Fantastic video! It asserts some of the core values of Pentecostalism at its best, for instance our "supernatural understanding of reality." I love the line that we are "the high-octane wing of the low church"! I'm a bit hesitant to accept his emphasis on the movement from "poverty to prosperity." Then again, I am a white middle-class AG Pentecostal who must admit my own biases when it comes to the social implications of being a Pentecostal. I would like to think that Pentecostalism can be socially-concerned without being "prosperity" driven. I cannot endorse a prosperity-Gospel, but a Spirit-driven Gospel must confront the oppression of the poor. On a separate note: I love how he gave a thoroughly passionate plea for Pentecostal distinctives without mentioning "initial evidence." (Of course NBC could have edited that part out! :^)
Excellent, articulate presentation of the dynamic of Pentecostalism. Prosperity doesn't necessarily mean "name/claim it"--the accompanying "redemption lift" (boost in economic and social condition) that follows salvation is a reality. My observation is that the tactics that work with impoverished people (socially, politically, financially) are not as effective with those who are higher up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In any case, great clip!
December 19, 2007 5:56 PM
George O. Wood said...
I love his description of Pentecostals as evangelicals on steroids! Indeed the full Gospel does lift the poor. My own father came out of a totally dysfunctional family, was saved at the age of 16, and now we are 4 generations down line and have experienced the redemptive lift.
I am thrilled to see how many of our churches are embracing compassion ministries to the poor. It fits the core value I articulate that we passionately proclaim Christ by word and deed; but more importantly it fits the mission of Jesus who brings good news to the poor.
I am especially concerned that the church gives attention to single moms. They are often at the low end of the economic scale, struggling to raise children while supporting their families. As a body of believers, we must come alongside them.
Many of our churches are adopting public schools in low-income areas and providing feeding and clothing programs, as well as gifting children at Christmas. Right here in Springfield, Central Assembly is giving for Christmas a new bike to every kid in an elementary school that has low-income families. I was at Radiant Church in Surprise, Arizona 3 weeks ago and they provided Christmas for 722 families in their community that would not have had Christmas. A week ago I was at Cornerstone Church in Nashville and they took the last half hour of their Sunday morning service to provide a Christmas for families in their own congregation who had great needs. I told Pastor Maury Davis that it was a "10 hanky service" because I cried so much for joy.
We must care for the poor. And, in doing so, not only will the Gospel lift the poor spiritually; but also socially and economically. It's not the hocus/pocus of the name it and claim it -- but the Gospel addresses the core values that form fruitful character. The better person lives a better life.
I love the story of the guy who worked in a factory and every Friday night when he got his pay check he would stop at the local tavern. By the time he got home to his wife and kids late at night, most of his pay check had been blown on drinking with his buddies.
He was gloriously converted and when he went back to work he no longer was cussing and profane as he used to be. His long-time friends began to rag him about his new found faith. Nothing bothered him.
Finally, one of them said to him -- "Do you believe all those stories in the Bible? Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine?"
He replied: "Well I wasn't there when it happened so I really can't say. But I know in my house he changed beer into furniture."
That's the power of the Gospel to lift the poor.
Let's never make the mistake of the liberal church that detached the social gospel from the saving Gospel. As Pentecostals, we have a unique opportunity to blend evangelism and compassion so that the full Gospel ministers to the full person.
And, to change the subject, let me take also a moment to wish all of you in cyberspace a most wonderful Christmas and blessed new year!
Ah, that was very well done! I do have a sort of knee-jerk initial reacion to the word "prosperity" but as Steve noted, he doesn't necessarily mean a prosperity gospel type message. Articulate, intelligent guy...so good to see. And as for his comment about voting for a liberal Democrat--I know this has tended to be a black Pentecostal versus white Pentecostal king of thing, but I believe that will be changing. "Values voting" can mean many things. Thanks for sharing this clip.
December 19, 2007 8:12 PM
Anonymous said...
I loved his passion for the Holy Spirit. He made no apologies. His complete belief in the Holy Spirit's power to change lives was evident in his articulate and enthusiastic presentation!
Good video, Jeff. Thanks for posting it. It is definitely a topic needing more attention.
I think the key difference between a "prosperity-driven" and a "pentecostal-driven" approach to social reform is that, in the latter, we see balance. We don't just see the poor escaping poverty... we also see the rich escaping wealth. The power of the Spirit in Acts opens the eyes of those with possessions to sell them and give to the poor.
I say this because I think we only teach about the poor being rescued by God. The truth is that Acts shows the wealthy being delivered from their death trap as well. Whereas the young ruler Jesus encountered could not depart with his stuff... we see Joseph in Acts 4 selling his land to give the money away.
This is the balance needed. Rather than teaching "prosperity," we need to be teaching balance. Once a person's needs are met and they are in a place of security... they move from being a receiver to a giver. This kills the "up-and-to-the-right" dream of the one simply seeking wealth.
Lane: Excellent point--"Tell those rich in this world's wealth to quit being so full of themselves and so obsessed with money, which is here today and gone tomorrow. Tell them to go after God, who piles on all the riches we could ever manage—to do good, to be rich in helping others, to be extravagantly generous. If they do that, they'll build a treasury that will last, gaining life that is truly life." (1 Tim. 6:17-19)
We too get the privilege of the "redemption-boost" by sharing our resources and teaching people to fish...
Thanks for posting the video, it was very refreshing to hear someone articulately describe parts of the pentecostal message (and kudos to NBC for finding this guy and not some crank like news outlets usually do).
I too had a bit of cringe when the prosperity bit came up, but he never explained what he meant by that so I'm not sure what to think. If, by prosperity he meant a nice home, car, etc., then I disagree. If he meant, living as God intended us to live, then Amen!
The only think I really disagreed with was the very last comment he said. It's good that he is concerned for the poor (we all should be), but I think it's a mistake to think the government is the best way to help them. Instead of the government taking our money to help the poor (and losing much of it on the way), why not let us help the poor directly. The Acton Institute (www.acton.org) has argued persuasively that government run 'charity' often times gives assistance at the cost of taking dignity. Private charities (like some of the churches in our fellowship) are more able to give assistance while restoring dignity.
Other than that last 5 seconds (and the small prosperity caveat), I found the video to be very refreshing and encouraging. Thanks!
December 20, 2007 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...
If you haven't heard the story of the homeless A/G church in San Francisco, it's amazing. They are even supporting a missionary.
I still love today the phrase that Donald McGavran coined, "redemption and lift." One of my greatest concerns, however, is what happens after the "lift."
I'm rather conservative in most matters, and it concerns me that we are progressing down the same road as mainline/liberal denominations. You will hear lots and lots of talk in those congregations about the poor, but rarely will you ever find a poor person in their pews. In the meantime, they pat themselves on the back for their social concern.
Why? Well, for one thing, poor people don't feel at home in cathedrals. For another thing, one needs to incorporate liturgy that makes the poor/working class folks feel at home. Recently I asked an Episcopal friend who expressed concern for the poor, "Oh, are you guys seriously considering doing country/western music in your services?"
Seriously, through the marvelous effects of "lift," many or most of our A/G congregations have become middle class and have become places where poor people don't necessarily feel welcome. Our congregation is one of those, unfortunately.
What do we do? Central A/G is doing bicycles; we have Angel Food and what we call "Blessingdales," but what good is all of this if the poor don't end up in our (or anyone's) pews?
Eugene Rivers seems to have bridged the gap--his intellect is second to none, but the liturgy is 100% pentecostal.
It seems to me that Emergent and Seeker Sensitive approaches don't solve this problem. If they did, our Latin/African/Chinese brethren would be all over it.
I fear unless we get back to being real "holy rollers" that we will only mimic the "good intentions" of liberal Protestants, who assuage their own consciences, but have almost zero transformative power for the poor, for whom the Good News was designed in the first place.
No?
December 20, 2007 1:36 PM
Jay Leno said...
So Paul the churches that reach those that are not poor in their pews are doing less "real ministry" than those that do? It is amazing to me that reaching the poor is somehow more noble. Don't all classes of people deserve the gospel including the poor?
McGavran also discussed the concept of the homogeneous unit. The basic principle is that people congregate with others like them—“birds of a feather†and all. When it comes to church the concept is that visitors look around and say either, “these are my kind of people†or “their notâ€. While we are called to reach out to all people, according to this principle—we reach who we are. Since many Western Pentecostals (as well as third generation Pentecostals) have now experienced the lift of redemption—we are no longer poor. Consequently, the styles of worship and level of discourse that meets our needs is different from that of people who are experiencing generational poverty.
