In an earlier blog, I noted the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) is in the throes of a manufacturing a seismic shift as it writes a new article of faith which it hopes will be endorsed by credentialed foot soldiers. If the ‘refreshed’ Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths (SOFET, May 2022) is accepted, it will be undeniably generically evangelical and soften mainstream Canadian Pentecostal identity both in our churches and among our pastors. I suspect this is the precise intent! On a positive note, think of the pool of talent the PAOC will be able to pull both from Alliance and other Evangelical churches to fill pastoral vacancies in a PAOC church near you!
In Part Four, I turn my thoughts to the question of ‘Last Things’, and the efforts of the Theological Study Commission (herein called TSC) to reduce it to a third, fourth even ‘nothing’ order issue. The subject is so large, Part Four AND Part Five will address this matter head on.
As I noted in Part One . . .
(3) The Commission has successfully excised Dispensationalism. This is not a wild pitch – but a carefully thought-out strategy from the ‘Coach’, that softens the ‘Acts 2’ position, premillennialism, rapture timing, Israel / Church distinction and ― all without the advantage of scholarly discussion papers or vigorous debate from the credential holders.
To this moment, historic Pentecostals have believed and practiced that not only is eschatology important, but that a particular eschatology is equally as important. Our view on the origins of the church, the emminency (at any moment) of Christ, the theological significance of the land of Israel, the future restoration of national Israel, the existence of a coming Millennium, the earthly reign of Christ, as David’s descendent to fulfill the promise of the Messiah ruling the nations from the Davidic throne and a hermeneutic that is inclined less to spiritualizing and allegorizing Scripture are among the hallmarks of a Pentecostal theology – identity markers which seem destined to be sacrificed to the god of generic evangelicalism.
OK, it goes without saying that there will be disagreement regarding the ‘end times’. After all, eschatology has hardly been a consensus issue (no more than ‘global warming’, ‘gender fluidity’ or vaccine passports to attend church). These differing perspectives can be the result of intentionally applying a differing theological hermeneutical system or because the subject itself is viewed as trivial in the light of other Bible ‘stuff’ … or more honestly, because the effort involved in studying such events makes the brain hurt ― so why should Pentecostals, ever the eternal pragmatists, bother?!
Fundamentally, we ‘bother’ because eschatology was important to the Old Testament, Jesus, apocalyptic Paul, and the early church. Eschatological passages were surely never placed in Scripture for the believing church to simply say, “Well, that’s nice!” No! Eschatology matters and a particular eschatology matters because the conclusions we reach bear on how we understand the program of God and how we see and articulate our mission in the world. Nor should we ignore the obvious ― that among historic Pentecostals, eschatology has been fundamentally a central, 2nd order issue of our message (Spirit baptism being the 1st order) for now, at least!
Eschatology, TSC and SOFET
While it is beyond the limits of this blog to articulate all the aspects of Pentecostal eschatology, it is clear that at the hands of the Theological Study Commission (TSC), dispensational eschatology has suffered and become dispensable eschatology! Consider the following examples:
(1) Rapture
Prior to 1984, the PAOC was decidedly Pre-Tribulation, wherein Jesus comes before the 7-year Tribulation period. In 1984 the General Conference relaxed their understanding of the rapture, to allow for a ‘mid-tribulation’ view. I’m happy to report that to date absolutely none of our theologians have been proven wrong– YET!
The TSC proposal has now scrubbed these two views making no reference to this event taking place “before the wrath of God is poured out during the tribulation” (current SOFET 2014, 5.8.2 ‘The Rapture’), meaning the commission has broadened the rapture event to accommodate a pre-wrath (Marvin Rosenthal) and potentially a post-tribulation view, though the language is too muddled to know for sure. Then again, ambiguity is SOET’s greatest tool, as the Theological Study Commission’s (TSC) work on Spirit Baptism amply demonstrates (see ‘But I Don’t Want to be Different’)
While some evangelicals might support other positions, this has never been a PAOC policy historically. Finally, how the proposal can speak of the “imminent return of Christ in the air” ― yet open the door to holding a Pre-Wrath, even a Post Tribulation view is bewildering. How can the return of Christ be imminent ... but potentially 5, 6, even 7 years away? Sounds like theological doublespeak to me. I guess ‘imminent’ was given a new meaning while I was out cutting the grass.
