Dr. Wood posted this comment in response to Paul Stewart's post, "The Living Room Conversation." I felt it deserved a bit more prominence than being the 99th comment on that post. (GPW)
-----
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
63 comments:
Dr. Wood,
In Mark 9 we learn that the disciples made a critical error in their exclusivity. They saw other people who did things a little differently than themselves and immediately assumed it was wrong. As you said, they thought they had an “exclusive franchise” on Jesus.
I agree that we must avoid that kind of narrowness of heart and spirit… but, in terms of the AG, how can we be doctrinally sound, intellectually honest, and inclusive of others all at the same time?
Our doctrine teaches that there is a specific way that someone is “baptized” in the Spirit… there is no other way. So when we come across “other people,” as the disciples did, who do things a little differently, what should our response be?
How do we avoid an “exclusive franchise” on the Holy Spirit?
OH MY WORD!! What a blessing!!! Honestly refreshing, and something that I'm so grateful we're discussing. I can't even express how much of a direct answer to prayer this is!
When I was a new Christian I returned home from a church that did not believe in the Holy Spirit baptism the way our fellowship has traditionally taught. Privately that day, I desperately cried out for all of the Holy Spirit that I could have. I privately received the gift of tongues. People at the church I attended were split on the issue. Some said I had a gift and others said I had a demon.
The franchise is not exclusive; I received tongues while attending a fellowship that did not teach tongues was for today. At that time I did not really know what was happening. I ended up attending a charismatic church before God led me to the Assemblies.
Our Southern Baptist Conference brothers and sisters have been struggling with “personal pray language.” The Holy Spirit can penetrate whether in our fellowship or other fellowships.
I believe that much of the power in Holy Spirit baptism is tougues. Tongues is the ability to pray the perfect will of God. What a tremendous blessing! What a tremendous power! For many Pentecostals, tongues has been a gateway to other gifts.
Like other gifts, tongues is also a gift. We should not be prideful of what is an unearned gift from God. In each of Paul’s major discourses on gifts, Paul emphasizes the need for love (Romans 12:9, First Corinthians 13, Ephesians 4:1 and 15.)
If we mature the gift of tongues in ourselves and our people, tongues will continue powerfully for witnessing and building the body of Christ.
Dear Brother Stewart,
1.How inclusive should we be?
2.For the longest of time we have been the "other people"
3.Would we be exclusive when others reject us on our beliefs on gifts?
Thanks Dr. Wood! I concur with your statement: "I fear a dried up Pentecostal theological scholasticism that has no power." This is especially true in our universities--many of the theology departments are staffed by little more than guilde societies filled with spiritually irrelevant PHDs.
Dr. Wood:
Thank you for some great insight and quotes. My favorites:
"When we don’t have power, we argue."
"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."
It's interesting to note that it took three works of the Spirit to bring inclusivity to and love for Gentiles - a fact many of us take for granted. The breakthrough for Gentiles took one prophetic trance, one angelic visitation, and one room full of people speaking in tongues.
I agree that the most powerful transformation that can occur in an individual and community is learning to love. It yields the inclusivity we are all looking for.
A few years ago while fasting and meditating over 1 Cor 12-14, the Lord performed a powerful work in my life. At the time, I was seeking the gift of prophecy. The Lord stopped me in mid-fast and spoke these words to me "Danny don't seek the gift, seek Love."
That night, I opened myself and sought the gift of love for the first time in my life. What a powerful visitation and impartation that was!
The very next day my mom called me and told me that the Lord had given a word to my father for me. Unbeknownst to me, the Lord had been powerfully visiting my father for an entire week. He could only speak in tongues and had to write notes to my mom in order to communicate.
When we arrived at my parent's home, I was stunned by the power radiating from inside and the visible radiance coming off my father's face! He sat several of our friends down and went down the line giving each of us words.
Then it was my turn. He said these words: "Danny, the Lord knows that you have been seeking the gift of prophecy, but he tells you 'do not seek the gift.'" He paused and then continued "'seek love.'"
He had no idea what I had been doing that week nor did I know what the Lord had been doing with him. But God knew and His common denominator was seeking love.
Those two nights transformed my life. I pray that same transformation comes to our fellowship like never before. May we seek love ahead of the gifts and may the common denominator in our denominat-ion be love!
P.S. to Paul:
Doctrines and inclusivity are for the most part mutually exclusive. My experience showed me that love transcends all doctrines. We can have exclusive doctrines, but if we don't have love, we're left alone with nothing but our doctrines.
"That binding is to Christ and to one another...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."
This is what your laypeople want to believe about their pastors, not only at the local church level, but on the national/corporate level (for instance, that A/G pastors/leaders are unified, bound together"). Yes, you may not agree on every detail of every doctrine, but there is a unity among you, that not only strengthens the local church, but the entire fellowship nationwide, even worldwide.
Let's not fall in the trap of church history, and get caught up in arrogance, argumentativenss, and exclusiveness. There can always be something to argue about, something to pick on, something we aren't happy with, etc.
Sometimes "childlike" faith has it's benefits, we just believe!
Steve
Springfield, MO
Pete Pentecostal -
I love stories like yours! I believe that the Holy Spirit can and does fill anyone who is willing. He doesn’t require a special night at youth camp or an emotionally laden altar call… just an open and willing vessel.
However you said, “I believe that much of the power in Holy Spirit baptism is tongues. Tongues is the ability to pray the perfect will of God.” What is your scriptural basis for this? Where do we read that tongues allows us to pray the perfect will of God? If tongues is “much of the power in Holy Spirit baptism” what is the rest of the power.
Pablo -
I honestly don’t know how inclusive we should be… that is why I was asking. However, my question for Dr. Wood was more in terms of people who are open to (and operate in) the gifts of the Holy Spirit and desperately seek his power for witness-bearing in their lives, but do not (yet) speak in tongues.
For the record, I wholeheartedly believe in our doctrine. I believe the charismatic gifts are for today and I believe tongues are a private prayer language available to everyone (that’s pretty inclusive). I just get concerned when the ‘physical evidence’ becomes a litmus test for someone’s spirituality.
Bro Wood's comment: "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."
This is a great start, but please don't discount the fact that many of us are tired of PAYING for programming that is outdated and irrelevant. We're saying, "Get up to date or we're not supporting what you're doing." This is no small problem. Either retool the general council and district programs or expect us to not participate (and stop paying).
(This is plain 'paul' from the last post, I added the 'f' to help distinguish myself from Paul Stewart... wouldn't want him to catch flak for something I say!)
