike Lutherans or Methodists we can’t find our identity from the writings of our founder. The Pentecostal movement has never had a single charismatic leader, similar to Luther or Wesley. Rather the “identity” of the movement was energized by a common experience of the Holy Spirit."
HELLO? Is this what you are saying as follows: Jesus is not the Founding Father of the Assemblies of God and His writings, the Word of God, do not give the Assemblies of God an identity? Friends ... So if Jesus is not the Founding Father of the AG then close the
doors and find something else to do. That was sad for me to
see; all those people seeming to be led in a way so as to not trust in the Lord and find Jesus as their Anchor, Rock, Lord and Savior, and Source of IDENTITY!
Sorry I have to go anonymous on this one, but I choose to not call out one particular church.
One of the reasons the middle generation (40-55) seems more interested in wanting to discuss the "distinctive" is because the "good-old days" just weren't that good.
I grew up in a church that preached the "baptism" - again, and again, and again. We were all filled. The problem is now, looking at the same people who were there, most are living completely dysfunctional lives; and not just a few. We had sister... singing in tongues, she was the town gossip. Most of the youth were sleeping with each other. There are now only a handful that are involved in church anywhere. I had my own hang ups. It took a while to sort things out and learn what it means to be a pentecostal disciple.
I have traveled a lot and have seen many churches do the same thing. It's one of the reasons I am uncomfortable when our leaders put the guilt trip on us for not preaching the baptism like the second coming.
I am a pastor now, and still believe, and teach, what it means to have life in the spirit - including speaking in tongues. But the people in our church that tell us we are not spiritual because we don't have tongues and interpretation every service are the people I don't want to be like.
I guess what I am trying to say is that pentecost without discipleship has caused some serious reservations.
The new GS has his work cut out for him and I pray that God gives us clarity and unity.
Glen and Lane:
For me, the distinction between missions and discipleship is a false distinction. The mission of the church is to make disciples (Matt. 28:16-20). Anyone who makes a disciple for Jesus is, therefore, his missionary.
Unfortunately, due to long usage, we think of "missionaries" as people who work overseas, in foreign lands, or among ethnic minorities. This reflects an assumption on the part of too many American pastors that America is fundamentally a Christian nation. If the nation is already Christian, then American pastors can spend their time on issues other than evangelism and discipleship. (I wonder if this assumption of Christian nationhood doesn't lay under the involvement of Christian ministers in political campaigns. Politics, in this sense, becomes a substitute for mission.)
I wish we pastors in America would think of ourselves as missionaries ourselves. I wish we would utilize the tools and mindset of missionaries going to "nonchristian" nations so that our work would be more agile and mobile and effective, more missional, as it were. And I further wish that we would view missions in other nations as a fundamental extension of mission in our communities.
In other words, I'm arguing for a both/and mentality. Both mission and discipleship (since they are intimately related). Both missions in our neighborhood and missions around the world. "Think globally, act locally," as Greenpeace likes to put it. Or "glocalization," as one recent Christian author calls it.
George
I don't hold credentials with the A/G, but I'm a 38-year-old lay worker. My wife and I work at one of the Hispanic Project 2000 churches in addition to attending North Little Rock 1st A/G (I found this site through one of my routine Google searches to see where Pastor Rod Loy's name is showing up).
When Brother Garrison was our pastor, and was preaching on the baptism in the Holy Spirit, he used this analogy: The steam in the steam engine is there to do more than just blow the whistle -- it's primary purpose is to move the train down the track. In the same way, the Holy Spirit wasn't given just to make us feel good, but to empower us to do the work of the kingdom.
The infilling of the Holy Spirit has been promised to give us 'discernment' and Wisdom.
I am saddened, as a 60-year old to see so many young and I'm sure well-meaning young ministers be so brazen as to discard the wisdom of the anyone over 40 generation.
Time and Time in ministry does bring wisdom - when we ask for it. If the Lord does not build the house - - - What's the purpose?
Let's not get on our soap boxes - but rather turn to the Holy Spirit for wisdom - HE has promised us that if we seek it.
Youth often wants change - NOW. And why wouldn't they - we have microwaves, McDonalds etc that have all come in the past 30 years or so - everything instantly.
Be paitient my young friends - God's timing is perfect & when HE has prepared one of you to lead - HE will open the door.
Prayerful about INDY
Personally, I am very optimistic about the Pentecostal message and practice. In the last 100 years it has swept the world. It is the fastest growing non-militaristic voluntary movement ever!
In just about every nation in the world, Pentecostal practice is the dominant message...even in non-AG denominations.
The only place where it is not dominant is in the West (with the exception of Australia--where it is also very explosive).
I don't feel any need to defend the ideals. They are being accepted and practiced by millions. Why not enjoy the momentum of what is already happening?
