In my previous blog “Control the Narrative. Control the Outcome” (January 2022), I noted that the denomination, to which I belong, is in the midst of ‘refreshing’ (their word, not mine!) their Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths (SOFET) – since renamed SOET. 1 On the surface, a ‘refresh’ seems rather pleasant – like lathering up with a new bar of Irish Spring soap. In the context of SOET however, ‘refreshing’ is at the very least misleading … and at worst, an adjectival fulcrum to reframe our theological identity to satisfy the cultural shift towards a less rigorous denominational identity.
Now in the interests of transparency here, let me come clean: “I am a Pentecostal.” More shockingly, “I am a Classical Pentecostal.” And no, I do not live in a museum – YET, although my charismatic and neo-charismatic friends might hope so. 2
For sure, a museum could be my eventual home and status as there are forces at work both within and without the denomination to which I belong (PAOC) who seem determined to re-constitute our theological identity into what one Pentecostal/Charismatic, emergent church (EC) District Conference attendee remarked to me, with a straight face, “into Our image and likeness.” When he said that, I thought quietly, “So why be Pentecostal or Charismatic if talking about ‘things of the Spirit’ are not important to you as an emergent mystic?” After all ECs are functionally cessationists ― but I digress!
Yes, I am aware of the common idiomatic phrase, “The sky is falling”, named after that fabled Chicken Little who thought disaster was imminent because an acorn fell on his head. So, to be clear, I am not predicting imminent calamity – because ‘thankfully’ the church universal is in God’s hands, not ours. Phew! In our hunt for hope, there is no need to draw the curtains, turn off the lights and shut the door!
“When I hear that SOET is simply a “refreshing” I am not sure if I should laugh or give leadership 3 out of 4 Pinocchio’s!
I am not convinced however that God holds denominations or movements with the same emotional attachment he does His Church. They come … and they go … often through their own self-destructive choices. Some reappear as a new denomination like the Wesleyan Methodist and Methodist Episcopal Church. Others, like the Episcopalians are on target to be extinct by 2037.
In reflecting on the banner to this blog article, you might ask, “So exactly what does ‘Generically Evangelical’ mean, given that these two words are common and often mis-appropriated? Adam Stewart, in his book The New Canadian Pentecostals (2015) describes it as “evangelicals who modify their traditions often at the expense of diluting traditional denominational characteristics.” (Notes, p. 177). More specifically, Stewart writes, ‘Generically Evangelical’ …
“. . . can best be defined as churches that, above all else, filter their religious content through a therapeutic, individualistic lens, which encourages the purging of traditional, denominational features in favour of lowest-common-denominator, homogenous version of evangelical identity belief and practice.” [p. 85; emphasis mine]
There was a time when being ‘Pentecostal’ was viewed in a rather negative light. After all, though going to church up until the 20th century did not generally require negotiating snake-handlers or frenzied hollerin’ and shoutin’ . . . ‘tongues’, dancing in the Spirit and Jericho marches were a part of the Pentecostal fabric that made other church folk scratch their head.
Then came the mid-20th century and Harold John Ockenga appeared. One of the founders of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), he pushed for the inclusion of Pentecostals into the evangelical family – and suddenly we were mainstream, respectable, in vogue; no longer ‘different’ ― though, I suspect, still viewed with lingering suspicion in some quarters.
Today, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC), the largest organization among Canadian Pentecostals, has approximately 1,100 churches, 3,500 credential holders and 235,000 attendees Chartered in May, 1919, after one hundred years under its belt, it now appears confused about it’s identity as it seems poised to concede to prevailing cultural mores, agitative theological pressures, growing self-directed spirituality and low brand loyalty in an effort to bolster flagging denominational numbers and be more like everyone else. With one District Superintendent readily admitting that 72% of the churches within his district have either plateaued or are in decline, something has to be done ̶ so a creedal change seems to be one solution.
Few things signal this coming seismic move away from Pentecostal identity better than the current Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths (SOFET, March 2020, Draft 13 A) that is awaiting approval by the foot soldiers of the denomination. In a month perhaps, credential holders should all receive a final draft upon which a vote will be made. Who can say if there will be any changes!
