For those you at the lunch forum today at AGTS, a question was asked regarding how the A/G (and others under the Pentecostal umbrella) can keep our doctrinal distinctives in accordance with what we actually preach and teach. (Some Pentecostal churches are Pentecostal in name only it seems.)
It was suggested that since the Pentecostals were 'kicked out' of most Evangelical circles many years ago, we need to be careful not to turn around and become exclusive ourselves. In other words, we should be able to emphasize the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (in doctrine and practice) without closing our doors to the larger Christian Evangelical community in the process.
A few things come to mind: Is it possible that after being 'kicked out' of Evangelical circles years ago (maybe shunned in a better word?), some Pentecostals went to the other extreme and attempted to 'fit in' by de-emphasizing our distinctives? Further, which is really more important? Do you think the up-and-coming generation is [or should be] concerned with this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Hmm...when it comes to leaving my remark...I must give the following precursor as evidence to the purpose for which I answer--I was raised AG and received the HS @ age 18 only to leave all that I have ever experienced 1 year later--been on track now for about 7 dry and abstinent years. From a corporate perspective--identity must be communicated, tested, and represented to each new business partner or geographic location. Thus, I support the business principle that crosses over into the church "culture" affirming that the Pentecostal distinctives must be communicated, tested, and represented to the various peoples, communities, and life experiences of people who actually go to church as with those who are in the business culture. Ha...I think God frowns on division i.e. Pentecostals being stiff-armed by the larger Evangelical community not for "faction" sake but for communal sake. Like duh...is what imma thinking about point of such questions for this blog. First, whether you are a certified, licensed, or ordained minister--its first your life (testimony) which speaks the gospel or in this case the distinctive to todays, yesterday's, as well as the upcoming culture. Teaching and preaching the distinctives is a result of a level of discipleship--relationship yields the place and common ground for the distinctives to be understood and accepted or challenged. Second, today's and tomorrow's culture is less fickle...so once again, it’s more about what you do and how you do it than who you are--with that in mind, we know that it’s the gift of the HS in our lives that affords us the opportunity to live a life that we seek t o preach and teach. So, ultimately, the distinctives are kept within the lives of those to cultivate it--not preach or teach it. Why? Think about it--I child does what a child's heart tells him to. So it is with our individual lives--we say and do what our hearts tell us. Lastly, communicating distinctives for distinctives sake is an unfortunate means to a sad end. The distinctives exist as an expression and label for the missional focus of out fellowship--identifying how we do what we do as an afterthought for who we do the things we do for--Christ and the Church and his kingdom, I feel that by imposing distinctives upon ourselves that we first don’t community with our own testimony's in addition to "a striving" to make them known to other future generations is well wasting time and energy. Now what? Well...get on-board and live what you believe FIRST. Following that...well, as we each mature in the distinctives we align our faith and commitments with..so it will "then" be obvious to others what are distinctives are--something lived and not just something preached or taught.
Ben,
What in the world are you talking about?
Fred
I think this kind of concern about how should we out A/G or Pentecostal doctrine should be open to others and I also want to do expect other non-Pentecostal groups are open to us for focusing and His mission today.
I need to teach our up coming generations to cooperate with Evangelicals. We need to encourage them to have dialogue with Evangelicals and other non-Pentecostal groups.
I had talked with a Baptist college chaplain in Japan about the issue of doctrinal difference when we try to have campus ministry. There was actually small number of Christians in the college. He said the spiritual needs were huge on the campus and he did not think he could reach out all the students by Baptist student. He was a humble man in Him.
This issue might be limited to the USA and other countries which have many evangelicals. In Korea, many Baptist church and Presbyter church practice speaking in tongues. It seems to me the work of the Holy Spirit is beyond denominations and their historical and doctrinal heritage.
My conclusion is that we need to be open to Evangelicals and others to accomplish His ministry effectively.
I hope this opinion is adequate comment for the question.
First of all I like to say that the Lunch was awesome and I thought it was thoughtful on the part of SAC to think of inviting Dr. Wood.
I do think the upcoming generation should be concerned with our "Pentecostal Distinctive" but I am not sure that we are. I have not been to many AG churches but the ones I have attended or been member of seemed all to have different views of importance of the practice of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.
Fitting in with other Evangelicals I don't think is the important part....loving them, accepting and respecting them is. If we are practicing our Pentecostal emphasis then we wil not have to wory about de-emphazing our distinctives because when the Holy Spirit shows up in our services the distinction is made.