Even many evangelical movements in the USA make room for tongues and gifts in their lives.
We should be very excited about the future. From my perspective it looks very bright.
This clip was from 7/30/07 You can embed it or post the link if you want.
Comments from Pastor Dan Betzer.
Link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=2HRB_W-JCVY
Embed code available on youtube.
George...
Of course, theologically, I agree with you on the "false distinction" comment. Hence my earlier posting about NOT having a "distinction" in favor of simply being "Christian." All of the things we have been discussing go into being a disciple of Jesus.
My point is that we should change our language. When we say "missions" in the A/G, we are primarily talking about evangelism, and overseas evangelism at that. When the plaques go out at a DC, what are they for? Highest $$$ given to "missions." When is the last time you saw a plaque given to the church who spent the most on their discipleship program? [ This is just for illustrative purposes. I personally think the "plaque" giving is a bit ridiculous as it does more to breed competition rather than to inspire other churches.]
So we are in agreement, I just think an overhaul on our language is needed that provides balance and comprehensive focus on all aspects of disciple-building.
Wow. What powerful comments from Pastor Betzer. Be sure to check it out.
My respect for Dan Betzer has gone through the roof. He gets it.
Passionate cultues respond to a passionate gospel (Pentecostal). The "global south" is now responding to the emotion-laden Pentecostal message. Try the same approach to western, upwardly-mobile, rational-based people--and you will not get the same results. As long as the AG was working with displaced and dispossesed peoples--in passionate cultures--it had great results. We need to rethink and repackage the dynamic of Pentecost for cultures that are looking for the transcendent but not interested in emotionalism. This is not been our forte!
One other thought--why do we have to be distinctive? Maybe the goal is that we all "reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13)? Just a thought!
Steve Smallwood
I am a Pentecostal, not a Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, or Orthodox. My sincere prayer is that all Christ followers were Pentecostal regardless of church affiliation. I am a Pentecostal, Assemblies of God by affiliation, because of my theology, my experience and my place in history not because of a narrow view of tongues.
I really think our identity struggles today stem far more from the media impacted world and ungodly culture we find ourselves than our Pentecostal heritage. We are being impacted by what no other generation in history has. I trust and pray we will be empowered by the Spirit and not overpowered by the world.
At the beginning of the 20th century, theologians spoke of the Holy Spirit as the silent member of the Trinity. No one sees the Holy Spirit that way today. It took the Pentecostal Movement to revive Pneumatology. The contribution of the Pentecostal Movement to the church at large is the renewed emphasis on Pneumatology, and did it without neglecting other doctrines. It took around 1700 years to recapture what was believed and practiced in the New Testament church and the post NT era.
We are not a movement built on one doctrine, but one with balanced and sound doctrinal positions. This has contributed to our strength, whereas other movements in church history have lacked depth and breadth which resulted in a loss of worldwide success and acceptance.
Before we in the AG had a seminary, I attended a Nazarene seminary, an American Baptist seminary, and a Southern Baptist seminary. I have also attended a Methodist and Presbyterian seminary. Rather than weakening or negating my understanding of what it means to be Pentecostal, these educational experiences strengthened my own Pentecostal self identity and understanding.
My Dad, (70 years of AG credentials) along with his parents was put out of the Baptist church in Youngstown, Ohio in the early part of the 20th century. If the Baptists would have been more accommodating to the nature and work of the Spirit, my grandparents probably would have never left and a host of other believers would have remained in their churches. We can not go back and change that history and the history of all the other Pentecostals who were not accepted by many different denominations.
We can and must fellowship and labor together with other denominations. I myself and other Pentecostals have nurtured these kinds of relationships. I encourage the younger generation of Pentecostals to do the same. We are not alone in the world, but a part of the great family of God.
On methodology, in the past we learned a lot from the Baptists particularly as it relates to evangelism and the Sunday school. My son serves at Willow Creek. We can learn a lot from Evangelicals like Bill Hybels even as we learned a lot from the Baptists in our early days. We can do it without losing, confusing, or sacrificing our Pentecostal identity.
Chuck Spong, Lakeland, FL, Jeremiah 33:22, cwspong@msn.com
Passionate, Pentecostal, Participatory: Keys to Building an Emerging Church
Participation is the reoccurring theme that surfaces in my conversations with college students and young ministers. This generation longs to be connected and participating in what God is doing.
What a challenge to the Pentecostal Movement. Pentecostal churches with their emphasis on “body ministry” in the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and corporate prayer and expressive worship should be in the forefront of the ministry to the emerging culture.
Perhaps the Pentecostal movement should stop looking to large evangelical churches for models of spectator-based ministry and start looking to the transcultural, transhistorical Biblical models of Spirit-directed, broad-based, participatory ministry.
