365 Daily

In 1999, Dony and Kathryn established Cup & Cross Ministries International with a vision for restoration of New Testament theology and praxis. Today they have over 50 years of combined commitment to Kingdom work. This book invites you to spend a few moments each day on the field sharing their experiences of serving as pastors, evangelists, chaplains, consultants, church trainers, researchers, missionaries and educators of His Harvest around the globe.

Day 175 of the Revival

On day 175 of our Revival, I drove by a building close to our ministry’s home location and it caught my eye. Newly built, large enough, specious parking, perfect location easily reachable from at least three large city regions. An ideal place to hold our large revival meetings in my human perception. Quite naturally, I stopped the car in front of the beautiful gate and began telling the Lord how great would it be to continue the revival here. My reasons were many. No need to travel hundreds of miles to just preach one time, spend the night in strange places, walk in the ankle-deep mud-covered streets of slums and ghettos just to reach a soul. They could all come here, park, gather, worship, hear the Gospel, be saved, healed and delivered. The same way we had seen already in the revival for almost 200 days in a row. My heart’s thoughts were shut down by one brief word from the Lord: I did not choose to have it THIS way…

Reflections on a 200-day Revival

1. Creative developing of fasting, prayer and giving of alms, all commanded by Jesus Himself as a regular expression of our faith (Gr. оταν = when you pray, fast, give), is the prerequisite for every Spirit-led revival. On the third day of our 10-day fasting, God used a child to revive our dead Volvo, which no mechanic in a radius of 200 miles could crank for over 6 months.

2. The church that forced-left the building during the pandemic, has now returned to multimillion-dollar buildings where God did not choose to start a 200-day Revival. And even when He did, the move was shut down for lack of parking space or nightly supervision. In all actuality, a church building is a result of a revival, its finish and its end. An association with a place, address or location is a sign of its centralized settlement. It was the forced getting-out of a church building (as in Acts 7) that caused the Great Azusa Revival to emerge as a grass-root movement engraved in the streets of LA.

3. Revival must emerge from the Desire and Will of God in order to be supernaturally visited by the Power of His Glory! It cannot be approached as a man-made multiplication initiative, be it local, national or globally dimensioned. It is not a project to involve people, but a spiritual tsunami of power, authority and anointing that invites a prophetic projection of what God desires for eternity and not merely what man needs in the now.

4. When the now and then align, revival sparks. When the now has lost its sight on eternity, revival is long done and gone. The remain is but a motion imitating the wave of the Spirit Who has already moved to other more receptive spiritual trenches and valleys of humbleness. It is these societal peripheries and spiritual layers that God visits first with Revival before proceeding to the center of religious life. Meaning, the Heart of God for Revival is not in a religious center. As a matter of fact, any association with external centralized governing denies God’s centrality in what the Spirit wills from His Church. A man cannot vanquish the ocean and cosmos of space!

5. We can win no soul Christ has not already won at the Cross! We should not try to empty hell to fill Heaven, lest we end up in hell ourselves.

A final word to fundraisers who turn revival into a business-like know-how: Can’t buy God’s love!

A Call to Righteousness over the Road Ahead

Global Mission In Pentecostal Perspective

113 Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus and Douglas Petersen, eds., Called & Empowered: Global Mission in Pentecostal Perspective (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 321 pp. $14.95 paper. Reviewed by L. Grant McClung, Jr. Who has the answer to what Pentecostals believe about mission and the description of how they go about doing mission? Coming out of a sense of urgency that caused them to “act now and theologize later,” Pentecostals have been known more for action than reflection. Identifying who the Pentecostals were and how they did the job was a task largely left up to sympathizers from groups such as the Church Growth Movement. Other outside observers, however, were not always so sympathetic. This book is a statement by Pentecostals about Pentecostal missions, a move toward what I have called a “Decade of Self-Definition in the 1990s.” What has emerged since the mid 1980s are signs of a budding “pentecostal missiology,” a development exemplified in this volume. Readers of this excellent new contribution will find that Pentecostals have a broader understanding of wholistic mission issues than the supposed limited agenda of evangelism/church planting via the supernatural. This collection of twelve articles–all from Assemblies of God authors–and three “outside observer” responses has something to say about biblical/theological dimensions, the integration of gospel and culture, response to non-Christian religions, and missiological strategy. It reads well as a text (which I am using) or as a pre-study tool, for example, for a field conference or consultation devoted to understanding the Pentecostal/Charismatic contribution to world evangelization. The three editors are professors at Southern California College in Costa Mesa, California, a Christian liberal arts college sponsored by the Assemblies of God, and are also involved in Latin America ChildCare, an Assemblies of God ministry to underprivileged children in sixteen Latin American countries. The editors introduce each of the five sections of the book with a rationale for the theme of the section and a brief synopsis of each chapter in the section. These sectional introductions give an overall conceptual coherence to the volume, reducing the choppiness and unevenness that often attend multi-authored anthologies. Gordon Fee opens the first section on “Biblical and Theological Dimensions of Global Mission in the Pentecostal Tradition” with a chapter which aims to demonstrate that the roots of the Pentecostal conviction about the global mission of the church are to be found in Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God. In the next chapter, 1 114 Murray Dempster utilizes the concept of the kingdom of God as an integrating center in the development of a wholistic Pentecostal theology which features evangelism, social service and social action. Douglas Petersen in the third chapter of this section adopts and modifies “the hermeneutical circle” of Latin American liberation theologians in order to promote a Pentecostal praxis which applies Jesus’ message of the kingdom within the context of the Third World. Section two focuses on “The Emerging Pentecostal Integration of Gospel and Culture” and features chapters written by Everett Wilson, Augustus Cerillo, Jr., and Del Tarr. Wilson analyzes the phenomenal growth of Pentecostalism in Latin America from a functional perspective, identifying the changing social conditions in Latin culture which encouraged indigenous, national Pentecostal leaders to create “a church of the people.” Cerillo identifies the issues that Pentecostals face in light of the ever-increasing global trend of urbanization, and offers some pertinent suggestions for formulating effective urban ministries. In rounding out this section, Tarr develops a model of communication for preaching the gospel across the different cultural regions of the globe. The issue of gospel and culture is taken up again in section three but the issue is analyzed from the perspective of differing worldviews. Each author describes the worldview under investigation in his chapter from his viewpoint as a participant: Peter Kuzmic analyzes the Marxist worldview, Sunday Aigbe analyzes the worldview of tribal people groups and Sobhi Malek analyzes the Muslim worldview. Given the breakup of the former Soviet Union subsequent to the writing of his chapter, Kuzmic sho.wed great insight in noting: “Anything written about the ‘communist world’ today should be written in pencil. All across Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union monumental changes are taking place at a breathtaking speed and in most dramatic and unpredictable ways” (143-44). Even though sweeping changes have occurred in the Communist bloc countries, Kuzmic’s study still provides a goldmine of information in understanding what is happening in that part of the world. “Pentecostals and Current Missiological Strategies” is the topic of section four. A chapter by Gary McGee provides a descriptive historical overview of the multiple mission strategies that Pentecostals have used in this century. A jointly-written chapter by Byron Klaus and Loren Triplett documents the historical connection between non-formal/informal national leadership programs and the mushrooming growth of Pentecostalism, warns Pentecostals about their newly found reliance on formal structures of national leadership development and calls for a renewed commitment to indigenous leadership development “in ministry.” Missiologist Larry Pate, in the last chapter in the strategies section, describes the emergence of the 2 115 “two-thirds world missions movement” and assesses its implications for Pentecostal missions efforts. Pate makes a compelling case that theological and practical reflection on the implications of the global shift embodied in the two-thirds world missions movement is the most important strategic issue facing Pentecostal missions today. The fifth and final section of the book provides “Views from Outside” the Pentecostal movement, and according to the editors, the chapters in this section “stress the importance of Pentecostals learning to listen to the broader church as part of its missiological activity” (xviii). Pentecostal mission effort is evaluated from a Church Growth perspective by Peter Wagner, from an ecumenical perspective by Jeffrey Gros, FCS, and from a Third Wave perspective by Charles Kraft. These chapters, designed to provide “dialogical feedback,” are stimulating to read and insightful in both their positive appraisals and constructive criticisms. Hopefully, Called & Empowered will be expanded and revised in a subsequent edition to include a broader participation of missions practice and reflection from a wider variety of Pentecostal and Charismatic missions ministries, along with more contributions from women (all the authors are male) and voices from the “southern world” (only three of twelve essays are from non-North Americans). The book, however, is well-researched and highly readable for those seeking to look through the window into the self-understanding of Pentecostals and their responsibility in world evangelization. Even the casual observer of this tradition would agree that the energy Pentecostals expend in world missions activity flows out of the belief that Pentecostals are Called & Empowered. L. Grant McClung, Jr., is Coordinator of Research and Strategic Planning for the Church of God World Missions and Associate Professor of Missions and Church Growth at the Church of God School of Theology in Cleveland, Tennessee. 3

A Call to Righteousness over Italy

Pentecostal Theological Education

Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261 Dialogue

“Epistemology, Ethos, and Environment”: In Search of a Theology of Pentecostal

Theological Education, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

Professor of Systematic Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, USA

Docent of Ecumenics, Faculty of Theology, University of Helsinki, Finland

vmk@fuller.edu

The purpose of this essay is to take a theological look at Pentecostal theological education at the global level. While dialoguing widely with various current and historical discussions of the theology of theological education, particularly with David Kelsey of Yale University, the essay urges Pentecostals to negotiate an epistemology that corrects and goes beyond both modernity and postmodernity. The essay also urges Pentecostals to negotiate several seeming opposites such as “academic” versus “spiritual” or “doctrinal” versus “critical.” The final part of the essay offers Pentecostals some advice and inspiration from the reservoirs of the long history and experience of non-Pentecostal theological institutions.

Keywords

Pentecostal theological education, theology of theological education, epistemology, modernity, postmodernity

First Words: Is Bigger Always Better?

Educators like to imagine that education matters. We like to believe that the leadership of a congregation is improved when that person has a graduate degree and three years of study. We like to think that pouring resources into education is worthwhile. We argue that the more resources we devote to theological education, the better.2

1 This essay is a slightly revised version of my presentation at the World Alliance for Pentecos- tal Theological Education Consultation in Stockholm, Sweden, August 25 2010.

2 Ian S. Markham, “Theological Education in the Twenty-First Century,” Anglican Theological Review 92, no. 1 (2010): 157.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/157007412X639889

1

246

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

Against this commonsense expectation, the Anglican seminary professor Ian S. Markman bluntly says that in reality, however, it is sometimes the case that denominations such as his own that invest huge amounts of resources in theo- logical education are declining in membership and activity. Markman reports that the Presbyterian Church (USA) with some of the most highly acclaimed theological schools in the world (Princeton and Columbia, among others) has lost two hundred thousand members between 1999 and 2004 — the biggest loss during that time period among all mainline churches! On the contrary, the Anglican Ian S. Markham further observes, Pentecostals with “very limited and informal” training are growing rapidly all over the world, including in some parts of the USA.3

This is, of course, not to establish any negative causality between the high level of education and low level of church activity — an intriguing PhD study topic in itself! — but it should, rather, shake any unfounded belief in the effects of higher education. Indeed, a classic study conducted in the 1960s by the Swiss sociologist Lalive d’Epinay showed that the traditional theological academic training received by mainline Methodist and Presbyterian pastors in Chile was far from making them more effective pastors and church planters than Pente- costal pastors and pioneers in the same location, who had received the mini- mal amount of education.4 Again, it is wise not to draw conclusions too hastily concerning the cause and effects. While it can be the case that theological edu- cation in itself may have a counter-effect on efficacy in church work, it may also true that the counter-effects are due, rather, to a poor theological education. It is well to recall the critical observation offered by a theological schools’ accred- itation official on the effects of seminary education: “There is no other profes- sional organization in the world that is as functionally incompetent as . . . seminaries. Most of our students emerge from seminaries less prepared than they entered, biblically uncertain, spiritually cold, theologically confused, rela- tionally calloused and professionally unequipped.”5

Before Pentecostals start saying “Amen and Hallelujah! I knew that!,” per- haps they should pause to reflect. It seems to me that very few Pentecostal churches suffer from over-education! On the contrary, we could probably com-

3 Ibid.

4 Christian Lalive d’Epinay, “The Training of Pastors and Theological Education: The Case of Chile,” International Review of Missions 56 (April 1967): 185-92.

