The last paper is written by J. Martini regarding the boundaries between Classical Pentecostals (CP) and the Charismatic Movement (CM).

Paper #6:
There is No Spoon
by J. Martini

Martini was commissioned to “assess the impact of neo-pentecostal/charismatic pneumatology on classical pentecostal spirituality” (1). (This is a nebulous topic to say the least!) He presents his conclusion at the start of the paper: “There is no compelling, concrete characteristic distinguishing pentecostals, ‘classical’ or ‘charismatic’” (1). If it’s so difficult to find boundary markers between CPs and the CM, maybe it’s time to admit that we’re not all that different.

Martini begins by defining the terms in question and explaining their origins. He uses C. Peter Wanger’s threefold scheme for identifying subsequent “waves” of the Spirit:

1. CPs: Identified denominationally
2. Charismatics: The Spirit’s move in mainline churches
3. Third Wave: Vineyard churches, etc.

While Wagner’s division is convenient, we find diversity within each movement as well as overlap between them that threatens the accuracy of the distinctions.

Next, Martini looked at the two chief distinguishing marks of CPs:

1. Tongues as initial evidence: While this is one of the hot-button issues CPs were forced to defend, the doctrine was not adopted unilaterally by original CP churches (and was challenged by leaders such as William Seymour and F. F. Bosworth). Furthermore, many non-CP churches adopt this doctrine. Therefore, this issue cannot be used to distinguish CPs from the CM.
2. Azusa Street revival: CPs often identify themselves by pointing to the Azusa Street revival as their genesis. A close examination, however, shows many CP churches who identify themselves as pre-Azusa. I have to add my favourite quote here. We should be wary of “Amerocentric historiographic assumptions” (Burgess in Martini, 4). Meaning: The US cannot lay exclusive claim to the CP movement.

The two most common boundaries between CPs and the CM don’t stand up under scrutiny. Add to this the fact that outsiders such as J. I. Packer lump CPs and the CM together. Add to this the fact that our critics challenge us on the same basis, and you must start to wonder whether there’s any meaningful distinction between us at all! In the end, Martini agrees with Reed’s analysis of the situation: we’re too close. Only in a generation or two will people be able to look back and see the trajectory of our diverse movement.

Martini applies this conclusion in three ways:

1. We should stop viewing the CM as “other” and recognize them as our sisters and brothers in the movement of the Spirit.
2. We should engage the CM more openly for the purpose of transforming the world missionally. It would be tragic to become a closed club labeled, “for (PAOC) Pentecostals only” (6).
3. Our identity will be found when we view ourselves as a subset of the larger move of the Spirit.

Here are some of my thoughts:

• Pride: Martini’s paper is good medicine. Our quest to find out what makes us different from our first cousins quickly becomes a search for superiority—whether it’s found in the “pure” doctrine of initial evidence or the fact that “we came first” so we’re entitled. My thoughts on Sloos’ paper questioned the lines between CPs and the CM. Martini’s paper cemented my opinion. There is no spoon (read the paper to understand the metaphor).
• Guard the Flock: I’ve always been concerned about the flakiness that seems to characterize so much of the CM. Recognizing the lack of distinction between CPs and the CM will help in a couple ways. First, as mentioned above, it’s impossible to think of the pure us v. the flaky other. We’re all in the same boat. Second, it reminds us that we need to watch ourselves rather than scanning the horizon for incoming threats. It’s an important thing to stand on watch for intruders, but if the city’s burning behind you, there are more important things to do!
• Long-term Perspective: Most people around 40 CE would have categorized followers of Jesus as a sect of Judaism. It was only time that allowed us the perspective to see what would happen. In the same way, Reed was right. Only time will allow us to properly define who we are. The quest to rediscover our identity is a valuable thought-project, but it is far more important to focus on what we’re called to do (love God and neighbour), and let our ancestors try to figure out who we were.

This concludes our look at the first series of papers from the PAOC’s Theological Study Commission. While not many people were willing to discuss these topics online (I’ve only received one comment to date), I know from my stats package that a lot of people are reading this. Let’s keep the discussion moving in our churches and in our local ministerial meetings. More importantly, let’s continue to follow Jesus together with the church catholic (I mean that in the original sense of the word), and allow our “identity” to flow from where the Spirit leads.

