Uhh...that was awesome. Very cool, Brother Grabill. Very honest, and VERY CHALLENGING. I agree with you, we need to be honest and open with each other and ourselves if we desire to please God and seek His favor and success.
I think it would be powerful, beautiful, and slightly chaotic, but what are the chances of a "Council of Springfield?" Is it time for such an event?
Historically, every other movement HAS had to revisit its doctrine every 100-years. The A/G is numerically due. Is it time for such an event, and will it HELP us?
Every year, I sign my ministerial renewal form in good conscience, having checked the box regarding baptism in the Spirit. But I also believe that it is necessary to revisit our doctrinal statement from time to time to see whether or not we could better express what we believe. I would be interested in hearing some ideas about how AG ministers can in good faith both subscribe to our current doctrinal statement and work for its revision.
Let me split this into two posts to make t more readable. First, my personal stance on this... then, a wider response.
MY PERSONAL STANCE
When it comes to our doctrinal statements, specifically with initial evidence, I find a situation where, in a weird, ironic fashion I find it harder to agree with the spirit of the credential renewal form rather than the letter of it. (Usually in life I find that the opposite is true.) Let me illustrate...
I am asked each year whether I still hold to the 16 Fundamental Truths which, as we all know, really has emphasis on #7 and #8. I say that because if we were to look further down the list to the number of pastors that differ with the AG stances on the end times (and yet sign the renewal form), I think your ethical dilemma would go through the roof. But no one really is that concerned about that since our opinions about differing eschatologies are far more lenient than our stances on pneumatology.
Back to my point, though. When I consider the "letter" of the doctrines, I ask myself whether I agree that tongues is the "initial physical evidence." Since there is no comma between those two words,I place emphasis on the word "physical" and find myself in agreement with the doctrine. This allows room for my personal opinion that there may be quite a few OTHER evidences that come first but which are not physical. As such, I find myself tending to think that J. Roswell Flower was onto something with his opinion that tongues could possibly exist as a "delayed evidence."
However, I am also aware that, based on having heard Tom Trask (and others) personally say it to me and having read their articles, the "spirit" of the doctrine is that tongues is not only the INITIAL but also the IMMEDIATE evidence. And so, at times, I feel as if I am in the ethical bind you described.
But, as I noted above with Flower, I am aware that our founding fathers were, themselves, not fully in agreement on this issue and so I re-sign rather than resign with confidence that I am in agreement with the way it is written... although not necessarily with how others interpret it.
All that being said, Paul... I think the larger issue is not with young pastors finding small discrepancies with the 16 FT. Instead, the problem lies with a movement that wants to enforce regulations like a denomination yet allowing local pastors full autonomy as if we are only a "cooperative fellowship."
I think the same ethical issue should be raised with all the resolutions passed at a GC. If we, as a movement, declare that women should be allowed into leadership... than a local pastor should not have the license to take issue with that and should comply.
Yet upon asking a leading, highly-respected official in the AG that very question, I was told that the beauty of the autonomy in the AG is that it "celebrates the entrepreneurial spirit of the Senior Pastor." I was stunned. How can we take issue with pastors who want to research and develop our 16 FT while fully embracing their right to dismiss any and every resolution passed at GC?
Your question is a GREAT ONE. One that you articulated well. But the root of the issue exposes a major flaw in a movement that wants to enforce things like a denomination but chooses to still act as a cooperative fellowship.
We have it easier than some do in other denominations. In the PCA, for example, there is much less room for deviance than in our movement. So let me go on record as saying that I'm grateful we have as much wiggle room as we do.
So the question seems to be how can you require doctrinal compliance and also allow people the freedom to critique doctrine?
Part of the solution lies in the following observation: you can agree with a statement and not think it should be a law. So it's possible to fully subscribe to initial evidence as currently defined and simultaneously believe that we should reword our definition.
I suspect most doctrinal critique that is accepted comes about this way.
I'll give a personal example: I think we're too nitpicky about eschatology. 4 of our 16 statements are detailed assertions about the end of the world!
When I think about how wrong the scholars of Jesus' day were about the details of his first coming, it makes me not want to get too dogmatic about the details of his second coming.
So even though I sign off on our statement of faith every year, I'd like to see it broadened so that more people can align with us in good conscience.
That's one means by which we can get theological critique from within.
I think you're drawing a false dichotomy between "denomination" and "cooperative fellowship." To see why this is the case, ask yourself a simple question: Could a Mormon church join the Assemblies of God? Answer: No. Why? Because it could not "cooperate" or be in "fellowship" with other churches with whom it has a fundamental disagreement in doctrine. Every community of faith, in other words--whether you call it a "denomination" or a "cooperative fellowship"--has certain boundary markers that define (denominate) whether one is "in" or "out" of the community. Enforcing those boundary markers does not necessarily violate the spirit of cooperation. Rather, it assumes that there are ideas, values, and practices which both parties are willing to cooperate about.
Having said that, I agree with you that it's odd (contradictory, inconsistent, unethical?) for churches to be allowed to opt out of recognizing women ministers. On the other hand, I think there is a difference between "doctrine" and "order" within the church, with issues of doctrine requiring more uniformity than issues of order. But that's just my personal opinion (about uniformity, not women's ministry).
The clarification is good. I'm using the wrong words to attempt and define what I see as ecclesiastical enforcement in mainline churches as opposed to what we have which is more or less a "hoped for" ideal of uniform agreement.
I'm not sure I agree with you, though, on the distinction of differing importance between "order" and "doctrine." Hopefully the former is developed out of a foundational conviction of the latter. In other words, we pass a resolution stating that our movement will recognize women in leadership BECAUSE we have a conviction that the Scriptures call for it.
For a pastor to say "I do not agree and choose to be different" means that they are placing themselves outside the boundaries of what we, as a "fellowship," have officially declared to be a part of our theological DNA.
If we do make distinctions between "order" and "doctrine,"... then what need is there for a GC and a resolution process? That would mean, based on our system of autonomy for GC-Affiliated churches, that resolutions become little more than "suggestions." If that is true... then attending a GC becomes an incredibly expensive futile exercise. (In my opinion)
Lane, I agree with you that we've had more theological attrition/regression on matters of eschatology than we have in matters of pneumatology, but there is more heartburn, and (now with the unscientific blog poll) more data on the latter than the former. My guest post was prompted by the FutureAG poll on Spirit Baptism. Maybe the brethren will do one on eschatology as well.
It appears to me that there are serious reservations within our Fellowship regarding a full 1/3 of our tenets of faith.
My bottom line is that we cannot go on like this. The longer we go, the more *integrity* regression we will have.
I am praying for an answer that is creative and constructive and doesn't scapegoat people who have honest questions and/or differences, but rather allows people to openly be who they are deep down inside.
So again I ask: Is it time for a "Council of Springfield" to bring clarity to our movement?
I agree with all 16FT, so I'm cool staying AG. But if someones else does not agree with the 16 FT, then I would ask why be an A/G minister and/or an A/G church?
I ask this not with a spirit of antagonism, but curiosity.
Thanks for the reply. And I didn't say it when I first responded, but thanks for taking the time to write. I am consistently encouraged and inspired to continue posting when I see people like yourself and George Wood, Sr. willing to read and dialog this blog. So thanks.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last comment regarding seeking for a solution that is constructive, not constrictive. I also agree that our movement cannot keep seeing the regression that we are. I personally have had three friends, all between the ages of 26 and 35, resign the AG just in the last 12 months.
My concern, though, was that (as I read it) your post seemed to take more aim at those openly admitting their reservations about our theology than anything else. I may have read it wrong, and if I did, forgive me ... but it sounded as if you were saying that one of the reasons God may not be blessing our movement is because people are essentially "lying" when they sign their credential renewal form each year. Since He cannot look overlook this, I thought you were saying, He cannot do what He would like among us since we are not people of integrity.
This is what I was taking issue with. Despite whether there might be more heartburn around a certain issue... I don't think God sees it in shades. If a minister signs their form and yet does not agree with #8, well... you're right. They are wrong for doing for that. But if another minister chooses to distance themselves from any of the latter 4... regardless of how much research we have on them ... God would still see it as a lack of integrity and, thus, according to your opinion ... withhold His blessings.
Lane, thank you for your questions and for venturing into this minefield. Someone has to. I'm doubting that this stream will set any new records in comments.:)
First, regarding eschatology. It seems to me that we have always given some wiggle room in this area with expressions like 'pan-trib' or 'pan-mil' (i.e., "Trust in Jesus and it will all 'pan' out"). So I don't mind someone holding these areas lightly, however, it seems to me that if they hold contrary positions (e.g., preterist, amil or post mil), then there is a real integrity issue. There is a major difference between light agreement and light or heavy disagreement.
I, for one, have always wondered why the 16FT were all at the same 'level' of authority. It seems to me that "The Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ" trumps the "The Ministry" every time.
Now, back to pneumatology. I don't think is is my role to determine how much wiggle room there is in our current statements. I think that's up to the Credentials Committee/EPs who hear arguments (on every issue) probably far beyond what I have considered, so I won't be presumptious enough (this time!) to try to say where the 'line' is.
That being said (even though the main point of my post was not to say where the line is, but to deal with the Catch-22 of perceptions that those advocating change are going to have to deal with), I did indeed make the point that the lower one goes on the initial blog poll, it seems to me, the greater the concern about personal integrity.
Maybe someone can explain to me how a position of "glossolalia has nothing to do with Spirit Baptism" is consistent with our 16FT, but I can't seem to get my head around that.
So, yes, I think it is legitimate to raise the integrity issue (in reality, and not just in regard to perception), at least for some of our anonymous credential holders.
I really don't want to cause anybody any heartburn, but rather to try to articulate the dilemma in which we find ourselves.
In some ways, now that the cat is out of the bag, I do pray, in some way, this contribution is helpful, particularly in encouraging those advocating change to put themselves in the shoes of those defending the status quo.
January 12, 2008 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...
Has anyone ever thought of simply going back to the wording Luke uses in the book of Acts to describe this doctrine, and leaving it at that? Why do we have to insist on parsing the doctrine beyond the biblical articulation? Jesus promised the Spirit’s arrival; the book of Acts records multiple times when groups experienced the promised Holy Spirit; the Church received empowerment, people were saved, delivered and healed; no one mentioned the initial physical evidence doctrine. Those who lean more toward biblical theology could live with this; those who desire a more systematic or dogmatic approach would be less satisfied.
I’m not sure Jesus himself would know how to adequately define the dynamic of Spirit baptism (or for that, matter speaking in tongues: real languages? unlearned babble?). And I’m not sure it matters in the least whether we figure it out and articulate it with such razor-sharp precision: e.g., are more people going to get healed, delivered, saved, baptized, discipled because of our doctrinal specificity?
There is a valid and age-old question when it comes to doctrinal considerations: If the Bible does not ask the question (“what’s the initial physical evidence of Spirit baptismâ€), perhaps we ought to resist the temptation both to ask, and to answer the question. And more importantly, we should resist the urge to purge from our ranks people who steadfastly affirm the full empowerment of the Holy Spirit, yet cannot figure out how one Kansas pastor’s question in 1901 became the definitive definition for millions of 21st century Spirit-filled believers.
It seems to me that the reason we use non-biblical terminology in our doctrinal statements is that doctrine acts as a kind of interpretive key to our understanding of the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that God is one; that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that the Father is not the Son, the Son not the Spirit, and the Spirit not the Father. The Bible itself doesn't give us terminology to explain how all these realities can cohere logically, so early church fathers invented terms: Trinity, essence, person to explain how the biblical terminology didn't contradict itself or entail absurdities.
I think you have given the classic example to Anonymous' response and your statement can hardly be refuted. However, church history also clearly shows how the church has created tenets like infant baptism, elevation of the host (Transubstantiation/consubstantiation), and many other heresies. I think Anonymous makes a great point because clearly we can see how problematic it is to come up with our own creations which do not show a consistent application of Scripture in light of the totality of Scripture. Your assertion that our doctrine is a key to our interpretive method seems misplaced. The Bible forms our doctrine and is the absolute authority of creating doctrine. We as humans have been exposed to various thoughts and schools of influence and this colors how we decide our own interpretive method, however, that does not change the absolute truth of Scripture. No where in the Bible is there any kerygmatic statement affirming the initial physical evidence as the only and absolutely defining indicator of baptism in the Spirit. Paul and others certainly had opportunity, however, no such clear guidance exists. I think a much more honest examination needs to be made regarding Anonymous' statements on the influence of Parham and a much deeper understanding to the origins of the movement that you elluded to in one of your postings. I still am trying to "uncover" what exactly the mysterious puzzle of the development of Pentacostalism as it rose from Lacy to Wesley to Topeka and exploding at Asuza Street. I have yet to read a completely satisfying history that indicates any substantive roots beyond that time...which is why I think a large number of people question the doctrine outside of Pentacostalism...that takes us back to an early understanding of Acts as being an authoritative statement on initial evidence. Wayne Grudem is the editor of a book titled "Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?" that I think would be a good read for anyone who is still mulling through this issue.
I think you have certainly brought up a valid point by questioning the integrity of those who question the doctrine as it exists within the Fundamental Truths and still hold credentials. I do not hold credentials precisely because I have not been able to personally have complete acceptance of the 16 Truths. I, like you, struggle with making a heirarchy that says accepting Christ's diety falls at the same level as initial evidence, especially when we then seperate into 4 essential truths.
However, I think there are a number of people who can in good conscience have differing views and still hold credentials. I hope that they put forth those explanations. In large part, I would assert that your personal call can trump any "absolutes" put forth by the denomination. I doubt you would find a significant number of ministers in any denomination that would say they hold to the letter of every belief espoused by their affiliate denomination. I think Dr. Wood had made some great statements about softening the tone of the initial evidence debate and he would make a big stride if he moved away from the current system that requires an anuual signing of acceptance to the Truths. Accountability must exist and there must be an evaluation of how closely pastors hold to the points that are absolutely essential, but there could be a much broader "freedom of the senior pastor" in this area.
January 12, 2008 1:56 PM
ItalEsca said...
I'm an italian reader with a great interest for this blog and also a great interest for the escathology of Assemblies of God. I was surprised just some years oag reading in internet that Assemblies of God of America don't accept any view different from dispensationalism and from pre-tribulationism.
Now I ask:
1)May we do an analogous survey about escatology just like the last one about pneumatology? I think it would be useful to see how greater is the issue about escatology among AoG pastors, much greater than for pneumatology.
2) in italian Assemblies of God at the best of my knowledge I know that a pastor can think something different (for example about predestination or escatology) and keep it for himself. So, for example, you can believe that the tongue aren't the INITIAL evidence of the baptism and keep this idea for yourself. You will teach in your church about salvation like other AoG pastors, about baptism in the water like the other AoG pastors, about fullness of Spirit like the other AoG pastors but you will be a little more quiet about tongues... was I clear?
I'm not sure that this is exaclty the Italian approach, but it could be a half-solution.
Thank you for your reply! I'm a bit confused, however, by your remarks that, on the one hand, my comments "can hardly be refuted," yet on the other hand, that they are misplaced.
I'm also concerned that you have labeled infant baptism and transubstantiation/consubstantiation "heresies." Errors, yes; but heresies? If they are, then Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, and Jonathan Edwards are all, to one degree, or another heretics, which I find difficult to accept.
You wrote: "The Bible forms our doctrine and is the absolute authority of creating doctrine." If you mean by that that the Bible is ultimate and infalliable rule of Christian faith and practice, then you're quite right. But we need help from tradition, reason, and experience to interpret the Bible, don't we? After all, the Bible nowhere offers an canonical list of books to be contained within it. The Bible does not translate itself. The Bible does not perform textual criticism on itself, deciding between which of the multitudinous manuscript variants are most likely original. The Bible also does not always explain itself. That is why, it seems to me, that has always been a debate between the predestination wing of Christianity and the free will wing.
Doctrinal statements, then, are a fallible attempt to make coherent sense of the Bible's teaching. They are second-order speech, merely human speech. The Bible on the other hand is first-order speech, God's own Word in human words.
For the above and a variety of other reasons, we can never get away from the very human attempt to construct accurate doctrinal statements. Nor, I should quickly add, from the need to occasionally revise and reform them.
Thank you for this guest post, Bro. Grabill. I appreciate your comments. I grew up in the A/G (with CA's, Royal Rangers, BibleQuiz, AIM trips, etc.). I have been thoroughly enculturated in the A/G. I have attended an A/G Bible college, and even now I attend an A/G church. As I've heard one pastor describe himself, "I bleed 'AG-positive' blood." (though some would say that my AG-positive blood has been tainted by education at a non-A/G seminary. (^: ) Even though I've been thoroughly enculturated in A/G culture, I've come to disagree with the flash-points of A/G doctrine (eschatology & pneumatology). I feel a calling in my life to study and teach God's word, but because I disagree with with elements of the 16 Fundimentals, I am in a bind, feeling that "catch 22" you mentioned. God "grew me up" in an A/G environment. I am thoroughly Pentecostal in practice and ethos, but because of the finer points of theology, I cannot seek ministerial credentials in the "denomination of my birth." (Not that I believe that being born into any church makes one a Christian, but I hope you get my point.) Can there be a place for me in the theological discussions of the A/G if I cannot be a credential holder? How do I help effect positive change in the denomination that I love?
I've been torn between two poles for some time because of the very dilemma you address, and I very much understand why brothers and sisters would "sign on the dotted line" even though they don't necessarily accept either the spirit or the letter of all sixteen. I planned to do so throughout Bible college (where mentors and friends encouraged me to basically sign with my fingers crossed). I rationalized my intent with postmodern word games and redefinitions of "initial evidence" and "subsequence" (along the lines of Simon Chan's Pentecostal Theology). I also discovered that even at the founding of the A/G there were differences of opinion on the matter (e.g., J. Roswell Flower's distinctives). Still, I knew that I was bucking against what many in current A/G leadership think to be both the spirit (Spirit?) and the letter of the law. A couple of years ago I decided to go with my conscience and do what I could to move the discussion forward without A/G credentials.
I don't believe that my decision to not get A/G credentials has made even a tiny ripple in A/G pond. I wonder, however, if wide-spread conscientious refusal (or even withdrawal) of A/G credentials by many qualified (e.g. theologically educated, and called-to-ministry) "A/G positive" women and men would make enough of a ripple to take notice. While in good standing, these "A/G positives" could not attend General Council as credential holders, but they could potentially attend as lay delegates (depending on the specifics of their local assembly's bylaws). Also, because local assemblies have autonomy, it is not necessary for a pastor of an A/G congregation to hold A/G credentials. If the "conscientious objecting" pastor had a frank discussion with the lay leadership of her particular congregation and it was agreed upon, that minister could, I believe, withdraw her credentials and retain the pastorate. This perhaps may be an "honest" way forward that takes advantage of the A/G being "cooperative fellowship" of autonymous congregations.