5 The remark comes from Timothy Dearborn, Director of the Seattle Association for Theologi- cal Education, reported in Jon M. Ruthven, “Are Pentecostal Seminaries a Good Idea?” n.p., avail- able at http://tffps.org/docs/Are%20Pentecostal%20Seminaries%20a%20Good%20Idea. pdf (accessed 7/12/2010).

2

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

247

pile a long list of Pentecostal churches, planted and started well, that have become stagnant because they lacked trained leadership to facilitate and nur- ture congregational and denominational life. Indeed, there is a dearth of aca- demically trained leadership among Pentecostals, not only in the Global South, where most Pentecostal churches (with a few exceptions, such as those in South Korea) suffer from severe lack of economic and other resources, but also in Europe and the USA.6 Let me just take as an example the US Assemblies of God, one of the most established and resourceful Pentecostal bodies in the world. A recent study of educational levels among Assemblies of God clergy revealed that among senior pastors, 12% had no education beyond high school and 4.3% claimed no ministerial training at all. While 30.6% claimed some training in college or at a technical school, 27.4% had taken a certificate course or had completed some correspondence courses in ministerial training. Some 55.6% had attended Bible college, although only 41.3% completed a degree. While 12.4% held a master’s degree, only 9.9% held a seminary degree [often in counseling] and 2.8% held an advanced degree in ministry.7 This example alone tells us that Pentecostals are approaching the task of considering the nature and role of higher education in theology from a very different vantage point than the mainline traditions.

As the title indicates, my focus will be on the theology — rather than, say, pedagogy or philosophy or finances — of Pentecostal theological education. Therefore, I have to leave many things unsaid. My main goal is to urge Pente- costal theologians and educators to collaborate in developing a solid and dynamic theology as the proper ground for theological education. Mainline churches are ahead of us in this work — understandably so, since they have had more time to “practice.” There is much to learn from those explorations and experiments.

My argumentation moves in three main parts. First I will take a look at the epistemological options for Pentecostal theological education. Second, build- ing on that discussion, I seek to discern some key dimensions in the ethos of Pentecostal education. Third, I will offer some reflections as to different envi- ronments for Pentecostal theological education.

6 For a fine essay with ample documentation on the history and current state of Pentecostal theological education, see Paul Lewis, “Explorations in Pentecostal Theological Education,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Theology 10, no. 2 (2007): 161-76.

7 “Fact* Survey Results: A 2000 Survey of Assemblies of God Churches” (Springfield, MO: Office of the General Secretary, 2000), 9. Copies of this survey are available from the Office of Statistics or from the Office of the General Secretary in Springfield, Missouri. I am indebted to Cecil M. Robeck, my colleague at Fuller, for providing me with this information.

3

248

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

Epistemology: Four “Cities”

In a highly acclaimed and programmatic essay titled Between Athens and Berlin: The Theological Debate, David H. Kelsey of Yale University outlines the underly- ing epistemology and theology of theological education using two cities as paradigms.8 “Athens” refers to the goals and methods of theological education that are derived from classical Greek philosophical educational methodology, paideia. The early church adopted and adapted this model. The primary goal of this form of education is the transformation of the individual. It is about char- acter formation and learning to achieve the ultimate goal, which is the knowl- edge of God rather than merely knowing about God. “It is not primarily about theology, that is, the formal study of the knowledge of God, but it is more about what Kelsey calls theologia, that is, gaining the wisdom of God. It is the transfor- mation of character to be God-like. The emphasis therefore falls upon personal development and spiritual formation.”9 The second pole of Kelsey’s typology, “Berlin,” is based on the Enlightenment epistemology and ideals. (This turn in theological education was first taken at the University of Berlin.) Whereas the classical model of “Athens” accepted the sacred texts as revelation containing the wisdom of God and not only knowledge about God, in the “Berlin” model, rational reasoning and critical enquiry reign. The ultimate goal of theological training is no longer personal formation based on the study of authoritative texts. Rather, it aims at training people intellectually.

It doesn’t take much reflection to realize that, as helpful as this scheme is, it only says so much. There is more to the picture of the underlying epistemology and theology of theological education. Two other models could be added to the equation before an assessment from a Pentecostal perspective is in order.10 My former colleague at Fuller Seminary Robert Banks has suggested a third model, which can appropriately be identified with the city of “Jerusalem,” as it denotes the missionary impulse of the Christian church to spread the gospel from Jeru- salem to the ends of the earth. In an important work titled Revisioning Theo- logical Education,11 Banks argues that if Martin Kähler’s classic dictum “Mission is the Mother of Theology” is true, it means that theology should be missional

8 David H. Kelsey, Between Athens and Berlin: The Theological Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd- mans, 1993).

9 Brian Edgar, “The Theology of Theological Education,” Evangelical Review of Theology 29, no. 3 (2005): 209.

10 I am indebted to the essay by Edgar, “Theology of Theological Education,” for helping find connections between the four models.

11 Robert Banks, Revisioning Theological Education (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999).

4

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

249

in orientation. The ultimate goal and context of theological education should thus be missional, which at the end of the day fosters and energizes the church’s mission. It is, however, more than what is usually thought of as “missiological” education as in the training of foreign missionaries. It is about theological edu- cation buildingthe “foundation” that is the mission of the church in all aspects of the church’s life and work. This missional orientation is, of course, in keeping with the current ecclesiological conviction that mission is not just one task given to the church among other tasks, such as teaching or children’s work, but, rather, that the church is missional by its very nature, and thus, everything the church does derives from the missional nature.

Yet one further model can be added to the scheme. Named “Geneva” after the great center of the Reformation, it cherishes a confessional approach to theological education. It seeks to help the students to know God both through the study of the creeds and the confessions and as the means of grace. Forma- tion is focused on the living traditions of the community. “Formation occurs through in-formation about the tradition and en-culturation within it.”12

What would a Pentecostal assessment on this typology be? Pentecostals cer- tainly prefer “Athens” over “Berlin” and “Jerusalem” over “Geneva.” So the ques- tion is settled. Or is it? I don’t think so. We all agree that it would be too cheap to settle on a couple of appealing choices and move from there. The issue is more complicated — and it has to do, I repeat, with both epistemology and theology.

The choice between the classic model of “Athens” and critical model of “Ber- lin” reflects the dramatic intellectual change brought about by the Enlighten- ment. From a Pentecostal point of view, two overly simple responses to the Enlightenment can be mentioned: First, it is bad! Second, it is inevitable! What I want to say here is that even though it would be safe and soothing to be able to go back to the pre-Enlightenment mentality in which the biblical authority, the uniqueness of Jesus, and other key faith convictions could be taken at their face value — and are being taken as such among the common folks, not only among Pentecostals but in almost all other traditions as well — for an aca- demically trained person living in our times it is not a feasible option. To pre- tend that the Enlightenment never happened is the worst kind of self-delusion.

What about postmodernity? Wouldn’t postmodernity’s critique and rejec- tion of modernity’s legacy come as a God-sent aid to those who are troubled about the rule of reason? Indeed, many Pentecostals are enthusiastic about the

12 Edgar, “Theology of Theological Education,” 211.

5

250

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

promises of postmodernity; I myself am much more reserved. Indeed, what is happening in the beginning of the third millennium is that there is a continu- ing debate, at times even a conflict, between three poles when it comes to epis- temology. Following Ernest Gellner’s suggestive book title, Postmodernism, Reason and Religion,13 they can be named as religion, modernity, and postmo- dernity. Whereas “religion” (cf. “Athens” and “Geneva”) builds on authoritative revelation, “modernity” (cf. “Berlin”) seeks to replace all faith commitments for critical inquiry and postmodernity deconstructs all big narratives in turning to everyone’s own stories and explanations. “Religion” is between a rock and a hard place. Neither modernity nor postmodernity looks like a great ally. The lesson to Pentecostal theological education may be simply this: Even though Pentecostals with all other “Bible believers” seek to build on the author- itative revelation of God in Christ (“Athens”), that cannot be done in isolation from the challenges brought about by both modernity and postmodernity. Pen- tecostal theological education should seek to find a way of education in which the challenges of both of these prevailing epistemologies are being engaged in an honest and intellectually integral way. Two other lessons that guide us in reflection on the ethos of Pentecostal theological education in the next main part of the essay follow from this discussion. It is clear and uncontested that Pentecostals should incorporate the missional impulse (“Jerusalem”) into the core of their education. Furthermore, I urge Pentecostals also to consider the importance of a confessional (“Geneva”) approach, not exclusively, but rather as a complementary way.

Ethos: Four Polarities

Building on these tentative conclusions based on the epistemological discus- sion, let me continue my reflections on the theology of Pentecostal theological education by discerning and highlighting four dynamic continuums or polari- ties. Polarities are not just opposite ends, they are also processes and orienta- tions in dynamic tension with each other. I think it is important to hold on to the healthy and constructive dynamisms when speaking of the theological education of this movement that was birthed by a dynamic movement of the Spirit. This is what makes the ethos of Pentecostal theological education. I name these four polarities in the following way:

13 Ernest Gellner, Postmodernism, Reason and Religion (London: Routledge, 1992).

6

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

251

• “Academic” versus “Spiritual”

• “Indoctrinal” versus “Critical”

• “Practical” versus “Theoretical” • “Tradition-Driven” versus “Change-Driven”

“Academic” versus “Spiritual”

Everyone who has worked in the context of Pentecostal or any other revivalistic theological training knows that there is a built-in tension between spiritual exercises and academic pursuit. In contrast, the “Berlin” model pretty much leaves that tension behind because only academic excellence is pursued. Every- one who has worked in “secular” theological faculties knows what I mean by this.

The “Athens” models suggest that knowledge and wisdom are not alterna- tives, nor can they be subsumed under each other. Knowledge is the way to wisdom, the true “knowing” of God. The noted American theologian Ellen Cherry describes this in a most useful way as she reflects on the lost heritage of the Augustinian and patristic way of doing and teaching theology: “Theology is to enable people to advance in the spiritual life. Spiritual advancement is the driving force behind all of Augustine’s works. Theories about God and the things of God (i.e., doctrines) are important and wanted, but they are to a fur- ther end: to enable people to know, love, and enjoy God better and thereby to flourish.”14 Augustine is a wonderful example to lift up here because alongside deep spirituality, he is also well known for his highly intellectual and analytic mind. Let me just take up one example. As you read his classic autobiographi- cal Confessions, you will soon notice that in the true spirit of Pentecostal-type testimonials he shares about his life before turning to Christ and the dramatic change he underwent. At the same time, this book also contains one of the most sophisticated inquiries into divinity and theology, including the famous chapter 11 on the theology and philosophy of time! Spirituality and academics seem to go well together with the bishop of Hippo.

Whereas for Augustine and likeminded thinkers theology was spiritual by its nature — an aid to help Christians know, love, and enjoy God — post- Enlightenment academic education as conducted in the university setting has strayed so far from this ethos that recently courses in “spirituality” had to be

14 Ellen T. Cherry, “Educating for Wisdom: Theological Studies as a Spiritual Exercise,” Theology Today 66, no. 3 (2009): 298.

7

252

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

added to the curriculum!15 As if studying God — logos about theos — were not a spiritually nourishing exercise in itself.

“Indoctrinal” versus “Critical”

Pentecostal preaching and testimonies are about persuasion — and often amplified with a loud voice! Not only that, but the Pentecostal way of discern- ing God’s will is geared toward nonmediated, direct encounters with God. In that environment, critical thinking, analysis, and argumentation often sit uncomfortably.Coupled with this is the Bible school mentality of much of Pen- tecostal training that, in opposition to critical academic faculties in the univer- sities, was set up to combat reigning liberalism. In other words, the “Berlin” model doesn’t seem to be a viable option in that kind of environment. Mark Hutchinson describes aptly the dynamic field in which Pentecostal theological education often finds itself in the midst of conflicting expectations:

It would be true to say that most leaders in our movement have little understanding of educational processes, and little expectation about the intelligence of their members. The model of the charismatic leader is to hear from God and then tell the people what he has heard. The concept that they may be in fact serving a community which can hear from God and which is capable of dealing with what they’ve heard is not a common one. And yet, the community model is precisely what a uni-versity is — it is a commu- nity of scholarship. With the prevailing church model, education tends to default towards indoctrination, with more emphasis on character outcomes and opinions than on intellectual formation and knowledge.16

There is a clash of cultures between the church and the academic institution; only the Bible school environment usually avoids this dynamic by going smoothly with the church culture. A Pentecostal academic institution of theo- logical knowledge “exists as a place where definite, charismatic, revelational knowledge and certainty exist alongside and in interaction with the indefinite but progressive search for truth,” whereas a typical church setting calls for a definite, authoritative settling of the issues under discussion. In order to keep this dynamic tension in a healthy measure, “[l]eaders and pastors will have to acknowledge that their revelational knowledge and ecclesial authority is not

15 See further, Cherry, “Educating for Wisdom,” 296-97.

16 Mark Hutchinson, “ ‘The Battle Hymn of the Republic of Learning’: Thoughts on Academic Freedom in a Pentecostal College,” Australasian Pentecostal Theology 9 (July 2005/6): 10.