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

Paper no. 5 was written by Jim Lucas, the president of Canadian Pentecostal Seminary. The last line of the document reads, “For a Denominational Leaders Day at Trinity Western University,” so we’re looking at a speech more than an academic work. Here we go:

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

Lucas, like many people, have trouble finding one unifying way to describe Pentecostals. Aside from 1) a common Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths, 2) a nation wide set of credentialing criteria, and 3) a joint mission program, we’re free as individual congregations to follow the Spirit wherever he may lead. In spite of this, Lucas describes some common threads in our shared experience which we’ll look at below.

1. Here are some of the areas where we’re different:
   1. Our style of worship
   2. Our style of preaching
   3. Our programs
2. Here are some of our similarities:
   1. Mission: We focus on the infilling of the Spirit to empower us for mission.
   2. Spirit-Baptism & Tongues: We talk about wanting more of the Spirit, but we really mean he wants more obedience from us.
   3. Urgency: The immanent parousia makes us frown on leadership structures and educational programs that take too much time to made produce results—the time is short! This is another reason why so much authority is placed on individual pastors (we presumably don’t have time to waste networking on a national level).
   4. Acceptance: A mark of the Azusa Street revival was the acceptance of any race or creed on the common ground of Spirit-baptism. A tension grew out of this since our holiness roots make acceptance of others difficult at times.
   5. Luke over Paul: We emphasize Spirit-empowerment for witness “rather than the Apostle Paul’s emphasis on the more soteriological dimensions of the life of faith” (3).

Let me break in here with some thoughts of my own.

1. Point 2e above was so shocking to me, I quoted Lucas directly. After taking some time to process the statement, I can that his description is correct. Many of us stress Spirit-empowerment over the ongoing nature of salvation. How can this be? It’s one thing to play Luke off against Paul and cozy up to one stream of Spirit-inspired writing over another, but is that really what we’re saying? When we concede this point, we’re emphasizing Jesus’ ascended sending of his Spirit “rather than” the ongoing effects of his death and resurrection! To compare the sending of the Spirit with the death of Christ isn’t to compare apples and oranges—more like fern-seeds and elephants! Perhaps our understanding of salvation has contributed to this. Most people I know view “personal” salvation as something that happened in their past, so it’s no wonder we emphasize something we can experience now. Perhaps we should recover Paul’s language of “being saved”, and understand the gift of the Spirit as part of that process.
2. I think Lucas’ views are a little too idealistic. His thrice-repeated refrain, “at our best,” demonstrates this. Here’s an example: “While Pentecostals talk about wanting more of the Spirit . . . when you catch us at our best, we understand that what we really mean is that He wants more of us. We must pour ourselves out. In other words, more obedience.” Well, that’s a good way of theologizing the issue, but when I hear people talk about “wanting more of the Spirit”, it invariably means a desire for a heightened emotional experience inside a church building. Again, Lucas is right: at our best, we would seek to be more obedient—I just haven’t seen us “at our best” very often. Digital Aura, in his response to the third post in this series reminded me of the disconnect between Seminary-style theologizing and on-the-ground praxis. If we want to discover our identity, we need to take a more serious look at life on the ground.
3. One last item. Lucas concludes by saying, “If you catch us at our best we will be seeking the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to reach the world for Christ.” I completely disagree. If you catch us at our best we will be reaching the world for Christ, trusting the empowerment of the Spirit as we go. Think of the parable of the good Samaritan. Do you know why we Pentecostals are not on the road with the Priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan? We were still waiting in Jerusalem to be empowered for the trip.

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

Paper #6: There is No Spoon by J. Martini >

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 >

The third paper was written by our very own Dean of Master’s Pentecostal Seminary, Van Johnson. I fortunate enough to take a class in Romans from him while in seminary. This paper demonstrates his insight into pentecostalism, along with his knack for asking the right (even if difficult) questions.

Paper #3:
Defining Pentecostal Identity – Defining Eschatology
by Van Johnson

Like the rest of the papers we’re looking at, please read the original. One of my professors (Victor Shepherd) used to say that reading the Bible in translation was like sipping a fine wine through a tea-bag. The same might be suggested of these summaries. I’ll use the structure of the paper to summarize the key ideas below, before following with some thoughts of my own.

I. Prologue

The PAOC has lost sight of our unique identity—what God has called us to contribute to the Kingdom—partly due to our increased wealth. Movements like ours us complex, so an isolated “promotional push for Spirit Baptism is not the cure-all for our movement” (1). That which used to set us apart (tongues) is now commonplace among charismatics. Now that we don’t have to fight the war for tongues (the Golden Age of our movement), we’re in danger of becoming decadent and dull. We can find our way again by becoming “innovators and risk takers, entrepreneurs who follow the leading of the Spirit” (3).