I don't believe that my decision is the best decision for every called-to-minister individual with disagreements with the "Fundamentals." But, I wonder if this would send a clear and honest message to our superiors in district and national leadership that the A/G is bigger than what the sixteen points define.
January 12, 2008 4:16 PM
ItalEsca said...
3) I forgot a last question: may we know which denominations the three friends of Lane Douglas choosed after they leaved AoG? I think it could be interesting.
This has been a very interesting and enjoyable thread to read. I appreciate the tone and thoughtfulness of each response and will do my best to contribute in a helpful way.
I'm going to focus on the "integrity" question because it seemed to be the main worry of original post. It is also an issue I deal with on a yearly basis. I realize that it wouldn't be hard for anyone in my home district to figure out who I am, and some of what I say may lead to 'trouble' on my behalf. But, to paraphrase (somewhat tongue in cheek) a man greater and more courageous than I'll ever be, "here I sit, and I can do no other".
First, I think we need to parse out what we mean by 'believe'. It seems to me that many in our tradition (and the general evangelical culture) take "I believe X" to mean something like "I have no doubt that X is true." So when someone asks if I believe in the initial physical evidence (FT 8), they mean if I have any doubts as to the truth of FT 8. If so, then I must check "No." If we consider this for a moment, we'll realize that we almost never use 'believe' in that way in other contexts. If someone asks, "Do you believe OU will beat West Virginia" that doesn't meant I have no doubt (especially if I just learned that 5 starters will not play). I may now have some doubt, and want to have a candid conversation later, yet still believe she is faithful.
So, what I think most people mean in other contexts when they say "I believe X" is something like "My degree of belief that it is true is greater than my degree of belief that it is false." There may be cases where the difference is vast (e.g. believing there is life on Mars versus believing there is not life on Mars) and cases where the margin is much slimmer (believing the Colts beat the Chargers versus believing the Chargers beat the Colts).
With that in mind, I think we should consider, concerning FT 8, if 51% to 49% (in favor of its truth) is sufficient for checking yes. If it is, then that allows for a great deal of questioning and wondering about its truth while still remaining one's integrity when the renewal form comes in the mail. What's really interesting is that this understanding of "I believe X" can help account for a fluctuation in one's noetic structure. Some days my belief that FT 8 is true is much lower than other days. Some days it probably even would slip into disbelief. Then, after thought and prayer, it'll slide back up. Most of the year, I'd say my belief in the truth of FT 8 resides somewhere in the 55-60% range. Many individuals I know that have similar questions/concerns would probably also rather express their belief in the truth of FT 8 along these lines.
Second, I think we need to keep in mind the central role that one's theological upbringing plays in his overall life. A few previous commentors have noted how near and dear the AG is to their lives. If they were to leave it, or turn in their credentials, there would be a significant restructuring forced upon their lives. To some, like me, it is better to remain in a "fellowship" that they love and work to change the elements of it that creates the cognitive dissonances (e.g. the wording of the baptism doctrines, the end times doctrines, or even just the position papers on gambling or alcohol use) than to leave it as soon as I come to believe something slightly different.
Third (and not so much about the "integrity" question), perhaps we should question the insistence on having unchanging fundamental truths. As many have noted above, individuals with greater minds than ours have believed doctrines quite sincerely that we now believe to be false. What makes us think we're the ones that finally got everything right? Did the founders (and subsequent leaders) realize that by setting up 16 Fundamental Truths that are "off-limits" it is implied that those truths are without error? They may not have intended this, but it seems to me to be clearly implied, especially when one considers the refusal of dialogue concerning their truth. Our (the AG) position concerning the Fundamental Truths is not really any different from the Catholic position concerning its teaching -- "Either you believe these essentials or we kick you out." Of course the content of belief and manner of dismissal is different, but the substance seems to be the same. Perhaps in my late night thoughts I'm being uncharitable, but if so, I'm sure the fellow FutureAG bloggers will point that out.
Again, this is a great discussion in which I'm happy to take part. Cheers!
Blasted Blogger! I ended up with a 'post' when I wanted a 'preview'. Please ignore the random sentence at the end of the third paragraph (I changed examples and forgot to delete that part). Sorry.
I see your analytical philosophical training at work in your comments. I always get a kick out of sentences like, "I believe that X." It brings back the good old college days and endless discussions about justification, warrant, certainty, doubt, and other epistemological issues.
Nostalgia aside, I largely agreed with the points you were making. However, several things about this sentence rubbed me the wrong way: "Our (the AG) position concerning the Fundamental Truths is not really any different from the Catholic position concerning its teaching -- 'Either you believe these essentials or we kick you out. Of course the content of belief and manner of dismissal is different, but the substance seems to be the same."
(1) Catholic doctrine actually makes room for a good deal of theological diversity that Pentecostals/evangelicals often don't have in their respective denominations. As far as I know, for example, Catholics can adopt just about any number of eschatological positions; none are mandated by the church. In some Pentecostal/evangelical denominations, that is not the case, however. What's my point? Let's not engage in stereotypes of Catholics in order to score points.
(2) At some point, as I wrote in an earlier response to Lane, a community of faith has to draw boundaries around itself, which let adherents and antagonists know who's in and who's out. Not only does doctrine attempt to interpret reality, not only does it function as interpretive key to Scripture (a grammar of the Divine Language, if you will), it is also serves an important sociological purpose. In light of this, there's nothing inherently wrong with an ultimatum like, "Believe this or we'll kick you out." In fact, such an ultimatum is unavoidable for communities of faith. (Didn't Paul warn the Galatians about the eternal consequences of their heresy, after all?) For me, the only question is, "How narrowly or widely do you want to draw the boundary lines?"
Of the three friends I mentioned, two of them have left the ministry altogether having both experienced pretty severe mistreatment under an Apostolic style leadership model. (Hence a huge part of my passion for team-based ministry). They have sought employment in the secular world to allow themselves time to heal.
The third friend is signing on with a large, independent church in the Midwest yet taking a non-pastoral position. He and I share mutual friendships with the other two friends I mentioned above but take different stances. While I remain in the AG in hopes of influencing change... he left feeling his credentials meant he endorsed a system that hurt his friends. So his resignation of his credentials came out of what he felt was necessary loyalty to his friends.
Not sure if that helps, but it is, as Paul Harvey says... "the rest of the story."
Good post. I appreciated the philosophical take on the "believe" issue and must have said, out loud I'm sure. "If only it were so!" as I read it.
Since I begged for "real evidence" in previous comment lists, it seems this post is forcing me to bring forward more stories than theoretical thought. I just spoke of 3 friends all leaving the AG this year... and now am going to refer to a 4th who never got to enter almost 10 years ago due to a District licensing board that would totally disagree with your post.
Despite growing up AG, and faithfully working in an AG church all through seminary (the same one that jdarlack and I attended)... he was denied credentials due to saying the following at his licensing interview... "I believe in the initial evidence of tongues but feel there may be room for further development in the wording of our FT's." He moved on to get licensed with the CMA.
Later that year, at the First Annual Seminarian Conference in Springfield... myself and another seminarian pleaded his case before the GP. We were told that, though an unfortunate circumstance, Districts do maintain the right to enforce the FT's at differing levels of severity if they so choose.
So this brings me back to you, George, and sort of picks up our previous discussion...
I don't think your question is the "only" question when it comes to building a community of faith. In addition to asking "how narrowly should lines be drawn," ... there needs to be an additional question of "WHO gets to draw the lines?" as well as "HOW will said lines get enforced?"
If the lines get drawn once at the NATIONAL level, and then get re-drawn at the DISTRTICT level... and then further re-drawn at the LOCAL church level ... do we really have a community of faith? Especially when the concept of "faith" keeps getting re-interpreted by different pastors of different hermeneutical persuasions?
Why, oh why, do I use the word "only" when I know you'll point out something "in addition"? Dang!
You're right, of course, that the question of who draws the lines (narrowly or widely) is also important. Indeed, from a practical standpoint, it is very important. Unfortunately, variety in narrowness and wideness is an almost inevitable result of the diffusion of power in the AG. If tightened things up at the national level, we'd have more uniformity. If the national level were wide, so would the district levels. If not, then not. I doubt narrowness would go over well in large swaths of my district, but that's another matter.
It seems to me that one remedy for the problem your friend faced in his credential interview would be relational districts, which could gather around narrowness/wideness in their interpretations of faith and order. That way, a person could remain in a narrow geographical district yet affiliate with a wider relational district.
George
January 13, 2008 6:23 AM
Italian Servant said...
Paul F.,
I worry a little about your definition of faith. I didn't find again the page, but just three days ago I read in www.infidels.org something like this to explain the absurdity of choosing the faith as a way to decide "who-is-in" and "who-is-out" the heaven.
Well, I think the Bible addresses something different from "faith in %": "So I believed, so I spoke" (2 Cor. 4.13); and also all the arguments of letter of James about a faith-that-works.
It's not a problem of "%". You can be sure at 60% or sure at 51% or sure at 99% but the most important thing is: what you'll say? what you'll do?
And so I return to my precedent comment: the problem with the "half-dissident" AoG pastors is this one: if they believe something different from the FTs, they probably will teach and they will consulee and they will work in a different way from the "standard pastors" of AoG (who believe in all the FTs).
Even my escathological thoughts will have an impact on my work in the church.
So maybe the solution is this: keep your doubt for yourself, and keep your different vision for yourself if you are ok to listen someone who defends every doctrine of the FTs and to remain quite. But if instead something inside of you rebels to some idea of the FTs (for example, if you are a strong post-tribulationist) so go away because you can't have a strong relationship with the other AoG pastors. I say a _working_ relationship.
I hope I was useful... I wrote something because I see issues and troubles with "not-black-or-white" definitions of faith.
If I'm not in the right place, and you prefer to remain in a "totally American" discussion, tell me and I'll go away... there's no problem ;-)
P.S. I'm ItalEsca (thanks for your answers Lane!), but I decided to partecipate more often in these discussions and so now I choosed a better nick: Italian Servant
By no means did I intend to stereotype the Catholic church, I just thought the parallel was interesting. I actually have great respect for the Catholic church and wish that more evangelical Christians took seriously the debt we owe her. However, there are certain doctrines that, if you don't subscribe to them, you simply cannot be in the Church (or at least not in "full communion"). I'm mainly thinking of any of their doctrines declared ex cathedra. You're right that they have a lot of room for disagreement, but if you don't believe in the assumption of Mary you can't join or be in full communion with the Church.
I agree that we need to have boundaries drawn, but think they are too narrow. If doctrine are so precise on so many levels (spirit baptism, end times), then the adherents of that doctrine are forced to interpret the Bible through that doctrine. If the doctrines are inerrant then there's no problem, but I don't think anyone wants to seriously endorse the idea that the FTs are inerrant. Again, we need boundaries, but why not have them set so someone that believes in spirit baptism, that the gifts are for today, and all the other "mere Christianity" beliefs, can stay in the fellowship. It just seems odd that someone who believes everything the AG believes except that some people may not speak in tongues until they get to Heaven (I'm pretty sure we won't speak English), cannot remain in the fellowship.
I'm still trying to figure out a way to express a much broader boundary that still sets our fellowship apart from others that aren't much more than non-cessationist. How important is it to separate our views of spirit baptism from others like, say, the Foursquare church? I'm starting to think it's not that important, but would love to hear everyone else's thoughts.
I see your point, but wonder if you agree that using 'believe' as all or none when it comes to doctrine is different from how we use it everywhere else. I think if everyone was honest, they would admit that at points they have some doubt concerning the truth of the 16 Fundamentals. Cashing out 'believe' the way I did allows us to make room for people having varying levels of doubt.
Are you suggesting that 'doubt' and 'unbelief' are the same?
January 13, 2008 7:05 AM
Italian Servant said...
Paul F.,
I start from the point that a pastor says really what he believes; that teaches wath he thinks it's true.
So when a member of the church will ask something about a doctrine, what will he answer? Can he answer with a clear proposition or he'll answer something like "I'm studying yet, I'm in doubt, etc. etc."?
I think a pastor may humbly answer, for example, "the tongues are the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit" also if he has some doubts, only because he has a 51% faith and, above all, he trusts in the pastors of AoG and humbly says "probably they know more than me".
Sinthetically I'm saying that if there is no lie in the mouth of a pastor, the problem is not "doubt or unbelief" but only "what you say".
And I think this is the really problem also for Paul Grabill and generally every "head" of assemblies of God in the world: what are teaching the young pastors? waht do they say in the churches? and in the houses? and in the camps?
I think this is the most important problem, "the proposition problem". Now I'm thinking that there is also a "warmth problem" but it's less important and maybe I'll write something about this after, maybe I won't...
January 13, 2008 7:38 AM
Italian Servant said...
Paul F., George,
my position I think it's clear: it's important to separate from the Foursquare church if this church _works_ differently from AoG. If the different doctrines don't create working differences, so there is no reason to keep a separation approach.
So, what's about the working model of Foursquare church?
LOL!!! Good to know we are on the same page humor wise, George. I often times point things out like the previous post more to inspire dialog from others than to try and debate. (Though I love the debate side as well.)
I was pretty sure you didn't think that was the ONLY question... but it was so, so easy to respond to.
January 13, 2008 9:34 AM
Italian Servant said...
I return about the "warmth problem". Let's think that a pastor chooses a humble-wise approach and instead of saying "I'm in doubt", he says "I agree with all the 16 FTs". I'm thinking to an extreme case where a pastor believes only at 51% to all the 16 FTs. Now, what's about his preaching? there will be any strength? he's doubtful! How can he cry "hey, don't worry church, we won't cross the great tribulation" if he's not sure? he can only say it with a faint, feeble voice.
Well, I think he can be a pastor but he won't be a great pastor.
Going out from the extreme case, I think instead that he can be a great pastor if he has only some doubts about 3 FTs and chooses the "humble-wise approach" for only these items. He could be an extraordinary preacher, an extraordinary adviser
about the other items, but when I'll arrive at the 3 "doubtful" items... well, in the church there is someone else! because in this moment I'm saying in the comments of the previous post that I prefer team-working at the leadership of a church ;-)
This is my thinking about "warmth problem" that I'm sure it's in the minds of Paul Grabill and of the other "heads" of Assemblies of God ("are we growing an academic, doubtful, feeble generations of preachers?").
January 13, 2008 12:57 PM
Nobody Special said...
I really appreciate the honesty of Paul Grabill for getting this out into the open. In response I thought I would at least state the fact that nearly all of my peers and I who are preparing for future ministry and are currently enrolled in AG institutions of higher learning, debate this issue at length often and have been for several years. Some are credentialed already. Of those credentialed, several readily admit to "closing their eyes and holding their nose" when they re-up their credentials. So Mr. Grabill has it right. There is absolutely an unfortunate integrity issue at stake in this argument. The rationale they use, which they readily admit as a rationalization, goes something like what Paul F stated with caveats: I need the AG. I don't agree with everything in the FT's but I was brought up AG, all my significant relationships and connections are within the AG, I love the AG and what it has given me as a heritage. I will hang on and wait for my opportunity to be an agent of change as in insider which affords more opportunity for renovation than any other alternative.
I guess I would characterize their position like any strong Democrat would when having to tolerate a Republican president. They remain devoted to the nation, the constitution and the freedom and liberty it provides. They defend it when attacked and work to get their candidates elected in the future all the while hoping for the country's betterment for future generations. But they do not agree with the policies of the current administration. They would not think of moving overseas. IT's their country, their land. They choose to remain, work hard, pay their taxes, wave their flags on the 4th of July with pride and wait for change. The AG however really doesn't have such a convenient position for many of those conscientious objectors with honest dissenting opinions to remain in positions of influence as ministers.
For me, since I don't have credentials nor do I have an AG legacy, I'm less bound by history and so I struggle only with whether I can swallow all the FT's as they are currently stated. I can swallow that those dealing with the issues at hand(gifts, end-times) may be true. I can even swallow that they are probably true. I respect those who believe they are true. However I can not say they are absolutely the truth and hence should be accepted as the truth for every believer. I can say they appear to have valid, scriptural support, but not beyond some degree of doubt and room for alternative, reasonable interpretations. I can not say I believe to a moral certainty that all the FT's represent God's absolute truth for all humankind. Some of them certainly represent, beyond any doubt of moral certainty, absolute universal truth. Others do not rise to that lofty standard. So I can't sign. But there is no place at this point, where I would rather serve God with my life.
But here is the question I guess my friends and I ask: Why does it matter so much? Why are the FT's elevated to the status of "deal breakers" or worse, conditions of fellowship and relationship? We could certainly have a set of FT's that designate us as biblical followers of Christ without all the details on the splintering dogmatics of our faith. Is it so important that we are designated as "Yankees" or "Mets"? Or is it enough to say we are baseball players from New York? Also remember there are other "deal breakers" too. Drinking and dancing can divide people faster than any of the FT's. Why are we making biblical non-essentials, essentials?
I mean really, I've been around more AG churches than I can count. So few of our church members and even fewer of our faithful attenders have the slightest clue about the FT's. In fact, if we are honest, you can attend a large, growing, fruitful AG church even in Springfield, Mo. for months and never know it's an AG church. It's not on the bulletin, it's not on the sign, it's never been a part of any of the small group discussions. This is not an accident.
I became a member of my local AG church not having to say I believed all the FT's to be truth. They just wanted me to understand what the AG's interpretation's were of key issues in scripture. It was a non-issue. I actually liked that about our church. (That's why I'm posting under a fake name so I don't get my pastor in trouble.)
I am not a pluralist. I believe in absolutes, absolutely. I understand that at the genesis of the AG the Holy Spirit revealed himself in a way that differentiated our movement from others and it was important to maintain that unique impartation. But now that charismatic faith and worship has become more mainstream and Pentecostalism more widely accepted, do we have to stick to such strict delineations? Why is it so important to differentiate ourselves to the degree we begin to exclude the very people who desire to support the movement with lives of service? I get that those that came before us fought hard for legitimacy and were persecuted for their courage and faith. But the toughest thing for any organization, especially the church, is to attract and retain talented people.
I interpreted the survey results not as much as a sign that the integrity of the movement is declining but that the movement should re-evaluate it's theology in light of the requirement to continually contextualize the gospel to a changing, evolving culture. It is essential to routinely determine what distinctives and trade-offs should be re-evaluated. From what I hear, Dr. Woods intends to do just that. I can't wait.
Maybe you care, maybe you don't. Maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't. But I have to say, when the Holy Spirit first drew me to my local Pentecostal church and away from a more conservative evangelical tradition, I was immediately touched by a sense of the Spirit I had never experienced or even knew possible previously. It remains one of the most significant events in my life of which I am very thankful. But because of my religious baggage, the first question I began to ask in my heart was, "Will these people continue to love me if I never meet their spiritual expectations?" Thankfully my pastor made it abundantly clear he would continue to love and accept me just the way I was whether I spoke in tongues or displayed any outward manifestations of sign gifts or not. Many months later, in the early morning quite of my devotion time, and much to my surprise, I began to pray in another tongue. Was this the first sign in my life of the indwelling of the spirit? No. Do I believe in the sign gifts? Absolutely! Was their previous fruit in my life? Yes. How can I testify to anything different? Why would I want to? Am I saying my experience trumps the FT's? No. But is what I experienced and witnessed first hand a fundamental truth for me? Yes, it has to be. To admit to anything else would be less than honest. But to have that disqualify me from serving God in this great movement is perplexing to me.
