After being engaged in classical Pentecostalism for almost 20 years, completing my undergraduate studies in an affiliated College, teaching in and attending its churches, and studying its history, theology and practice, I thought I would take a few moments to provide seven reflections on some of its current (and not so current) trends.
For the record, these reflections are meant to be summary statements based on my own observations, and are not intended to be formal conclusions that represent national concerns. As a result, I invite dialogue and further reflection from others as we attempt to move forward together.
Observations
1. We have a tendency to divorce Spirit baptism from the ‘other-centered’ emphasis the scriptures (and early Pentecostal history) clearly delineate (the almost exclusive focus on personal tongues speech as initial evidence, coupled with questions like “did you get it?” are two such examples). When we do this, it becomes nothing more than a deeply privatized spiritual experience that does not in any way reflect the original teaching of the early church – which centered on witness to Jesus Christ (words/works). As a result, we’ve lost our collective center of gravity. For far too many, the personal component of Spirit baptism is where it begins and ends (the pinnacle of Pentecostal spirituality). However, as Clark Pinnock wrote in his book Flame of Love, “God did not pour the Spirit out for us to exult in it as a private benefit. The purpose was (and is) to empower witnesses to God’s Kingdom” (pg. 141).
2. The personalization of faith has led many to embrace a privatized spirituality that disconnects itself from the larger church community. A lone ranger (or wonder woman) mentality quickly ensues and we forget the New Testament emphasis on the body of Christ and the necessity for interdependence and mutuality.
3. As a result, individual gifting has taken precedence over corporate purpose; which is to encourage, strengthen and comfort the community. Whatever gift you may consistently function within isn’t nearly as important as why and how they are used in your local context, and what motivates the usage (love). Furthermore, spiritual gifts cannot be fully understood and realized by taking a simple online assessment, but only with the practice that takes place within the community. Only by ‘doing’ can we acquire an informed and accurate understanding of the Spirit’s endowments. The privatization of faith has inevitably led us here. By focusing on the trees, we have often missed the beauty of the forest.
4. Our spirituality is largely defined by individual power (crisis) encounters that ignores the biblical emphasis on journey. As a result, we jump from one power experience to another, and downplay the influence of the mundane, everyday and communal orientation necessary for spiritual formation.
5. We are more inclined to listen and respond to a message in tongues and its subsequent interpretation, or a free-lanced prophetic word, than the sermon and readings, as though the former is somehow more valid and authoritative than the latter. We forget, at least in practice, that the Spirit inspired and continues to speak primarily through the biblical witness. And, that such witness remains God’s primary means of communication about Himself to creation. We need to keep in mind that scripture will always trump the former and in fact should be used as the primary litmus test to determine its authenticity.
6. Our triumphalism has ignored the balanced New Testament approach that combines the activity of the Spirit with suffering. Victory is assured, but it’s ultimate scope is eschatological. Many Pentecostals have instead embraced an over-realized eschatology, where the benefits of salvation are to be fully expected and ‘realized’ now, leaving little hope for future kingdom realities (for further reading on this subject, check out Martin Mittelstadt’s book Spirit and Suffering in Luke-Acts: Implications for a Pentecostal Pneumatology).
7. Our increased affluence has lessened our dependance on God and has negatively impacted our desire to see the fullness of God’s kingdom promise fulfilled. As a result, the second advent of Christ has become little more than a theological relic. After all, who needs Christ to return when we pretty much have everything we want now?
Summary
These are but a sample of some of my recent musings on contemporary Pentecostalism. My concerns may cause you to think that I’ve pretty much given up on the whole movement, but such is not the case. I still remain devoted to the fellowship and the many good things it has to offer. However, we cannot cover our eyes and pretend that all is well. If we desire to move forward with intensity and longevity, it will be absolutely essential to consider and address these and other future concerns. If not, the potential exists that we will lose what we’ve been graced with and miss out on the opportunity to impact the world through the Spirit’s love and enablement.
You may also be wondering if I have any proposals to offer as a way of moving forward. While my focus at this point is not directed towards providing explicit examples of where and how to address these concerns, my response has been implied along the way.
I am also fully aware that a contextualized approach will always be the better way when it comes to implementing change. What may work in one part of the country and in an urban setting, will more than likely not find equal success in another part. Furthermore, some of these observations may not be immediately applicable in your area as emphases can change from one locale to another. With this in mind, localized reflection and implementation is the recommended way forward.
With these things in mind, I look forward to reading your stories!
