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

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!

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…

Creation and the Cross

BY HENRY M. MORRIS, PH.D. | THURSDAY, APRIL 01, 1976

The two greatest events in all history are the creation of the world and the redemption of the world. Each of these events involved a great divine Week of work and a Day of rest. Creation Week accomplished the work of man’s formation; the week that is called Holy Week or Passion Week (perhaps a better term would be Redemption Week) accomplished the work of man’s salvation.

Creation Week, which culminated in a perfect world (Genesis 1:31), was followed by man’s fall and God’s Curse on the world (Genesis 3:17). Passion Week, which culminated in the death and burial of the maker of that perfect world, is followed by man’s restoration and the ultimate removal of God’s Curse from the world (Revelation 22:3). A Tree (Genesis 3:6) was the vehicle of man’s temptation and sin; another Tree (I Peter 2:24) was the vehicle of man’s forgiveness and deliverance.

The Two Weeks

It is fascinating to compare the events of the seven days of Creation Week and Redemption Week, respectively. The chronology of the events of Redemption Week has been the subject of much disagreement among scholars, and it is not possible to be certain on a number of the details. The discussion below is not meant to be dogmatic, but only to offer a possible additional dimension to their understanding and harmony. The traditional view that Friday was the day of the crucifixion is further strengthened by the correlations suggested in this study.

(1) First Day. The first day of creation involved the very creation of the universe itself (Genesis 1:1). An entire cosmos responded to the creative fiat of the Maker of heaven and earth. Initially this Space-Mass-Time (i.e., heaven, earth, beginning) continuum was created in the form of basic elements only, with no structure and no occupant (Genesis 1:2), a static suspension in a pervasive, watery matrix (II Peter 3:5). When God’s Spirit began to move, however, the gravitational and electromagnetic force systems for the cosmos were energized. The waters and their suspensions coalesced into a great spherical planet and, at the center of the electromagnetic spectrum of forces, visible light was generated (Genesis 1:3).

In a beautiful analogy, on the first day of Passion Week, the Creator King of the universe entered His chosen capital city (Zechariah 9:9,10; Matthew 21:1-9) to begin His work of redemption, as He had long ago entered His universe to begin His work of creation. Even the very elements He had created (Luke 19:39, 40) would have acknowledged His authority, though the human leaders of His people would not.

(2) Second Day. Having created and activated the earth, God next provided for it a marvelous atmosphere and hydrosphere in which, later, would live the birds and fishes. No other planet, of course, is equipped with air and water in such abundance, and this is strong evidence that the earth was uniquely planned for man and animal life. The hydrosphere was further divided into waters below and waters above “the firmament.” The waters above the firmament (the Hebrew word for firmament means, literally “stretched-out space”) probably comprised a vast blanket of transparent water vapor, maintaining a perfect climate worldwide, with ideal conditions for longevity.

Paralleling the primeval provision of life-sustaining air and water, on the second day of Redemption Week, He entered again into the city (having spent the night in Bethany) and taught in the temple. As He approached the city, He cursed the barren fig tree (Mark 11:12-14) and then, in the temple, overthrew the tables of the money changers (Mark 11:15-19). This seems to have been the second time in two days that He had turned out the money changers (the parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke indicate that He also did this on the first day). Both actions¾the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple¾symbolize the purging of that which is barren or corrupt in the Creator’s kingdom. He had created a world prepared for life (air for the breath of life and water as the matrix of life), but mankind, even the very teachers of His chosen people, had made it unfruitful and impure. As physical life must first have a world of pure air and water, so the preparations for a world of true spiritual life require the purifying breath of the Spirit and the cleansing water of the Word, preparing for the true fruit of the Spirit and the true temple of God’s presence, in the age to come.

(3) Third Day. The next day, the sight of the withered fig tree led to an instructive lesson on faith in God, the Lord Jesus assuring the disciples that real faith could move mountains into the sea (Mark 11:20-24). In parallel, on the third day of creation, God had literally called mountains up out of the sea (Genesis 1:9,10).

