The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) has at its theological foundation, a written Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths (SOFET) and though Pentecostals are not creedal by nature, the document is about as close as we get to being so. That said, a transformation of the document is coming, the intentions of which are to domesticate Pentecostals by reframing the denomination towards a less rigorous Pentecostal identity – one more generically evangelical. As I write, a decision is days away in Winnipeg, Manitoba, (May 2022) where credential holders are preparing to gather to put their Good House Keeping red seal of approval on this top-down administrative vision-casting.
Here in Part Six (for Parts 1-5 see OnlySaying.com), I turn to the last of four shortcomings of the proposed ‘refreshed’ (the denominations preferred word) articles of our faith and identity and offer some concluding remarks. For a list of my specific concerns, see Part Two, “But I Don’t Want to be Different”.
(4) The Commission has simplified and short-cut-ed the important language of theology and in the process Article 5 (SOFET, 2018) 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 truer than the doctrines.
Now the changing of theological statements is nothing new. The most recent example that comes to mind is the Evangelical Free Church of America’s 2019 decision to drop a single word ‘premillennial’ from Article 9 of its Statement of Faith (hereafter SOF) and substitute it with the word ‘glorious’. Now say what you might about the implications of this singular change (as in broadening their millennial view), at least the EFCA provided a reasoned five-page document precisely detailing ‘A Rationale for the Change’ to their SOF. It is clear, reasoned … and transparently honest (read # 5) about why the change. Interestingly, not once does their document use the word ‘refresh’ - preferring instead to call it what it really was, a ‘change’ to their SOF. 1
Just because the cultural climate is getting chilly for Pentecostals, does not mean the answer is found in generic evangelicalism.
In an earlier blog I noted that the proposed SOET is considerably shorter (about 35%). Lately some have tried to build the case that a “condensed version marks a return to the past” – a-la 1919. It sounds endearing, even nostalgic.
First, brevity, like deodorant, can be a blessing, but Pentecostal identity and faith are more than a mere numbers game, and second, a reasonable assumption would be that a formative 1920’s document of a movement in its struggling theological infancy would most naturally make room for articulating a budding, growing, and maturing Pentecostal theology, and more so as it addressed challenges like Oneness, and Wesleyan / non-Wesleyan sanctification.
Now obviously, the PAOC is not the U.S. Assemblies of God (AG), considered by most within the denomination as a sister organization to the PAOC. And no, I am not suggesting Canadian Pentecostals are not free to pursue their own identity. Still, the devastating consequences brought about by the original sin of Adam and imputed to every son/daughter of Adam is the same whether in Tucson, Toronto … or Timbuktu. Ultimately people need the Lord, not Statements of Faith.
The world’s largest Pentecostal denomination, at three million members and nearly 13,000 affiliated assemblies, has been quietly growing in the United States these last 15 years. Between 2005 and 2019 it grew 16% to 3.3 million members. In fact, during the past 40 years, only three times has the AG annual report not shown growth – and only one this century. Wonderfully, 53% of AG adherents are under thirty-five. 1 Here is the kicker: it has dutifully stood firm on its Pentecostal theological distinctives and identity. Words like rapture, initial physical, premillennial, second coming, millennial reign, one thousand years, national Israel populate their Statement of Fundamental Truths.
Unlike the PAOC, with its meager creedal language, the AG have not taken a reductionist approach, but a full-throated one in identifying who they are. They were not concerned for word limits. Amazingly, the AG does not even eschew the word ‘Fundamental’ when speaking of its ‘16 Fundamental Truths’. The idea therefore that a simplified, redefined … kind-of gluten free, non-GMO, no additives, wheat free, on-a-restricted diet SOET is going to excite, enfranchise and enliven preachers and churches and grow membership is a tale that belongs with the Grimm brothers.
The steady growth of the Assemblies of God lays bare the myth that ‘refreshed’ Statements of Faith bring growth to an organization.
So, what is wrong with being an Evangelical? Nothing actually! For sure we share common ground with all kinds of them. No dispute there. Still, our position on Spirit Baptism, the availability of the charismatic gifts in the life and mission of the church, divine healing and a world view that has the Holy Spirit permeating daily life, explains obvious differences. Likewise, evangelical theologians generally reflect the influence of classical Reformed theology – that salvation and Spirit Baptism are the same experience. No utterances! As a deeply respected theologian friend of mine reminds me, “We are not simply evangelicals with minor idiosyncrasies.”