I think it is important that we distinguish two senses of 'argument' or 'argumentative'. One is the type of argument you have with your sibling over who gets to shower first some Sunday morning. These arguments are generally characterized with name-calling, spite, and vindictiveness. The second sense is the type I think we should have about things we believe. These arguments are characterized by a desire for truth, charity in examining another's viewpoint, and honest reflection about one's own beliefs.
Recognizing these two senses of argument shouldn't be controversial, but we should take care to determine what sense Dr. Wood had in mind. Were the disciples arguing in the first sense or the second? When Dr. Wood says "When we don't have power, we argue" I presume he meant that in the first sense. But I didn't think the discussion following Paul Stewart's previous post reflected that at all.
I think it is a big mistake to take from Dr. Wood's thoughts concerning Mark 9 the idea that we shouldn't examine our beliefs, discuss them vigorously, and change what needs to be changed. From the comments posted already, there is a continuing sense of anti-thoughtfulness that is killing our fellowship (the remark about stodgy professors at AG universities is one example).
On a different note, I'd like to follow up on Paul Stewart's question about being inclusive that I think is being missed by those that have responded. Part of the AG doctrine is (roughly) "If you haven't spoken in tongues, then you have not been baptized in the Spirit." We can all agree that one need not be a member of the AG to be baptized, but that is beside the point.
The point is, how can we be inclusive when our doctrine tells us that a large majority of Christians simply haven't been baptized in the Spirit. Further, our doctrine also teaches that with the baptism comes power for ministry in a variety of ways. Well, if a large majority of Christians haven't been baptized in the Spirit, then that same large majority is less powerful in their ministry than they would be had they been baptized. These are all things we are committed to as members of the AG. It just becomes very hard to see how inclusive we can be when written into our doctrine there are elements of exclusivity ("All you non-tongue speakers haven't been baptized like we have") and superiority ("No matter how successful you think your ministry is, because you haven't been baptized it's not as powerful as it could be").
I attended one of our missionary Pentecostal seminaries thinking that there would be more spiritual life there then a seminary in the States. I was disappointed. Academic pressures swallowed the devotional time of arriving on fire seminarians. I observed by the end of two academic terms, what originally was a fire become nearly extinguished in most seminarians.
After completing my course work, I spent some time at a local Bible college in that nation. One day a demon manifested in one of the students. The entire student body could not expel the demon. Administrators, trained at the missionary AG seminary, just stood by and watched. I continued my work some distance from the activity thinking as a foreigner that the locals should handle it. After hearing about an hour of screaming and yelling, I went over and basically asked the administrators permission to get involved. They were skeptical that anything could be done. I quieted the demon in a couple minutes. A half hour later, the young lady expelled her own demon.
What is worse than having “dried up Pentecostal theological scholasticism that has no power” in America is exporting it to developing nations.
"He doesn’t require a special night at youth camp or an emotionally laden altar call… just an open and willing vessel."
But the Holy Spirit will certainly fill these students who come up to the altar after being taught well about the baptism of the Holy Spirit at camp. Perhaps it's after the teaching about the baptism of the Holy Spirit on that "special night" that many students become open and willing.
" … many of us are tired of PAYING for programming that is outdated and irrelevant. We're saying, "Get up to date or we're not supporting what you're doing." This is no small problem. Either retool the general council and district programs or expect us to not participate (and stop paying). … "
Déjà vu … the above sentiment seems to crop up regardless of the topic at hand. This "expect us not to participate" mindset goes beyond mere issues of relevance (which itself can be pretty subjective). I think it points to the underlying "I don't need you" attitude -- more specifically, "I'll cooperate when it benefits my cause or meets my personal criteria." Well, in the real world -- even the religious world -- that's not always going to happen. So, then what?
We may not all have our individual acts together, just yet. But we really do need each other, right now.
We are a cooperative fellowship. If people don't want to cooperate they can go elsewhere. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and making them be A/G. These idle threats that people make are infantile and in no way productive. Throwing around rhetoric does not solve issues or ease frustrations. Instead of making threats why not offer some concrete solutions? It's easy to criticize...not so easy to solve everything.
Paul,
I love your question and I believe it speaks to some of the root of this blog. I do want to write a good response but my schedule does not allow it until next week.
Perhaps others will jump in in the meantime.
If people don't want to cooperate they can go elsewhere.
Those are my sentiments exactly. Why are we so quick to question or criticize beliefs. If someone doesn't want to believe that tongues are the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit - that is fine. Go be with a group that believes the way you do, or start your own group, or be non-group. Do whatever floats your boat, but stop trying to persuade others to your opinion.
" … many of us are tired of PAYING for programming that is outdated and irrelevant. We're saying, "Get up to date or we're not supporting what you're doing." This is no small problem. Either retool the general council and district programs or expect us to not participate (and stop paying). … "
AGREED.
And to Art Good: I believe in Tongues as the Initial Evidence, I just don't like the way the AG runs the ship. Should I leave then too? If so, Fine; but I do want to be a part of some Pentecostal network.
And to Sup. Wood: I'm trying not to read too much into your comment to the non-participating AG church in Cal. But, why did you want him in your fellowship? What were you going to offer him that would help him and/or his church? What benefits were you going to afford him so that he could have "helped" your district?
From what I have seen in many AG circles (Sectional, District, or National) is that we are so bureaucratic that if you would have given this man a platform simply because he had a big church, he would have been burned. The AG is very exclusive.
And in all honesty, WHY SHOULD I STAY WITH THE AG? Yes, I agree with all 16 Fundies, but I do not agree with AG practice. For the past 50 years, we (the AG) have run this thing like a 1950's business. We promote our family, we organize and scrutinize everything unfamiliar, and we try to CONTROL everything.
WHY do I, a young pentecostal minister of a solid church, need to be AG? And why on earth would you want me, besides for tithes and credit?
Also, Dr. Wood, why are half (so it seems) of AGWMissionaries living in Springfield, and the other half doing non-church related work? I stopped bringing in AG Missionaries unless they were church-planting or involved in church ministry. As a result, I haven't had an AG missionary in for a service.
- Just a rant since I knew you could possibly be reading.
Another Anonymous AG minister who is afraid of retribution.
"Go somewhere else"--"These idle threats that people make are infantile and in no way productive"...look at our median age for credential holders, our stateside growth rate. They are going somewhere else--en masse. Are you OK with that? Officials need to recognize that people vote with their feet.
Art Good wrote, "Do whatever floats your boat, but stop trying to persuade others to your opinion."
