For me, the highlight of our time with Dr. Wood came at the end of the night during a discussion in his living room. I recounted my experience earlier in the summer when I was in another forum with Brother Trask. Someone asked Trask what he thought was the single biggest issue facing the A/G over the next five years. His response was in my opinion a fifteen-minute diatribe against those who waver on the doctrine of initial physical evidence.
I asked Dr. Wood if had he been asked the same question how he would respond. This led into one of the most thoughtful and encouraging conversations I have ever had with someone in AG leadership about our doctrine of the Holy Spirit. While Dr. Wood believes wholeheartedly in our doctrine, he balances that belief with real-life pastoral experience and the ability to let God be God.
During our conversation it became clear that everyone in the room desired the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and all of the gifts that come along with that. That being said, it was also clear to me that there is some amount of breakdown in our terminology.
Obviously the most distinctive and unique doctrine of Pentecostalism maintains that all believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” We believe that this experience was the normal experience of all in the early Christian church (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5,8) but is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of salvation (Acts 2:4, 14-18; 8:12-17; 19:1-7). We also believe this experience will always be followed by speaking in other tongues.
However, the terminology “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” although taken from the Bible, has been confusing to many inside and outside Pentecostalism and often the nature and purpose of the experience has been confused with other works of the Spirit. For example, many in the Holiness movement have also used the expression "baptism in the Holy Spirit" to refer to sanctification. Teaching, either explicitly or implicitly, that those who have not received the “baptism” are less holy than those who have.
Today, many within the A/G continue to view the experience as a mark of their spiritual maturity or, worse yet, superiority.
Both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, describe experiences with the Spirit in many ways, including use of the expressions "baptized in the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5; 11:16), "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:4; 4:8,31; 9:17; 13:9,52), "full of the Spirit" (Acts 6:3,5; 7:55; 11:24), "receive the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:15,17,19; 10:47; 19:2), "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38), being "clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49), and "[God] giving the Holy Spirit" (Acts 15:8).
Yet in all of these instances the Holy Spirit is not brought in relation to salvation or sanctification but for an empowerment to fulfill God’s mission (missio Dei). This empowerment to be witness-bearers of Christ is essential if the Church is to fulfill its essential purpose (Matthew 28:19,20; Luke 24:45-49).
I believe the Assemblies of God correctly maintains that this experience remains as available to those who seek it today as it was in the Apostolic Age. However, when the purpose of this experience is lost the subsequent power is squandered. Many Pentecostal believers mistakenly place the emphasis on the expressions of the Holy Spirit’s power inside the church rather than the power needed to reach those outside it.
Luke makes it clear that in his view the essential task of the church is mission. He says remarkably little about the inner life of the church and concentrates most of his attention on this aspect of the church’s task. He stresses the place of the Spirit in guiding and empowering the church for its mission. Mission is no mere human achievement. The gifts of the Spirit are given for the purpose of mission.
I realize that many within the A/G would probably agree with what I have written so far -- this was in fact what occurred after the initial outpouring 100 years ago; people filled with the Spirit jumped onto ships to Africa to spread the gospel. The problem is that too often there are other “benefits” that get added onto this gift.
Too often the “baptism in the Spirit” is viewed as the end rather than the beginning. Those who receive the “baptism” (which to me implies a one-time event) are led to feel they have “arrived” and often their spiritual growth subsequently falters. I was encouraged to hear Dr. Wood express his concern for this issue and his call to focus more on the “subsequent evidence” of this gift.
Finally, I told Dr. Wood that I am often discouraged with how the term “initial physical evidence” is lived out at youth camps, evangelistic rallies, and altar calls around our country. We have managed to turn this beautiful, mystical experience with a transcendent and supernatural God into a rudimentary formula. We’ve become so worried about “evidence” (a very modern and non-biblical term) we are missing the true meaning (which could never be measured with “physical evidence” alone).
I know our doctrine needs well-defined parameters and I realize that words will always fall short in describing theological concepts. However, I feel it is time for us as a movement to honestly and humbly look at our doctrinal terminology and prayerfully start discussing change.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
101 comments:
This was a very interesting post and, like many others in our fellowship, I have thought about these issues quite often. One of the things that has bothered my about our belief that empowerment comes with spirit baptism (in our sense, not non-AG people's sense) is that it seems arrogant (e.g. If only Martin Luther was baptized in the Spirit, then he would've really made a difference.) In almost every case this is not intended, but I think it's something implicit in the doctrine whether we like it or not.
The second thing that really bothers me is I have no idea how we are supposed to "humbly look at our doctrinal terminology and prayerfully start discussing change" without a medium to do so. It seems like if you're not part of the 'headquarters group' then there is no way to be a part of the discussion. Perhaps the Pentecostal Evangel will return to the days of old and provide that place for humble discussion.
Cheers,
Paul—thanks for this report. I spoke recently with a pastor who was apart of the listening forums with Bro. Trask—he reported that the primary issue or impasse that came up was the movement’s narrow articulation of the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Evidently Bro. Trask would not allow it to make it to the authorized version of the minutes of the listening forums. This individual challenged HQ by saying, “You call us together to listen to us and because we said something you didn’t approve of, you didn’t even include it in your report!”
This is a telling sign for or movement. It appears in Solomonic terminology—they’d rather see the baby divided than to acknowledge valid differences of opinion among godly, fervent supporters of the Holy Spirit’s work. One of the suggestions that was made is to have a district/wing/fellowship within the Fellowship for people who believe in Spirit empowered ministry but can’t in good conscience sign on the initial evidence line. The Fellowship would still collect the tithes and dues, they could attend functions, vote, and participate in World Missions and other programs—just with a broader articulation of HS baptism!
Unfortunately, it’s such an inflammatory issue—that hell’s flames would have to be extinguished before any such action would take place. OR—the old guard all dies out, and they look around and there’s no one to take their places. OR—they examine their own hearts and see that their own children and grandchildren are no longer interested or are participating in such narrow-minded thinking (or churches).
In reality, anyone who examines the doctrine in light of the entire biblical witness (with an open mind) recognizes there is little or no support for our intransigent position. Here’s Roger Stronstad’s summary statement regarding the exclusive Luke-Acts’ baptism of the Holy Spirit terminology: “Luke’s characteristic phrase ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’: 1) is modeled after its use in the Old testament (LXX), 2) has the same meaning in the Gospel as it has in the Acts, and 3) has a different meaning in Luke-Acts than it has in Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. In general terms, for Luke, the Holy Spirit is not brought into relation to salvation or to sanctification, as is commonly asserted, but is exclusively brought into relation to a third dimension of the Christian life—service.” (The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke: Hendrickson, 1984).
Stronstad’s position does two things: 1) it provides the framework for Pentecostals to continue insisting that Spirit baptism is a valid, unique experience and concept within the New Testament linked to service and witness; and, 2) that even Paul (or the other Gospel and Epistle writers) did not emphasize anything close to an “initial physical evidence” position—yet they were deeply interested in the Spirit’s work.
If this were the only issue facing the A/G it would be enough of a challenge—However, I think it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Let’s talk about Dispensational Theology, or our antiquated General/District council structures, or the graying of our movement, or the fact that some 60-70 percent of new credentials are coming through correspondence course studies, or the decline of the US church, or the unflattering branding that is attached to the AG name, or the unhealthy state of many of our regional schools—Wow! It’s time for George Wood to call a council to discuss these issues in a productive format.
Would you define your use of the word diatribe? Did you use the word in its classical sense of discourse or in its more current use of a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism? I would like to know before I comment.
Excellent post! Especially this:
"Many Pentecostal believers mistakenly place the emphasis on the expressions of the Holy Spirit’s power inside the church rather than the power needed to reach those outside it."
Bingo! Most churches don't need any more messages in tongues and interpretations. We don't need any more "personal prophecy" (saw an instance of that backfire this week - very sad). We don't need any words of wisdom and knowledge in church services to hype the crowd.
We need signs following in the marketplace, on the streets, at the Kroger or the Walmart! Then, will we see the full expression of the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
i am thankful for this blog. i think it provides a good forum to discuss these very issues...not the perfect forum...but it is a beginning.
i am not sure what you are suggesting in regards to our doctrine regarding the baptism in the Holy Spirit and/or the initial physical evidence; however, i would suggest (as you may be suggesting as well) that this is not a problem of orthodoxy but rather of orthopraxy. therefore, i would be very wary of discussions to revise our doctrinal statement but would wholeheartedly agree that we should do a much better job helping folks understand and experience it. this has to start with the clergy.
precise theological language is very important; however, parsing our words and tweaking our statements will not change the fact that, regardless of how you define it, most of our church members are not experiencing the fullness of the Holy Spirit.
Finally, I told Dr. Wood that I am often discouraged with how the term “initial physical evidence” is lived out at youth camps, evangelistic rallies, and altar calls around our country. We have managed to turn this beautiful, mystical experience with a transcendent and supernatural God into a rudimentary formula. We’ve become so worried about “evidence” (a very modern and non-biblical term) we are missing the true meaning (which could never be measured with “physical evidence” alone).
could you explain this statement...as a youth pastor, the only time in the last 15 years that I can recall an altar call to receive the Holy Spirit has been at Youth Camps...Where I see young people hungry for the gifts of the Spirit, and also hungry for the authentic Christian living...Which is the fruit of the Spirit...So please explain, are you against Youth Camps that have a powerful experience with the Holy Spirit as it's focus or are you trying to say something else...
Jonathan Borden
Youth Pastor
thanks for the post Paul. I am glad you had that "living room experience" with Dr Wood. I am in agreement that pastors need to be much more "pastoral" in how they minister in the area of Spirit Baptism. I think other leaders in the AG have had pastoral experience but have not always been "pastoral" if you know what I mean.
-brian (pastor, grand canyon assembly)
Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones wrote a great book on the subject of the baptism in the Holy Spirit called "Joy Unspeakable". Here are a few lines from the book....
Baptism with the Holy Spirit is primarily and essentially a baptism with power...
There is no direct connection between the baptism with the Holy Spirit and sanctification. It is something that can be isolated, whereas sanctification is a continuing and a continuous process...
The purpose, the main function of the baptism with the Holy Spirit, is ... to enable God's people to witness in such a manner that it becomes a phenomenon and people are arrested and are attracted...
diatribe - a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.
Baptism with the Holy Spirit is primarily and essentially a baptism with power...
I am probably going to regret this, but... I agree 100%. AND, I believe a lot of people who do not call themselves Pentecostal (think of some of the churches that are reaching THOUSANDS and TENS OF THOUSANDS that are NOT Pentecostal, such as Saddleback, Willow Creek, Newspring, Flamingo Road) have received this "baptism with power." There is no other logical way to explain it. They have power to be witnesses just like Jesus said.
The only problem... they don't speak in tongues?
"diatribe - a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something"
I'm sorry I wasn't there to witness what you say you witnessed, because I am assuming it was probably more of an impassioned plea and discourse than it was your definition of diatribe. Diatribe seems to me quite inconsistent with the Dr. Trask we have known and loved.
It's also quite telling that you refer to him as "Brother Trask" and "Trask" instead of "Dr. Trask" in the same way you refer to Brother Wood as "Dr. Wood." It would seem to me, if you're going to use titles, use them consistently.
I thought, earlier on, I read a post that encouraged all comments to remain issue-oriented and not bring personalities into it. It is unfortunate to read "OR—the old guard all dies out, and they look around and there’s no one to take their places" in an anonymous comment.
It was hard to get to your true argument in the post, Paul, because I couldn't get past your quite apparent quarrel with Dr. Trask.
I hope when Dr. Wood at some future date has to give honest answers that you disagree with, that you will afford him the same respect you give him now.
Art,
Don't regret saying it if it's true. Unfortunately the list doesn't stop there or even in this century. But a couple of more big names to consider would be Billy Graham & Jerry Falwell.