Luke’s gospel has a definite emphasis on economic justice and ministry to the poor. That does not mean that God is disinterested in people from other socioeconomic levels. The principle of “incarnation†demands that people of means “put on flesh†and reach people from all economic backgrounds. For some this will mean practicing a radical version of sacrifice and frugality and choosing to downsize, move into economically depressed areas to befriend and serve impoverished people in our communities (historically we have seen this as cross-cultural missionary work). Now, instead of just thinking across the sea, we need to think into the project ridden areas of our cities and the areas of rural poverty.
The fact is that “traditional Pentecostal†worship tactics are still working great throughout the global south—this has been the forte of Pentecostal missions. Where the frustration comes is with our attempts to “do what we’ve always done†but we are no longer experiencing the “same results†with people in our communities and in those in post-Christian societies. The reason it’s no longer working is that we’re no longer the same people (homogeneous unit) we used to be when the tactics worked. In our everyday lives we don’t respond to loud, emotionally laden, simplistic communication. For instance, our bosses don’t yell at us (we’d file a complaint), and they don’t motivate us with guilt and manipulative persuasion tactics (I know this is hyperbole!).
All this to say, the communication style must match the group we’re trying to reach. US “seeker-sensitive†worship obviously wouldn’t work in Asian or other cultures—it would not be an appropriate match. The fact is that Asian or other cultures do have to be “seeker awareâ€â€”whatever that means for their cultures or their message will never reach their audience. For Pentecostals, the entire process is superintended by the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit provides prophetic impetus appropriate to the cultures we are trying to reach. It has nothing to do with volume, or high/low church liturgy—it has everything to do with Spirit sensitivity.
When we were living in Fresno, CA years ago we experienced the dynamic of this first hand. The historical downtown AG church was dwindling while the inner city experienced a shift in the urban makeup. Our pastor invited a young enthusiastic urban-minded pastor to begin co-using the facilities. Soon they outgrew the traditional congregation and were invited to take over the facilities. The traditional congregation in turn planted an new church out in the suburban area and the church took off (and has since planted a daughter church). This is not the only model—but it worked in this case.
The key is that it does take all kinds of churches to reach all kinds of people—and all have to be responsive and sensitive to the Holy Spirit.
That's precisely what I am saying, Jay, and our congregation is not doing any better at this than any other. This is more of a confession than an assertion.
As I think about it, there is no doubt we are rewarded in heaven by giving a "cup of cold water," but the cup of cold water does not transform the recipient...only the power of the Spirit does that.
Eugene Rivers assertion is precisely not that Pentecostal churches all over the world are feeding and clothing the poor, but rather that they are reaching, saving, discipling and lifting the poor.
So, yes, it's good to give a cup of cold water and be rewarded, but it is better to see lost people transformed.
I agree with Dr. Wood; the two cannot be disconnected, and I'm afraid State College A/G is not a great example of connecting the two, though I deeply desire to do so.
So, we have gotten hundreds of thousands to say the sinners prayer each year but assimilated only a small percentage.
Here is the awful question that we may not want to face: Is it possible that everyone wants to go to heaven, but very few want to go there with us?
I yearn for ways to make "church" more poor-friendly, and I'm not sure how to do so (can I get a refund on my graduate degrees?:)).
Seriously, Eugene Rivers seems to have found the right combination. The well-educated Claudio Friedzon seems to have found it in Buenos Aires.
I confess--I need it and don't have it.
(BTW, Jay, I'm trying to remember either who I saw at General Council with a big chin, or what A/G pastor I know that could use a few writers.:))
I agree with most of what you say, Steve, but the question for me is, "Do we have to become less and less Pentecostal the more we are 'lifted' socio-economically?"
This began to happen in the 60s when a lack of church growth caused many leading pastors to adopt the evangelism techniques of the blue-collar Reformed brethren, namely, the fundamental Baptists.
Now, we have 'lifted' further and are becoming more and more like the white-collar Reformed brethren, and less and less Pentecostal.
I'm simply asking if that is a necessary and inevitable social/cultural/spiritual progression.
I would think Eugene Rivers would say "no." Others might argue otherwise.
For myself, I'm pretty desparate for the kind of power evangelism of which John Wimber spoke, and I do mean more than falling out...
December 20, 2007 6:43 PM
Convicted said...
ehh...whatever. All fine and dandy. I thought the images were stereotypical, but what I think what drove me nuts, was his conclusion about supporting liberal democrats.
I don't care if you are Michael Moore, it's not about my conservative outlook that made we flinch. What bothers me about the comment is that it is ill-founded. We don't unite ourselves around a problem, we unite around the solution. Everyone agrees that their needs to be peace in Iraq, but I am not going to go hang out with Sean Penn. Everyone agrees that the world is in need of God, but I am not going to have a sit down with the Dali Lama. Doesn't mean I have become an elitist, it simply means I am self-competent and don't need to compromise to bring change or attention to an issue.
I'm a pentecostal and I love the poor and needy (our church is full of them), but I would never rally to a liberal democrat, because their solution to poverty (government dependency) is wrong and crippling. Plus, I do not see how Pentecostalism could possibly support a liberal democrat solution.
Sorry to go political, but it is what stuck out at me.
Convicted said, "Plus, I do not see how Pentecostalism could possibly support a liberal democrat solution."
Convicted, I don't know if anyone else wants to take a shot at this or not, but let me try (I'm already into this over my head, and it's not my blog:)).
First, I was raised Republican and now am a registered Independent, who usually votes Republican, including two votes for GWB.
Having said that, I think it's good for us to truly try to understand those with whom we have deep disagreements. I'm sure some more liberal pentecostals could do better than I at this, but I'm going to try anyhow.
I hear Rivers essentially saying, "If the government will secure a basic safety net for the poor, then we Pentecostals can focus on lasting, personal transformation that will take the person beyond the safety net."
On the other hand, I think I understand those of us that are more conservative saying, "Life is rough, and by government not providing so much for poor folk, they will (1) realize their need for God rather than the state and (2) The Church will be their source for compassion, since it is true that Republicans are more generous than Democrats in giving."
The problem is, again, that we seem to be primarily evangelizing (very poorly, I might add) the middle class, giving to the poor (which makes us feel better about ourselves), but often neglecting the tranformative power of exactly what Jesus told us to freely give...(sozo) salvation, healing and deliverance.
In fact, I would propose that if we are not literally casting out demons on a regular basis from those sorely oppressed, we are not truly pentecostal.
How many of our A/G schools offer extended training in the casting out of demons? If few, maybe it's a (social) class issue? Or maybe we are too enlightened to think in a NT construct? (Hoping this doesn't sound too Mormon:)): How would Jesus do ministry if He were in America? The same as He did 2000 years ago or radically different?
I watched the video that Pastor Grabill posted, and as a classical Pentecostal theology student, I have several questions, and possibly several disagreements with the video.
1) Pentecostalism, whatever it is, is certainly not evangelicalism "on steroids", at least not from a theological perspective. Evangelicalism, or at least the current American incarnation of it, comes out of the late 19th century tent revival meetings of people like Finney and Moody, with reformed Baptist theological roots (for the most part). Pentecostalism arises out of Wesleyan holiness traditions, and the theology of John Wesley which the holiness movements so unfortunately skewed. Theologically, it's only been in the last couple of generations that evangelicals and Pentecostals have seen eye-to-eye on very much, and much of that agreement arises as a result of the charismatic movement and its success in many quarters of evangelicalism.
2) I really appreciated Rivers' emphasis on Pentecostalism and the poor. It's no secret that Anglo-American Pentecostal movements aren't growing, and that the growth of Pentecostalism on a world scale is far and away a result of the growth among the world's poorest.
The comment above that mentioned Pentecostalism's power to set the wealthy of the world free from their riches was right on, and I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly.
3) While I appreciate the tension expressed in previous comments above, including those of Dr. Wood, between the so-called "social gospel" and "saving faith", I myself have trouble dichotomizing those terms. It's true that in several mainline Protestant denominations in the early part of the last century those terms were dichotomized and the social gospel accentuated over against "saving faith", I don't think "saving faith" can be separated from "social gospel".
