Internationalization vs. Naturalization of the Church of God

In the beginning of 21st century, when perspective and persona are changed by postmodern thinking, church planting is most important. Providing a strategy for church planting and growth is to serve as a roadmap to success for Bulgarian church leaders and people who have dedicated their lives to making a difference within the community of believers. It is our prayer that such strategy becomes part of the Great Commission given to the Christendom.

The process of transformation of Bulgarian communities in the United States toward a more contemporary and functional model of ministry will inevitably reflect on the process of internalization, which is taking place within the Church of God. The natural birth of the church, however, as described by the Bible does not include a process of internationalization in which one nation creates an environment for other nations in order for better representation. On the contrary, the Bible speaks of ecclesial equality represented by many ethnic groups naturalized in the body of the church. Naturalization in the church brings both equality and unity among its members. Internalization, respectively, resembles a process of mechanical assembling of a large mass of people under one name without giving them a unique nature that characterizes the community.

Further recognition of the ethnic groups of non-American-born believers represented within the Church of God in the United States will provide the ability to naturalize its infrastructure as a body, rather than artificial over force to internationalize a body of an already ethnically diverse community. In the beginning of the 21st century such strategy will give the Church of God the opportunity to successfully target cross-cultural communities across the United States and produce church growth in metropolis and large urban developments, where the strategies for growth based on its historical dominating rural culture have proven long-ineffective. Finally, such detailed focus on cross-cultural ministries will assure the productive attention not only to large ethnic groups, but also to small and growing cross-cultural communities, which will continually assure the cultural and ethnic diversity of the Church of God and will provide it with a realistic international appearance.

Excerpt from Analytical Overview and Church Planting Proposal for Bulgarian American Congregations Considering Cultural, Economical And Leadership
Dimensions

 

Bulgarian Cabinet resignation – what happens next?

Plamen Oresharski formally resigned as prime minister on July 23, after weeks of speculation and – in certain quarters – anxiety about whether he would play his part in carrying out the agreement reached by political parties to hold early parliamentary elections.

The Wall Street Journal: Bulgaria’s Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski late Wednesday submitted his resignation to parliament, a move that will lead to his entire cabinet stepping down after a tumultuous year marked by public protests, a banking crisis and confrontations with the European Union. [more]

Bulgarian Outgoing Ministers React to Cabinet Resignation: Most of Bulgaria’s outgoing ministers have assessed their work in office as “positive” and have voiced warnings the next government would face a number of issues. [more]

Deutsche Welle: Socialist-backed Oresharski Cabinet resigns in Bulgaria. Bulgaria’s prime minister has resigned ahead of snap elections to end months of political turmoil in the European Union’s poorest country. The legislature as expected approve the resignation on Thursday. [more]

New York Times: The fate of one of the biggest banks in the European Union’s poorest country, Bulgaria, remains hostage to a political crisis, which caused the prime minister’s government to resign on Wednesday. [more]

BBC: Bulgaria prime minister quits to allow snap election. The embattled Socialist prime minister of Bulgaria has resigned after only a year in office to allow for an early election on 5 October. [more]

MORE to COME:

• August 5, 2014 – President Plevneliev announces the line-up of the caretaker Cabinet, which will have reduced powers and whose main task will be to prepare and hold the snap elections. This will be the second caretaker government appointed by Plevneliev, who was elected on the GERB ticket in 2011 – in March 2013, he appointed ambassador Marin Raykov as caretaker prime minister.
• August 6, 2014 – the 42nd National Assembly is officially prorogued by presidential decree.
• October 5, 2014 – Bulgaria holds early parliamentary elections.

HISTORY of EVENTS:

• Bulgarian Elections 2013
• Election Results in Bulgaria 2011
• Election’s Perspectives for Bulgaria
• Bulgarian Elections 2009

Bulgaria’s Cabinet to Resign

The Oresharski cabinet will resign on July 23, Wednesday, Bulgaria’s Minister of Economy Dragomir Stoynev told Darik yesterday.