It was also on this day that the Lord had the most abrasive of all His confrontations with the Pharisees and Sadducees. He spoke many things against them and they were actively conspiring to destroy Him. It is appropriate that His challenges to them on this day began with two parables dealing with a vineyard (Matthew 21:28-32 and Matthew 21:33-43; see also Mark 12:1-11 and Luke 20:9-18), in which He reminded them that they had been called to be in charge of God’s vineyard on the earth, and had failed. Like the fig tree, there was no fruit for God from their service, and therefore, they would soon be removed from their stewardship.

Likewise, the entire earth was on the third day of Creation Week prepared as a beautiful garden, with an abundance of fruit to nourish every living creature (Genesis 1:11,12) and it had been placed in man’s care (Genesis 1:28-30; 2:15). But mankind in general, and the chosen people in particular, had failed in their mission. Before the earth could be redeemed and made a beautiful garden again (Revelation 22:2), it must be purged and the faithless keepers of the vineyard replaced.

This third day of Passion Week was climaxed with the great Sermon on the Mount of Olives in which the Lord promised His disciples that, though Jerusalem must first be destroyed, He would come again, in power and great glory, to establish His kingdom in a new Jerusalem (Matthew 24 and 25; Mark 13; Luke 21). It was appropriate that He should then spend the night following that third day, with the handful of disciples who were still faithful to Him, on the Mount of Olives (Luke 21:37), for the Mount would call to memory that far-off third day of Creation Week when He had drawn all the mountains out of the sea. Also, the Garden of Gethsemane on its slopes, with its little grove of vines and fruit trees, would bring to mind the beautiful Garden of Eden and the verdant world He had planted everywhere on the dry land on that same third day. Because of what He was now about to accomplish at Jerusalem (Luke 9:31), the ground would one day be cleansed of its Curse, and all would be made new again (Revelation 21:5).

(4) Fourth Day. On the fourth day of Creation Week, the Lord Jesus had formed the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven. There had been “light” on the first three days, but now there were actual lights! Not only would the earth and its verdure be a source of beauty and sustenance to man, but even the very heavens would bring joy and inspiration to him. Furthermore, they would guide his way and keep his time.

But instead of the stars of heaven turning man’s thoughts and affections toward His Creator, they had been corrupted and identified with a host of false gods and goddesses. Furthermore, instead of creating a sense of awe and reverence for the majesty of the One who could fill all heavens, they had bolstered man’s belief that the earth is insignificant and meaningless in such a vast, evolving cosmos. Perhaps thoughts such as these troubled the mind of the Lord that night as He lay on the mountain gazing at the lights He had long ago made for the darkness.

When morning came, He returned to Jerusalem, where many were waiting to hear Him. He taught in the temple (Luke 21:37, 38), but the synoptic gospels do not record His teachings. This lack, however is possibly supplied in the apparently parenthetical record of His temple teachings as given only in the fourth gospel (John 12:20-50) because there the Lord twice compared Himself to the Light He had made: “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth in me should not abide in darkness.” “Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you; for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth” (John 12:46, 35). He who was the true Light must become darkness, in order that, in the new world, there would never be night again (Revelation 22:5).

(5) Fifth Day. There is little information given in the gospels about the fifth day of Redemption Week. When there were yet “two days until the Passover” (Mark 14:1), right after the bitter confrontation with the scribes and chief priests on the Third Day, the latter began actively seeking a means to trap and execute Jesus, though they feared to do it on the day on which the Passover Feast was to be observed (Mark 14:2). It was either on the Fourth Day or possibly on this Fifth Day, which was the feast day, that Judas went to them with his offer to betray Jesus. He had apparently been seriously thinking about this action ever since the night when the Lord had rebuked him for his cupidity. This had been in the home in Bethany, on the night of the Sabbath, just before the day when Christ entered Jerusalem riding on the ass (John 12:1-8). This seems to have been the same supper described in Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9, even though in these it is inserted parenthetically after the sermon on the Mount of Olives, probably in order to stress the direct causal relation of this supper to Judas’ decision to betray his Master (Matthew 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-11).