Now Catholics, Anglicans (Episcopalians in the US), Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Reform Christians (Amillennialist) and Presbyterians (Postmillennialist) among others, have no tradition of humanity being left behind through a period of tribulation (I Thess. 4:17) while believing persons go ‘missing’ (Parousia). The PAOC however does have such an historic tradition, one that understands the coming of Christ consisting of two events: Rapture (5.8.2) and Second Coming (5.8.4; SOFET 2014).
The TSC proposal on this matter is problematic. It reads in part:
― “Our great hope is for the imminent return of Christ in the air to receive his own, both the living who will be transformed, and the dead in Christ who will be bodily resurrected.47 Christ will complete at his second coming the restoration begun when he initiated God’s kingdom at his first coming.48
(SOFET, General Conference Proposed Resolution, May 2022 Draft 13)
At first sight it might appear that these two sentences concur with the classically Pentecostal two distinct events scenario, but we would be reading into it an imagined scenario. The proposal is (1) sufficiently ambiguous and indistinct as to permit the Rapture to occur simultaneously with Christ’s Second Coming and (2) the footnote provided can lead readers to conclude the return of Christ is a single event as well. Ask yourself:
Would a move from a two-phase event to a single one be consistent with leaderships intentions (a matter of public record by-the-way) to displace dispensationalism and one of its hallmark features? Yes! Fuzzy language can be very good!
Why does the SOET footnote provided as ‘proof’ of Christ’s return “in the air” 47 coincidentally connect I Thessalonians 4:14-17 WITH 5:1-2? This seems odd and here is why. The text of I Thessalonians 4:14-17 resonates with encouraging rapture language for those who are saved (arpadzw = ‘to snatch away’; here a positive connotation).1 But 5:1-2 with its “day of the Lord” reference is a judgment passage associated with Christ’s Second Coming and those who are unsaved.
If two distinct, separate events are in view, then why does SOET cite I Thessalonians 4 and 5 together? This is not coincidence. To illustrate, a Post-tribulationist will generally point out that because I Thessalonians 5 with its reference to “the day of the Lord” immediately follows Chapter 4 which speaks of the rapture, the implication is that the beginning of the rapture and the beginning of the day of the lord occur at the same time AND even towards the end of the great tribulation period. So, the rapture for such a person is synonymous with the second coming, and the resurrection of both dead and living believers in Christ will occur at the end of the age as well. In allowing for Post Tribulationism, the TSC has departed from one of the markers of normative dispensationalism.
Before you dismiss this, I would point you to our current 2014 Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths. Have a look! I will wait a moment! In the current document I Thessalonians 4:13-18 is connected to the Rapture (5.8.2) and I Thessalonians 5:1-3 is linked to the Tribulation (5.8.3). Notice these two passages do not appear together in footnotes 62 or 64. However, in the ‘refreshed’ SOET document they do (SOET, footnote 47). Why might this be? As I have said in previous blogs – the new creedal proposal is as much known for what it does not say, then for what it does. Ambiguity and theological elasticity are the preferred tools of the TSC – not transparency!
To alleviate apocalyptic anxiety, with its talk of Rapture and Antichrist and the Tribulation, the TSC has successfully erased
such language. We should all feel much better now!
You will understand that it would be a formidable task to undertake an examination and a polemical response to all of themes and subtleties located in the SOET draft proposal on eschatology. Still, in defense of an historical Pentecostal eschatology, our current position on the rapture is not inconsistent with earlier Church Fathers.
Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book 5, XXIX, 1 offers clear ‘caught up’ terminology. He notes that tribulation follows in its wings and directly quotes Matthew 24:21.
“And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be."
Cyprian, Treatise 7. 24-26. Begin at 22 to get the ‘flavor’ of his writing. In 25 he offers metaphors that are in essence describing the coming tribulation period. Then he speaks of an “earlier departure” and being “taken away” – clearly rapture terminology.