The minister emphasized that the faster the early elections, the better, because “the political crisis could affect the economy.” He also said, however, that before its resignation, the current government has to choose Bulgaria’s next EU Comissioner, who will not be withdrawn by the caretaker government.

Stoynev expressed that current Bulgarian Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva unfortunately has no chance of being nominated as High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs despite the strong support from Prime Minister Oresharski. “I’m pretty sure that her candidacy will not succeed” he noted by refusing details. As a report on the work done last year in office, Stoynev stated that Bulgaria had growth of above 1% – which has not happened since the crisis from 2009. “The Cabinet created 40,000 jobs, which has been unprecedented in the last five years,” he commented.

Minister Stoynev is against the current state budget update attempts, as he deems that unneccessary. In his opinion, the budget of NHIF also does not need to be updated. “Pouring money into an unreformed system of mismanagement will not solve the problem,” he said and recommended to look for internal reserves by restructuring the health budget.

Prophetic and Persecuted Movement

Since a social movement that purposes liberation of the individual is always rejected by the present political and economic powers, Pentecostalism arises and develops in the midst of constant persecution and resistance. The constantly present struggle against evil, wrong and unrighteousness is the power that moves Pentecostalism to its final purposes. Once persecution disappears, Pentecostalism loses its original power and turns to a nominal religious organization, which continues to function and exist, however, outside the boundaries of its original purpose.

The theology of the Persecuted Church is a theology of martyrdom. The context of persecution is a constantly present formational factor in Pentecostalism worldwide, and as such it is a universal characteristic of the movement. Only as such can Pentecostalism act in its God-given prophetic authority. In the same prophetic power in which John prophesies of the coming Baptiser with the Holy Spirit, the Early Pentecostals preached about the Fire from Heaven prior to the actual experience of the Holy Spirit baptism. The message of the movement then becomes a prophetic utterance under which the movement grows and develops to the point of fulfillment of the promise given by God.

Arrest and Imprisonment of Rev. Ivan Voronaev (1930)

The (un)Forgotten: Story of the Voronaev Children
Missions & Intercultural Studies
Dony K. Donev, D. Min.

Presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies

The enormity of the movement could not be left unnoticed by the Bolsheviks. After crashing every form of organized life in Russia, sentencing for life in the death camps of Gulag or simply shooting on the spot every leader and visionary of freedom, the atheistic government turned to the only organization apart from the Communist party that could still gather thousands of people – the Christian Church. The persecution of evangelicals was ordered from the very top and began with a full force.

First, in the winter of 1929, the Voronaevs were thrown on the street from their home on 22 Jukovskaya Str. and the father was constantly called and harassed by the Communist police. As soon as a friend took them in his home at 8 Arteoma Str., Ivan was arrested and beaten severely.

Over 800 Russian pastors were arrested and imprisoned in 1930. Some of Voronaev’s closest coworkers, among which B.R. Koltovich, were also taken away by the KGB and Ivan knew his turn was coming soon. His son Paul recalls him praying and “…. pleading with God for days for strength and courage…. Then it happened. It was a cold winter night, we were asleep. It was after the midnight hour. We were rudely awakened by a pounding at the door and someone calling with a loud voice, “Open the door, in the name of the law.”

After a thorough examination of their quarters the agents confiscated boxes of Bibles and religious literature and Rev. Voronaev was taken away.

“Mother walked silently beside him. In a moment, life had become a vacuum; husband taken from her, six children to care for, the youngest not even three years old. How could she endure it! …. Once more father embraced mother and tried to comfort her with the words “Cheer up, dear Katusha. God will take care of you … go back and take care of the children. Everything will be all right …”

For the next several months, Rev. Voronaev was moved around from prison to prison, “….battened, tortured, and kept without visitors or mail privileges. Then without trial, he was sentenced to lifelong exile in a Siberian prison.” On one rare occasion, his second oldest son Peter was allowed to visit him in prison for a period of 10 days. Peter took the difficult journey alone and travelled 11 days by train to Moscow and Kotlas, riverboat to Yst-Vym and secretly hidden on the back of a prison truck to the Siberian consecration camp of UFT-Uza reaching his father’s prison barrack at last. It was the last time any of his children ever saw him.