Art, you have succumbed to the trend of treating theological beliefs as different from everything else. If I know that it is true that a particular type of medicine cures some disease shouldn't I try to persuade others to make use of the cure as well? Why? Because it is true that the medicine cures. Why treat that differently from theological beliefs? Why try to persuade people that there may be people baptized that have yet to speak in tongues? Because it might be true. I'm not saying it is true, just that it might be. We should seek the truth concerning this issue and not just whatever works for us. There can be at most one true interpretation of the relevant passages concerning holy spirit baptism. If the AG is wrong, then we should change our doctrine accordingly. If we are not, then others should change theirs.
We should care about what is true concerning these issues and not just what "floats [our] boat". If you're confident that your beliefs are true, then you shouldn't be scared to have vigorous discussion about them. Instead of telling those seeking after truth to bugger off, why not answer the questions they raise?
No anonymous I'm not o.k. with people leaving en masse. And I'm not ok with people simply griping and not offering real and practical solutions. It's easy to arm chair quarterback. I firmly believe that we have serious issues we are facing but I also believe in giving new leadership an opportunity to address those issues. The cynical potshots that people take on this board don't do a thing to solve anything and the are in fact infantile and show a lack of spiritual maturity.
What was original purpose of this blog? I thought it was a safe place to voice an opinion or two without the worry of swords being drawn. It seems that it has become a place for nameless / anonymous bloggers to sound off. The point is, AG ministers are leaving our movement. We need to find out why, and in order to do so we have to ask the tough and hard questions. As a movement we are sick, now a truthful honest diagnosis is needed. I do believe there is a cure let’s find it before we die.
"A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past; he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future."
-- Sidney J. Harris
"A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past; he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future."
-- Sidney J. Harris
Lance,
I personally know of several church planters and missionaries who post on this blog. In order for them to participate, and in a sometimes honest (critical) manner, they need to be anonymous.
I don't like all the "anonymous" posting either, but one of these guys has already been threatened by a supporting church. SAD.
"The cynical potshots that people take on this board don't do a thing to solve anything and the are in fact infantile and show a lack of spiritual maturity."
Example???
I had the opportunity to be a part of the National Evangelists Advisory Board Meeting today in Springfield and heard Bro. Wood personally speak what he posted on this blog. What you did not read was his heart for the Fellowship. I heard that loud and clear.
These guys have only officially been in their offices a little over 6 weeks. We need to give then a chance to get a firm grip on the reigns and then trust that God will help them to guide us in the change that is needed.
I can see by the postings there is still not enough maturity on either side of this tongues issue for this discussion to stay civil for very long.
I call on the older ministers of this fellowship to reach out to the younger men who feel that everybody over 33 needs to retire and go home!
I also call on some of my younger fellow pastors (who feel like everybody over 33 needs to go home) be open when those who differ with your opinions of our doctrinal stance desire to have fellowship with you!
We are here and want to work together to see HIS Kingdom established!
David Copeland 46
Evangelist
Paul F:
"Part of the AG doctrine is (roughly) 'If you haven't spoken in tongues, then you have not been baptized in the Spirit.'"
Yep, that pretty much sums up the converse of our doctrine. And that's ok, if the statement is true.
What's not ok, as you say, is the superiority that is both displayed by those who have it and the sense of inferiority felt by those who don't. That's not love and, as we all know, love is a two-way street.
We need to know how to express the truth in love and be open enough to accept it. After all, love rejoices with the truth.
What's also not ok are the doctrinal additions to the Lord's baptism that may have not been intended (e.g. holiness, power for everything, and a pre-requisite to the other gifts). I wish there was more focus and balance in our teaching when it comes to the Lord's baptism (i.e. what it is and what is not).
But at some point, we have to agree on some doctrinal borders, Scriptural tests, and common denominators as a fellowship. If we don't, then what kind of a Bible-based denomination are we?
How many Scriptural witnesses do we need to form a doctrine? Does sprinkling qualify as immersion? Progressive sanctification or distinct work of grace? Pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib?
At some point, our founders had to draw the line and prayerfully decide upon doctrines that the majority could agree upon. Then, they moved to the other pressing issues (e.g. how are we going to support missions and establish Bible school training?)
The original colonies did the same thing and ratified a constitution. Thank God for that document. I have sworn to protect it with my life. It’s worthy of protecting and has served our union well these 200-plus years.
It's kind of ironic that we're even debating the issue that gave rise to our fellowship in the first place. - don't you think? It's also ironic that we're having issues with superiority and exclusivity too. If it had not been for tongues and the exclusion of our founders by their "doctrinally superior" denominations, we would not be posting on FutureAG today.
Like our constitution, our doctrines can be amended and more refined. Furthermore, we should prayerfully reconsider how and what's communicated. But should we throw out the very distinctives that gave rise to our union, distinctives that have spiritually freed tens of millions around the world these 100-plus years?
In the end, I vote no in their favor not so much because they gave rise to our union and what they have produced, but because in their raw essence I am convinced they are true.
Let me try to respond to several threads that have been directly posted to me.
Paul, first. I had the privilege of receiving graduate theological training at Fuller Seminary, and almost all of my friends there did not agree with my understanding of Spirit baptism. Of course, I didn't agree with their view of predestination and eternal security. But those differences did not keep us from fellowship in the Gospel. In the final analysis we are all on the same team. I think, as Pentecostals, our position should be one of humility. We don't have our focus on Spirit empowerment, Spirit baptism (or, as I like to call it -- the overwhelming of the Spirit) because we are better than anyone else. My perspective is that I have need for this. I need more of the Spirit's work in my life. I find it helpful to my spiritual walk to prayer in the Spirit. I believe the Scripture supports my experience or I would jettison the experience. However, I have found that you don't argue anyone into this experience. That's not to say we cannot develop an apologetic; but it's better to take the stance of a servant and say, "This has so helped my walk with Christ that I cannot do without it. I believe it will help you as well." Certainly the Apostle Paul believed that when he found the Ephesian 12. He believed it for his own experience when he stated he prayed in the Spirit more than even the Corinthians. I wouldn't want to miss this component of edification and empowerment in my own life. But, all spiritual experiences that get detached from love amount to nothing.
I think the perspective of humility helps us avoid the attitude of exclusivity.