Saving faith cannot be saving faith without the social gospel, and social gospel cannot be gospel without saving faith. The tendency that both liberals and conservatives struggled with in the last century was the tendency to make "saving faith" into a checklist to be followed, but the Christian faith is not only a question of rational agreement but also a question of radical discipleship. They have to be held in tension, and cannot be dichotomized or subordinated to each other.
4) As far as Rivers' political comments go, it's clear that he's speaking out of a black Pentecostal context, which has always emphasized political involvement far more loudly than traditionally white Pentecostal denominations. For myself, the government should not have to be doing the work of supporting the poor and the needy, because I think that's primarily the job of the Church.
That's my .02. Holy long comment, Batman.
December 20, 2007 8:51 PM
Chris Griffin said...
I loved this video…and I love some of the dialogue that he taken place on this post so far…great stuff by Dr. Wood and by Paul Grabill
I think Rivers’ use of the word "prosperity" was more of an alliteration or comparison with the word “poverty.†I don’t think he had intentions of conveying all of the baggage we associate with the “prosperity gospel.â€
I think he just wanted to use two words that conveyed opposite ideas that started with the same letter. Obviously, we can’t really know what was in his heart or mind, but that’s just what it seemed to me as I watched the clip.
December 21, 2007 7:39 AM
Jamie said...
There were parts of the video that I enjoyed but others I feel where misguided conclusions. I would rather see a stronger emphasis on KINGDOM then PENTECOSTALISM. I think with a stronger emphasis on the Kingdom of God we don't have to worry about connecting our faith with a particular political perspective. To often our connection with the political process, whether liberal or conservative, takes away the power of the Kingdom of God. In other words those who tend to be more conservative allow their political view on the poor to guide their beliefs on how the government and faith communities should deal with poverty. Generally those who hold a more conservative perspective believe that those who are in poverty need to get a job, pay taxes and participate in the process in order to get ahead. This belief is not always that practical. Especially if we don't take in to consideration the social status of who we are trying to help. In other words a single mom of four is not going to be able to just run out and get a full-time job, find someone to watch the kids and bring home a pay check. Each incident of someone in poverty must be treated individually in order to determine the correct way to go about moving them from "poverty to prosperity". On the other hand a more liberal view of poverty would generally suggest that the government, and faith communities should do all it can to eliminate poverty regardless of whether or not people are integrated and equipped to become productive members of society. Again the church has to often connected itself to the political process rather than promoting and living the Kingdom. The video would have been more beneficial without that political connection.
December 21, 2007 11:36 AM
Anonymous said...
Eugene Rivers needs to be teaching the doctoral classes at aGts. Or at least they should have him speak at one of the lecture weeks either fall or spring.
December 21, 2007 8:25 PM
Debbie said...
The video was very dynamic and confirmed some of my thoughts on the subject.
My husband and I are new pastors to a small church. We are one of 3 Evangelical Christian churches in the area. As we have been getting together with the other churches to have "community services," I see such a difference in the ethnic/economic demographics of our congregations.
At first it kind of bothered me because we don't always have a huge supply of finances in our church to do the things that we would love to do. When we set out in our vision statement to be an authentic community of faith - we didn't think about all the implications of what it truly means.
But then I realized, that is the dynamic of the Spirit in our church. Bringing people of all socio-cultural and economic backgrounds together to be a representative of Christ's body.
We just have to continue to preach the gospel, and see this redemptive lift occur.
I almost do not feel comfortable preaching in front of the "white-upper class" churches. As I prepare to preach the Word for our Christmas Eve Community service, I am feeling a little bit nervous knowing that the message God brings to me is one of "redemptive lift."
Especially with the Christmas season being all about Emmanuel - God With Us! Yet I know that this is the core of the gospel, and without it the salvation of humanity would not have been possible.
I could go on, but must stop for now. Blessings & Merry Christmas!
Great video but most of your people do not know what Rivers is talking about. You have in the Western countries what I would call "funds raising image of poverty in the third world". The reality remains that God is moving and it will be great to see the powerfull move of the Spirit among poor people with poor deacons and poor pastors. Just pray for us!!!!!
Douglas from Ouagadougou Burkina Faso
PS. Did you see any picture of poverty in the video?????
December 22, 2007 8:28 AM
Anonymous said...
The story of the homeless A/G church can be seen here. They collect cans to support a missionary despite not having enough money for themselves.
SportsDave, thank you for your comments. The clarification upon the different historical backgrounds is compelling and more AG'rs should examine how Wesleyan Methodism was turned into the movement. (There is a good potential research project for any seminarians!)
Paul, I personally cringed when you started talking about an instructional time in casting demons out of the poor. Being poor does not equate to demonic possession and your ellusion to Mormonism prompted me to think about how "Pentacostalism" is sometimes taken to an unwarranted extreme much in the line of Mr. Smith's followers.
All this talk about "being more pentecostal" really bothers me. Not because being empowered by the Spirit is a bad thing, but because too many are distorting what we are empowered to do. First and foremost, we are empowered to service and proclamation of the Gospel. I see too may emphasizing the "visible" signs and not enough on being a vessel the Lord works through.
Paul, you also asked if Jesus would operate differently today...and I think He most certainly would. His message and purpose would be unchanged, but He would recognize that a different age required a different delivery system. Jesus might even blog:)
Thanks, Paul, for bringing the poor and our responsibility to them to the discussion through the video.
My favorite resource relating to ministry among the poor is Bryant Myers book, "Walking with the Poor". He gives great insight into the multi-dimensional aspects of poverty (social/relational, mental, emotional, spiritual). In our materialistic culture, if we tend to equate poverty with a lack of material resources, then the solution is to provide material resources alone - and the other dimensions of poverty go unaddressed. The wonderful thing about Jesus/His message was that He addressed all aspects of poverty in a person's life, thereby changing lives. This really challenges our temptation to a simplistic view of poverty, the poor and ministry among them.
Myers refers not only to the "marred identity of the poor" who have believed lies of the enemy about their true value as created by God, but the no less "marred identity of the non-poor" (ouch!). Sin has distorted how the poor view themselves, but in helping them, we must come to grips with our own distorted views of our not being poor and having need of nothing.
Great resource for all of us who see walking with the poor as inseparable from walking with Jesus.
Thank you for your kind words, Beth, and for sharing Bryant Myer's work. I will get it.
As you know, dear friend, I don't always express my thoughts in as grace-filled a manner as thee. I haven't yet responded to some concerns expressed above. I'm going to try as succinctly as I can.
I have three basic concerns:
The first is pastoral. Having been a product of pentecostal/evangelical lift, I am a middle-class pastor pastoring a middle-class congregation that is not as pentecostal (New Testament) as I wish us to be. The problem is probably me, but I see other pastors having similar angst. Sometimes I wonder how well pentecostalism works (long-term) in a middle class environment, but the Charismatic Renewal of the 70s seemed to put that issue to rest. Regardless, I don't see us being as effective at redeeming and lifting the poor (in a holistic manner, as you suggest) as I would like.
The second concern is missional. As you know, Beth, we American pastors don't think like missionaries, which, I think we should. We don't think of ourselves as aliens in thiw world; we are not apolitical, as our forebears were and our present missionaries are; we seem to have more of a passion against the lost than for the lost; we think dealing with the demonic is purely a Global South/missions phenomenon; we think the best way to reach a rationalized culture is through rationalized means, rather than through the demonstration of power; etc., etc.
The third concern is even more fundamental than the prior two: In regards to the needs of the poor, we seem to operate out a cosmology that is closer to Rauschenbusch than to Jesus. There is a level of spiritual brokenness that dooms many (not all) to poverty that cannot be healed simply through altruistic materialism. If Rauschenbusch had met the Gerasenes demoniac (see Luke 8:27), he would have tried to take him to J.C. Penney's and then hooked him up with Habitat for Humanity. Those things would have been good, but they would have been secondary. Saying that it is an insult to many (not all) homeless people (incidentally, hundreds of thousands of them are war vets) that there might be a deep level of spiritual/emotional brokenness I believe is analogous to saying that homosexuals do not need healing--it has the effect of keeping prisoners in the prison of the Enemy's lies. Jesus came to set the prisoners free.
I decided sometime ago that Jesus' cosmology and methodology were not a product of His time (as theological liberalism suggests), but, rather are canonical--that He knew considerably more about the forces at work in the universe than I (although I have a few more graduate degrees than He:)).
