The denomination I belong to, The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) has an identity crisis! So, it is energetically amending (… eviscerating would be my word) its Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths (SOFET) and proposing a new Statement of Essential Truths (SOET) – one more generic in its theology, more catholic in its identity and, with their fingers-crossed, one more amenable to other frowning evangelical groups. The document is scheduled for a vote this coming May 2022 in Winnipeg, Manitoba
There appears to be some very real existential anxiety in the PAOC about being Pentecostal. This subliminal anxiety within the denomination, of somehow becoming redundant, of no effect or even worse, of no consequence … has prompted even our General Executive leadership to hitch their theological wagons to our national leader who seems intent on making his dream, our reality!
In Part Two of my series on SOFET, I addressed the Theological Study Commission’s (TSC) reframing of our classical Pentecostal understanding of spirit baptism, calling attention to the existing ambiguity and poor articulation of ‘initial evidence’. The Commission argues that it has ‘strengthened’ initial evidence, yet, as I demonstrated, the current single sentence, 16-word proposal is inexact, muddled, certainly does not strengthen the Spirit Baptism component and on deeper investigation permits multiple adaptations to satisfy several subjective, modern-day spirit baptism perspectives.
Here in Part Three, the focus is on the 2nd of four specific shortcomings with the proposed SOET article on faith and identity:
(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.
Why Biblical Theology … and Whose Definition?
In a District wide, June 2019 gathering held in Belleville, Ontario, a meeting was convened by the existing co-chairs of the TSC to have a ‘conversation’ with attending credential holders from the Eastern Ontario, Nunavut District (EOND) about the most recent draft proposal of SOET. The morning ‘conversation’ was an interesting study in power dynamics.
The presentation, which ate up a significant portion of the mornings ‘conversation’ made explicit note that the SOET document was by design, now rooted in a Biblical Theology (BT), not a Systematic one – a rather surprising … and at first hearing, a rather innocuous comment – until you think about the theological ramifications and intentional consequences inherent in such a one-system ONLY approach.
On the surface, the public announcement to attendees that day begged obvious questions, like …
Why a biblical theology?
Why a biblical theology, exclusive of other helpful systems of theology?
What advantage does this methodology offer that is a step-up from the practiced approaches we have used?
What is the TSC’s global, ‘intentional’ purpose in using only this approach?
What were the perceived shortcomings, even failures, with the systematic approach, a mainstay of previous ‘refreshings’?
How does the TSC propose to know what the theology of the biblical writers is?
And ... since Biblical theology can be notoriously difficult to define (there is widespread disagreement), precisely which definition and construct is the TSC leveraging?
Definitional matters may seem unimportant, but before engaging
in the practice of BT we should have a clear understanding of
what it is we are doing. The TSC has yet to tell us.
With respects to the last question: As the TSC constructs its ‘biblical’ theology, is the committee using the ‘Salvation History’ approach of Donald A. Carson, Daniel Treier’s ‘Theological Construct’, James Barr’s purely descriptive methodology or the one employed by that ever popular among Pentecostals, Anglican N.T. Wright whose interest is in the shape of the stories, without any historical criticism? Assuming the committee members know, for sure the denomination’s foot soldiers do not. Since each method brings an over-riding theological strategy that influences and shapes SOET’s final form, it would be nice if all were told, and it were not so secret!
WHY a Biblical Theology? Why not a Partnership?
Other divisions of theology, like systematics are often contrasted unfavourably with the newer kid on the block ̶ Biblical theology. The very terminology, with its leading adjective ‘biblical,’ can have the effect of setting systematics at a disadvantage, in that (a) biblical theology immediately ‘sounds’ biblical and (b) might imply to the uninformed that anything that sets out to be systematic should be viewed with greater suspicion ̶ a sort of alien idea that confines people to a confessional straitjacket. Clearly all Christian theology should be grounded in the Scriptures but talk of a ‘biblical theology’ in a gathering of Pentecostal pastors certainly offers a great optical advantage, for sure.
The benefit of systematic theology is that it approaches the Bible as a finished product; it considers all that has been said. It looks at the Scriptures and tells us what has ‘superseded’ and what is ‘truth unchanging and unchanged’. Biblical theology cannot do that! Its words are not final! So, though Isaiah can speak the truth, and nothing but the truth -- his words are not final. Talking about the eschatology of Isaiah is not the same as talking about the eschatology of the Bible. This point should not be missed.