I am really thankful for the new regime at headquarters that appears to be aware of the cultural trends, and open to discussing them rather than choosing to ignore the situation. I definitely think that as Pentecostals we need to remain true to our distinctives, but how we do that continues to be an issue. I like what Dr. Wood said about how our history should inform our stance on exclusivity. Aside from this we just shouldn't be exclusive because people who don't speak in tongues are equally as saved, however inequally empowered. (Although the issue of the seeing the power of the baptism above and beyond just speaking in tongues is another crucial issue.)
In my estimation and experience it is not trying to fit in that leads to deemphasis of the distinctives but more so bad experiences with the distinctives being poorly used. Most people have been to services where IPE felt forced or was ministered very poorly, and so it seems that a lot of younger churches are swinging a little too far left and neglecting them to our detriment. On the other hand it is foolish to equate Baptism in the Spirit with salvation as if both are equally necessary for salvation. There is a lot to say about the difference between essentials and distinctives and as the up and coming generation we definitely need to be concerned with this. And we need to have a plan for dealing with the issue that is well formulated and informed.
I don't really know if I accomplished what I wanted to with this, but hopefully it will at least be something for others to perhaps spin off of.
Fischer,
"Aside from this we just shouldn't be exclusive because people who don't speak in tongues are equally as saved, however inequally empowered."
Really? Unequally empowered?
How then do you deal with the Billy Graham's, Mother Teresa's, Luther's, Calvin's, Wesley's, Spurgeon's, Lewis's and millions of other evangelicals over the centuries who did not evidence the baptism of the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues yet manifested plentiful harvests of the fruit of the spirit with empowered, anointed ministries over their lifetimes? I don't doubt that tongues speech is "a" sign of spirit empowerment. Does it have to be "the" sign?
Should initial evidence of tongues continue to be a mandatory distinctive for inclusion in the Pentecostal fellowship? Does scripture suggest that sustaining evidence of spiritual empowerment is more crucial than initial evidence?
There is also the reality and experience of the local church that must be considered. Even here in Springfield, there seems to be a significant aversion to the teaching of the baptism of the HS and tongues in general. In my experience, the farther you travel away from the mid-west, in general, the more sparse the divisiveness of the tongues distinctive becomes. So at the grassroots level, I wonder if there isn't a "smile and nod" campaign occurring regarding this doctrine.
If I remember right, in the Future AG blog that was shut down, there was a survey that suggested young pastors are tending to avoid the whole subject in general and don't consider the tongues distinctive critical to Christian living. There was also a very emotional response to the conclusions drawn about that survey by some of the host bloggers and posting respondents. It's obviously an emotional topic and is often considered the "third rail" of pentecostal doctrine. I'm not trying to pick a fight nor am I willing to die on this doctrinal hill. Your statement simply caught my attention in light of the discussion about distinctives.
I'm interested in your thoughts.
Gary, that issue of Billy Graham was what I was alluding to with my parenthetical aside on seeing the power above and beyond the evidence.
As a Pentecostal of my age, I have battled with this issue in my own life many times. At this juncture I have come to the point that I am fully AG, although certainly not to the level of say...most people's grandparents.
Having said that I would say that biblically initial evidence is about 80% certain in all accounts. (Paul isn't said to speak in tongues at his filling, although later we find out he does indeed)
In my mind from evaluating and reading the scriptures Baptism in the Spirit definitely provides spiritual empowerment for witness above and beyond salvation. The only way to reconcile this with the Billy Graham factor is to assume that God gifts people regardless of
spiritual baptism to a point, although the baptism as laid out in scripture empowers above and beyond
initial giftings. By this logic Billy Graham as great as he is, could have done a lot more. On the
other hand, I probably have a tenth of his annointing and even with the baptism will be a failure in comparison. To each is given a different measure, it's not about numbers (although they are important), but more about faithfulness.
I also think that yes, IPE has to be the sign as a part of the AG wing of Pentecostalism... I don't see that changing anytime soon, however the new guard does seem a little more open to dialogue which is good. There are a lot of good churches, such as mars hill in Seattle where tongues speech is exhibited, although not "mandated" and I think these are great ministries, however they are not Pentecostal. They are quasi-pentecostal at best, and in reality something entirely different. (Which in the history of the church, isn't always a bad thing)
Anyway Gary, I hope you respond.
I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post. There is a smile and nod campaign because the younger generations as a whole don't embrace IPE with the same fervor as the past generations, but want to remain a part of the fellowship for a variety of reasons. So younger people tend to over correct and avoid the biblical evidence all over, probably to our detriment by missing out on "fullness" - I think a lot of the reasons behind this trend is a cynicism born from seeing misuse and poor teaching on the subject as well as an exclusive mentality that assumes if you don't have IPE you must be doing something wrong...