While visiting the Willow Creek Community Church, I was impressed by the professional quality of everything they do. However, in a conversation with some of the Willow leaders, I learned that they are concerned that the church is not be as effective in ministering to this emerging generation. I do not want to be misunderstood. They are a great church for upwardly mobile baby boomers. The leaders are effective communicators, the programs are inspiring and flawless, and the facilities are impeccable.
However, this approach may not communicate well to the emerging “flip-flop generation” with its blasé attitude toward the polish and panache of “spectator church.” They crave involvement. They want to get dirty. They want to make a difference in the world. They want to experiment with the supernatural. The innovation they desire is a hope born out of a face-to-face encounter with God.
As Reggie McNeal puts it, “Only when something goes on in church that can be explained as a God-thing will a spiritually fascinated culture pause to take notice.”
Dr. David Arnett
Thank you for providing this forum for discussion. I really do believe that we need to examine ourselves doctrinally and pragmatically. Do we really think that our founders crafted an infallible description of the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life when they penned points 7 & 8? The protestant church has held the tradition of the reformers Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda—"The church reformed, always reforming." It would seem that the AG would do well to reassert our reformation roots. Those who would step away from a dogmatic interpretation of 7 & 8 have no desire to abandon a passion for the Holy Spirit. I'm sure we all would agree with the plea of Moses "We're going nowhere without Your Presence" (rough paraphrase of Exod 33:15-16). Still, the Spirit has moved his church to refine its doctrine throughout history, and perhaps we are due for a similar refinement. Perhaps our focus on reasserting and entrenching our doctrinal "distinctives" has been the very thing that's hindered a fresh outpouring of his Presence.
Steve Smallwood says, "We need to rethink and repackage the dynamic of Pentecost for cultures that are looking for the transcendent but not interested in emotionalism."
Trace Adkins says, in his song "I Wanna Feel Something":
If youre tellin me Im not on fire
Youre just preachin to the choir
Ive gotten dull as old barbed wire from livin
Last night I watched the evening news
It was the same ol nothin new
It should have cut me right in two
But it didnt
I dont know why it didnt
But I wanna feel somethin
Somethin thats a real somethin
That moves me, that proves to me Im still alive
I wanna heart that beats and bleeds
A heart thats bustin at the seams
I wanna care, I wanna cry, I wanna scream
I just wanna feel somethin
Call it emotionalism, call it transcendency, it's still a basic human need. Maslow called it "loving and belonging". Regardless of the cultural context that colors the expression, all human beings have an innate need for experiencing something beyond themselves and beyond the confines of natural understanding.
20th century Pentecostalism tapped into that paradigm. After centuries of the Enlightenment, humanity began to realize that Reason was not all there was. A transcendent experience in the form of a divine encounter with God through the power of the Holy Spirit was attractive and liberating.
Then came the emotional excesses, abuses, and downright fraud of the mid- and late- 20th century Pentecostal/Charismatic church. Is it any wonder that the larger culture rejects us, when our most visible representatives are on PTL, TBN, and then when they get caught in their fraud, CNN? Let's name the most visible Pentecostals of the last 25 years:
1) Pat Robertson
2) Bob Tilton
3) Jimmy Swaggart
4) Benny Hinn
5) Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker
6) Paul and Jan Crouch
Most have been involved in fraud or scandal. Most have not represented the kingdom well in terms of financial practices, personal lifestyle, etc. Pat Robertson has shown the most integrity of the group, but he is hopelessly mired in American politics. Like it or not, these people have become the real face of our movement.
The culture hasn't rejected Pentecostalism because it is irrelevant; the culture has rejected it because it (at least what they see of it on late-night TV) is bogus. I've never understood why the unbelieving world has better discernment than we do.
People want a "real somethin'". The Pentecostal distinctive should be to help people find it -- personal salvation that not only changes their heart, but through the empowerment of the Spirit, changes their lives. In light of eternity the cultural environment that frames the experience is irrelevent.
Blessings,
David W Barnett
I am a Christian! Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. He leads me by His Word, the Bible/Holy Scriptures. His Spirit seals my salvation and empowers me to live as He wants me to. Jesus is my identity. My identity in Christ is affirmed in and by His Word. Isn't this what it is all about? So, what's the identity issue that has been proposed here?
At 72 years of age this former pastor, missionary and military officer continues to search for a church in our area where I can find a "meaningful" worship service with a strong pulpit ministry. Sadly to say, the "worship" is mostly superficial and "orchestrated". We have lost the anointing and substituted "strange fire" as David Wilkerson once wrote. I long to go into a service and sense a strong presence of God and a meaningful worship service.
Standing in the dining room of a fellow missionary's home in Manila during our Thanksgiving feast a couple of years ago, I had tears flowing down my face as I listened to Pentecostal women conversing in a language none of us could understand. There was an overwhelming sense of the presence of the Holy Spirit in that room.