On this day of the Passover, the Lord Jesus instructed two of His disciples to make preparations for their own observance of the feast that night (Mark 14:12-17). So far as the record goes; this is all that we know of His words during that day, though there is no doubt that He was teaching in the temple on this day as well (Luke 21:37, 38). Perhaps this strange silence in the record for this Fifth Day is for the purpose of emphasizing the greater importance of these preparations for the Passover. The fact that John indicates the preparation day to have been the following day (John 19:14) is probably best understood in terms of the fact that, at that time, the Galileans are known to have observed the Passover on one day and the Judeans on the following day.

Multitudes of sacrificial lambs and other animals had been slain and their blood spilled through the centuries, but this would be the last such acceptable sacrifice. On the morrow, the Lamb of God would take away the sins of the world (John 1:29). He would offer one sacrifice for sins forever (Hebrews 10:12). With the blood of His cross, He would become the great Peace Maker, reconciling all things unto the Maker of those things (Colossians 1:16, 20).

As the Lord thought about the shedding of the blood of that last Passover lamb on that Fifth Day of Holy Week, He must also have thought of the Fifth Day of Creation Week, when He had first created animal life. “God created every living creature (Hebrew nephesh) that moveth” (Genesis 1:21). This had been His second great act of creation, when He created the entity of conscious animal life (the first had been the creation of the physical elements, recorded in Genesis 1:1). In these living animals, the “life” of the flesh was in their blood, and it was the blood which would later be accepted as an atonement for sin (Leviticus 17:11). Note that the words “creature,” “soul,” and “life” all are translations of the same Hebrew word nephesh. Surely the shedding of the innocent blood of the lamb that day would recall the far-off day when the “life” in that blood had been created. And because He, the Lamb of God, was about to become our Passover (I Corinthians 5:7), death itself would soon be swallowed up in victory and life (1 Corinthians 15:54).

(6) Sixth Day. On the Sixth Day, man had been created in the image and likeness of God, the very climax and goal of God’s great work of creation (Genesis 1:26, 27). But on this Sixth Day, God, made in the likeness of man, finished the even greater work of redemption.

Under the great Curse, the whole creation had long been groaning and travailing in pain (Romans 8:22). But now the Creator, Himself, had been made the Curse (Galatians 3:13; Isaiah 52:14), and it seemed as though the Creation also must die. Though He had made heaven and earth on the First Day, now He had been lifted up from the earth (John 3:14) and the heavens were silent (Matthew 27:46). Though He had made the waters on the Second Day, He who was the very Water of Life (John 4:14), was dying of thirst (John 19:28).

On the Third Day He had made the dry land, but now the “earth did quake and the rocks rent” (Matthew 27:51) because the Rock of salvation had been smitten (Exodus 17:6). He had also covered the earth with trees and vines on that third day, but now the True Vine(John 15:1) had been plucked up and the Green Tree (Luke 23:31) cut down. He had made the sun on the Fourth Day, but now the sun was darkened (Luke 23:45) and the Light of the World (John 8:12) was burning out. On the Fifth Day He had created life, and He Himself was Life (John 11:25; 14:6), but now the life of His flesh, the precious blood, was being poured out on the ground beneath the cross, and He had been brought “into the dust of death” (Psalm 22:15). On the Sixth Day He had created man and given him life, but now man had despised the love of God and lifted up the Son of Man to death.

(7) Seventh Day. But that is not the end of the story, and all was proceeding according to “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). “On the seventh day God ended His work which He had made” (Genesis 1:21). Furthermore, “everything that He had made was very good” (Genesis 1:31). God’s majestic work of Creation was complete and perfect in every detail.

And so is His work of salvation! This is especially emphasized in John’s account: “After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saith, “I thirst… When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, it is finished; and He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost” (John 19:28, 30) (the emphasized words are all the same word in the Greek original). Jesus had finished all the things He had to do, and then He finished the last of the prophetic scriptures that must be carried out. Then, and only then, was the work of redemption completed and the price of reconciliation fully paid, so that He could finally shout (Matthew 27:50) the great victory cry, “It is finished.”