II. Spirit Baptism (Stronstad); Pentecostal Eschatology (Johnson)

Pentecostals have always been driven by a twin focus on Spirit Baptism and apocalyptic eschatology. Our ancestors believed that we were living in the end of the end times, which is why the Spirit was poured out afresh. This drove our concern for missions—the outpouring wasn’t just for us, it was the start of a great revival that would sweep across the whole world before the parousia.

III. The Integrating Belief Of Early Pentecostalism: Jesus, Soon Coming King

Early pentecostals understood the “already / not yet” dichotomy of the Kingdom. The King was not yet here, but already present by his Spirit. This conviction of Jesus’ soon return inspired many core beliefs besides Spirit-Baptism:

• This conviction made us a unique revival movement (focusing on Luke-Acts) rather than another charismatic renewal movement (focusing on Paul’s stress on the Spirit within the Church).
• This conviction also drove holiness—many early Pentecostals sold their possessions for the sake of mission because this world was passing away in light of the parousia.
• This conviction placed a high emphasis on Christology. The Foursquare gospel: Christ as Saviour, Sanctifier (later: Baptizer), Healer, and coming King was a common fare for preachers.
• This conviction also drove Pentecostal worship. The soon returning king was already present with us by his Spirit, so our worship has always been very experiential.

Now, the problem: “the Achilles’ heel of a revival movement is its built-in obsolescence” (7). While revival-centrism is great in the short-term, it’s disastrous in the long-term. After a century, has our belief in Jesus’ soon return been proven wrong?

Some follow-up thoughts of my own:

• There’s no question: the conviction of the soon return of Jesus was the motivation that empowered most of our Pentecostal trademarks. But Jesus hasn’t returned yet. Maybe it’s time we shift our eschatological emphasis towards the “not yet”. If he doesn’t return for another century, or millennium, will the practices built on that conviction (revival, holiness, Christology, experiential worship) collapse? Why don’t we gird up our praxis by emphasizing the presence of the Spirit, alive and active in his church? Is that not sufficient theological ground by which to “occupy until he comes” (8)?
• I loved Johnson’s description of Pentecostals as entrepreneurial risk-takers. Sure, the tongues battle was a defining moment, but we’re growing up as a fellowship and the world is changing. Would it not be valuable to join together in prayer to ask the Father what our next contribution to the Kingdom as pentecostals should be? I suggested expanding on Stronstad’s idea of “prophetic speech” at the end of the last post. What would pentecostals look like if they truly became prophetic witnesses?
• Allow me a metaphor. U2′s albums: Boy, October, and War are great, but I don’t know anyone who would describe their musical shift towards The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree, and Rattle and Hum as leaving behind what made them unique. Wilco didn’t lose its identity in the shift from alt-country A.M. to the experimental Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. Bands who never progress end up in that musical purgatory known as the casino circuit. This current “identity crisis” in the PAOC is a golden opportunity to move towards what God wants us to do next while remaining respectful and informed by our past. To do anything less is to deny our existence as Spirit-led believers.

< Paper #2: Baptized with the Holy Spirit by Roger Stronstad

Paper #4: Differences between Charismatics and Classical Pentecostals by William Sloos >

The second paper was written by respected pentecostal scholar, Roger Stronstad (author of The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke and co-editor of Full Life Bible Commentary to the New Testament, a fine (if terse) resource I picked up back in my Seminary days). Without further ado, here’s:

Paper #2:
Baptized With The Holy Spirit
by Roger Stronstad

This 12 page paper is a summary of Biblical references to “baptized with the Holy Spirit”, along with some interpretive comments. I’ll sketch out the primary evidence, but you really should read this paper for yourself. Regardless of your opinion on these matters, Stronstad’s survey is a concise yet comprehensive window into the idea of Spirit-baptism in the New Testament (NT).