8

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

253

absolute, while teachers will have to admit that their academic freedom and scholarly knowledge are not absolute goods.”17

A Pentecostal academic mindset should be able to make a distinction between two kinds of understandings of the term critical. The first meaning that usually comes to the popular mind is something like “tearing apart” or “breaking down” beliefs dearly held — as in radical forms of biblical criticism. That kind of use of critical faculties often replicates the naïve and unfounded understanding of rationality à la the Enlightenment whereby one assumes the location to be a context-free “no-man’s land” in which one is able to know something neutrally, without prejudice or bias. That modernist illusion is, of course, thoroughly prejudiced and biased. If postmodernity has taught us any- thing, it is that all of our knowledge is “perspectival”; there is “no view from nowhere.” This takes me to the other, more constructive meaning of critical, which means something like “sorting out” or “weighing” between various opin- ions, options, viewpoints. On the way to a confident opinion or belief, the intel- lectual capacities are put in use to ensure that one’s opinion is justified in light of current knowledge, experience, and wisdom.

The Pentecostal movement at large would be greatly helped by soberly trained leaders who have been taught how to exercise healthy criticism, includ- ing self-criticism. Pentecostals would, for example, learn that “bigger is not always better.” Even though it is not an easy task, by taking the “Athens” model as the basis and the “Berlin” model as a necessary aid, Pentecostal theological education would benefit greatly. In practical terms this means teaching the basics of biblical and doctrinal criticism as part of the curriculum, doing histo- riography rather than hagiography when studying the past of the movement, subjecting prevailing leadership or church growth patterns and ideals to scru- tiny, and so forth.

“Practical” versus “Theoretical”

A recent essay by the newly elected president of Union Theological Seminary (NY), Serene Jones, discloses the depth of the problem that has haunted theo- logical education, particularly ministerial training, from the beginning, namely, how to balance “practical” and “theoretical” aspects. She makes painfully clear just how far academic theology too often has strayed from its practical task. Her title “Practical Theology in Two Modes” is an admission that systematic theol- ogy, her own discipline, needs practical theology by its side as a separate field

17 Ibid.

9

254

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

of study, although at the same time she acknowledges that “everything we do in the divinity school is practical; it’s about faith and people’s lives.”18 The divide between theoretical and practical is another child of modernity, although the distinction, of course, serves heuristic purposes and everyday needs; think, for example, of how useful it is to study first about traffic signs in class (“theory”) before venturing into actual traffic (“practice”). Common sense dictates that in some manner, the distinction should be maintained. In the case of theological education, as long as it has ministerial training as its goal, the separation cannot be accepted. Theological education that does not lead into the adoption of “practices” and virtues relevant and conducive to Christian life and ministry is simply a failed exercise.19

Theology is a peculiar form of cognitive reflection, for its goal is not simply the expan- sion of knowledge. Theology has a quite practical goal — what I would call the forma- tion of religious identity. Theology must once again become an activity forming religious identity and character. For it to play that role, theologians must be engaged in reflection upon religious practices. Some of those practices will be located within reli- gious communities, while others may be broadly distributed within society. Theolo- gians need to attend both to the practices of congregations — worship, preaching and counseling, for example — and to societal practices that have religious and moral dimensions . . . .20

When beginning a new course in systematic theology for seminary students, I usually tell the students that my discipline may be the most “practical” and “relevant” of all fields in the theological curriculum. Students often respond by asking, isn’t systematic theology rather about thinking, argumentation, doc- trines? My counter-response affirms that but also adds that, in the final analy- sis, what else could be more “practical” to pastors, counselors, and missionaries than thinking deeply about what we believe, why we believe, and how we best try to formulate it? That is what shapes sermons, testimonies, worship, coun- seling, evangelism, finances, marriage, and so forth. Although such an exercise may not seem to be as “practical” in a shorter view as, say, basics of homiletics

18  Serene Jones, “Practical Theology in Two Modes,” in For Life Abundant: Practical Theology, Theological Education, and Christian Ministry, ed. Dorothy C. Bass and Craig Dykstra (Grand Rap- ids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 195.

19 For an important discussion of “practices,” see Practicing Theology: Beliefs and Practices in Christian Life, ed. Miroslav Volf and Dorothy Bass (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002).

20 Ronald F. Thiemann, “Making Theology Central in Theological Education,” Christian Century, February 4-11, 1987, 106-8, available at http://religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=360 (accessed July 11, 2006).

10

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

255

or church administration, its long-term effects may be far more relevant than one would assume.

This observation is worth repeating: The study of theology that fails to posi- tively shape a person’s identity, faith, character, and passion for God has simply failed its calling. An alternative is not to drop altogether the pursuit of theo- logical education, but rather, to work hard for the revising and rectifying of training.

The focus of the “Jerusalem” model, missional orientation, comes into con- sideration here. If it is true that mission is far more than one of the many tasks that the church does — namely, that the church is mission, mission is some- thing that has to do with everything the church is doing, its raison d’être — then it means that the ultimate horizon of theological education is the mission of the church.21 Pentecostalism with its eschatologically loaded missionary enthusiasm and yearning for the power of the Spirit has all the potential of redeeming that promise. Yet, a word of warning is in order here. While Pente- costals have rightly lifted up the needs of the mission as the key factor in shap- ing education, they have often done so in a way that has shortsightedly promoted merely “practical” tools of effectiveness. The urgency of mission does not mean, therefore, that it need not be theologically grounded or reflected upon. On the contrary, if mission is the mode of existence for the church, it means we should continue careful theological reflection along with praxis of mission, both affirming our praxis and offering needed self-criticism.

“Tradition-Driven” versus “Chang e-Driven”

“Tradition” is a bad word in Pentecostal vocabulary. Indeed, a main impulse that helped birth Pentecostalism was an opposition to the traditions, creeds, and rites of traditional churches. Pentecostalism breathes renewal and revital- ization. As it turned its attention to the future rather than the past, there emerged also a curious view of church history: basically it was a leap from the Book of Acts straight to the beginning of the movement in the twentieth century.

As a result, Pentecostalism is known for innovation, creativity, boldness, and “frontier spirit,” which have helped cultivate spontaneity, loose structures, and the use of unheard-of techniques. Ever-new discoveries in church growth, evangelism, leadership, and the like catch the imagination of Pentecostals.

21 For an important call by a noted ecumenist from India to renew missional commitment in all theological education, see Christopher Duraisingh, “Ministerial Formation for Mission: Impli- cations for Theological Education,” International Review of Mission 81, no. 1 (January 1992): 33-45.

11

256

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

Tradition represents everything stagnant, archaic, irrelevant, and dead. Or does it? For Paul, in what may be the oldest section of the New Testament in the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15, it was of utmost importance to pass on tradition about Jesus and his salvific work. The term tradition, of course, comes from the Latin word to “pass on.” The Johannine Jesus promised his disciples that after his exit, the Holy Spirit would continue working in their midst to help them embrace and gain a deeper insight into Jesus’ teaching, “tradition.” In the Chris- tian view, tradition is but the work of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit helps each new generation to delve more deeply and in a more relevant way into the knowledge, power, and mind of Christ.

Although a Pentecostal approach to theological education cannot be based solely or even primarily on the “Geneva” model, neither should it ignore or downplay its importance. There are two facets to Pentecostalism’s relation to tradition. First of all, the Pentecostal movement stands firmly on the tradition of Christ’s church. Hence, a sufficient study of the whole of the church’s theo- logical, creedal, and historical tradition should belong to the core of the cur- riculum. Second, Pentecostalism in itself represents a growing tradition. As much as new revivalistic movements seek to live in the denial of the inevitable, there is no denying the accumulating effects of tradition and traditions.

Any effective theological education needs to be a good training in the tradition. Given the social reality of knowing, we must work within a framework of texts and commu- nity. Each one of us is born into a family and learns a particular language. From day one, each person looks at the world in a certain way. Knowledge is the result of the hard work of communities that struggle with the complexity of the world and start arriving at a more plausible account.22

As this word of wisdom from Markham illustrates, a proper attention to tradi- tion also helps bring in the importance of community. Communal orientation is needed in order to redeem Pentecostalism, including its leadership, from hopeless individualism. This is nothing but the ecclesiological model of Acts 2.

The important task for Pentecostal theologians is to discern and bring to light the key elements of what makes Pentecostal tradition. What, for example, is the role of the baptism in the Holy Spirit in Pentecostal living tradition?23 Change and tradition, new and old, should be kept in some kind of dynamic balance; that is a continuing challenge.24

22 Markham, “Theological Education,” 159. 23 See Lewis, “Explorations,” 162.

24 See further, Markham, “Theological Education,” 164.

12

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

257

Environment: Four Locations

The term environment in this essay refers to two interrelated aspects of Pente- costal theological education. The first has to do with the setting in which the training is done, whether in a church-based Bible school, theological college, or theological seminary, or in collaboration with “secular” university faculties such as in the Free University of Amsterdam. The second meaning of the envi- ronment relates to whether Pentecostal theological education is “Pentecostal” or, as it most often is alternatively, “Evangelical” with some Pentecostal tinsel. Let me begin with this latter meaning.

Anyone familiar with typical Pentecostal theological schools knows that much of what is taught has little or no direct relation to Pentecostalism; it is, rather, borrowed materials from the Evangelical storehouses. Pentecostal dynamics and philosophy of education are due to the “reliance upon pedagogi- cal and philosophical models that are more Evangelical (or fundamentalist) than Pentecostal . . . [and] written resources on educational philosophy and pedagogy authored by Pentecostals for Pentecostal educators are lacking, espe- cially for higher education.”25 In other words: although Pentecostal students study in a Pentecostal environment, their education is not often distinctively Pentecostal. It is, rather, the extracurricular activities that are more Pentecostal in nature. As a result, Pentecostals become vulnerable to losing their distinc- tive nature and identity.

Behind this malaise is not only the lack of developed Pentecostal theology or textbooks but also a general orientation in much of Pentecostal theological scholarship that often tends to major in repeating uncritically the voices of Evangelicalism, at times even Fundamentalism — even though it is the Funda- mentalists who have been most vocal opponents of anything charismatic! I am thinking here of Fundamentalistic views such as the doctrine of Scripture and inspiration (inerrancy), dispensationalist eschatology, and so on, which have been adopted without a concerted theological assessment of how well, or how badly, these views fit Pentecostalism.26 Henry Lederle of South Africa, himself a Charismatic Reformed, rightly remarks: “It is an irony of recent ecclesiastical history that much of Pentecostal scholarship has sought to align itself so closely with the rationalistic heritage of American Fundamentalism . . . without fully

25 Jeffrey Hittenberger, “Toward a Pentecostal Philosophy of Education,” Pneuma 23, no. 2 (2001): 226, 230; I am indebted to Lewis, “Explorations” (p. 172) for this citation.

26 For an enlightening analysis of the uneasy relationship between Pentecostalism and Funda- mentalism, see Gerald T. Sheppard, “Pentecostalism and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism: The Anatomy of an Uneasy Relationship,” Pneuma 6, no. 2 (1984): 5-34.

13

258

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

recognizing how hostile these theological views are to Pentecostal and Charis- matic convictions about present-day prophecy, healing miracles and other spiritual charisms.”27 Now, in principle there is, of course, no problem with bor- rowing from others. It would be only foolish to decline to drink from the com- mon Christian wells and take advantage of other churches’ millennia-long traditions of theological reflection. However, the way in which Pentecostals have done that — and seemingly continue doing it — is what raises concerns. In most cases, I fear, Pentecostal theologians do not acknowledge the fact that what they claim to be presenting as a “Pentecostal” theological view is often nothing more than a “Spirit-baptized” Evangelical, often even Fundamentalis- tic, view taken from others with little or no integral connection to the core of Pentecostal identity.