As for anonymous who commented on my visit to the pastor of a large church that was not involved in anything . . . I think you are overlooking some things that we do very well. Look, for example, at our world missions. Look at home missions -- Teen Challenge, chaplains, cross cultural ministries, Maps RVers. Look at our youth programs -- Bible quizzers, fine arts programs. Look at our MegaSports Camp and HighPoint programs which actually are used by more non-AG churches than AG churches because some of our AG churches have adopted the Nazareth mentality about the resources coming out of the national office. The Nazareth mentality is, "We're not going to change our minds no matter what evidence you present." Look at the way our schools and Chi Alpha is resourcing this Fellowship. Look at the free websites we provide for local churches that over 2000 churches now have. I could go on and on. Are there some products, services, and meetings that are outdated or irrelevant. Of course! We're trying our best to fix that. In some ways, the national office is like the local church. We do some things better than other things; but we're trying to do our best to do all things well. I like the phrase, "Please be patient with me, God is not finished with me yet."
And, I welcome your suggestions for what we can do to better serve you.
And, please be kind. The community of Christ should be one where we all speak the truth -- but we speak it in love, not harshness and judgmentalness.
As for Paul F., I'm talking about the first sense -- of being argumentative. Sure, there's room for "argument" in the classical sense. The lawyer in me wants to argue. I have strong opinions. But, I have to be careful that I'm not like Elihu in the book of Job who is hot for words. We need to have vigorous discussion. A faith or belief system that cannot be discussed is not worth being defended.
Back to the pastor of the large church (also for anonymous) that didn't cooperate and the comment as to why I wanted him in the fellowship. That's just my pastoral instinct. I would rather include people than exclude them. I think you miss something when you don't see yourself as having something to give. Everyone in the church has something to give, a gift or a grace. I think we are all losers when the gift of contribution is with-held.
As for the comment that the AG is controlling everything. I see where you are coming from -- but I've been in office about 5 weeks and I'm finding out how little I control! All the years I pastored in southern California, never once did anyone from the district or national office tell me how to "run" my church. I don't want you, this church should not want you, for your tithes or credit. You are wanted because you can advance the cause of Jesus Christ through this church. The Assemblies of God offers you a world-wide network of believers, with multitudes of ministries, that you can be involved in and make a great difference for Christ.
I pay my dues as a lawyer to the California bar every year. They absolutely do nothing for me, except open a door of access. A ministerial credential gives you access to minister in some of the finest churches and ministries in the world. Can you do that elsewhere without a credential? Absolutely! But, no matter where you land in vocational ministry, there's going to need for a commitment of some kind.
As for half the AG missionaries living in Springfield, that's simply not true. We have 2500 missionaries world wide. Just like a large church needs staff, so there must be some support personnel. Also, sometimes a missionary runs into health or family problems and needs to be home for a year. Most of the missionaries in Springfield are with Global University. If the school had remained in Brussels, the cost would have tripled or more from what it is today because of the EURO. So, even though the Global people are here, they're servicing the church world-wide through internet, conferences, materials, etc. I've talked to the Global missionaries and they feel like they wear a scarlet badge because they're home based. Churches don't want to support them, and all kinds of not-too-nice things are said about them. I know these people. I know how hard they work, and the effect of their work on the 212 countries we are in. So, please don't be judgmental of people who are giving their best for Jesus. I'll die, if need be, defending them.
Finally, I want to say again that I want the feeling of retribution for speaking your mind and heart to cease from the Assemblies of God. I've consistently said what I've thought for all my adult life, and I've said some pretty unpopular things over the years; but the Assemblies of God had room for me. And, it has room for you.
It's not in my spirit to say, "My way or the highway." We will be defined by how well we love one another. When my kids disagree with me, I don't hit them with a belt, deny them food, or kick them out of the house. Well, they're grown now -- and maybe I should put the preceding sentence in the past tense! But, the point is made.
Finally, I know we have used the term, Fellowship or Movement for the Assemblies of God because we don't want to call ourselves a denomination. I understand that. I wish we could just call ourselves the Assemblies of God family. We are a family of believers who have come together around what we believe to be apostolic doctrine and experience to achieve an apostolic mission. May the Holy Spirit heal our divisions and bind us together in love.
George O. Wood
Dr. Wood, I had a feeling that you meant it in the first sense (and had I known you are a lawyer there would've been no doubt!), it just seemed like some people were beginning to mistake fighting & bickering for serious discourse. Thank you for the clarification.
On a separate note, I am very glad that you take the time to post your thoughts on this board. Knowing that you are open to people being able to speak about what is on their heart and mind is very encouraging. In my experience, many people in our "family" do not have the same attitude, but perhaps as they see it in the leadership they too will come to embrace it.
Dr. Wood,
I am the Anonymous who posted the long post to you. I am so sorry if my comments caused you to think I was being hurtful or disrespectful, that was the last thing on my mind. I was just on a rant, and had a lot of penned in frustration. Please forgive me for my typing tone.
THANK YOU! for replying. I really do appreciate it, and your words bring an awful amount of comfort. I'm still with you, but I still don't see a reason to stay. This BLOG in particular, still demonstrates to me that the majority of the movement is not where I am or even willing to support me where I am going. Let me give you an example so you do not think I am referring to doctrinal issues and am a heretic.
As a member of the AG, I am forced to be a member of a geographic district and a geographic section. Both of these are ridiculous. My District does nothing. Sure they offer Youth Camps, Women's Ministries, Men's Ministries (LFTL), etc. but they accomplish nothing. My church is the only one who participates, raises money, etc. As a result, now my people want nothing to do with it. Their response is, "Why pay money to go to a District conference and event, when we can do all that from here and give our time, money and effort into the things that move us?" (Good point, I feel.) Second, my District NEVER contacts me for anything except funds. Third, my District has no direction or vision.
Now you may be saying in regards to my District situation, "If you don't like your District Officials, vote for someone else." Trust me I do, but the majority of my District seems to have adopted a stoic position. Therefore, they keep voting the same guys in no matter what. They are in the MAINTAIN mode. These same problems are true at the sectional level, just worse.
Now, I know that not all Districts are not like this, but who cares? I am STUCK with my geographic District and my geographic section, which as you know effects me more than you or anyone else at HQ on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. What am I to do?
God has accomplished much through the church He has called me to pastor. The District doesn't seem to care, and my peers only criticize me because we are growing through methods they don't use. they are the majority and they don't want me. So, again, what am I to do? Given my situation, why should I be AG, especially when that title carries with it in my region, all the things I am not. (BTW, in our region AG =legalistic freaks.)
I want accountability, I want diversity of methods, but I also want people who will support me and respect me as more than a "cash cow."
Make sense? Plus, if I really did want to take advantage of any of the AG ministries you listed, you said it yourself, "I don't have to be AG to do so," and this includes AG Missionaries.
Please, Dr. Wood, I AM looking for reasons to stay. I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, do not want to leave.
- Regretfully signing as "Anonymous." Sorry, man, retribution lives.