Declaration and Petition against Congo Holocaust

Declaration and Petition Addressed to:
His Royal Highness King Philippe of the Belgians and
The Belgian Federal Parliament,
President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz and
The Pan-African Parliament,
His Holiness Pope Francis of the Holy See and
The College of Cardinals of the Vatican,
President Herman Van Rompuy and
The European Parliament,
President Barack Obama and
The Congress of the United States of America.
President Vladimir Putin and the
State Duma of the Russian Federation.
President Abdullah Gul and
The Grand National Assembly of Turkey.
His Royal Highness King Harald V and
The Parliament of Norway.

Declaration
We, the undersigned scholars, spiritual leaders，public servants, humanitarian workers, businessmen, media consultants, and common people concerned with righteousness, social justice, and improvement of life on the African continent, gathered on this day – May 24, 2014 in Beijing, China for the purpose of celebrating and commemorating the African Union Day. Heretofore, we agreed upon and signed this current document, which we named the Africa Shall Rise Declaration.

We hope and wish all of you and the millions of peoples you represent, health, prosperity, and long and peaceful life. We pray for the welfare and blessings on your work in the interest of humanity! After exhaustive research, prayer, consideration, and deliberations, we have decided in the interest of historical justice and for the purpose of healing the past wounds of colonialism, that it would be necessary at this time to reopen, revisit and review the tragic and obscure history of the Congo Free State (État Indépendant du Congo) of 1884 – 1908. That heavy period may have been forgotten by many, but there are still people all over the world who strongly believe that the Kingdom of Belgium should acknowledge full responsibility for this deplorable time of history. It needs to be reopened for the purpose of confession, forgiveness, and reconciliation in our turbulent times. It must be revisited for the sake of a needed historical catharsis.

That sad period of history is still very much alive and hurtful in the minds of people on the African Continent, and especially in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That great country has gone through a lot of turmoil and humanitarian crises in recent years as all of you know well. However, we do believe it is important for us to realize that denying careful attention to the bleeding wounds of the past will not be beneficial if we desire to reach appropriate solutions for the present or the future.

We do appreciate the fact that in the late 19th century the Belgian Parliament did not endorse King Leopold II’s ambitions to pursue a colonial possession for Belgium. This led him to act totally on his own and under the cover of smokescreen humanitarian organizations to be able to obtain a large territory around the Congo Basin area in Central Africa. We also appreciate the fact that Belgium was not the first country to give sovereign recognition to their king’s large personal estate (called “International Association of the Congo” at the time), but followed after the United States and several European countries, in according that privilege.

While presenting himself as a great philanthropist and thus deceiving people in the West, and after gaining full international recognition of his sovereign rights over the Congo, King Leopold II starting breaking the regulations set by the Berlin Treaty Act of February 1885. His rule of the region as his personal slave plantation was atrocious – several million people died (estimates vary from 2 to 15 million since it is not easy to get an exact count and many records were destroyed by the king in 1908); hands were severed off from thousands of men and young boys, women were kidnapped and violently raped, and villages were plundered and burnt, while the immense resources of the area were ruthlessly exploited. The regime produced one of the worst humanitarian disasters in all of history.

That period of depopulation, when about half of the inhabitants of the land died, should be called what it really was – an African Holocaust. The time has come for its full historical disclosure and recognition. The time has come to reckon with that dark past in order that both we and our children would be properly educated and learn from our history.

King Leopold II was also the key person responsible for the larger colonization of Africa, because by his actions, initiatives, political influence, and insatiable appetite for glory, he inspired six other European nations to annex the interior of the African continent in the so-called “Scramble for Africa (1876-1914).”The following colonization period brought about much pain to the native populations of the continent. We do not condemn the countries which participated in that, but we strongly denounce the sinful and criminal acts committed during that time.

