Guest Blogger: Paul Grabill

Paul Grabill serves as the Lead Pastor of State College AG, in State College PA. Paul also functions as the Asst. Superintendent of the Penn-Del District.

Like many credential holders, I have become a loyal reader of FutureAG blog. There's not been anything like it since the short-lived "Agora" magazine back in the 1970's. I have appreciated the openness and candor, and even the possibility for people to post anonymously (an option I have not [yet!] chosen:)).

More recently, I have been most interested in the outcome of the poll on Spirit Baptism. This has been a matter of some degree of theological reflection throughout our history (certainly my history) and one wonders if the issue is again surfacing for open consideration. If so, there are many organizational and spiritual dynamics to consider, not the least of which is ethical.

While I personally come down on the classical pentecostal position regarding Spirit Baptism and glossolalia (simply because I personally have not been able to find a cogent way to theologically parse out alternative perspectives), my purpose in sharing my thoughts is not to defend that position, but rather to examine deeper and more treacherous issues.

The poll results showed that there were many who anonymously indicated that (1) They are a credential holder in the Assemblies of God (and, by definition, have indicated on their annual credential renewal form that they adhere to and proclaim what is stated in our Statement of Fundamental Truths), yet (2) Find themselves at variance with our stated position, with some even going so far as to say that there is no relationship whatsoever between Spirit Baptism and glossolalia.

More to the point of this post, I have read postings and comments dealing with ecclesiastical "fear" and "abuse of power." As both a pastor and a district official, I have read such comments with ambivalence. On the one hand, I, too, want an environment where people can be totally honest. I personally love academic "give and take." On the other hand, in 'real life' that environment must be lubricated with mutual respect and integrity, else any dialogue is doomed to fail.

For those who desire change on our initial evidence stance, personally, I am happy to hear their argument (hey, I'm in a college town--I listen to everything:)), yet there seems to be a Catch-22 in the system. Those advocating change cannot be heard (especially in a formal, governmental setting) if they don't have credentials. Yet, if they are perceived as people who have lied on their credential renewal forms, many, if not most, ears to whatever they would have to say will immediately close. Any raised voices to try to gain an open hearing (charging others with being "closed-minded") will simply be met with "get the beam out of your own eye, brother," whether or not that thought is openly verbalized.

I simply don't know how those advocating change can answer that charge. How can one accuse the A/G with a lack of courage in facing tough issues if the ones advocating change can't muster the courage to resign their credentials when faced with a clear issue of integrity? What personal and/or social forces keep them in the A/G? A choice to focus on the areas with which they agree? Institutional loyalty? Family heritage? Their professional standing? Their income?

None of these reasons will move the hearts of those adhering to a traditional posture, and those in "authority" will wonder if they are doing their jobs to not challenge those who are being less than honest in their credential renewals. Here again is the Catch-22. Those officials actively enforcing integrity will simply reinforce the perceptions of "fear" and "abuse of power" by those who are already afraid of being "found out."

I wish I could propose a solution here (I've been actively praying and thinking about this), but I know that we cannot continue to go down the road of winking at those who say one thing and sign another. How is that any less sinful than a lack of integrity in areas of sexual morality or finances? A tolerance of a lack of theological integrity is exactly what has happened in the mainline denominations. On this and other issues, we cannot continue to go down the same road others have gone and expect to arrive at a different destination.

Some may find this hard to read. Am I advocating a "purge?" Not at all (I'm hoping for a more peaceful and loving solution), but this I know. God cannot bless us personally and corporately if we are not people of integrity. He can bless Baptists, Presbyterians, Wesleyans, EVFreers, Vineyardites, and, yes, even Classical Pentecostals, but not if we are living in personal dishonesty and fear as well as corporate confusion.

Being totally honest, regardless of the consequences, is who Jesus was and who we are called to be. I believe trusting that God will care for us and direct us regardless of what anyone does with our credentials (or even what happens to the Assemblies of God) will please the Lord and bring His favor--on all of us.

And that's my heart's desire.