First, a brief, but important contextual word: The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) of which I am a member, is in the midst of ‘refreshing’ (their word, not mine!) the denomination’s Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths (SOFET). Though Pentecostals are not creedal like the Lutherans (Augsburg Confession; 1530) or Presbyterians / Reformed (Westminster Confession, 1646) or Anglicans, (Apostles Creed) … think of SOFET as the document that articulates our theological creed. In other words, ‘It is important to our identity.’
After reading a number of articles in our denominational publications that spoke of thinking outside the box and travelling light theologically …. AND attending informational meetings where leaders did much talking about SOFET but limited listening, it seemed evident to me there was a pattern emerging. The PAOC leadership was using all the tools associated with a large organization (e.g. publications, status, influence, social media, money), to shape and control the theological narrative so as to produce a preferable outcome on our future theological identity, set for a vote this May, 2022 at our General Conference in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
In the spirit of engagement, I wrote and submitted an article on October 23, 2019 for our Pentecostal Testimony / Enrich magazine. I was hoping to offer balance and a cautionary word, even as leadership pumped out Zoom meetings to pitch their position about out theological identity and agreed to answer some questions as long as they were submitted ‘at least two days prior’. Months passed! Hearing nothing, on March 23, 2020 I enquired as to the status of my article and was informed it was in process. On April 4, 2020, I enquired again, only to hear that a decision had not yet been reached. Not a word about any real or imagined problems with my content, grammar, or such. Just a growing silence and inaction that says everything!
Finally, on July 28, 2020 ̶ a full 40 weeks after the initial submission, it seemed clear the article was not destined to see the light of day within my denomination (You think?). I therefore asked the editor to delete the manuscript.
Over these next number of months, in advance of a scheduled May, 2022 vote, I will turn my focus to this SOFET document (since renamed Statement of Essential Truths; SOET) and the fundamental changes the PAOC leadership seems bent on making to our theological identity, all under the guise of an innocent adjective – ‘refreshing’.
I understand that not everyone will find the coming focus necessarily attractive, interesting or of particular importance. I get it! But as one sage rightfully noted, theology is not just about professional training, “it’s about life, meaning, belief and identity at the deepest level”.
My hope would be that all credential holders, church boards and members of The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada will be open to a broader examination than the top-down narrative leadership seems married to …and that they will take time to read, consider and share coming articles with others … and then ask themselves whether a new and different foundation is being laid besides that which we have essentially subscribed to for over 100 years. I trust you will find the issues raised compelling reading.
In the meantime, what follows below is the offending article, without alteration, which I initially submitted October 23, 2019. I trust you find it not nearly as threatening as it seemed to our officers and leaders. “Only Saying.”
Theology Is Inescapable. It Brings Clarity to Identity!
In my earlier theologically formative years, I travelled to Princeton Theological Seminary to take a course with an eminent prof who was exceptional in laying out the nuances of the Book of Ruth. It was not lost to me that this was the second-oldest seminary in the United States, the child of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church and an institution that had endured a major schism in the 1920s better known today at the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy.
Among the central issues of dispute back then were the questions surrounding the authority of Scripture, the efficacy of Christ’s atonement and the literal Second Coming of Christ. The theologians in the two opposing camps reads like a ‘Who’s Who’ of early American theology. Among the ‘New Schoolers’ were Harry Emerson Fosdick, Charles Briggs, Charles Erdman and Henry van Dyke; the conservative muscle listed Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Oswald T. Allis, and John Gresham Machen.
In time the divide became so great that Machen and several of his colleagues left the institution and founded Westminster Theology Seminary – so-named to underscore its fidelity to the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Princeton is a visible reminder of the ongoing archetypal theological tensions within Christianity and while statements of faith will not necessarily be grounded in infallibility, and certitude about the future likely viewed with caution, beliefs that mark movements and denominations matter to most people with a faith persuasion.
From my perspective I see three theological pressure points within the Christian matrix with a capacity to be disruptive to a movement and result in far-reaching consequences.
1. The Force of the Academy
Theological institutions play a central part in the shaping of a religious body and that influence can be for good or lead to redundant terminal death. Gifted and called to the ministry of teaching, theologians within every church body play a weighty and essential role in crafting position papers on culturally sensitive issues, responding definitively when heresies appear and formally shaping Christian leadership. Though often viewed dismissively, their role and influence are significant and they should generally be esteemed.
However, the academy can be a two-edged sword because while theologians can be on the cutting edge of theology, fully capable of handling everything from Pelagian Christology to Gnostic Manichaeism, — these heavy-weights also have the capacity to leverage their influence to swing identity, as the Princeton example demonstrates.
Theological institutions are typically identified with particular church denominations, each with codified beliefs. Teaching therefore can be expected to fall within its published academic goals and conform to its particularity. In this scenario, the denomination is still the gatekeeper and it would not be imprudent to expect that its theological identity and distinctives be adhered to by those who are given access to the classroom.