What strikes me generally is that while Pentecostals have historically rebuked Higher Criticism for its reductionist / minimalistic bias, the Theological Study Commission (TSC; hereafter Commission) has taken an equally energetic reductionist approach, substituting several of the PAOC denominations theological identifiers for, a la Stewart, “therapeutic, individualistic . . . lowest-common-denominator, homogenous” porridge.
Instead of changing our theological identity, how about we change the structures that create an environment where folks feel less welcomed and cared for?
The proposed draft SOET document is approximately 35% thinner than our current version. Talk about travelling light (Testimony and Enrich, vol. 100. No. 2, 2019). Amazingly, even the most recent testimony/Enrich article “The Church: Refreshing the Statement of Essential Truths” (January/February/March, 2022) is larger than the entire proposed document intended to lay out our theological identity.
For sure, readers will find SOET more folksy . . . but intentionally opaque as well. The proffered proposal comes across more like a ½ page abstract or a 2nd year Bible College essay, than a denominations historical document that articulates in unambiguous and full tones its doctrinal articles of faith and identity.
More precisely . . .
(1) The language in the document is ambiguous and inexact, including but not limited to Spirit baptism, to lead the reader to conclusions about historic Pentecostalism that may not be there and gives room to arrive at broader meanings. With the General Superintendent of the PAOC, David Wells, confessing “we do not have a fixed, ‘bounded set’ identity,” it is certainly axiomatic and truthful to say that in SOET’s current form, “beauty IS literally in the eyes of the beholder”. 3 This I contend, is by design!
(2) The document is purposely rooted in a methodology that divides the books of Scripture into islands of truth that lead the reader to make statements based only on what is in front of them at any given moment – neatly avoiding the truth of the larger narrative and its fullness.
(3) The Commission has successfully excised Dispensationalism. This is not a wild pitch but a carefully thought-out strategy that softens the ‘Acts 2’ position, premillennialism, rapture timing, Israel / Church distinction and most matters of eschatology― and surprisingly, all without the advantage of scholarly discussion papers or vigorous debate from the shareholders. A ‘conversation’ is leaderships preferred abstract noun over any action verb.
(4) The Commission has simplified and short-cut-ed the important language of theology and in the process Article 5 has lost its depth and created a simplistic, ghettoized version of belief, more in keeping with a Marvel comic than one that articulates a theological / doctrinal creed or ‘canon’ of sorts. It’s as if the story has become more true than the doctrines.
In Part One I critiqued the strategy of controlling the SOFET narrative to ensure a successful outcome on what will decisively be a Rubicon moment in the history of the PAOC. As expected, one detractor called my initial article “Anti-SOFET” - not surprising given that current political progressive realities are anti-police … anti-vax … and pretty much ‘anti’ everything else that does not conform to the herd. Apparently, a rush to judgment trumps hearing the evidence first. OK!
Here in Part Two I will address the 1st of these four specifics and in subsequent blogs speak to the remaining three.
Ambiguity Concerning Spirit Baptism
A perfect example of the intentional ambiguity of the proposed SOFET (May, 2020) is reflected in how Spirit Baptism component is written and presented. In 5.5 Spirit Baptism, paragraph two we read:
“The sign of speaking in tongues indicates that believers have been baptised with the Holy Spirit”
‘Evidence’ language in SOET is muddled.
Plain and simple!
Some observations about this SOET statement are in order.
First, the ‘official’ doctrinal position of the PAOC has been that Spirit baptism is the “initial evidence” of the` Spirit-filled life. (Article 5, paragraph 5.6.3. “Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths” in the Constitution and By-Laws of the General Conference of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada). Interestingly SOET makes no reference to ‘additional, or ‘continuing evidences’.
Second, the definite article at the very beginning of the SOET sentence “The sign of speaking in tongues …” (May 2020; emphasis mine) does not give the statement any significant weight. The article ‘the’ when grammatically used with a noun can be either ‘only one’ of a kind … OR just as easily ‘one’ of a kind (but there are many other kinds). Yes, grammar counts! The statement proposed by the Commission is ambiguous, as I reminded one of the co-chairs.