But so be it. I trust God to do abundantly more than I could ever hope or imagine in me as well as in the AG whether we work together or separately. I simply want to point out that, in my opinion, based on my experience with the future generation of leaders in training for the Kingdom of God, the AG is losing some very dedicated, talented, spirit filled ministers of the gospel because of what I see as a non-essential technicality. Others will simply wait out the hardliners and with grace and patience, like my pastor, do what Jesus would do.
I admire those with that patience and I respect the grace God has given them to wait. I understand the integrity issue. But I also liken their devotion to a military officer ordered to complete a task they know is not in their best interest nor that of the soldiers under their command. They grin and bear it as a sacrifice, holding back their own personal convictions for the betterment of the greater good. The movement is in good hands if these young, brave and patient leaders can last.
Nobody Special raised some interesting questions in my mind about the Statement of Fundamental Truths. (1) To sign up for ministerial renewal, can you believe that the 16 FTs (especially articles 7 and 8) are valid interpretations but not necessarily the only intepretations of Scripture? (2) In light of the fact that many members of AG churches are Charismatic in theology and practice, but not classically Pentecostal, can we recognize that there are layers of importance within our 16 FTs. For example, no one could be a member at my church without believing in the Trinity, but postmillennialists are okay. (3) What do we gain by being theologically specific, and what do we lose? The narrower one's doctrinal statement, the greater the identity of the church; the looser the doctrinal statement, the more people who can in good faith sign it. I think we should recognize that there are trade-offs both ways in how narrow/wide our doctrinal statement is.
January 13, 2008 8:06 PM
Anonymous said...
I deeply appreciate the intelligent and thoughtful remarks of "nobody special." I could hear my own words in what you said.
I am one of those who left the AG. After holding credentials with the AG for about 20 years, I decided to not renew them. My decision was more out of personal frustration with the system than anything else. The list would take too long to process here. I have sinced moved on and dealt with my own issues. I have not left my faith. God has placed us in Christian education in a non-denom school. However we are attending a non AG church. I just could not bring myself to attend any of the AG churches in town. We wanted something different.
I think I still have friends in the AG, but our lives are busy and we do not communicate. Having been raised in the AG, it still holds a special place in my heart. I am glad to see the open and frank discussion on this board. The depth of the comments and shared experiences are encouraging.
I am surpirsed that it has gone on this long. The conversations that are going on here were conversations that I would have with only a few close friends back in the day. The success of this dialog speaks to the need for it to continue.
Wow, what a discussion. It is nice to be able to talk about this, and you are all incredible philosphers with great minds.
I must confess I am not much of a philosopher. I am an ag pastor. Have been for 16 years. I love the ag. There are a few things, mostly matters of "order" not theology, that bug me about the ag, but not that much. I figure that no matter what denomination/fellowship I might belong to, I would not agree with absolutely 100% of their beliefs or practices; but with the ag, I believe in a vast, vast majority.
When I get my annual license renewal, I happily check my theology boxes with their correct answers. What do I believe about the initial physical evidence? I'll tell you what I believe - I believe I'm not real sure about the absolute dogmaticism of tongues as initial physical evidence. It is not that I disagree with it, it is just that I am not as absolutely certain or dogmatic as my friends in Springfield are. Do I pretend to know the absolute, 100% truth regarding this matter? No. I'll add that to the dozens of other things in Scripture that I don't fully comprehend. As a Christian, and even as a Pastor, I do not feel uncomfortable with answering questions with "I don't know?" Do I feel like a liar or cheat by signing my credential form? Never. I am in this thing for a much greater cause than theological details.
I am called by God to be a Pastor. The way I see it, I am called by God to preach the Word, love people, win souls, equip believers, etc. Do I preach on the baptism in the Holy Spirit? Regularly. And I preach the traditional ag stance with tongues as evidence. (Although I don't emphasize tongues as the "main thing" of the whole experience, but just one of the wonderful byproducts of this incredible gift.) And I have seen God fulfill His promise to fill folks and to give tongues.
The thing is, and I am sure I am coming across as a real simpleton here, is that sometimes I think we are struggling to answer questions no one in the real world is asking. In my humble opinion, Jesus' main mission was to "seek and save that which is lost" and I think that should be the church's as well. The Baptism in the Holy Spirit is true and real and wonderful, but even in the book of Acts it was not the apostle's main message, salvation was. When, and why, did Pentecost become our "distinctive doctrine?" And why does distinctive seem to be interpreted as "most important?"
In my pastoral experience, normal, common, run of the mill people are not wrestling with if tongues are the initial physical evidence. They are wrestling with how to find hope for their lives and marriages, how to fine purpose in their lives, deliverance from sin, and a practical down to earth way to follow the Lord each day. This does come through Jesus, and even through the power of the Holy Spirit. But do we realize, or does it matter, that we may be the only ones who are splitting these theological hairs? (Obviously a Pastor, not a theologian or philosopher here, forgive me.)
I am not criticizing this debate at all. It is a good discussion, and definitely needed. I just felt the need to give it just a little context from the local ag church on the corner.
Well, I feel better getting that off my chest. I appreciate this site, all of your great comments, the good debate, and I will keep reading, and attempting to digest.
All my other posts have a tendency to be very lengthy. This one is short. I just want to say "thanks" for posting. Your honesty and transparency have inspired me tonight.
Lane
January 13, 2008 8:53 PM
Wonderer said...
I, too, appreciated what "nobody special" had to say.
Why is the doctrine of initial physical evidence so important as to exclude devoted followers of Christ to "official" service within the confines of AGdom who believe it is A valid interpretation (but acknowledgment is given to those interpreters outside of the convinced) of the different passages of Acts that support it?
George said:
"The narrower one's doctrinal statement, the greater the identity of the church."
I agree with this statement...but why do we need to distinguish ourselves as more unique than any other Spirit-filled believers who differ in their interpretation?
How infallible are our interpretations anyway? Should the doctrines that guide us be as specific as we have made them?
If the AG wants to make the most impact for the Kingdom of God...shouldn't we be exclusive only about the things Christ was exclusive about (ie - his identity as God)?
January 13, 2008 9:12 PM
another opinion said...
I appreciate the perspectives of all bloggers on this issue. I have also had many discussions on these issues. I know many who admit to signing to retain their credentials even though they do not agree. I find myself in the category of one spirit filled follower of Jesus who has been called to ministry. Although God has brought me to this denomination and I would like to stay, I see the writing on the wall. I will not be able to pursue credentials here. I would not be able to sign the form with integrity.
I hope that the A/G will prayerfully consider the comments and sentiments expressed here.
George Wood's comment inspired me to join in the blog. He wrote, "The narrower one's doctrinal statement, the greater the identity of the church..." This statement warrants some thought. Should our identity rest in doctrinal statements? Is my identity in Christ or the FT's? Do we consider the "initial evidence" to be what makes us distinct as Christians or should we instead focus more on transformation into the image of Christ and the fruit of the Spirit? I think we need to reevaluate what we are fighiting for.
January 13, 2008 9:16 PM
Nobody special said...
Elton,
I sense your wounds. I'm sorry for that. Really, I am, even though I know I can't do anything about it other than acknowledge your past pain.
Thanks for being open and honest. You certainly do have friends in the AG. I'm one. I know that's not much consolation but I hope you sense God moving in the AG to change some of what you were concerned about all along. I think that could provide you at least dome degree of validation.(not that you are looking for it.)
Elton's situation makes me wonder about a possible silver lining around this cloud. One that I, Elton, "another opinion" and others might just find consolation in. Perhaps God desires us to take our "not quite up to par" pentecostal beliefs as seed to another not so pentecostal denomination or movement. Perhaps, like Elton, we will always have a dear place in our hearts for what God gave us in the AG, but our task will be to take that depth of experience to a drier place that has not yet experienced the river of his grace, provision and love. That would be OK with me.
I guess, in the meantime, I just have to get over the human emotions of being politely ostracized. It is painfully ironic to realize that the AG has deemed me somehow unworthy or unfit to be a minister as a direct result of my experience with the gifts these same people helped me to discover. I feel like I am being rejected on the very same issue that originally drew me to them. The blessing seems to have come with a minor curse. That is hard for me to reconcile emotionally and relationally. But I will and I can because I don't have much choice and God is good.
January 13, 2008 9:58 PM
Marvin J. Miller said...
It's been a while, since I posted, but this has been a good discussion. I have been in the AG since age 9 and have a complete buy in to everything -- RR, JBQ, Missions, etc. But my early years were steeped in Lutheran & Reformed tradition during the charismatica renewals of the 1970's which heavily influences my perspectives on the FT's (particularly eschatology & pneumatology). I consider them home, a base to start from in intellectual questioning. But my other backgrounds offer a different lens which influences how I do ministry within the context of the AG church I am part of. I choose to stay part of the AG because my "church cultural" identity lies there -- I would be lost anywhere else. Perhaps I didn't pay too much attention in my polity class, but I understood back then that there was a lot more lee way present 15 years ago - at least in SoCal. I remember when another Pentecostal denomination in the early 1990's severely cracked down on their distinctives, causing many to leave.
We are at a identity crossroads. I noticed Dr. Wood's comments in the TPE today about our 94 year old denomination. I think we on this blog clearly see it. In my travels, I've been in many different AG churches around the country and this would be a very new concept for them. Many in the laity think that their local AG church is the norm, not realizing the vast differences scatter throughout the country. Many probably couldn't even tell you the 16 FT's.
If we argue that the FT's are essential to us as a fellowship, but 99% of our congregations don't know what they are, what is their purpose? Most of those FT's were done in specific response to particular controversial practices in the early days and are culturally irrelevant today.
I would agree its time to re-examine the 16 and come up with less that still maintain the core of our identity and our pentecostal mission, yet encourage the next generation in creative practices.
Until then, I consider the 16 FT's like the Pirate code of Morgan & Bartholomew -- more as guidelines.. Savvy?
The 16 Fundamental Truths as a "pirate code"? Shiver me timbers!
January 13, 2008 10:52 PM
Italian Servant said...
George,
(1) YES, to sign up for ministerial renewal, we can believe that the 16 FTs are valid interpretations but not necessarily the true intepretations of Scripture. It's a "now I don't know" philosophy, but I'll continue to seek for the Truth, and I'll find it.(2) YES, we can recognize that there are layers of importance within our 16 FTs and this is useful because not all the biblical truths have the same impact in my life (3) If our doctrines are true, we gain a lot of things by being theologically specific, not only the identity of the church ("the truth makes you free"); I think we need "theologically specific" ministers and instead we can be wider and tolerate the members of the church and so have more people in good faith that sign it (I'm saying, NOT the pastors).
There are no examples in the bible of someone who can say "I'm baptized in the Holy Spirit" without speaking in other tongues. Charismatic thinking opens to a subjective-relativistic spirituality. Maybe I'm wrong but we need to trust that we can achieve the Truth speaking together, praying the Holy Spirit and reading the Bible. Maybe someone in this blog can convince me that my interpretation is not so sure, but if we don't have faith not only in the absolute but also that WE CAN ACHIEVE THE ABSOLUTES ("He will guide you in all the truth") we are in a dangerous position that opens to a lot of other problems.
When we read "He will guide you in all the truth" are we believing and trusting it? and are we believing in a propositional truth or in a new-age/ mystic/ liberal truth? Body of Christ, don't joke with these things...
Italian Servant
P.S. If I seem a little strange with some phrases, it's probably because my english is not so good to clearly define the tones of my comment
January 14, 2008 3:03 AM
Italian Servant said...
MMM... I need to add an item. In Italy we don't have Vineyard churches and charismatic trends didn't touch our churches. We still have (until today) a strong absolute classical pentecostal approach. So I need to ask for some evidences. Do you know someone who absolutly doesn't speak other tongues but it's exactly the sterotypical pentecostal man of God? a miracle-maker, anointed preacher, optimus evangelist? If you know him, I need to learn something more about this issue... tell me!
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 3:53 AM
Italian Servant said...
ebagpastor,
probably someone is laughing because this is my third consecutive post, but I have an analitical mind (I've a Physics degree) so I write with just one or two ideas, then I think to the context again and I find other reasons to write.
I hope that my way of dibating and discussing is not boring but useful andeasy to understand. If that's not right, please tell me.
I'm sure that the members of your church are wrestling with other everyday issues but if we want to continue the discipling mission that God gave to us and make that "all people are perfect beside God" (Colossesi 1.28) we _must_ give to the members of the church the elements to undestand what it means to be "witnesses" of Christ. Having good spiritual health, having clearness in my mind and also in my heart means that I know if I need something else after my new birth or not at all and I need to know which is the way to receive it and also which is the way to be sure I got it.
Probably I'm not able to fully understand the pains of a lot of members of the church, but too many believers are too busy with their problems and their personal struggles and they forget the call of the mission, that crosses the baptism in the Holy Spirit with initial tongues.
Pratically, I'm saying that we _need_ surely a clear, strong theology of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, stronger than what I saw until today in our Assemblies of God (Italian, American, French... etc.).
As I've been reading through the list, it seems that we are possibly missing the "core" of something in our discussion. When George stated that the more narrow the doctrinal lines, the more distinctive the identity, he was 100% correct. Whether you agree with how narrowly WE draw the lines, the precept is still correct.
What we are missing is this... our distinctiveness is NOT that we believe in tongues as the initial evidence, although many, many pastors have so overbearingly preached on it that it certainly seems like it is. Our distinctiveness as a movement is that we believe Christianity has to be lived out in the empowerment of the Spirit as opposed to simply the reception of the Spirit at the moment of justification. This is our distinctiveness.
As such, we believe that our people HAVE to be people living in the empowerment of the Spirit. That begs the obvious question... how do you know if they are or not? Actually... it begs an even more important question which is "How do THE PEOPLE know when they have received Spirit-empowerment?"
Our answer, as a movement, is that the possession and practice of a prayer language is the identifying mark. In other words, our distinctiveness is found in FT #7 of which FT #8 is the identifying evidence.
Now, you may completely disagree with the "initial evidence" doctrine, but two sets of questions emerge that you have to then answer:
SET #1 - RE: TONGUES
====================
1. If you disagree with the initial evidence doctrine, do you disagree that it is the initial evidence in the sense that there are OTHER initial evidences? (This is where I said I was still researching and possibly different from others.)
2. Or do you disagree that tongues signifies anything at all?
SET #2 - RE: SPIRIT EMPOWERMENT
============================
1. Despite your view on the initial evidence, do you still agree that Christianity has to be lived out through a life of empowerment of (as opposed to the reception of ) the Spirit?
2. If you answered "yes" to #1, then what solution do you give as a means of identifying potential leaders and helping followers seek it other than tongues?
3. IF... IF... you answered "no" to #1, then you definitely are at odds with the very foundational and distinctive belief of our movement.
All that being said, I want to make sure that we are on the same page. Spirit-empowerment subsequent to Spirit-reception as the means to successful Christian living is our distinctive... not "tongues as the initial evidence."
My personal opinion is that we should draw the line around FT #7 and leave FT #8 open for a divergence of opinion and discussion. What do you think?
January 14, 2008 6:12 AM
Italian Servant said...
I agree with the fact that FT #7 is more important than FT #8, because FT #8 has no meaning without FT #7, but I think there is no space in the Bible reading to have any position different from tongues-as-inital-evidence.
Spirit-empowerment subsequent to Spirit-reception as the means to successful Christian living is _NOT_ our distinctive... because you can find this view also in a lot of charismatic areas that are different from AoG.
And there's also the problem that theologian like Gordon Fee (AoG) sees baptism in the Holy Spirit as Spirit-reception (at the best of my knowledge).
Lane, Great post! I couldn't agree more with your assessment that the AG distinctive has been (and should be) FT 7. That's the message we need to "get out" to other people.
In response to your second set of questions (I'm still unsure about the first set), I'm very confident that the answer to #1 is yes. Regarding #2, I think leaders should look to rely on those that exhibit the fruits of the spirit.
If a person exhibits qualities of a mature Christian, then leaders should feel comfortable relying on that person as they see fit. We know that using speaking in tongues as a test produces a lot of false positives already (many immature Christians speak in tongues a lot), so why not eliminate that test to begin with and rely on other more sound tests (exhibiting fruits of the spirit)?
Again, great post.
January 14, 2008 6:58 AM
Italian Servant said...
Well, I want really to understand the nature of the issue: WHY WE HAVE MANY PROBLEMS TODAY with the classical doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit?
I can think to four reasons:
1) Biblical problems: that's ok, but I want to hear them;
2) Experience problems: I can understand them, but I can't agree: if you have some super-evangelical friend, surely I understand you have doubts about the baptism in the Holy Spirit with tongues, but you must however try to understand everything better with the Bible;
3)Relational problems: interdenominationality is surely a struggle for pentecostals, maybe everything can be easier without our FT #8; but I totally disagree about this one as a good reason for a weaker FT #8;
4)Result problems: I fear this one could be the real reason, when I saw that 70% of the AoG members don't speak in other tongues. It's everything easier if we don't have this problem of tongues... isn't it? Is the Word Standard too high for us and so we are trying to do it "soft"?
These are my _questions_,NOT my _answers_ but I really would like to understand the issue, because I'm young and we know in Italy that when a trend is in AoG of America, then it will arrive to us after 10-20 years.
Curiously,
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 7:13 AM
Italian Servant said...
Paul F.,
maybe it seems so but I'm not trying to obtain a "shut up" answer :-D! I need again to express my disagreement.
Which is the biblical relationship between mature Christians and baptism in the Holy Spirit? and what about baptism in the Holy Spirit and fruit of the Holy Spirit?
I'm sure that every Christian can be a good man, full of fruits, a "mature" christian _without_ baptism in the Holy Spirit (I think to Billy Graham or Spurgeon).
I don't see that Paul says in Galathians "if you want fruit of the Spirit, let's wait for the baptism".
But the baptism in the Holy Spirit means _potentially_ power in evangelism and signs and wonders. Means special anoyinting to be useful for others. This is why Jesus said "wait for the baptism" in Acts 1. And in which way it arrived? with tongues.
I don't want for the future assemblies of God full only of mature christians (I can go into a lot of other denominations); I don't want assemblies of God full of christians that SAY they were spiritually empowered but it's only a joke (I can go in Charismatic churches of various kind). I want (and I hope that WE want) assemblies of God full of Christians that are REALLY empowered. So we need tongue as clear evidence. Without any doubt.