Belgian historians are expected to make a clear exposition of the atrocious record of Leopold II’s Congo Free State regime and accept the documented truths, which the rest of the world already knows. This, we deem necessary for the sake of maintaining historical and national integrity for both Brussels and the European Union.

Historical exposition and accountability for that reprehensible period, was supposed to be given by Belgium’s scholars in 2004, but now is long overdue. We agree with the famous British journalist W.T. Stead who in 1905 suggested: “No one, not even a king, should be immune to international prosecution for permitting or condoning atrocities like those in the Congo Free State.”

We do consider all monuments of Leopold II in Belgium or coins minted with his image as highly insulting to Africa and the international community who know the lamentable events surrounding the slaughter of Congolese people under his regime and the millions of human lives it destroyed. For those among us who are Europeans such monuments are a shame, embarrassment, and disgrace to our global legacy.

Therefore, we publicly declare that the sovereign regime of King Leopold II of Belgium over the Congo Free State (1884 – 1908) was a reign of terror, brutality, slave labor, exploitation, mass murder, deception, and a grave violation of international law – crimes against humanity, for which repentance, official apologies, and historic restitutions are needed at this time.

We are grateful to the United Kingdom of Great Britain for leading the world during that period in exposing the appalling crimes of the Congo Free State. We appreciate the fact that in August of 1908 Britain threatened a naval blockade on the Congo River, in order to obstruct Leopold II’s exports and thus put an end to the butchery. We value the initiative taken on May 24, 2006 (exactly eight year ago to this day) in Early Day Motion 2251 by 48 members of the British House of Commons, led by Mr. Andrew Dismore, who sponsored and discussed the need for exposing the full tragedy of the Colonial Genocide under Leopold II rule and requested Belgium to apologize to the Congo; unfortunately, the motion was tabled and not reconsidered later.

We are thankful to the Congress of the United States of America, which even though being persuaded to become the first world power to accord diplomatic recognition to the Congo Free State in April 1884 and approved the act of the Berlin Conference on Congo, in view of the atrocities exposed later the same body took action to denounce Leopold II’s regime in 1906. We appreciate the several missionary boards, like those of the Congregational and Presbyterian churches, in America, and activists like George Washington Williams who wrote petitions to stop the atrocities. We are grateful for the fact that President Theodore Roosevelt did not grant permission to King Leopold II to visit the United States in February of 1908.

We now want to call upon the international community to raise their voice and correct this grave injustice to history, by increasing public debate and peaceful actions on the mater, by denouncing the Congo Free State regime of King Leopold II as a disgrace and horrible crime against humanity, and by requesting admission and apology from Belgium accordingly. Such an act of apology and acceptance of responsibility by Brussels will be helpful for the country to experience moral cleansing and rid herself of this heavy historical burden. We believe that divine favor on the Belgian Kingdom and global reconciliation will result from such a noble step.

Official apologies for past historical evils and crimes committed are relevant in our time for national healing and contribution to world peace. We do appreciate the fact from more recent history that the Belgian government did apologize in February of 2002 for its involvement in the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the Congolese independence leader, which took place in January of 1961.

Germany gave us a great example when in August 2004, Development Minister, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeulthis apologized in Namibia on behalf of the German government for the genocide committed in 1904 against the Herero and Nana tribes, saying: “We Germans confess to our historical-political and moral-ethical responsibility and guilt that Germany at that time took upon them…I plead with you as part of our common Lord’s Prayer to forgive us our sins.”
Exactly a month ago, on April 24, 2014, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey offered condolences to the descendants of the Armenians killed by Ottoman soldiers during the sad events of 1915. By that admission on behalf of Turkey, and by calling those actions “inhumane,” Mr. Erdogan made a historic step toward healing and dialogue with Armenia. That recent development should serve as a great example of Belgium to follow.