Not trying to start an argument - just trying to get the facts - but Dr. Wood holds a doctoral degree in pastoral theology from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., and a juris doctorate from Western State University College of Law in Fullerton, Calif.
Where did "Dr. Trask" do his doctoral work at?
FYI, my dad has asked people at headquarters to refer to him as "George," according to one of the GPH guys we met with.
George, my comment was not regarding whether titles, first names, or "brother" should be used. My comment was directed toward the tone of the opening of the post, which I found inappropriate.
Art's comment, "Where did 'Dr. Trask' do his doctoral work at?" is a cheap shot.
Anonymous435 said: "or the fact that some 60-70 percent of new credentials are coming through correspondence course studies,"
Considering the cost of the residential bible college option, and the ensuing debt load on young ministers, I think Global is a highly viable option, especially if it is done in conjunction with service in the local church.
As for myself, I'm starting on a second B.A. in Bible and theology through Global. I have a wife and two daughters (1 and 7 years old). I can't leave my job of 16 years with benefits, pack up and move to a traditional Bible school. I may not even get credentials (wasn't even a possiblity until resolution 8 passed this year), but I want to be better prepared for whatever ministry God has for me, be it credentialed or continuing lay work.
Although I hear the concerns being expressed in this post concerning the Baptism of the H.S., I would like to offer a bit of caution toward discussion of doctrinal terminology.
Changing doctrinal terminology will not stop individuals or groups from abusing doctrine or twisting them to fit a desired experience. As pastors & teachers it is our responsibility to teach & preach sound doctrine. We are called to show from Scripture what God intended for His people. The moment we begin to believe that truth is relative to our experiences or others for that matter we are in danger of falling into heresy. Perhaps rather then attacking our doctrinal terminology we should examine our hearts.
Are we hungering and thirsting for the Baptism of the H.S. or trying to excuse it away?
I thought it was interesting what was noted before on this blog. This Fundamental Truth (Baptism H.S.) is only controversial in America where the church is shrinking.
Are the connected? Hmmm...
Art's comment, "Where did 'Dr. Trask' do his doctoral work at?" is a cheap shot.
How is that a cheap shot? Does he have a doctoral degree or not? Does have have an honorary doctorate that would qualify him to use the title?
I ask because I really don't know!!!
Jonathan Borden wrote "So please explain, are you against Youth Camps that have a powerful experience with the Holy Spirit as it's focus or are you trying to say something else."
I don't know Paul Stewart's thoughts on the issue but I'll give you mine. First, do you find it odd that the "youth camp experience" always dies out? Is it because these teens are bad, too worldly, or no better than the Israelites? Probably not (though that may be true for some of them). It could be that evangelists and camp leaders are really good at working teens up into a emotional frenzy. When they leave the influence of that environment, reality sets in. This isn't bad, it's the way we were intended to live... in contact with the world.
So, I don't have a problem with youth camps focusing on the Holy Spirit, but I do have a problem when they only do that through emotional means. If they actually taught the teens what the baptism is and why it's important, perhaps we'd see long lasting change rather than a couple of weeks worth.
My question is if people have a problem with the initial physical evidence (which is born out in the Book of Acts...or did that get removed from the Book?) why not just get out and join up with the Andy Stanley's and Ed Young's; these are the guys who are greatly influencing America right now? If all of a sudden tongues and a youth camp experience are so evil...go somewhere else.
Anonymous 20th Post: “My question is if people have a problem with the initial physical...go somewhere else.” Don’t you get it? They are going somewhere else—that’s why the former superintendent held the listening forums. Young guys are no longer signing up! I think the AG will ultimately split along the lines of education and intellectual reasoning. There are two distinct groups within the AG—those who are capable of an honest intellectual debate over the issues (Yes, the “baptism” is in the book of Acts—but nowhere else in the NT; and the doctrine of “initial evidence” is not organic to the language of the NT)—and those who are threatened and insecure concerning rigorous debate (like the early church councils—and Acts 15). While I know that some will choose to study through Global—I am glad my family practice doctor didn’t get his degree through correspondence. Pastors do not need less training today—they need to be highly trained and skilled in biblical studies, communication, non-profit organization management, counseling, and leadership—this is the 21st century, not 1950! Organizations and society in general is more complex than ever demanding the highest levels of training available.
Anonymous at 1:36 said:
"I thought it was interesting what was noted before on this blog. This Fundamental Truth (Baptism H.S.) is only controversial in America where the church is shrinking. Are the connected? Hmmm..."
Actually, the Pentecostal church is shrinking in all post-Christian cultures. And the doctrine is controversial in those cultures as well. And yes it is connected--if we insist on using emotionally laden methods to reach people who are not on the emotionally ragged edge of life (like many in the US) our witness will be ineffective.
I think this website makes me want to be even more NON-A/G.
Talk, talk, talk. Fight, fight, fight. Excuse, excuse, excuse.
Denominations are dead, get over it. Just plant your church, reach people for Jesus and be happy. Forget the rest.
As a layperson, it's interesting to hear this very debate on baptism in the Holy Spirit and physical evidence. Isn't this why the A/G was founded, based on physical evidence? Wasn't that the common belief that grew the A/G initially?
I ask this, because if that's the grassroots of the A/G, why change it? Look at other church groups, they are now debating whether gays can be ministers, whether abortion should be tolerated, etc. And many of these denominations in the past used to debate heavier doctrinal issues, but as they weakened, so did their church, and now look at the issues they debate. Let's pay attention to church history and not become like many of the other denominations and weaken what we were founded on.
I find it difficult to see people trying to change the foundation. As a closing point, we see that in our very own USA Constitution, trying to change what our Country's founders intended for this great country. The same is happening to our A/G church as a whole, we are trying to change that doctrinal foundation, that set us apart.
Just my thoughts.
Steve
Springfield, MO
Steve,
I understand your concern, however, when our founders got together in 1914 it wasn't because of the doctrine of initial physical evidence. It was because they had all shared a supernatural experience with the Holy Spirit. In fact, they didn't even form a common doctrinal statement at the initial General Council (that didn't happen until 1916).
When they did form the sixteen fundamental truths they did so in an effort to circumvent the "oneness" heretical teachings that became common in many Pentecostal circles.
They did the best they could to define this wonderful experience... and yet even one of the founders, J. Roswell Flower, recognized that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" did not always fit neatly into a formula. He himself said that he was "filled" with the Holy Spirit but did not speak in tongues until three weeks later.
I think it is important that we hold onto the spiritual ferver of our forefathers and their passionate desire to be empowered by the Holy Spirit and to fulfill the Great Commission. But this does not necessarily mean that we cannot revisit the terminology of their doctrine and explore new ways to better define their (and our) experience.
Thanks, Paul, for your response and explanation. It was informative, and I pray the leadership, whether executive or local church leadership, truly revisits it as you suggest. I just don't want to see our wonderful fellowship get watered down, thus my initial comment, which you responded to very well. Better defining is a great way to word it, vs. changing, removing, etc.
Thanks again, and your original post is very interesting, which has spurred quite the discussion.
Steve
Springfield, MO
I think Paul's last comment about J. Roswell Flower, gets at the root of my questions on this matter. I totally and completely believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but I ask questions about the initial evidence because I have seen other people ministering in a way that seems only possible with the Spirit's help yet they don't speak in tongues. How can I explain this to others if they ask when I don't understand it myself? I am thoroughly AG. I can't imagine being anything else, but I do feel this is something that needs to be addressed, especially since I can see I'm not the only one dealing with this issue.
Great post Paul! Asking the tough questions is the only way we will get the answers we need as a movement. It's nice to have a place that we can discuss the Holy Spirit and not have to fear loosing our cradential.
Whoa, what a hornet's nest! Sounds like a debate at the Sanhedrin or some third world parliament.
Reminds me of two competing ant-hills where the ants are busily erecting competing structures in the back of a dump truck on its way to a construction site. Too bad the ants don't know that the construction workers are totally oblivious to their sand-throwing contests.
Whilst all this debate about initial evidence, relevance, and leadership failings swirls within the "American" Assemblies of God, the global south A/G and Pentecost are exploding. Issues such as initial evidence, public manifestations of gifts, cultural relevance, and Kool-Aid moustaches are really non-issues.
Thank God the fastest growing sectors in the American Assemblies of God are for the most part oblivious to this debate. I'm almost ashamed and scared to tell them. They're one of the main reasons why the A/G was the second fastest growing faith in the U.S. for the past several years.
I'd bet they'd laugh at the idea that AGers were debating about the initial evidence. They bought onto it long ago and are being baptized with that evidence following at an even faster rate than at Azusa. Ahhh, ignorance is bliss.
What about dead denominations? Not so in the global south. Even the Vicars, Friars and Fundies are speaking in tongues!
God bless all the charismatic and non-Pentecostal churches out there who are winning and building souls for the Lord. They are operating in their office of evangelism and pastorship...not in the Gift of the Lord's Baptism! Where's Dr. Horton and Chuck Norris* when you need them?
Our non-Pentecostal brothers' current stats amount to an anthill compared to the combined synergy of individuals around the world who have been baptized by the Lord Jesus Christ. They're building a skyscraper next to a bunch of sand castles. Yes, all these works are on the same construction site, owned by the same family, and precious in the Lord's sight, but let's be honest, which one do you think the wind of the Holy Spirit is going to blow away first?
Somebody quick, light the A/G logo in the sky! Global South A/G Help! Send us missionaries now!!!
* I bet you he speaks in tongues too. If he does, better not tell him, he might explode in mid-roundhouse and the universe with him...
Danny,
Great comments, 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 around the world 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.
Also, I do agree that with the Holy Spirit ignorance can be "bliss." The believers in the upper room had no idea what to expect when the Holy Spirit showed up... they just prayed like Jesus told them to and He did.
Maybe that is the reason Jesus told them to wait for the Holy Spirit rather than for the "initial physical evidence."
I think what we really ought to be tinkering with here is the idea of "mission." Great, we're empowered, but for what? By simply stating "mission" I think we're glazing over the biggest issue in evangelicalism (not to mention the rest of the [c]atholic church) today: what are we called by Jesus to do?
If the answer is "winnin' souls" then I think this is the hole in our thinking. I think we've been called to build the kingdom of God--not in a kingdom now, get the earth ready for Jesus kind of way, but in a "bringing a little bit of heaven to earth" kind of way. We're the "already but not yet's." It's our job to display the compassion, unconditional love, acceptance, and forgivness of Jesus. We should be feeding the poor (as well as voting for them), praying for peace and loving our enemies (rather than playing "Star's and Stripes Forever" as our Sunday special), giving shelter to the stranger (immigrants anyone?), and being good stewards of God's creation (hey, didn't God originally intend to spend all his time with naked vegetarians in a garden?). Where's the scandal of our message if we continue to baptize as holy the greed of American consumerism, continue to cozy up to the warmongers, tell foreigners that they are not welcome, and rape God's creation for everything it's worth while we wait with bated breath for it's destruction?
If our mission is to just be lock-step with the rest of this world then we probably don't need the power of the Holy Spirit, but if our missional call it to seek first the kingdom of God, to see things upside down, to love our enemies, pray for those who persecute us, call our churches houses of prayer for all, and protect the greatest witness to God's glory, his wondrous creation; if that's our call then we're going to need all the help God can give us.
When we truly start to seek God's kingdom, we won't have to worry so much about articulation.
Cool to find you guys by the way, I'm a fan of Mark's and I went to CBC with Brad.
peace.