Beth, you and David understand the Global South better than 99% of us in the U.S. Since you have recommended a book for those that read this thread, let me recommend one as well: Philip Jenkins' "The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South."
As Jenkins' shows, Pentecostalism is growing like wildfire around the non-Western world precisely because it operates out of a powerful and holistic, New Testament cosmology, not a powerless, post-Enlightenment, Rauschenbusch cosmology. It seems to me that that is precisely Eugene Rivers' point. No?
Thanks, again, Beth, for jumping in!
December 23, 2007 3:31 PM
Anonymous said...
Bottom line is that most churches have succumbed to the plight of "doing" church rather than "being" the Church.
The following probably contextualizes his definition of "prosperity" best:
"Pentecostalism speaks to the poor and says you're not going to the hate the rich, no, you're going to experience the love and power of God and possibility, because we're going to transform your circumstance as a function of your on-fire faith that gives you power to master your circumstance."
Amen all the way until he talks about mastering one's circumstance. Does he mean God supplying people's needs according to His riches or supplying God's riches according to their perceived needs? God's doing a lot of the former in third world countries miraculously, but I don't think He's in the miracle business in the latter anywhere. And who is the "we" in "we're going to transform your circumstance"?
On that note, why mention what liberal Democrats focus on and by insinuation, what Republicans don't? I bet you they were saying hallelujah at NBC News every time that clip reached its climactic end.
If only we could see a record of giving to the poor ("where your treasure is, there your heart will be also"), then we could mention what party leaders and candidates focus on and by how much.
On a final note, this season of giving and politics should remind us that God loves a cheerful giver.
Pentecostal or not, when was the last time anyone saw a cheerful taxpayer?
As Jesus said, give unto the man that which is the man's and give unto God that which is His. Back in the day, when rich believers sold all they had to give the poor a gi-normous Pentecostal handshake did they give it to a tax collector first?
I don't think so. I think their $ went straight to the hands that needed it or through their council's version of Convoy of Hope.
Over-mixing Caesar and greens is best left for salads ;-).
May God bless and multiply all our personal and corporate giving this Christmas season. Feliz Navidad to all!
December 23, 2007 9:06 PM
Brian said...
Danny said:
"Over-mixing Caesar and greens is best left for salads ;-)."
As an Italian-food-loving son of a retired IRS agent, I love that line!
A quick second for recommending Myer's book. I actually read "Walking with the Poor" as an assignment for Beth's class back at Evangel.
The discussion regarding the poor and Paul's above comment of a missional view of our own neighborhoods reminded me of a class exercise. Beth required us to go out and ride a particular route on the city bus (mind you, Springfield is not exactly the urban ghetto, but that actually helps my point). A classmate with me felt particular uncomfortable when we were sitting at the depot, just observing and chatting with folks. When I mentioned they should relax, the response was, "I can't believe you just told me I should relax in this place." This person had not just a call, but an active plan to go to the mission field, and deal with the destitute, but wasn't comfortable in downtown Springfield.
If we don't change our opinions and our vocabulary, the poor will always remain the "them" to our "us." If my friend the 23 y/o single mom with custody of two of her four kids on welfare doesn't truly see me as her kids' auntie and not just the pastor up front, I've failed, guys. However, the bigger challenge is for ME, the middle-class white girl to allow the Holy Spirit to change MY heart enough to see her and those kids as important and vital as anyone else in my life.
The power of Pentecost is just as important for changing my heart, which in turn calls my heart to reach the poor. And then, when someone who doesn't smell so nice or who's socks aren't quite white anymore shows up, I'm going to be willing to sit next to them in church.
December 23, 2007 10:22 PM
A/G Missionary to Europe said...
"When I mentioned they should relax, the response was, "I can't believe you just told me I should relax in this place." This person had not just a call, but an active plan to go to the mission field, and deal with the destitute, but wasn't comfortable in downtown Springfield."
Kathy, thank you for your post, and Paul, for your thought-provoking comments and recommended book. We'll get it!
When in the US, I fear getting isolated from the poor and those who are broken and wounded.
When we first based back here several years ago, I was waiting in line in Walmart and felt like I had been dropped onto another planet. I felt so disconnected after spending most of our time outside the US. I remember standing there, looking around me at people and saying, "God, I don't even know how to connect/relate here anymore."
So clearly, a small voice said to me, "What would you be doing in India in the market?"
I knew. I would be prayer walking my way through the market, prayerfully trying to be senstive to those around me, praying prayers of faith and deliverance for those in bondage and without hope . . .
The Holy Spirit convicted me. "What are you doing here??" In that moment, I had to smile because I know how to connect with people as a missionary. From that day, I've tried to remember to "prayer walk" through Walmart/grocery store/the airport/public places in the US - trying to be spiritually sensitive to people around me in long lines.
It's amazing what His spirit can reveal to us standing in the grocery store if we're really to let Him. And we can pray prayers of faith and against bondage for those in the Walmart line who have no one else in their world to pray and believe God for them.
The poor are often feet away . . but if we're not careful we don't even see them. God, give us eyes to see, hearts to love, and the courage to touch the poor!
Recalling the poverty and hope of HIs birth,
Beth
December 24, 2007 5:20 AM
Phil said...
As an AG missionary that has worked with the poor in Latin America for over 15 years, it was great to see this video and and a fantastic explanation of why the message of pentecost "works" so well in much of the 3rd world. Our message is not only one of hope and equality at the foot of the cross in a world and culture where there is little hope and equality is non existent in a class structure that the vast majority will never climb. And then to see the power of the gospel with signs following is a combination that makes a difference in the lives of millions and millions of the poor.
As it relates to "prosperity". When it comes to the message of the kingdom and the topic of prosperity, don't look at prosperity with distain and think of it as the "Robert Tilton" message where you give a dollar and receive a 7 series BMW. Don't be afraid to use a Biblical principal because of the error of some. The truth is, I have seen family after family after family "prosper" because of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Poor communities are full of families who don't have enough food to eat, they live in alcoholism, in drug abuse, in prostitution, in physical abuse etc.... Their lives are less than prosperous. But God steps into their lives and they become a new creation and the addictions are gone, their attitudes and priorities change. They actually begin to care for their families and instead of wasting what little money they have, it is used in a healthy and wise manner. Before long they are able to move out of the shanty hut to a better community, get a better job because they are reliable and can be trusted. There lives and families have "prospered" because of the transformation that has taken place in their lives because of the Gospel. Will they own a new Beemer? No, in fact they still may never even own a car, but you better believe their lives have been prospered because of the Gospel.
I have a book that a Nicaraguan Pastor wrote. It;s called -- "De la Orilla del Fracaso, A la Prosperidad" -- From the Brink of Disaster, to Prosperity" At one time he was a Sandanista soldier who had killed numerous people in some pretty cruel ways, was a drunk, beat his wife, had raped women etc.... and ended up in a prison. Heard the Gospel preached, had a vision, gave his heart to the Lord responded to a call to preach and lives with a family that God restored. Earns less than $300 USD per month, rides a bicycle and wears used clothes. But he wrote a book on how God, how the message of the Kingdom not only rescued him from the pit and hell he was living in, but brought him into a prosperous life.
That story can be repeated over and over and over again throughout all the world. And you better believe its a prosperous life. The problem is that so many of the American Christians cringe and the mention of the word "prosperity" because of the perverted use of some. Don't throw out a vital part of reality for so many because of the misuse of others.
Democrats, republicans, independents, or Hugo Chavez will never, never, never have an impact on the poor and give them the "lift" they need and prosper their lives like the power of the Cross.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Power of Pentecost makes a difference in the lives of the poor and the wealthy alike.
Paul Grabill posted a link to video clip of a segment on the NBC Nightly News. The Rev. Eugene Rivers, who pastors Azuza Christian Community, shared his view of how Pentecostalism is such a force among the poor of world.
Paul describes the clip like this: You may not agree with every word, but I've rarely heard a better explanation of Pentecostalism given for non-religious folks.