Think of SOET as a document that swallows all denominational distinctiveness in a triumph of Christianity.
It is the same in the New Testament. John and Paul speak the truth and nothing but the truth – but they do not speak all the truth. Does John say all there is on Incarnation? No! Does Paul say all there is about Pneumatology? No! Yet, we love to speak of Paul’s theology, John’s theology and most certainly Luke’s (Luke-Acts) theology.
While Biblical theology can ask – What does Moses, Isaiah, Hosea, and Paul say . . . Systematic theology asks, “What does the Bible say?” Attempting a biblical theology of Paul based only on Romans and Galatians will look considerably different than if we used all thirteen of his letters. As we potentially dismember the scriptures into little parts, we should remind ourselves that the little parts are not the whole story and have never claimed to be.
For this reason, the method being leveraged on SOET of using only what is in front of you at any given time, is short-sighted. If SOET is to represent our Pentecostal theology faithfully, then all disciplines of theology should be utilized so we get the strongest credal document possible. Credential holders should not be OK with ‘biblical theology’ as a singular strategy for such an important document like SOET, no matter how pleasing the adjective seems to our ears!
Charles Scobie was right to question whether ‘An underlying assumption that [biblical theology] unfettered by any Christian dogmatic presuppositions, is somehow objective and neutral’.
It is neither and has never claimed to be.
Scobie, Charles H. H., Tyndale Bulletin, 1991, 42.1, 31-61
The Strategy Behind SOET
First, creating a SOET document that reflects only a biblical theology is difficult to understand. The adjective ‘biblical’ comes from the noun ‘Bible’ which finds its source in the Greek term ta biblia meaning ‘the books’ – both Old Testament and New Testament scriptures the believing Church considered canonical. To understand this unity within the diversity of the books, consider that when biblia moved from Greek to Latin, it also moved from neuter plural (‘the books’) to feminine singular (‘the book’). There is diversity and development, but it is always within the unity of the scriptures. I would offer that a study of any book or theme of scripture necessarily implies, if not explicitly, a broader framework in understanding and appreciating the unity and wholeness of the canonical material. Where biblical theology helps in the running of the race, systematic theology helps us get across the finish line by fitting together the storyline of Scripture (metanarrative).
A strong SOET document would reasonably reflect this unity by embracing the much larger scriptural picture. It does not! For this reason, it is a wrong-headed undertaking – and lends strong weight to an ulterior motive hovering over a simple ‘refreshing’ of a significant document.
Second, the decision to NOT integrate other theological systems into the SOET document has the advantage of helping to distance the denomination from the fabric of dispensationalism and many of its apparently problematic issues.
I am not telling tales out of school when I suggest that dispensationalism is a challenge for many within our theological training centers and at the local church level, especially those who find more solace and closer kinship with Calvinism. The credentialed Pentecostal pastor who recently offered on a public thread “I lean towards covenant theology”, is not alone.
Embracing a BT within SOET is intentional and calculated for it helpfully moves the PAOC away from dispensationalism. To be generically evangelical requires such an accommodation.
Few of us are surprised to hear this. There have always been pastors who perfunctorily check ‘Yes’ to the Annual Credential Renewal form that asks “I personally subscribe to the Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths” - but do not. In a world of competing theologies, the annual question can be viewed as nothing more than a theological speed bump to be negotiated.
What is surprising and unconscionable however, is the lack of transparency on the part of our General Executive leaders to articulate, without stuttering, that their innocent ‘refreshing’ of SOET is neither innocent nor a refreshing ... but an intentional strategy to move the denomination away from dispensationalism and consequently, its identifying markers.
Now to be clear, I am certainly open to a critique of the theology of classical Pentecostalism as our ‘Statement’ undergoes a ‘refreshing’ (PAOC’s word). But there has been no such critique. Instead, denominational members have been given a ‘refreshed’ document ... and asked to tweak it – without any real knowledge of what theological values are being erased from SOFET. If you want that information, you will need to figure it out yourself and pay careful attention because words matter. It is for precisely this reason I address the ‘refreshed’ SOET in my blog articles. Read them, and then make your own informed decision. At least you will have exposed yourself to more than what just one network is broadcasting.