-Jon
This is a great discussion which will probably never take place in most districts. I know that it will never take place in ours....we are too busy in our meetings with our parlimentary procedures and Roberts rules of order..and trying to coerce some sucker into becoming the sectional treasurer! But, if we were to look at some of our history it would amaze us that theology was hammered out at such meetings. They were often spirited debates like this forum has generated. Edith Blumhofer writes of the critical 1918 summer when one of the Executive presbyters, F.F. Bosworth wrote his letter of resignation.Expressing his regret, Bosworth nonetheless asserted:"If I had a thousand souls, I would not be afraid to risk them all on the truth of my position that some may receive the fullest baptism in the Spirit without receiving the gift of tongues" In the course of the letter he lamented that some within the Assemblies of God had shown him less than a charitable spirit: A.G. Garr had effectively split Bosworth's congregation and intentionally misrepresented Bosworth; others had informed Bosworth that he had no right to hold credentials". Than Blumhofer adds a sad note by saying: "He had no desire to force the issue. When the General Council ended on September 11, he boarded a train for New York, where he identified with the Christian and Missionary Alliance" It's nice to know that some things never change. Labeling Bosworth, showing him an uncharitable spirit, splitting his Church, showing him the door....all because his position differed ever so slightly from some of the hardliners of that day. Now some would commend Bosworth for his integrity in leaving the fledgling movement, but others would say we could have been much richer and diverse with him in our ranks. It would do us all well to look back at our own history to learn and get perspective. Our young people in Bible College today are not interested in our history. They only know that Agnes Ozman supposedly spoke a few syllables in Chinese in Parham's Topeka Bible School. And on this our whole doctrinal distinctive rests? Most young people today are not going to debate that in the marketplace in a thousand years!
Response to 8:18 Anonymous:
Glad to hear someone bring in a historical retrospect on this.
A few points to consider:
1. Garr was never an Assemblies of God minister. The A/G did not split Bosworth's church.
2. Bosworth was not excommunicated, he simply chose of his own volition to leave the A/G over his personal convictions. People do this all the time. After Bosworth left, the A/G invited him back to a special session in late 1918; there they re-examined initial evidence with Bosworth and overwhelmingly decided to stay with thier convictions. That an entire organization would hold a special meeting to meet with a resigned credential holder to discuss his doctrinal differences sound rather charitable and open.
3. Bosworth was baptized in the Spirit (with tongues as his personal initial evidence) under the ministry of Charles Parham at ZIon, IL in 1906.
By the way, I have a post on the subject of initial evidence from a prophetic standpoint on our blog--no need to reproduce it here.
It looks at the issue on the basis of prophetic practice over mere intellectual theory.
http://timenloe.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-do-we-need-spirit-baptism.html
Could these debates about doctrine, young pastors, post-christianity and higher education really be a sign of deeper issues?
To say that because young pastors are leaving we need to examine our doctrinally terminology seems a little premature. Are we not calling our pastors to live according to a certain standard and preach specific doctrine? Maybe our young pastors have been a little to influenced by the post-modern age they so love to talk about. Maybe some of the young pastors are buying the lie about truth be relative.
To those who say the Baptism in the H.S. is controversial and misunderstood by post-christians may I remind you that the first outpouring happened when everyone was pre-christian (Acts 2)?
And for those who say we need more pastors with higher education I say what good will that do? Most universities (even pentecostal) are killing the faith of our young people. The AG was never suppose to be about education but power! I have a young man I mentor who attends an AG University and I am blown away by how his faith is questioned every day by well meaning, higher educated professors.
Perhaps we are seeing that Charles Crabtrees message at General Council was more relevant than we may have thought. Maybe it's time to stop boasting of how many book(s) we are reading and get back to reading the one Book that matters.
Deeply appreciate the heart-felt interaction and willingness to question, challenge, and dissect our methods and doctrines. I'm disheartened by the FEW who are critical, and unwilling to even allow for open debate and honest candor.
I'm curious to know how many of those who have posted critical of even debating this issue, privately wrestle with your doctrines, feel a pull of tension in your spiritual experiences, and are willing to honestly wrestle through your own practice of the doctrines we hold.
I hold fast that the empowerment of the Holy Spirit is for the Acts 1:8 purpose of being witnesses of Jesus Christ. To that means, all the gifts, including tongues, are "symptomatic" of this empowerment. When we fixate on any gift, we have lost focus. Do you care more about whether a Jesus-follower in an A/G church speaks in tongues OR reproduces their faith into a friend who in turn becomes a growing Jesus-follower. The evidence of the empowerment of the Spirit is more in the fruit of their witness than in the "symptoms" of any one of the gifts. I'm personally less concerned about monitoring whether someone has begun speaking in tongues since they have prayed for empowerment of the Spirit and more concerned about their ability and power in living the witness of Jesus in their everyday life.
I do believe this issue needs to be more broadly discussed in open forums and also model by US as the leaders of the church.
Patrick Grach
www.thelifehouse.org
church planter, 30 yrs old
Anonymous 10:19 AM said,
"Perhaps we are seeing that Charles Crabtrees message at General Council was more relevant than we may have thought. Maybe it's time to stop boasting of how many book(s) we are reading and get back to reading the one Book that matters."
I hope that Crabtree didn't really say that, or that this snippet has been taken out of context. It is simply not possible to read "the one Book that matters" without bringing our own interpretational baggage along with it. That's why so many people still think Luke 6:38 is about finances. How do we go about evaluating our interpretational baggage? By reading books about the art of interpretation. By evaluating our interpretation with those of other respected theologians. Going through this is hard work that often causes disagreement among the faithful, but we shouldn't be scared of disagreement. We can see that Paul and Barnabas disagreed on some things but it didn't hinder their ability to reach people with the Good News.
So, either shame on Crabtree for saying such a silly thing or shame on Anonymous 10:19 AM for misinterpreting him.
In response to Tim's most recent post about F.F. Bosworth and his resignation in the AGs formative years...it did hurt the movement and continues to have an effect. His perspective was and is valuable today contrary to what the hardliners would say. It reminds me of hearing about what was done to Gordon Fee up in New England and how he was called on the carpet by some little Pentecostal nitpickin preacher about his stance on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit... A man of Dr.Fee's status having to defend his pneumatalogy against a shallow minded little preacher. Well thank God that the Southern New England District did'nt let one of the giant thinkers in our movement get tarred and feathered over semantics and phraseology. If the same thing had happened down in Mississippi or Alabammy, we probably would'nt be able to claim Gordon Fee as one of our own. Yes, Bosworth walked away or if you please, took the train....and helped the dynamic A.B. Simpson to build one of the great Missionary Movements in the Church today. All over something that is apparently true in our own movement today that he put his finger on almost 100 years ago...that everyone does not speak in tongues when they receive the Holy Spirit. Our statistics show it to be true, our pastoral experience tells us this is the case.Yet Pastors and Evangelists have to continue to harangue the people in our congregations with this premise above all others...Give me a break.I personally don't think that the young people of this generation in our movement are going to fight for that distinctive very much. In fact I'm told that at our Bible schools now, this argument is way down at the bottom of the list.
FYI: New GS George Wood spoke at Evangel's chapel today and it was a breath of fresh air! He talked about lessons learned while at Evangel--including the time during his Junior year that he was a skeptic. He used self-deprecating humor--told how he came to college for an education, some friends, and a bride. He talked about pride, relationship failures, stealing an exam, and loosing student body elections & girlfriends. He was real, and funny, and down to earth. His message was incarnational--which made his call to be responsive to the God moments (kairos) all the more appealing. I wish he could bring this kind of authenticity and integrity to the culture of our movement--because it is very attractive!
To all who think that disagreeing with those who believe the idea that initial evidence is a thing of the past...it's not that we are anti-intellectual; we have just experienced what the book of Acts says is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
To the post that basically blasts pastors who have never been to a traditional Bible College (I'm not against Bible College, I am pursuing my degree, oh my God though, it correspondence!), some people are in situations beyond their control (like myself; marriage, kids, mortgage) that found them with a call to ministry after the college age years. SO do you suppose now that God doesn't call people to ministry after 30 years of age?
Those of us who are questioning those who are questioning initial evidence are not all back woods, stuck in the mud or stuck in the past people! We welcome debate as much as a post modern intellectual! let's have a debate that honors each other and doesn't demean another opinion just to make our point look good.
And yes, I'm anonymous because even though we say we welcome OPEN discussion, the Sanhedrin police on BOTH sides of this issue have an axe to grind.
We are all passionate about what we believe. But this discussion just shows me we ALL need a new level of maturity that will allow us to respect other opinions and not feel threatened about our own.
"Today, many within the A/G continue to view the experience as a mark of their spiritual maturity or, worse yet, superiority."
I don't think you can tie this directly to our distinctive doctrines. People can take spiritual pride in church attendance, volunteering, positions held, biblical knowledge, the number of verses memorized, and/or the number of hymns one can sing without a book or screen. Spiritual pride is not a uniquely Pentecostal problem. If our doctrines are changed, people will find other things to pin their maturity and superiority on.
"The gifts of the Spirit are given for the purpose of mission."
The baptism in the Holy Spirit is for the empowerment of the NT believer to be a witness, not just to do witnessing. To be a better witness one must be built up in his faith. The baptism opens the door to the use of the gifts of the Spirit, which edify the church.
1CO 14:5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
1CO 14:12 So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.
1CO 14:26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
Christianity Today's blog Out of Ur has an interesting post of Willow Creek's self-assessment on their own effectiveness:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2007/10/willow_creek_re.html#more
Curt,
What does Willow Creek have to do with anything being discussed here? Are you saying our disciples are better than their's?
Paul-
Your original post was a great starter and I enjoy the discussion immensely. Don't get me wrong, I think the topic is worthy of healthy debate and discussion. It was the "diatribes" going back and forth, that made me step back a little and try to look at it from a more global perspective. I felt a little dirty, so to speak, and needed a cold subtropical shower if for only a few seconds.
I also enjoyed reading the article you referenced in its entirety (What Really Unites Pentecostals?).
I do have some questions for the author to think about. For starters, what does "prosperity" mean in a third world country?
We westerners may be looking at the idea through rose colored glasses too. "Prosperity" to me conjures up images of slick-combed televangelists and double-vested prosperity suits dropping the f-bomb every other word (i.e. "faith").
But to a Nigerian or Guatametico (I have a Pentecostal sister-in-law from Guatemala), prosperity may mean that God has supplied beyond their means. In Guatemala for instance, Pentecostal revival has brought crops of fruit and vegetables the size of average American toddlers (i.e. obese).
Some other things to think about:
- if 95% of Nigerian Pentecostals believe in "material prosperity" maybe it's because 95% have seen God prosper them or those they know in material terms - beyond healings and tongues.
- which came first the chicken ("prosperity," healings etc) or the tongues?
- 600 million and growing (the A/G rumored to grow at 5,000 a day) is nothing to shake a stick at, especially since the movement is a little over 100 years old. Even the Pew Forum and Christianity Today looking through the crystal ball see the Global South becoming distinctly and classically Pentecostal.
- what breed of Pentecostal is Ted Olson, the author? To use Earl Crep's taxonomy: is he "Tent Meeting," "Starbucks," or "eBay"? Is he Pentecostal at all? Does he see a Prosperity teacher under every brush arbor?
I'm a hybrid species myself, part Tent Meeting, part Starbucks (I even married a SB barista - sweet), and part Global South. I'm here to tell you most of the G.S. circles that I blend in and have contact with are NOT having a mid-life identity crisis over initial evidence, cultural relevance, public use, GPH patronage, and A/G-label phobias.
I don't know how, but like some socio-chameleon I haven't gone schitzo. I’m a young adult missionary with ties to English emerging-church circles appointed from a Global South church raised in a Tent Meeting family - phew.
About three years ago, I did have a mid-life identity crisis as a classic Pentecostal. I started questioning every doctrine and position paper under the A/G sun, especially initial evidence.
As a movement of one, I took several months in the doctrinal wilderness and did what you suggested. I "honestly and humbly [looked] at our doctrinal terminology and prayerfully [started] discussing change."