Petitions
Therefore, in view of our thorough study of the painful circumstances of the Congo Free State period and their destructive results on the Congo people, in the name of historical righteousness and justice today, we officially make the following petitions:

1. We petition the institution of the Belgian Monarchy to make an official public declaration admitting the crimes committed by King Leopold II during his rule of the Congo Free State and make an official apology to the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to Africa, and to the rest of the world. Even though the present king or people of Belgium had no direct involvement in the Congo Free State events, and the crimes committed then were primarily the work of one person who happened to be their monarch a century ago, such a step is appropriate in the interest of historical justice and moral responsibility. We do sincerely hope that His Royal Majesty King Philippe can plan a trip to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the near future and make a speech to that effect. That would be a historic act of Christian repentance
and admission on behalf of the Belgian crown.

2. We make the following petitions to the current Belgian Federal Parliament:
a) We ask that the surviving archives of the Congo Free State be made
fully accessible for international scholarly review.
b) We petition that lessons on that tragic part of world history be included in educational programs and textbooks in Belgium.
c) We hope that the Royal Museum for Central Africa in Tervuren would include a special exhibition giving an objective view of the destruction of African life that took place under the Congo Free State regime and honor the memory of the millions of Africans who perished during that time.
d) We petition the Belgian government to deconstruct the monument of
Leopold II in the municipality of Arlon, which includes the following inscription in French: “I have undertaken the work in Congo in the interest of civilization and for the good of Belgium.” We request that no more euro coins would be minted with Leopold II’s image like the one made in 2007.
e) The Belgian government should commit to making extra special
efforts of assistance and take a more active role in improving the
humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

3. We petition the African Union to make an official public declaration denouncing the Congo Free State period for its atrocities, destruction of millions of African lives, violations of international law, and crimes against humanity.

4. We petition the Most Holy Father Pope Francis and the College of Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church to make an official public declaration of denouncement of the horrific crimes of the Congo Free State regime and thus take symbolic responsibility for the fact that most of the Belgian Catholics did not speak out against the atrocities during that awful era, while the British, American, and Swedish protestants raised their voice. With that important step his Holiness will make a historic contribution to the healing of wounds, and to the reconciliation and forgiveness in the Congo and the African continent. Such a declaration would be significant for the present situation there and it will contribute greatly to the spiritual revival and transformation of Africa.

5. We petition the European Parliament to officially admit historical responsibility for the powers, currently European Union member states, which gave official recognition to the International Congo Association as King Leopold II’s sovereign territory, especially the countries present at the Berlin Conference on Congo (1884-85), namely: Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Austria – Hungary, and Denmark. We petition these nations in particular and the European Union as a whole to admit that historical tragedy by publicly denouncing the atrocities, international law violations, and crimes against humanity committed under King Leopold II’s Congo Free State rule.

6. We petition the parliaments of the United Kingdom, France, Portugal, Germany, Italy, and Spain to make declarations of formal apology for crimes committed during the period of their respective colonial occupation and administrations in Africa in regard to local peoples, tribes, and native cultures, and for acting on many occasions in violation of the provisional guidelines set by the General Act of the Berlin Conference signed on February 26, 1885 (Chapter I, Article 6) for humanitarian treatment and protection of the African natives.

7. We petition the United States Congress to appoint a research group to reexamine that period and to vote on establishing an African Memorial museum or a permanent exhibit at the Smithsonian Institute for remembering the victims of the Congo Free State and for educating the public regarding that awful time; the regime’s massacre of African peoples is hard to be compared to any other period of history. That would be a significant step of historical justice and reconciliation for the people of Africa. It will also send a strong message to the world that the dreadful events of the Congo Free State must never be repeated.

8. We petition the State Duma of the Russian Federation to take moral historical responsibility, as one of the powers involved in the Berlin Conference for Africa and recognizing King Leopold II’s Congo Association in January of 1885, by officially denouncing the Congo Free State regime for its brutality, violations of international law, and crimes against humanity.

9. We petition the Grand National Assembly of the Republic of Turkey to take historical responsibility for the Ottoman Empire’s participation and approval of the Berlin Conference Act of 1885, by officially denouncing the Congo Free State regime for its brutality, violations of international law, and crimes against humanity.