Third, at first glance the proposed statement appears to satisfy what many would have reason to expect ― a clear articulation of initial evidence. Not likely! Take a longer look and you will notice that the statement is without that nuisance ‘initial’ adjective. That is because the statement is more a slight-of-hand maneuver than a concession to classical Pentecostals as I will demonstrate. This is one of the most serious flaws of SOET . . . and given I have made one of the co-chairs aware of this deficiency, I can only assume it is intentional.
To make my point, consider what Andrew Gabriel, a member of the Commission writes. A self-described Pentecostal-Charismatic, teaching at Horizon College and Seminary in Saskatoon, Gabriel (in “Tongues is NOT the Only Sign of Spirit Baptism”) offers a review of what would constitute ‘other evidences’ of spirit baptism. Boldness (Acts 4:31), signs and wonders (Acts 5:12), guidance (Acts 16:10), praise to God (Acts 10:46), along with dreams, visions, prophecy (Acts 2:17), and even church unity (Acts 2:42-47), are among his examples, concluding “… there are many signs of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.” 3
Let’s be clear! Initial evidence and additional evidences do not mean the same thing.
Gabriel is not theologically incorrect. There are a number of ‘additional’ evidences, though interestingly enough, each of the cited examples he proposes are all after the historic Acts 2:4 experience ― a detail he and others seem to ignore.
To understand what is happening here let’s (1) modify the phrase being offered by the Commission by removing the words “speaking in tongues” and (2) insert Gabriel’s other “many signs” of Spirit baptism as noted above. I will limit my examples to three (3) to illustrate.
“The sign of boldness indicates that believers have been baptised with the Holy Spirit”
“The sign of signs and wonders indicates that believers have been baptised with the Holy Spirit.”
“The sign of guidance indicates that believers have been baptised with the Holy Spirit.”
Now the question. Is the Commissions currently proposed statement theologically sound and classically Pentecostal? Yes! Are the three modified examples I gave above theologically and factually accurate as well? Indeed, they are! So, in view of these ‘additional’ evidences, exactly how then has the Commission actually strengthened initial evidence as we are being led to believe?
A co-chair of the Commission, Van Johnson, writing in the Summer 2021 issue of testimony / Enrich speculates that “the import of initial evidence has been lost . . . Perhaps re-introducing ‘sign’ language will help. The sign of reception is speaking in tongues; it marks the beginning point. What follows are manifestations or outworkings of the gift itself.” [emphasis mine]. 4
If this is what Johnson believes, then …
(a) Why does the proposed SOET document make no mention of ‘manifestations’ or ‘outworkings’ to make this vital point absolutely clear to all readers? Surely no one should have to guess or read between the lines.
(b) Why does SOET say nothing about the distinction between ‘the sign of reception is speaking in tongues’ and these ‘manifestations’ that follow? Is a simple phrase articulating this unimportant, insignificant, too trivial to follow up on?
(c) And finally, since Gabriel, himself a member of the Commission, unlike the co-chair, makes no distinction between sign language and manifestations (as noted earlier), it seems woefully clear that ambiguity concerning Spirit Baptism in SOET satisfies both points of view and works to each of their advantage. Indeed, “beauty IS in the eyes of the beholder”.
If we accept prima facie the current version (May 2020), exactly how then is Spirit baptism unique from the other ‘additional’ evidences? Clearly it is not! The Commission has left Pentecostals confused by not advancing or addressing what from the first has been the ‘real’ point of contention among a great many credential holders, namely ― Do Pentecostals subscribe to glossolalia as the 1st evidence … the opening evidence … the starting evidence … the beginning evidence … the initial evidence? I should hasten to add that if there are inadequacies as to how Spirit Baptism is perceived among church attendees (i.e. for personal self-fulfillment over power for mission), the solution is not to be found in dumbing down core theological markers.
The Commission has not done us any favours here! The statement offered by SOET regarding Spirit Baptism while true, is fundamentally flawed for it purposely allows for many other equal evidences (or ‘manifestations’) without having to say so or identify them. The Charismatics and Neo-Charismatics within our ranks, I suspect, are celebrating this theological elasticity!