Canadian PAOC leadership intends to distance the denomination from dispensationalism but lacks the courage to say it clearly ... say it loudly ... or even tell us why! They prefer soothing adjectives like ‘refreshing’ ... over explicit verbs like ‘redefining’.
Now I understand there is certain ‘burden’ to being a dispensationalist these days within the PAOC, something I will address in a coming blog, but most folks understand that when you move away from something – that vacuum is filled with something else. To move ‘from’ is to move ‘towards’. I don’t care what Burl Ives says. There is no “Mr. In-Between”! Same goes with theology!
So, as leadership makes no secret of looking to move Pentecostals away from what it sees as a failing dispensational system, what does it offer as an alternative – besides nothing? Given that there are essentially four major systems of theology within Protestantism, namely Arminianism, Calvinism, Lutheranism and Anglicanism, what does our leadership propose we become: a little of this, a little of that, a whole lot of nothing? It would be really nice if they told us.
A SOET document that marginalizes dispensationalism leaves credential holders open to jettison any number of dispensational tangibles - like the significance of ethnic/national Israel in God’s purposes ... the Church as a New Testament, not Old Testament entity ... and the belief that God’s overall purpose is doxological – to glorify Himself and not salvific, as Calvinists like to claim. You can do this because biblical theology only allows the reader to make statements based on what is right in front of them at any given moment – but fails to build on our knowledge of God and His intentions in a more globally consistent and coherent manner. This is where systematic theology comes into its own and shines, but the TSC has rejected this offer of a partnership. In the words of a member of the TSC, “Systems come and go.”
I wonder if a ‘refreshed’ SOET has been pressed into service
as an apologetic way out of the theological embarrassment that
Christ has not yet returned.
Perhaps nowhere are the effects of this strategy to marginalize dispensationalism more evident than in eschatology. Consider ...
Are you a Pre - Mid – or Post Tribulationist. Are you a Pre-Wrather?
Do you believe the Tribulation is a real, future event or simply a spiritual idea? Are we currently in the Tribulation?
Are you a Pre-millennialist, an Amillennialist or a Post-millennialist?
Do you believe there is a Judgment Seat of Christ or a Great White Throne judgment?
Do you believe in an end-time Antichrist? Is Satan bound in the future or is this a present reality of his?
Is the coming of Jesus Christ a single event or are there several components to it? Is the rapture the second coming?
When Christ “fulfil[s] God’s covenant to Israel” [SOET] does that mean she is restored to her own land?
SOET is not particularly interested in where you land. Seriously!
Without any mention in SOET of the millennium, timing of the rapture, antichrist or a particular judgment of believers or unbelievers, it seems clear that leadership has thrown the eschatological doors wide open! The good news, I suppose, is that with SOET’s muddled treatment of initial evidence doctrine (See Part Two, “But I Don’t Want to be Different”) ... and leaderships careful selection of a methodology that helps in the uprooting of traditional dispensational markers, District credential interviews should be much easier to conduct, with a lot less theological prying.
District Official - “Do you believe that Jesus saves, heals, baptises and is coming again?”
Candidate: “Yes I do.”
District Official: “Excellent! Now let’s go for lunch! By the way, I assume you believe in tithing?”
True, it might be satisfying for some pastor to declare, “I am not a millennial, premillennial or postmillennial, but pan-millennial – cause things will all pan out in the end”, but most see it for what it is, a cheeky, not-interested-in-details or thinking too hard, comment. The Bible does indeed speak about particulars and to disregard textual interconnectedness is to ignore what the Holy Spirit made sure was included. This is precisely why large numbers of academic scholars continue to call into question even the possibility of a biblical theology.
I suspect the PAOC will need to develop ‘companion pieces’
to explain, develop, and fill in all the holes. That is how
theologically ‘thin’ the proposal is. No doubt it will
be larger than SOET itself.
I would offer that taking a biblical theology approach in crafting this new Statement of Essential Truths (SOET) neatly avoids the truth of the larger Biblical narrative and its fullness ... and that the SOET document is intended to domesticate classical Pentecostals so that their long-held traditions fuse more easily with generic evangelicalism. Domestication we know is the process of adapting things that are ‘wild’ to successfully make them more useful to others. Think therefore of SOET as genetic modification at a theological level, which moving forward leads to a heritable predisposition within the denomination – one that will be a sad facsimile of its first 100 powerful years. And interestingly, the General Executive have sanctioned our redefining. “OnlySaying...”
Comentários