The record of Creation stresses repeatedly that the entire work of the creation and making of all things had been finished (Genesis 2:1-3). In like manner does John’s record stress repeatedly the finished work of Christ on the cross.

Furthermore, as the finished creation was “very good,” so is our finished salvation. The salvation which Christ thus provided on the cross is “so great” (Hebrews 2:3) and “eternal” (Hebrews 5:9), and the hope thereof is “good” (II Thessalonians 2:13).

Then, finally, having finished the work of redemption, Christ rested on the seventh day, His body sleeping in death in Joseph’s tomb. He had died quickly, and the preparations for burial had been hurried (Luke 23:54-56), so that He could be buried before the Sabbath. As He had rested after finishing His work of Creation, so now He rested once again.

On the third day (that is the First Day of the new week), He would rise again, as He had said (Matthew 16:21, et al). His body had rested in the tomb all the Sabbath Day, plus part of the previous and following days, according to Hebrew idiomatic usage, “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40)¾but death could hold Him no longer. He arose from the dead, and is now alive forevermore (Revelation 1:8).

35 Years Since the Fall of the Berlin Wall

The Berlin Wall in our Minds

Europe is celebrating the 35th anniversary from the Fall of the Berlin Wall – an event that has changed forever the course of modern history. For us it was more than a miracle to see how people gathered together free from fear of persecution to celebrate the Resurrected Christ. It almost seemed like they celebrated their own resurrection, the resurrection of the Bulgarian Church of God, from the years of trials and persecutions under the Communist Regime.

But 35 years after its fall, the Berlin Wall still stands tall in the eastern European mindset. This is especially true for the country of Bulgaria and the evangelical churches operating on its territory. The Bulgarian Pentecostal Movement has experienced more structural and leadership difficulties in the past decade, than they have in their almost centennial existence. The post-totalitarian model of church leadership had a destructive aftereffect on the two major wings of the movement, as the historically more independent Bulgarian Church of God has experienced a series of biannual splits in the past six years, while the Assemblies of God represented in Bulgaria by the Pentecostal Union Churches is undergoing leadership changes which will leave their mark on its identity as a movement.

The context of ministry is becoming even more accelerant in light of the first 100 days of the new center-rightist Bulgarian government, proposing even newer changes in the religious laws of the country which will limit the government registration only to churches who can prove a membership over 5,000 people. This limit may become unreachable as many church members are among the 4 million Bulgarians who in the past decade have left the country in search of work and a better life and now reside in Western Europe or the United States. If such legal change indeed occurs, more red tape is coming in Bulgaria against the preaching of the Gospel, religious education and faith as a whole, which will be put under the authority of a government religious council upon the recommendation of the European Union and after the Eastern Orthodox monopolistic paradigm of the Russian Federation.

The three local church models which comprise the Bulgarian Evangelical Movement are not ready to face this new brutal attack against their religious freedom. The small village churches, led mostly by mission representatives sent by larger church communities, often waver between different denominations, which results to doubling and some times tripling their registrations thus becoming an easy first target to any new government restrictions.

Over half of the midsize city churches (70-95 members) have emerged after a church split, which has remained as an unfortunate part of their identity, which reoccurs in their life and ministry. This process is valid in both Bulgarian and other ethnic communities in the country with an emphasis on the Roma Gipsy churches. The result is more small and weakened churches or even home group communities who never undergo normal church growth, thus remaining distant from the outside religious life and often closing themselves to a strangely sectarian existence.

Finally, a few nondenominational churches have retained their own evangelical identity leaving the mainstream denominations and continue to build relationships with sponsoring religious organizations outside of Bulgaria. Having gained financial and leadership independency, they have been successful to complete their building projects and enjoy temporary autonomy. Thus, a dozen of large Bulgarian congregations with several hundred in attendance, located in the capital Sofia, the Danube River city of Rousse, the Black Sea ports of Bourgas and Varna and the industrial towns of Plovdiv and Stara Zagora, have undertaken building projects perhaps as more of a business opportunity. But the aftereffect of their bi-decadal efforts, have shifted their focus from ministry toward building ministry centers and have left their financial resources drained and their supporters demotivated in the midst of global economic crises. And so the Wall remains in the mindset and the crises within the identity of the Bulgarian evangelical believer.