We - a group of A/G missionaries - living on a landmass in the middle of the South China Sea for one reason... because Jesus said to 'go into all the world and preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations' ... He said something else about that same time: to wait right where they were until they were empowered with the "Promise of the Father" ... the Holy Spirit!
Holy Spirit empowered missions ...
Holy Spirit empowered living ...
Dr. John Wycoff one of my undergrad profs at SAGU gave us a formula: what we see as consistent repetition in NT Scripture, we can accept and expect that to be considered normative in today’s church. Seems to me that every time someone was baptized in the Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts, they spoke in tongues.
I have no problem accepting that the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues.
There are those in our Fellowship who do not accept this.
I'm a 31 year old ordained A/G minister ... 4th generation AG ... I heard my grandma talk to me about brush arbor meetings in northeast Texas back in the 1920's ... my great grandparents were Methodists who were filled with the Holy Ghost when the Pentecostal message came to the area years before my grandma was born. My family left the Methodist church because of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. They left to be identified with those of like understanding and experience.
I am not an "Evangelical Plus." I'm not a Charismatic. I'm Pentecostal. Broken down even more, I'm Assemblies of God because I believe in our distinctive - the initial physical evidence. And I believe in the mission of the church - making disciples of all nations. Jesus told us we needed the Holy Spirit before we were ready to make disciples ... the initial evidence on the day of Pentecost? Tongues! What should we expect as normative for today? Tongues!
Identity Crisis? Unfortunately, the crisis seems real. Fortunately, we have a beautiful heritage and history where leaders (both credentialed and lay) have fallen on their faces before God and asked Him to lead our Fellowship.
They laid a solid foundation ... His response could end our crisis.
Brandy Wilson
I wholeheartedly concur with David W Barnett's comments! Steve Smallwood
I have to preach four times this weekend but rather than studying, I have burned up over 4 hours immersed in the dialog. Awesome site... thought provoking (I just wish it fit into my series so I wouldn't feel so guilty spending so much time reading it). I really appreciate the insight and perspectives shared...keep the site up after GC guys!
Again, wisdom pouring out of the mouth of Beth Grant.
Many years ago (late 90's a few years into the Brownsville stuff) my husband and I chose to attend a well known baptist church to find some anonymity during a difficult time. What surprised us the most was the powerful sense of the holy spirit we had there. Growing up in the AG I had heard nothing but baptist bashing at every youth convention and camp I ever attended. We had tried several AG churches, weren't connecting and were discouraged wtih the sunday morning hype to replicate Brownsville when we were in crisis. It just wasn't hitting the spot. But we found such great refreshing at this baptist church. And for the first time in years I heard in church something I had not been hearing in my AG church attendance - a passion for the lost. for living a christlike life in the world. for praying and trusting the holy spirit to draw people to him rather than relying on a contrived altar call.
What? You mean I don't have to jump and scream and wale, I can trust the Holy Spirit to do his work as I follow God? It again was fresh water to this AG girl's soul.
As a near 40 person, it is only in the past 5 years perhaps that i have had more opportunity to rub with shoulders outside an AG ministry arena and found I didn't even know how to be friends with a non-christian. My youth group in the 80's was so focuses on keeping me from the "world" (my school friends) that I never even knew that God was in all those people. That I could be with and relate to those people with the love of Christ.
There is so much here to comment on and to think about, but the distinctive that I have heard about for so long never produced the desired results of empowerved living. It just frustrated me that we were made to be separate not just from the world, but from so many people who are on our team and yet we have to put ourselves up as better. That is the type of stuff that my peers and I have been frustrated with for so very long.
I don't want a distinctive. I want to be on the kingdom team bringing light to the dark corners of the world not just overseas but in our nation's universities and workplaces.
I have to say that I can't understand why we have for so long talked about this distinctive when the I Cor 13 reminds us that all the other stuff is baloney without love.
Enough of the rambling.
wendy wirtz
minneapolis mn
Wendy, I appreciate your candor in sharing your experience. I didn’t grow up AG and what I remember hearing about Pentecostals as a teenager was that they were serious mental cases and probably some kind of cult. Despite that, my husband and I became members of an AG church because of what they stood for and represented and our own personal experiences with the Holy Spirit. However, the emotionalism (which at times appeared fake) that seemed to mark the spiritual ones from the unspiritual ones just about sent me over the edge.
What has kept me here, in the AG, is the fact that there is a desire to reach people who don’t know Him and there are concentrated and structured efforts to do that. As an example, at my own home state University (WVU) there is finally a Chi Alpha group. It has only been known as a party school and I hope and pray that God strengthens the team working there to reach those students.
