Stephen Barkley
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.
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 >
Johnson writes eloquently enough, but I feel he misses the mark entirely. I agree with him in his last point and I like what he has to say in the last two lines. Indeed, crying “The End Is Near!” for so long has only served to dampen the effectiveness of the whole Christian movement (not just the Pentecostal body). I must disagree with him, however, concerning his initial statement that the pentecostal movement is “not reducible to one or two readily discernible features.” This may be wishful thinking on his part, or perhaps he’s been desensitized by his long standing membership in the PAOC, but assemblies within the pentecostal movement can easily be identified by their stance on speaking in tongues. He has no right to make this claim – in fact, only an outsider could truly see this clearly. I think one of the biggest issues that got missed here is the fact that the modern PAOC church is made up of very few ‘Pentecostals’. Let me qualify that an outsider could in fact be a member of the church and a Christian. Clearly, this issue does continue to be a factor in not only identifying the PAOC church but in many cases even separating it from other believing churches and outsiders. Many people in the PAOC church do not or cannot speak in tongues. The feeling of being second rate because of this, I feel, permeates and causes segregation whenever the issue is raised. I see, firsthand, the subculture within the PAOC of the ‘outsiders’ that don’t qualify as a speaker of tongues. They tend to congretate, and even seek each other out in small groups, cell studies and other church functions and events. “Spirit-filled” Christians may not be privy to this. Indeed, it contributes to the overall inefficiency of our mandate and our calling as Christians. I’m no biblical scholar, but I find the distinctions “baptised in the spirit” and “filled with the spirit” be frustrating. I’ve lost count how many times God had caused people in the bible to be “filled with the Holy Spirit”, and most of the time that being the one and only time mentioned!
I sit on the board of a PAOC church… and yet as an outsider, myself, I do not make this a divisive point for me. It’s important to realize that this is an important characteristic of the outsider in the PAOC church – the lack of importance that this constitutional principle is given by outsiders makes it a non-divisive issue. In other words, we simply don’t feel it’s important enough to get all bent out of shape about, and so we attend services, and we participate in the various ministries (even leading them) and we worship God in spirit and in truth. Why? Speaking for myself, I see my church family as believers in Christ, not as Pentecostals. I don’t think we should proclaim to be anything but Christians, and so I continue to be drawn by God’s calling on my life to stand up and be a leader in that capacity, and to involve myself in my church. I don’t feel this situation represents a dangerous undercurrent in our assemblies, but it certainly warrants consideration by leaders in the PAOC.
Brian Stiller was close. God doesn’t need more charismatics. He needs Pentecostals to shed the arrogance of that label and just be real Christians.