(2) Dispensational Premillennialism
(a) Dispensational
Developed in the 1830’s, and traced to J.N. Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, dispensationalism was popularized with the publication of the Scofield Bible in 1909. Though the life span of an idea does not determine veracity or falsity as a framework for understanding the larger structure of the Bible, it is about 190 years old. And while Pentecostals might quibble over how many dispensations there are and their names, it is hardly radical to divide history into periods of time, certainly no more radical than Reform’s conceptual theology with its three overarching artificial covenants of redemption, works and grace.
According to the National Association of Evangelicals’ (NAE)
last poll, as much as 65% of evangelicals identify with
premillennial dispensationalism. Whoa!
No doubt you have heard the phrase, “Nature abhors a vacuum,” implying that according to the law of physics, empty or unfilled spaces are unnatural. Where there is a void, nature will fill it. Apply this axiomatic statement then in the absence of a dispensational theology. To name just a few, will Pentecostals choose the …
Preterism of the late R.C. Sproul, a popular evangelical who saw prophecies fulfilled in the historical events of the past?
Realized Eschatology of C.H. Dodd which teaches that the eschatological passages in the New Testament taken mostly from the Old, refer to the experience of Christ and the New Testament church, not the future? More recently, Pentecostals seem taken up with Anglican bishop N.T. Wright, because of his popular theology of “Kingdom Now”.
Inaugurated Eschatology which teaches that Kingdom Age promises were initially ‘realized’ (spiritual fulfillment) during the Church Age? Donald A. Carson, a well know evangelical, premillennial theologian and former prof of mine, has pushed this view with some success. I would offer that Acts 3:19-21 ties the Messiah’s earthly kingdom to Israel’s national repentance which only takes place at the end of the Tribulation (cf. Matthew 24:29-30; Luke 21:28).
Replacement Theology (Supersessionism) of someone like Bruce Waltke wherein the church (new and/or true Israel) has superseded Israel and disappears from the eschatological radar. Take this position and you reach the conclusion that neither Israel nor the land of Israel has any theological significance … a growing popularity within the denomination.
Progressive Dispensationalism (PD) of Darrell Block (Dallas Theological Seminary) or Craig Blaising (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) who (a) maintain Christ is presently sitting on King David’s throne in heaven and(b) takes the “one new man” (Ephesians 2:11-23) to be the church as a continuation of Old Testament believing Jews and therefore the initial fulfillment of the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34? For the record - Where in the Bible does it say that during the Church Age David’s throne is in heaven? It doesn’t!
Reform Theology where (a) Old Testament prophecies are interpreted figuratively, (b) which sees the church existing before the New Testament era (not at Pentecost) and (c) views human redemption as the goal of ‘salvation history’ ― and not the glory of God, a classical Pentecostal position.
What I can say for sure is that within the new evangelicalism of the PAOC there is in some quarters a noticeable dislike for dispensationalism, as though some how its reputation as overtly alarmist, conspiratorial (so-say its foes) is holding the denomination back from being accepted by mainstream evangelicalism AND developing a more comprehensive evangelical, social-justice ethic! SOET is the child of this new evangelicalism.
We have lost the great historic traditions which have given us our
vitality and identity: Spirit Baptism and the Imminency of Christ’s return.
no amount of ‘refreshed’ SOET porridge is going to win it back.
It’s deeper than that!
If we think it does not matter, think again because every theological framework listed above brings with it a very different understanding of the nature, mission, and work of God in our world, shaping not only our Eschatology …. but our Ecclesiology was well, a subject beyond the limits of this blog article unfortunately.
So, with this ‘refreshed’, but really redefined identity, what do our national Executive Officers want the foot soldiers to believe – assuming they know! Content to erase swaths of our eschatological identity without debate (“Conversations” only please!) – they surely must know what to put up on the now empty black board. Are we still Arminian … or are we somewhere on the Calvinism chart (High, Moderate, Low octane)? Are we more Adrian Rogers or Martin Luther? Should we identify with prevenient grace or common grace? How should we now view our Ecclesiology? Can we just pick and choose from the increasingly large theological buffet out there? And exactly what kind of evangelical ecumenism shall we teach incoming Bible college students destined to become some of our pastors? No doubt some reading this blog will not likely care. That would be sad!