So all of that to say, when I think of who we are as Pentecostals I think:
Mystical,
Missional,
Motivated, and
Moving towards God (seeking Him and not just a gift)…
Pam Frey,
Mexico City, Mexico
Tim,
I have some questions about the term "mystic more". Paul responded to you that Monday -Saturday Pentecostal behavior was more important then Sunday morning "mystic more". Your responce was the need of Sunday morning example. I am concerned that the "mystic more" is a deeper problem.
Alvin Tofler introduced the term "prosumer". He said when we focus on "pro"ducing what we want to con"sume" our future is doomed. The problem is not with behaving as the mystics. The mystic's of old were Pentecostal in behavior. Claire was told to stay in the church at Assisi and pray which she did for the rest of her life. People would come to the church to pass by an open window where she extended her hand and scores were healed. If that is the "mystic more" I am for it. Today 800 years later prayer still goes on in that church 24 hours a day, if that is the "mystic more" bring it on.
I beleive the success of the AG worldwide has been a Monday -Saturday demonstration of Pentecostal behavior in cultures all over the world.
Dr, David Lim adjunct Professor AGTS and pastor of Grace chuch Singapore calls this "incarnational" Pentecost. Jesus was God incarnate, God in flesh. His miracles were not because He was God but because he had the Holy Spirit in flesh. Healing the sick, and raising the dead were found in the life of Old Testament prophets ministry. Jesus was declaring to us with his incarnation that the same power could dwell in us. Dr Gordon Anderson calls this "Divinity in Dirt" "incarnational" Pentecost, Monday-Saturday marketplace Pentecost.
I beleive we need more Sunday morning teaching on "incarnational" Pentecost. The "Mystic more" that is to me and for me is "prosumerism".
"Mystic more" could become what Dr. Corne Bekker Regent Universitry calls "Holy Spirit Parties" The mystics of old would never have consumed upon them selves because of their comitment to be an icon of the incarnation of Christ.
If you are refering to a "mystic more" as a supernatural display of the Holy Spirit it leaves me deeply concerned for our future as well. When we veiw Pentecost as supernatural we must elimanate man but if we veiw Pentecost as incarnational then man is the vessel as Paul taught when he described God's tresure in "jars of clay".
When the AG member, laity or clergy all become "incarnational" Pentecostal Monday -Saturday ministers, the future of the AG has then a world changing identity. When the emphasis is on "more" for me we are in deep trouble.
The biggest responce of this blog has been this article of Pauls. We need to continue this dialog.
I find an interesting theme in Tim's post---more. A friend of mine researched the history of his own particular church, and found a 50+ year old copy of the Constitution. It noted that supernatural activity, such as tongues, was the evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. In fact, it seems that the idea of tongues being the only evidence of the Baptism is a relatively new occurrence in organized Pentecostal circles.
I wonder how we got from a movement that embraced more to a movement that embraced that "more" as "only". I did not get into the AG because of all the people who spoke in tongues. I came in from a Methodist background because of the passion for more.
Doctrinally, I can hold on to the idea of tongues being the initial (measurable) physical evidence...for how can we measure the fruit of the Spirit in someone's life? But we can know beyond the shadow of a doubt that someone spoke in tongues.
This move from more to only has led to an arrogance among Pentecostals. We have heard it here...for without something that sets us apart, we will be just like the Baptists? Can we not hear the arrogance of this statement?
What if, instead of the presence of tongues, we instead pursued the presence of more, and let that be the thing that sets us apart. Our hunger for more. More of the Spirit. More of a harvest.
Our culture is attracted to the edges of life. To the supernatural and the unexplainable. And what is more supernatural and unexplainable than God among people who want more of Him?
We will never reach this culture with doctrinal identities. Experience. Experience. Experience. Why not lay your hands on someone today and pray for them to receive "more". And then watch what happens.
I guarantee, a church that consistently pursues more will be distinct.
Jeremy
Great discussion starter...and I love the format for discussion.
My comments are probably more geared towards other comments than the original post...though I think they are related in some way.
I received the baptism at the age of 8...then understood the theology much later. I can honestly say that I don't remember an instance growing up where I was encouraged to be filled, or to keep being filled, so that I could make a difference in the homelessness in my city, or so that the hungry might be fed because of the Spirit's work in my life through this baptism, or even that those in jail might come to know Christ through a relationship with me. I wont attempt to discern the reason I was encouraged to be filled in each of these services...but I think much greater emphasis could have been placed on the stated Biblical reason.
So, I've been grappling with questions like this: why have a service with an extended altar call to linger for more if that more isn't making a single difference in how I live my life? Matthew 25 seems to indicate some criteria Christ will be looking at when we enter judgement...I'm not sure that criteria maches ours at many times. Too many have an escapist eschatology, just a few more weary days and then I'll fly away, if I can just make it through this life on earth I'll get to go elsewhere and receive my inheritance.