July 28, 2011 at 11:25 am
I liked your points
Jim
July 28, 2011 at 11:28 am
Thanks, Jim. Blessings…
July 28, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Jeff:
As a lifelong Pentecostal, former pastor, and theological educator, most of the negative trends you note have been the object of my reflection at one time or another. Some I still consider weighty, others are less important to me now. For example, your mention of the “personalization” leading to “privatization” has certainly plagued Pentecostals. These days I would prefer not to de-emphasize the personal — which I think is necessary — but critique the “individual.” Personal need not mean individualized or lead to neglect of community. To lose the personal would be a serious deficit in Pentecostal spirituality.
I agree the focus on individual gifting often displaces corporate purpose. I have observed, however, that a lack of integration of affirmation and allowance for personal gift development and expression with corporate purpose can be very dehumanizing. Many who emphasize “the larger mission” do so at the expense of the actual people who serve in churches and religious organizations.
Certainly, the integrity of Pentecostal experience is demonstrated in our identification with suffering which both affluence and triumphalism undermine. From a Wesleyan-Pentecostal perspective, there is a certain real optimism and expectation that things can be better than they are in the present world. Finally, I was once but am less concerned about Charismatic-Pentecostal experience superseding biblical dictates. In most places in the USA, we are more in danger of succumbing to Neo-Fundamentalist hermeneutics that mute the Spirit, de-legitimize our experience, and lock us into a letter-killing scriptural rigidity. To use an old Pentecostal metaphor, I just don’t see much “wildfire” anymore. Lots of “prudence” and “respectability,” not much Spirit-led radicality.
July 28, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Thanks for your comment, James.
By using ‘personal’ I’m referring exclusively to the idea of ‘private’ within it. I agree with you that too completely lose the ‘individual’ component would be detrimental, as it is an individual experience. I am simply concerned to locate the individual within the community. If the community element is lost or lowered in importance, the otherness aspect of Spirit baptism quickly begins to fade away; leaving us with little more than an empowered, privatized spirituality, which cuts across the grain of the focus on communal witness. Pentecostalism began as a missional movement, and in order to maintain this focus, we need to shift towards the private-becoming-public element of our faith.
Though I didn’t reference it in this short post, I know exactly where you’re coming from in your reference to the neo-fundamentalist concerns in contemporary theological discourse. But, that’s a whole other issue :)
Blessings brother.
July 28, 2011 at 4:57 pm
re: Point 5 – I haven’t heard a “message in tongues and interpretation” in a PAOC church that I’ve attended for nearly 20 years.
July 28, 2011 at 5:05 pm
This must be my own experience then. Maybe context plays a role in whether or not something like this happens; not only geographically, but also between more urban and rural settings. I will admit, however, that the number of overall occurrences have dropped significantly over the past few years, but my observation reflects the typical response when it does. I guess I’m also responding to the general lack of good quality teaching across a number of P/C churches.
July 29, 2011 at 7:55 am
We need some research to examine the kinds of questions you raise to see just how “local” and anecdotal our experiences/perceptions are or if they are representative of PAOC. Research will help us to generalize with some confidence on what is “really” happening in PAOC churches.
July 29, 2011 at 8:27 am
As I mentioned already, these reflections are based largely on my observations, which are limited to my locale. However, after living in NL and different parts of Ontario, these observations have remained true, to a greater or lesser degree, in all of these contexts. I think context will play a significant role even in our research, as what is true for Albertans may not necessarily be true for those living in Halifax. Whether or not research will yield an all-encompassing patten across the paoc would be highly unlikely. Demographics, history, teaching and tradition will all play a role in the final results. My guess is that while we may see similarities, differences will also emerge as the local will trump the national.
November 14, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Might be time to “come out from among this…”! :-)
November 14, 2011 at 2:06 pm
There’s still hope…so I’ll stay and hold on to that. :) Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your input.
August 3, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for this sensitive probing post. I believe that you have clearly delineated many of the crucial problems Classical Pentecostalism faces. However, I do believe your conclusions are dangerous because they may lead you to places you’ve never been before. I was where you were 15 years ago.
Many of your concerns highlight the “dark side” of the Reformation (and its parent: the Renaissance): an overwhelming emphasis on the individual with a resulting loss of the corporate nature of the Christian faith. Much could be said about this and its consequences: e.g., 300+ Baptist denominations, myriads of Mennonite groups, and untold numbers of Pentecoistal bodies.
If Goff was correct in his “Fields White Unto Harvest,” then the loss of the imminent eschatological emphasis means the surrendering of Pentecostal identity.
Most importantly (as Isaiah said and my alma mater proclaims in its motto): “Verbum Domini Manet!” This is that to which we all need to cling.