10. We petition the Parliament of Norway, which was a joint kingdom with Sweden at the time, to take historical responsibility for participating in the Berlin Conference and for recognizing King Leopold II’s Congo Association in February of 1885 by officially denouncing the Congo Free State regime for its brutality, violations of international law, and crimes against humanity.

Dear gentlemen and madams, we are a group of ordinary people who have no political or economic agenda for writing this letter, but are requesting a correction to a grave historical injustice. Even though this ugly period of history occurred over a century ago its lasting shadow and continuing effects are still evident in the Congo in the present day.

Therefore, we strongly consider that these actions we are petitioning for, though not easy and requiring special grace and humility, to be very important and necessary, because historical healing and reconciliation is desperately needed in view of the present situation in many African nations, especially the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We plead with you to assist us in fully putting the past behind so that we will be able together to bring about a better and more prosperous future for the people of the Congo, of Africa, and of the rest of the world.

We wish to conclude with a verse from the Holy Scriptures (Micah 6:8):
He hath showed thee, O man, what is good;
and what doth the LORD require of thee,
but to do justly, and to love mercy,
and to walk humbly with thy God?
We deeply and honestly appreciate your careful consideration of
these our petitions!

Thank you for your time and thoughtful attention to our letter!

 

Bibliography:
Colonial Genocide and the Congo, Early Day Motion 2251, British Parliament
Available: www.parliament.uk/edm/2005-06/2251
Conrad, Joseph. The Heart of Darkness. New York: Dover, 1902. Available as digital e-book by Amazon, 2012.
Doyle, Arthur Conan. The Crime of the Congo. London: Hutchinson, 1909.
General Act of the Berlin Conference on West Africa. Berlin: February 26, 1885.
www. africanhistory.about.com/od/eracolonialism/l/bl-BerlinAct1885.htm
Hennig, Rainer, “Germany Apologizes for “1904 Namibia Genocide.”
Afrol News Website. August 16, 2004. available: http://afrol.com/articles/13714
Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in
Colonial Africa. Mariner Books, 1998.
Mass Crimes against Humanity and Genocides: The Congo Free State.
Available: http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocong.htm
Nault, Derick. “At the Bar of Public Sentiment: The Congo Free State Controversy,
Atrocity Tales, and Human Rights History.” Paper presented at “Humanity and Humanitarianism in Crisis,” the 7th Annual International Conference of the Asia Association for Global Studies (AAGS), 17-18 March 2012, International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan. Available: www. academia.edu
Olson, Tod. Leopold II: Butcher of the Congo. Children’s Press, 2008
The World at War: Congo Free State Timeline http://www.schudak.de/timelines/congofreestate1876-1908.html
White King, Red Rubber, Black Death. Movie from the BBC – 2003
Available: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUZLtkLA0VE
Williams, George Washington. Open Letter to King Leopold on the Congo.
Stanley Falls, Central Africa, July 18, 1890. Available:
blackpast.org/george-washington-williams-open-letter-king-leopold-congo-1890

Mission as Transformation

Mission as Transformation is a collection of essays by leading mission experts, which challenges the Christian community to view more seriously its participation in the processes of social transformation. The book defines the term “transformation” as holistic or integral mission. The term also denotes change in one’s condition in order to receive fully the life God has intended. The Kingdom of God is viewed as a fundamental structure and system in the above process.

The book overviews important publications and thought developments over the past 30 years in reference to the subject of mission as transformation. It begins with a number of key issues starting with theological foundations (Part 1) and missiological dynamics related to social transformation (Part 2). The last are viewed in their relation to transformation and evangelism in the context of modernity, which come as a surprise in regard to the date of publication (1999). Part 3 deals extensively with praxis and their effect as factors within the transformational dynamics and processes. Several among the discussions are noticeable as follows:

(1) Suffering and the Cross
The climax of Christ’s mission was the cross. His suffering was due to a preexisting conflict which was resolved though His sacrifice, a transformational statement that included justice and restoration. The Church is also called to engage in the struggle for justice and social equilibrium, which is not only its earthly mission, but part of its eschatological hope as well. The sign of social change is then, not so much, the coming city, but the cross outside the gates. The involvement of the individual believer and the church as a corporate body in suffering on behalf of the oppressed is not viewed by God as failure. On the contrary, it is a transformation that changes both the world and the church after the image of Christ.