Mowser
"Pentecostalism + The Poor"
34 Comments -
Fantastic video! It asserts some of the core values of Pentecostalism at its best, for instance our "supernatural understanding of reality." I love the line that we are "the high-octane wing of the low church"! I'm a bit hesitant to accept his emphasis on the movement from "poverty to prosperity." Then again, I am a white middle-class AG Pentecostal who must admit my own biases when it comes to the social implications of being a Pentecostal. I would like to think that Pentecostalism can be socially-concerned without being "prosperity" driven. I cannot endorse a prosperity-Gospel, but a Spirit-driven Gospel must confront the oppression of the poor. On a separate note: I love how he gave a thoroughly passionate plea for Pentecostal distinctives without mentioning "initial evidence." (Of course NBC could have edited that part out! :^)
December 19, 2007 4:22 PM
Excellent, articulate presentation of the dynamic of Pentecostalism. Prosperity doesn't necessarily mean "name/claim it"--the accompanying "redemption lift" (boost in economic and social condition) that follows salvation is a reality. My observation is that the tactics that work with impoverished people (socially, politically, financially) are not as effective with those who are higher up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In any case, great clip!
December 19, 2007 5:56 PM
I love his description of Pentecostals as evangelicals on steroids! Indeed the full Gospel does lift the poor. My own father came out of a totally dysfunctional family, was saved at the age of 16, and now we are 4 generations down line and have experienced the redemptive lift.
I am thrilled to see how many of our churches are embracing compassion ministries to the poor. It fits the core value I articulate that we passionately proclaim Christ by word and deed; but more importantly it fits the mission of Jesus who brings good news to the poor.
I am especially concerned that the church gives attention to single moms. They are often at the low end of the economic scale, struggling to raise children while supporting their families. As a body of believers, we must come alongside them.
Many of our churches are adopting public schools in low-income areas and providing feeding and clothing programs, as well as gifting children at Christmas. Right here in Springfield, Central Assembly is giving for Christmas a new bike to every kid in an elementary school that has low-income families. I was at Radiant Church in Surprise, Arizona 3 weeks ago and they provided Christmas for 722 families in their community that would not have had Christmas. A week ago I was at Cornerstone Church in Nashville and they took the last half hour of their Sunday morning service to provide a Christmas for families in their own congregation who had great needs. I told Pastor Maury Davis that it was a "10 hanky service" because I cried so much for joy.
We must care for the poor. And, in doing so, not only will the Gospel lift the poor spiritually; but also socially and economically. It's not the hocus/pocus of the name it and claim it -- but the Gospel addresses the core values that form fruitful character. The better person lives a better life.
I love the story of the guy who worked in a factory and every Friday night when he got his pay check he would stop at the local tavern. By the time he got home to his wife and kids late at night, most of his pay check had been blown on drinking with his buddies.
He was gloriously converted and when he went back to work he no longer was cussing and profane as he used to be. His long-time friends began to rag him about his new found faith. Nothing bothered him.
Finally, one of them said to him -- "Do you believe all those stories in the Bible? Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine?"
He replied: "Well I wasn't there when it happened so I really can't say. But I know in my house he changed beer into furniture."
That's the power of the Gospel to lift the poor.
Let's never make the mistake of the liberal church that detached the social gospel from the saving Gospel. As Pentecostals, we have a unique opportunity to blend evangelism and compassion so that the full Gospel ministers to the full person.
And, to change the subject, let me take also a moment to wish all of you in cyberspace a most wonderful Christmas and blessed new year!
George O. Wood
December 19, 2007 7:49 PM
Ah, that was very well done! I do have a sort of knee-jerk initial reacion to the word "prosperity" but as Steve noted, he doesn't necessarily mean a prosperity gospel type message. Articulate, intelligent guy...so good to see. And as for his comment about voting for a liberal Democrat--I know this has tended to be a black Pentecostal versus white Pentecostal king of thing, but I believe that will be changing. "Values voting" can mean many things. Thanks for sharing this clip.
December 19, 2007 8:12 PM
I loved his passion for the Holy Spirit. He made no apologies. His complete belief in the Holy Spirit's power to change lives was evident in his articulate and enthusiastic presentation!
December 19, 2007 8:55 PM
Good video, Jeff. Thanks for posting it. It is definitely a topic needing more attention.
I think the key difference between a "prosperity-driven" and a "pentecostal-driven" approach to social reform is that, in the latter, we see balance. We don't just see the poor escaping poverty... we also see the rich escaping wealth. The power of the Spirit in Acts opens the eyes of those with possessions to sell them and give to the poor.
I say this because I think we only teach about the poor being rescued by God. The truth is that Acts shows the wealthy being delivered from their death trap as well. Whereas the young ruler Jesus encountered could not depart with his stuff... we see Joseph in Acts 4 selling his land to give the money away.
This is the balance needed. Rather than teaching "prosperity," we need to be teaching balance. Once a person's needs are met and they are in a place of security... they move from being a receiver to a giver. This kills the "up-and-to-the-right" dream of the one simply seeking wealth.
December 20, 2007 6:53 AM
Lane: Excellent point--"Tell those rich in this world's wealth to quit being so full of themselves and so obsessed with money, which is here today and gone tomorrow. Tell them to go after God, who piles on all the riches we could ever manage—to do good, to be rich in helping others, to be extravagantly generous. If they do that, they'll build a treasury that will last, gaining life that is truly life." (1 Tim. 6:17-19)
We too get the privilege of the "redemption-boost" by sharing our resources and teaching people to fish...
December 20, 2007 8:10 AM
Thanks for posting the video, it was very refreshing to hear someone articulately describe parts of the pentecostal message (and kudos to NBC for finding this guy and not some crank like news outlets usually do).
I too had a bit of cringe when the prosperity bit came up, but he never explained what he meant by that so I'm not sure what to think. If, by prosperity he meant a nice home, car, etc., then I disagree. If he meant, living as God intended us to live, then Amen!
The only think I really disagreed with was the very last comment he said. It's good that he is concerned for the poor (we all should be), but I think it's a mistake to think the government is the best way to help them. Instead of the government taking our money to help the poor (and losing much of it on the way), why not let us help the poor directly. The Acton Institute (www.acton.org) has argued persuasively that government run 'charity' often times gives assistance at the cost of taking dignity. Private charities (like some of the churches in our fellowship) are more able to give assistance while restoring dignity.
Other than that last 5 seconds (and the small prosperity caveat), I found the video to be very refreshing and encouraging. Thanks!
December 20, 2007 8:50 AM
If you haven't heard the story of the homeless A/G church in San Francisco, it's amazing. They are even supporting a missionary.
December 20, 2007 12:04 PM
Jeff and all,
I still love today the phrase that Donald McGavran coined, "redemption and lift." One of my greatest concerns, however, is what happens after the "lift."
I'm rather conservative in most matters, and it concerns me that we are progressing down the same road as mainline/liberal denominations. You will hear lots and lots of talk in those congregations about the poor, but rarely will you ever find a poor person in their pews. In the meantime, they pat themselves on the back for their social concern.
Why? Well, for one thing, poor people don't feel at home in cathedrals. For another thing, one needs to incorporate liturgy that makes the poor/working class folks feel at home. Recently I asked an Episcopal friend who expressed concern for the poor, "Oh, are you guys seriously considering doing country/western music in your services?"
Seriously, through the marvelous effects of "lift," many or most of our A/G congregations have become middle class and have become places where poor people don't necessarily feel welcome. Our congregation is one of those, unfortunately.
What do we do? Central A/G is doing bicycles; we have Angel Food and what we call "Blessingdales," but what good is all of this if the poor don't end up in our (or anyone's) pews?
Eugene Rivers seems to have bridged the gap--his intellect is second to none, but the liturgy is 100% pentecostal.
It seems to me that Emergent and Seeker Sensitive approaches don't solve this problem. If they did, our Latin/African/Chinese brethren would be all over it.
I fear unless we get back to being real "holy rollers" that we will only mimic the "good intentions" of liberal Protestants, who assuage their own consciences, but have almost zero transformative power for the poor, for whom the Good News was designed in the first place.
No?
December 20, 2007 1:36 PM
So Paul the churches that reach those that are not poor in their pews are doing less "real ministry" than those that do? It is amazing to me that reaching the poor is somehow more noble. Don't all classes of people deserve the gospel including the poor?
December 20, 2007 6:21 PM
McGavran also discussed the concept of the homogeneous unit. The basic principle is that people congregate with others like them—“birds of a feather†and all. When it comes to church the concept is that visitors look around and say either, “these are my kind of people†or “their notâ€. While we are called to reach out to all people, according to this principle—we reach who we are. Since many Western Pentecostals (as well as third generation Pentecostals) have now experienced the lift of redemption—we are no longer poor. Consequently, the styles of worship and level of discourse that meets our needs is different from that of people who are experiencing generational poverty.