Dr. Wood,
I just wanted to thank you. I read this blog regularly, and sometimes what I read is disheartening. Taking sides is so easy, working toward unity is so difficult. In just two posts you have brought clarity. It is uplifting to read your perspective.
Mary Jo Morris
To Anonymous who is afraid of Retribution and who wants to know why he should remain in the A/G.
First of all, leave, for you are bitter, angry, upset, etc. You obviously don't value the fact the principle it is better to give than to receive. What's in it for you? You don't even know the impact you have had around this world with the offering you have given, being the "cash cow" you say you are.
I sense a bit of arrogance and pride in your post, as you are more concerned about what the A/G can do for you, than what you can do (and are doing) for the A/G. Brother Wood said it well, and I quote, "I pay my dues as a lawyer to the California bar every year. They absolutely do nothing for me, except open a door of access." Now, do you value that access? Do you value being a part of and supporting a world-wide missions network? Yes, you can do it elsewhere, as Brother Wood pointed out, but with that comes commitment to something you will not agree with as well.
Your church is an individual church, and you can run it like you wish. And it sounds like you are just doing that. You don't need the district to pat your back, to elevate you, share your direction or vision, etc. Do what you are called to do, and do it as unto the Lord, not man (meaning the district). Be accountable to God, and if those above you aren't doing what's right, they will answer to God someday for their actions. That is out of your control. And, you will answer to God someday for your actions as well, so serve Him with a servants heart and don't be concerned about what others can do for you, but what you can do for them.
On that note, if you continue to be bitter, angry, etc., you are doing everyone a favor if you leave, in my opinion. But if you continue to do your part as a family member, for you are a valuable part of the family, then continue to do so, realizing you have a wider impact throughout the world than just your individual church
Steve
Springfield, MO
If you've been reading this thread than you've just had a little taste of what we experienced in Dr. Wood's living room. Everytime I hear him speak I get more excited about the AG and I am more convinced of the beauty of our Pentecostal doctrine. It really is amazing what a little humility can do!
My prayer is that someday Dr. Wood is able to write a book on our distinctive doctrine. This would be an incredible asset to our fellowship and should be mandatory reading for our students and ministers!
In the meantime you can read a great article by Dr. Wood titled "The Substantial Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit" here:
http://www.georgeowood.com/?TargetPage=8C1CFCEA-5AF7-4229-988C-7EF1C1188DAF
Conversation Day
I was a part of an event this last week that I think would be beneficial for all of our sections/districts to entertain. The administration of Evangel University scheduled a “Conversation Day” and all 320 employees (faculty, staff, administrators) gathered around round tables in a great room at Central Assembly and we systematically discussed the eight functional areas of the University.
This was a highly structured event—each table had a mixed representation of the different types of employees; the administrators walked us through a huge packet of material allowing us to rate areas of the University life; and they facilitated positive communication.
The end process was designed to produce critical initiatives for each of the functional areas. It was a great day, and an overall positive experience (no fighting, or name calling, or blaming, or complaining for complaining sake—not much at least). I came away from the meeting thinking—“Wow, my University cares what I think, and I’ve just been involved in the process that will shape the future!”
Prior to the meeting I heard lots of gripes—“We’ve cancelled class for the day, it will be a waste of time, we did this two years ago…” Afterwards, all I heard was moderately satisfied people, somewhat tired, but valued and listened to.
Was it time consuming?—you bet (6-7 hours); Was it costly?—no doubt (piles of food and snacks on the tables + all those man hours for employees sitting around tables); Was it cumbersome?—certainly (long lists of past and present initiatives, grouping and regrouping for discussion); Was it beneficial?—it was priceless (sorry Visa card commercial).
I’ve been a part of other Universities and many other organizations that did not take the time to listen and have conversations—and the results are predictable: factions, disenfranchised people, a lack of synergy and buy-in, uninspiring direction, top-down leadership, lots of cajoling and guilt motivation. What I know with certainty is that if we want to have “learning individuals” continue to be a part of our organization, it requires that we include “learning organization” best practices on an ongoing basis. One of these best practices is structured, productive, open listening and conversation.
Thank you Dr. Wood for modeling this type of behavior. I’ve been a credentialed minister for a quarter century and this is the first time I’ve seen any modicum of give-and-take dialogue. For years I’ve felt my spirit and will shrink in relation to my district and national offices (while genuinely attempting to be a team player). I would recommend that our movement go into a prayerful, structured listening mode around the key issues facing our district and national office. Evangel’s process would serve as a great starting place.
I would love to get the call from my district announcing a two-day retreat at a local hotel conference room for the designed purpose of listening, conversing, and dialoging (without defensiveness) about the issues and strategic purposes and initiative areas that are facing our movement. I sincerely believe that this would go a long way to deal with the sense of disenfranchisement that is often expressed on this and other blog sites.
Steve Smallwood
Dr. Wood - I think it is so cool that you take the time out of your busy first 5 weeks as GSup and read this blog and post such well crafted comments! And you respond to individuals...I am really excited to see what God will do through your leadership.
I have one question / comment that I would love to have you respond to: Have you thought at all about the role of 24/7 Prayer within the AG on the local church level?
For us at Allison Park Church we've seen that 24/7 Prayer has become an avenue for us to express our Pentecostal doctrine in a pure sense - minus much of the baggage that we all could do without.
We simply provide an atmosphere for people to experience God at their own pace, yet afford them the opportunity to impact individual lives, the sick, our community, our city, our church plants, our missionaries and the world through prayer.
***and yes, we regularly lead people in our prayer room in the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the speaking in tongues.
It seems to me that the solution to your original post is ANSWERED PRAYER in which the sick are healed, demons are cast out, people are freed from bondges, salvations and Spirit-baptisms are regular, etc. (btw-LOVE & HUMILITY are pre-requisites to sustained + regular answered prayer)
We've seen 24/7 Prayer color our landscape (in our local church) in a really cool prophetic, pentecostal, results-oriented way. We're not praying just to pray, we're praying to see the Kingdom come to earth.
I would love to see AG churches all over the nation mobilized in 24/7 prayer. There are plenty of other 'denominations' that are doing it right now.
We're a church of 1200 and we're able to sustain prayer year-round 24.7.365 - but one of our church planters read Red Moon Rising and he led his church + youth group (100+ attendance) to fulfill one week of 24/7 - it revolutionized them.
There are plenty of keys that I'm sure could unlock the door for the AG, but 24/7 Prayer was one that has seemed to work for us.
What are your thoughts Dr. Wood?
