Stephen Barkley
We’ve made it to the last of 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 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:
- CPs: Identified denominationally
- Charismatics: The Spirit’s move in mainline churches
- 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:
- 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.
- 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:
- We should stop viewing the CM as “other” and recognize them as our sisters and brothers in the movement of the Spirit.
- 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).
- 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.