Pentecostals have much to learn from older traditions. Let me take just one current example. In the above-mentioned essay, Markham carefully considers what are the key elements in his own Anglican tradition and, on the basis of that investigation, lays out three broad theological principles with regard to Anglican theological education: first, it should be creedal because of the cen- trality of the ancient creeds and later Anglican dogmatic formulae; second, it should be liturgical because of the center of the church life in worship and lit- urgy; and third, it should be engaged because of Anglicanism’s deep desire to engage the society at large, including politics, culture, arts, science, etc.28 Now, these are not theological underpinnings for Pentecostal higher education. But I admire the clarity, consistency, and boldness of being true to one’s own tradi- tion without being hostile to others.

Building on one’s own identity and tradition is in no way an excuse or ratio- nale for excluding others or fostering anti-ecumenical attitudes (those are prevalent enough without much training, unfortunately!). On the contrary, from the “foundation” of a clearly formulated identity and belonging to one’s community grows an irenic spirit toward others. In keeping with this goal is the set of guidelines from the global working group of theological educators who prepared a useful document for the Edinburgh 2010 World Missionary Confer- ence in relation to theological educators:

27 Henry I. Lederle, “Pentecostals and Ecumenical Theological Education,” Ministerial Forma- tion 80 (January 1998): 46.

28 Markham, “Theological Education,” 160-62.

14

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

259

a.  they should strengthen the denominational identity of future pastors and church

workers, so that graduates will have a very clear understanding of the church to

which they belong (theologicaleducation as denominational initiation);

b.  they should introduce students to the wider horizons of the worldwide church so

that they will understand that they also belong to the ecumenical fellowship of

churches (theological education as discovery of catholicity);

c.  they should prepare candidates to engage models of church unity, to reflect theo-

logically on ‘unity in diversity’ and to ask how the relation between local or denomi-

national identity and the ecumenical worldwide fellowship can be lived out

(theological education as enabling forecumenical learning).29

As mentioned above, Pentecostal theological training by and large takes place in four different environments.30 Both church-based Bible schools and bibli- cal/theological colleges have rendered an invaluable service to the global Pen- tecostal movement. Indeed, one can safely say that, without this network of grassroots-level training that owes its beginning to the end of the nineteenth- century Holiness and other Evangelical movements’ example, the establish- ment of Pentecostal churches all around the world might not have been possible. Even today these schools play a critical role in ministerial training, as is the case, for example, in most Latin American Pentecostal movements. The mode of rationality in those settings is markedly different from that of higher education proper. Their frame of reference is practical, short-term training of workers rather than academic education based on research and new knowledge.

In this essay, my focus has been on the academic section of Pentecostal theo- logical education as conducted in theological seminaries and theological col- leges with graduate departments; as mentioned, there is also emerging a new breed of Pentecostal theological training, that located in “secular” university faculties.

In the process of seeking a proper balance between the epistemologies of “Athens” and “Berlin” and consequently between the ethos of passing on tradi- tion and critical scrutiny thereof, the important question regarding the relation between the church and academia emerges (“church” here stands for all levels of ecclesiastical life from local churches to global networks of national movements).

29 “Challenges and Opportunities in Theological Education in the 21st Century: Pointers for a New International Debate on Theological Education,” Short version, Edinburgh 2010 — Interna- tional study group on theological education, World Study Report 2009, p. 8, available at http:// oikoumene.org/gr/resources/documents.html (accessed 7/13/2010).

30 In addition, there are locations that are difficult to classify such as the Folkhögskola (“Folk High School”) institutions in Nordic countries, which play an important role, for example, in Swe- den and in Finland.

15

260

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

Unlike university-based theology faculties — unless directly related to the given church, as is still the case in many Roman Catholic settings — that, in the name of academic freedom, resist any kind of supervision from the church, Pentecostal theological institutions better nurture a constructive, mutual rela- tion to the church. As discussed above, this kind of relationship is not without the challenges arising from two different rationalities and intellectual climates. The above-mentioned Edinburgh 2010 document summarizes in a most help- ful way some of the key principles in this regard under the title “Theological education and the church — a relationship of service, ownership, and critical distance.” The document takes as its starting point the overarching principle of closeness and distance, which helps the church to be the church and academia to be academia, yet in a way that makes the relationship mutually conditioning:

a.  There is no fundamental contradiction between the principles of academic learning

or intellectual discipline on one hand and a church-related faith commitment on

the other, although at times there may be tension between the two. It is the task of

theological education to strengthen the commitment to Christian faith and to

develop a proper understanding and practice of it, which may include liberating

faith from narrow-minded or uninformed concepts and/or practices.

b.  Theological education has a critical and liberating function in relation to the exist-

ing church; with reference to both Biblical and Christian tradition, theological edu-

cation can remind Christian communities of their proper tasks and key mandates. c.  The church has a critical and alerting function over against theological education

and the forms of cultural captivity and blindedness theological education can find

itself in due to its particular environment and internal value systems. Serious com-

plaints are being heard that the theological academy in the West has lost its world-

wide, ecumenical perspective and its missionary impact, and that it is not sufficiently

cognizant of emerging shifts in World Christianity today.

d.  Theological education therefore needs regular contact with the existing realities of

church life, involvement and close touch with the challenges of mission, ministry

and life witness of churches today, but it also needs critical distance and a certain

degree of autonomy from the daily pressures of church work and from the direct

governing processes and power interests of church institutions.31

Last Words: “An Unfinished Agenda”

Following the title of the late missionary-bishop Lesslie Newbigin’s autobiogra- phy, An Unfinished Agenda, suffice it to say that the continuing work toward a

31 “Challenges and Opportunities in Theological Education,” 6.

16

V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261

261

more coherent and comprehensive theology of Pentecostal theological educa- tion is a task for the worldwide Pentecostal movement.

That said, I would like to come back to the question I raised in the beginning of the essay, namely, is bigger always better? Jon Ruthven formulates this ques- tion in a helpful way: “Could it be that the extreme reluctance of Pentecostal leadership to bow to pressures for the establishment of theological seminaries has merit? Instead of dismissing them as anti-intellectual, perhaps we might pause to consider if these leaders were onto something.”32 Professor Ruthven himself teaches in a seminary/divinity school setting; this surprising question is thus not meant to dismiss or even downplay the importance of highest-level theological training for Pentecostals. The way I take it is that in the midst of many and variegated efforts to update the level of theological education among Pentecostals, it would only be counterproductive to be so carried over by this effort as to lose the bigger perspective. As a bumper put it succinctly: “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” The key is to work toward a form and content of theological education that bears the marks of an authentic Pentecostal spirituality and identity.

Ultimately, “theological education is part of the holistic mission of the Chris- tian church,” says the World Council of Churches’ Oslo (1996) statement to which Pentecostals can only say, “Amen and Amen.”

There is consensus among us on the holistic character of theological education and ministerial formation, which is grounded in worship, and combines and inter-relates spirituality, academic excellence, mission and evangelism, justice and peace, pastoral sensitivity and competence, and the formation of character. For it brings together edu- cation of:

the ear to hear God’s word and the cry of God’s people;

the heart to heed and respond to the suffering;

the tongue to speak to both the weary and the arrogant;

the hands to work with the lowly;

the mind to reflect on the good news of the gospel;

the will to respond to God’s call;

the spirit to wait on God in prayer, to struggle and wrestle with God, to be silent in penitence and humility and to intercede for the church and the world; the body to be the temple of the Holy Spirit.33