There is much here that could be commented on. God bless you as your journey continues.
John +
August 3, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Hi John,
Always good to hear from you. :)
I agree that these concerns may eventually lead me in directions I may not have imagined, but I still hold to them nonetheless. I have no immediate and intentional reasons to ‘jump ship’, but I still need to take the time to reflect and share my observations in order to give voice to what I think are important concerns that warrant thoughtful dialogue.
As you mentioned, the gradual move away (at least in practice) from imminent eschatology will have a potent impact on classical Pentecostalism as we know it. My concern here extends pass the theological and embraces the practical. Furthermore, what about the generation that never lived in an era where this doctrine was widely believed and lived out? The impact on missions will no doubt be negatively impacted. Our careers and the quest for monetary gain will (and already has) trump eschatological realities. Here again the private has superseded the public.
I always appreciate your input. Feel free to write more :)
Blessings…
August 11, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Jeff, some good fodder for comment. Like John Stephenson suggested opening this door can lead to a lonely path at least within denominational circles.
A short comment about tongues. I would argue that the evidential construct became crucial for the inception of early Pentecostalism. Early Pentecostals may have believed it was organic to their identity but the case could be made that its genius was more sociological than theological. The irony is that the same doctrinal formulation today risks spelling the demise of classical Pentecostalism. The legitimacy of spiritual gifts is no longer seriously questioned but their functionality is up for grabs and unfortunately classical Pentecostals are not leading the way in that discussion.
By insisting on an old apologetic that few are willing to defend, are we by default relinquishing a voice in the larger theological arena?
August 16, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Randy,
Thanks for the comments and reflections.
I always hope my ideas will be constructive, not controversial. However, I also realize that anytime anyone decides to push against long-standing ideas and/or traditions, controversy can, and often will, ensue. I watched this unfold many times with my friend, Clark Pinnock.
In short, I think the task of theology should always be to move the church forward as it seeks to build on past formulations and insights. That is, theology was never meant to be a closed system of thought, neatly packaged in textbooks, waiting to be memorized by its adherents. Instead, theology should be ‘on the move,’ as new light breaks forth from God’s word, and new challenges confront us from within and without.
In this light, while evidential tongues may have been the primary apologetic used by pioneering Pentecostals (say that five times fast) to help define the authenticity of Spirit baptism, the same set of arguments may not completely satisfy the longings and experience of a newer generation. I think Andrew Gabriel’s recent blog post the topic exemplifies this very well.
Rather than ‘lock ourselves’ into a set of old arguments, oftentimes unwilling to negotiate in any direction, and highly fearful of change, why not embrace past insights, while simultaneously look for ways to build on them in an attempt to make it more theologically complete and dialogically inviting? I think we need to ‘conform our thinking to our observations,’ rather than lay down in advance what form they should take (an ‘a priori’ approach to theology).
A better approach would be to ask, “What is our best explanation of all of the relevant biblical material, philosophical insight and sociological data available to us today on the subject? And, how can we incorporate these ideas into our theology/experience of Spirit baptism (and spiritual gifts) to create a more robust exchange that responds to contemporary concerns?”
August 16, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Jeff,
Your response to Randy Holm opens up a variety of areas for discussion. As has been discussed elsewhere, the use of the adjective “initial” with “evidence” produces a concept that is very problematic philosophically. It is quite a construct: I still think it’s an open question as to when this construct became dogma among the first half-generation of Pentecostals. Fueled by their imminent eschatology, their mandate was to win souls by any means in the last days; that’s what preoccupied them. They believed their experience gave them the power to do that but theological reflection on that experience is another matter. I still think there is fruitful work that could be done around the intellectual process of articulating and clarifying the doctrine of “initial evidence” in the earliest years.
Re. theological development: I certainly affirm that theology must grow but as Moule said in terms of Christology: it is always a process of development not invention. A balance needs to be struck: as Klaas Runia has said, the Creeds establish “fences beyond which we cannot go.” In all traditions, I think there needs to be more emphasis on the historic Creeds as the mechanism to hold us steady (and isn’t it interesting that they don’t refer to the spiritual gifts at all). Insistence on evelopment and Creedal consonance: I think that there we have the necessary brakes on the vehicle of theological reflection.
Finally I am still holding out for Verbum Domini Manet: Biblical theology is the queen of the theologies. Philosophical, natural, and systematic theologies all must be brought finally to the Word.
A few thoughts.