On a side note I was talking to my wife the other day about the subject and we were considering perhaps if the reason IPE seems on the decline in a practical sense is because we separate from conversion what the Bible seems not to? What I mean is in Acts when people got saved they seemed to immediately say...now recieve the Spirit. In practice today we more exhibit a long layover followed by some frustration for a time. Perhaps if as a movement we could get back to spontaneous administration at salvation the Spirit could again become unleashed in the same way as exhibited in the early church...just a thought...feel free to respond either way
With all due respect, and in my personal opinion, any attempts to say something to the effect of "how much more effective would Billy Graham been if..." etc, etc falls flat and in non-pentecostal evangelical circles comes across as incredibly arrogant It seems easy just to say "how much more effective would so n so be..." but we need to think about how that comes across to others or even to Billy Graham himself. Personally, I would be offended (and hurt) at such a notion. Sorry, but that is how I feel.
I personally am not sure of a good way to answer the question and am not sure there really is one.
It seems to me that if people have a problem with IPE they need to deal with that in their own hearts and not think they can come into the AG and expect the AG to change its doctrine to meet their needs.
In other words, the AG has set forth its core beliefs and has a right to do so - that is, to say this is who we are and this is what we believe. If folks have a problem with that, are there not other places to go? Other groups to associate with?
As to the issue of exclusivity, Daisuke makes a good point, the problem with divisiveness is mostly an USAmerican problem not a global one per se.
That's a fair point Brian,
But if we are really AG in terms of signing off on IPE, then the Billy Graham paradox is something that we need to deal with. - I hate simplistic answers but there aren't really a lot of ways to answer that question. Either IPE is right, or it is wrong. Perhaps we make the issue too much black or white, but if the issue is gray, than can it really be a doctrine at all? - (by the way, I am not saying it's wrong...just throwing stuff out there)
we must look past trifles and confusions to what really matters. obscuris vera involvens.
it may be a tension or paradox we have to live with.
Fischer:
Good points. I side a little with Brian on the assumption Billy Graham could have been more effective had he demonstrated a more Pentecostal personal faith. I know you don't believe or intending to impugn Graham's life or work. But that idea of 'greater blessing or extra measure' is a problem that causes many to smell a little aristocratic elitism within Pentecostal theology. (I don't think you are an elitist. I'm just giving you a sense of the historical reaction to the idea.)
I may not go to your level of 80% certainty. Of the evidences of tongues in Acts in ch.s 2,8, 9, 10 and 18, three of the five directly mention IPE. So I'll go to 65% ;)
Seriously I think tongues speech is real. Not mandatory, for Godly living, service or fruitfulness, but real and beneficial none the less. But I just can't get around the idea that tongues is described as a gift. Gifts are well...gifts not mandates or prerequisites. I don't get to demand a gift and its really a little presumptive and rude to even expect a gift. (At least that is what we tell our kids at Christmas, right?) I ask, I hope, I wait and I believe God will give me everything I need for righteous living. And he is able to do abundantly more than I can ask or imagine. Because that's just how good he is. But for us to develop a theology that mandates the evidence of a gift and then discriminate against those who don't get that which is not in their power to achieve, is odd and fundamentally unfair to me. It's a no win situation. One can't make themselves attain something they don't have the power to manufacture, we certainly don't condone or encourage faking the experience. So what happens to our theology when we ask, pray, wait and hope with all faith and integrity and God withholds? I personally know dozens of such cases. I've witnessed multiple laying on of hands to impart the spirit. Some speak in tongues, others never do, or to this day have not. Doctrines are all good and well until they don't work out as expected. But instead of re-thinking or widening our perspective on the issue we seem to have narrowed and excluded any other view. Strange.
I also agree with Brian, any denomination has the right to choose what will and will not be their focus. But denominational-ism is dying a slow and painful death. People are less interested in distinctives and more interested in authenticity. But I think Brian assumes too much. I don't think the majority of people inside or outside the AG understand what their core beliefs are much less why the exist in the first place. Most of the challenging of IPE I hear is made more in the form of a question than a complaint. I don't think most AG church attenders I meet are asking the AG to change their position on IPE. I think they don't have a clue why its even an issue. The logical result then is for them to ask: What is all the fuss? Unfortunately, that comes across as threatening too much of the time. That's a problem.
I don't really know how to respond to that Gary... At least not in blog form, because at this point anything else I say is gonna be nuanced one way or the other...