After much fasting, openness to leave the A/G, introspection, meditation, objective analysis, sola scriptura research, Q&A sessions with the Holy Spirit, and God encounters that freaked me out, I came full circle and now believe even more in the doctrine, but for entirely different reasons. Now, I'm busting my tukas on my free time to help the A/G in any way I can.
I challenge everybody here to do the same about initial evidence. Go for it and let the pneuma chips fall where they may! You might just come back like me for some Kool-Aid to wash 'em down though ;-).
This is a good discussion and my hope and prayer would be that ultimately it would drive us to our knees in prayer and fasting for the sake of the "mission".
I am currently in a church that would fall under the category of "revitalization" and one thing has become very clear. Although there were many important things learned in the classroom (bible school and church revite bootcamp), the battlefield is a much different experience.
What do I mean? Well simple. If I just go by what I read in a book or hear from a successful pastor or even what I discuss with other pastors in my section I can easily become disillusioned. Why? Because I will start to believe all I have to do is follow this formula and poof, there will be success. Anyone will tell you that "book smarts" only get you so far even in the secular world. I just happened to catch Brian Houston from Hillsong the other night on TV. He confessed to his church that he had never read a book on leadership or church growth. WOW! That would shock many of us young pastors.
Ultimately the moving of the Holy Spirit, including the baptism, is a supernatural work of God that will not just happen if I have all the facts straight. In fact what usually can end up happening to us (pastors) is when the Holy Spirit is not moving we go back to trying to make things happen in our own strength, talents and abilities. All through the OT God would show Himself strong on behalf of His people by removing the very things they put their faith in. Whether it was Gideon, Moses, David or Nehemiah all of them faced unbelievable battles they could not overcome in their own strength. So how did they overcome them? Not in their own strength but by fully relying on the Lord.
Ultimately the future of the AG is not hanging in the balance because of our "doctrinal terminology". No...it hangs in the balance because we have come to a crossroads as a fellowship and we have to be reminded that "unless the Lord builds the house we labor in vain".
I love what Paul said.
1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power. (1 Cor. 1:25)
What we need is power.
I close with this quote from Leonard Ravenhill...
"The ugly fact is that the altar fires are either out or burning very low. The prayer meeting is dead or dying. By our attitude to prayer we tell God that what was begun in the Spirit we can finish in the flesh. What church ever asks its candidating ministers what time they spend in prayer? Ministers who do not spend two hours a day in prayer are not worth a dime a dozen - degrees or no degrees. Where are our unctionized pulpit crusaders? Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men. Preachers used to sow seed; now they string intellectual pearls."
would anyone mind explaining his or her understanding of "initial"? Is it "immediate" or "primary"? The answer will probably affect your understanding of Spirit Baptism, no?
The title of this Blog Post is apt. The mere phrase, "The Living Room Conversation," shows exactly where such serious and substantive conversations need to take place, in the living rooms of our church home.
Our home is the Assemblies of God and in our living room we need the freedom to converse truthfully. These "living rooms" should be places of honesty. Indeed, at home, one should have the liberty to bare one's heart, doubts, fears and disillusionments as well as one's faith, victories, courage and vision.
This blog has the chance to nurture real and diverse expressions of transparency, and to do so without a feeling of intimidation. Such discussions are best pursued in the loving environs of one's home, because a supportive and redemptive family can always lead the one struggling and wandering back on course.
There are so many of us out there who have not found this kind of resource, so many who have left the fold for the wrong reasons, who did not have the benefit of a nurturing companion, parent, partner or friend to answer questions and give a reason for the hope.
You six creative blogsters, this blog is vitally needed, and you serve a great purpose, a mentoring purpose. Your effort is one way to reach out to our wanderers and perhaps even a means to draw seekers of truth into an encounter with the Living God.
To close down challenging communication in any home can have harmful results. It is like muzzling your teenaged sons and daughters when they begin to ask hard questions at maturity. It is like shunning the church member who asks something embarrassing or questions the status quo in a public meeting. Imagine what Pentecost would be like if every prophetic voice, young man or young woman with a strange vision or a dream or a peculiar thought were silenced by the exercise of power by those in authority.
Friends let's rejoice in our living rooms, especially this one, which offers access to relevant and mentoring Assemblies of God leaders. I hope that Paul, Mark, Jeff, Brad, Tory and Paul stay the course and weather the storm of intimidation coming. I hope and pray to God that they will continue to be welcoming and nurturing in this forum. The current hot topic of this living room, initial evidence, will rustle some feathers out there. But, honestly, where is there a better place to discuss such a topic? Telling people to shut up, is not the best way to deal with the problem of truth.
Too often power holders in any movement snuff out youthful episodes of intellectual discovery. I remember attending an A/G Bible College in the South when Gordon Fee's book, "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth" was banned from the bookstore and classroom and Fee was proclaimed a.... Shame, Oh the shame of the thing! The mere act was more destructive than one could imagine. It isolated potential pastors and missionaries in the school who appreciated Fee's contribution. Sometimes I look at the alumni roster and almost weep.... I probably should weep.
The hammer approach is counterproductive and pushes creative talent away form our movement. I had questions myself about the doctrine of initial evidence when I first joined the movement. Eventually, after a few years of seeking, my own experience as well as scholars who I respected convinced me that our doctrine reflected one of the normal expectations we should have in Spirit baptism.
I am always saddened by the people I have known who have simply disappeared because they were not gingerly led to truth but instead were bludgeoned by a stick and whipped into compliance. The stick and the whip create poor scholars and even poorer disciples, unless they can get past the experience and some do.
Unfortunately, littered around many of our churches and schools are thousands of folks who have not been effectively and carefully nurtured. It is a joy to see a few returns, on occasion. They are the hardy ones, resilient. But that is not often what happens; once the worries of this life come, and the years accumulate and the hardness of life sets in, it is over. Too often they are gone.... It takes great effort to come back once one has been jaded by a failed discipleship. Lord, help us to be better at this.
If there is anything that we as a movement need to change, it is this. We need to create a means to catechize, to teach, to disciple, those creative ones, who have much to offer our movement, but who have not responded to the hammer and whip model. We can no longer afford the luxury of a simplistic model of Pentecostal doctrinal instruction. I think the Menzies' book, "Spirit and Power," offers valuable suggestions in this area.
The hard-line approach does not create the best disciples. It reveals the weakness of a position more than anything else. I am convinced that our theological positions are reasonable, practically and doctrinally sound. We don't have to fear the diverse opinions that challenge our position. We should welcome them and offer an answer, with God's help and the contribution of creative scholarship. We should never be tempted to cover or censor our truth. Our archives should be open to the world.
Enough said.
Paul,
"What does Willow Creek have to do with anything being discussed here?"
I only added the reference to Willow Creek, because it was mentioned in the comments as an example of "success" without being Pentecostal. They have conducted a self-assessment after 30 years, similar to what you're trying to do here. Their conclusions about their effectiveness are interesting.
"Are you saying our disciples are better than their's?"
No, I did not infer in any way that ours are better than theirs.
Thank you guys! I've really enjoyed reading this thread! Since a lot of you are much more versed in this subject than I am, I'd like to ask a question that has puzzled me.
By stating that speaking in tongues is the initial, PHYSICAL evidence, is there room for a belief that initial, NON-physical evidences could come before actually speaking in tongues? If so, would I be within the perimeters of the official AG position to believe that somebody could actually be baptized in the Holy Spirit and display other non-tangible, impossible-to-measure evidences before actually speaking in tongues? Do we believe that a lapse of time could occur? I've never had a context to ask this... so feel free to fire away!
Ken DeChant
Ken,
I've wondered at this a bit too and am starting to think that the answer is yes, there could be a time lapse between when one is baptized in the Holy Spirit and when that person speaks in tongues.
What if some don't demonstrate the physical evidence until heaven? As I said above, I'm starting to think this is a better understanding, but understand that many will not be too happy about such a view.
One big problem for this understanding is that the AG ends up being a fellowship of people that have demonstrated the physical evidence, and not a fellowship of people that have been baptized. Of course, those that demonstrate the physical evidence have been baptized, but the point is they aren't the only ones to have been baptized.
This view seems to line up with the 'letter' of the doctrine, but at the cost of trivializing it. That's a bad consequence for us in the AG, but if it's true then it's something we'll just have to deal with.
Paul, I quote your last paragraph: "I know our doctrine needs well-defined parameters and I realize that words will always fall short in describing theological concepts. However, I feel it is time for us as a movement to honestly and humbly look at our doctrinal terminology and prayerfully start discussing change."
I have spoken before on this blog topic, and several others, as a layperson. Here's my additional concern after reading all of the comments.
There is definitely diverse opinion/belief/interpretation here. My concern is you stated that "it is time for us as a movement to honestly and humbly look at our doctrinal terminology and prayerfully start discussing change." There is definitely those who believe the A/G doctrinal stance now as it stands. What if the leaders honestly and humbly and prayerfully looked at the initial physical evidence doctrine and they didn't make any change? What if it stayed as it is? Would you then respect that decision and support the leadership on this decision? Supporting doesn't mean you agree, but you back them up and support them as your leadership in the decision made.
The same question can be posed to the other side as well. Would the support the leadership if after prayer, honesty, and humility, decided the reword the doctrinal stance?
I only pose this question, as part of the dialogue here, as this has obviously been discussed in past decades ago, and they struggled with it then, and the leadership at that time obviously felt the doctrine needed to be worded as it stands today, which I believe someone said in 1916. There is the possibility that leadership may continue to support this doctrinal stance after much prayer, review, etc. And just because we disagree with that or we want change, as so many people want change in any organization, doesn't mean we no longer support it.
We all know, whether there is change or not on the subject of initial physical evidence, there are going to be very strong opinions either way, and some will be mad, some may leave, some will be very openly critical, and this is true with either side. This is my concern, and both sides of the issue need to somehow agree ahead of time that they will support the leadership in the end, regardless of the outcome, to prevent a split, etc. Healthy discussion is great, but not every side can get their way.
Steve
Springfield, MO
I've responded to this topic on a different post...but here goes again:
I find it VERY interesting that Paul, inbetween the only two chapters in our Bible that he devotes to instruction on spiritual gifts, says now let me show you a BETTER way...I could speak with the tongues of angels and understand all mysteries, but without love...but the greatest of these is love...
it's almost like Paul said, lets take a time out and remember what is really important here...
I also thinks its very foolish to look at bloated statistics and claim success (600 million and growing by 5,000 per day). Looking at our very own stated stats is telling: 5.3 million reported conversions, 220k increase in church attendance.
Bro. Crabtree is right: we aren't discipling nobody. 4.2% retention rate (which in itself is bloated because it doesn't take into account church transfer or births) cannot be looked at as success in any stretch of the imagination. It's even more interesting that we aren't commanded to go and make new converts, but to make disciples. I encourage an in-depth study into the rabbi/disciple system which Jesus used to see why He might have commanded us to do that.
Altar calls, decision cards, sinners prayers...none of that is found in scripture. Maybe it's because it's foolish to think that somebody repeating after you ensures "eternal life"...another good word study.
96% new convert mortality rate is epidemic. In the decade Bro. Crabtree referenced ('95 to '05) we actually lost 1,400 people per day...not gained 5,000 per day. Will this epidemic impress our hearts towards action? What could this possibly have to do with "our pentecostal distinctive"?
Acts 1:8...Acts 1:8...Acts 1:8
I'm tired of losing...I'm tired of pretending that were really something when nobody in our culture cares...I'm tired of playing for a losing team...yet unlike many in my generation or under (I'm 32) I didn't give up my credentials. The only way to create change is from within...so in my church we are trying to be the N.T. church (Acts 2:42-47), we are trying to fulfill Matt. 25 so we "make it to eternity", and we are trying to create disciples, Matt 28.