The Commission has led readers to reach conclusions about Spirit baptism which on deeper investigation lack clarity, have multiple adaptations and which will not satisfy historic Pentecostals. Nor should it!
It is bewildering to me that the Commission publicly says it wishes to strengthen initial evidence as a cardinal value … but then fails to articulate its voiced public conscience on this. The Commissions intransigence on including ‘initial’ into the document (Many have tried. All have failed!) is a telling marker of their purposed intentions. ‘Evidence’ language in SOET is muddled!
So here is my fifteen-minute contribution to an apparent eight or more-year effort to ‘refresh’ Spirit Baptism. I will tell you that I have added the words ‘all important’ as a concession to the Charismatics among us who prefer blurred theological lines, while holding that ‘first evidence’ and ‘other following manifestations’ are not the same thing.
“The sign of speaking in tongues is the first evidence that believers have been baptised with the Holy Spirit. There are other following manifestations, all important, all of which signify the nature of Spirit baptism as empowering our communication, to be his witnesses with speech and actions.”
Speaking in tongues is not simply one sign found on an extensive list of signs, as some Commission members believe... and those who led our movement believed and articulated initial evidence clearly. No fuzzy definitions! Pentecostal theologian Robert Menzies is helpful here:
To sum up, the doctrine of subsequence articulates a conviction crucial for Pentecostal theology and practice . . . This conviction, I would add, is integral to Pentecostalism's continued sense of expectation and effectiveness in mission.” Menzies, Robert. "The Methodology of Pentecostal Theology,” 9. (emphasis mine)
In the prologue of his report to the Theological Study Commission, dated April 28, 2010, Van Johnson, a co-chair of the Theological Study Commission wrote:
“The committee is not just concerned with Spirit Baptism and initial evidence. We cannot treat this subject in isolation from other aspects of faith and practice. In other words, a promotional push for Spirit Baptism is not the cure-all for our movement. For this practice to be relevant today, it should be redefined in light of our calling as a movement and then re-envisioned as a central part of community life.” (emphasis mine)
Recently one of my theological friends noted that “Public actions and public words are fair game for public evaluation.” I agree! That is why I cite the April 28, 2010 report here. The co-chair is articulate and detail minded so did not mis-speak when he chose and wrote the words he did.
It is surprising that a document bearing the title Statement of ‘Essential’ Truths does such an untidy job of articulating a pillar of Pentecostalism – Spirit Baptism.
The Commission and General Executive officers seem satisfied that while ‘initial evidence’ language, has been effectively excised from the current document, this aspect of our religious identity has nevertheless been strengthened. They might even suggest we all just take a deep breath, trust them, pass the SEOT document and then gather for a self-congratulatory Tim’s coffee just down the road on Donald Street in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Regrettably, many believe the proposed SOET document is indeed a mere ‘refreshing’. If only! Redefining who we are theologically is where this Commission is pushing to take us. Our General Executive Officers, whose mantra seems to be “But I Don’t Want to Be Different” appear to be in step with this shift in our identity, following the lead of the ‘Coach’ who believes our Pentecostal identity is of secondary value if it will move us deeper into the generic evangelical house. After all, we are no longer ‘Pentecostal’; we are ‘Family’ (Wells, What I See, 2008, 67-68).
Pastors, Boards and Church Laity have reason to be very concerned about where this denomination is being taken. “OnlySaying …”
1 For the purposes of clarity, in most cases I have adopted here the more current acronym version SOET over the earlier one (SOFET)
2 ‘Classical Pentecostal’ here identifies those who believe that Spirit baptism is separate from and subsequent to conversion and that the initial physical evidence of this normative experience is speaking in tongues (glossolalia), in the same way as the 120 on the day of Pentecostal (Acts 2). Charismatics and Neo-charismatics are not nearly so convinced, I can assure you.
3 Gabriel, Andrew. “Tongues Is Not the ONLY Sign of Spirit Baptism” in https://www.andrewkgabriel.com/2011/07/25/tongues-is-not-the-only-sign-of-spirit-baptism/
4 Johnson, Van. “Five Things You Should Know About Spirit Baptism.” testimony / Enrich, Summer 2021. p. 35.
Comments