So if I'm only living my life on earth to experience a future reality, then what am I doing with God's creation now? Am I living as the image of God? Am I practicing pure and undefiled religion? Is there anyone I am leading through an Exodus? Or am I simply saying be warm and well fed while doing nothing to meet their physical need?
We've had pentacostalism in practice in America for 100 years...America is now the 3rd largest un-churched nation in the world. We could simply point to Barna and say the future church wont be defined by weekend church attendance, but I don't believe that accounts for the 200 million Americans who don't go to church. So how could this happen to our nation even with a century of pentecostal influence? Could it be because our church leaders (i'm speaking more to those of us that fill pulpits on the weekend) are emphasizing the baptism for the spiritual badge or the great feeling or simply because we're supposed to rather than to have a spiritual power to actually make a difference in our community, to love our neighbor more, to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to somebody's life?
May we have such spiritual power that we will be judges as sheep and not goats.
Ryan
Sam Farina,
Thank you so much for your well thought out response. I couldn't agree more.
It serves us all well to remember that the Holy Spirit has been at work since Christ left the earth. It didn't just stop and show up again early 1900's.
What you said is the cry of my heart, of my friends, and the students I work with. They just want to figure out how we can live like Christ every day.
Wendy Wirtz
The identity of the Assemblies of God should be as a leader in the area of ministering spiritual gifts as part of our lifestyle. I believe in tongues as the initial evidence but if we only focus on the doctrinal aspect, we forget how valuable tongues is all day, every day. We must see the gifts as part of our everyday lifestyle as well, not just an utterance given on a Sunday morning service. The gifts are not just mystical, but incarnational-- God touching man, thus man's personality is also involved. We should lead the way in biblical manifestation of the gifts.
In the matter of relational districts, I see no danger. In fact I see huge creative potential in this type of fellowship. The distinctive of the Assemblies of God historically is that we believe in the sovereignty of the local church. At the heart of God's plan to win the world is the local church. That's why our missions work abroad is so successful. Each country has its own leadership. Each self supporting church can fulfill the vision God has laid on her. Relational districts will not hurt the present districts. We already have relational districts in the Hispanic, Chinese, etc. Rather, relational districts may bring a new spark of life to the movement. I will likely live and die in the Assemblies of God, regardless. I just want to see it better fulfill her potential and vision. This could be a key.
David
I ask why can't we have "more" not only on Sunday, but every day of the week? Why does it have to be the "mystic more" on Sunday morning without the fruit of the spirit in our lives all during the week, or exhibiting the fruit of the spirit, but no "more" in our church services?
I do not say this in arrogance, but fear - that we will become a church that stops believing in the power of God to really show up and do something besides just comfort afflicted people and actually remove their pain - spiritually, emotionally, physically, etc. Much of my experience with people of the denominations mentioned as well as many A/G churches are that they have gone the way of believing God to help people through their difficulties, or "make life better" (I've even seen church slogans that basically say that) but not do much beyond that. Even many of our A/G services today just make people feel better temporarily - and lack the conviction of the Holy Spirit, missing the opportunity to get to the source of people's pain and get rid of it instead of simply medicating it.
Some people don't necessarily see calling on God for His power to bring a supernatural change in their lives as an option. In my experience, this "option" is not given in many churches. I always say, with the way I love to sleep in, I would never set my alarm for early on a Sunday morning and get up and go to a church that didn't believe God was still doing anything. What a waste of good sleep time!
Last year I attended a large inter-denominational gathering with many thousands of people. The event is run by a majority of leaders who are not Pentecostal. In the midst of this conference, it was announced that one of the speakers had just received a tragic phone call from home about a family member whose life was hanging in the balance. They asked everyone to join together right then and pray. After the prayer, I found myself very puzzled that the organizers of the event had thousands of people bind together and pray for God to just "comfort the family in this tragedy" and "help this dear one as they coped with the pain" but not one word was uttered in prayer asking God to heal and deliver this person from the affliction that had them laying in a hospital bed. They totally skipped over that, and didn't even mention the possibility of a miracle. The point is, most of the people on that platform evidently did not believe in divine healing, or the supernatural power of the spirit to do a miracle. I am not referring to some kind of hype, but believing for "more" for an actual purpose - not just bringing a stirring, but bringing CHANGE. Honestly, no matter how much of the fruit of the spirit the people of a church have, I really wouldn't want to attend there if they didn't believe God had the power to show up and do "more", not just in that Sunday service, but every day of the week, through it's people. For if one truly believes God does more, then why don't they ask Him to do so, and give Him the opportunity to do so? And yes, I am talking about miracles beyond salvation. We all know salvation is a miracle in itself, but I believe that's just the beginning.