Stubborn,
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 7:29 AM
Shibboleth said...
What classical Pentecostals believe today about speaking in tongues is not what they believed at the beginning of the movement. They believed that speaking in tongues would allow them to take the gospel to foreign cultures without learning the languages. Some would argue that the Acts record was written for third-generation Christians who needed to be reminded about the Spirit-empowered beginnings of Christianity. None of us currently believe that we will be granted spiritual abilities to speak other languages without going through language schools today. It's as one author suggests, the "last word" or the "lost word" that we hang our denominational identity on. I wish Pastor Grabill would be more concerned with issues of integrity like pride, arrogance, and self-importance that often characterize our leadership. Ask one doctrinal question on the annual form: "Do you believe in the full empowerment of God's Spirit as recorded in the book of Acts?" Stop the 'Shibboleth' vs. 'Sibboleth'parsing that demonstrates a lack of integrity and charity in our ranks.
It is misleading to write, as you did, that early Pentecostals "believed that speaking in tongues would allow them to take the gospel to foreign cultures without learning the languages." Some early Pentecostals did in the earliest years of the movement, but that belief in missionary xenolalia was quickly laid to rest by practical experience. Consequently, the rest of your argument ("None of us believe...") is effectively a straw man argument. Finally, you seem to insinuate in your final sentences that Paul Grabill is more concerned with the integrity of people signing credential renewals than with the integrity issues facing our leaders. (a) How do you know that? (b) Grabill was simply writing a post about something on his heart. The fact that he didn't address the other issues simply means that it wasn't within the scope of his post. No more, no less.
Critiques of AG leadership have gotten plenty of press on this blog. Given the amount of criticism directed at our doctrinal statement, Grabill simply thought it important to raise the question of the ethics of people who sign the statement. If we're going to constructively critique our leaders, we ought to be prepared for a little pushback, don't you think. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
George
January 14, 2008 8:57 AM
David Letterman said...
Top Ten Reasons To Sign My Credential Renewal Form
2. It allows me membership to an organization with the average age of Moses
3. Discounts at Radiant Bookstore!!
4. Sectional events............they change my life and ministry
5. Voting rights to change the term from "and" to "or" in the District Bylaws
6. Tuition discounts for my kids at an A/G college.........oh wait we don't get that
7. The right to complain constructively about my concerns to my District Superintendent without reprisal....oh wait, we don't get that either.
8. Discounts at GPH!
9. Tax deductions for paying my dues like a good little soldier
10. A national health plan.........dang, we don't get that one either!! 1. I get that good looking card with the 1-800 number on it for quality counseling when I am in trouble
Bro. Grabil’s seems to be challenging us to decide whether people who are holding credentials with the A/G but do not espouse # 7 and # 8 of the FT are being disingenuous, and if so, why are they doing so. I believe that the question is valid, but I also feel that there is a component being missed in the answers. We are not going to helpfully address this issue if we force ourselves between option 1. “These guys have a moral problem,†or 2. “The A/G bullies people into submission.†It seems to me that part of the problem lies in how more traditional ministers are approach the FT and how younger guys are using it.
I hold to the classic A/G position on initial evidence, comfortably and strenuously. But I find that a core problem for me is in how we are to relate to the 16 FT. We have a document called fundamental truths that really is a mixture of fundamental truths in some cases and emphases in others. Some of the FT are merely restating orthodox Nicene creedal forms. All good; all fundamental. Other parts are focused upon things that the early A/G ministers wanted to focus upon as a movement. In my view - all good; hard to consider fundamental. Notice, for example, that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is more clearly spelled out in the FT than is the personhood of the Holy Spirit, a doctrine of sanctification, gifts, regeneration, sealing, etc.
If a pastor were to simply teach through the FT, his congregation would not be well grounded unless he added much exposition. So, whether we like it or not, we do not use the FT as a statement of foundational truth and fundamental doctrine in daily the life of the church. Instead, we use it as something that sometimes deals with fundamentals and sometimes deals with emphases and interpretation. Pastors push the fundamentals but do not focus as much attention on the parts that they see as merely being early A/G emphases.
So a pastor who doesn’t see #7 or # 8 as fundamental will relate to it as having little more influence than an A/G position paper which he knows has little binding influence in most A/G churches. In one way, this situation is like my marriage. It is fundamental to my wife and me that we not have other lovers. We agree we both have signed on the dotted line. However, try as she might, she can’t get me to see some of her big complaints as fundamental. That whole picking up the socks things is an emphasis, not a fundamental. I don’t feel I am being somehow dishonest to say to her “I love, Babe.†Even when I know that I did left my socks in front of the hamper again.
I am in full agreement that integrity is an issue and people should be more thoughtful in signing the papers if there disagreement with the so-called cardinal doctrines (#8 in this case).
Certainly there are some who are "born and reared" AG folk who have the culture in their blood and would be lost anywhere else yet have issues with any of the four cardinal truths (#8 in this case) but feel called to minister but can't and don't know where else to go.
I agree too that the women in ministry issue and the issue of eschatology keep (not a few) people from signing the papers than the issue of tongues per se though that is an issue too.
A pastor in the SGF area on the one hand insists no one can receive the Holy Spirit and not speak in tongues and yet on the other hand draws the line as women as senior pastors and does not think it is biblical. The man should be the sole visionary and leader of the church. If this is the case why is he in the AG when the AG fully supports women as senior pastors. (he is not alone on this issue - I knew students at the AG Seminary who were the same way) (wasn't there a man who "went to the mic" at GC and tried to say the church is dying because we have women ministers?).
In regards to eschatology I personally see very little support for the dispensensational pre-trib view of end-times in the Bible.
If only folks would realize the Apocalypse is not a "road map" to end times. Apocalyptic literature is just not like that at all. I am in agreement with a professor at the seminary in leaning more towards being historic pre-mil (but myself teetering on the edge of amil).
but I digress...
January 14, 2008 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...
Great discussion. My comment has to do with the amount of "slang" I read in these blogs. I am a layperson just wondering if this is acceptable vocabulary for AG ministers now.
January 14, 2008 1:36 PM
99% agree said...
Pastor Gabrill, thank you for you sincere post. I have a great deal of respect for you and all that God is doing through your ministry.
I want to first state that I love being a part of the cooperative fellowship of the Assemblies of God. I respect and honor those that God has placed in leadership on both the district level and General Council level. However, I like many of the people who sign their papers each year doesn't agree with 100% of the 16 FT. The one I wrestle with is of course speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
I do believe however, it is an initial physical evidence of the Baptism of Holy Spirit. Now with that being really my only dividing point with the 16 FT, should I surrender my credentials? I hope not. Does this say I have no integrity? If you say yes to either of these, this is where I feel where the collapse of the AG will begin, because you will be alienating a lot of capable men and women from ministry just because they don't adhere to 16 FT.
I make no apologies if I don't hold on to the 16 FT as high as God's Word, God's Word is my ultimate authority and not 16 FT. I believe everyone of us agrees with that.
I feel I am called by God into ministry, I also feel that I have been confirmed by man for this great calling.
I totally agree with Pastor Darrell's observation.
Just my thoughts on this post. Thank you for allowing us to share. I appreciate the ability to be able to use a nickname for fear of having my credentials stripped from me for not agreeing 100% with the 16 FT.
January 14, 2008 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...
Lane, January 14, 2008 6:12 AM,
I agree tongues is the initial physical evidence but am probably with Flowers in that it is the "primary" physical evidence but not necessarily the "immediate" evidence. But if I understand things, this is at variance with cardinal doctrine #8), or no?
I personally think more people experience it as a delayed experience than those who experience it as an immediate experience. But that is my opinion.
Italian servant (January 14, 2008 7:13 AM) wants to know why there is so much debate over tongues? I personally believe it is because of the influence of Evangelicalism, which often (more or less) downplays the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer (and downplays the role of miraculous spiritual gifts). The students at the AG seminary read few if any Pentecostal books - most are books and articles of evangelical flavor - so while it is a pentecostal seminary - the training is more or less evangelical.
Also, there is the influence of getting an eddymacation, the more edjmacated one is, the more open one tends to be of other viewpoints and there is less tendency toward doctrinal dogmatism.
One other thing, more and more folks are coming to and joining AG churches that are more nondenominational in feel (ie: JRA) and few if any attend for years and hardly know what the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is since it is rarely preached. Though there is a spectrum where some over preach it and others hardly preach it at all.
That is my opinion.
January 14, 2008 2:00 PM
Italian Servant said...
Anonymous (the last one),
just few moments before I read your post, I was saying with the comments on the post about church-leadership that our problem is educational. You confirm me.
But, that's fun, I'd understand these problems in Italy because we don't have Ev-freers or Vineyard churches, and so an anti-cessationist not-pentecostal evangelical believer has no-good-denomination here, but I totally agree on theological reasons with Brother Grabill that if an American believer (pastor or not) prefers Lane's distinctive ("Spirit-empowerment subsequent to Spirit-reception as the means to successful Christian"), he is a Vineyardite, not a Pentecostal!
In fact I thought that the three friends of Lane had became Vineyardites... this is why I asked.
It's fun because we don't have these problems in Italy because we have a very easy, almost literalistic hermeneutics and so it's not common that someone attacks tongues. YOU have, but why?
There is another denomination that already has these simply theological lines: that's all for you. Let Assemblies of God for the narrow, strict (but I say stronger) minds...
(I'm joking, I don't want to really hurt anybody)...
I really love this sort of thing. I love the forum, the open discussion, the back and forth, the tete-a-tete. I used to participate in the Chi Alpha Idea Exchange until I single-handedly shut it down with my clever reparte (actually, I don't know why they shut it down, but it could have been partially my fault). Like I said, I really hate this sort of thing. So I just want to ask some questions.
If tongues is not the initial physical evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, then why was it the only manifestation consistently reported in the Acts?
If tongues is not the IPE of the BHS, then why did the Jews say of the Romans, "they received just like we did," when they heard them speaking in tongues?
If tongues is not the IPE, then what other measure should be used to determine whether or not someone has the BHS?
Is it even important to determine that someone has the BHS? For that matter, is it even important to determine that someone is saved, and what measure do we use for that, and where did that measure come from?
It has long been my observation that those within the AG who argue against the IPE are people who have actually experienced it for themselves, which in my mind creates an even greater division within our ranks when we start telling people, "OK, I speak in tongues, and I have spoken in tongues ever since I got the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, but it may not be for you."
January 14, 2008 2:59 PM
Italian Servant said...
mmm,
just another thing: it's clear from the last comments that with my four-options comment about "why someone dislikes tongues" I didn't think to a problem of "friendship". It seems to me that Paul and Lane simply want more believers inside of AoG. Probably they have a lot of charismatic friends and they say "why can't we work together? only for a stupid, little statement number 8? We could have bigger Aog Fellowship without this shibbolet". But so why don't forget also the empowerment issue and create a bigger Christian-at-all-denomination? I think that the real solution for the need of love and friendship and useful relationship is in a good interdenominationality (this could be another good argument for a post, take this note please George ;-)). We can work together in a lot of areas with every kind of Christian Believer. We don't need a common denomination. In other words,there is another community of faith that is surely bigger than AoG or other denominations.
On the other hand it seems to me (about JRA) that statistically pentecostal churches grow faster than charismatic ones (and I think because WE are really empowered... yes, I look like an arrugant believer but also if I study a lot of the other trends, I have the illness of "doctrinal dogmatism" :-)).
I think I said really all I wanted to say this time, that's all,
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 3:02 PM
Italian Servant said...
Oh Casey Stafford,
you are so strict and close-minded: read this: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200501/200501_heritage_pt1.cfm
For me, the problem is an overemphasis on the initial evidence to the detriment of what my dad calls the substantial evidence. Baptism in the Holy Spirit is about much more than speaking in tongues, as Article 7 of the Fundamental Truths makes clear. But the AG distinctive is initial evidence. Why shouldn't our distinctive rather be the broader evidence of a Spirit-filled life? For me, in summary, the issue is not the truth of Article 8 but the weight our doctrinal statement gives it.
George
January 14, 2008 3:16 PM
Geoff said...
This is an interesting conversation for myself, because I today acquired the application for being licensed in the Assenblies of God Southern Missouri District. Yes, I am here close to the "Blue Mecca" (for those of you who have gone to school here in Springfield. I am student at Evangel and we have discussed these very topics in our classes.
I have a conflict when trying to decide whether I believe Pre-trib eschatology. I guess all I can say is that I don't think the answer is very clear in scripture. Also, I don't feel it is over as great an importance as we have made it. I know that my soul has been redeemed by Christ and that I will one day be with my Maker. Whether, I am to be taken away before (pardon the expression) all hell LITERALLY breaks loose on earth, or whether I have to endure the whole thing is of little consequence because I know my stance and my firm and utter devotion to the One I love. Why does this have to be something that I must subscribe to so that I may hold credentials? If it is so unclear in scripture, why must we try and make this a cut and dry case? Especially if it is of little consequence to salvation?
Like I said, I am a student looking for credentials and I know I will be asked questions regarding this and it makes me uneasy.... to say the least
In the spirit of David Letterman (I winced but laughed) and in hopefully another Spirit here are my top 7:
7. The Resurrection of Jesus (without this our faith is meaningless)
6. The Trinity (I think it important to acknowledge who God is both for the sake of truth and for fellowship)
5. The Rapture (Jesus promised to prepare a place for us and I think a cataclysmic world event like this deserves top priority)
4. The Fruit and Gifts of the Holy Spirit (wouldn't it be nice to be known for a balanced diet of fruit and power?)
3. Love for God and People (the summary of all the law per Jesus - oh and wouldn't it be nice to be defined by our love?)
2. The Great Commission (our job description as believers)
and not that it is numero uno in priority, but for the sake of continued discussion...
1. The three new covenant acts that cover us and their covenantal signs we are to experience: Salvation - the Blood of Jesus, Baptism in Water - immersion in water, and the Lord's Baptism in the Holy Spirit - the unknown tongue.
I know this last one is the bone of contention. So...
As far as the Lord's Baptism is concerned, I for one think that because it is the Promise of the Father (singular), marks the birth of the Church (singular event), and is Jesus' baptism (a baptism by definition is a singular event, fillings are multiple events), it should be a doctrinal priority. The unknown tongue (singular as opposed to gifts of different kinds of tongues) as a covenantal sign is worthy of much more discussion and I am not afraid to see it continue.
BTW, I use the term "cover" for a reason, because I believe the Atonement is the central redemptive act that comprises Salvation, Baptism in Water, and the Lord's Baptism. I know there is a lot of different theories out there about it, but for it to be the highest holy day in God's calendar and set apart from Passover there has to be more to it than we give credit. I hope and pray we can discover and develop ways to understand the Atonement in more of its fullest.
I embrace the idea of re-visiting and re-communicating doctrinal truths. I find the idea exciting and frought with adventure (I know there's danger too). Given all the discussion, it will be wise to separate the fundamentals and the distinctives in whatever form our doctrinal truths take. I also think it wise to provide a little wiggle room for our eschatology (thus I didn't put pre-trib, the millennium, and New Heaven etc.).
Your position that tongues can be a delayed evidence (per Flowers) is at variance with the spirit of FT #8. As I said earlier, the most basic interpretation of FT8 holds that, by "initial," we really mean "immediate."
My point earlier up is that many of our FT's allow for variances in interpretation. Since we add the word "physical" to our statement, it means that we are making a distinction between physical and metaphysical evidences. As such... our belief holds that tongues is the initial PHYSICAL evidence but says nothing of what might precede it as a non-tangible.
All that being said, my point is that in order for a "delayed evidence" viewpoint to be at variance with the letter of the doctrine, one of two things have to happen:
1. A comma needs to be placed between the words "initial" and "physical." (Hence, tongues becomes the "initial AND physical" evidence)
2. Change the word "initial" to "immediate."
For what it is worth, I am not in favor of either of these. Just trying to point out the room for personal interpretation.
January 14, 2008 4:25 PM
Revmla said...
David Letterman said it all.
January 14, 2008 5:09 PM
Anonymous said...
George said,
"For me, the problem is an overemphasis on the initial evidence to the detriment of what my dad calls the substantial evidence."
Absolutely! George, your father made a great observation. The overemphasis on the initial physical evidence has overshadowed the more substantive internal evidence of spiritual depth.
As the initial evidence, tongues are merely the beginning of what it means to be baptized (immersed) in the Spirit. The Spirit-filled believer should exemplify not only the gifts of the Spirit, but the fruit of the Spirit.
I do not have a problem with the initial evidence, just the overemphasis and obsession with a mere physical manifestation of an experience that is substantialy deeper and truly profound.
That's my .02 worth,
Elton
January 14, 2008 5:24 PM
Anonymous said...
In our church we teach that tongues is the initial physical evidence - but not the BEST evidence.
I have been reading the Future AG for a while and only recently wrote a couple of comments. Someone said they agreed with me on one of the comments and I was instantly frightened, because I know how little I understand these things. But I wanted to say something - a kind of for the record comment. I believe that working for a Spirit-filled, biblical, loving, and honest Assemblies of God USA is one of the most important things that can be done for the advance of the gospel of Jesus today. I spent 16 years as a missionary and I loved my ministry at AGWM, but felt God calling me back to the USA. Please recognize that as we discuss faults, foibles, failures in our fellowship, we can rightfully do so with broken hearts of prayer as well as open minds. If we can only have one or the other, let it be the former.
January 14, 2008 6:44 PM
Corinthian said...
Please remember:
Tongues in no way indicates the level of spiritual maturity of a believer. A baptized believer may be very spiritually IMMATURE.
My church is a great example. In fact, if my church wasn't so messed up...we would have never received so much correction for sexual sin, etc.
Yet...we were charismatic!!!
January 14, 2008 6:48 PM
Italian Servant said...
Geoff,
I don't believe in pre-tribulationism. So I understand you. If I were you, I'd try to speak with your senior pastor. I can't think that all AoG are so strong about a position that has so many biblical difficulties, even at Springfield high-quarter.
Ah, in Italian AoG Fts, we don't have any clear formulation about escatology in our FTs. Maybe you can come in Italy in
"Guest Blogger: Paul Grabill"
390 Comments -
Uhh...that was awesome. Very cool, Brother Grabill. Very honest, and VERY CHALLENGING. I agree with you, we need to be honest and open with each other and ourselves if we desire to please God and seek His favor and success.
I think it would be powerful, beautiful, and slightly chaotic, but what are the chances of a "Council of Springfield?" Is it time for such an event?
Historically, every other movement HAS had to revisit its doctrine every 100-years. The A/G is numerically due. Is it time for such an event, and will it HELP us?
January 11, 2008 5:38 PM
Every year, I sign my ministerial renewal form in good conscience, having checked the box regarding baptism in the Spirit. But I also believe that it is necessary to revisit our doctrinal statement from time to time to see whether or not we could better express what we believe. I would be interested in hearing some ideas about how AG ministers can in good faith both subscribe to our current doctrinal statement and work for its revision.