(By the way, my email is gryanfisher1832@yahoo.com if you want to continue chatting, I really get a lot out of it, but at this point a person has to be concerned about big brother)
I understand your issues, and I'm a young guy, believe me I am aware off all the rational and reasons, I've just worked it out in my own life and have landed narrowly on the other side of the line from what you guys are saying. As a person who wants to be authentic, I don't think the smile and nod campaign is the way to go, as leaders in the movement, we need to work it out, or perhaps find another stream to swim in....(that's probably a little too black and white, but denominational reform is a slippery slope, and that seems like the wrong route to go from my perspective)
I do agree that this whole issue is more of an issue among the hiearchy and most members are oblivious. In one way, that's understandable and the way things will always be to some extent. It still seems that we should aim to have everyone become fully devoted, biblically literate members and not just spiritual children forever. All this to say, this issue isn't just going to quietly go away, and the denomination in terms of reaching younger minister's and having healthier members needs to address it.
I have read some of the comments posted above and believe that IPE is a difficult, emotional, and sticky issue. However, I think that if the AG really believes what it teaches, then we do need to find a better way of teaching and preaching the issues surrounding its doctrinal stance in such a way that it can be lived out in the lives of churchgoers.
I know that the issue of IPE is a big deal right now especially among young ministers and so I appreciate the attention that it is getting here as well as by Dr. Wood. Ultimately, as I am sure we all agree, the issue is not how popular it is or how much we have experienced this in the past, or how much better could someone's ministry have been, but do we believe that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit? Since we seem to, we do need to find a way to work this out practically in our congregations.
Relating this back to the original question concerning evangelicals, I think that in recent years we have seen a greater openness to cooperation between denominations and I hope that this continues to grow. We should do our best to reconcile any relationships that may have been severed in the past. However, that does not mean compromising our beliefs. Those who choose to be a part of the AG should do so because they have similar beliefs. Change is good, but change should take place in a respectful way on both sides. Ultimately, people have to decide for themselves and go with what their conscience in conjunction with the HS is indicating.
My daughter was married Saturday, so for the past week I haven't been reading the blog.
The conversation is interesting to this point. I've addressed some of the issues discussed here in my posts to other questions on this blog, so I won't repeat them here.
However, the discussion is interesting to me from my perspective "out in the field."
Over the past 30 years I have been to many Pentecostal churches. And the variation of emphasis and belief about the baptism with the Holy Spirit has been a significant concern of mine.
In our ministry we emphasize salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and Him alone. But this salvation is not a one time "prayer" or "decision", but an ongoing relationship with Jesus Christ. Thus, we reject the evangelical concept of "once saved always saved."
We teach new converts that the written Word of God is our all sufficient rule of faith and practice. Our relationship with Jesus Christ is evidenced by our obedience to the Word of God.
We also teach, as part of our discipleship process, that every believer needs to be baptized with the Holy Spirit to receive divine power to be a witness for Jesus Christ. The initial evidence of having been thus baptized is speaking in other tongues.
Finally, we also teach that personal evangelism is the responsibility and duty of every believer. The power received through the baptism with the Holy Spirit includes the courage to be a witness for Jesus Christ even in the face of postmodern opposition. It includes the ability to pray in the Spirit (i.e. in tongues) for those we witness to, and those who have come to faith in Jesus through our witness. It includes the ability to pray for the sick and see them healed and delivered from sickness, demon oppression and demon possession. It includes the ablility, in the course of witnessing to non-Christians, to function supernaturally through words of wisdom, words of knowledge, prophecies, working of miracles, etc.
The purpose is always the redemption of the lost; and the edification of the saved. In that order.
I respect Dr. Graham more than any other modern evangelist because of his consistent emphasis of the salvation message, and calling people to faith in Jesus Christ. However, the power of the Holy Spirit to heal and deliver as evidenced in the book of Acts is not in evidence in his ministry. Crippled people, those who are sick, and those who may be demon oppressed or possessed leave the same way they come.
Compare his ministry with that of the late Katheryn Khulman and you will see clearly my point. People were saved in her crusades as they are in Dr. Graham's crusades, but people were also healed, miracles were evidenced regularly, blind people received sight, crippled people were healed, and demon possessed people were set free. She consistently encouraged all who claimed to be healed in her services to have thier healings varified by their personal physicians.
Having said all that, my problem arises because of the need we have in our ministry of sending the young military people we reach and teach to other churches when they are transferred to other military bases. Whereas in decades past I could recommend an AG church and be fairly confident about what the people I had witnessed to would be taught in regard to these issues, I no longer maintain that confidence. Even though the denomination still holds certain "fundamental truths" individual churches and pastors may or may not believe or teach them because of their own personal perspectives.