32 Ruthven, “Pentecostal Seminaries,” n.p.

33 Cited in “Challenges and Opportunities in Theological Education,” 5.

A Great Century of Pentecostal Charismatic Renewal

A “Great Century” 81 of Pentecostal/Charismatic Renewal and Missions Edward Keith Pousson Pentecostals and Charismatics missionary-minded segment of dynamics Charismatic to produce a worldwide The following make up what is probably the most world Christianity today. What are the of this century-long movement of both Pentecostal and Renewal that have converged missionary thrust? And on what grounds can we speak of the twentieth century as a “great century” of Pentecostal/Charismatic missions? two questions launch and guide our discussion. will also be addressed: What kind of missionary has emerged from the Charismatic Renewal in particular? has Pentecostal missions impacted Charismatic missions, and what lessons can Charismatic missions learn from Pentecostal missions? What is the emerging Charismatic contribution to mission theology? between renewal and missions is the theme that unites These related questions movement How The relationship this entire article. An End-Time Movement in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Missions Scott Latourette Christian missions. worldwide religion. century as a comparably “great renewal and missions? What common to Renewal and Missionary This section explores the relationship between renewal and missions against the backdrop of developments Professor Stephen Neill and Yale Historian Kenneth called the nineteenth century the “Great Century” of It was that century that made Christianity a On what grounds may we speak of the twentieth century” are some of the dynamics of renewal both of these centuries that have birthed massive missionary movements around the world? Renewal Results in Mission First, and of primary significance movements every Christian Orthodox, renewed of Pentecostal/Charismatic for this article, spiritual renewal to global missionary in both of these periods gave birth expansion. By the end of the eighteenth century, for example, virtually denomination throughout the Western world, including Catholic and Protestant churches, had been recently in one way or another. Renewal movements in Protestantism included Pietism, Puritanism, Moravianism, England and the related Wesleyan revival, and the Great Awakenings the American Colonies. Though unevenly distributed and timed, it was this church-wide awakening that provided the spiritual impetus for that the Evangelical Revival in in 1 82 which is now called the “Great I Century” of Christian missions, Similarly, renewal pervasive missionary expansion and global country where rapid church Pentecostal/Charismatic decadal growth rates.2 In 1992, Wagner penned this hypothesis: non-militaristic, beginning 1792 and ending 1914.’ in the twentieth century, impacted virtually every renewal has likewise brought church growth. Pentecostal and Charismatic Christian denomination. This about unprecedented In nearly every multiplication is occurring, are leading the way in terms of C. Peter movement has over the past congregations church growth professor “In all of human history not another non-political voluntary human movement has grown as dramatically as the Pentecostal/charismatic 25 years.”3 Without question, as Wagner suggests, Pentecostalism in all its forms is the fastest growing segment of Christianity in the twentieth century. It grew from 16 million worldwide adherents in 1945 to 4.3 billion in 1993.4 Renewal about dramatic changes of that both periods of renewal Protestant institutions, new missionary structures. Protestant the nineteenth century minds of Neill and Latourette Changes Christian Institutions A second comparison from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is brought in including and especially a vast proliferation The birth and multiplication of these missionary societies is perhaps the leading factor that makes the Great Century of Christian missions in the Once freed from church and state launched more than 21,000 control, these voluntary societies focused exclusively on missions and Protestant missionaries by 1910.6 Thanks to Harper History of ‘ See Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, Vol. 2 (New York, NY: . & Row Publishers, Inc., 1953), 1013-1035; Gary B. McGee, This Shall Be Preached. A Gospel to 1959 History and Theology of Assemblies of God Foreign Missions (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1986), 24; Stephen Neill, A Christian Missions (Second edition revised by Owen Chadwick; London and New York: Penguin Books, 1986), 204, 213-215, 240-245, 286-287, 332-334. 2 C. Peter “Church Growth,” in Pentecostal and Charismatic Wagner, Dictionary of Movements, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 185-188. [Hereafter cited as Rapids, A1issions, 214; Sydney (New 6 McGee, missionary DPCM.] I ‘ C. Peter Wagner, Warfare Prayer (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1992), 48. 4 ‘David J. Hesselgrave, Today’s Choices for Tomorrow’s Mission (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 119; David B. Barrett, “Annual Statistical Table on Global Mission: 1993,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 17 (January 1993): 22-23. ‘Latourette, A History of Christianity, 1013-1033ff.; Neill, A History of Christian E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1972), 422-423. This Gospel Shall Be Preached, I, 21. Examples of early Protestant societies include William Carey’s Baptist Missionary Society (1792), the London Missionary Society (1795), and the American Board of Commissioners for Missions (incorporated 1812). Foreign 2 during Through the twentieth movement has likewise given sending agencies, including 83 living in Asia, the Pentecostal/Charismatic and the world’s largest with some 25,000 of recent their efforts, the percentage of the world’s Protestants Africa and Latin America increased from one percent to ten percent the nineteenth century.’ 7 century, birth to hundreds of new missionary the Assemblies of God Foreign Missions Division with more than 1,500 missionaries, Christian mission, Youth With a Mission (YWAM), missionaries reaching out to nearly every country of the world.’ But the the movement is not its number of missionaries, on the mission field. Eighty percent to Christianity have been the result of according Today at least 66% of the world’s Pentecostals/Charismatics Latin America, and Oceania, including 88% of Assemblies church members and 75% of Church of God (Cleveland, TN) believers, two of the largest Pentecostal denominations worldwide.’° crowning success of but its growth conversions from paganism Pentecostal/Charismatic efforts, Asia, Africa, of God Patterns of Piety fueled the nineteenth produced striking changes piety. Moravian pietism to several researchers.’ live in movement, for instance, of Protestant Renewal Changes A third common feature of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is that both periods of renewal unleashed new forms of spirituality that aided fresh missionary expansion. The various renewal movements that century missionary in the forms and expressions centered on Christ and him crucified. Wesleyanism called for personal conversion, The Great Awakenings in the Colonies/States stressed the unchurched, preaching. “evangelical” preaching for the need for individual “decisions” holy living, and zeal in resulting responsibility for witness, in the “new birth,” and a prayer for enabled the Protestant strong desire for individual and corporate prayer, including concerts of world missions. These new expressions of spirituality faith to adapt itself and reach out to the ends of History 8 Gary for (Grand Rapids, ‘Paul E. Pierson, “Why Did the 1800s Explode with Missions?,” Christian 11/4 (1992): 20. B. McGee, “Overseas Missions (North American),” DPCM, 614-624; David B. Barrett, “Global Statistics,” DPCM, 814-815, 830; Choices Tomorrow’s Mission, 120, 255n; Edward K. Hesselgrave, Today’s Pousson, Spreading the Flame MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 88-89; John A. Siewert and John A. Kenyon, eds., Mission Handbook 1993-95 (15th Edition; Monrovia, CA: MARC, 1993), 243, 248, 255-256. 9 Vinson Synan, “Global Consultation on AD 2000 3 Evangelization: AD 2000 the Target,” Together (Spring 1989): 7; Larry Pate, From Every People (Monrovia, CA: MARC, 1989), 129; C. Peter Wagner, Spiritual Power and Church Growth (Altamonte Springs, FL: Strang Communications 1986), 12; C. Peter How to Have a Healing Ministry Without Company, Making Your Church Sick (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1988), 68-89. ‘°L. Grant McClung, “The Pentecostal ‘Trunk’ must Learn from its ‘Branches’,” Missions Quarterly 29 (January 1993): 35. Wagner, Evangelical 3 84 our changing movements.” world through many new and unprecedented renewal has produced new and material. Comparing needs-spiritual, Pentecostal Comparatively, Pentecostal/Charismatic and varied expressions of worship and spirituality which have reached to the ends of the earth. One major factor behind the astonishing success of the movement is its appeal to a broader range of human physical to ministry with the Interdenominational Foreign Missions Association (IFMA), missionary theologian Arthur F. Glasser of Fuller Theological Seminary’s School of World Mission emotional, approaches writes, challenge evangelicals… … Pentecostals were willing to tackle the “dark side of the soul” and the growing phenomenon of occultism, Satan worship and demon possession. Whereas IFMA people and other non-charismatic had found it relatively easy to the occasional expose the extravagance of charlatan, they were silenced in the presence of the Pentecostal’s serious confrontation of the hard realities of the spirit world. Here was a spirituality which could not be ignored. 12 Charismatic spiritual guidance, together ministry, dynamic praying movement world. such as exorcisms, worship, healings and spontaneous secularizing “power-encounters,” with expressive and a lively oral tradition make this especially appealing to many peoples of the non-Western Through these and other viable spiritual dynamics, PentecostaUCharismatic missions has curtailed trends of earlier missions that offered people “soul-salvation” but left miracles, healings to the early church.’3 Pentecostal/Charismatic missionaries offer healing, not to “disembodied exorcism and physical souls,” but to whole persons. Renewal expansion global of Changes Leadership Patterns A fourth renewal dynamism giving rise to unprecedented in nineteenth century was the creation of new patterns of leadership, including the service of women, increased participation lay people and of less formally trained clergy, and the unprecedented mobilization of 180,000 student volunteers for missions.14 Similarly, Pentecostals/Charismatics have advanced in missions through hands-on, leadership training models, and the sending of many women evangelists and missionaries. ‘ decentralized training, semiformal Bible institute 11 Latourette, A History ojChristianity, 959-960, 1019-1029, 1043-1047; Neill, A History of Christian A1issions, 202-204, 214, 275. 12 Arthur F. Glasser and Donald A. McGavran, Contemporary Theologies of Mission (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983), 119-120. “See Paul G. Hiebert, “The Flaw of the Excluded Middle,” Missiology: An International Review 10 A (January 1982): 35ff. 14 Latourette, History ojChristianity, 960, 1020, 1027; McGee, This Gospel Shall Be Preached, I, 24; Neill, A History of Christian Missions, 217-218. “L. Grant McClung, ed., Azusa Street and Beyond: Pentecostal ivissions and 4 example, undesirable, proven growth provided people respond. They “experience” 85 modified Calvinism by making Strong reliance on the laity and multiple routes to ordination have accelerated leadership emergence in areas of rapid church growth. For most Assemblies of God pastors around the world are without so much as a Bible school education. `6 Higher education is not but imposing educational requirements for ordination is a restriction in some cases. And the lack of educational requirements for ordination has not stopped the Assemblies of God from becoming the largest Pentecostal denomination. Renewal Alters Theological Traditions Consider one final comparison between these two “great centuries” of renewal and missions. In both cases, renewed theological reflection motivations for a new thrust in world evangelization. Of great significance for the nineteenth century missions movement was this one fact: renewal reshaped traditional Calvinism with respect to election and predestination. The Puritan fathers, for example, believed that all would hear the gospel and that some from every nation would launched missions to the Indians in all Thirteen Colonies. The Great Awakening in the Colonies broached Arminian-ish ideas, establishing the need for an individual “decision” and a personal of salvation for the elect. And Jonathan Edwards, a leading theologian of the Awakening, for the sinner’s response in accepting God’s forgiveness.” in England, the Evangelical Awakening with its stress breaking up hyper-Calvinism. Even among the Particular Baptists, William Carey’s there was a “slow awakening,” Stutd1fse, Carey, and others planted seeds of a mission theology into In these and many other ways, revival . of traditional theology, providing fundamental convictions and motivations for the nineteenth century missions more room Simultaneously on evangelism was also denomination, the English religious scene.” altered the landscape movement. Topeka, America. the fallow ground of as Andrew Fuller, John in Pentecostalism. The revival in of Pentecostalism in North reflection to Los Angeles, We observe the same pattern Kansas marks the beginning This revival was triggered by fresh theological concerning sanctification, the baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. From Topeka the revival spread to Houston, Texas, and then where the Azusa Street Revival broke out and 76-77; Rapids, Church Growth in the Twentieth Century (South Plainfield, NJ: Bridge, 1986), McGee, This Gospel Shall Be Preached, I, 91-93. 16 J. Herbert Kane, The Christian World Mission: Today and Tomorrow (Grand MI: Baker Book House, 1981), 105. “These and many other theological developments linked to the Great and Awakenings providing missionary motivations are discussed in Latourette, A History of 958-961, 1019, 1043-45. ‘eTim Dowley, ed., A Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity (Oxford: Lion 406-409. Christianity, Publishing, 1990), 5 86 innovations in early motivations and convictions movements. Consider One, Pentecostals Spirit Testament experience. impacted various parts of the world. Theological and mature Pentecostalism have provided powerful that could not help but produce explosive missionary the following three theological innovations. claimed that the personalized power of the Holy is readily available now to every believer just as it was in New Pentecostals discovered that they can receive the sacraments and experience the Spirit, not through the mediation of and the clergy (as in Catholicism), and not only through the ministry of the Word (as in mainstream Protestantism), but through direct and personal access to the Father and to Jesus, the Baptizer in the Holy Spirit.19 Two, Pentecostals emphasized Pentecost expect the supernatural ministering that the purpose of this personal for missions. This claim of the biblical experience of the Holy Spirit is empowerment is a rediscovery by experience of the true purpose (Acts 1:8). Being “baptized” in the Spirit, Pentecostals manifestations or charismata of the Spirit to be there for them in evangelistic and missionary outreach. Three, Pentecostals see themselves as living in the last days and in the same salvation history context as that of the New Testament.2° They have, therefore, recovered the New Testament hope of the soon return of Jesus. This view of things has generated powerful motivation which is characterized by expectancy, urgency, how renewal alters missionary and intensity. These three innovations theological traditions movements. Theological serve to illustrate in such a way as to stimulate fresh missionary reflection concerning the mission of the church has played a vital role across the last two great centuries of renewal and missions. century” above parallels between these of a professional of the School of World Mission Pasadena, California. 21 Although my analysis may lack the nuances historian, I believe that the twentieth century can be called the “great of Pentecostal/Charismatic renewal and missions in that it bears comparison to the nineteenth-century missionary movement. The two periods of renewal and expansion are not only striking but also instructive. They illustrate the following key missionary principles taught by missions historian Paul E. Pierson at Fuller Theological Seminary in First, renewal and missions are interlinked. Missionary expansion is both the natural and the supernatural result of the outpouring of the Spirit of God upon the church (Acts 1:8). Any renewal that is truly Missions “Dowley, ed., A Lion Handbook, 646; Paul A. Pomerville, The Third Force in (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), 65. 2°Pomerville, 21 The Third Force in Missions, 57-58. While Pierson is to be credited for these principles, I do not claim his authority for the ways in which I have adapted and applied them in this article. 6 87 eschatological will eventually turn its focus outward and cross social and cultural barriers to reach the lost, as the biblical Pentecost did. Second, renewal changes the way we do church and missions, creating new structures and patterns for both. Specifically, missions is most effective when local churches and extra-local mission structures cooperate together in a semi-autonomous, mutually interdependent fashion, as seen in both the nineteenth and twentieth century missionary movements mentioned above, as well as throughout church and missions history. Third, renewal creates new and viable forms of spirituality that spur fresh missionary outreach and appeal more effectively to the unchurched peoples of the day. Fourth, renewal creates new patterns of leadership that unleash fresh missionary outreach. And fifth, renewal alters older theological traditions and ushers in new theological insights that provide fresh motivation for evangelistic and missionary outreach. Observing Pentecostal/Charismatic renewal and missions in a general way, we have thus far identified key dynamics or characteristics of renewal that lead almost inevitably to a missions thrust. This analysis provides the foundation, perspectives and presuppositions for all that follows. From here on, however, the emphasis falls more specifically on Charismatic missions of the latter half of this century. The Charismatic Renewal: Creating New Patterns for Church and Missions That the Pentecostal revival has produced a major missionary movement is a well documented fact. By 1990 there were 320,000 classical Pentecostal churches around the world with a total membership of over 45 million. 