(b) Premillennialism
Not without interest, Church Fathers all the way to the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 AD, were almost exclusively premillennial. Things only began to morph when Origen arrived with his allegorical interpretation of Scripture and by the early fifth century, Augustine’s amillennialism had won the day and become the Church’s orthodox view.
According to the SOET proposal on eschatology, the coming of Christ brings the final judgment and the eternal state, but no reference is made to the Millennium in the document – None! Now I know that when it comes to the Millennium and a ‘thousand years of peace’, Christians seem to prefer to fight over it, but its absence in the proposed document is indicative of the twist to embrace generic evangelicalism. It sees it as a barrier to inclusiveness – so it gets erased.
“I get it.” Really! I mean, of course there needs to be a little bit of epistemological humility on some areas of eschatology. And “Yes,” I understand that the subject is not every pastor’s bailiwick [To be candid, I am really thinking most pastors]. But that should not leave us to whitewash the entire subject with, “It will all pan out in the end” flippancy. Clearly Christ calls us to consider the future and there are too many explicit details to dismiss the subject cavalierly.
The memory of what moved Pentecostals forward with
great spiritual success has been lost in Canada.
Permit me a moment of nostalgia – OK? At a time past when the denomination considered the fractious issue of Divorce and Remarriage, a TSC was struck (not the same one obviously), and informing booklets were produced dealing with all the contentious scriptural passages, including some healthy debate in its wings. A ‘refreshed’ document with it mostly figured out was given to pastors.
Todays TSC, with the blessing of our General Executive, simply rewrites our creedal identity and drops it in our laps. They call it a soothingly ‘refreshing’,” permit a 7-year ‘conversation’ only please, unilaterally scrub or marginalize theological beliefs without any written theological premise as to why (Readers have to figure that out on their own), use all of the media platform tools to persuade listeners that their channel is the only channel worth listening to … and traffics in ambiguity and inexactness, and produces a muddled statement on Spirit Baptism, as demonstrated in a previous blog of mine. Unbelievable!
The TSC’s statement on future PAOC eschatology is deliberately reductionistic (a form of determinism) ― to craft a generically eschatological, evangelical diversity and identity. Instituting a bargain-basement eschatology is like wanting to affirm Christs incarnation, but not show how the two natures relate into a single person. It is like agreeing that Jesus died for our sins, but dismissing the implications of that death. Generic evangelicalism is happy to affirm that Jesus is returning, but anything beyond that is too fractious to ‘unity’ it seems, and this cannot be risked in our ‘refreshed’ PAOC document.
Navigating the current ‘Restoration’ component on the SOET proposal is like navigating harbor fog. You are never sure where any of the landmarks are. The language is oblique, intentionally indirect … and its like walking over slipper rocks – making it hard to get your theological footing!
The General Executive members like it this way, it seems. Precisely what is to be gained here? Well, as one District official remarked, it holds the promise for leadership to ask fewer nagging eschatological questions when a non-spirit-filled Alliance pastor or other Evangelical comes seeking credentials to serve on the pastoral staff of a PAOC church within a district. Now should you think I am imagining such a scenario; I direct current credential holders to Resolution # 28, By-Law 10.2 Qualifications for Provisional Initial Credentials, which is coming before General Conference Delegates this May 2022 in Winnipeg, Manitoba for their vote. The proposed resolution, make no mistake, is a significant one regarding Spirit Baptism. Hey, dumb down one Pentecostal marker and you might as well dumb down several. Remember – it’s about generic evangelicalism!
I always thought that the common bond among evangelicals was simply to have a personal faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. With there already being an eschatological void in the pulpit of the Western church, apparently the General Executive believes more scrubbing is required these days if we are to be fully accepted by the evangelical community and the denomination reinvigorated, to prepare for the coming tribulation facing us all. I think I’ll pass! “Only Saying …”
Comments