Luke’s gospel has a definite emphasis on economic justice and ministry to the poor. That does not mean that God is disinterested in people from other socioeconomic levels. The principle of “incarnation†demands that people of means “put on flesh†and reach people from all economic backgrounds. For some this will mean practicing a radical version of sacrifice and frugality and choosing to downsize, move into economically depressed areas to befriend and serve impoverished people in our communities (historically we have seen this as cross-cultural missionary work). Now, instead of just thinking across the sea, we need to think into the project ridden areas of our cities and the areas of rural poverty.
The fact is that “traditional Pentecostal†worship tactics are still working great throughout the global south—this has been the forte of Pentecostal missions. Where the frustration comes is with our attempts to “do what we’ve always done†but we are no longer experiencing the “same results†with people in our communities and in those in post-Christian societies. The reason it’s no longer working is that we’re no longer the same people (homogeneous unit) we used to be when the tactics worked. In our everyday lives we don’t respond to loud, emotionally laden, simplistic communication. For instance, our bosses don’t yell at us (we’d file a complaint), and they don’t motivate us with guilt and manipulative persuasion tactics (I know this is hyperbole!).
All this to say, the communication style must match the group we’re trying to reach. US “seeker-sensitive†worship obviously wouldn’t work in Asian or other cultures—it would not be an appropriate match. The fact is that Asian or other cultures do have to be “seeker awareâ€â€”whatever that means for their cultures or their message will never reach their audience. For Pentecostals, the entire process is superintended by the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit provides prophetic impetus appropriate to the cultures we are trying to reach. It has nothing to do with volume, or high/low church liturgy—it has everything to do with Spirit sensitivity.
When we were living in Fresno, CA years ago we experienced the dynamic of this first hand. The historical downtown AG church was dwindling while the inner city experienced a shift in the urban makeup. Our pastor invited a young enthusiastic urban-minded pastor to begin co-using the facilities. Soon they outgrew the traditional congregation and were invited to take over the facilities. The traditional congregation in turn planted an new church out in the suburban area and the church took off (and has since planted a daughter church). This is not the only model—but it worked in this case.
The key is that it does take all kinds of churches to reach all kinds of people—and all have to be responsive and sensitive to the Holy Spirit.
December 20, 2007 6:32 PM
That's precisely what I am saying, Jay, and our congregation is not doing any better at this than any other. This is more of a confession than an assertion.
As I think about it, there is no doubt we are rewarded in heaven by giving a "cup of cold water," but the cup of cold water does not transform the recipient...only the power of the Spirit does that.
Eugene Rivers assertion is precisely not that Pentecostal churches all over the world are feeding and clothing the poor, but rather that they are reaching, saving, discipling and lifting the poor.
So, yes, it's good to give a cup of cold water and be rewarded, but it is better to see lost people transformed.
I agree with Dr. Wood; the two cannot be disconnected, and I'm afraid State College A/G is not a great example of connecting the two, though I deeply desire to do so.
So, we have gotten hundreds of thousands to say the sinners prayer each year but assimilated only a small percentage.
Here is the awful question that we may not want to face: Is it possible that everyone wants to go to heaven, but very few want to go there with us?
I yearn for ways to make "church" more poor-friendly, and I'm not sure how to do so (can I get a refund on my graduate degrees?:)).
Seriously, Eugene Rivers seems to have found the right combination. The well-educated Claudio Friedzon seems to have found it in Buenos Aires.
I confess--I need it and don't have it.
(BTW, Jay, I'm trying to remember either who I saw at General Council with a big chin, or what A/G pastor I know that could use a few writers.:))
December 20, 2007 6:33 PM
I agree with most of what you say, Steve, but the question for me is, "Do we have to become less and less Pentecostal the more we are 'lifted' socio-economically?"
This began to happen in the 60s when a lack of church growth caused many leading pastors to adopt the evangelism techniques of the blue-collar Reformed brethren, namely, the fundamental Baptists.
Now, we have 'lifted' further and are becoming more and more like the white-collar Reformed brethren, and less and less Pentecostal.
I'm simply asking if that is a necessary and inevitable social/cultural/spiritual progression.
I would think Eugene Rivers would say "no." Others might argue otherwise.
For myself, I'm pretty desparate for the kind of power evangelism of which John Wimber spoke, and I do mean more than falling out...
December 20, 2007 6:43 PM
ehh...whatever. All fine and dandy. I thought the images were stereotypical, but what I think what drove me nuts, was his conclusion about supporting liberal democrats.
I don't care if you are Michael Moore, it's not about my conservative outlook that made we flinch. What bothers me about the comment is that it is ill-founded. We don't unite ourselves around a problem, we unite around the solution. Everyone agrees that their needs to be peace in Iraq, but I am not going to go hang out with Sean Penn. Everyone agrees that the world is in need of God, but I am not going to have a sit down with the Dali Lama. Doesn't mean I have become an elitist, it simply means I am self-competent and don't need to compromise to bring change or attention to an issue.
I'm a pentecostal and I love the poor and needy (our church is full of them), but I would never rally to a liberal democrat, because their solution to poverty (government dependency) is wrong and crippling. Plus, I do not see how Pentecostalism could possibly support a liberal democrat solution.
Sorry to go political, but it is what stuck out at me.
December 20, 2007 7:56 PM
Convicted said, "Plus, I do not see how Pentecostalism could possibly support a liberal democrat solution."
Convicted, I don't know if anyone else wants to take a shot at this or not, but let me try (I'm already into this over my head, and it's not my blog:)).
First, I was raised Republican and now am a registered Independent, who usually votes Republican, including two votes for GWB.
Having said that, I think it's good for us to truly try to understand those with whom we have deep disagreements. I'm sure some more liberal pentecostals could do better than I at this, but I'm going to try anyhow.
I hear Rivers essentially saying, "If the government will secure a basic safety net for the poor, then we Pentecostals can focus on lasting, personal transformation that will take the person beyond the safety net."
On the other hand, I think I understand those of us that are more conservative saying, "Life is rough, and by government not providing so much for poor folk, they will (1) realize their need for God rather than the state and (2) The Church will be their source for compassion, since it is true that Republicans are more generous than Democrats in giving."
The problem is, again, that we seem to be primarily evangelizing (very poorly, I might add) the middle class, giving to the poor (which makes us feel better about ourselves), but often neglecting the tranformative power of exactly what Jesus told us to freely give...(sozo) salvation, healing and deliverance.
In fact, I would propose that if we are not literally casting out demons on a regular basis from those sorely oppressed, we are not truly pentecostal.
How many of our A/G schools offer extended training in the casting out of demons? If few, maybe it's a (social) class issue? Or maybe we are too enlightened to think in a NT construct? (Hoping this doesn't sound too Mormon:)): How would Jesus do ministry if He were in America? The same as He did 2000 years ago or radically different?
December 20, 2007 8:32 PM
I watched the video that Pastor Grabill posted, and as a classical Pentecostal theology student, I have several questions, and possibly several disagreements with the video.
1) Pentecostalism, whatever it is, is certainly not evangelicalism "on steroids", at least not from a theological perspective. Evangelicalism, or at least the current American incarnation of it, comes out of the late 19th century tent revival meetings of people like Finney and Moody, with reformed Baptist theological roots (for the most part). Pentecostalism arises out of Wesleyan holiness traditions, and the theology of John Wesley which the holiness movements so unfortunately skewed. Theologically, it's only been in the last couple of generations that evangelicals and Pentecostals have seen eye-to-eye on very much, and much of that agreement arises as a result of the charismatic movement and its success in many quarters of evangelicalism.
2) I really appreciated Rivers' emphasis on Pentecostalism and the poor. It's no secret that Anglo-American Pentecostal movements aren't growing, and that the growth of Pentecostalism on a world scale is far and away a result of the growth among the world's poorest.
The comment above that mentioned Pentecostalism's power to set the wealthy of the world free from their riches was right on, and I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly.
3) While I appreciate the tension expressed in previous comments above, including those of Dr. Wood, between the so-called "social gospel" and "saving faith", I myself have trouble dichotomizing those terms. It's true that in several mainline Protestant denominations in the early part of the last century those terms were dichotomized and the social gospel accentuated over against "saving faith", I don't think "saving faith" can be separated from "social gospel".