22 But what kind of missionary movement has the Charismatic Renewal produced? How are the dynamics and principles observed above also working in the Charismatic Renewal? . The Emergence of a “Charismatic” Ecclesia Renewal, we have observed, changes the way we do church. The healing revival of the 1950s formed the bridge between the Pentecostal Movement and the Charismatic Renewal. William Branham, Oral Roberts, T. L. Osborn, Jack Coe, A. A. Allen, R. W. Schambach and hundreds of other healing revival leaders caught the attention of the masses in mainline churches who had more or less ignored classical Pentecostalism. This was the real beginning of the Charismatic Renewal. Dennis Bennett’s public announcement in 1960 of his “nine o’clock in the morning” experience was merely the cutting of the ribbon. After the media publicized Bennett’s announcement, many others in mainline churches admitted their own Charismatic experiences. Many z2 Barrett, “Global Statistics,” DPCM, 812-815. 7 88 Charismatic leaders were able to stay in their traditional churches and cultivate renewal. But hundreds of others were forced out. New wine skins were needed for the new wine. As a result, tens of thousands of independent Charismatic churches were eventually formed across the United States and around the world. For the sake of definition, “independent Charismatic” denotes churches or ministries that have embraced the Charismatic Renewal and, because of their Charismatic experiences and innovations, are not institutionally linked to classical Pentecostalism or any denomination. Although these churches only began to form in the early 1970s, they represent 14% of all Charismatics and now make up the fastest growing segment of Christianity in the United States as well as in many Third World countries.23 There are between 60,000 and 100,000 independent Charismatic congregations in the USA alone. Consistent with observations made in the beginning of this article, independent Charismatic churches are bom out of renewal and have certain characteristics which promote effective missionary outreach. What are these characteristics? First, despite the apparent “babel” of diversity, there is an underlying spiritual unity among these churches. Nowadays old rifts are being forgotten and Charismatic churches and ministers are coming together in “networks”-loose, overlapping ministerial associations without the legal or bureaucratic encumbrances. Well known examples include Charismatic Bible Ministries (1,500 ministers), Christ for the Nations (600 churches), Rhema Ministerial Association (500 churches) and the large, umbrella type Network of Christian Ministries, which brings together leaders of other networks. Second, independent Charismatic churches, like new wine skins, help preserve the witness and the heritage of the Charismatic Renewal. The practical value of this is best seen in light of the fact that most mainline Charismatics become “postcharismatics” after two or three years of involvement in the renewal. 24 Third, independent Charismatic churches have unleashed their laity. They have recruited, apprenticed, and released into ministry and missions thousands of people with little or no formal theological training. Not that professional training is of no value. But Christian history teaches us that God often calls and uses people on the periphery of our religious institutions. “Can . anything good come out of Nazareth?” “Peter D. Hocken, “Charismatic Movement,” DPCM, 144; Wagner, “Church Growth,” DPCM, 181-182; Paul G. Chappell, “Healing Movements,” DPCIU 374; Stephen Strang, “Nondenominational Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches,” DPCM, 640; Barrett, “Global Statistics,” DPCM, 811-813. “For definition and statistics on “postcharismatics” in mainline churches, see Wagner, “Church Growth,” DPCM, 183; Barrett, “Global Statistics,” DPCM, 811-813, 826. 8 Fourth, Charismatic The by leaders, Jesus, people Renewal, powerful strongest and most consistent For an exception the movement’s missions. Many movement. 89 and missionaries are “practical” or mission fields. But some of these love the Lord Missions thrust of the Charismatic Charismatic churches and a major missionary pastors theologians. frame of reference for their theology is provided, not the seminary, but by the context of their ministry and by the hurts, needs and questions of their congregations The lack of theological foundations is sometimes problematic. who are often the subject of a media-inquisition, love their congregations and have led hundreds and thousands of into a liberating experience of the kingdom of God. These and other spiritual and institutional dynamics make the Charismatic and in particular, the independent Charismatic church, a force for world evangelism. The “Slow” Emergence of Charismatic If renewal and missions are linked, then what kind of missionary movement has come out of the Charismatic Renewal, and what kinds of structures and strategies are being used to muster missions activity? While denominational Charismatic missionaries have excelled, the missionary Renewal has come from the independent ministries.’ To this exciting story we now turn. a while, it looked as though the Charismatic Renewal would be to the rule that revival results in mission. Some still question missionary track record. Three things need to be noted. First, not all Charismatic churches are equally interested in are still “bless-me” communities, not yet realizing missions as the reason for revival. Second, the Protestant Reformation was nearly two centuries old before it produced And third, most of what is now being done by Charismatics in missions remains undocumented. But there are indicators of a ground swell of effective missionary activity among Charismatics. the beginnings of a distinctively Charismatic missionary thrust have been relatively slow for the following reasons.26 within the churches. rightly spent much time and energy bringing their own churches and denominations. Structure limitations. Thousands of independent have no connections with organized missions agencies. Many have espoused the ideal of being a “sending church” apart from the expertise and assistance of agencies that specialize in if any, have really succeeded over the long haul. Related to this problem is the spirit of independence that obstructs practical, functional unity and cooperation however, Renewal ministry Charismatic leaders renewal to bear upon churches training and sending missionaries. efforts. Admittedly, Many of the early Charismatic sending Few, in missions 2S 26 Hocken, “Charismatic Movement,” DPCM, 157. Pousson, Spreading the Flame, 79-82. 9 90 Strategy limitations. The emphasis on the Holy Spirit and subjective guidance sometimes preempts practical goal-setting and informed strategy planning. Once a Charismatic minister “felt led” to evangelize a certain Caribbean island. He resigned from his pastorate, raised funds and went to the island, finding nothing but coconut trees. No people. Limited theology of mission. Charismatic anti-intellectualism coupled with the idea of learning by “revelation” apart from theological discipline has taken a toll. Too many churches are built around faith for prosperity, healing and spiritual gifts, often to the exclusion of the biblical basis of missions and the New Testament revelation of the Holy Spirit as empowerment for worldwide, cross-cultural witness to the Risen Lord. Limited missions exposure. Many independent Charismatics have little awareness of recent global mission trends even in their own movement. What is an unreached people group? What is the 10/40 Window? What is the AD 2000 & Beyond movement? What is a career missionary, and how does a person become one? Sad to say, surveys have shown that vast numbers of Charismatics all across the United States are simply unacquainted with these and other mission dynamics. Related to this lack of exposure is the lack of real missionary vision and leadership. These and other bottlenecks account for what some would consider a sluggish start for Charismatic missions. But that is not the whole picture. There are signs that Charismatics, particularly the independents, are seizing a global missions vision and making a global contribution. Charismatics, for example, outnumbered Pentecostals in the number of worldwide annual converts in 1988, according to David Banrett.2′ From the very beginning of the Charismatic movement there were notable missionary pioneers. And through the decades of movement we have seen the emergence of Charismatic sending churches, sending agencies, and a premier association of Charismatic mission agencies and churches called the Association of International Missions Services (AIMS). Charismatic Missionary Pioneers Oral Roberts, T. L. Osborn, Gordon Lindsay, Kenneth Hagin, Sr., and Lester Sumrall are among the few leaders from the Post-World War II healing revival (1947-1958) who also became significant leaders in the subsequent Charismatic Renewal. They have blazed a trail for Charismatic missions. Oral Roberts founded the university named after him which trains Charismatics from all over the world. From 1976 to 1990, Oral Roberts University sent several thousand students into more than 30 countries on “Summer Missions” assignments. T. L. Osborn has played a leading role in Charismatic renewal and missions. By the early 1970s he had already evangelized in over 50 27Barrett,. “Global Statistics,” DPCM, 811. 10 91 countries where his ministry was producing more than 400 self-supporting churches annually. 21 In 1970 Gordon Lindsay founded Christ for the Nations Institute (CFNI) which continues to train and send out Charismatic missionaries to many parts of the world. Kenneth Hagin, Sr. and Lester Sumrall have also founded and led major Charismatic ministries which have launched missionaries and missions efforts in every continent. Pentecostal/Charismatic pioneer Daniel Ost founded Charismatic Ministerial Institute (CMI) in El Carmen, Mexico in 1955. Since then, CMI has trained and launched more than 1,000 ministers throughout Mexico and in ten other countries, including India and France. CMI graduates have founded 120 churches called “Centers of Faith, Hope and Love” which are transforming major cities across Mexico. The school is now challenging its students to go as missionaries to the “10/40 Window,” the least evangelized region of the world, stretching from West Africa to East Asia, 10 degrees and 40 degrees north of the equator. Mexico is no longer just a mission field, but also a missionary force.29 Charismatic Sending Churches Bethany World Prayer Center in Baker, Louisiana is an independent Charismatic church of four to five thousand members. A million dollars annually from their budget supports various projects and over 100 missionaries in 25 countries. One-third of these missionaries were recruited and sent out from Bethany World Prayer Center. The pastor, Larry Stockstill, a graduate of Oral Roberts University, has adopted a strategy which combines crusade evangelism with church planting techniques. With this strategy, several large and growing churches have recently been planted in Russia, Nicaragua, Uganda and India. In 1991, for example, a Bethany team held an evangelistic church planting crusade in Moscow. The result was 5,000 decisions for Christ and 1,000 new believers in attendance at the first service of the Moscow Christian Center. . Another Charismatic church with a serious missionary vision is John Osteen’s Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas. Since its founding in 1961, Lakewood Church has launched effective missions outreaches to more than a hundred countries.3° Tulsa Christian Fellowship, the oldest independent Charismatic church in Tulsa, Oklahoma numbers about 500 and gives $150,000 a year to missions. They have sent out at least 28 David Edwin Harrell, Jr., All Things Are Possible: The Healing and Charismatic Revivals in Modern America (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1975), 171. z9 Lee Anderson and Christina Tumey, “Mexican Churches Charisma & Growing Christian Rapidly,” Life 19 (October 1993): 68-73. ” Stephen Strang, “Osteen, John Pentecostal Explosion (Altamonte Springs, FL: Creation House, Hillery,” DPCM, 656; Vinson Synan, The Twentieth-Century 1987), 25-29. 11 92 40 of their own people as missionaries involved in just about everything from Bible translation to pioneer evangelism among unreached people groups. Still another example, the 8,000-member Victory Christian Center, also in Tulsa, supports 125 missionaries to 20 different countries. A closer look at a few successful sending churches, including some of those mentioned above, has revealed certain keys to their success. 1) They have a consistently missions-minded pastor and a missions director or a missions committee to steer the church’s missionary involvement. 2) They commit a substantially large percentage, typically from 20% to 30%, of their annual budget to missions. 3) They strongly emphasize the role of the local church in missions, providing consistent missions exposure through literature, preaching and mission conventions. 4) They provide their missionary candidates with both informal apprentice training as well as structured Bible school training. 5) They have loose but functional ties with mission organizations that provide various types of training, helps and services to their missionaries. For example, they may send a missionary through Youth With a Mission or Wycliffe Bible Translators. Some churches relate to Charismatic service agencies that handle the missionaries’ financial matters and newsletters. 6) Sending churches usually have relationships with senior missionaries and/or indigenous Christian leaders in or near to the countries where their missionaries serve. These leaders in the host countries serve as mentors and field directors, especially for new missionaries. 7) Successful sending churches provide pastoral care for their missionaries away from home. This caring support involves correspondence, phone calls, cassette recordings of the pastor’s sermons, and, if necessary, a personal visit from the missions director. These seven factors make up a fairly simple and reproducible methodology, regardless of the size of the church. The Charismatic sending church model has much to offer. It bring their members back to the New Testament conviction that Charismatic experiences are given to the church for the purpose of mission. It emphasizes the centrality of the local church in missions. It produces missionaries that have the local church at heart and believe in church planting. And it helps ease church-missions tensions that exist in many Christian traditions. Despite a highly vocalized ideal of “sending direct” without the aid of so-called “para-church” organizations, I have found that the really successful sending churches usually rely on extra-local entities for help in training, mobilizing, serving and supervising their missionaries. When, however, the church tries to act like a self-contained mission agency, certain weaknesses crop up. Missionaries often become like lone rangers on the frontier without proper supervision or accountability. To the other extreme, some sending churches only get 12 93 involved with persons and projects that they can somehow control from the home front. Furthermore, many churches that try to be the mission agency act more like travel agencies. Short term mission trips to places where churches already exist becomes a substitute for real pioneer missions work. Other weaknesses include the sending of inadequately trained missionaries, haphazard field selection, and duplication or lack of cooperation between missionaries in the same location. The greatest problem with churches that try to become the mission agency is the historically repeating pattern whereby the apostolic function becomes absorbed by churchly concerns. A sudden or gradual shift in missions philosophy or priorities on the part of the sending church can leave missionaries in the lurch. In 1990, for example, a large Charismatic sending church changed its focus from foreign missions to home missions and expeditiously withdrew financial support from 35 overseas missionaries. Many of these had to come home because all their eggs were in one basket. Charismatic Sending Agencies Consistent with the pattern of the Great (nineteenth) Century, whereby awakening resulted in the proliferation of new mission agencies, the Charismatic Renewal has also produced a multitude of new mission structures. Many of the Charismatic networks described earlier in this article have formed creative missionary sending and service agencies which contribute in various ways to the recruiting, training, and mobilizing of cross-cultural missionaries. Other Charismatic mission structures have emerged independently of networks. In the late 1980s, one hundred new agencies surfaced in the Western world, and over three hundred in the Third World.3′ At least ten of the agencies listed as “Charismatic” in the 1993-95 edition of the Mission Handbook are independent Charismatic and represent a total of 646 USA personnel overseas.32 There are many other agencies of various types which represent thousands of Charismatic missionaries. Listed in the Mission Handbook as transdenominational, Youth With A Mission has thousands of missionaries who come from independent Charismatic churches. Not listed in the Handbook, the Oklahoma-based “Teen Mania” has sent hundreds of high school students on summer missions outreaches since 1987. In the summer of 1993, for example, Teen Mania took 1,750 teens to 14 countries, including Mongolia, Egypt and Albania.33 A Charismatic Missions Association In 1985, Charismatic leader Howard Foltz saw that the groundswell Charismatic missionary activity would warrant some kind of 31 32 Barrett, “Global Statistics,” DPCM 830. Siewert and Kenyon, Mission Handbook, 248, 255-256. “1. Lee Grady, “Radically Saved,” Charisma & Christian Life 19 (September 1993): 38-40. 13 94 overarching fellowship or association. So he founded and now leads the Association of International Missions Services (AIMS), a consortium of some 150 Charismatic sending churches, sending agencies and training institutions. Based in Virginia Beach, Virginia, AIMS is devoted to catalyzing the resources of the Charismatic Renewal for world evangelization. It provides a framework for unity, cooperation and the sharing of information between its member organizations. These kinds of developments suggest that the Charismatic Renewal is producing a major missionary thrust, and that the independent Charismatic church is the heartbeat of this thrust. With this in view, we now take up questions raised in the introduction about the relationship between Pentecostal missions and Charismatic missions. The Charismatic Contribution in Relation to Pentecostal Missions Several observers of Pentecostalism agree that the various Pentecostal and Charismatic expressions in the twentieth century all stem from one eschatological renewal movement. The spiritual foundations and impulses for Charismatic missions are traced to the same Holy Spirit revival that began at the start of this century. For all their innovations, Charismatic missions stand in strong continuity with the Pentecostal movement in certain important respects. How Pentecostal Missions Impacts Charismatic Missions First, most of the early pioneers in Charismatic missions, including those mentioned above, either had Pentecostal roots or were influenced by Pentecostalism. Gordon Lindsay, for example, in the late 1960s transformed his revivalistic “Voice of Healing” organization into a Charismatic missionary society devoted to world evangelization. By 1973, Lindsay’s ministry, Christ for the Nations, had helped finance 3,000 church buildings in 83 nations and had distributed 15 million books in 46 languages. 