Chris Griffin - age 28 :-)
Allison Park Church
Pittsburgh, PA
I have a question as we on this blog debate the future of the A/G. How many hits does this website receive in a month? I'm curious just to how much traffic this site actually gets...if it is an interest of many or if just a few are a part of this discussion.
As a kid I would ask my dad "why" all the time. At first he took it as "back talk". He was raised that kids should "only be seen, not heard". He came to realize, fortunately for me, that my questions weren't back talk rather real, sincere questions. When I question things its because I really want to understand or I really want to know if there is a better way. I get the sense that many on here see questioning as a bad thing. The very first comment was met with anger by at least one. What is wrong with the questions? I see it as part of the learning and growing process. Its a part of making it our own.
On another topic. I see an attitude within my generation that leaves me rather concerned. We seem to see the AG as a store rather than a relationship. "What can I buy today?" I see it as a relationship. We network together, we give a little and hopefully we get a little. The problem with relationships is that if both parties are only taking and not giving, we simply run out of things to get. And, its not really a relationship of any value. We have made the AG a denomination when we want something and expect "springfield" to do it for us and its a fellowship when "springfield" wants something out of us and we feel that we simply don't have to and they can't make us. Don't get me wrong, I have asked the question "what does this do for me?" My point is that in a relationship there are two sides and both of us are broken and we both need restored and as David Crowder puts it, Jesus is the Remedy. I would rather follow that example and be a part of the remedy, thats all I'm saying.
In response to a couple of comments. Anonymous of nov. 16th at 6:12 spoke of being in a district that seems to only want to take and a steve from springfield who posted on Nov. 17th @ 6:21 made a comment in response to it. I guess this is more towards steve. I read that comment by anonymous as coming from a person who has been kicked and beaten by his/her district over and over again and is simply tired of being kicked and beaten. Your response seemed as though you wanted to add another punch just for good measure. I've lived in springfield and in two other districts since then and districts are very different from each other. Do not assume they are all like southern missouri. I don't say this to pick a fight I just think we need a little more compassion and less aggression. And if I misunderstood, I'm sorry.
I guess there is one other thing. Truth by its very nature is exclusive. If we believe in truth and we base our doctrine off of it then our doctrine will be exclusive. There isn't anyway around it. The question isn't "how can we make our doctrine exclusive" the questions are "is our doctrine based on scripture" (which we believe to be true) and "how do I stand for truth without being a jerk?"
I certainly appreciate Dr. Wood's meditative examination of the Mark 9 text. I can see that he has carefully allowed the Spirit to speak truth from the Scripture here, but he still didn't address the speaking in tongues issue. What he has managed to do by tip-toeing eloquently around the subject is say that in his estimation a dogmatic approach to speaking in tongues which has held by the AG is simply a source of internal strife that is not even worthy of addressing. Basically, in silence he has nullified the entire doctrine's validity as an AG absolute.
Can anyone give me some insight into how the "lineage" of tongues is defended? It seems there is a large gap between 100 AD and 1901 when we arrive at the foundation of the movement in Topeka. I understand that there is a weak connection to groups from the 1800's and Monatists could be given a "pentacostal" label but the line seems too indistinct to trace. Thanks.
Wes:
Thanks for keeping me in line and checking me. My intent isn't to further batter anonymous or make him feel further rejected, to further beat or kick him. It just appears he is so hurt, bitter, angry, or maybe another term is more fitting, that he may further benefit by leaving, and so may the A/G. If he is using anonymous means to try to fix something, that in reality, national leadership can't fix without him truly seeking help from them with identity (and not identity on this blog).
You are correct, Springfield Southern Missouri District may be much different, but we are also quite a bit more conservative than other districts. My pastor has mentioned on several occasions here in Springfield that he values the input of the district, and respects them, as that is his role. He hasn't always agreed with their decision, but in the long run, he has seen the wisdom they have given him to be correct.
In reality, I don't see how the district can be beating him or kicking him, if he the successful church he says he is. Each church is individually run, and unless the church is in outright disobedience against Scripture or doctrine, they pretty much run themselves, without intervention of the district. Brother Wood even referred to that. If there is an exception to this, I am sure there are means and ways to seek higher leaderships counsel in how to deal with this.
I pray this Pastor finds direction and peace, and truly values what his church is doing for the kingdom, whether A/G or not.
Wes:
Thanks for keeping me in line and checking me. My intent isn't to further batter anonymous or make him feel further rejected, to further beat or kick him. It just appears he is so hurt, bitter, angry, or maybe another term is more fitting, that he may further benefit by leaving, and so may the A/G. If he is using anonymous means to try to fix something, that in reality, national leadership can't fix without him truly seeking help from them with identity (and not identity on this blog).
You are correct, Springfield Southern Missouri District may be much different, but we are also quite a bit more conservative than other districts. My pastor has mentioned on several occasions here in Springfield that he values the input of the district, and respects them, as that is his role. He hasn't always agreed with their decision, but in the long run, he has seen the wisdom they have given him to be correct.
In reality, I don't see how the district can be beating him or kicking him, if he the successful church he says he is. Each church is individually run, and unless the church is in outright disobedience against Scripture or doctrine, they pretty much run themselves, without intervention of the district. Brother Wood even referred to that. If there is an exception to this, I am sure there are means and ways to seek higher leaderships counsel in how to deal with this.
I pray this Pastor finds direction and peace, and truly values what his church is doing for the kingdom, whether A/G or not.
Steve
Springfield, MO
There is an interesting underlying notion expressed over and over in this blog. That is, that there is an entity called the district or general council that is separate and distinct from the church. I do recognize that this is a reality, however, the "district" and "general" councils are owned by credentialed ministers (and churches?). There only purpose is to be responsive to the will and desire of the credentialed ministers. They are our creation, and they exist at our will to serve our purposes and our needs. Not the other way around. We appoint a selective group of credentialed ministers to serve us for a period of time to perform specific functions. At no time should the district/general council act independently or in a manner that is contrary to the needs of the credentialed ministers who commission, direct, and support its very existence. For too long it appears that we have had the cart before the horse and it's time for pastors to take back the reigns and make a mid-stream course direction. This understanding would go a long way to correcting any misperception that we as credentialed ministers are some how here to serve the needs of the district/general council. We've created them to serve our needs and when they are not doing so, we should change them.
I think that we could operate more efficiently with regional offices that dealt with ministerial issues rather than districts. Children's pastor's could run kids camps...youth pastor's could run youth camps...men and women can run their own retreats. I've been around a long time so don't think I'm being naive or uninformed to what the district does, how it functions or the pro/cons of it. We run our movement old school and have not capatilized on the advances that technology can bring for a better run organization. And before someone mentions the "personal touch" that would be missed let's all be honest about the fact that for the most part not much would be missed at all.