Even more, I fear that in some situations what I've attempted to teach the young servicemen and women who have been part of our fellowhsip may actually be undermined, thus creating confusion in their minds.
So, I ask the rhetorical question, "What am I supposed to do?"
So, I have been critical in the past at the school for spending so much class time addressing speaking in tongues. Mostly because it was in classes with other agenda's and it bugged me to pay $400 an hour and go off topic all the time. But in light of the issue, I kind of see why the subject was brought up so much.
Having said that, it seems sort of indicative of the state of things that no one seems to want to talk about it now. We had 70 some posts on the issue of the emergent church but in terms of this, which should hit home with most of us in some fashion we don't even have 20. Why the sudden silence on the subject?
Fischer:
In my opinion....you said it yourself: Fear of big brother. And why the fear? Reprisal? Could it be some feel a tinge of guilt because of an integrity issue with the credentialing documents? Careers are at stake, or at least future careers. I think the reprisal fears are unfortunately both rational and justified. Fear is an abusive yet highly effective control mechanism.
Or.... it could be that most people have realized from experience that it is a waste of breath to debate this issue. The majority of Pentecostals I have met who have any passion on the subject come to the issue from John Wagner's position. They seems to have everything in their theology, not just IPE, battened down pretty tight and all their doctrines dove tail nicely when fitted together. It's a clean, neat little box with a big bow on top. And as John has demonstrated, he's proud of his doctrinal, distinctive box. I just don't think God lives in those little boxes/prisons. Nor should we.(That was not an attempt to bait John into a conversation. You have a right to your opinion.)
I wonder if the denomination known for surrendering to the 'move' of the Holy Spirit can move in their theology as quickly as they move in their worship? Shouldn't;t it be the same? Shouldn't our theology work synergistically with our ecclesiology and pneumatology?
Or.... it could be just finals week.
I think most of your rationalizations are probably somewhat accurate but none the less invalid. God is bigger than the AG and we definitely need to at least dialogue about the issues. Not that any of us will ultimately change our positions, but the point of the academic world is to stretch our thinking and help us leave this place with well informed and thought out views.
I appreciate everyone for helping me to become more informed on the issue. Thanks
By the way Gary...No c is my name
I'm cool like a fisher of men, not one of those random c in the middle of their name fischer's
Just kidding
In the past eight years we've had about 250 young men and women between 18 and 25 come through our home. These young adults came from 42 different American states and five countries. They were from 29 different denominations.
My wife and I observed, and have been concerned during this time that the most difficult young adults to minister to were those who said they had an AG background. Getting them interested in even participating in our fellowship was work (they didn't associate with the AG churches in the area either).
But more to the point of our discussion, they seemed to be the least interested in the discussions we had about the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Few knew the purpose of Spirit baptism, and were unsure whether they believed that tongues were the initial evidence. What troubled us most is that they also seemed to be the least teachable.
I realize this is a very small sample group and not statistically significant in generalizing to the broader population, but when viewed in the light of this discussion and that which occurred on the Future AG blog, I can't help but wonder if these young adults represent the product of the churches in which they were raised...
If, after 100 years of existence, we do not have our belief in this area "battened down pretty tight" what is the purpose of the AG's existence as a denomination? If they "move their theology" as a result of constant and continuous dialogue with "evangelicals" away from their distinctives, either at the denominational level or the local church level, in my opinion they then lose the very essence of what they are and why God brought them into existence in the first place.
Dr. William Menzies made the observation in one of my classes at AGGS, that the most significant thing that has kept this Pentecostal revival going as long as it has, compared to other Pentecostal revivals in church history, is the specific doctrine of the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues.
He concluded that if the Pentecostal church ever ceased to believe and teach that doctrine, the current Pentecostal revival would end just as the others throughout church history have ended.
Now, 25 years later, I am increasingly concerned about his observations becoming fulfilled prophecy, especially among young ministers. I sense a growing momentum among them in this direction. I'm really concerned about what kind of "ministers" they are (integrity?), and what kind of Christian disciples they produce, if they sign their names to a statement of belief and either don't believe it, minimize it, or simply don't teach or practice it.
I wouldn't generally reply to that John, because it is sort of a rhetorical post, but in an effort to dialogue...