31 Second, Charismatics have also followed many of the strategies of Pentecostal missions. For example, the supernatural calling and recruitment of missionaries, apprenticeship training of missionaries, the use of women in missions, the dependence on the Spirit’s intervention in evangelism, the use of evangelistic crusades to plant churches and the application of indigenous church principles are common strategies in both Pentecostal and Charismatic missions. And third, Pentecostalism’s theological motivation for mission has significantly impacted the Charismatic movement. The Pentecostal emphasis on the Holy Spirit as empowerment for mission is basic to Charismatic missions. Charismatics have inherited from Pentecostals a “Gary B. McGee, “Association of International Mission Services,” DPCM, 30; Pousson, Spreading the Flame, 25-26, 52, 70, 88, 127-128. 35Harrell,A// Things Are Possible, 166-168. 14 95 strong commitment to the literal and plain meanings of Scripture, a Christ-centered approach to worship, preaching, and ministry, a sense of urgency for mission as people living in the last days and a sense of divine destiny.36 Although “Charismatic theology” is still in its formative stages, many Charismatic leaders intuitively know that their Charismatic experiences should lead to evangelism and missions. Emerging Charismatic Contributions to Theology of Mission The Charismatic movement is consistent with historic Evangelical theology with respect to the Trinity, the Incarnation, Christ’s atonement, resurrection, regeneration by the Spirit and other basic doctrines.” Also, as noted above, Charismatics are basically in the same theological orbit as Pentecostals. The Charismatic movement, however, is yet to develop an adequate theology of mission as such. A solid theology of mission would, in fact, be an effective antidote to many of the abuses in Charismatic circles. Nevertheless, there are several tenets of Charismatic “theology-on-the-way” that can or do contribute positively to mission and mission theology. Faith teachings. Despite its many abuses, the so-called “faith movement” honors God and serves mission inasmuch as it cultivates in people a deeply personal, corporate and biblical trust in the Person and power of Jesus Christ. Charismatic faith teaching stresses physical healing, material well-being, positive thinking and confession, divine guidance and the believer’s authority and victory over Satan, principalities and powers. Criticisms and reactions against these teachings abound. Some criticisms are valid. But the spiritual dynamics related to the faith teachings positively account for much of the success in Charismatic evangelism and missions today. Rightly focused faith is central and essential to all successful missions. Howard Foltz of AIMS writes, Faith teaching has elevated the expectations of many believers today to for God and “attempt great things expect great things from God.” When dynamic rhema faith is released in reaching the nations, and not on selfish or material wants, great things can happen. Numerous missionaries from the faith movement have gone to the mission field and believed God for far more than the “average” missionary. 38 Kingdom now. There is another stream of Charismatic thought known as “Kingdom Now.” Leading centers of this emphasis include Earl Paulk’s 10,000-member Chapel Hill Harvester Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and Tommy Reid’s Full Gospel Tabernacle of Orchard Park, New York. These, and others in the “kingdom now” circle, model and 36 McClung, Azusa Street and Beyond, 48-52. “J. I. Packer, “Piety on Fire,” Christianity Today, 12 May 1989, 20. 38Howard Foltz, “Moving Toward a Charismatic Theology of Missions,” paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies (Virginia Beach, VA: November 12-14, 1987), 76-77. 15 96 visible expression of God’s concern on change social conscience Covenant theology. into secular society for the sake of The church is to be a of urge active Christian penetration social service and structural transformation. dominion in the world. Kingdom now theology represents at least a small step towards a theology of social the part of Charismatics. Since internal and external cultural is part of the biblical missionary mandate, the emergence of a in Charismatic circles is praiseworthy. This wing of the Charismatic movement emerged from the controversial discipleship-shepherding teachings the 1970s. Some of these principles continue to find expression in many Charismatic churches today, such as the Fellowship of Covenant Churches and Ministers founded by Charles Simpson and based in Mobile, Alabama. Covenant teachings emphasize self denial, obedience to the commands of Jesus and the need for growth to maturity in the between believers and between spiritual and mentorees. Notwithstanding abuses in discipleship circles, their basic principles are at the heart of the Great Commission and can contribute positively to a theology of mission. context of strong relationships mentors Restorationism. Restorationist Charismatic Carolina based National emphasize the recovery paradigms, teachings are emphasized in several and the Montreat, North groupings, including a nation-wide network of churches known as the People of Destiny International, Leadership Conference. Their teachings of the nine spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians 12, and the “five-fold ministry” of Ephesians 4:11, especially the apostolic and prophetic dimensions of church authority. Driven by these the People of Destiny movement has developed a creative model of ministry based on Paul’s apostolic team in the book of Acts. The movement is led by a mobile team of four to six “apostolic” team” provides direction for church planting, church nurturing and leadership training, but the relationship between churches is spiritual, leaders. This “apostolic the team and the non-bureaucratic.39 This approach Paul’s missionary band. This semi-autonomous and and its theological convictions display principles and dynamics consistent with those of the apostle “restoration” of apostolic teams is a positive contribution to world evangelism movements. One of the most significant Prayer theological and power developments in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement 1986): Quoted Prince,” People of Destiny Lfagazine 39Hocken, “Charismatic Movement,” DPCM, 141f; Larry Tomczak, “The World Mission of Every Christian,” People of Destiny Magazine 4 (September/October 15; Larry Tomczak, “Relationship With the Sending Church,” in The Church Planters Handbook, ed. Jim Durkin, et. ai. (South Lake Tahoe, CA: Christian Equippers International, 1988), 105. 40 in 1986 Charismatic leader Derek Prince said, “I’ve also begun to see that in a certain sense the major outreach arm of the Church should be apostolic teams.” from Larry Tomczak, ed., “Unfinished Business, An Interview with Derek 4 (September/October 1986): 23. 16 97 comes under the rubric of “signs and wonders” and “spiritual warfare.” The present proliferation of power literature by Pentecostals/ Charismatics and “third-wavers,” such as Peter Wagner and Charles Kraft,. is making an immense contribution toward our understanding of how effectively to resist and neutralize demonic powers that hinder evangelism and missions. Without these and other spiritual dynamics, missiological techniques and methodologies are like state-of-the-art computer hardware without the software to run it. The current global prayer and power movement which is sweeping into all six continents is introducing new spiritual dynamics for evangelism and missions with documented results in terms of countable disciples of the kingdom. Much of the above may indeed represent formative Charismatic contributions to mission theology and the science of missiology. Most of the hermeneutical problems in Charismatic teachings could be ironed out by the integration of a solid evangelical theology of the kingdom with an understanding of the mission of God. However, theological formulation always lags behind revival and missionary movements. We must remain patient but hopeful. I agree with missions professor, L. Grant McClung’s statement that, . In this “Decade of Definition” there will be a rapid growth in the science of pentecostal/charismatic studies and enough missiological literature to support what I feel is the emergence of a definitive pentecostal/charismatic missiology.” Consistent with precedent patterns of renewal and missions, fresh theological reflection has created fresh missionary motivation among Charismatic believers. What Charismatic Missions Can Learn from Pentecostals If Charismatic churches, especially those of the independent movement, are to maximize their potential for world evangelism, there are several areas where Charismatics need to catch up with their Pentecostal friends. First, Charismatics need to tackle the disciplines of theology and missiology. Charismatics must learn from Pentecostals to overcome their own anti-intellectualism and engage in high-level theological reflection as Pentecostals are now doing. J. Rodman Williams of Regent University in Virginia has made forward strides with Renewal Theology, a three-volume work which takes a fresh look at theology from a Charismatic perspective. But much remains to be done, especially in the area of mission theology. Many Charismatics are yet to learn and embrace what classical Pentecostalism really stands for-that, as a part of salvation history, renewal is essentially missionary in nature and cannot be complete without expansion to the unchurched and the unreached. 41 L. Grant McClung, ” Mission in the 1990s,” International Bulletin Research 14 ofMissionary (October 1990): 153. 17 98 Second, Charismatics must overcome their own aversion to organization. It was not until the forebearers of the Pentecostal movement struck the right balance between Spirit-led spontaneity and strategic organization that their movement became an effective worldwide missionary force. The Assemblies of God denomination, for example, was formed in 1914 as an agency for world evangelization. This organizational move helped provide sorely needed cooperation among pastors and churches, and helped achieve a more effective missionary outreach. Before that time, Pentecostal missions was notorious for a number of fiascoes due to the lack of organization. Charismatics have needlessly repeated virtually every early Pentecostal fiasco: duplication, competition, inadequate training and financial backing for missionaries, lack of structure and the omission of long-term strategy planning. Many are yet to learn the lesson from Pentecostalism that a certain amount of organization is necessary if Charismatics are to fulfill their own missionary calling.” Third, Charismatics need to create, recognize, and unchain more mission structures. Espousing ideals of a “sending church,” some Charismatics all around the world are trying to turn local churches into missionary sending agencies. A related problem is the practice of subjecting mission agencies to the control of sending churches. These practices are contrary to the New Testament pattern and deaf to the voice and verdict of missions history, which teaches us that the authority for mission is not tied to any ecclesiastical institution. The authority- for mission stems directly from the word of the Spirit and from a revelation of Christ in the calling of the missionary. Paul’s apostolic team was not in any way under the direction of the Antioch church. Both church and mission team were under the headship of Christ and the spontaneous leading of the Spirit of God. Where this pattern has been recovered through history, missions has prospered. But where the local church has tried to control missions, it has generally stifled rather than stimulated effective cross-cultural evangelism. Research has confirmed this outcome among Charismatics as well. For Charismatics to unleash a more effective missionary force, they will need to multiply and release more mission structures and provide more and more missionary candidates with a clearly defined career path to missions. Conclusion: “Nine O’Clock in the Evening” The century-old Pentecostal movement, and the one-half-century-old Charismatic movement, and the younger expression known as the “third wave” all represent twentieth-century expressions of the eschatological outpouring of the Holy Spirit which began in the first 42 Howard Foltz, “Bottlenecks Hindering Mission Mobilization,” Ministries 4 (Summer 1986): 42; Pomerville, The Third Force in Missions, 57. 18 engage 99 century A.D. The essential purpose of this and all other renewals is to the church in God’s redemptive mission to the nations. What will it take to make the twentieth century the greatest century of all in even if this achievement takes factors, the history Christian missions, Pentecostals, twenty-first century? theological breakthroughs, needed? Charismatics and other Christians a few decades into the What new institutional and what new spiritual dynamics institutionalization. happens, God always sparks what new are that First, with respect to the above suggestions about organization, both Pentecostals and Charismatics must avoid the trap of over Renewal creates new patterns and structures for ministry and missions. But eventually, these become organizations quench the Spirit. As movements become mature institutions, they tend to “domesticate” the Spirit and the kingdom of God. When this a renewal somewhere on the periphery of the ecclesiastical structures of the day. Then, old wine skins often burst rather than stretch to accommodate the new things God is doing. The and Charismatics is this: how can they the necessary and church spontaneous institutions are increasingly ineffective for cross-cultural Third World models and strategies are multiplying question for Pentecostals continue to provide evangelism, missions spiritual dynamics? informal becoming increasingly effective. 43 overlooked. are Calvinistic thinking think Charismatics reflection structures and strategies for growth without quenching Traditional centralized, hierarchical missions, while and if they to critical Second, the necessity of ongoing theological reflection must not be We have noted that new missionary movements have often been fueled by fresh theological thinking. What theological alterations now needed in Pentecostal/Charismatic communities in order for there to be a fresh outburst of missionary zeal and action? Extreme was a theological barrier in the days of William Carey. Pentecostals and Charismatics are kidding themselves there are no theological barriers today. What are these barriers? How can they be identified and challenged? Are Pentecostals and willing to subject their favorite theologies and scrutiny in order to identify their own blind spots that hinder world missions? And third, what kinds of new spiritual dynamics are needed to launch new and greater missionary movements from Pentecostal/Charismatic communities? Reporting on the 45th General Council of the Assemblies in Minneapolis in August 1993, Peter Johnson asked the question, “Can the world’s largest Pentecostal the revival fires of Azusa Street and go on to greater spiritual heights? of God held denomination reignite Handbook “Bryant L. Myers, “The Changing Shape of World Mission,” in A4ission 1993-95, eds. John A. Siewert and John A. Kenyon (15th Edition; Monrovia, CA: MARC, 1993), 35. 19 100 Or will it degenerate into a bureaucratic dinosaur nourished chiefly by programs, building projects, and committees?”44 Johnson’s question represents the kinds of questions being asked by many Pentecostals and Charismatic leaders today. But my response is, do Pentecostals and Charismatics really want to relight Azusa Street? Some Pentecostal and Charismatics are looking back to what God has done in the past with a kind of “do-it-again-God” nostalgia. But God never quite does it again; his work is often new, surprising, incredible. But a recurring problem with every generation that experiences renewal is the tendency to cling to and perpetuate the forms and expressions of their particular brand of spirituality. When God begins doing new things, they look back to the old ways. My point is this: God is already lighting new fires of renewal and missionary zeal around the world. Many Pentecostals and Charismatics are in the center of it, but some either do not see it or they are standing aloof and looking askance. I am referring to the many multifaceted movements, especially in the Third World, that are now converging under the banner of the AD 2000 & Beyond movement. In all six continents there are the stirrings of an unprecedented transdenominational prayer and power movement which has its focus on the unfinished task of world evangelization. Through this global prayer movement, new spiritual dynamics are being introduced for the “pulling down of strongholds” that hinder evangelism and missions. Prayer concerts, prayer walks, marches for Jesus, spiritual mapping, repentance and reconciliation between pastors and leaders from different denominations and ethnic groups, and a renewed compassion for the lost, especially the peoples of the 10/40 window are some of the new patterns of spirituality that God is using to turn resistant populations into people who are receptive to the gospel.” One of the greatest challenges for the heirs of Pentecostalism will be to recognize the new ways in which the kingdom of God is now advancing and to remain on the crest of that wave until his glorious return. The way home is through harvest. “Peter K. Johnson, “AG Leaders Call for New Pentecost,” Charisma & Christian Life 19 (October 1993): 84. resources for the United Prayer Network of the AD 2000 Movement include: John Dawson, Taking Our Cities for God (Lake the the Mary, FL: Creation House, 1989); Cindy Jacobs, Possessing Gates of Enemy (Grand Rapids, MI: Chosen Books, 1991); C. Peter Wagner, ed., Engaging the Enemy (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1991); C. Peter Wagner, Warfare Prayer (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1992); C. Peter Wagner, ed., Breaking Strongholds in Your City (Ventura, CA: C. Peter Wagner, Churches that Pray Regal Books, 1993); (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1993); George Otis, Jr., The Last of the Giants (Grand Rapids, MI: Chosen Books, 1991). Information is available from: Mobilization of United Prayer Resource Network, 215 N. Marengo Ave., Suite 151, Pasadena, CA 91109. 20