This is what I think of when I consider having "more" on a Sunday morning. I don't just want to pray for God to comfort people in their sickness - I want to lay hands on the sick and see them recover. I don't want to pray that someday God will help a person to resist the addiction they are grappling with. I choose to believe that God will deliver them - and pray in faith that way. I don't want to hope that one day somebody in the church takes enough discipleship classes to experience a breakthrough in their life. I want to give a call to people in our services or small groups to filled with the Holy Spirit - so they can be empowered to go out and experience the "more" that God wants to do by His supernatural power in the community.
We have all seen that there are too many people who call upon God for "more" on Sunday morning and they are devoid of this on Monday - Saturday and to that I say what a shame. I tell our people that we miss the greatest opportunities to reach the lost when we do not pray for them for healing throughout the week when they mention not feeling well in some way. Think about it - how many times a week do people at their workplaces, in restaurants, etc. hear of people who comment that they don't feel good, their back is hurting, they just got diagnosed with cancer, etc.? All the time. (Healing is the calling card to salvation, in many cases...) When I think of our "distinctives" I think of the infilling of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, and divine healing. And maybe you all have been to a lot of mainline churches or such that I've not been to where they are seeing a lot of supernatural healings and the power of God flowing like that, but I just have not seen it a lot, if at all. I am not against them, nor do I feel I'm better than them, I just crave more than what is offered in their services, and want to lead our church in experiencing "more".
Maybe I am missing something here (and if I am, please explain) but I am getting the feeling that some are thinking it is more important to make sure we are cultivating the fruit of the spirit, and if we don't have supernatural miracles, signs, wonders, and generally "more" it's not really necessary or a big deal...as long as we bear fruit in other ways, we can do without the "more". Why not all of it? I thought this was what being "full gospel" was all about.
I fear we are going to come to a time where we don't believe God does things like this anymore and we are content to just do our Purpose Driven Life Journals, and get a spiritual high (?) at Women of Faith or Promise Keepers. (All of which I support & enjoy by the way...) but my point is, although I enjoy all that, it IS NOT ENOUGH for me, because I do want more, and I want the people we pastor to have more. And the reason I want MORE is to be empowered to change my world, to believe God for big things, to expect miracles on a daily basis...in addition to the fruit of the spirit in my life, I want the supernatural power of God evident in my life daily.
Every year the women of our church go to Women of Faith. We do that, plus another conference that is Pentecostal. I always tell them, "I want you to go to both, but if you are only able to go to one, please pick the Pentecostal Conference." Here's the reason - we come home from WOF having laughed a lot, and with a head full of good teaching sessions. But this past year, for example, we came home from the Pentecostal conference with great fellowship and teaching, however -- we also saw a woman hop up out of a wheelchair totally healed by the power of God, and many of our ladies received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and experienced miracles of healing in their physical bodies, healing from abuse, etc.. I want our women to have experiences like that - I want them to know God is still working this way - not only at a Pentecostal Conference, but He wants to work like that every day of their lives. And I agree with Tim Enloe that unless they see an example of this in our services, how can we expect them to incorporate into their daily lives what they have never seen modeled by their leaders?
I believe one of our "distinctives" is that other people KNOW the Assemblies of God believes and calls on God for MORE (or at least we used to!) I've seen this evidenced by the fact that many times when the Baptists get sick, they will ask us to pray for them! I've had a lot of Baptist friends who viewed me entirely differently until they got sick and all of a sudden, they needed somebody who believed in divine healing who knew how to "get ahold of God..." They really didn't even care if I prayed in tongues - they just need a miracle and want to talk to somebody who still believes in them. I am not by any means a Baptist hater, please don't misunderstand I have many genuine friends in these other fellowships who I know love the Lord tremendously, I just often feel a sadness, that there is so much more available if they could only experience it...
Not sure if this is making any sense...it's just my heart on the matter, for what it's worth.
Deanna,
Beautifully said.
My family came into the Assemblies of God from the United Methodist Church in the early 1920's because of healing. My grandfather, who was in his teens at the time, had juvenile diabetes and violent epileptic seizures, and the doctors had told his parents he wouldn't live to his 20s. Out of desperation, they took him to a healing revival with "Dad" Richey, and my grandfather was miraculously healed. Until he died in his late 80s, he never had another epileptic seizure, and his diabetes was controlled by diet -- he never had to take insulin until the last few years of his life.
I have seen, experienced, and believe in God's power to heal. Now, I'm going to say a hard word. I think many of us are gun-shy of preaching it and practicing it today because of several factors. First, medicine has made incredible advances, and it has become easier to put our faith in science than God. Second, the concept of divine healing has been publicly humiliated by frauds such as Peter Popoff, and "power of suggestion" healings of dubious effect in the crusades of Benny Hinn and others (My jury is still out on Benny, but there has been plenty of damning evidence presented against him that gives me concern).