I guess my response would be that 100 years isn't very long in the scheme of things and if we haven't after 2000 years "battened down" all theology, why should this be any different? I don't agree with Gary in terms of the extent of his views, but he does certainly bring up good points in terms trying to box up theology. (to some extent)
Sorry, that was me
Hey Ryan...here's my take on why humans, or at least myself, am hesitant to dialogue about this issue: it seems that whenever I honestly share my thoughts on the subject, I get harassed by right wing IPE extremists (this election coverage is starting to color my diction). In the several discussions of this nature I've been unfortuante to be a part of, whether at Bethany, AGTS, or in a church, I've never seen anyone change their opinion or really openly listen to someone else who disagrees with their experiential position. So it can be frustrating and seemingly fruitless for me, you know? So I don't know what to do...I usually try to stay out of this discussion as I have during this blog, although I've been tracking along with some of the comments. alenda lux ubi orta libertas. Go Steelers! By the way, you gonna watch the draft?
The biggest challenge for the A/G is not about whether IPE is theologically correct.
The problem rests with a lack of dialogue on this and other doctrines. I happen to agree with IPE, but because I disagree with A/G stances on other doctrines, I don't feel welcome to fully discuss those positions in an A/G environment.
In contrast, the non-denominational charismatic environment allows for a diversity of opinions regarding the Holy Spirit, redemption, predestination, eschatology, etc. People can disagree on the finer points of theology and still respect other Christians for their beliefs.
My opinion is that problems throughout A/G history (such as debates over the trinity, post-tribulationism, miracles, the prosperity gospel, and financial improprieties, just to name a few) have resulted in theological tyranny and a spirit of control within A/G culture.
Adult Christians do not need theological browbeating. Instead, relationships filled with love, acceptance, understanding, encouragement, teaching, and thoughtful theological persuasion seem to be more effective.
We can have strong theological opinions, but those positions must be communicated to Christians and non-Christians in a way that does not come across as defensive or elitist.
that's davidson's motto- Stephen Curry is a beast. Yes, I will be tivoing the draft to watch. ok my random comments are done. I agree no one changes their positions, and am ok with that because I will at least shape my own from the arguments of others. I don't really know why I am feeling so strongly about pushing this debate really...because usually I feel the same way. (It's probably because I have a wealth of free time without worrying about school any longer)
Tiresias, I agree with your last two paragraphs, but in my experience, I haven't really seen any of the other issues you are referring to. It has pretty much always been about initial physical evidence in some form or another during my lifetime. It would be interesting to hear more of your perspective though.
I guess my issue would be that their is a need for agreement in essentials, but we should still be open for discussion on everything - to the point of helping people work through ownership of the issues rather than expecting blind acceptance.
There... I can't spell
And have some sort of an aversion to proofreading before I post
John does bring up a good point about B.G. preaching of the gospel should indeed be followed by signs and wonders - yet, as far as I know - to date there aren't any records of such happening at a B.G. Crusade.
I wonder what can be done to recapture that here in the States?
It is common in plenty of places around the world but is not too common here in the States.
What do I do?
I keep reading the word "dialogue" used in these posts together with the implication that "we" don't dialogue about these issues. I wish someone would define what they mean by "dialogue" in this context. I know many of my colleagues who have been in dialogue concerning Pentecostal issues for 40 years of my ministerial career and I know it went on long before that.
For me, the remarks I make are far from being merely "rhetorical." They represent the product of almost 40 years of dialoging, debating, defending, and teaching Pentecostal truths in the face of consistent and unrelenting "evangelical" and "liberal" opposition.
And, yes, the issue is whether "IPE" is theologically correct. That is precisely the issue. Because if it is theologically correct then it must be taught and preached and defended. It also becomes a faith issue for the individual: believe it or don't believe it. If a person chooses to not believe it, it becomes an issue that the person will ultimately have to give an account of to the Lord Himself.
I was not raised in the AG so for me every step in my pilgrimage has been about getting my theology straight so that my experience lines up with what the Bible teaches.
I was raised in the Lutheran Church in America. Probably the most liberal branch of the Lutheran church. I was sprinkled as a baby and thus "became a Christian."
When I joined the Navy I went to a Christian servicemen's center where I was told I was not a Christian. I argued a lot! But when I was shown in the Bible that a person had to be born again and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ I realized they were right. I invited Jesus Christ into my heart.
When I got engaged and discussed baptizing our babies with my fiance I learned that no infant was ever baptized in the NT and that baptism always followed belief. No baby can believe anything. I had to jetison the notion of baptismal regeneration because it was unbiblical.