That all I know how to do...are you tired of these things too?
Ryan
OK, Ryan,
since you've put yourself out there as a lightning rod: WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO CREATE CHANGE?
I'm not knocking you, I just think this whole "change from the inside-out things" is bogus. It never happens.
For those who think that the AG is fatally flawed, mired in bureaucracy, or too far along in the institutional cycle of decline—is there another option? Doctrinally similar, less institutional baggage, missional, one that values diversity and debate? What would it take to start such a group?
For those who think that the AG is fatally flawed, mired in bureaucracy, or too far along in the institutional cycle of decline—is there another option? Doctrinally similar, less institutional baggage, missional, one that values diversity and debate? What would it take to start such a group?
Just by the fact that you asked the question anonymously...and I'm answering the same way shows the answer to the question is YES!
How to start such a group? How many are willing to abandon the ship? Even with all its flaws, I think the AG is still worth saving; again, I still think there is not enough maturity in any of us to disagree without being disagreeable!
I'm hanging on for dear life!
Anonymous said: "For those who think that the AG is fatally flawed ... what would it take to start such a group?"
Evidently it takes a commitment to unbridled cynicism, but couched in the guise of intellectual honesty. Or something like that.
Anonymous, I'm guessing you've been "burnt" as a result of bad ministry experiences or run-ins with leadership. If so, I'll bet you view the "majority" in the AG as poorly-educated, tradition-bound, and committed to ministry-strangling organizational structures, ¿no? And quite possibly you fancy yourself a crusader, one of a fractional minority in our movement that actually "gets it." Everyone else has run off to follow Baal.
With all due respect (or at least some due respect), nothing anyone says or does will convince you that the AG isn't Hades-bound in a very outdated handbasket. If you're not willing to stick around for positive developments in the AG, maybe you should join forces with other relentless naysayers and start a blog called FormerAG. Misery does love company.
Afterthought: Or you could be a catalyst for constructive, positive change within the AG ... nah.
Steve
The way I see it, each individual church is sovereign enough within the A/G, that there is no need to start a new fellowship/denomination. If you pastor a church and don't want to preach initial physical evidence, don't do it. That doesn't mean you preach against it, but you certainly don't have to preach each of the 16 fundamentals or any other A/G position for that matter. There is plenty to preach about, and lots of souls that need saving/discipling.
I have traveled as a layperson/business man throughout the country, and have rarely seen 2 A/G churches alike. The worship styles, the manifestations of the gifts, the buildings, how the churches are staffed, etc. are so different. That's what's great about being part of the A/G, you have individuality within your church, you can pretty much run your church the way you want to, as long as you aren't outright preaching against the A/G doctrine. In fact, you don't even have to have converts (sad to say, but true), and you don't even have to preach a certain style.
So why abondon ship? Yes, you can agree to disagree within the A/G. If you are that much against the doctrine, then yes, you should leave instead of trying to change everything, but hopefully that's not the case.
Steve
Springfield, MO
That's what's great about being part of the A/G, you have individuality within your church, you can pretty much run your church the way you want to, as long as you aren't outright preaching against the A/G doctrine.
I have even seen one prominent church that I would bet only one of our moderators for this forum knows is A/G teach something contradictory to a long held A/G position. Why can they get away with it? They are autonomous. That is what I do love about our fellowship. You can do church however, whenever, wherever you want - as long as you send in your 75% tithe (which I think is a bigger travesty than any doctrinal or bureaucratic issue) and 2% church offering you are left alone unless you ask for help, and that is how it should be. If you want to actively partner with the A/G (which I do) then you can. Link up with whomever you want. Model whomever you want. Follow whomever you want. No one can tell you otherwise. That fact is what makes most of these discussions insane. Nobody cares what you preach or teach - just do it!
Art Good said: "You can do church however, whenever, wherever you want - as long as you send in your 75% tithe..."
And sign your paperwork each year that states you will teach these things. Sign your name to do one thing, but do another? I know of one former AG minister in Springfield that wrestled with that dilemna, didn't sign, and is now being sued.
Dave of Springfield
Most of the discussion still begs the question: If all is well within the AG, why the concern to have listening forums with younger pastors? The fact is that pastors of churches can do what they want (if they're senior pastors, and can sign the annual statement). Educators, missionaries, staff members, and other credentialed ministers actually have more scrutiny (they are more like employees of the AG than are pastors).
Anonymous said...
Most of the discussion still begs the question: If all is well within the AG, why the concern to have listening forums with younger pastors? The fact is that pastors of churches can do what they want (if they're senior pastors, and can sign the annual statement). Educators, missionaries, staff members, and other credentialed ministers actually have more scrutiny (they are more like employees of the AG than are pastors).
you forgot to include evangelists and those evangelists who travel out of the country...watch out if you don't get permission from AGWM.
But pastors do it all the time without anything being said...
Honestly I’m really tired of hearing messages forecasting our demise. I’m tired of hearing my elders saying things like, “If we don’t get back to altar calls or Sunday night services our movement is dead!” At the same time, I’m tired of hearing my peers say, “If this movement doesn’t change fast it’s dead and I’m leaving.”
These messages destroy confidence and they breed fear rather than hope. Sure we have a lot to figure out, but let’s do it together and let’s do it with optimism.
The above quote is taken from a previous post on this blog by Paul Stewart. It adequately describes my feelings after reading all of these comments.
Dave of Springfield says, "I know of one former AG minister in Springfield that wrestled with that dilemna, didn't sign, and is now being sued."
Let's not drag this in and blame the A/G for his dilemna. Had he left his church and started another church, he would have been fine, and his followers could even have followed him if they wished. We all in Springfield know that's where he went wrong. Yes, he could choose not to sign, but his church is an A/G church, whether or not he is an A/G pastor, so that church belongs to the A/G, and that's what he agreed to when he was an A/G pastor. Let's keep the truth here where the truth belongs.
It's a shame the A/G is getting blamed for this.
Steve
Springfield, MO
I havd read through all 63 comments, and am struck by the fact that no one has brought up the Foursquare denomination. They seem to get along quite well without an "initial evidence" doctrine. At the same time, I note that the best book I've ever read on the subject of "tongues" ("The Beauty of Spiritual Language") was written by Jack Hayford.
Hope I'm not ruining the flow of this conversation...just wanted to get back to Ryan:
The 5,000 per day and 600 million is rumored. It applies mainly to the "Global South" constituency here in America and around the world (e.g. Latino, Korean, Brazilian, African, Sub Continental Indian, Pacific Islander etc.).
As far as retention, I haven't seen any stats on the Global South A/G. The anecdotal evidence I have seen growing up in the Latino constituency points to not only higher retention, but also to a distinct A/G identity.
Most of the laity and ministers I grew up with are still in A/G churches and leading others there at an appreciable rate. Furthermore, they are very proud of being A/G.
Thanks to my wife's extended family, I hear indigenous reports from Peru, Costa Rica, interior Mexico, and Guatemala. All my in-laws on her side are in ministry with the A/G. All call themselves "Asamblea de Dios de hueso colorado," which translated means they are die-hard, "red-blooded" Assemblies of God. The optimism they share about the A/G is in stark contrast to what I have seen in non Global South circles.
My parents who are presbyters in the Latin A/G in Arizona and minister along the border (with colleagues on the other side) say the same thing. In fact, as I have advertised here - to the point of overkill - they are involved in launching a whole new Latin district at the state level. This development is a definite sign of things to come should the Lord tarry.
My wife and I saw the same thing in NPLAD as sectional reps (overall higher retention, a distinct A/G identity, optimism etc.). Thanks to our simultaneous involvement with several NCN (NorCal/Nevada) churches, we were able to gauge the differences.
I say all this to underscore my original post, which can be summed up in one word - perspective.
As far as the "FutureAG perspective" is concerned, I see the need for change. The debates over GPH, cultural relevance, A/G label phobias, generational divides, the "Springfield Bubble," and even the Kool-Aid comments resonate with me. Reason being, I have been involved simultaneously, and at times exclusively, in the English-speaking A/G.
This is why I have tried to do what I can to encourage the moderators, defend them, support this blog, and share constructive ideas with as many people in Springfield who will listen. It's not much, maybe uninvited, & perhaps unnecessary, but hey it's something.
I also understand what Paul Stewart is getting at with his call for putting the doctrine of initial evidence under the microscope - been there and done that too.*
To conclude my treatise ;-), does the Global South hold all the answers? No. That really wasn't my point. To be sure, they have their own issues.
I just thought I would pull myself out of the foxhole and hand you my binoculars to show you that the landscape is changing, all hope is not lost, and that there's an army coming who are unaffected by the issues that seem so huge to us. Part of me really wants to ride along with them atop their tanks.
* After my experience, I gained a whole new appreciation for the wisdom of our founders and the favor that is upon this church. Ironically, it could be argued that the Pentecostal movement began with putting the idea of initial evidence under the microscope. In all likelihood, the isolation, experimentation and mass synthesis of the initial evidence doctrine at Topeka was the catalyst for the Pentecostal revival that is now sweeping the world.
Paul said: So, I don't have a problem with youth camps focusing on the Holy Spirit, but I do have a problem when they only do that through emotional means. If they actually taught the teens what the baptism is and why it's important, perhaps we'd see long lasting change rather than a couple of weeks worth.
1. It doesn't die out if as a yout pastor, or a pastor you do your job. Train them up to do the owrk of the ministry, which is what discipleship is. Not only are we to reach the lost, but the go and make disciples part is always left out. Students aren't whipped up in an emotional frenzy, just because emotion is involved in an altar service ddoesn't mean it is whipped up. Have you ever tried to get a teen ager to do something they deemed "weird or stupid"? Probably not. They don't want to do anything that makes them look uncool, but crying at the altar when God is moving in their life of course is way up there on the "I'm the coolest guy here" scale. We are emotional beings, ever been to a football game and seen students cry because of a loss? Do you blame the coaches and the teachers for whipping them up in an emotional frenzy? Or maybe, just maybe they care and not only do they care about their team they care about God and they may cry. But in the post modern world we are not allowed to show emotions.
2. I have worked in camps in two districts and have been able to plan and run camps for the last 5 years in my current district. Never, and I mean NEVER, has the Holy Spirit not been explained to students. If an evangelist were to say something out of line, or not explain the Holy Spirit we would have corrected that brother quickly. The scriptures are clearly pointed out and taught and then and only then are students given the opportunity to respond, if they want to.
3. The majority of my students don't "die out". Now, do some fall away, grow cold, lose heart... yes, absolutely it happens. Raise your hand if it hasn't happened to someone in your flock... anyone perfect...anyone... How about you Post Moderns, you guys ever see someone's faith wax cold, fall away(do we believe in that anymore)...The overwhelming majority of students who have had a true encounter with Christ at camp, or at our services do remain true to the faith. The Holy Spirit has a way of keeping folks in line.
4. This new generation of students is experiential...Not like our jaded generation which the AG seems to be bending over to please. These students aren't freaked out by someone speaking in tongues... they desire spiritual gifts... healings... miracles... they want to see it, experience it, becaurs IT IS REAL...Look at the movies and television shows they are watching, and look at all the reality shows, they all want to experience something, they want to matter... Not like our Gen X generation that wants to pick apart everything and believe in nothing. The 30 - 50 something crown has had a bad experience with pentecost, seen some goofy stuff. yes some wrong teaching took place, and the emphasis was placed on tongues and not on a relationship with Christ, I get it, I grew up then...But once I turned to the Lord, whole heartedly and answered to call to ministry I started teaching the Holy Spirit is given to believers for power to witness. Not power to speak in tongues...The Baptism isn't the end all of Christiandom, it is a gift given to the believer. But you WILL SPEAK IN TONGUES... Yes, salvation of the unbeliever is our #1 goal, and with the help of the power of the Holy Spirit working in the hearts and lives of believers it will remain our #1 goal...