It was Thomas E. Trask, the 11th General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God, who rightfully and insightfully said, “The Assemblies of God was raised up to be a Pentecostal voice. I have great respect and love for evangelical churches, but we are more than evangelical; we are Pentecostal.” 2 Hmm! I think Trask was on to something.
Dr. Gary McGee, Distinguished Professor of Church History and Pentecostal Studies at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary located in Springfield, Missouri and a former prof of mine saw the future clearly when he said “being ‘more than evangelical’ represents the greatest challenge …” [emphasis mine]. 3 Three decades later, the PAOC with its ‘refreshed’ SOET seems deaf to McGee’s sage alert.
As the attraction to Reformed evangelical scholarship grows in
our ranks, Pentecostals need to recapture what it means
to be ‘more than evangelical’.
Remember my earlier reference to the EFCA changing just one word in their SOT? Seems innocent enough, but in fact it threw a hermeneutical wrench into things. Changing that one word facilitated a greater number of those within their community who prefer a much different approach to interpreting the scriptures. To illustrate, an amillennial interpretational approach would see the ‘as yet’ unfulfilled prophecies regarding Israel not as literal, but as nothing more than a spiritual idea being worked out in the present age and experience of the church. While it is amazing what a single word change can bring about, the PAOC has proceeded on a much grandeur scale with its interpretational approach to the Bible, to the purpose of bringing all Pentecostals into the same ecclesiastical, evangelical tribe. Adam Stewart (The New Canadian Pentecostals, 2015) did not mis-speak when he spoke of the “purging of traditional, denominational features in favor of lowest-common-denominator, homogenous version of evangelical identity belief and practice”.
Our PAOC Fathers seem determined to construct a Pentecostal
theology that is more adaptive to modernity – which includes
being less doctrinally defined.
The proposed SOET reflects agendas, not clarity in our theology. It is a top-down strategy intended to make us ‘more like’ rather than ‘different from’ so as to provide room for new church leadership that is unwilling to subscribe to classical Pentecostal theology… and it is calling credential holders to a more ‘sophisticated’ relationship to God’s word than what Pentecostals have traditionally subscribed to hermeneutically.
A couple of closing thoughts.
(a) The proposed SOET (Draft 16) is so fundamentally theologically pared down I have no doubt that the PAOC will need to write a companion piece to it to explain the contents. Without this companion piece future generations of Pentecostals will be theologically lost to what Pentecostals believe.
(b) SOET language is sufficiently ambiguous and inexact as to lead readers to conclusions that may or may not be there … and sufficiently broad as to permit multiple adaptations to satisfy several modern-day spirit baptism perspectives not readily embraced by classical Pentecostals. To illustrate, glossolalic utterance marks the inauguration of the spirit-filled Christian life (See Part Two; “But I Don’t Want to be Different”), yet the Theological Study Commission’s (TSC) efforts on Spirit Baptism lack clarity, its ‘evidence’ language is muddled, and it opens the lid to other understandings and positions. Yes, grammar does count. Why the TSC chooses to remain so intransigent about ‘fixing’ this obvious shortcoming remains a mystery to me.
Further to this point, our national leadership says it remains fundamentally committed to ‘initial evidence’ even while these precise words are missing from the document (Many have tried; all have failed). Yet at the same Winnipeg General Conference where Resolution # 10 (Article 5.1-5.8 Review and Refresh of the Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths) is to be determined … comes Resolution # 5 (Qualifications for Provisional Credential), a proposal that would allow non-Spirit-baptized applicants a ministerial credential to serve on the pastoral staff of a local church – provided they do not serve as Senior Pastor until receiving Spirit Baptism. We are supposed to feel relieved that granting such a credential would be ‘an exception, to be reviewed by the district annually’. Let’s face it, given human nature and District/Church politics, this proviso will ultimately translate into a modern version of Judges 17:6 – “Every District did as they saw fit.” So, while leadership is busy chipping away at our Pentecostal distinctive … I am supposed to believe leadership is rock-solid on ‘initial evidence’. Really?