Then I was exposed to the baptism with the Holy Spirit. I had never heard of it. People told me the initial evidence of being Spirit baptized was speaking in other tongues. I had difficulty believing it. They then showed me from the Bible where those who were Spirit baptized spoke in tongues. I dropped my objection and began to pray that the Lord would baptize me with the Holy Spirit. It did not happen immediately, so I kept on praying. I was ultimately Spirit baptized and knew it because I spoke in tongues.
I was a staunch believer in a pretribulation rapture until I began my studies at CBC. A friend of mine from Evangel College and I discussed and argued about the Scriptures that were used to defend both the pre and post tribulation rapture positions. I came to see that the concept of a pretribulation rapture could not be supported biblically. I changed my belief to a post tribulation rapture (that cost me dearly when I tried to get my license to preach in the Southern Missouri deistict - but I was willing to pay the price to maintain my integrity and be true to what I believed).
Biblical exegesis is what informs my theology. My theology then informs my beliefs. My beliefs then inform my experience and behavior.
So for me, the opinions I post are much more than mere rhetoric. My theology is also not a collection of merely intellectual thoughts. They represent the very essence of who I am. They have been hammered out on the anvil of life.
As seminarians, if you don't think these issues are real issues in the "real world" think again.
The military is a microcosom of American society. And what happens in the military community often spreads to society at large. Having been a Navy chaplain for ten years these issues are hotly debated in the military community.
One example is the current and ongoing debate about the constitutionality of Christian chaplains praying in Jesus name.
But that really pales by comparison to the efforts made to stop Christian chaplains from "evangelizing" servicemen and women. There was a recent law suit brought against the Air Force intended to stop all evangelism efforts by chaplains, and even to stop the evangelism efforts of servicemen and women among each other.
Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - the head of all Roman Catholic military chaplains recently said in a PBS interview that evangelical chaplains who tell servicemen and women that Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation have "stepped over the line."
For a Christian, if Jesus Christ isn't the only means of salvation, then what is the way of salvation? What is he telling Catholic chaplains to tell young men and women the means of salvation is?
Will we stand in the shoes of the early church in the book of Acts and say we must obey God rather than men? Will we be willing to accept the consequences of that stand? Will we have the requisit courage?
I believe that the baptism with the Holy Spirit (with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues) gave the early disciples the power and courage to stand for their beliefs and boldly declare the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ even in the face of incredible opposition, and will give modern disciples the same power and courage.
John, you must be out of breath:)
Well, I used to be baptist. When I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit it changed every aspect of my life. There is no way I can deny it, and I do have a problem with pentecostal churches that forbid speaking in tongues. I know for the most part their reasoning is that it is "weird", to which i do agree. I also understand that many people are just wanting an excuse to leave the church and never come back. So I personally am trying for find a balance between the two. HOWEVER, I will never stop preaching about the Holy Ghost just because it might be "offensive" to other denominations. When we stop preaching the gifts of the spirit and the HOly Spirit, we fail to preach the whole gospel.
The question of doctrine and practice should be asked by all who profess to be Christians. According to some statistics found in Today's Pentecostal Evangel (TPE) a number of months ago, less than half of the people attending Pentecostal churches claimed to have received the Pentecostal experience. On level, I really think this is sad because it shows the lack of teaching people have received concerning the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
At the same time, I believe it is important for people to not view the baptism in the Spirit as the distinctive doctrine of Pentecostalism. With the growing number of people who have become more open to the classical Pentecostal position of Spirit baptism, the movement has lost its distinctiveness if that was the only distinctive thing about.
Lastly, there are a number of ways for Pentecostals to approach Spirit baptism where it does not appear Pentecostals are making themselves out to be spiritual elitists. Maybe by initially approaching Spirit baptism from a broader perspective than is normally done, thereby allowing people to find points of agreement, before jumping into the more questionable ideas, such as subsequence and physical evidence.
Well, that's my two cents.
I would be interested in hearing what you mean, specifically, by your statement "Maybe by initially approaching Spirit baptism from a broader perspective than is normally done, thereby allowing people to find points of agreement, before jumping into the more questionable ideas, such as subsequence and physical evidence."
What would that broader perspective be? what points would it allow people to agree with?
I would recommend Koo Yun's book "Spirit Baptism" which discusses 9 different historical-theological strains of thinking about Spirit Baptism. The classical pentecostal perspective is only one of many intersting "horizons" as Yun describes.
Dan,
You said, "I believe it is important for people to not view the baptism in the Spirit as the distinctive doctrine of Pentecostalism."
If the baptism in the Spirit is not the distinctive doctrine of the Pentecostal movement, what is?