5. "Have you received since you believed?" Can't take that out of the Bible can we?
Jonathan Borden
(not anonymous, I'm not scared)
Below is a link I would challenge everyone visiting this blog to read. Many of you will probably laugh it off...For those who have ears to hear please heed this warning.
http://www.forgottenword.org/accommodation.html
I think lay person makes a good point:
"lay person said...
I havd read through all 63 comments, and am struck by the fact that no one has brought up the Foursquare denomination. They seem to get along quite well without an "initial evidence" doctrine. At the same time, I note that the best book I've ever read on the subject of "tongues" ("The Beauty of Spiritual Language") was written by Jack Hayford."
there does tend to be more theological freedom in the Foursquare...
why do we NEED denominations?
As stated in these posts and others, FOR THE MAJORITY OF US, there is no accountability, there is no resourcing, there is no fellowship in the AG; there is simply TRADITION.
that's what I think is so funny about us posting on this blog in hopes of change...it's pointless. We don't NEED a denomination.
No matter who is in charge at HQ, it's not really going to effect anyone, but our psyche. What we need is a RELATIONAL system, where we don't tithe to each other or promote each other, rather we simply encourage and motivate.
BTW, how is it Godly to "LOAN" money to other ministries. THIS MX9 stuff is junk, just like all the other AG startup funds. I missed in the NT where Paul promised to payback his supporters, or tithe into a similar church planting endeavors. WHO ARE WE TO LOAN GOD's MONEY????? If I wanted a loan, I would go to a bank.
-ZORRO
I see a lot of people keep coming back to the idea of "witnessing" and "making disciples." So since I would like to continue to promote myself as the resident pomo emergent heretic, I'd like to do a little deconstruction of these ideas.
First let's deal with "making disciples." This idea appears only once in the NT, appropriately in Matthew:
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matt. 28:19-20 ESV)
So what are the key points here?
1."all nations," meaning gentiles as well as Jews, and important distinction for Jesus to make to his still somewhat ethnocentric JEWISH disciples.
2. Baptize them (in water), a standard practice of specific sects of Judaism (Essenes, some Pharisaic rabbis, John the Baptist). For whatever reason, Jesus had decided this would be the standard rite of passage for his order--baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. Teach them to observe what I have commanded, the language here suggests he's talking about The Law, specifically, his take on the Law (his Halacha for you hebrew buffs). What did he command? Love your enemy, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, turn the other cheek, overcome evil with good.
Now let's deal with "witnessing." In the gospels this idea is used in smattering of places until John (who loves this word) where Jesus uses it to talk about himself. The idea is also prevalent in Acts. The idea most people get when they hear "witnessing" is handing out tracks, yelling something indecipherable through a bullhorn, or maybe one of those keen way of the master programs...but the NT idea of being a witness is a much deeper concept. We know what it means to witness something...it means to gain firsthand experiential knowledge, like, I just witnessed a car accident, or, i just signed a legal document as a witness to an agreement, or, I was sitting in the CBC Student Union (lobby of Zee's) when I witnessed the 9/11 attacks on live television. So with that in mind, what does it mean to be a Christian witness? In the NT, the idea is exclusively that we are witnesses that Jesus is who he says he is (Messiah, healer, crucified, risen on the third day) and is used of people who give account of Jesus' resurrection (disciples) or of some miraculous personal experience with the risen Lord (Paul.) Also Jesus says that John the Baptist was his witness, and that the signs and wonders he performed were witnesses to who he was, and more importantly, that that he was bringing the Kingdom of God to earth.
Now, before I wrap this up, one additional word on Jesus' Last words: the only account that I skipped was Mark's, which must be prefaced by the fact that the earliest manuscripts leave it out (there, I said it, let the stones fly).
Mark 16:15 15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation."
So, what does it all come back to? Paul Stewart said it "Mission." But let me ask again, since nobody really flinched at my first post: What is the mission? It seems obvious, and not just from the addendum to Mark, that the mission is to propagate the Gospel...that leads us to another question, what is the Gospel? In the words of N.T. Wright, "shouldn't we let Jesus define the Gospel?" It seems clear to me that the Gospel of Jesus, meaning his Gospel, his "good news to all creation," is that the Kingdom of God has come near, and that it's not of this world: meaning it's not like the greedy and murderous kingdoms of this world; that instead of accomplishing peace by violent conquest, it's conquest by scandalous self-sacrifice.
This way of viewing the world doesn't come by signing a doctrinal statement, response card, or even JUST by praying a prayer (I could build a castle with the stones in some of your hands), it comes by rethinking everything, total deconstruction, rebirth if you will ;). And when that change happens...when you take the red pill and unplug from the matrix (to borrow a tired hollywood metaphor), that's when you become a witness to the Messiah. And when the lights fade and you turn to face a world so lost in greed and selfishness, that people lament a writers strike that means reruns, while 600,000 people and counting die in a genocide in Darfur, not to mention the 150,000 Africans who die every month from treatable, preventable disease, for lack of medicine that we in America could buy at any drugstore (for you statistics buffs, that's a Southeast Asian Tsunami every month, 81+ Katrinas per month, 50,000 9/11's per month, and around 39 Iraq Wars per month if you only count US casualties); when you stare that reality in the face and you know that you've met the one person who can fix it all...that's when you need a comforter, paraclete, helper, whatever you want to call Him.
And when you do bear witness to this miracle to someone else, and they want to be a part of this New Regime, it becomes your job to teach them everything he commanded us: love your enemy, bless those who curse you, when someone steals your cloak, offer them your shirt too, feed the poor, love mercy, do justice, walk in humbleness before God.
See, this is where we and the rest of the Church are missing it. We'll go back and forth about the minutia of something that is (in relation to the rest of the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus specifically) so insignificant, and puff our chests and bare our teeth about who's staying and who's going and who's going to win the fight, and ride the tanks or whatever (we love war metaphor don't we?), but when it comes to actually following the rabbi, we suck big time. My theory is that we've built all our systems by interpreting Jesus through the teachings of Paul, when we should have done the opposite, but that's a debate for later. The point is, who gives a flying flip about this crap unless Jesus really means something to us? He didn't die for this. And when he comes back? Well, I'll let Jesus answer that:
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
(Matthew 25:31-46 NIV)
peace.
-Jonathan Scruggs
To "anonymous" who provided the link and comments:
"Below is a link I would challenge everyone visiting this blog to read. Many of you will probably laugh it off...For those who have ears to hear please heed this warning."
http://www.forgottenword.org/accommodation.html
Thank you for the link and read. I think most here have heard and respect David Wilkerson and his ministry of the years.
I will only speak for myself. I want to be able to openly debate these issues, experiment with methods of church life, preaching, and ministry that have never been done before. I also want to be able, with a prayerful heart, stay true to the Gospel of Jesus. I don't want to be labeled "oh, that seeker-sensitive" church, just because I'm trying something innovative or challenging the thinking of the dogmatic absolutists among our A/G family.
Also, I don't think there are many here who would laugh at or mock such a challenge to preach the truth of the Gospel uncompromisingly.
The problem I have with vhttp://www.forgottenword.org/accommodation.html in the context of this discussion--David Wilkerson pulled his ministries out of the AG years ago (maybe he was smart? maybe dumb?). I think a some point "prophetic" turned to "psychotic"--he's said some strange things in the name of God over the years.
Hey anymous........I'm not an apologist for David Wilkerson at all but he has also said some pretty powerful and prophetic things over the years. You might want to be more careful with your cynicism.
I see my friend Dave Wilkerson every month here in NYC. I really love, appreciate and admire the man. That doesn't mean he is perfect, but as a church planter in NYC, I see an awful lot of truth in his speech.
BTW, when was that address given at HQ?
Anonymous:
I resigned my "job" on a church staff and moved to Vegas to plant a new church..I guess I took the "red pill..." I am now pastoring a group of people and trying to re-shape years of what I view as bad, Americanized, isogesis of scripture.
DJ:
I don't know much about other countries or the other language groups within America who have formed thier own districts. I think there is obvious differences between Latin culture and American culture. American culture is where I've been called to and who I am trying to reach.
Jonathan Scruggs:
It might be worth your while to do a deeper study into discipleship, what that meant in the first century Jewish world into which Jesus was born, and why it would make sense for the command to be to make disciples and not new converts.
Regardless, my belief about the topic is we need spiritual gifts for the resultant power to be Christ's witnesses in the world. Just started reading "UnChristian" by the Barna Research Group...we can fight this stuff out internally, but we need to realize we are in a culture that doesn't care, that has quite negative perceptions of Christians and I believe we can only look to ourselves as being the culprit.
Ryan
Ryan,
not sure why you think I need to do a deeper study on first century Judaism, maybe you didn't read my whole post, or maybe you misunderstood me. Do we disagree? I couldn't tell from your post. In a first century Jewish context of course, disciples were for the most part carbon copies of their Rabbi, the talmudim could never be greater than his rabbi, only like him...to this day, orthodox talmudim will go as far as following their teachers into the restroom so they can be sure they get his, uh...procedure right.
Jesus is commanding us to make disciples of Him. We learn his halacha, his way of walking/rule of life, and make it our own, and teach others to do the same. That's what I intended to come through in the book I wrote above (sorry about that...I've always been longwinded) but maybe I wasn't clear.
Or maybe you have a different take on first century Judaism? Enlighten me. I'm always up for a book suggestion. I suggest "Everyman's Talmud" by Cohen, "Bridge Between the Testaments" by Gowan, and www.followtherabbi.com and www.jewfaq.org respectively.
peace.
-Jonathan
Everyone...everyone should read the book Ryan mentioned in a previous post: Unchristian: What a new Generation Really Thinks About Christianity...and Why It Matters. Authors: David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.
It is a most enlightening documentation of sound research on why even the name "Christian" is being rejected by younger Americans. It's humorous to listen to all the debate promoting Pentecostals, or Evangelicals--believe me, we've got bigger identity problems!
It's hard to imagine that people on this site continue to argue that we don't need drastic change--Wow! My district reports that we have 200 churches under 20 people in our district (that's a leadership crisis). But let's continue to argue about "initial evidence"--pretty obvious to me some "evidence" is missing when it comes to reach younger people!
Jonathon, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I still don't think we see eye to eye on this issue. Here's why:
Concerning your points 1 & 2:
You say that if the youth pastor does his job then the emotional fervor of the youth camp experience won't die out. That seems to create the following dichotomy: Either a) the youth camp experience relies too heavily on emotion and not enough on theological teaching or b) almost every youth pastor across the land that takes his/her students to youth camp sucks at their job. Growing up, my youth pastor was amazing. He did everything he could possibly do to see his students' lives grow. But even this great man was not able to enable students to maintain the same emotional fervor that comes at youth camp. I'm sure there were nights that he recognized this and felt like a failure, as there were nights I felt like a failure because I didn't have the same emotions I did a few weeks earlier, but I don't think either of us were failures. It simply isn't possible to live life on that emotional high. I think there are countless youth pastors that would repeat the same scenario(I know at least a dozen or so that would).
I like that you use the football game analogy (I live in Norman, OK), but it serves as grist for my mill. When we attend a football game no one expects to be on that emotional very long after the game. Why? Because our souls aren't designed to live that way. I think we should think of youth camp the same way. Allow students to enjoy bonding with one another, developing new friendships, getting phone numbers from attractive campers (which is why we all go anyway right!), and even encourage meaningful times at the altar. I just don't think we should expect those feelings to carry over forever. Instead we root all those experiences in God's word, which will carry over forever. I don't think that proper teaching is completely ignored, but I do think it isn't emphasized enough.