Saving faith cannot be saving faith without the social gospel, and social gospel cannot be gospel without saving faith. The tendency that both liberals and conservatives struggled with in the last century was the tendency to make "saving faith" into a checklist to be followed, but the Christian faith is not only a question of rational agreement but also a question of radical discipleship. They have to be held in tension, and cannot be dichotomized or subordinated to each other.
4) As far as Rivers' political comments go, it's clear that he's speaking out of a black Pentecostal context, which has always emphasized political involvement far more loudly than traditionally white Pentecostal denominations. For myself, the government should not have to be doing the work of supporting the poor and the needy, because I think that's primarily the job of the Church.
That's my .02. Holy long comment, Batman.
December 20, 2007 8:51 PM
I loved this video…and I love some of the dialogue that he taken place on this post so far…great stuff by Dr. Wood and by Paul Grabill
I think Rivers’ use of the word "prosperity" was more of an alliteration or comparison with the word “poverty.†I don’t think he had intentions of conveying all of the baggage we associate with the “prosperity gospel.â€
I think he just wanted to use two words that conveyed opposite ideas that started with the same letter. Obviously, we can’t really know what was in his heart or mind, but that’s just what it seemed to me as I watched the clip.
December 21, 2007 7:39 AM
There were parts of the video that I enjoyed but others I feel where misguided conclusions. I would rather see a stronger emphasis on KINGDOM then PENTECOSTALISM. I think with a stronger emphasis on the Kingdom of God we don't have to worry about connecting our faith with a particular political perspective. To often our connection with the political process, whether liberal or conservative, takes away the power of the Kingdom of God. In other words those who tend to be more conservative allow their political view on the poor to guide their beliefs on how the government and faith communities should deal with poverty. Generally those who hold a more conservative perspective believe that those who are in poverty need to get a job, pay taxes and participate in the process in order to get ahead. This belief is not always that practical. Especially if we don't take in to consideration the social status of who we are trying to help. In other words a single mom of four is not going to be able to just run out and get a full-time job, find someone to watch the kids and bring home a pay check. Each incident of someone in poverty must be treated individually in order to determine the correct way to go about moving them from "poverty to prosperity". On the other hand a more liberal view of poverty would generally suggest that the government, and faith communities should do all it can to eliminate poverty regardless of whether or not people are integrated and equipped to become productive members of society. Again the church has to often connected itself to the political process rather than promoting and living the Kingdom. The video would have been more beneficial without that political connection.
December 21, 2007 11:36 AM
Eugene Rivers needs to be teaching the doctoral classes at aGts. Or at least they should have him speak at one of the lecture weeks either fall or spring.
December 21, 2007 8:25 PM
The video was very dynamic and confirmed some of my thoughts on the subject.
My husband and I are new pastors to a small church. We are one of 3 Evangelical Christian churches in the area. As we have been getting together with the other churches to have "community services," I see such a difference in the ethnic/economic demographics of our congregations.
At first it kind of bothered me because we don't always have a huge supply of finances in our church to do the things that we would love to do. When we set out in our vision statement to be an authentic community of faith - we didn't think about all the implications of what it truly means.
But then I realized, that is the dynamic of the Spirit in our church. Bringing people of all socio-cultural and economic backgrounds together to be a representative of Christ's body.
We just have to continue to preach the gospel, and see this redemptive lift occur.
I almost do not feel comfortable preaching in front of the "white-upper class" churches. As I prepare to preach the Word for our Christmas Eve Community service, I am feeling a little bit nervous knowing that the message God brings to me is one of "redemptive lift."
Especially with the Christmas season being all about Emmanuel - God With Us! Yet I know that this is the core of the gospel, and without it the salvation of humanity would not have been possible.
I could go on, but must stop for now. Blessings & Merry Christmas!
December 22, 2007 6:25 AM
Great video but most of your people do not know what Rivers is talking about. You have in the Western countries what I would call "funds raising image of poverty in the third world". The reality remains that God is moving and it will be great to see the powerfull move of the Spirit among poor people with poor deacons and poor pastors. Just pray for us!!!!!
Douglas from Ouagadougou Burkina Faso
PS. Did you see any picture of poverty in the video?????
December 22, 2007 8:28 AM
The story of the homeless A/G church can be seen here. They collect cans to support a missionary despite not having enough money for themselves.
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=6a8b98bcdd89ede7fc36
December 22, 2007 9:12 AM
SportsDave, thank you for your comments. The clarification upon the different historical backgrounds is compelling and more AG'rs should examine how Wesleyan Methodism was turned into the movement. (There is a good potential research project for any seminarians!)
Paul, I personally cringed when you started talking about an instructional time in casting demons out of the poor. Being poor does not equate to demonic possession and your ellusion to Mormonism prompted me to think about how "Pentacostalism" is sometimes taken to an unwarranted extreme much in the line of Mr. Smith's followers.
All this talk about "being more pentecostal" really bothers me. Not because being empowered by the Spirit is a bad thing, but because too many are distorting what we are empowered to do. First and foremost, we are empowered to service and proclamation of the Gospel. I see too may emphasizing the "visible" signs and not enough on being a vessel the Lord works through.
Paul, you also asked if Jesus would operate differently today...and I think He most certainly would. His message and purpose would be unchanged, but He would recognize that a different age required a different delivery system. Jesus might even blog:)
December 22, 2007 5:59 PM
Thanks, Paul, for bringing the poor and our responsibility to them to the discussion through the video.
My favorite resource relating to ministry among the poor is Bryant Myers book, "Walking with the Poor". He gives great insight into the multi-dimensional aspects of poverty (social/relational, mental, emotional, spiritual). In our materialistic culture, if we tend to equate poverty with a lack of material resources, then the solution is to provide material resources alone - and the other dimensions of poverty go unaddressed. The wonderful thing about Jesus/His message was that He addressed all aspects of poverty in a person's life, thereby changing lives. This really challenges our temptation to a simplistic view of poverty, the poor and ministry among them.
Myers refers not only to the "marred identity of the poor" who have believed lies of the enemy about their true value as created by God, but the no less "marred identity of the non-poor" (ouch!). Sin has distorted how the poor view themselves, but in helping them, we must come to grips with our own distorted views of our not being poor and having need of nothing.
Great resource for all of us who see walking with the poor as inseparable from walking with Jesus.
Thanks again, Paul!
Beth Grant
December 23, 2007 7:15 AM
Thank you for your kind words, Beth, and for sharing Bryant Myer's work. I will get it.
As you know, dear friend, I don't always express my thoughts in as grace-filled a manner as thee. I haven't yet responded to some concerns expressed above. I'm going to try as succinctly as I can.
I have three basic concerns:
The first is pastoral. Having been a product of pentecostal/evangelical lift, I am a middle-class pastor pastoring a middle-class congregation that is not as pentecostal (New Testament) as I wish us to be. The problem is probably me, but I see other pastors having similar angst. Sometimes I wonder how well pentecostalism works (long-term) in a middle class environment, but the Charismatic Renewal of the 70s seemed to put that issue to rest. Regardless, I don't see us being as effective at redeeming and lifting the poor (in a holistic manner, as you suggest) as I would like.
The second concern is missional. As you know, Beth, we American pastors don't think like missionaries, which, I think we should. We don't think of ourselves as aliens in thiw world; we are not apolitical, as our forebears were and our present missionaries are; we seem to have more of a passion against the lost than for the lost; we think dealing with the demonic is purely a Global South/missions phenomenon; we think the best way to reach a rationalized culture is through rationalized means, rather than through the demonstration of power; etc., etc.
The third concern is even more fundamental than the prior two: In regards to the needs of the poor, we seem to operate out a cosmology that is closer to Rauschenbusch than to Jesus. There is a level of spiritual brokenness that dooms many (not all) to poverty that cannot be healed simply through altruistic materialism. If Rauschenbusch had met the Gerasenes demoniac (see Luke 8:27), he would have tried to take him to J.C. Penney's and then hooked him up with Habitat for Humanity. Those things would have been good, but they would have been secondary. Saying that it is an insult to many (not all) homeless people (incidentally, hundreds of thousands of them are war vets) that there might be a deep level of spiritual/emotional brokenness I believe is analogous to saying that homosexuals do not need healing--it has the effect of keeping prisoners in the prison of the Enemy's lies. Jesus came to set the prisoners free.