January 11, 2008 7:28 PM
Let me split this into two posts to make t more readable. First, my personal stance on this... then, a wider response.
MY PERSONAL STANCE
When it comes to our doctrinal statements, specifically with initial evidence, I find a situation where, in a weird, ironic fashion I find it harder to agree with the spirit of the credential renewal form rather than the letter of it. (Usually in life I find that the opposite is true.) Let me illustrate...
I am asked each year whether I still hold to the 16 Fundamental Truths which, as we all know, really has emphasis on #7 and #8. I say that because if we were to look further down the list to the number of pastors that differ with the AG stances on the end times (and yet sign the renewal form), I think your ethical dilemma would go through the roof. But no one really is that concerned about that since our opinions about differing eschatologies are far more lenient than our stances on pneumatology.
Back to my point, though. When I consider the "letter" of the doctrines, I ask myself whether I agree that tongues is the "initial physical evidence." Since there is no comma between those two words,I place emphasis on the word "physical" and find myself in agreement with the doctrine. This allows room for my personal opinion that there may be quite a few OTHER evidences that come first but which are not physical. As such, I find myself tending to think that J. Roswell Flower was onto something with his opinion that tongues could possibly exist as a "delayed evidence."
However, I am also aware that, based on having heard Tom Trask (and others) personally say it to me and having read their articles, the "spirit" of the doctrine is that tongues is not only the INITIAL but also the IMMEDIATE evidence. And so, at times, I feel as if I am in the ethical bind you described.
But, as I noted above with Flower, I am aware that our founding fathers were, themselves, not fully in agreement on this issue and so I re-sign rather than resign with confidence that I am in agreement with the way it is written... although not necessarily with how others interpret it.
January 11, 2008 8:17 PM
THE WIDER ISSUE
All that being said, Paul... I think the larger issue is not with young pastors finding small discrepancies with the 16 FT. Instead, the problem lies with a movement that wants to enforce regulations like a denomination yet allowing local pastors full autonomy as if we are only a "cooperative fellowship."
I think the same ethical issue should be raised with all the resolutions passed at a GC. If we, as a movement, declare that women should be allowed into leadership... than a local pastor should not have the license to take issue with that and should comply.
Yet upon asking a leading, highly-respected official in the AG that very question, I was told that the beauty of the autonomy in the AG is that it "celebrates the entrepreneurial spirit of the Senior Pastor." I was stunned. How can we take issue with pastors who want to research and develop our 16 FT while fully embracing their right to dismiss any and every resolution passed at GC?
Your question is a GREAT ONE. One that you articulated well. But the root of the issue exposes a major flaw in a movement that wants to enforce things like a denomination but chooses to still act as a cooperative fellowship.
January 11, 2008 8:26 PM
We have it easier than some do in other denominations. In the PCA, for example, there is much less room for deviance than in our movement. So let me go on record as saying that I'm grateful we have as much wiggle room as we do.
So the question seems to be how can you require doctrinal compliance and also allow people the freedom to critique doctrine?
Part of the solution lies in the following observation: you can agree with a statement and not think it should be a law. So it's possible to fully subscribe to initial evidence as currently defined and simultaneously believe that we should reword our definition.
I suspect most doctrinal critique that is accepted comes about this way.
I'll give a personal example: I think we're too nitpicky about eschatology. 4 of our 16 statements are detailed assertions about the end of the world!
When I think about how wrong the scholars of Jesus' day were about the details of his first coming, it makes me not want to get too dogmatic about the details of his second coming.
So even though I sign off on our statement of faith every year, I'd like to see it broadened so that more people can align with us in good conscience.
That's one means by which we can get theological critique from within.
January 11, 2008 8:37 PM
Lane:
I think you're drawing a false dichotomy between "denomination" and "cooperative fellowship." To see why this is the case, ask yourself a simple question: Could a Mormon church join the Assemblies of God? Answer: No. Why? Because it could not "cooperate" or be in "fellowship" with other churches with whom it has a fundamental disagreement in doctrine. Every community of faith, in other words--whether you call it a "denomination" or a "cooperative fellowship"--has certain boundary markers that define (denominate) whether one is "in" or "out" of the community. Enforcing those boundary markers does not necessarily violate the spirit of cooperation. Rather, it assumes that there are ideas, values, and practices which both parties are willing to cooperate about.
Having said that, I agree with you that it's odd (contradictory, inconsistent, unethical?) for churches to be allowed to opt out of recognizing women ministers. On the other hand, I think there is a difference between "doctrine" and "order" within the church, with issues of doctrine requiring more uniformity than issues of order. But that's just my personal opinion (about uniformity, not women's ministry).
George
January 11, 2008 10:15 PM
George...
The clarification is good. I'm using the wrong words to attempt and define what I see as ecclesiastical enforcement in mainline churches as opposed to what we have which is more or less a "hoped for" ideal of uniform agreement.
I'm not sure I agree with you, though, on the distinction of differing importance between "order" and "doctrine." Hopefully the former is developed out of a foundational conviction of the latter. In other words, we pass a resolution stating that our movement will recognize women in leadership BECAUSE we have a conviction that the Scriptures call for it.
For a pastor to say "I do not agree and choose to be different" means that they are placing themselves outside the boundaries of what we, as a "fellowship," have officially declared to be a part of our theological DNA.
If we do make distinctions between "order" and "doctrine,"... then what need is there for a GC and a resolution process? That would mean, based on our system of autonomy for GC-Affiliated churches, that resolutions become little more than "suggestions." If that is true... then attending a GC becomes an incredibly expensive futile exercise. (In my opinion)
January 11, 2008 11:19 PM
Lane, I agree with you that we've had more theological attrition/regression on matters of eschatology than we have in matters of pneumatology, but there is more heartburn, and (now with the unscientific blog poll) more data on the latter than the former. My guest post was prompted by the FutureAG poll on Spirit Baptism. Maybe the brethren will do one on eschatology as well.
It appears to me that there are serious reservations within our Fellowship regarding a full 1/3 of our tenets of faith.
My bottom line is that we cannot go on like this. The longer we go, the more *integrity* regression we will have.
I am praying for an answer that is creative and constructive and doesn't scapegoat people who have honest questions and/or differences, but rather allows people to openly be who they are deep down inside.
January 12, 2008 3:41 AM
So again I ask: Is it time for a "Council of Springfield" to bring clarity to our movement?
I agree with all 16FT, so I'm cool staying AG. But if someones else does not agree with the 16 FT, then I would ask why be an A/G minister and/or an A/G church?
I ask this not with a spirit of antagonism, but curiosity.
January 12, 2008 5:29 AM
Hi Paul...
Thanks for the reply. And I didn't say it when I first responded, but thanks for taking the time to write. I am consistently encouraged and inspired to continue posting when I see people like yourself and George Wood, Sr. willing to read and dialog this blog. So thanks.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last comment regarding seeking for a solution that is constructive, not constrictive. I also agree that our movement cannot keep seeing the regression that we are. I personally have had three friends, all between the ages of 26 and 35, resign the AG just in the last 12 months.
My concern, though, was that (as I read it) your post seemed to take more aim at those openly admitting their reservations about our theology than anything else. I may have read it wrong, and if I did, forgive me ... but it sounded as if you were saying that one of the reasons God may not be blessing our movement is because people are essentially "lying" when they sign their credential renewal form each year. Since He cannot look overlook this, I thought you were saying, He cannot do what He would like among us since we are not people of integrity.
This is what I was taking issue with. Despite whether there might be more heartburn around a certain issue... I don't think God sees it in shades. If a minister signs their form and yet does not agree with #8, well... you're right. They are wrong for doing for that. But if another minister chooses to distance themselves from any of the latter 4... regardless of how much research we have on them ... God would still see it as a lack of integrity and, thus, according to your opinion ... withhold His blessings.
Would you be in agreement with this statement?
January 12, 2008 6:45 AM
Lane, thank you for your questions and for venturing into this minefield. Someone has to. I'm doubting that this stream will set any new records in comments.:)
First, regarding eschatology. It seems to me that we have always given some wiggle room in this area with expressions like 'pan-trib' or 'pan-mil' (i.e., "Trust in Jesus and it will all 'pan' out"). So I don't mind someone holding these areas lightly, however, it seems to me that if they hold contrary positions (e.g., preterist, amil or post mil), then there is a real integrity issue. There is a major difference between light agreement and light or heavy disagreement.
I, for one, have always wondered why the 16FT were all at the same 'level' of authority. It seems to me that "The Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ" trumps the "The Ministry" every time.
Now, back to pneumatology. I don't think is is my role to determine how much wiggle room there is in our current statements. I think that's up to the Credentials Committee/EPs who hear arguments (on every issue) probably far beyond what I have considered, so I won't be presumptious enough (this time!) to try to say where the 'line' is.
That being said (even though the main point of my post was not to say where the line is, but to deal with the Catch-22 of perceptions that those advocating change are going to have to deal with), I did indeed make the point that the lower one goes on the initial blog poll, it seems to me, the greater the concern about personal integrity.
Maybe someone can explain to me how a position of "glossolalia has nothing to do with Spirit Baptism" is consistent with our 16FT, but I can't seem to get my head around that.
So, yes, I think it is legitimate to raise the integrity issue (in reality, and not just in regard to perception), at least for some of our anonymous credential holders.
I really don't want to cause anybody any heartburn, but rather to try to articulate the dilemma in which we find ourselves.
In some ways, now that the cat is out of the bag, I do pray, in some way, this contribution is helpful, particularly in encouraging those advocating change to put themselves in the shoes of those defending the status quo.
January 12, 2008 10:13 AM
Has anyone ever thought of simply going back to the wording Luke uses in the book of Acts to describe this doctrine, and leaving it at that? Why do we have to insist on parsing the doctrine beyond the biblical articulation? Jesus promised the Spirit’s arrival; the book of Acts records multiple times when groups experienced the promised Holy Spirit; the Church received empowerment, people were saved, delivered and healed; no one mentioned the initial physical evidence doctrine. Those who lean more toward biblical theology could live with this; those who desire a more systematic or dogmatic approach would be less satisfied.
I’m not sure Jesus himself would know how to adequately define the dynamic of Spirit baptism (or for that, matter speaking in tongues: real languages? unlearned babble?). And I’m not sure it matters in the least whether we figure it out and articulate it with such razor-sharp precision: e.g., are more people going to get healed, delivered, saved, baptized, discipled because of our doctrinal specificity?
There is a valid and age-old question when it comes to doctrinal considerations: If the Bible does not ask the question (“what’s the initial physical evidence of Spirit baptismâ€), perhaps we ought to resist the temptation both to ask, and to answer the question. And more importantly, we should resist the urge to purge from our ranks people who steadfastly affirm the full empowerment of the Holy Spirit, yet cannot figure out how one Kansas pastor’s question in 1901 became the definitive definition for millions of 21st century Spirit-filled believers.
January 12, 2008 10:56 AM
Anonymous:
It seems to me that the reason we use non-biblical terminology in our doctrinal statements is that doctrine acts as a kind of interpretive key to our understanding of the Bible. For example, the Bible teaches that God is one; that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that the Father is not the Son, the Son not the Spirit, and the Spirit not the Father. The Bible itself doesn't give us terminology to explain how all these realities can cohere logically, so early church fathers invented terms: Trinity, essence, person to explain how the biblical terminology didn't contradict itself or entail absurdities.
George
January 12, 2008 12:01 PM
George,
I think you have given the classic example to Anonymous' response and your statement can hardly be refuted. However, church history also clearly shows how the church has created tenets like infant baptism, elevation of the host (Transubstantiation/consubstantiation), and many other heresies. I think Anonymous makes a great point because clearly we can see how problematic it is to come up with our own creations which do not show a consistent application of Scripture in light of the totality of Scripture. Your assertion that our doctrine is a key to our interpretive method seems misplaced. The Bible forms our doctrine and is the absolute authority of creating doctrine. We as humans have been exposed to various thoughts and schools of influence and this colors how we decide our own interpretive method, however, that does not change the absolute truth of Scripture. No where in the Bible is there any kerygmatic statement affirming the initial physical evidence as the only and absolutely defining indicator of baptism in the Spirit. Paul and others certainly had opportunity, however, no such clear guidance exists. I think a much more honest examination needs to be made regarding Anonymous' statements on the influence of Parham and a much deeper understanding to the origins of the movement that you elluded to in one of your postings. I still am trying to "uncover" what exactly the mysterious puzzle of the development of Pentacostalism as it rose from Lacy to Wesley to Topeka and exploding at Asuza Street. I have yet to read a completely satisfying history that indicates any substantive roots beyond that time...which is why I think a large number of people question the doctrine outside of Pentacostalism...that takes us back to an early understanding of Acts as being an authoritative statement on initial evidence. Wayne Grudem is the editor of a book titled "Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?" that I think would be a good read for anyone who is still mulling through this issue.
January 12, 2008 1:38 PM
Paul,
I think you have certainly brought up a valid point by questioning the integrity of those who question the doctrine as it exists within the Fundamental Truths and still hold credentials. I do not hold credentials precisely because I have not been able to personally have complete acceptance of the 16 Truths. I, like you, struggle with making a heirarchy that says accepting Christ's diety falls at the same level as initial evidence, especially when we then seperate into 4 essential truths.
However, I think there are a number of people who can in good conscience have differing views and still hold credentials. I hope that they put forth those explanations. In large part, I would assert that your personal call can trump any "absolutes" put forth by the denomination. I doubt you would find a significant number of ministers in any denomination that would say they hold to the letter of every belief espoused by their affiliate denomination. I think Dr. Wood had made some great statements about softening the tone of the initial evidence debate and he would make a big stride if he moved away from the current system that requires an anuual signing of acceptance to the Truths. Accountability must exist and there must be an evaluation of how closely pastors hold to the points that are absolutely essential, but there could be a much broader "freedom of the senior pastor" in this area.
January 12, 2008 1:56 PM
I'm an italian reader with a great interest for this blog and also a great interest for the escathology of Assemblies of God. I was surprised just some years oag reading in internet that Assemblies of God of America don't accept any view different from dispensationalism and from pre-tribulationism.
Now I ask:
1)May we do an analogous survey about escatology just like the last one about pneumatology? I think it would be useful to see how greater is the issue about escatology among AoG pastors, much greater than for pneumatology.
2) in italian Assemblies of God at the best of my knowledge I know that a pastor can think something different (for example about predestination or escatology) and keep it for himself. So, for example, you can believe that the tongue aren't the INITIAL evidence of the baptism and keep this idea for yourself. You will teach in your church about salvation like other AoG pastors, about baptism in the water like the other AoG pastors, about fullness of Spirit like the other AoG pastors but you will be a little more quiet about tongues... was I clear?
I'm not sure that this is exaclty the Italian approach, but it could be a half-solution.
Haven't something like this in America?
Sorry for my bad english... thank you...
January 12, 2008 2:35 PM
Dean:
Thank you for your reply! I'm a bit confused, however, by your remarks that, on the one hand, my comments "can hardly be refuted," yet on the other hand, that they are misplaced.
I'm also concerned that you have labeled infant baptism and transubstantiation/consubstantiation "heresies." Errors, yes; but heresies? If they are, then Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, and Jonathan Edwards are all, to one degree, or another heretics, which I find difficult to accept.
You wrote: "The Bible forms our doctrine and is the absolute authority of creating doctrine." If you mean by that that the Bible is ultimate and infalliable rule of Christian faith and practice, then you're quite right. But we need help from tradition, reason, and experience to interpret the Bible, don't we? After all, the Bible nowhere offers an canonical list of books to be contained within it. The Bible does not translate itself. The Bible does not perform textual criticism on itself, deciding between which of the multitudinous manuscript variants are most likely original. The Bible also does not always explain itself. That is why, it seems to me, that has always been a debate between the predestination wing of Christianity and the free will wing.
Doctrinal statements, then, are a fallible attempt to make coherent sense of the Bible's teaching. They are second-order speech, merely human speech. The Bible on the other hand is first-order speech, God's own Word in human words.
For the above and a variety of other reasons, we can never get away from the very human attempt to construct accurate doctrinal statements. Nor, I should quickly add, from the need to occasionally revise and reform them.
George
January 12, 2008 4:08 PM
Thank you for this guest post, Bro. Grabill. I appreciate your comments. I grew up in the A/G (with CA's, Royal Rangers, BibleQuiz, AIM trips, etc.). I have been thoroughly enculturated in the A/G. I have attended an A/G Bible college, and even now I attend an A/G church. As I've heard one pastor describe himself, "I bleed 'AG-positive' blood." (though some would say that my AG-positive blood has been tainted by education at a non-A/G seminary. (^: ) Even though I've been thoroughly enculturated in A/G culture, I've come to disagree with the flash-points of A/G doctrine (eschatology & pneumatology). I feel a calling in my life to study and teach God's word, but because I disagree with with elements of the 16 Fundimentals, I am in a bind, feeling that "catch 22" you mentioned. God "grew me up" in an A/G environment. I am thoroughly Pentecostal in practice and ethos, but because of the finer points of theology, I cannot seek ministerial credentials in the "denomination of my birth." (Not that I believe that being born into any church makes one a Christian, but I hope you get my point.) Can there be a place for me in the theological discussions of the A/G if I cannot be a credential holder? How do I help effect positive change in the denomination that I love?
I've been torn between two poles for some time because of the very dilemma you address, and I very much understand why brothers and sisters would "sign on the dotted line" even though they don't necessarily accept either the spirit or the letter of all sixteen. I planned to do so throughout Bible college (where mentors and friends encouraged me to basically sign with my fingers crossed). I rationalized my intent with postmodern word games and redefinitions of "initial evidence" and "subsequence" (along the lines of Simon Chan's Pentecostal Theology). I also discovered that even at the founding of the A/G there were differences of opinion on the matter (e.g., J. Roswell Flower's distinctives). Still, I knew that I was bucking against what many in current A/G leadership think to be both the spirit (Spirit?) and the letter of the law. A couple of years ago I decided to go with my conscience and do what I could to move the discussion forward without A/G credentials.
I don't believe that my decision to not get A/G credentials has made even a tiny ripple in A/G pond. I wonder, however, if wide-spread conscientious refusal (or even withdrawal) of A/G credentials by many qualified (e.g. theologically educated, and called-to-ministry) "A/G positive" women and men would make enough of a ripple to take notice. While in good standing, these "A/G positives" could not attend General Council as credential holders, but they could potentially attend as lay delegates (depending on the specifics of their local assembly's bylaws). Also, because local assemblies have autonomy, it is not necessary for a pastor of an A/G congregation to hold A/G credentials. If the "conscientious objecting" pastor had a frank discussion with the lay leadership of her particular congregation and it was agreed upon, that minister could, I believe, withdraw her credentials and retain the pastorate. This perhaps may be an "honest" way forward that takes advantage of the A/G being "cooperative fellowship" of autonymous congregations.