Let me respond to three specific things directed to me.
1. I am concerned for the pastor who does not feel the district contributes to him. I would like to talk to you personally. Could you call me at my office? I'm out of the office Thanksgiving week, but give me secretary your number and I'll call you back! [Now, all you other bloggers -- don't overload me on this! I'm trying to take a few days off after 6 straight weeks of non-stop!]
2. To Chris. I'm not aware of the 24/7 prayer emphasis. Could you send me what you have on this. I would be very interested in looking at it.
3. To Dean. I'm trying to lower the volume and tone of conversation on this subject. In an earlier post, I talked specifically about how I faced our view on Spirit Baptism when I was at Fuller Seminary back in the early 60s. Very few AG students who went to seminary in those days returned to the AG, and I had been warned not to go to "cemetery." Had I not felt there was a Biblical basis for our view on the overwhelming in the Spirit (i.e., Spirit Baptism), I would not have remained in the Assemblies of God. However, I'm concerned the the tone and volume of the discourse is in need of being lowered, and that our response to those with questions and/or disagreements needs to be done with greater kindness. As I look at the first general superintendent of the Assemblies of God, E. N. Bell,I'm struck with how irenic he was on this subject. He believed, as do I, that tongues accompanies overwelming in the Spirit; but he did not use the doctrine to club people. I belief strongly in our position that I'm not afraid of dialog on the subject. I think dialog only strengthens all who engage in it; and I trust the Spirit to reveal Himself rather than my trying to argue someone into alignment.
I find speaking in tongues to be such an important and vital component of personal prayer, that I covet that for every believer. But, the Pentecostal movement will shipwreck if all we do is have a sterile doctrine or debate on tongues as intial evidence; with no spiritual empowerment or fruitfulness that follows. I trust, Dean, this helps you with seeing where I am on this.
Blessings!
George O. Wood
Thank you for your response, Dr. Wood. I am in a unique position to some others as I am in a Baptist seminary but attend an AG church. I am working on a paper for a theology course on the relevance of speaking in tongues and so these discussions have been very timely. We see the Baptists have gone from banning tongues among their NAMB to reversing the decision. We see that Catholics and Orthodox churchs completely reject speaking in tongues as relevant but have acknowledged pockets in their membership that accept Pentacostal doctrine in this area. You have hit now on a key distinctive that I see most people accepting and that is tongues as a private prayer language. If there is a distinction drawn to say that we as the AG believe that the use of tongues can be a private matter that increases the Spirit's power in our praise/prayers/worship then I would consider that as a significant step towards a better dialogue on the subject. My experience has been that such a strong focus on public speaking in tongues has led to a detrimental view of the doctrine. I don't think it is difficult to see that I am one who struggles in an absolute acceptance of tongues being the only way to show a baptism in the Spirit. However, I can say that there is no better denomination/organization than the AG. We can get so caught up in the "grass is greener" syndrome, but the AG is headed in the right direction and the missional focus is incredible compared to others. Our committment to church planting is a definite strength. I recently heard a profound word that God often will not take us to a new place until we find the contentment in where we are.
I would still appreciate anyone providing some info on the historical "trail" of speaking in tongues as we move from Pentacost to 1901. The doctrine and practice seems to have largely disappeared from the landscape in that interim period. Thanks!
Dean,
You asked how the “lineage of tongues is defended.” Early Pentecostals employed at least three elements in their apologetic for tongues-speech.
First, early Pentecostals claimed tongues-speech was Biblical. They contended tongues-speech was practiced in the early church, that this practice was recorded in scripture, and that scripture gives no indication that this gift should ever cease to be practiced.
Second, early Pentecostals demonstrated that tongues-speech was not just Biblical, but that it is how God actually works in the contemporary world. Tongues, therefore, are practical. Early Pentecostals loved to testify how tongues helped them in their devotions, prayer life, evangelism, and other activities.
Third, many early Pentecostals made great efforts to demonstrate that tongues-speech has a history. They did not want their’s to be viewed as a new religion. The earliest Pentecostal histories -- such as BF Lawrence’s Apostolic Faith Restored (GPH, 1916) and Stanley Frodsham’s With Signs Following (GPH, 1926) – cataloged numerous instances of tongues-speech and other Pentecostal gifts (particularly healing) throughout Christian history. Early Pentecostals generally believed they were being faithful to the “old, old story,” which modernity and its “cold, dead churches” had abandoned. They saw themselves as heirs to various streams of pietism and revivalism, from the Montanists, to various religious orders seeking to reform what they viewed as corruption in the Catholic church, to the Protestant Reformation, to the Radical Reformation, to the Wesleyan and Higher Life movements, and so on. Early Pentecostals identified instances of tongues-speech wherever they could. Sometimes their historical claims were valid, sometimes they were grasping at straws. But the earliest histories of our Movement do make extensive lists of examples of tongues throughout history.
I’m not quite sure what sparked your concern over the “indistinct” lineage of tongues. I don’t think it’s absolutely essential to establish that tongues is documented throughout church history in order to claim that it is a valid Biblical gift for today.
Initial evidence doctrine has become a lightning rod issue among some of our ministers (esp. those who are younger). In the earliest decades of the Movement, Pentecostals were attacked by cessationists who argued that tongues-speech itself was not valid. Initial evidence doctrine was largely a secondary issue. Pentecostals have, in most quarters, won the argument that tongues-speech is valid for today. Now the primary issue that separates Pentecostals from others is initial evidence doctrine.
I appreciate Dr. Wood’s affirmation of the doctrine, placing it in its proper context. Azusa Street leader William Seymour is famously quoted as saying, “Now, don’t go from this meeting and talk about tongues, but try to get people saved.” Grant McClung, in his book, Azusa Street and Beyond, builds upon this admonition and argues that the whole reason for tongues – and for the Pentecostal movement – is to get people saved. I like that emphasis – one that is missiological/missional rather than tongues-focused. Our four cardinal doctrines are Christ-focused, not tongues-focused. They identify Jesus in four roles: savior, healer, baptizer, and soon-coming king. I think this fourfold Gospel is a great doctrinal heritage – and it still “preaches” today!