Point 3:
This is a lovely position that you hold here because there is no way for me to deny it. Any person I present to you and say "Here is a person that had the emotional fervor die out" you can simply say he must not have had "a true encounter with Christ at camp." I find it problematic that your position maintains thousands of people did not have a true encounter with Christ--I believe I did but your position tells me that I'm wrong. In general, unfalsifiable positions are wrong, trivial, or fallacious in another way.
Point 4:
You say, "This new generation of students is experiential" and I think you mean that to be a support of your position. Being experiential is what leads to so many problems in the first place and is what has handicapped many pentecostals in the past. This experiential-ness is grounded in the existentialist philosophies of the 19th & 20th centuries and is deeply problematic. Why should I spend time praying if the experience isn't 'fun' or 'grand'? If I pray and all the great experiential things I'm told about don't happen what do I do then? Prayer becomes boring, so why do it? Why deeply study God's word or think hard about tough issues in general? Those things don't get me all excited, especially since I could go do all these other activities that are exciting. When I pray and don't experience healing, miracles, prophecy, tongues, etc., but think I should be, I unfailingly end up seeking those things and not God. God, on this view, becomes the grand dispenser of great experiences and not a maximally great being worthy of worship simply because of who he is.
Point 5:
I'm teaching a critical reasoning class at OU, which makes your final point my favorite. Here you've committed two informal fallacies. 1) Asking me if I have "received" is either a red herring or a fallacious ad hominem. Reading as charitably as I can, I'll take it as a red herring. I have indeed "received", but even if I hadn't that wouldn't change anything about my original post. Asking the question detracts from my original argument in hopes of switching to a different one. 2) Asking rhetorically if we can take something out the Bible characterizes my view in a very bad way. Never did I say we should take something out of the Bible, but your question presents my view as if I did. That is a classic strawman fallacy. What I did say is that we should spend more time grounding our daily experiences in life in the Word of God. Those experiences will include some great ones, but a lot more of just regular old life stuff...and that's to be expected. I'm not sure if you've read "The Dark Night of the Soul" but I think it may help you understand more clearly my view.
To Paul...Thanks for your recent 5 Points directed to Jonathan. Your critical reasoning class at OU must be great and should be required for all national officers and District officials.
Regarding the AG's apparent demise -- I like this quote from The Missional Leader: Equipping Your Church To Reach a Changing World (Alan J. Roxburgh and Fred Romanuk):
"Through the Incarnation, we discover that God’s future is at work not where we tend to look but among the people we write off as dead or powerless to make things different. If the Spirit has been poured out in the church—the church as it is, not some ideal type—then we are compelled to believe that the Spirit of God is at work and alive among the congregations of America.”
That would include the Assemblies of God, I suppose ... wouldn't it?
Hmmm ... perhaps the AG should be kept from demolition. Just maybe it's worth saving after all ...
Since we are talking about camp and youth "experiences," I guess my experiences qualify as well.
I was saved as a child and had 3 different youth pastors. I went to AG camp 5 times, (J-Hi and up). I never went to get phone numbers.
I had my own struggles with accepting my baptism in the Holy Spirit. It took a Steve Fry concert, a youth convention and a couple of camps to get it straightened out. But I'm glad these venues gave me the opportunity.
My first youth pastor emphasized discipleship, and paired us off with an adult discipleship partner. Unfortunately, my partner committed adultery with a pastor and was found out about the same time of our discipleship partnership. No one spoke to me about that. But it didn't even dawn on me to turn away from my relationship with Jesus because of it. I loved Jesus, so why would I do that?
I credit my first youth pastor for getting us deep in the Word and teaching us the Bible like we were older than our years.
Our second youth pastor was more energetic and bold. He was vibrant and had no problem speaking of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and challenging us toward holiness.
My third was entirely different. He was great at pushing us toward "friendship evangelism".
Even though I struggled sometimes piecing together all that was taught to me in so many different ways, I gave my questions to God. I was saved, I had a relationship with Jesus, so I talked with Him about these things. Because I fostered this relationship with Jesus, I believe He is the one who helped me through any doubts that came once any "emotional hype" was over.
Youth pastors are just men of God who are fallible. I don't think they have to be subdued, they just have to do what God's directing them to do through their own prayer and Bible study time.
I think we should give God some credit, that He will pick up on Monday where the camp dropped them off. If the we really believe the youth can have relationship with Jesus, we should believe the youth will allow Jesus to have a hand at leading them through the week. We should believe that some youth will have a strong enough relationship with Jesus to take their questions to Him and He will answer those questions.
It was the combination of all these pastors preaching to me, (as well as the Senior pastor), and my relationship with God that made me seek God outside of youth group, camp and church.
I appreciate the emphasis of discipleship that was given to me by my first youth pastor. I appreciate the zeal of my second. I appreciate the sincerity of my third. I appreciate and look back fondly at my camp times.
All of this would have been no use though, if I hadn't really believed I had a relationship with Jesus and hadn't felt I could go to Jesus with all these questions. No matter what whacky things happened, nothing could deter me from my relationship with Christ.
So I have a hard time understanding why we are so certain youth will go running away from God as soon as they get home from emotional hype or bad youth experiences. Where's their relationship with God, and their ability to think and conclude based on their own Bible reading?
Why, if they really love God, do they ditch Him? And why exactly is that the youth pastor's fault?
Anonymous 5:23 on 11/13,
with that rational no church should ever be closed or be questioned.
BOGUS!
Reply to Anonymous posted 9:24 on 11/13:
First of all, it's spelled "rationale."
Second, I was referring to the minority sentiment that feels the AG has had its day, that it's too far steeped in tradition and mired in bureaucracy to be of any value whatsover, and that it must be jettisoned in favor of some new or drastically reformulated structure. Well, if the AG is like a house, I say remodel the rooms that need it (and there are many); the naysayers say tear down the whole house -- who needs it?
I said nothing about individual churches being closed or questioned. Certainly that would be warranted in some cases — our goal as a fellowship should be greater efficiency and efffectiveness. But consign the whole organization to the dumpster? Too drastic. Again, I am "compelled to believe that the Spirit of God is at work and alive" in the AG, imperfections notwithstanding. Let's address our very real problems and effect positive change.
And third … if I let you use "BOGUS!" will you let me use "EXCELLENT!"?
Paul wrote that the camp experience always dies out. I had a powerful encounter with God at a camp in 1979 that changed my life forever. It has never died and I have never been the same. I run camps and see God do amazing things in the lives of students who are hungry for experience and could care less about terminology. They don't even ask the questions people are trying to answer on this blog. This discussion is irrelevant to them. Finally, if it weren't for camps and environment like camps, the pentecostal movement would become experientially dead. All that would be left is a discussion on tongues. Camps are where many are responding to a call that carries them for life.
Jon Fennell
what about our "committee for doctrinal purity." i cringe every time i hear that phrase because i think about water boarding, burning folks at the stake, and putting people on the "rack."
when i received my first level of credentials in 2002, the phrase voluntary cooperative fellowship was drilled in to me. the context was, if you didnt agree, then you should choose not to cooperate (in other words, leave the fellowship).
instead of calling folks before a committee or asking from people's papers, i believe the tent should be widened so that ministers and members can be intellectually honest and consistent. i'm not sure how wide, but people from either end of the spectrum should feel welcome.
"... I believe the tent should be widened so that ministers and members can be intellectually honest and consistent. i'm not sure how wide, but people from either end of the spectrum should feel welcome."
That would be the stance of the Evangelical Covenant Church, sort of. More extreme would be the United Church of Christ; and, taken to an exaggerated degree, you have the Unitarian Universalist Association (believe anything you want, and then some). You are not suggesting that degree of inclusion within the AG, obviously. Which points out the fact that you'll always have a doctrinal dividing line of some sort -- and probably a doctrinal purity committee, even if it's not called that.
Who determines how wide the tent should be? And if they widen it, there will be those on either fringe, that should also be included, and the tent will be widened again. Who determines when the tent is no longer widened, and what standard do they use to determine that?
Anonymous 6:45pm said "I have a hard time understanding why we are so certain youth will go running away from God as soon as they get home from emotional hype or bad youth experiences" and Jon Fennell wrote "I had a powerful encounter with God at a camp in 1979 that changed my life forever. It has never died and I have never been the same."
At least two people seem to have misunderstood the point I was trying to make, so there's a good chance I mucked it up. Let me try again. I didn't intend to come across as saying true life change doesn't really happen at youth camps. I not only think that happens, but would attest to that happening in my own life. Because I think true life change can/does happen at youth camp, I don't think students come down off their emotional high and then run away from God. What I do think is short-lived is the emotional fervor that students (and many leaders) experience during the Thursday night altar call. Unfortunately, many think that loss of those feelings is a sign of no longer growing in God.
I think if more time was spent teaching and training during camps we would see even more people not return to their pre-camp ways. What I think happens all too often is students come home from camp and eventually their emotions return to a more stable state. Many (teens & youth pastors) interpret that as backsliding or see it as a negative in some other way. Instead of allowing youth pastors and teens to feel guilty for losing that emotional fervor, we should teach them that it is normal (and healthier) to live life at a more constant emotional state. There will be ups and downs of course, but there should be substantial times of stability.
Anonymous 6:45pm, it is hard to tell, but did you think I was saying it is the youth pastors' fault for teens "ditching" God? There may be times it is their fault, but that's not what I was trying to say in my post. I think youth pastors act as if it is their fault, but I don't think it is. I think returning to a stable state emotionally is normal and if more people realized that, there would be a lot less guilt on the teens and youth pastors part.
Personally, I was often discouraged two or three weeks after camp because I didn't have the same feelings I did during camp. Try as I might I never could 'get it' back until the next camp (and I've heard the same story from others at least a couple dozen times by now). In the end I would stop trying because it felt impossible. However, once I learned that those emotional highs are the exception rather than the norm, I stopped feeling guilty during times of prayer, study, and meditation. I didn't feel like something was wrong and was able to focus on the things that are really important.
Hopefully this makes my view a bit clearer.
Jon, you also wrote that teens don't even bother with asking questions like we're trying to answer on this blog and seemed to suggest these discussions are fruitless. I guess I would respond by saying teens will likely have these questions at some point (perhaps when they are no longer teens, but they will at some point). These aren't goofy questions with no real importance in life. We should have answers for people that ask questions about the foundational principals of our fellowship, and there are people asking them. It is this attitude that causes so many non-AG believers to look at our fellowship as "anti-intellectual" and dismiss our theology without much consideration. Once these people see we do take the difficult questions seriously, we'll have a stronger standing in theological discourse on a variety of levels.
I think we would all agree that we need Pentecost in our modern day churches. As a church planter I wrestle with the topic of Pentecost often. Let me go on record in saying that we need it like never before! The question we or at least I struggle with is, what does modern day Pentecost look like? As a church planter under the AG covering (by choice) I feel a sense of obligation to do my part in finding the answer to the question above. The question is not should we embrace it but how do we embrace it. Pentecost is much larger than tongues. I think in past generations the Pentecostal movement was packaged with this one distinctive. Tongues became synonymous with Pentecost. On a personal level I think if speaking in tongues were the initial / only evidence that a man or woman has received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, God would have declared it an absolute in His word.
Paul,
When you use words like "always dies out" you can count on being misunderstood. Your ideas of having more teaching and taining at camps is not very realistic. The camps that I know of that have tried this approach have not been financially viable. They are perceived as boring. Teaching and training will have to be done at the local church level and let camp be camp.
I haven't encountered a lot of people who view the Assemblies of God as anti-intellectual. Maybe it depends on what part of the country you are in, or what your profession is. Like it or not, students today are asking different questions. I think it's great that there can be discourse on pentecostal teaching. I've also cashed my reality check and know that Assemblies is not going to do a rewrite on any doctrines in the next 20 years. I do think we can be a big tent that looks the other way for people with different perspectives on tongues. I attended a Southern Baptist Seminary and realized we aren't the only ones with weak hermeneutics on certain teachings. Some of their explanations for what Paul was saying in First Corinthians was truly amazing. And so some of our explanations for what Luke intended in Acts may also cause a little wonder. I'm probably too realistic and pragmatic on the theology stuff, but I would rather invest in areas where change can make more of a difference. I think I will leave this blog to the intellectuals like Paul.