I don't believe that my decision is the best decision for every called-to-minister individual with disagreements with the "Fundamentals." But, I wonder if this would send a clear and honest message to our superiors in district and national leadership that the A/G is bigger than what the sixteen points define.
January 12, 2008 4:16 PM
3) I forgot a last question: may we know which denominations the three friends of Lane Douglas choosed after they leaved AoG? I think it could be interesting.
January 12, 2008 4:43 PM
This has been a very interesting and enjoyable thread to read. I appreciate the tone and thoughtfulness of each response and will do my best to contribute in a helpful way.
I'm going to focus on the "integrity" question because it seemed to be the main worry of original post. It is also an issue I deal with on a yearly basis. I realize that it wouldn't be hard for anyone in my home district to figure out who I am, and some of what I say may lead to 'trouble' on my behalf. But, to paraphrase (somewhat tongue in cheek) a man greater and more courageous than I'll ever be, "here I sit, and I can do no other".
First, I think we need to parse out what we mean by 'believe'. It seems to me that many in our tradition (and the general evangelical culture) take "I believe X" to mean something like "I have no doubt that X is true." So when someone asks if I believe in the initial physical evidence (FT 8), they mean if I have any doubts as to the truth of FT 8. If so, then I must check "No." If we consider this for a moment, we'll realize that we almost never use 'believe' in that way in other contexts. If someone asks, "Do you believe OU will beat West Virginia" that doesn't meant I have no doubt (especially if I just learned that 5 starters will not play). I may now have some doubt, and want to have a candid conversation later, yet still believe she is faithful.
So, what I think most people mean in other contexts when they say "I believe X" is something like "My degree of belief that it is true is greater than my degree of belief that it is false." There may be cases where the difference is vast (e.g. believing there is life on Mars versus believing there is not life on Mars) and cases where the margin is much slimmer (believing the Colts beat the Chargers versus believing the Chargers beat the Colts).
With that in mind, I think we should consider, concerning FT 8, if 51% to 49% (in favor of its truth) is sufficient for checking yes. If it is, then that allows for a great deal of questioning and wondering about its truth while still remaining one's integrity when the renewal form comes in the mail. What's really interesting is that this understanding of "I believe X" can help account for a fluctuation in one's noetic structure. Some days my belief that FT 8 is true is much lower than other days. Some days it probably even would slip into disbelief. Then, after thought and prayer, it'll slide back up. Most of the year, I'd say my belief in the truth of FT 8 resides somewhere in the 55-60% range. Many individuals I know that have similar questions/concerns would probably also rather express their belief in the truth of FT 8 along these lines.
Second, I think we need to keep in mind the central role that one's theological upbringing plays in his overall life. A few previous commentors have noted how near and dear the AG is to their lives. If they were to leave it, or turn in their credentials, there would be a significant restructuring forced upon their lives. To some, like me, it is better to remain in a "fellowship" that they love and work to change the elements of it that creates the cognitive dissonances (e.g. the wording of the baptism doctrines, the end times doctrines, or even just the position papers on gambling or alcohol use) than to leave it as soon as I come to believe something slightly different.
Third (and not so much about the "integrity" question), perhaps we should question the insistence on having unchanging fundamental truths. As many have noted above, individuals with greater minds than ours have believed doctrines quite sincerely that we now believe to be false. What makes us think we're the ones that finally got everything right? Did the founders (and subsequent leaders) realize that by setting up 16 Fundamental Truths that are "off-limits" it is implied that those truths are without error? They may not have intended this, but it seems to me to be clearly implied, especially when one considers the refusal of dialogue concerning their truth. Our (the AG) position concerning the Fundamental Truths is not really any different from the Catholic position concerning its teaching -- "Either you believe these essentials or we kick you out." Of course the content of belief and manner of dismissal is different, but the substance seems to be the same. Perhaps in my late night thoughts I'm being uncharitable, but if so, I'm sure the fellow FutureAG bloggers will point that out.
Again, this is a great discussion in which I'm happy to take part. Cheers!
January 12, 2008 9:34 PM
Blasted Blogger! I ended up with a 'post' when I wanted a 'preview'. Please ignore the random sentence at the end of the third paragraph (I changed examples and forgot to delete that part). Sorry.
January 12, 2008 9:39 PM
Paul F.:
I see your analytical philosophical training at work in your comments. I always get a kick out of sentences like, "I believe that X." It brings back the good old college days and endless discussions about justification, warrant, certainty, doubt, and other epistemological issues.
Nostalgia aside, I largely agreed with the points you were making. However, several things about this sentence rubbed me the wrong way: "Our (the AG) position concerning the Fundamental Truths is not really any different from the Catholic position concerning its teaching -- 'Either you believe these essentials or we kick you out. Of course the content of belief and manner of dismissal is different, but the substance seems to be the same."
(1) Catholic doctrine actually makes room for a good deal of theological diversity that Pentecostals/evangelicals often don't have in their respective denominations. As far as I know, for example, Catholics can adopt just about any number of eschatological positions; none are mandated by the church. In some Pentecostal/evangelical denominations, that is not the case, however. What's my point? Let's not engage in stereotypes of Catholics in order to score points.
(2) At some point, as I wrote in an earlier response to Lane, a community of faith has to draw boundaries around itself, which let adherents and antagonists know who's in and who's out. Not only does doctrine attempt to interpret reality, not only does it function as interpretive key to Scripture (a grammar of the Divine Language, if you will), it is also serves an important sociological purpose. In light of this, there's nothing inherently wrong with an ultimatum like, "Believe this or we'll kick you out." In fact, such an ultimatum is unavoidable for communities of faith. (Didn't Paul warn the Galatians about the eternal consequences of their heresy, after all?) For me, the only question is, "How narrowly or widely do you want to draw the boundary lines?"
George
January 12, 2008 10:01 PM
Italesca...
Great having an international voice on the blog!
Of the three friends I mentioned, two of them have left the ministry altogether having both experienced pretty severe mistreatment under an Apostolic style leadership model. (Hence a huge part of my passion for team-based ministry). They have sought employment in the secular world to allow themselves time to heal.
The third friend is signing on with a large, independent church in the Midwest yet taking a non-pastoral position. He and I share mutual friendships with the other two friends I mentioned above but take different stances. While I remain in the AG in hopes of influencing change... he left feeling his credentials meant he endorsed a system that hurt his friends. So his resignation of his credentials came out of what he felt was necessary loyalty to his friends.
Not sure if that helps, but it is, as Paul Harvey says... "the rest of the story."
January 12, 2008 10:52 PM
Paul F...
Good post. I appreciated the philosophical take on the "believe" issue and must have said, out loud I'm sure. "If only it were so!" as I read it.
Since I begged for "real evidence" in previous comment lists, it seems this post is forcing me to bring forward more stories than theoretical thought. I just spoke of 3 friends all leaving the AG this year... and now am going to refer to a 4th who never got to enter almost 10 years ago due to a District licensing board that would totally disagree with your post.
Despite growing up AG, and faithfully working in an AG church all through seminary (the same one that jdarlack and I attended)... he was denied credentials due to saying the following at his licensing interview... "I believe in the initial evidence of tongues but feel there may be room for further development in the wording of our FT's." He moved on to get licensed with the CMA.
Later that year, at the First Annual Seminarian Conference in Springfield... myself and another seminarian pleaded his case before the GP. We were told that, though an unfortunate circumstance, Districts do maintain the right to enforce the FT's at differing levels of severity if they so choose.
So this brings me back to you, George, and sort of picks up our previous discussion...
I don't think your question is the "only" question when it comes to building a community of faith. In addition to asking "how narrowly should lines be drawn," ... there needs to be an additional question of "WHO gets to draw the lines?" as well as "HOW will said lines get enforced?"
If the lines get drawn once at the NATIONAL level, and then get re-drawn at the DISTRTICT level... and then further re-drawn at the LOCAL church level ... do we really have a community of faith? Especially when the concept of "faith" keeps getting re-interpreted by different pastors of different hermeneutical persuasions?
January 12, 2008 11:22 PM
Lane:
Why, oh why, do I use the word "only" when I know you'll point out something "in addition"? Dang!
You're right, of course, that the question of who draws the lines (narrowly or widely) is also important. Indeed, from a practical standpoint, it is very important. Unfortunately, variety in narrowness and wideness is an almost inevitable result of the diffusion of power in the AG. If tightened things up at the national level, we'd have more uniformity. If the national level were wide, so would the district levels. If not, then not. I doubt narrowness would go over well in large swaths of my district, but that's another matter.
It seems to me that one remedy for the problem your friend faced in his credential interview would be relational districts, which could gather around narrowness/wideness in their interpretations of faith and order. That way, a person could remain in a narrow geographical district yet affiliate with a wider relational district.
George
January 13, 2008 6:23 AM
Paul F.,
I worry a little about your definition of faith. I didn't find again the page, but just three days ago I read in www.infidels.org something like this to explain the absurdity of choosing the faith as a way to decide "who-is-in" and "who-is-out" the heaven.
Well, I think the Bible addresses something different from "faith in %": "So I believed, so I spoke" (2 Cor. 4.13); and also all the arguments of letter of James about a faith-that-works.
It's not a problem of "%". You can be sure at 60% or sure at 51% or sure at 99% but the most important thing is: what you'll say? what you'll do?
And so I return to my precedent comment: the problem with the "half-dissident" AoG pastors is this one: if they believe something different from the FTs, they probably will teach and they will consulee and they will work in a different way from the "standard pastors" of AoG (who believe in all the FTs).
Even my escathological thoughts will have an impact on my work in the church.
So maybe the solution is this: keep your doubt for yourself, and keep your different vision for yourself if you are ok to listen someone who defends every doctrine of the FTs and to remain quite. But if instead something inside of you rebels to some idea of the FTs (for example, if you are a strong post-tribulationist) so go away because you can't have a strong relationship with the other AoG pastors. I say a _working_ relationship.
I hope I was useful... I wrote something because I see issues and troubles with "not-black-or-white" definitions of faith.
If I'm not in the right place, and you prefer to remain in a "totally American" discussion, tell me and I'll go away... there's no problem ;-)
P.S. I'm ItalEsca (thanks for your answers Lane!), but I decided to partecipate more often in these discussions and so now I choosed a better nick: Italian Servant
January 13, 2008 6:46 AM
George,
By no means did I intend to stereotype the Catholic church, I just thought the parallel was interesting. I actually have great respect for the Catholic church and wish that more evangelical Christians took seriously the debt we owe her. However, there are certain doctrines that, if you don't subscribe to them, you simply cannot be in the Church (or at least not in "full communion"). I'm mainly thinking of any of their doctrines declared ex cathedra. You're right that they have a lot of room for disagreement, but if you don't believe in the assumption of Mary you can't join or be in full communion with the Church.
I agree that we need to have boundaries drawn, but think they are too narrow. If doctrine are so precise on so many levels (spirit baptism, end times), then the adherents of that doctrine are forced to interpret the Bible through that doctrine. If the doctrines are inerrant then there's no problem, but I don't think anyone wants to seriously endorse the idea that the FTs are inerrant. Again, we need boundaries, but why not have them set so someone that believes in spirit baptism, that the gifts are for today, and all the other "mere Christianity" beliefs, can stay in the fellowship. It just seems odd that someone who believes everything the AG believes except that some people may not speak in tongues until they get to Heaven (I'm pretty sure we won't speak English), cannot remain in the fellowship.
I'm still trying to figure out a way to express a much broader boundary that still sets our fellowship apart from others that aren't much more than non-cessationist. How important is it to separate our views of spirit baptism from others like, say, the Foursquare church? I'm starting to think it's not that important, but would love to hear everyone else's thoughts.
January 13, 2008 6:58 AM
Italian Servant,
I see your point, but wonder if you agree that using 'believe' as all or none when it comes to doctrine is different from how we use it everywhere else. I think if everyone was honest, they would admit that at points they have some doubt concerning the truth of the 16 Fundamentals. Cashing out 'believe' the way I did allows us to make room for people having varying levels of doubt.
Are you suggesting that 'doubt' and 'unbelief' are the same?
January 13, 2008 7:05 AM
Paul F.,
I start from the point that a pastor says really what he believes; that teaches wath he thinks it's true.
So when a member of the church will ask something about a doctrine, what will he answer? Can he answer with a clear proposition or he'll answer something like "I'm studying yet, I'm in doubt, etc. etc."?
I think a pastor may humbly answer, for example, "the tongues are the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit" also if he has some doubts, only because he has a 51% faith and, above all, he trusts in the pastors of AoG and humbly says "probably they know more than me".
Sinthetically I'm saying that if there is no lie in the mouth of a pastor, the problem is not "doubt or unbelief" but only "what you say".
And I think this is the really problem also for Paul Grabill and generally every "head" of assemblies of God in the world: what are teaching the young pastors? waht do they say in the churches? and in the houses? and in the camps?
I think this is the most important problem, "the proposition problem". Now I'm thinking that there is also a "warmth problem" but it's less important and maybe I'll write something about this after, maybe I won't...
January 13, 2008 7:38 AM
Paul F., George,
my position I think it's clear: it's important to separate from the Foursquare church if this church _works_ differently from AoG. If the different doctrines don't create working differences, so there is no reason to keep a separation approach.
So, what's about the working model of Foursquare church?
January 13, 2008 7:46 AM
LOL!!! Good to know we are on the same page humor wise, George. I often times point things out like the previous post more to inspire dialog from others than to try and debate. (Though I love the debate side as well.)
I was pretty sure you didn't think that was the ONLY question... but it was so, so easy to respond to.
January 13, 2008 9:34 AM
I return about the "warmth problem". Let's think that a pastor chooses a humble-wise approach and instead of saying "I'm in doubt", he says "I agree with all the 16 FTs". I'm thinking to an extreme case where a pastor believes only at 51% to all the 16 FTs. Now, what's about his preaching? there will be any strength? he's doubtful! How can he cry "hey, don't worry church, we won't cross the great tribulation" if he's not sure? he can only say it with a faint, feeble voice.
Well, I think he can be a pastor but he won't be a great pastor.
Going out from the extreme case, I think instead that he can be a great pastor if he has only some doubts about 3 FTs and chooses the "humble-wise approach" for only these items. He could be an extraordinary preacher, an extraordinary adviser
about the other items, but when I'll arrive at the 3 "doubtful" items... well, in the church there is someone else! because in this moment I'm saying in the comments of the previous post that I prefer team-working at the leadership of a church ;-)
This is my thinking about "warmth problem" that I'm sure it's in the minds of Paul Grabill and of the other "heads" of Assemblies of God ("are we growing an academic, doubtful, feeble generations of preachers?").
January 13, 2008 12:57 PM
I really appreciate the honesty of Paul Grabill for getting this out into the open. In response I thought I would at least state the fact that nearly all of my peers and I who are preparing for future ministry and are currently enrolled in AG institutions of higher learning, debate this issue at length often and have been for several years. Some are credentialed already. Of those credentialed, several readily admit to "closing their eyes and holding their nose" when they re-up their credentials. So Mr. Grabill has it right. There is absolutely an unfortunate integrity issue at stake in this argument. The rationale they use, which they readily admit as a rationalization, goes something like what Paul F stated with caveats: I need the AG. I don't agree with everything in the FT's but I was brought up AG, all my significant relationships and connections are within the AG, I love the AG and what it has given me as a heritage. I will hang on and wait for my opportunity to be an agent of change as in insider which affords more opportunity for renovation than any other alternative.
I guess I would characterize their position like any strong Democrat would when having to tolerate a Republican president. They remain devoted to the nation, the constitution and the freedom and liberty it provides. They defend it when attacked and work to get their candidates elected in the future all the while hoping for the country's betterment for future generations. But they do not agree with the policies of the current administration. They would not think of moving overseas. IT's their country, their land. They choose to remain, work hard, pay their taxes, wave their flags on the 4th of July with pride and wait for change. The AG however really doesn't have such a convenient position for many of those conscientious objectors with honest dissenting opinions to remain in positions of influence as ministers.
For me, since I don't have credentials nor do I have an AG legacy, I'm less bound by history and so I struggle only with whether I can swallow all the FT's as they are currently stated. I can swallow that those dealing with the issues at hand(gifts, end-times) may be true. I can even swallow that they are probably true. I respect those who believe they are true. However I can not say they are absolutely the truth and hence should be accepted as the truth for every believer. I can say they appear to have valid, scriptural support, but not beyond some degree of doubt and room for alternative, reasonable interpretations. I can not say I believe to a moral certainty that all the FT's represent God's absolute truth for all humankind. Some of them certainly represent, beyond any doubt of moral certainty, absolute universal truth. Others do not rise to that lofty standard. So I can't sign. But there is no place at this point, where I would rather serve God with my life.
But here is the question I guess my friends and I ask: Why does it matter so much? Why are the FT's elevated to the status of "deal breakers" or worse, conditions of fellowship and relationship? We could certainly have a set of FT's that designate us as biblical followers of Christ without all the details on the splintering dogmatics of our faith. Is it so important that we are designated as "Yankees" or "Mets"? Or is it enough to say we are baseball players from New York? Also remember there are other "deal breakers" too. Drinking and dancing can divide people faster than any of the FT's. Why are we making biblical non-essentials, essentials?
I mean really, I've been around more AG churches than I can count. So few of our church members and even fewer of our faithful attenders have the slightest clue about the FT's. In fact, if we are honest, you can attend a large, growing, fruitful AG church even in Springfield, Mo. for months and never know it's an AG church. It's not on the bulletin, it's not on the sign, it's never been a part of any of the small group discussions. This is not an accident.
I became a member of my local AG church not having to say I believed all the FT's to be truth. They just wanted me to understand what the AG's interpretation's were of key issues in scripture. It was a non-issue. I actually liked that about our church. (That's why I'm posting under a fake name so I don't get my pastor in trouble.)
I am not a pluralist. I believe in absolutes, absolutely. I understand that at the genesis of the AG the Holy Spirit revealed himself in a way that differentiated our movement from others and it was important to maintain that unique impartation. But now that charismatic faith and worship has become more mainstream and Pentecostalism more widely accepted, do we have to stick to such strict delineations? Why is it so important to differentiate ourselves to the degree we begin to exclude the very people who desire to support the movement with lives of service? I get that those that came before us fought hard for legitimacy and were persecuted for their courage and faith. But the toughest thing for any organization, especially the church, is to attract and retain talented people.
I interpreted the survey results not as much as a sign that the integrity of the movement is declining but that the movement should re-evaluate it's theology in light of the requirement to continually contextualize the gospel to a changing, evolving culture. It is essential to routinely determine what distinctives and trade-offs should be re-evaluated. From what I hear, Dr. Woods intends to do just that. I can't wait.