2 Chronicles 20:25

30 Years ago in Chicago…

Exactly a quarter of a century ago today, I arrived in Chicago with a plan to start a Bulgarian church. That was my second trip to the Windy City after a mission’s trip with a few college friends in Christmas of 1994. The Narraganset Church of God in Chicago hosted us with great success and it was there I met several Bulgarians who desired to start a church. A key moment still remembered from 1994 was the “boot sermon.”

On Memorial Day weekend of 1995, I drove my Carolina baby blue Buick Grand National exactly 777 miles north to Chicago. It was still the time of no GPS or phone navigation so the only thing I had to go buy was an old atlas. Not knowing a better way just yet, I didn’t take the North-West Suburbs but exited on North Avenue and ended up driving its whole length through the city. On a warm Sunday the entire population of Wicker Park was in the streets. It was like in the movies. So was the rest of the Summer of 1995.

I had made little arrangements for my stay and ended up with a Bulgarian family living on Jackson Blvd. For the lack of space, I slept on an old couch on their balcony. Yes, during the Chicago heat wave of 1995.

I stayed with the pastor’s family a lot, especially when we started our 5 a.m. prayers in the church for members who would stop by to be prayed for before going to work. Some of those nights I just stayed at the church and slept on the first pew before the altar. It was there one early morning God woke me with the whole Gospel of John open before me, which later became the plan for my Bible translation.

As to the start of the Bulgarian church in Chicago, it came naturally as part of the ministry. The small band of Bulgarian believers would come for the English-speaking morning worship and then stay for a Bulgarian service in the early afternoon. A Spanish-speaking service followed at 4 P.M. as well. Several key events through the summer like the now-traditional Bulgarian 4^th of July picnic in Chicago and a block party organized by the Narraganset Church of God helped spread the word of our Bulgarian ministry. Soon migrants of all ages began attending the afternoon services.

The most I remember from those services was prayer. Yes, I preached and there were guest speakers as well, but we mostly prayed. Bulgarians of all ages would come to the alter with their life pain and needs. Deep hurt within immigrant hearts, missing family members left behind in the old country, new struggles with work and existence in their new migrant reality and so on – all became a part of the new life of the Bulgarian church in Chicago. And those prayers were answered one by one. People did not come to attend or become members of a church plant project. They came and found answer to their prayers, direction in their lives and healing for their deep pain. Hidden from everyone else in Chicago, a river of pain flowed at those old church alters and a rain of healing, hope and peace filled the emptiness in those emigrant souls. That much I do still remember.

Through the whole summer as the Bulgarian church in Chicago began, I wrote my parents every Friday. Two regular stamps were what it took for a letter to get to Bulgaria back then. I would walk from the church on Narraganset across the street to Grand and drop the letter in a blue street U.S. mailbox. They all got to their destination. My dad had stored them all in an old shoe box after reading them, and I was able to find them all recently. They ain’t no diary, but still tell the story with details of each week of those humble beginnings. Along with the letters, there were a lot of pictures I had taken with my small 35mm. camera that looked more like a taser. The Metro, Sear’s Tower and under it where we ministered to the homeless, South Side and Cabrini Green, Rigley Field and Comiskey Park, McCormick and LSD. I only wish I had taken better notes now that I am writing this book. Times, places and faces are often mixed and sometimes lost in the timeline, but the story is far from forgotten. Now, a quarter of a century later, it is time to tell this story and tell it right… for the generations.

 

I left Chicago on this day 25 years ago (July 30, 1995). The Bulgarian church that day held service at 1 PM with 64 Bulgarians and many other internationals in attendance. Bulgarian students from the neighboring Indiana and Wisconsin attended as well. There was even a Bulgarian family from Alaska.

It was a Sunday. I left Chicago to preach in Beloit, WI that night and then left for Washington, D.C. the following morning. While driving north with quite the speed my Carolina blue Grand National began filling with white smoke. At first, I thought the air conditioner was on its last leg in the hot Chicago summer of 1995, but the air remained strong and cold. The cloud proceeded and it was so sensible that I had to slow down and basically stop on the side of the road. In my 30 years of ministry, I have only seen this one more time – in 2011 when the Glory of God descended over a youth camp we were preaching in the Bulgarian mountains. I did finally preach in Beloit and made it to D.C. the next day, but the vision of the cloud remained with me for the next 25 years.

Meanwhile, the word of mouth had spread and the Bulgarian church in Chicago was growing among the Bulgarian diaspora. On October 7, 1995, I was able to visit the church in Chicago again and present it to the National Overseer of the Bulgarian Church of God, Pastor Pavel Ignatov who visited the Bulgarian congregation in Chicago for the first time. By that time, it has become evident that the initial structuring for growth was giving more than expected results. The church became not only the first officially registered Bulgarian Pentecostal congregation in the United States, but also an important social and educational center able to minister to the 100,000 Bulgarians that live in the Great Lake region today.

Called to another mission, I left Chicago on July 30, 1995. The church bulletin upon my departure under Farewell and Appreciation read: “Today we are saying thank you to Dony for a job well done this past summer. He has served our church faithfully, and has been a tremendous blessing to Narragansett Ministries. Immediately following worship this morning, there is a dinner in Dony’s honor in the fellowship hall. And everyone is invited to attend.” Quiescently, while writing this next book for the quarter century anniversary of the Bulgarian Church in Chicago, I was able to find this last bulletin in a box with several dozen letters I had sent weekly to my parents in Bulgaria. Surprising even to myself, those letters contain pictures, documents, dates, growth charts and progression predictions that are surprising even to me today. I remember spending countless nights in prayer, contemplating and strategizing over the new Bulgarian church plant, but I had forgotten all this was carefully documented as a case study.

The church congregation presented me with a plaque that represented my efforts and work in Chicago, which I have also kept until now. Because this plaque represents the prayers and the vision of many who are continuing the work today, establishing and leading Bulgarian churches around the world to providing pastoral care for many who have left the homeland in search for a better life. To these ministers goes my personal token of appreciation and thanks, “Well done thou good and faithful!” For me personally today a quarter of a century later, this plaque represents one very simply thing – I never betrayed my dreams. And in my book, this is well done…

Appreciating the Simple Things in Life

Roasting chestnuts over an open fire and Jack Frost nipping at your nose is a comforting carol which brings many pleasant feelings around the holidays. These are two features, which are not only common to the States, but to Bulgaria as well. This is the season of chestnuts being roasted, however it is not like we picture being over a cozy fire place in a warm home. In Bulgaria it would be on the street side to sell in order to bring in some income for your family. And the Jack Frost is not just a nip for some, but it is a bone chilling cold due to not being able to afford the electric bill.

For some, there will be no gift under the tree and for others there will not even be a tree. This is not said to bring you sorrow, but for you to appreciate the simple things in life. Enjoy family, friendships, a warm home, a hot meal, your health. Enjoy the time the Lord has given you and use it for his Glory and not for bickering or complaining over the small angst.

Don’t loose sight of the true meaning of Christmas. Christmas is not about the material, but it is about the spiritual. It is about the birth of our Lord and Savior even though our politically correct society wants to get ride of the “Christ” in “Christmas.” If it were not for His birth, He would not have been able to die for our sins. This remission of sin is the ultimate gift this Christmas season for it is through this act that we are able to have eternal life if we only ask.

So when you wake up on the 25th begin your day not consumed with what you didn’t get or what didn’t happen to your liking, but in silence remembering the silent and holy night over 2000 years ago. Remember those less fortunate in order not to take for granted with what you have been blessed. And most of all thank Him for His gift to you. Let these thoughts bring you comfort this holiday season.

Merry CHRISTmas 2009
From all of us in Bulgaria!

« Previous Page — Next Page »