I am going to side with John on this issue - I think the influx of evangelicalism (most books read in seminary are primarily evangelical and not necessarily Pentecostal) has tempted Pentecostals to consider dropping the IPE distinctive.
does that indicate anything about our methods/effectiveness? Or at least cultural relevance...
I guess a better question might be, is there a better way for us to impact the church culture at large for Christ, and if so, how so?
I think there are plenty of ways we can influence the church at large without having to discard IPE as a distinctive. Pentecostals have typically ben involved in plenty of social engagement (helping the poor, the outcast, etc) and this is an important means of influencing the church to be more active in living out it's faith.
Let me suggest a book that I believe is the best exegetical work I have read to date on this subject: Roger Stronstad's "The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke" where he addresses the most significant hermeneutical questions in this debate.
I had an interesting talk with a some younger AG staff members at one of our AG colleges recently. I came away with the thought that one reason the doctrine of the BWHS accompanied by speaking in tongues was so precious to me was that it was so costly for me to seek it. It was a watershed decision 30+ years ago and initially caused a great deal of consternation among loved ones, as well as an invitation to leave my former denomination. It basically equalled an embrace of a NT practice, lifestyle along with the acceptance of the miraculous as part of my Christian walk. When I spoke to these young ministers about my experience, I might as well have been from another planet or, at least, from another country. Being baptized with the Spirit is not an important milestone for our younger folks. Many are just a bit embarrassed by the idea that tongues initially accompanies this experience. Is it possible that the anti-supernatural bias of the larger culture has seeped into our church?
The BWHS along with devotional prayer in tongues does not give shape to the Pentecostal faith of many of our younger ministers and adherents. This role seems to have been taken over, for the most part, by contemporary music or, in some instances, by experimenting in ancient church rituals.
Perhaps many of this current generation of younger ministers have thrown the proverbial baby out with the bath water, i.e. jettisoning prayer in tongues along with other perceived outdated AG practices (especially various legalisms - many of which deserved the boot). I do know that in the church I attend I haven't heard a Sunday prime time sermon on the BWHS or miraculous gifts of the Spirit for more than nine years. However, we do anoint with oil and pray for the sick on Sunday morning. There is that flicker of hope. Some old timers still give an occastional tongue and interpretation or prophecy. But a lack of participation of younger folks in these things is quite obvious. To my mind, preaching and teaching are the key. But we are pretty addicted to the business model of church and doing anything that leads to more folks in the pews. We might even get smaller for a while if we stuck to our guns, trusting that the truth will win out over time.
When I was in seminary, someone mentioned to me an interesting experiment. Take two churches: in one reject speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of the BWHS. In another, take the opposite view. Let them grow up side by side for fifty years or so and see what happens (the fruit test). This actually took place in the early 1900s. The Christian Missionary & Alliance is the former and the AG the latter. In short order, the practice of the gifts of 1 Cor 12 left the CMA (Remember their position on tongues was "Seek not forbid not.) I met many CMA ministers 30 years ago, and even today, who had no idea their denomination sprung from Pentecostal roots. This would seem to give some credence to Dr. Menzies thesis. We may be on a trajectory toward a CMA type church if nothing changes.
My fear is that if we can't stand our ground on this as an internal fellowship issue, how will we be able to stand up to issues like ordaining practicing lesbian ministers and endorsing gay marriages in the future? The secular culture will bring to bear the most fearsome pressure, e.g. tax exemption, media ridicule, exclusion from chaplaincies, etc., to make us change. I pray there will be Spirit-filled people of real courage when that day comes.
There is no question that we are moving in the direction of being a pentecostal fellowship in name only. However, I don't think that the cause is primarily due to a desire to fit in with the broader evangelical church. We can preach the biblical basis and importance of the experience but it is God's business to 'pour out the Spirit'.
What do we do when the experience is not experienced? Manipulate people into a psuedo-baptism in order to maintain an image that all is well? I think some have stopped preaching it because people have stopped receiving it. That is not an excuse, just my humble analysis. We are also finding people less willing to respond to a message that calls for repentance and there is a corresponding sliding away from preaching that as well. We need to be men and women of conviction who preach what we are persuaded of regardless of its' reception.
As a friendly outsider who used to be an insider I would say this; Where I grew up, pentecostal doctrines were undoubtedly heavily emphasized. The practice of speaking in tongues and I would add the issue of persevearance of the saints was hammered home regularly. My old church (which I still call my home church) has continued that tradition in spite of the fact that the new pastor is separated from the old pastor by about thirty years. But, that is one mans experience. God bless you all. I miss the entire seminary community.
Dan Kitinoja
Louisville, KY
Post a Comment