Darrin Rodgers
Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center
www.iFPHC.org
Darrin,
Thank you for your input and scholarship. I think that "lineage" is key in the sense that in the universal church, we rely greatly on the work of the Church Fathers to affirm kerygma and even some scriptural issues that are blurred by textual criticism. We give an appropriate affirmational role to creeds of the church and the developed focuses of teaching in the church. I agree that the Montanists provide an early example of focus on the Holy Spirit and there is a group of believer's that appear at various times throughout history that place an emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit. Historians attribute the end of the Great Awakening to a reactionary backlash coming from too emotional a response by some groups. So, the historical evidence seems to fade for a while and then reemerges in the 1800's.
I think you have absolutely, 100% hit one out of the park saying that we (AG and the rest of the corporate church) must use the gifts of the Spirit to advance the gospel. That is why Paul clearly says that tongues are more for the unbeliever. As I said, one of the things I rave about is missional focus in the AG. And I agree that our 4 essential doctrines do "preach" at any time throughout history. However, if we continue majoring in the minor doctrines, then the organization suffers. We must move beyond simply saying that the Bible teaches speaking in tongues as the only viable demonstration of a baptism in the Spirit. This arguement is a hermenuetical distinction not accepted by all people. It does not seem to me a heresy one way or the other, whether you belive the doctrine or not. But, if it detracts from seeing people won to Christ then where do we draw the line between dogma and mission? Perhaps, we need to refocus on packaging the doctrine in such a way that embraces the power and need for the Spirit to work in our lives, acknowledges that experiencing God in a deeper way is worthy of pursuit by all believers, and does not endorse the temporary emotive response above the need for developing spiritual depth and maturity.
Dr. Wood:
THANK YOU...
I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I will call your office.
BTW, Wes is right; it's hurt, not bitterness.
Anonymous @ 2:42 said concerning District/General Councils:
They are our creation, and they exist at our will to serve our purposes and our needs. Not the other way around.
Totally false. Quit giving 75% of your tithe to your district, and $20 a month to the General Council, and you'll see really quick who is in charge.
I love and appreciate the A/G, but I know full well I exist to keep the machine going, not the other way around.
Dean,
Thank your clarifying what you meant by seeking the “lineage” of tongues-speech. I, too, earned a Religion degree at a non-Pentecostal school and had constructed a defense of Pentecostal theology from academic books and journals, because the local AG churches were unable to address my questions. I decided I needed to attend AGTS, in part to determine whether I still fit into the AG! I discovered that AGTS nurtured my inquisitive mind, and that I fit into the community there very well. After AGTS, I proceeded to earn a juris doctorate at law school, wrote a book and numerous articles, was on staff at Fuller Seminary, and – two years ago – accepted an offer to serve as director of the Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center at HQs.
I appreciate your desire to be scriptural and to seek the wisdom of Christian tradition. I, too, am passionate about identifying our place as Pentecostals in the interpretive community that is the church – across time and spanning cultures.
In fact, this sense of universal community (or catholicity) is one of the four historic markers of the Christian church. When I teach I like to ask students whether they think that Pentecostals are part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Consciously seeking to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church tends to mitigate against what I call the “lone ranger syndrome” – the tendency to think that “one can go it alone” or that “one person knows better than everyone else.”
Like you, I think it’s essential to do historical theology – to value how people in other places and times interpreted scripture. Everyone comes to the Biblical text with a background and views it through certain lenses. Doing historical theology or valuing tradition is necessary if we are to rescue the Bible from captivity to modern suppositions and western worldviews.
I believe that the interpretive community has authority, and that’s why I have mixed feelings over independent ministries that seem to exult in their lack of accountability. It can be difficult to submit ourselves to authorities or tradition that we don’t understand or that we think might be error on some point. But the interpretive community needs our voices, just as we need them. All parties would be impoverished if we each went our own way and said we didn’t need the other.
The AG has contributed greatly to the broader Christian tradition – through its missional/missiological emphasis as you mentioned, but also by promoting Pentecostal themes. I think we have been a blessing to the broader church (and at times an irritant) by bringing our distinctive testimony – particularly tongues-speech and initial evidence -- to the table.
For me, this means that I am committed to participation in the interpretive community of the AG. Because God’s Church is much bigger than the AG, and because we need to learn from Christian tradition – which is the distillation of the wisdom of the ages – I believe it’s necessary to foster dialogue/understanding with those faithful Christians outside the AG as well. I am perhaps most passionate about missions – and how God has woven together such a beautiful tapestry of diverse voices from across the world into our Fellowship.
Grant Wacker says that the historian's job is to resurrect the dead and let them speak. So, too, does tradition give voice to the dead. Valuing tradition democratizes history, and gives a vote in current issues to Augustine, Calvin, and Luther, as well as to A.J. Tomlinson, C.M. Ward, Charles H. Mason, and to Nicholas Bhengu.
I spoke at the Azusa Street centennial in Los Angeles last year on the value of history for the Pentecostal. Don’t get me started (grin)!
Bless you, brother!
Darrin Rodgers
Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center
www.iFPHC.org
my dad's an ag minister, too. and while he's the good assemblies of god man, i'm the aberrant--(that's what my 5 pt Calvinistic systematics prof called people who disagreed with him at a baptist seminary in ft. worth *cough*cough).
though dad and i seldom agree on issues, some of the most defining challenges and reflections of my theology have come thru our discussions..."as iron sharpens iron."
but as family, we always love and respect each other; our differences lay far off in the periphery.
i love the categorization of the ag as family. families dont always agree, but we're always family.
so is it fair to say that we should not be divided by doctrine, but we should be defined by mission?
Two questions:
Why are so many pastors, especially some of us younger guys leaving the AG cooperative fellowship or should I say denomination?
What is the General Counsel going to do to either stop the exodus or even potential division of the AG?
I think these questions need to be looked at and answered honestly. I have personally consider leaving the AG at one time. I have had personal frustrations, which I will not air here, because I don't think it is appropriate or fruitful.
What I have learned to do is honor my leaders, pray for for them, love them, and submit to them. I have also learned to invest in the ones who are following after me, those just stepping into ministry. This to me is where I believe that I can make a personal difference not only in individual lives, but also in the AG fellowship.
Blessings,
Chris
Steve,
Thanks for the response. i would like to answer you question.
When one reaches out, when one is looking to be a part of a family and one is rejected by the very people who are supposed to be loving rather than rejecting, it feels worse than a kick in the teeth. It doesn't really matter if the ministry succeeds without help from the family, it still hurts to be rejected by the family. I am finding that when ministry is one's occupation it becomes extremely difficult to find any relationship that isn't one-sided.
I'm guessing that anonymous has dreams for his district. I'm guessing that he wants to give and to make his district better. Granted these are big assumptions. My point is that we can only give so much when the on