John +
August 16, 2011 at 9:28 pm
John,
On the topic of theological development, you clearly reflect the paleo-orthodoxy of Thomas Oden (penned by him), D.H. Williams, and Robert Webber. They are also referred to as Evangelical Traditionalists, who identify an ancient doctrinal consensus (creeds) as a source and norm alongside of scripture. They often use tradition as a ‘governing authority’ for evangelical theology. As a result, the creeds become the ultimate interpretive lens through which all Christians should read scripture. As a result, the creeds become the ‘norming norm’ for interpreting scripture (the magisterium).
In terms of doctrinal reflection and development, they maintain that the constructive tasks of theology should be conducted only in light of what the church has already decided about crucial doctrinal matters. This leads to a deep suspicion of the constructive aspect of theology. Those who espouse this kind of traditionalist theological orientation spend a great deal of time patrolling the so-called evangelical boundaries.
Doctrinal development at times will mean the introduction of changes (at least its possibility), and not just a response to how the historic creedal formulations can be rediscovered for the present. To place ‘fences’ on development is to render any legitimate development an impossibility. The creeds when developed were in fact ‘changes’ to what had come before. They were far more than re-articulations or rediscoveries of existing formulations, but were theological responses to needs in their day. These reactions didn’t attempt to answer every question, but only to provide an suitable and necessary apologetic to contemporary controversies. To hold them up as the ‘norming norm’ for all future theological reflection is to also assume their infallibility; which any evangelical who holds to the idea of biblicism simply cannot do. For contemporary concerns, we look to the creeds for guidance as we seek to create our response, but we don’t quote them part and parcel as though a 1500 year old response will provide a complete answer. Creeds help to guide us, but they do not spell the end to all future theological development.
Here is where a contradiction within the paleo-orthodox position becomes clear. As Roger Olson wrote in his book “Reformed and Always Reforming”, though Oden and Williams “pay homage to the superiority of scripture over every other source and norm of theology (as you do above with your reference to biblical theology and the Word), both seem to undermine that by insisting that scripture can rightly be interpreted only by means of faithful adherence to the patristic and conciliar consensus of teaching” (101). He goes on to explain that the latter then becomes the litmus test for determining whether any new teaching or revision of old teaching is orthodox. “On the one hand, they affirm scripture’s superiority over tradition, leaving the door open to doctrinal correction and development. On the other hand, they also affirm tradition’s authority for interpreting scripture, closing the door to doctrinal correction and development.” In such a scenario, theology’s constructive task is finished. This seems to go against the very nature, and history, of all doctrinal development that took place over the past 2000 years. When needs arise, we need to create our own response that will always take into account what has come before, but will also rely upon scripture as the final and supreme authority for all matters of faith and practice.
Scripture, tradition, reason and experience.
Jeff
You may also be interested in a blog I wrote on theological boundaries — http://wp.me/p145IL-un
November 13, 2011 at 1:08 pm
This is a very insightful article to me because it is based on some good reflections on what I see also happening big time in my own setting. One thing I see rising very quickly within different section of the P/C Movement in Fiji is teaching that the ‘rhema’ is more authoritative than the ‘logos.’ The shaprt distinction between that two has been created to a point that people are eager to get a ‘fresh verbalized word from the Lord’ than just get a message for life and ministry from an ‘archaic piece of literature like the Bible.’ Unfortunately this trend is tricling down to the younger generation today…I met a young men is won the other day that asked me, “Brother do you have a word from the Lord for me?” The teaching of the truth is very much needed here….
Can someone direct me to a solid, biblical materials on this trend?
Seru
November 13, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Hi Seru,
I appreciate your comments and hear your concerns.
The trend you outlined is one that is all too common in certain charismatic circles. However, it is largely based on an inaccurate and unfaithful understanding of scripture. Little do people realize that the logos is Christ himself (John used this phrase over and over again in his gospel account). It would be difficult to for a word to be greater than Christ, the logos of God. Furthermore, no mention has ever been made in the NT to represent and give credibility to the distinction between the rhema and logos phrases you mentioned. The difference is nothing more than an over-exaggeration of two NT Greek words, that were never meant to be used in the way they are by the people you referenced. Christ is the word for us all; the pinnacle of God’s revelation to humanity (see Hebrews 1).
You may want to reference the Canadian Pentecostal Research Network at Trinity Western University for additional materials. You can also request membership on their Facebook page. You could leave a message on the wall and gather information from the responses. The people represented there are all Pentecostal scholars and are well qualified too lead you in good directions.
Blessings,
Jeff
June 14, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Some good stuff here. I plan on drawing some bullet points from it when I get the the lesson on the gifts of the Spirit in a series I’m starting on Wednesdaysabout the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit for our Spanish-language ministry at my church.
June 14, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Go right ahead, Brian. I appreciate your support.