• There are seven NT references to Spirit-baptism: 1 Corinthians 12:13; Matthew 3:11-12; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:29-34; Acts 1:4-5; 11:15-17. Paul’s reference belongs in a different category since the Spirit does the baptizing instead of Jesus. The gospel passages are all parallels. That leaves us with only three references to Spirit-baptism, all recorded by Luke.
• The first (chronological) reference (Luke 3:16) is John the Baptist’s prophecy that his successor would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. This prophecy has no Old Testament (OT) antecedents—it is unique to John the Baptist’s ministry. His successor (Jesus) was subsequently baptized in water (Luke 3:21-22) where the Spirit came upon him with visible and audible signs to commission him for Spirit-empowered ministry.
• Next, in Acts, we have four examples of Jesus baptizing believers with that same Spirit. Stronstad describes each incident with four categories:
  1. In Jerusalem (Acts 2:1-4)
     1. Previous spiritual state: believers
     2. Experience described: baptized, empowered, filled
     3. Signs: wind, fire (classic theophany images), unlearned foreign languages
     4. Explanation: this is the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32—the Spirit of prophecy is now upon them
  2. In Samaria (Acts 8:5-25)
     1. Previous spiritual state: believers
     2. Experience described: received, fallen upon
     3. Signs: none mentioned explicitly (Stronstad notes that Simon saw an “unidentified sign” (Acts 8:18)
     4. Explanation: none given
  3. In Judea (Acts 10:1-11:18)
     1. Previous spiritual state: believers (not necessarily in Jesus, but in the Jewish God)
     2. Experience described: fallen upon, poured out upon
     3. Signs: speaking in tongues, exalting God
     4. Explanation: this is the fulfillment of John the Baptist’s prophecy which puts Cornelius in the same company as the disciples who received the same gift in Acts 2:1-4
  4. In Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7)
     1. Previous spiritual state: believers
     2. Experience described: received
     3. Signs: speaking in tongues, prophesying
     4. Explanation: none given
• Jesus’ Spirit-anointing is equivalent to the Spirit-baptism of his followers which means it is a subsequent event to salvation which commissions and equips believers for prophetic ministry.
• The actual Spirit-baptism is “objectively imperceptible”, so Jesus gives signs to make it experiential.
• Stronstad ends with a metaphor: the four experiences in Jerusalem, Samaria, Judea, and Ephesus are like the four walls of a building, “trued” by Jesus’ own baptism-commissioning experience. The roof of the building remains under construction today as believers continue to build on the scriptural paradigm.

After reviewing the biblical data afresh, my mind branched off in two directions:

1. What about the rest of the NT? It’s clear that for Luke, a vital part of the Christian life is being commissioned to prophetic ministry via Jesus’ Spirit-Baptism. Stronstad was clear, however, in saying that “the term ‘baptized with the Holy Spirit’ is distinctly Lukan”. If we’re to build a solid doctrine here, we need to explain why this major Lukan theme isn’t given preeminence in the rest of the NT, specifically in Pauline literature. Could it be that the experience was so normative, it required no further explanation? What do the early church fathers have to say about this? Please note that this isn’t a criticism of Stronstad’s paper, as these topics are outside its intended scope.
2. Prophetic Ministry: Here’s what I’m most excited about. Maybe it’s because of my infatuation with Ezekiel, but if the purpose of Spirit-Baptism is to equip believers for prophetic ministry, we need to do a much better job in describing what prophetic ministry is. In my experience (35 years of church life and counting . . .), I’ve run across two main views on prophecy:
   1. It’s primarily an OT thing that isn’t relevant in the modern church. I don’t know any pentecostal minster who would express it like that, but there are many whose praxis betrays this bent.
   2. It’s primarily future-telling that should be taught and encouraged in the modern church. This is where pentecostals have the potential to degenerate into fortune-telling charismaniacs.

   If our distinctive pentecostal experience—Spirit-baptism—is a commissioning to be prophetic witnesses, we need to better understand what Biblical prophecy is. Brueggemann’s The Prophetic Imagination is a good place to start. How are we pentecostals doing at offering a prophetic critique of culture? Do we stand for love and justice in the face of Empire? Do we most resemble Elijah or Ahab? Are we more at home with Jesus or Rome? This direction would allow us to be both faithful to our roots as Spirit-empowered witnesses while also providing rationale within our fellowship’s DNA to take social justice concerns seriously. Didn’t Jesus’ brother say something about widows and orphans? What if that concern was central rather than tangential to our pentecostal milieu?