First, Mr. Potato Head and Dr. Seuss were cancelled and now the fog of generic evangelicalism is drifting through the PAOC, threatening to cancel the memory of what moved Pentecostals forward
with great spiritual success.
(c) The ambiguity of SOET also touches Pentecostal eschatology. One of the theological scribes in our Bible College [A good young scholar, a genuinely nice fellow, and a former student of mine no less] reports that “There is nothing inherently Pentecostal about numerous eschatological points that are in the PAOC’s current SOFET”.
Actually, the beliefs, spirituality, and urgent missionary impulse among Pentecostals were the direct result of their premillennial view and a premillennial view does indeed dominate our current SOFET’s eschatology.
Furthermore, the premillennial belief in the imminent return of Christ coupled with the experience of Spirit Baptism for empowerment of believers to go into the world and preach the gospel … does touch our eschatological identifiers and is in our current SOFET. Truthfully, more to the point, it would have been more accurate to have said, “There is nothing inherently Pentecostal about the proposed SOET’s eschatological points.” These days it seems more rational to not connect the dots of one’s theology.
(d) The SOET document was by design, so we were told, rooted in a Biblical Theology (BT) rather than a Systematic one. In Part Three (“Using Biblical Theology and SOET to Domesticate Pentecostals”) I laid out the short comings of such an approach, contending for a partnership between BT and Systematic theology as a much better, more enriching strategy. It was not to be. So, imagine my surprise to see that in the closing section called ‘The Church’ the familiar biblical gender order of ‘male and female’ (even ‘sons and daughters’, ‘brothers and sisters’) that populates Scripture has been reversed to say …
“The Spirit also empowers leaders, both female and male, to equip the church to fulfil its mission and purposes.” (SOET, Draft 16, May 2022)
Yes, women share equally in the grace of regeneration, justification, sanctification, and Spirit indwelling. Yes, women share equally in the task of dominion over God’s creation. And for sure we must acknowledge women as anointed and gifted pastors (Guys, listen up!). But I did not think that the purpose of SOET’s approach here was to morph from a spiritual disposition into political identity. When the TSC decided to reverse the scriptural ‘male and female’ over their concern for gender-based opposition, they moved away from their self-advertised biblical theology approach and proved that SOET is indeed as much a political tool as it is a cultural and theological one. The good news is that while God does not bite his fingernails over this … so much for a Biblical theology, eh!
It remains my view that the proposed SOET (Draft 16, May 2022) is a move away from our history and a changing of our distinctives. The shift is subtle, but real! Yes, it is nice to be considered evangelical and orthodox … but we are “more than Evangelical”. The proposed document adds nothing of lasting benefit over the current SOFET 2018 version and without changes it should be deep-sixed by credential holders. Changes of course are not going to happen. The document is done. Conference debate will be limited, if even permitted. Perhaps credential holders will even be informed that they have had seven years to engage before the vote.
The SOET document before the PAOC credential holders is a significant one, make no mistake. My purpose in recent blogs was to shine a light on the theological substance of that document and offer ‘another news channel’ so that having been exposed to a point of view outside the power corridors and from a different perspective, pastors and leaders in my denomination can make an informed decision.
I have come to conclude that with the passing of each successive generation, theology becomes more of a misfit in the church, marginalized in the interests of a more generalized theology of faith and a pathology of individualism. My prayer would be that Pentecostals would dust off their familiar Spirit Baptism language, reassert their Pentecostal identity and mission over an evangelical one and invest that language with renewed power. The readers of this blog are wise enough to decide if this ‘refreshed’ SOET proposal is ultimately an advance or a retreat, a pivot or a decline. For sure, I know where I stand. “OnlySaying ...”
1 https://go.efca.org/sites/default/files/resources/docs/2017/09/the_proposal_to_amend _our_statement_of_faith-a_rationale_for_the_change.pdf
2 Thomas E. Trask and David A. Womack. Back to the Altar: A Call to Spiritual Awakening. (Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1994), 25.
3. Gary B. McGee. “More Than Evangelical,” in Church, Identity and Change. eds. David A. Roozen and James R. Nieman. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 40
Comments