I decided sometime ago that Jesus' cosmology and methodology were not a product of His time (as theological liberalism suggests), but, rather are canonical--that He knew considerably more about the forces at work in the universe than I (although I have a few more graduate degrees than He:)).
Beth, you and David understand the Global South better than 99% of us in the U.S. Since you have recommended a book for those that read this thread, let me recommend one as well: Philip Jenkins' "The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South."
As Jenkins' shows, Pentecostalism is growing like wildfire around the non-Western world precisely because it operates out of a powerful and holistic, New Testament cosmology, not a powerless, post-Enlightenment, Rauschenbusch cosmology. It seems to me that that is precisely Eugene Rivers' point. No?
Thanks, again, Beth, for jumping in!
December 23, 2007 3:31 PM
Bottom line is that most churches have succumbed to the plight of "doing" church rather than "being" the Church.
December 23, 2007 8:58 PM
Pastors Jeff and Paul G. great clip!
The following probably contextualizes his definition of "prosperity" best:
"Pentecostalism speaks to the poor and says you're not going to the hate the rich, no, you're going to experience the love and power of God and possibility, because we're going to transform your circumstance as a function of your on-fire faith that gives you power to master your circumstance."
Amen all the way until he talks about mastering one's circumstance. Does he mean God supplying people's needs according to His riches or supplying God's riches according to their perceived needs? God's doing a lot of the former in third world countries miraculously, but I don't think He's in the miracle business in the latter anywhere. And who is the "we" in "we're going to transform your circumstance"?
On that note, why mention what liberal Democrats focus on and by insinuation, what Republicans don't? I bet you they were saying hallelujah at NBC News every time that clip reached its climactic end.
If only we could see a record of giving to the poor ("where your treasure is, there your heart will be also"), then we could mention what party leaders and candidates focus on and by how much.
On a final note, this season of giving and politics should remind us that God loves a cheerful giver.
Pentecostal or not, when was the last time anyone saw a cheerful taxpayer?
As Jesus said, give unto the man that which is the man's and give unto God that which is His. Back in the day, when rich believers sold all they had to give the poor a gi-normous Pentecostal handshake did they give it to a tax collector first?
I don't think so. I think their $ went straight to the hands that needed it or through their council's version of Convoy of Hope.
Over-mixing Caesar and greens is best left for salads ;-).
May God bless and multiply all our personal and corporate giving this Christmas season. Feliz Navidad to all!
December 23, 2007 9:06 PM
Danny said:
"Over-mixing Caesar and greens is best left for salads ;-)."
As an Italian-food-loving son of a retired IRS agent, I love that line!
December 23, 2007 10:00 PM
A quick second for recommending Myer's book. I actually read "Walking with the Poor" as an assignment for Beth's class back at Evangel.
The discussion regarding the poor and Paul's above comment of a missional view of our own neighborhoods reminded me of a class exercise. Beth required us to go out and ride a particular route on the city bus (mind you, Springfield is not exactly the urban ghetto, but that actually helps my point). A classmate with me felt particular uncomfortable when we were sitting at the depot, just observing and chatting with folks. When I mentioned they should relax, the response was, "I can't believe you just told me I should relax in this place." This person had not just a call, but an active plan to go to the mission field, and deal with the destitute, but wasn't comfortable in downtown Springfield.
If we don't change our opinions and our vocabulary, the poor will always remain the "them" to our "us." If my friend the 23 y/o single mom with custody of two of her four kids on welfare doesn't truly see me as her kids' auntie and not just the pastor up front, I've failed, guys. However, the bigger challenge is for ME, the middle-class white girl to allow the Holy Spirit to change MY heart enough to see her and those kids as important and vital as anyone else in my life.
The power of Pentecost is just as important for changing my heart, which in turn calls my heart to reach the poor. And then, when someone who doesn't smell so nice or who's socks aren't quite white anymore shows up, I'm going to be willing to sit next to them in church.
December 23, 2007 10:22 PM
"When I mentioned they should relax, the response was, "I can't believe you just told me I should relax in this place." This person had not just a call, but an active plan to go to the mission field, and deal with the destitute, but wasn't comfortable in downtown Springfield."
Sounds like a lot of our current missionaries...
December 24, 2007 4:19 AM
Kathy, thank you for your post, and Paul, for your thought-provoking comments and recommended book. We'll get it!
When in the US, I fear getting isolated from the poor and those who are broken and wounded.
When we first based back here several years ago, I was waiting in line in Walmart and felt like I had been dropped onto another planet. I felt so disconnected after spending most of our time outside the US. I remember standing there, looking around me at people and saying, "God, I don't even know how to connect/relate here anymore."
So clearly, a small voice said to me, "What would you be doing in India in the market?"
I knew. I would be prayer walking my way through the market, prayerfully trying to be senstive to those around me, praying prayers of faith and deliverance for those in bondage and without hope . . .
The Holy Spirit convicted me. "What are you doing here??" In that moment, I had to smile because I know how to connect with people as a missionary. From that day, I've tried to remember to "prayer walk" through Walmart/grocery store/the airport/public places in the US - trying to be spiritually sensitive to people around me in long lines.
It's amazing what His spirit can reveal to us standing in the grocery store if we're really to let Him. And we can pray prayers of faith and against bondage for those in the Walmart line who have no one else in their world to pray and believe God for them.
The poor are often feet away . . but if we're not careful we don't even see them. God, give us eyes to see, hearts to love, and the courage to touch the poor!
Recalling the poverty and hope of HIs birth,
Beth
December 24, 2007 5:20 AM
As an AG missionary that has worked with the poor in Latin America for over 15 years, it was great to see this video and and a fantastic explanation of why the message of pentecost "works" so well in much of the 3rd world. Our message is not only one of hope and equality at the foot of the cross in a world and culture where there is little hope and equality is non existent in a class structure that the vast majority will never climb. And then to see the power of the gospel with signs following is a combination that makes a difference in the lives of millions and millions of the poor.
As it relates to "prosperity". When it comes to the message of the kingdom and the topic of prosperity, don't look at prosperity with distain and think of it as the "Robert Tilton" message where you give a dollar and receive a 7 series BMW. Don't be afraid to use a Biblical principal because of the error of some. The truth is, I have seen family after family after family "prosper" because of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Poor communities are full of families who don't have enough food to eat, they live in alcoholism, in drug abuse, in prostitution, in physical abuse etc.... Their lives are less than prosperous. But God steps into their lives and they become a new creation and the addictions are gone, their attitudes and priorities change. They actually begin to care for their families and instead of wasting what little money they have, it is used in a healthy and wise manner. Before long they are able to move out of the shanty hut to a better community, get a better job because they are reliable and can be trusted. There lives and families have "prospered" because of the transformation that has taken place in their lives because of the Gospel. Will they own a new Beemer? No, in fact they still may never even own a car, but you better believe their lives have been prospered because of the Gospel.
I have a book that a Nicaraguan Pastor wrote. It;s called -- "De la Orilla del Fracaso, A la Prosperidad" -- From the Brink of Disaster, to Prosperity" At one time he was a Sandanista soldier who had killed numerous people in some pretty cruel ways, was a drunk, beat his wife, had raped women etc.... and ended up in a prison. Heard the Gospel preached, had a vision, gave his heart to the Lord responded to a call to preach and lives with a family that God restored. Earns less than $300 USD per month, rides a bicycle and wears used clothes. But he wrote a book on how God, how the message of the Kingdom not only rescued him from the pit and hell he was living in, but brought him into a prosperous life.
That story can be repeated over and over and over again throughout all the world. And you better believe its a prosperous life. The problem is that so many of the American Christians cringe and the mention of the word "prosperity" because of the perverted use of some. Don't throw out a vital part of reality for so many because of the misuse of others.
Democrats, republicans, independents, or Hugo Chavez will never, never, never have an impact on the poor and give them the "lift" they need and prosper their lives like the power of the Cross.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Power of Pentecost makes a difference in the lives of the poor and the wealthy alike.
Blessings
Phil -- missionary
December 24, 2007 7:28 AM
Great word Phil!
Hello from Alabama!
David Copeland
Lanett, Alabama
December 26, 2007 7:11 AM
Paul describes the clip like this: You may not agree with every word, but I've rarely heard a better explanation of Pentecostalism given for non-religious folks.
To view the video click here.
What are your thoughts?
posted by Jeff Leake at 2:32 PM on Dec 19, 2007