Let’s continue our look at the MPS Papers. Just a reminder, the stated intent of these papers is to “provoke thought and discussion”, not to layout the PAOC’s official position on these matters.

Paper number four was written by William Sloos, a guy I went to Bible College with back in the ’90s. Let’s have a look:

Paper #4:
Defining Pentecostal Identity – Differences between Charismatics and Classical Pentecostals
by William Sloos

Sloos’ topic is interesting. Have you ever wondered what separates pentecostals from charismatics? He tackles the subject with some opening remarks on the two movements, followed by nine differences between them (according to P. D. Hocken). Sloos concludes by pointing the way forward toward a renewed Pentecostal identity.

I. Opening Remarks on Pentecostals and Charismatics

Classical Pentecostals (CPs) came first, with the Charismatic Movement (CM) following. The latest incarnation of the CM is often called “Third Wave”. CMs are thriving worldwide, outnumbering CPs. It’s often difficult to distinguish between the two groups, but P. D. Hocken offers 9 criteria:

II. Nine Differences (P. D. Hocken)

1. Origins: CPs began in one main location, Azuza Street, while the CM had a more diverse genesis.
2. Missions: CPs are revivalists, focusing on worldwide evangelism, while the CM is more focused on inner-church renewal.
3. Holiness: CPs were birthed out of the holiness movement and are often frustrated with the CMs apparent lack of holiness-style life-transformation.
4. Ecclesiology: CPs understand Spirit-baptism as an individual empowering for mission, while the CM views it as a gift for the existing church as a whole. (As Johnson pointed out in his paper, CPs focus more on Luke-Acts theology while the CM leans on Pauline doctrine.)
5. Ecumenicism: While both movements have had their share of criticism, CPs grew respectable to the wider church world as they aged while the CM was often birthed within each different denomination.
6. Eschatology: CPs are generally dispensational pre-millennialists while the CM has no “eschatological cohesion” (9).
7. Healing: CPs focus more on physical healing, while the CM stresses inner healing and emotional recovery.
8. Spirit-Baptism: CPs define Spirit-Baptism as a subsequent empowering event to salvation, while the CM describes it more as an actualization of the Spirit as given at conversion.
9. Initial Evidence: CPs stress tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit-baptism while the CM makes no “law of tongues” (10).

III. Three Ways Forward

1. Foundational: We need to stay in touch with our roots. CPs blazed the trail for the CM to follow.
2. Missional: CPs must remain focused on worldwide mission.
3. Reinventing: CPs are “intensely pragmatic” (13). There have always been theological debates within our movement. What we’re experiencing now is not a loss of identity that will fragment us, but more of the growing pains of reinvention.

Some follow-up thoughts of my own:

• It was interesting to review Hocken’s  nine theses with an eye to the churches I’ve been involved with. If you asked me to plot the position of PAOC churches I’ve known on these 9 points, they would be all over the map. Mission v. renewal, and physical v. inner healing are just two of the areas where I see the distinction between CPs and the CM diminishing (for better or worse).
• I struggle with including “foundational” as a way of moving forward as a movement. While it’s good to remember our roots, there a fine line between being thankful and degenerating into arrogance and pride. I respect my CP roots, but that’s what God did in our collective past. Looking at the topic biblically, didn’t John the Baptist criticize the Jewish people for idolizing God’s work in their past? (“And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham” (Matthew 3:9 ESV)). What would have happened if the Jewish church in Jerusalem decided to prize foundationalism at the expense of the Gentile mission? Let me phrase the question more constructively: what does a movement’s healthy relationship with its past look like?
• Sloos’ third way forward (reinventing) reminds me of Johnson’s phrase about CPs being “innovators and risk takers, entrepreneurs who follow the leading of the Spirit” (Defining Eschatology, 3). This is becoming a collective theme in our movement, and I (for one) am thrilled.

< Paper #3: Defining Eschatology by Van Johnson

Paper #5: The Ethos of Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada Churches – Spirit and Power by Jim Lucas >