Maybe you care, maybe you don't. Maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't. But I have to say, when the Holy Spirit first drew me to my local Pentecostal church and away from a more conservative evangelical tradition, I was immediately touched by a sense of the Spirit I had never experienced or even knew possible previously. It remains one of the most significant events in my life of which I am very thankful. But because of my religious baggage, the first question I began to ask in my heart was, "Will these people continue to love me if I never meet their spiritual expectations?" Thankfully my pastor made it abundantly clear he would continue to love and accept me just the way I was whether I spoke in tongues or displayed any outward manifestations of sign gifts or not. Many months later, in the early morning quite of my devotion time, and much to my surprise, I began to pray in another tongue. Was this the first sign in my life of the indwelling of the spirit? No. Do I believe in the sign gifts? Absolutely! Was their previous fruit in my life? Yes. How can I testify to anything different? Why would I want to? Am I saying my experience trumps the FT's? No. But is what I experienced and witnessed first hand a fundamental truth for me? Yes, it has to be. To admit to anything else would be less than honest. But to have that disqualify me from serving God in this great movement is perplexing to me.
But so be it. I trust God to do abundantly more than I could ever hope or imagine in me as well as in the AG whether we work together or separately. I simply want to point out that, in my opinion, based on my experience with the future generation of leaders in training for the Kingdom of God, the AG is losing some very dedicated, talented, spirit filled ministers of the gospel because of what I see as a non-essential technicality. Others will simply wait out the hardliners and with grace and patience, like my pastor, do what Jesus would do.
I admire those with that patience and I respect the grace God has given them to wait. I understand the integrity issue. But I also liken their devotion to a military officer ordered to complete a task they know is not in their best interest nor that of the soldiers under their command. They grin and bear it as a sacrifice, holding back their own personal convictions for the betterment of the greater good. The movement is in good hands if these young, brave and patient leaders can last.
January 13, 2008 7:21 PM
Nobody Special raised some interesting questions in my mind about the Statement of Fundamental Truths. (1) To sign up for ministerial renewal, can you believe that the 16 FTs (especially articles 7 and 8) are valid interpretations but not necessarily the only intepretations of Scripture? (2) In light of the fact that many members of AG churches are Charismatic in theology and practice, but not classically Pentecostal, can we recognize that there are layers of importance within our 16 FTs. For example, no one could be a member at my church without believing in the Trinity, but postmillennialists are okay. (3) What do we gain by being theologically specific, and what do we lose? The narrower one's doctrinal statement, the greater the identity of the church; the looser the doctrinal statement, the more people who can in good faith sign it. I think we should recognize that there are trade-offs both ways in how narrow/wide our doctrinal statement is.
January 13, 2008 8:06 PM
I deeply appreciate the intelligent and thoughtful remarks of "nobody special." I could hear my own words in what you said.
I am one of those who left the AG. After holding credentials with the AG for about 20 years, I decided to not renew them. My decision was more out of personal frustration with the system than anything else. The list would take too long to process here. I have sinced moved on and dealt with my own issues. I have not left my faith. God has placed us in Christian education in a non-denom school. However we are attending a non AG church. I just could not bring myself to attend any of the AG churches in town. We wanted something different.
I think I still have friends in the AG, but our lives are busy and we do not communicate. Having been raised in the AG, it still holds a special place in my heart. I am glad to see the open and frank discussion on this board. The depth of the comments and shared experiences are encouraging.
I am surpirsed that it has gone on this long. The conversations that are going on here were conversations that I would have with only a few close friends back in the day. The success of this dialog speaks to the need for it to continue.
Elton Brooke
January 13, 2008 8:21 PM
Wow, what a discussion. It is nice to be able to talk about this, and you are all incredible philosphers with great minds.
I must confess I am not much of a philosopher. I am an ag pastor. Have been for 16 years. I love the ag. There are a few things, mostly matters of "order" not theology, that bug me about the ag, but not that much. I figure that no matter what denomination/fellowship I might belong to, I would not agree with absolutely 100% of their beliefs or practices; but with the ag, I believe in a vast, vast majority.
When I get my annual license renewal, I happily check my theology boxes with their correct answers. What do I believe about the initial physical evidence? I'll tell you what I believe - I believe I'm not real sure about the absolute dogmaticism of tongues as initial physical evidence. It is not that I disagree with it, it is just that I am not as absolutely certain or dogmatic as my friends in Springfield are. Do I pretend to know the absolute, 100% truth regarding this matter? No. I'll add that to the dozens of other things in Scripture that I don't fully comprehend. As a Christian, and even as a Pastor, I do not feel uncomfortable with answering questions with "I don't know?" Do I feel like a liar or cheat by signing my credential form? Never. I am in this thing for a much greater cause than theological details.
I am called by God to be a Pastor. The way I see it, I am called by God to preach the Word, love people, win souls, equip believers, etc. Do I preach on the baptism in the Holy Spirit? Regularly. And I preach the traditional ag stance with tongues as evidence. (Although I don't emphasize tongues as the "main thing" of the whole experience, but just one of the wonderful byproducts of this incredible gift.) And I have seen God fulfill His promise to fill folks and to give tongues.
The thing is, and I am sure I am coming across as a real simpleton here, is that sometimes I think we are struggling to answer questions no one in the real world is asking. In my humble opinion, Jesus' main mission was to "seek and save that which is lost" and I think that should be the church's as well. The Baptism in the Holy Spirit is true and real and wonderful, but even in the book of Acts it was not the apostle's main message, salvation was. When, and why, did Pentecost become our "distinctive doctrine?" And why does distinctive seem to be interpreted as "most important?"
In my pastoral experience, normal, common, run of the mill people are not wrestling with if tongues are the initial physical evidence. They are wrestling with how to find hope for their lives and marriages, how to fine purpose in their lives, deliverance from sin, and a practical down to earth way to follow the Lord each day. This does come through Jesus, and even through the power of the Holy Spirit. But do we realize, or does it matter, that we may be the only ones who are splitting these theological hairs? (Obviously a Pastor, not a theologian or philosopher here, forgive me.)
I am not criticizing this debate at all. It is a good discussion, and definitely needed. I just felt the need to give it just a little context from the local ag church on the corner.
Well, I feel better getting that off my chest. I appreciate this site, all of your great comments, the good debate, and I will keep reading, and attempting to digest.
Sorry for the length.
January 13, 2008 8:42 PM
Elton...
All my other posts have a tendency to be very lengthy. This one is short. I just want to say "thanks" for posting. Your honesty and transparency have inspired me tonight.
Lane
January 13, 2008 8:53 PM
I, too, appreciated what "nobody special" had to say.
Why is the doctrine of initial physical evidence so important as to exclude devoted followers of Christ to "official" service within the confines of AGdom who believe it is A valid interpretation (but acknowledgment is given to those interpreters outside of the convinced) of the different passages of Acts that support it?
George said:
"The narrower one's doctrinal statement, the greater the identity of the church."
I agree with this statement...but why do we need to distinguish ourselves as more unique than any other Spirit-filled believers who differ in their interpretation?
How infallible are our interpretations anyway? Should the doctrines that guide us be as specific as we have made them?
If the AG wants to make the most impact for the Kingdom of God...shouldn't we be exclusive only about the things Christ was exclusive about (ie - his identity as God)?
January 13, 2008 9:12 PM
I appreciate the perspectives of all bloggers on this issue. I have also had many discussions on these issues. I know many who admit to signing to retain their credentials even though they do not agree. I find myself in the category of one spirit filled follower of Jesus who has been called to ministry. Although God has brought me to this denomination and I would like to stay, I see the writing on the wall. I will not be able to pursue credentials here. I would not be able to sign the form with integrity.
I hope that the A/G will prayerfully consider the comments and sentiments expressed here.
George Wood's comment inspired me to join in the blog. He wrote, "The narrower one's doctrinal statement, the greater the identity of the church..." This statement warrants some thought. Should our identity rest in doctrinal statements? Is my identity in Christ or the FT's? Do we consider the "initial evidence" to be what makes us distinct as Christians or should we instead focus more on transformation into the image of Christ and the fruit of the Spirit? I think we need to reevaluate what we are fighiting for.
January 13, 2008 9:16 PM
Elton,
I sense your wounds. I'm sorry for that. Really, I am, even though I know I can't do anything about it other than acknowledge your past pain.
Thanks for being open and honest. You certainly do have friends in the AG. I'm one. I know that's not much consolation but I hope you sense God moving in the AG to change some of what you were concerned about all along. I think that could provide you at least dome degree of validation.(not that you are looking for it.)
Elton's situation makes me wonder about a possible silver lining around this cloud. One that I, Elton, "another opinion" and others might just find consolation in. Perhaps God desires us to take our "not quite up to par" pentecostal beliefs as seed to another not so pentecostal denomination or movement. Perhaps, like Elton, we will always have a dear place in our hearts for what God gave us in the AG, but our task will be to take that depth of experience to a drier place that has not yet experienced the river of his grace, provision and love. That would be OK with me.
I guess, in the meantime, I just have to get over the human emotions of being politely ostracized. It is painfully ironic to realize that the AG has deemed me somehow unworthy or unfit to be a minister as a direct result of my experience with the gifts these same people helped me to discover. I feel like I am being rejected on the very same issue that originally drew me to them. The blessing seems to have come with a minor curse. That is hard for me to reconcile emotionally and relationally. But I will and I can because I don't have much choice and God is good.
January 13, 2008 9:58 PM
It's been a while, since I posted, but this has been a good discussion. I have been in the AG since age 9 and have a complete buy in to everything -- RR, JBQ, Missions, etc. But my early years were steeped in Lutheran & Reformed tradition during the charismatica renewals of the 1970's which heavily influences my perspectives on the FT's (particularly eschatology & pneumatology). I consider them home, a base to start from in intellectual questioning. But my other backgrounds offer a different lens which influences how I do ministry within the context of the AG church I am part of. I choose to stay part of the AG because my "church cultural" identity lies there -- I would be lost anywhere else. Perhaps I didn't pay too much attention in my polity class, but I understood back then that there was a lot more lee way present 15 years ago - at least in SoCal. I remember when another Pentecostal denomination in the early 1990's severely cracked down on their distinctives, causing many to leave.
We are at a identity crossroads. I noticed Dr. Wood's comments in the TPE today about our 94 year old denomination. I think we on this blog clearly see it. In my travels, I've been in many different AG churches around the country and this would be a very new concept for them. Many in the laity think that their local AG church is the norm, not realizing the vast differences scatter throughout the country. Many probably couldn't even tell you the 16 FT's.
If we argue that the FT's are essential to us as a fellowship, but 99% of our congregations don't know what they are, what is their purpose? Most of those FT's were done in specific response to particular controversial practices in the early days and are culturally irrelevant today.
I would agree its time to re-examine the 16 and come up with less that still maintain the core of our identity and our pentecostal mission, yet encourage the next generation in creative practices.
Until then, I consider the 16 FT's like the Pirate code of Morgan & Bartholomew -- more as guidelines.. Savvy?
January 13, 2008 10:14 PM
The 16 Fundamental Truths as a "pirate code"? Shiver me timbers!
January 13, 2008 10:52 PM
George,
(1) YES, to sign up for ministerial renewal, we can believe that the 16 FTs are valid interpretations but not necessarily the true intepretations of Scripture. It's a "now I don't know" philosophy, but I'll continue to seek for the Truth, and I'll find it.(2) YES, we can recognize that there are layers of importance within our 16 FTs and this is useful because not all the biblical truths have the same impact in my life (3) If our doctrines are true, we gain a lot of things by being theologically specific, not only the identity of the church ("the truth makes you free"); I think we need "theologically specific" ministers and instead we can be wider and tolerate the members of the church and so have more people in good faith that sign it (I'm saying, NOT the pastors).
There are no examples in the bible of someone who can say "I'm baptized in the Holy Spirit" without speaking in other tongues. Charismatic thinking opens to a subjective-relativistic spirituality. Maybe I'm wrong but we need to trust that we can achieve the Truth speaking together, praying the Holy Spirit and reading the Bible. Maybe someone in this blog can convince me that my interpretation is not so sure, but if we don't have faith not only in the absolute but also that WE CAN ACHIEVE THE ABSOLUTES ("He will guide you in all the truth") we are in a dangerous position that opens to a lot of other problems.
When we read "He will guide you in all the truth" are we believing and trusting it? and are we believing in a propositional truth or in a new-age/ mystic/ liberal truth? Body of Christ, don't joke with these things...
Italian Servant
P.S. If I seem a little strange with some phrases, it's probably because my english is not so good to clearly define the tones of my comment
January 14, 2008 3:03 AM
MMM... I need to add an item. In Italy we don't have Vineyard churches and charismatic trends didn't touch our churches. We still have (until today) a strong absolute classical pentecostal approach. So I need to ask for some evidences. Do you know someone who absolutly doesn't speak other tongues but it's exactly the sterotypical pentecostal man of God? a miracle-maker, anointed preacher, optimus evangelist? If you know him, I need to learn something more about this issue... tell me!
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 3:53 AM
ebagpastor,
probably someone is laughing because this is my third consecutive post, but I have an analitical mind (I've a Physics degree) so I write with just one or two ideas, then I think to the context again and I find other reasons to write.
I hope that my way of dibating and discussing is not boring but useful andeasy to understand. If that's not right, please tell me.
I'm sure that the members of your church are wrestling with other everyday issues but if we want to continue the discipling mission that God gave to us and make that "all people are perfect beside God" (Colossesi 1.28) we _must_ give to the members of the church the elements to undestand what it means to be "witnesses" of Christ. Having good spiritual health, having clearness in my mind and also in my heart means that I know if I need something else after my new birth or not at all and I need to know which is the way to receive it and also which is the way to be sure I got it.
Probably I'm not able to fully understand the pains of a lot of members of the church, but too many believers are too busy with their problems and their personal struggles and they forget the call of the mission, that crosses the baptism in the Holy Spirit with initial tongues.
Pratically, I'm saying that we _need_ surely a clear, strong theology of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, stronger than what I saw until today in our Assemblies of God (Italian, American, French... etc.).
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 5:25 AM
As I've been reading through the list, it seems that we are possibly missing the "core" of something in our discussion. When George stated that the more narrow the doctrinal lines, the more distinctive the identity, he was 100% correct. Whether you agree with how narrowly WE draw the lines, the precept is still correct.
What we are missing is this... our distinctiveness is NOT that we believe in tongues as the initial evidence, although many, many pastors have so overbearingly preached on it that it certainly seems like it is. Our distinctiveness as a movement is that we believe Christianity has to be lived out in the empowerment of the Spirit as opposed to simply the reception of the Spirit at the moment of justification. This is our distinctiveness.
As such, we believe that our people HAVE to be people living in the empowerment of the Spirit. That begs the obvious question... how do you know if they are or not? Actually... it begs an even more important question which is "How do THE PEOPLE know when they have received Spirit-empowerment?"
Our answer, as a movement, is that the possession and practice of a prayer language is the identifying mark. In other words, our distinctiveness is found in FT #7 of which FT #8 is the identifying evidence.
Now, you may completely disagree with the "initial evidence" doctrine, but two sets of questions emerge that you have to then answer:
SET #1 - RE: TONGUES
====================
1. If you disagree with the initial evidence doctrine, do you disagree that it is the initial evidence in the sense that there are OTHER initial evidences? (This is where I said I was still researching and possibly different from others.)
2. Or do you disagree that tongues signifies anything at all?
SET #2 - RE: SPIRIT EMPOWERMENT
============================
1. Despite your view on the initial evidence, do you still agree that Christianity has to be lived out through a life of empowerment of (as opposed to the reception of ) the Spirit?
2. If you answered "yes" to #1, then what solution do you give as a means of identifying potential leaders and helping followers seek it other than tongues?
3. IF... IF... you answered "no" to #1, then you definitely are at odds with the very foundational and distinctive belief of our movement.
All that being said, I want to make sure that we are on the same page. Spirit-empowerment subsequent to Spirit-reception as the means to successful Christian living is our distinctive... not "tongues as the initial evidence."
My personal opinion is that we should draw the line around FT #7 and leave FT #8 open for a divergence of opinion and discussion. What do you think?
January 14, 2008 6:12 AM
I agree with the fact that FT #7 is more important than FT #8, because FT #8 has no meaning without FT #7, but I think there is no space in the Bible reading to have any position different from tongues-as-inital-evidence.
Spirit-empowerment subsequent to Spirit-reception as the means to successful Christian living is _NOT_ our distinctive... because you can find this view also in a lot of charismatic areas that are different from AoG.
And there's also the problem that theologian like Gordon Fee (AoG) sees baptism in the Holy Spirit as Spirit-reception (at the best of my knowledge).
Humbly,
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 6:38 AM
Lane, Great post! I couldn't agree more with your assessment that the AG distinctive has been (and should be) FT 7. That's the message we need to "get out" to other people.
In response to your second set of questions (I'm still unsure about the first set), I'm very confident that the answer to #1 is yes. Regarding #2, I think leaders should look to rely on those that exhibit the fruits of the spirit.
If a person exhibits qualities of a mature Christian, then leaders should feel comfortable relying on that person as they see fit. We know that using speaking in tongues as a test produces a lot of false positives already (many immature Christians speak in tongues a lot), so why not eliminate that test to begin with and rely on other more sound tests (exhibiting fruits of the spirit)?
Again, great post.
January 14, 2008 6:58 AM
Well, I want really to understand the nature of the issue: WHY WE HAVE MANY PROBLEMS TODAY with the classical doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit?
I can think to four reasons:
1) Biblical problems: that's ok, but I want to hear them;
2) Experience problems: I can understand them, but I can't agree: if you have some super-evangelical friend, surely I understand you have doubts about the baptism in the Holy Spirit with tongues, but you must however try to understand everything better with the Bible;
3)Relational problems: interdenominationality is surely a struggle for pentecostals, maybe everything can be easier without our FT #8; but I totally disagree about this one as a good reason for a weaker FT #8;
4)Result problems: I fear this one could be the real reason, when I saw that 70% of the AoG members don't speak in other tongues. It's everything easier if we don't have this problem of tongues... isn't it? Is the Word Standard too high for us and so we are trying to do it "soft"?
These are my _questions_,NOT my _answers_ but I really would like to understand the issue, because I'm young and we know in Italy that when a trend is in AoG of America, then it will arrive to us after 10-20 years.
Curiously,
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 7:13 AM
Paul F.,
maybe it seems so but I'm not trying to obtain a "shut up" answer :-D! I need again to express my disagreement.
Which is the biblical relationship between mature Christians and baptism in the Holy Spirit? and what about baptism in the Holy Spirit and fruit of the Holy Spirit?
I'm sure that every Christian can be a good man, full of fruits, a "mature" christian _without_ baptism in the Holy Spirit (I think to Billy Graham or Spurgeon).
I don't see that Paul says in Galathians "if you want fruit of the Spirit, let's wait for the baptism".