< Paper #1: Pentecostal Identity—A Pastoral Perspective by Peter Cusick and Brandon Malo

Paper #3: Defining Eschatology by Van Johnson >

I’ve read the papers and they’re quite interesting. I thought I’d do my part to further the discussion by calling out and responding to the papers with some thoughts and questions of my own. Six papers (+ one appendix) = six posts. Here we go:

Paper #1:
Pentecostal Identity—A Pastoral Perspective
by Peter Cusick and Brandon Malo

Cusick and Malo anonymously surveyed PAOC pastors on a variety of issues surrounding our pentecostal identity (the raw data can be found here). The paper begins with bit of history about Pentecostal identity before diving into the results of the survey.

The Historic Identity of Pentecostals

• Resorationism: Early pentecostals believed that their faith was a return to the sort of faith active in the book of Acts.
• Latter Rain: Early pentecostals believed that the outpouring of the Spirit which launched our movement was, in fact, the prophesied latter rain which would energize the remnant of believers before the imminent return of Jesus.
• Mission: The purpose of Spirit Baptism in early pentecostal identity was to empower the saints to evangelize.

Cusick and Malo offer the following comments on Pentecostal identity:

• How often can we say, “we’re being restored” before actually being restored?
• Jesus hasn’t returned yet. Therefore our understanding of latter rain means one of two things: 1) It’s still raining, just not quite as heavily as before, or 2) the revival that jump-started our movement wasn’t the latter rain.
• Must we continue as a revival movement to be true to our identity?
• How important will the baptism of the Spirit (along with initial evidence) be for fourth generation Pentecostals?

Cusick and Malo conclude on an ominous note: “remove the identity of the early pentecostals and you lose the movement.”

Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:

• To continue in the belief that our movement (and only ours) is the restoration of book-of-Acts style faith sounds horribly arrogant.
• I often hear long-time congregants yearn to return to the faith and praxis of the early church. I remind them that every church letter in the New Testament was written to a church in trouble (with the possible exception of Ephesians, a church which was criticized elsewhere). Why would we want to move backwards? I’ll take my congregation here in Bracebridge over Paul’s people in Corinth any day.
• The constant cry for the sort of revivalism that marked the start of our movement becomes wearisome. As rightly noted, the baptism of the Spirit was intended to strengthen the church for mission. I would rather go out in mission and trust the Spirit than wait for another empowering revival. (The cynical side of me observes that I’ve never in my lifetime witnessed a “revival” that hasn’t split the church and done more damage than good.)

Survey Says . . .

Here we’ll look at the four major survey questions. It’s important to note (as admitted by Cusick and Malo) that a survey of 91 out of 1,008 senior pastors is telling, but ultimately inconclusive.

1. “What phrases would best describe the current emphasis of your church?” The most frequent response was “strong biblical teaching”. “Investing in mission” came in second. “Encounters with the Holy Spirit” was down the list in 8th place (out of 10 choices). I think this is an encouraging sign. It suggests to me that the overall witness of scripture is more important to us than one part of it. It also shows that we’re living the spirit-filled life by investing in mission.
2. “How would you rank the importance of the following to your affiliation with the PAOC?” Three answers are virtually tied for first place. What’s interesting is the significant lack of emphasis on “visionary inspiration on a national level”. We’re an independent bunch of churches!
3. “What theological direction would you like to see the PAOC take moving forward?” There’s a decisive answer here: “greater emphasis on our existing theological distinctives.” While some suggest that we should revise our distinctives, the thought of adding to them or removing them is virtually off the table.
4. “As a pastor, which of the following best describe what it means for your church to be Pentecostal?” Ah, here we’ll find out what our identity really is: “emphasis on the empowerment of the Holy Spirit for daily living,” followed by “focus on serving those in need and reaching the lost in your community”. That makes me proud to be a pentecostal. Unfortunately, the desire to “be in relationship with other like-minded churches” was the least chosen response. I thought one of the hallmarks of Spirit-baptism was unity. Could it be that we’re reacting to our formative years of denominational rejection by keeping to ourselves now?

I like how Cusick and Malo ended their paper:

One concerned pastor asks what he sees as the key question: “How are we going to define what being a Christian Pentecostal in a PAOC church is?” And perhaps within a few minutes of his or her question being sent away, seeking an answer, another pastor suggests an alternative path: “Let’s focus on what it means to be a Christian instead.”

Navel-gazing makes me nervous. It’s important to know who we are as a fellowship, but let’s never confuse that with our true identity as part of the global church, hidden with Christ in God. I know the purpose of the Theological Study Commission is to establish our identity, which is found in our distinctives. Distinctives only make sense, however, within the context of essentials.

Paper #2: Baptized with the Holy Spirit by Roger Stronstad >