(2) The Kingdom of God
The Kingdom of God is God’s redemption for humankind. It is His redemptive participation in human history through which all people are challenged to repent and live life of participating in the Kingdom business, while the Kingdom remains an already-not-yet reality. This reality gives a new status to every believer, who is transformed after the image of Christ, in order to participate in His Kingdom. In this sense, the Kingdom is not a personal Kingdom or personal transformation alone, but it is community which God creates for all with the purpose of being inclusive toward all.

The discussion on the Kingdom of God implies partnership with non-Christians which in holiness circles may be viewed as inappropriate. Kingdom values are to replace worldly values to indicate the influence of the Kingdom. Certain guidelines of cooperation then must be drawn in order that any partnership of such kind does not radically change the identity of the church negatively, but rather serves as a positive transformational factor for all participating Christians and non-Christians.

(3) Identity
The Christian identity is such a guideline itself. The impartation of Christ-like identity is a supernatural process which empowers the believer to participate in the greater purpose of God for the universe. Identity is provided by the Gospel and is the fundamental principle for Christian involvement in any processes of social transformation.

(4) Politics
The discussion is brought to the participation of Christians in politics as a part of Christian involvement in social transformation. Among Pentecostals this subject has been a taboo topic since the very beginning of the movement. The text, however, argues that as the suffering of Christ was not passive, He set a model for a radical political action. The Kingdom of God was the central idea of Christ preaching through which He proclaimed the reign of God as a King. This was done in the context of the Roman empire combined with Jewish aristocracy expressed in a political and religious system of class oppression which Christ challenged through His teaching, life, death and resurrection thus proving their temporality and creating an anti-culture against the oppression of the poor and the week. Christian politics in this sense are prophetic, proclamation of the Kingdom and eschatology.

(5) Eschatology
Christian eschatology is perhaps the most important theological factor, which determines the attitude of the community of believers toward the subject of social transformation. Eschatology deals with the future and the end of the era, but also with the end of history and the fulfillment of its goal. Historically, protestant eschatology is amillennial, at least in the era from Augustine through the Reformers. Post-reformation eschatology receives a more postmillennial aspect which affirms Christian positivism for the future. Postmillenarianism presupposed and resulted in a more extensive participation of believers in the political scene.

However, through the 19th and 20th centuries, premillenarianism became the major eschatological view among Protestants. As a result, a major reversal in theology of politics, from Calvinistic theology of politics which sees them as advancing the Kingdom of God, to a more pietistic theology of politics was observed. Saving souls became a priority before saving societies, thus promoting a pessimistic eschatological view. Such was taken by most missionaries of the 19th and 20th century whose ministries originated in the mission efforts of premillennial congregations and denominations.

Apparently, pessimistic eschatology has hurt the major premillennial wing of protestant churches, among which are Pentecostals. They must seriously reconsider their abstinence from issues of political tension, social injustice, since the lack of participation in the last has formatted their role in the dynamics of social formation and reformation. On the other hand, their critics may review the claim of premillennial eschatology as pessimistic. This is due to the fact that while premillennial theology may refuse a view of a better world here and now, it most certainly expects such one with the future return of Christ. Therefore, while such theology may be pessimistic in its earthly sense, it is most certainly optimistic in its Heavenly, eschatological sense. In other words, for premillennial believers the optimism of the end-times lies in the parousia. The tension of the already-not-yet Kingdom proves such a view and explains the Kingdom tensions of the now and the future which premillennial eschatology often presents. Such a view is both Biblical and practical. It further well balances both Christian passivism (often confirmed through piety) and activism, which should result in social concern and action. In the beginning of the 21st century, the last has become a central topic of premillennial eschatology which has resulted in its more extensive, practical implementation.