But the baptism in the Holy Spirit means _potentially_ power in evangelism and signs and wonders. Means special anoyinting to be useful for others. This is why Jesus said "wait for the baptism" in Acts 1. And in which way it arrived? with tongues.
I don't want for the future assemblies of God full only of mature christians (I can go into a lot of other denominations); I don't want assemblies of God full of christians that SAY they were spiritually empowered but it's only a joke (I can go in Charismatic churches of various kind). I want (and I hope that WE want) assemblies of God full of Christians that are REALLY empowered. So we need tongue as clear evidence. Without any doubt.
Stubborn,
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 7:29 AM
What classical Pentecostals believe today about speaking in tongues is not what they believed at the beginning of the movement. They believed that speaking in tongues would allow them to take the gospel to foreign cultures without learning the languages. Some would argue that the Acts record was written for third-generation Christians who needed to be reminded about the Spirit-empowered beginnings of Christianity. None of us currently believe that we will be granted spiritual abilities to speak other languages without going through language schools today. It's as one author suggests, the "last word" or the "lost word" that we hang our denominational identity on. I wish Pastor Grabill would be more concerned with issues of integrity like pride, arrogance, and self-importance that often characterize our leadership. Ask one doctrinal question on the annual form: "Do you believe in the full empowerment of God's Spirit as recorded in the book of Acts?" Stop the 'Shibboleth' vs. 'Sibboleth'parsing that demonstrates a lack of integrity and charity in our ranks.
January 14, 2008 8:41 AM
Shibboleth:
It is misleading to write, as you did, that early Pentecostals "believed that speaking in tongues would allow them to take the gospel to foreign cultures without learning the languages." Some early Pentecostals did in the earliest years of the movement, but that belief in missionary xenolalia was quickly laid to rest by practical experience. Consequently, the rest of your argument ("None of us believe...") is effectively a straw man argument. Finally, you seem to insinuate in your final sentences that Paul Grabill is more concerned with the integrity of people signing credential renewals than with the integrity issues facing our leaders. (a) How do you know that? (b) Grabill was simply writing a post about something on his heart. The fact that he didn't address the other issues simply means that it wasn't within the scope of his post. No more, no less.
Critiques of AG leadership have gotten plenty of press on this blog. Given the amount of criticism directed at our doctrinal statement, Grabill simply thought it important to raise the question of the ethics of people who sign the statement. If we're going to constructively critique our leaders, we ought to be prepared for a little pushback, don't you think. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
George
January 14, 2008 8:57 AM
Top Ten Reasons To Sign My Credential Renewal Form
2. It allows me membership to an organization with the average age of Moses
3. Discounts at Radiant Bookstore!!
4. Sectional events............they change my life and ministry
5. Voting rights to change the term from "and" to "or" in the District Bylaws
6. Tuition discounts for my kids at an A/G college.........oh wait we don't get that
7. The right to complain constructively about my concerns to my District Superintendent without reprisal....oh wait, we don't get that either.
8. Discounts at GPH!
9. Tax deductions for paying my dues like a good little soldier
10. A national health plan.........dang, we don't get that one either!! 1. I get that good looking card with the 1-800 number on it for quality counseling when I am in trouble
January 14, 2008 9:35 AM
Bro. Grabil’s seems to be challenging us to decide whether people who are holding credentials with the A/G but do not espouse # 7 and # 8 of the FT are being disingenuous, and if so, why are they doing so. I believe that the question is valid, but I also feel that there is a component being missed in the answers. We are not going to helpfully address this issue if we force ourselves between option 1. “These guys have a moral problem,†or 2. “The A/G bullies people into submission.†It seems to me that part of the problem lies in how more traditional ministers are approach the FT and how younger guys are using it.
I hold to the classic A/G position on initial evidence, comfortably and strenuously. But I find that a core problem for me is in how we are to relate to the 16 FT. We have a document called fundamental truths that really is a mixture of fundamental truths in some cases and emphases in others. Some of the FT are merely restating orthodox Nicene creedal forms. All good; all fundamental. Other parts are focused upon things that the early A/G ministers wanted to focus upon as a movement. In my view - all good; hard to consider fundamental. Notice, for example, that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is more clearly spelled out in the FT than is the personhood of the Holy Spirit, a doctrine of sanctification, gifts, regeneration, sealing, etc.
If a pastor were to simply teach through the FT, his congregation would not be well grounded unless he added much exposition. So, whether we like it or not, we do not use the FT as a statement of foundational truth and fundamental doctrine in daily the life of the church. Instead, we use it as something that sometimes deals with fundamentals and sometimes deals with emphases and interpretation. Pastors push the fundamentals but do not focus as much attention on the parts that they see as merely being early A/G emphases.
So a pastor who doesn’t see #7 or # 8 as fundamental will relate to it as having little more influence than an A/G position paper which he knows has little binding influence in most A/G churches. In one way, this situation is like my marriage. It is fundamental to my wife and me that we not have other lovers. We agree we both have signed on the dotted line. However, try as she might, she can’t get me to see some of her big complaints as fundamental. That whole picking up the socks things is an emphasis, not a fundamental. I don’t feel I am being somehow dishonest to say to her “I love, Babe.†Even when I know that I did left my socks in front of the hamper again.
This is entenable in the longterm.
January 14, 2008 9:54 AM
Good analysis, Pastor Darrell!
January 14, 2008 11:00 AM
I am in full agreement that integrity is an issue and people should be more thoughtful in signing the papers if there disagreement with the so-called cardinal doctrines (#8 in this case).
Certainly there are some who are "born and reared" AG folk who have the culture in their blood and would be lost anywhere else yet have issues with any of the four cardinal truths (#8 in this case) but feel called to minister but can't and don't know where else to go.
I agree too that the women in ministry issue and the issue of eschatology keep (not a few) people from signing the papers than the issue of tongues per se though that is an issue too.
A pastor in the SGF area on the one hand insists no one can receive the Holy Spirit and not speak in tongues and yet on the other hand draws the line as women as senior pastors and does not think it is biblical. The man should be the sole visionary and leader of the church. If this is the case why is he in the AG when the AG fully supports women as senior pastors. (he is not alone on this issue - I knew students at the AG Seminary who were the same way) (wasn't there a man who "went to the mic" at GC and tried to say the church is dying because we have women ministers?).
In regards to eschatology I personally see very little support for the dispensensational pre-trib view of end-times in the Bible.
If only folks would realize the Apocalypse is not a "road map" to end times. Apocalyptic literature is just not like that at all. I am in agreement with a professor at the seminary in leaning more towards being historic pre-mil (but myself teetering on the edge of amil).
but I digress...
January 14, 2008 1:34 PM
Great discussion. My comment has to do with the amount of "slang" I read in these blogs. I am a layperson just wondering if this is acceptable vocabulary for AG ministers now.
January 14, 2008 1:36 PM
Pastor Gabrill, thank you for you sincere post. I have a great deal of respect for you and all that God is doing through your ministry.
I want to first state that I love being a part of the cooperative fellowship of the Assemblies of God. I respect and honor those that God has placed in leadership on both the district level and General Council level. However, I like many of the people who sign their papers each year doesn't agree with 100% of the 16 FT. The one I wrestle with is of course speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
I do believe however, it is an initial physical evidence of the Baptism of Holy Spirit. Now with that being really my only dividing point with the 16 FT, should I surrender my credentials? I hope not. Does this say I have no integrity? If you say yes to either of these, this is where I feel where the collapse of the AG will begin, because you will be alienating a lot of capable men and women from ministry just because they don't adhere to 16 FT.
I make no apologies if I don't hold on to the 16 FT as high as God's Word, God's Word is my ultimate authority and not 16 FT. I believe everyone of us agrees with that.
I feel I am called by God into ministry, I also feel that I have been confirmed by man for this great calling.
I totally agree with Pastor Darrell's observation.
Just my thoughts on this post. Thank you for allowing us to share. I appreciate the ability to be able to use a nickname for fear of having my credentials stripped from me for not agreeing 100% with the 16 FT.
January 14, 2008 1:47 PM
Lane, January 14, 2008 6:12 AM,
I agree tongues is the initial physical evidence but am probably with Flowers in that it is the "primary" physical evidence but not necessarily the "immediate" evidence. But if I understand things, this is at variance with cardinal doctrine #8), or no?
I personally think more people experience it as a delayed experience than those who experience it as an immediate experience. But that is my opinion.
Italian servant (January 14, 2008 7:13 AM) wants to know why there is so much debate over tongues? I personally believe it is because of the influence of Evangelicalism, which often (more or less) downplays the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer (and downplays the role of miraculous spiritual gifts). The students at the AG seminary read few if any Pentecostal books - most are books and articles of evangelical flavor - so while it is a pentecostal seminary - the training is more or less evangelical.
Also, there is the influence of getting an eddymacation, the more edjmacated one is, the more open one tends to be of other viewpoints and there is less tendency toward doctrinal dogmatism.
One other thing, more and more folks are coming to and joining AG churches that are more nondenominational in feel (ie: JRA) and few if any attend for years and hardly know what the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is since it is rarely preached. Though there is a spectrum where some over preach it and others hardly preach it at all.
That is my opinion.
January 14, 2008 2:00 PM
Anonymous (the last one),
just few moments before I read your post, I was saying with the comments on the post about church-leadership that our problem is educational. You confirm me.
But, that's fun, I'd understand these problems in Italy because we don't have Ev-freers or Vineyard churches, and so an anti-cessationist not-pentecostal evangelical believer has no-good-denomination here, but I totally agree on theological reasons with Brother Grabill that if an American believer (pastor or not) prefers Lane's distinctive ("Spirit-empowerment subsequent to Spirit-reception as the means to successful Christian"), he is a Vineyardite, not a Pentecostal!
In fact I thought that the three friends of Lane had became Vineyardites... this is why I asked.
It's fun because we don't have these problems in Italy because we have a very easy, almost literalistic hermeneutics and so it's not common that someone attacks tongues. YOU have, but why?
There is another denomination that already has these simply theological lines: that's all for you. Let Assemblies of God for the narrow, strict (but I say stronger) minds...
(I'm joking, I don't want to really hurt anybody)...
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 2:39 PM
I really love this sort of thing. I love the forum, the open discussion, the back and forth, the tete-a-tete. I used to participate in the Chi Alpha Idea Exchange until I single-handedly shut it down with my clever reparte (actually, I don't know why they shut it down, but it could have been partially my fault). Like I said, I really hate this sort of thing. So I just want to ask some questions.
If tongues is not the initial physical evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, then why was it the only manifestation consistently reported in the Acts?
If tongues is not the IPE of the BHS, then why did the Jews say of the Romans, "they received just like we did," when they heard them speaking in tongues?
If tongues is not the IPE, then what other measure should be used to determine whether or not someone has the BHS?
Is it even important to determine that someone has the BHS? For that matter, is it even important to determine that someone is saved, and what measure do we use for that, and where did that measure come from?
It has long been my observation that those within the AG who argue against the IPE are people who have actually experienced it for themselves, which in my mind creates an even greater division within our ranks when we start telling people, "OK, I speak in tongues, and I have spoken in tongues ever since I got the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, but it may not be for you."
January 14, 2008 2:59 PM
mmm,
just another thing: it's clear from the last comments that with my four-options comment about "why someone dislikes tongues" I didn't think to a problem of "friendship". It seems to me that Paul and Lane simply want more believers inside of AoG. Probably they have a lot of charismatic friends and they say "why can't we work together? only for a stupid, little statement number 8? We could have bigger Aog Fellowship without this shibbolet". But so why don't forget also the empowerment issue and create a bigger Christian-at-all-denomination? I think that the real solution for the need of love and friendship and useful relationship is in a good interdenominationality (this could be another good argument for a post, take this note please George ;-)). We can work together in a lot of areas with every kind of Christian Believer. We don't need a common denomination. In other words,there is another community of faith that is surely bigger than AoG or other denominations.
On the other hand it seems to me (about JRA) that statistically pentecostal churches grow faster than charismatic ones (and I think because WE are really empowered... yes, I look like an arrugant believer but also if I study a lot of the other trends, I have the illness of "doctrinal dogmatism" :-)).
I think I said really all I wanted to say this time, that's all,
Italian Servant
January 14, 2008 3:02 PM
Oh Casey Stafford,
you are so strict and close-minded: read this: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200501/200501_heritage_pt1.cfm
(I'm joking, I agree with you...;-))
January 14, 2008 3:08 PM
Casey:
For me, the problem is an overemphasis on the initial evidence to the detriment of what my dad calls the substantial evidence. Baptism in the Holy Spirit is about much more than speaking in tongues, as Article 7 of the Fundamental Truths makes clear. But the AG distinctive is initial evidence. Why shouldn't our distinctive rather be the broader evidence of a Spirit-filled life? For me, in summary, the issue is not the truth of Article 8 but the weight our doctrinal statement gives it.
George
January 14, 2008 3:16 PM
This is an interesting conversation for myself, because I today acquired the application for being licensed in the Assenblies of God Southern Missouri District. Yes, I am here close to the "Blue Mecca" (for those of you who have gone to school here in Springfield. I am student at Evangel and we have discussed these very topics in our classes.
I have a conflict when trying to decide whether I believe Pre-trib eschatology. I guess all I can say is that I don't think the answer is very clear in scripture. Also, I don't feel it is over as great an importance as we have made it. I know that my soul has been redeemed by Christ and that I will one day be with my Maker. Whether, I am to be taken away before (pardon the expression) all hell LITERALLY breaks loose on earth, or whether I have to endure the whole thing is of little consequence because I know my stance and my firm and utter devotion to the One I love. Why does this have to be something that I must subscribe to so that I may hold credentials? If it is so unclear in scripture, why must we try and make this a cut and dry case? Especially if it is of little consequence to salvation?
Like I said, I am a student looking for credentials and I know I will be asked questions regarding this and it makes me uneasy.... to say the least
January 14, 2008 3:39 PM
In the spirit of David Letterman (I winced but laughed) and in hopefully another Spirit here are my top 7:
7. The Resurrection of Jesus (without this our faith is meaningless)
6. The Trinity (I think it important to acknowledge who God is both for the sake of truth and for fellowship)
5. The Rapture (Jesus promised to prepare a place for us and I think a cataclysmic world event like this deserves top priority)
4. The Fruit and Gifts of the Holy Spirit (wouldn't it be nice to be known for a balanced diet of fruit and power?)
3. Love for God and People (the summary of all the law per Jesus - oh and wouldn't it be nice to be defined by our love?)
2. The Great Commission (our job description as believers)
and not that it is numero uno in priority, but for the sake of continued discussion...
1. The three new covenant acts that cover us and their covenantal signs we are to experience: Salvation - the Blood of Jesus, Baptism in Water - immersion in water, and the Lord's Baptism in the Holy Spirit - the unknown tongue.
I know this last one is the bone of contention. So...
As far as the Lord's Baptism is concerned, I for one think that because it is the Promise of the Father (singular), marks the birth of the Church (singular event), and is Jesus' baptism (a baptism by definition is a singular event, fillings are multiple events), it should be a doctrinal priority. The unknown tongue (singular as opposed to gifts of different kinds of tongues) as a covenantal sign is worthy of much more discussion and I am not afraid to see it continue.
BTW, I use the term "cover" for a reason, because I believe the Atonement is the central redemptive act that comprises Salvation, Baptism in Water, and the Lord's Baptism. I know there is a lot of different theories out there about it, but for it to be the highest holy day in God's calendar and set apart from Passover there has to be more to it than we give credit. I hope and pray we can discover and develop ways to understand the Atonement in more of its fullest.
I embrace the idea of re-visiting and re-communicating doctrinal truths. I find the idea exciting and frought with adventure (I know there's danger too). Given all the discussion, it will be wise to separate the fundamentals and the distinctives in whatever form our doctrinal truths take. I also think it wise to provide a little wiggle room for our eschatology (thus I didn't put pre-trib, the millennium, and New Heaven etc.).
Blessings all!
January 14, 2008 3:45 PM
Anonymous (1.14.08 2:00 PM)
Your position that tongues can be a delayed evidence (per Flowers) is at variance with the spirit of FT #8. As I said earlier, the most basic interpretation of FT8 holds that, by "initial," we really mean "immediate."
My point earlier up is that many of our FT's allow for variances in interpretation. Since we add the word "physical" to our statement, it means that we are making a distinction between physical and metaphysical evidences. As such... our belief holds that tongues is the initial PHYSICAL evidence but says nothing of what might precede it as a non-tangible.
All that being said, my point is that in order for a "delayed evidence" viewpoint to be at variance with the letter of the doctrine, one of two things have to happen:
1. A comma needs to be placed between the words "initial" and "physical." (Hence, tongues becomes the "initial AND physical" evidence)
2. Change the word "initial" to "immediate."
For what it is worth, I am not in favor of either of these. Just trying to point out the room for personal interpretation.
January 14, 2008 4:25 PM
David Letterman said it all.
January 14, 2008 5:09 PM
George said,
"For me, the problem is an overemphasis on the initial evidence to the detriment of what my dad calls the substantial evidence."
Absolutely! George, your father made a great observation. The overemphasis on the initial physical evidence has overshadowed the more substantive internal evidence of spiritual depth.
As the initial evidence, tongues are merely the beginning of what it means to be baptized (immersed) in the Spirit. The Spirit-filled believer should exemplify not only the gifts of the Spirit, but the fruit of the Spirit.
I do not have a problem with the initial evidence, just the overemphasis and obsession with a mere physical manifestation of an experience that is substantialy deeper and truly profound.
That's my .02 worth,
Elton
January 14, 2008 5:24 PM
In our church we teach that tongues is the initial physical evidence - but not the BEST evidence.
January 14, 2008 6:28 PM
I have been reading the Future AG for a while and only recently wrote a couple of comments. Someone said they agreed with me on one of the comments and I was instantly frightened, because I know how little I understand these things. But I wanted to say something - a kind of for the record comment. I believe that working for a Spirit-filled, biblical, loving, and honest Assemblies of God USA is one of the most important things that can be done for the advance of the gospel of Jesus today. I spent 16 years as a missionary and I loved my ministry at AGWM, but felt God calling me back to the USA. Please recognize that as we discuss faults, foibles, failures in our fellowship, we can rightfully do so with broken hearts of prayer as well as open minds. If we can only have one or the other, let it be the former.
January 14, 2008 6:44 PM
Please remember:
Tongues in no way indicates the level of spiritual maturity of a believer. A baptized believer may be very spiritually IMMATURE.
My church is a great example. In fact, if my church wasn't so messed up...we would have never received so much correction for sexual sin, etc.
Yet...we were charismatic!!!
January 14, 2008 6:48 PM
Geoff,
I don't believe in pre-tribulationism. So I understand you. If I were you, I'd try to speak with your senior pastor. I can't think that all AoG are so strong about a position that has so many biblical difficulties, even at Springfield high-quarter.
Ah, in Italian AoG Fts, we don't have any clear formulation about escatology in our FTs. Maybe you can come in Italy in