Jon Fennell
John, Well I do mean that the emotional high of youth camps always dies out. It may get reignited the next year, but that emotional high will go away at some point. Given our psychological makeup, it has to. My point was that even though the emotinonal high dies out, that doesn't mean that true change does too. Unfortunately, people mistake the emotional let down as being a sign of spiritual death, which almost always leads to guilt. That guilt often discourages people about their relationship with God, and I find that very problematic.
I hope that you don't just leave this blog to people concerned with questions like this. I think the point I'm making has a huge impact on the spiritual life of many people, regardless of age. A better understanding of what spirit baptism is, what role our emotions play in experiencing God , and the normative role that speaking in tongues has in Christian life in general will affect our relationships in a very deep way with non-believers, non-AG believers, and others in our own fellowship.
That is an investment that will generate deep and lasting change.
Paul...this is Anonymous 6:45pm
"I think returning to a stable state emotionally is normal and if more people realized that, there would be a lot less guilt on the teens and youth pastors part."
That makes sense...I was always told the "there's always a valley after the mountaintop" thing. I agree there is a bit of unnecessary guilt that comes from dropping off from an emotional camp week.
While I dislike the false emotional hype that sometimes takes place, I do think sincere camp altar times are necessary junctures in the spiritual journey of so many teens. They are cornerstone events many times.
Whatever is experienced at these camp altar times must be theologically sound, and not whipped up by a leader feeling the pressure to create atmosphere. So I agree with a need for balance of teaching and experience, if it can be done in such a way as to still give God opportunity to flood the altars in whatever way He chooses at the end of the service.
In speaking of teens "ditching God" I was speaking to the general thinking that if the teens go home after an emotional camp experience and turn back to their old ways, then we must be doing something wrong. I was just giving some of the responsibility back to the teen whose choice it is to continue to serve God or not, whether or not they are caught up in emotional fervor.
New Topic? Any proposals for change? How about online voting? Anyone interested in Bethany University's request that Azusa Pacific take them over? It's our oldest AG college (Bethany).
Online voting sounds interesting.
How would resolutions be handled?
What about those who don't have computers, computer access, or computer knowledge? How could they access absentee participation?
Will those who complain about not having the money to go to councils, but can afford computers and monthly access fees, be able to tolerate the complaints that they are the new elite?
for the record, my question was to paul stewart, and he hasn't answered yet...i would like to thank paul for his view on everything...but would paul stewart please comment on my original post.
Finally, I told Dr. Wood that I am often discouraged with how the term “initial physical evidence” is lived out at youth camps, evangelistic rallies, and altar calls around our country. We have managed to turn this beautiful, mystical experience with a transcendent and supernatural God into a rudimentary formula. We’ve become so worried about “evidence” (a very modern and non-biblical term) we are missing the true meaning (which could never be measured with “physical evidence” alone).
could you explain this statement...as a youth pastor, the only time in the last 15 years that I can recall an altar call to receive the Holy Spirit has been at Youth Camps...Where I see young people hungry for the gifts of the Spirit, and also hungry for the authentic Christian living...Which is the fruit of the Spirit...So please explain, are you against Youth Camps that have a powerful experience with the Holy Spirit as it's focus or are you trying to say something else...
art please explain
Paul, Brad, Mark, Jeff, Tory, George -- Here's some thoughts I've had recently. Sure enjoyed the time we had 2 weeks ago. George Wood
George O. Wood thinks about Mark 9
For my devotions this year, I’ve been slowly moving through Ezekiel with Donald Bloch’s terrific (and technical) commentary; and journaling a verse a day through the Gospel of Mark. My journaling is definitely not exegesis, but iso-gesis. I type in the verse and then “think (i.e., write) out loud” my thoughts onto the computer. At the end I write a brief prayer. I’ve found this daily absorption in the Scripture to be really invigorating.
For the last few weeks, I’ve been plowing through Mark 9 – a very long chapter. Now, I’m almost at the end and suddenly some things fell together as I awakened the other morning. Funny how you can cogitate and meditate on something for a long time and not see how the parts fit – and then all of a sudden, a flash of inspiration comes in a nanosecond and you see everything clearly.
So, here’s how I see where Mark 9 fits into a lot of discussion on the blog. Mark 9 is all about the disciples and their perception of themselves and their place in the kingdom. The chapter follows the disciples through 4 stages, and I suspect we’ve all been there or are in one of them now.
First, revelation. That’s the Transfiguration or Metamorphosis of Jesus. It’s the only time in his early life where his divine nature shown through his humanity. Moses and Elijah are there. Jesus face is shining like the sun and his clothes whiter than any Clorox could get them. What a great moment for the three: Peter, James, and John.
Revelation is the spot where we are overwhelmed in the presence of the majestic Christ. It’s something we Pentecostals covet – being caught up into spiritual revelation and experience beyond what the rational mind can fathom. It’s being lifted into the heavenlies and encountering God in such a way that language cannot hold the experience nor can the emotions be articulated.
Second, argument. When Jesus and the inner 3 come down from the mountain they find the remaining 9 locked in an argument with the teachers of the law. What’s the argument about? The 9 cannot cast the demon out of the boy. They cannot do this even though earlier Jesus had commissioned them to cast out demons and Mark reports that they had done so. But, now they command and nothing happens – so they’re left to argue with the critics.
It seems to me that this is one of the problems we are having now in the Pentecostal movement. When we don’t have power, we argue. The fullness of the Spirit has leaked all the way out. And, our arguments don’t solve the pressing needs of those who are looking to us. I fear a dried up Pentecostal theological scholasticism that has no power. Argument (except for a wholesome apologetic for the faith such as the Apostle Paul’s dialogical evangelism) never produces the fruit of the Spirit, much less the gifts.
But, since the disciples at the foot of the Mount of Transfiguration have no power, they can only fall back on defending themselves with argument. It’s not a pretty picture. Jesus chews them out for not praying, thereby connecting argument with prayerlessness, and authority with prayer.
Wait. It gets worse. Third. Arrogance. After getting chewed out by Jesus for their powerlessness, they then start arguing about who is the greatest. They are doing the very thing that breaks community. Whenever we pit ourselves against others, or take the attitude “I don’t need you” – aren’t we exhibiting the same arrogance? When I was a new district official I visited a pastor who had a large church in our district but never was involved in anything. I wanted to reach out to him and find out what we could do to establish relationship. His response to me was, “I went to Springfield once and the brethren had nothing to add to me.” I wished I had said, “Well, maybe you could have added something to Springfield.” I think that’s what the Antiochians would have done for Jerusalem.
And, let’s face it – “Springfield” can be just as prone to arrogance as “non-Springfield” because arrogance doesn’t have territorial limitations.
So, Jesus talks to his arrogant disciples about being a servant, and he sets a little child in their midst. I think he does that because he’s telling the disciples: “If you really want to be great, then put your arms around the next generation and serve them. Stop being so narcissistic. My way is not self-fulfillment but self-denial. My way is not independence, but interdependence.”
Fortunately, by the time we get to the book of Acts – the disciples have gotten over arrogance and become a model community. It took awhile for them to realize the world would know them by their love for one another, not how smart they were, how cutting edge (or dull) they were, or what their age and cultural preferences were.
Then, the fourth thing happens in Mark 9. From revelation to argument to arrogance to exclusivity.
The disciples, who couldn’t cast out the demon, tell other people who are casting out demons to stop. If it weren’t so serious, it would be funny. They think they’ve got the exclusive franchise on Jesus.
We must avoid narrowness of heart and spirit. Jesus tells these disciples of his that they better not lead the “little ones” into sin for if they do, it would be better if a millstone were tied around their neck. What he’s really saying is that the fractiousness of the disciples is going to doom the novices in the kingdom, that exclusiveness is not only silliness but spiritually deadly.
So, in these recent weeks I’ve been drinking deeply from the well of Mark 9 and asking the Lord to help me stay fresh on the revelation side so that I’m inundated with His presence; and spared from the traps of being argumentative, arrogant, or exclusive.
During the charismatic renewal of the 70s (for those of us who were alive then!), we sang a beautiful and haunting chorus. I almost always led it at communion time: “Bind us together, Lord; bind us together . . . with cords that cannot be broken.” That binding is to Christ and to one another. In Mark 9, the disciples are seen at their nadir – but the Lord wasn’t finished with them. By the time he was done working on them – that argumentative, arrogant, and exclusive minded group had become a community (the body of Christ) that changed the world. They got bound together by the work of the Spirit.
And, incredibly, by the grace of the Lord, he’s doing the same thing with us! He works with all our limitations and sees that he can bring gold out of all our dross.
George O. Wood
General Superintendent
Anonymous,
For the most part I agree with the other Paul's comments, so I haven't felt the need to add mine. However, in addition to the "emotional high" that has been discussed I also have a problem with the formulaic nature of many youth camps I have been a part of (ie. Wednesday is Holy Spirit night... come to the altar... someone lays on hands... you start saying the names of Japanese cars really fast and Wha La!). I know this is an overgeneralization, but I think we are often guilty of boxing the Holy Spirit in. When the focus is on a specific outward evidence than that is very difficult to avoid, no matter how much you tell kids to "seek the giver, not the gift"
Great word and advice from our GS. "Bind us together, Lord", a great prayer and motto.
Steve
Springfield, MO
Excerpt from a blog I wrote:
"To put thought into a discussion requires effort and a willingness to consider other viewpoints, and to concede the point when your counterpart makes a logically coherent argument. It requires laying down one's sword and shield and coming to the table empty-handed and with an open-mind. Instead, participants in any particular discussion are normally encamped at certain positions and the refusal to consider alternate viewpoints makes discussion futile. They choose to occupy positions even when those positions become untenable. For them, to decamp from a deeply held belief is tantamount to retreat. It is his certainty of his rightness, or righteousness for some, which forms a barrier to true intellectual discovery and exploration. In short, it must be said that all positions, thoughts, and opinions are subjective in nature, therefore, any meaningful discussion is irrelevant because it is all relative anyway."
http://www.delicate-genius.com/2007/10/deconstructing-possibility-of-all.html
How can this happen and will anyone help us?
I just received a letter toady form the Southern Missouri District council of The
Assemblies of God. Following is a copy of the letter's contents;
Dated November 29, 2007
Dear Fellow Ministers:
We Trust the blessings of God are greatly upon each of you during this special Holiday
Season.
In our October presbyters meeting a motion prevailed that no Assemblies of God
credentialed minister in our district will be allowed to attend a non-Assemblies of God
Church unless they are given permission by the Presbytery Board.
It was also moved that the District write a letter to those ministers that have been
brought to our attention who are attending a non-Assemblies of God Church indicating it
will be necessary for them to receive District Presbytery approval for them to do so, or
their credentials will be in jeopardy.
If you or some credentialed minister in your church falls into this category, please
comply or encourage them to follow through with this action.
May God continue to bless you and your family as together we strive to enhance the
Kingdom of God.
Sincerely in Christ
Bill Baker
Superintendent
Southern Missouri District Council
Dear Brother Paul,
Please honor our elder brethren in your speech; at times your attitude comes accross as flippant, though I do not think that you intend to dishonor. As to Charles Crabtree's sermon at General Council, I have watched it at least half a dozen times, and excerpts of it were (thankfully) shown at my church. Perhaps you could borrow a copy of it. It was a watershed event for our fellowship. Your present position is in part a benefit of the legacy of Charles Crabtree.
Post a Comment