2.The Force of Clergy
Read the Scriptures and it is self-evident that God lays a boat-load of responsibility on leadership. This ‘burden’ is of no minor importance either, since clearly their influence as gatekeeper and visionary can empower or obstruct God’s plans, purposes and people.
When young Joshua pushed forward into new territory, having never “been this way before”, it was a new season for everyone and what he believed about God and destiny played a crucial role in making gains in a land both foreign in culture and perverse in nature. On the other hand, when Rehoboam dismissed the wisdom of his sages, preferring instead the bad council of younger friends, not only was the schism in Israel inevitable but it demonstrated his quintessential decision to neither love or serve his people – a theme of considerable theological importance later in the New Testament (Luke 22:24-27).
Cautionary stories such as these can be instructive in the larger discussion of theological pressure points because as a clergy driven movement, what our Pentecostal leadership believes about God, the Scriptures and the future does shape its identity and spiritual vitality. For example, immanency compelled us to seek out the lost; Spirit baptism emboldened us to tell the lost.
Since the Azusa Street revival of 1906, Pentecostals were fundamentally Trinitarian until that fateful day in April, 1913 at a camp meeting in Arroyo Seco, California, when Canadian evangelist R. E. McAlister (later Secretary General of the P.A.O.C.) sparked a theological controversy saying pastors needed to baptize only in ‘Jesus’ Name’. One year later, the Oneness Pentecostal movement emerged, with its emphasis on one God with no distinction of persons, a doctrine fundamentally at odds with the beliefs of Trinitarians. Between 1917 – 1921 the PAOC would remain a Trinitarian / Oneness organization, but the unity would not last. As a condition to joining the Assemblies, in 1921 the P.A.O.C. was compelled to repudiate Oneness. Theology matters!
With the 1940s came the New Order of the Latter Rain movement which punctuated two dominant theologies that classical Pentecostals found objectionable: the imparting of spiritual gifts through the laying on of hands and the restoration of apostles and prophets to return the church to its apostolic purity. Leadership ultimately rejected its beliefs and practices. Theology matters!
Today the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), a syncretistic mixture of classical, charismatic and peripheral groups, with their edgy, esoteric view that Christians can incarnate Christ to establish His kingdom, is a pressing theological battlefield. It remains to be seen whether pastors, the foot soldiers in any movement, will forge an alliance with this ‘new’ vision of eschatology. Add to the mix that some church leaders are ‘operational’ adherents only, afraid to publicize to the denomination that they have transitioned to something different, and it’s difficult to decipher what the road ahead might look like.
Two things seem certain: clergy remain a dominant theological force within any movement and their views, balanced or batty, astute or asinine, informed or indifferent, shape the well-being or unsoundness of a movement; it will become increasingly more difficult to hold to beliefs that mark movements and denominations because the pull towards a slimmer, less defining, burdensome theological identity is a cold reality that defines our culture.
3. The Force of Laity
The entire planet is enculturated, including tanker pirates, Bolshoi ballet dancers and practicing Christians. So, depending on what a person has been taught or learned, there is tremendous potential for vastly differing ethnocentric ideas as to how the world should be viewed and judged.
The expectation seems to be that a Christian world-view will be seen through the lens of Scripture. However since believers, by-and-large, have embraced culture as fully as any other group, it should come as no surprise that their views, values and feelings about such modern issues as abortion, LGBTQ affirmation, immigration, social justice and personal pronoun use are likely to be just as assorted and perhaps even fundamentally at odds with the Bible.
This theological diversity within the church does not present an existential threat to Jesus’ kingdom. Nevertheless, it is a rather obvious pressure point within the greater fabric of any church movement that finds itself already swimming against the current of low brand loyalty and a growing eclectic spirituality. How to negotiate this theological maze and ensure the support of believers in moving the greater mission forward keeps pastors and denominational leaders awake at night, I suspect.
One way to leverage grass-roots support is through compromise and concession but this can be hazardous in the long scheme of things. Is the blending of classical Pentecostal theology with charismatic ‘word of faith’ zeal or ‘Three Bible Steps to a Better Financial Future’ over a robust pneumatology a preferred and helpful outcome? Whatever the conclusion, I foresee that this delicate dance between theological identity and a laity struggling to contextualize a right ‘Christian view’ on modern issues will continue.
Conclusion
Christianity has endured and Jesus’ words about building His church, have not lost their potency. Still, we can expect theological pressures to expand at both the local and governing level as we gallop towards the end of this age.
Leonard Cohen once said, “In a massacre there is no decent place to stand”. His point was that no matter what decision is made someone will take exception because divergent views have feelings attached to them.
The P.A.O.C. has been on a journey of late, revisiting its Statement of Essential and Fundamental Truths (S.O.F.E.T) and reviewing the finer point of its doctrinal DNA. While this reality should not prevent her from making the best possible choices, it would be prudent to move cautiously when attempting to brand identity and leverage pragmatics in a direction alien to its past and potentially opaque in the future.
Comments