I agree wholeheartedly that divine healing is a pillar of our distinctive. At least, that's what I learned in Royal Rangers; the four main teachings of the church are salvation, baptism in the Holy Spirit, healing, and rapture. (SIDENOTE: For all you guys that have dissed RR on the site, it's time for a little defense. I love RR. Any perceived problems are not with the program itself -- it's solid!)
You will notice that every one of the four has a strong element of the miraculous in it. Our understanding of salvation is not a cognitive declaration of belief, but a supernatural transformation of the soul. The baptism in the Holy Spirit is not some esoteric teaching, but an enduement of power from on high. Healing is not strength through the natural process of recovery, but divine intervention in the physical realm. The Second Coming is not some mysterious prophecy, but the promised, imminent return of our Savior to take both the living and the dead to eternity in the twinkling of an eye.
These are our distinctives. Do they separate us from the greater evangelical world? Certainly not. Rather, they bind us to it. I believe that God has called us to this hour to be John the Baptist, the voice crying in the wilderness "prepare ye the way of the Lord!" In this hour of decision that lies before us at General Council, my question is, will we answer that call?
Packing my suitcase now...see you in Indy!
Blessings,
David W Barnett
www.pentecostalleader.com
"Identity Crisis"
I'm thankful for the emphasis on empowerment for service. However, Christian identity is not found in the witness we bear (or things we do), but in whom we bear witness (Christ).
Only this will faithfully define Pentecostalism.
Praying that all who glory will glory in the Lord and not in plaques, power, philosophy, theology, theories. Praying that whoever attends in Indy will come away from this GC with a strong sense of identity in Christ and be empowered to walk with Him in a most pleasing way.
Our Identity and Pentecost is not soley dependent on what is happening in the North American church.
When we see what God is doing south of the equator there is no questions what Pentecost is, nor a pentecostal "Identity Crisis".
We here in North America must realize that the body of Christ is larger than the USA, that the Holy Spirit also speaks to the "Church" around the globe. Should we stop to see what God is doing and saying to His Bride?
The A/G was divinely birthed by the Holy Spirit and given the baptism of the Holy Spirit to go into all the world and preach the gospel. Yes tongues is the sign, but just the launch pad to send us out. The A/G is about the Power of the Holy Spirit and world missions. So where is the "Identity Crisis"?
Let us be most careful in our desire for numbers "church growth" that we do not forget our divine formation.
Let us be careful not to trade our Pentecostal Identity for the latest fads or methods of non-pentecostal mega churches.
Could our frustrations of it's not working, declining numbers and wacthing those other guy's churches grow, be allowing us to be influenced by the same spirit that is behind political correctness?
David,
I agree that our identity as a movement is not based solely on the North American church (although that is what I was referring to when I wrote my original post). However, I get concerned when people look at Pentecost around the world through “rose colored glasses.” Is revival occurring… yes. Do we have a lot to learn from our brothers & sisters around the world…yes. Is the revival that they are experiencing the answer to everyone’s problems…NO.
I recently read this article on global Pentecostalism at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/december/16.18.html
The article states that most Pentecostals do not speak in tongues (which is the traditional unifier), instead Pentecostals are more united in their belief in miracles and in material prosperity. Here’s a snippet:
"As common as belief in miraculous gifts, however, is faith in the prosperity gospel. Renewalists overwhelmingly agree that “God will grant material prosperity to all believers who have enough faith.” In Nigeria, 95 percent of Pentecostals agree with that statement, and 97 percent agree that “God will grant good health and relief from sickness to believers who have enough faith.” In the Philippines, 99 percent of Pentecostals agreed with the latter statement."
I consider myself a classic Pentecostal. I also believe in healing and miracles. They don’t happen as much as I’d like, but I believe they happen. But the quote above makes me angry and sad. I can think of few things in the global Christian movement that seem more detrimental to the Kingdom teachings of Jesus Christ than the prosperity gospel.
If I disagree with 99 percent of the Pentecostals in the Philippines, then I think that qualifies as an identity crisis.
Paul
I agree with you about this statemnet:
"As common as belief in miraculous gifts, however, is faith in the prosperity gospel. Renewalists overwhelmingly agree that “God will grant material prosperity to all believers who have enough faith.” In Nigeria, 95 percent of Pentecostals agree with that statement, and 97 percent agree that “God will grant good health and relief from sickness to believers who have enough faith.” In the Philippines, 99 percent of Pentecostals agreed with the latter statement."
This very sad and not "Pentecost" as I know it or most AG folks that I know.
Yes the Lord blesses, heals etc,
as well as give us grace to go throught.
The extrem prosperity gospel is an other form of "Identity Crisis"
as well as thous who think we should keep the Holy Spirit from moving in our church servcies less we offend a seeker! The HS points and leads to Christ.
Post a Comment