Some three and a half decades ago at the Berlin Wall, President Reagan turned to Soviet Prime Minister Michael Gorbachev with the words: “Tear this wall down …” But Gorbachev cannot help tear down the Wall in our minds. This part of the liberation of the human spirit, mind and soul still remains in the perimeter of God’s grace for human salvation. The answer for global crises lies in the spiritual laws set by God in the Bible that still stands strong as the standard for living. And most important of all: the focus of the Bulgarian Church must remain not in building projects or church split competitions, but in the Spirit given mission of salvation of eternal human souls. Pray for BULGARIA.

A Call for Righteousness over Orthodoxy

EPTA 2024

Gen Z and Mental Health

How can church leaders better reach Gen Z? Doug Powe, Director of the Lewis Center, speaks with Josh Packard about Springtide Research Institute’s research including what faith leaders need to know about Gen Z’s religious beliefs and mental health. 

---

Doug Powe: What is the research process for Spring Tide Research Institute’s annual report, The State of Religion & Young People 2022: Mental Health — What Faith Leaders Need to Know? 

Josh Packard: I am a former academic, but I will keep this as engaging as possible. We use an approach that we’ve been pioneering called . We focus on the classical quantitative (statistics) and qualitative (interviews). We collected about 10,000 surveys and did over 100 interviews with young people. We involve young people’s voices throughout the research process.  

We’ve got a group of young people that meets monthly, and they help us shape the questions. Sometimes we bring them data and we think we understand what it’s telling us but we’re not sure. They’ll help us and say, “No, man. That’s not the right way to think about that. It means this other thing.” Or they’ll affirm that we’re on the right track.  

We’re still researchers, so as much as we listen to young people and try to center their voices in this process, we are also triangulating that with good existing academic theory and our own quantitative and qualitative data. It’s not like it’s straight out of their mouths and onto our pages. We involve them throughout all stages of the process in some pretty important and formal ways, which you can see in the research especially in the kinds of questions we ask. 

Doug Powe: Josh, I have a son who falls within the range of your study, so I was very interested in your report. I’ve observed many of the issues that you name like depression and anxiety. What was a little surprising is how high the numbers were that you discovered: 47 percent of young people reported being moderately or extremely depressed, and 55 percent moderately or extremely stressed. What are some of the root causes of depression and stress? 

Josh Packard: First, it’s worth noting that these are self-report numbers. These are not clinical diagnoses, so there’s a few things that I think are going into that. For Gen Z, talking about mental health no longer carries the same stigma it has for previous generations. This does not mean that all the stigma reduction work is done and that we can stop thinking about it. That’s not true. It just means that we’ve come a long way. 

When Gen Z thinks and talks to us about mental health stigma, they don’t mean among each other. They mean between them and the adults in their lives. They know that the adults in their lives do not like talking about mental health, even to the other adults, but certainly it makes them uncomfortable for adults to have conversations with young people and mental health. I do think that there’s a little bit more of what I would call rightsizing of that conversation. I’m 44 and when I was growing up these were not things that were open topics of conversation, at least in my suburban mostly white community. These were things discussed behind closed doors, if at all. And now, if you spend any amount of time on TikTok or on Instagram, you’ll see mental health is an ongoing, very public, and open conversation especially for young people. So, I think that’s a big part of it. At the same time, part of that is just about shifting the social and cultural norms about what’s acceptable to talk about.  

The actual realities of young people’s lives have changed in some important ways, too. One thing that had a big effect was the pandemic, and the pandemic didn’t change things for young people in this regard. The Surgeon General and other people were all over this before the pandemic hit, pointing out that this was a looming and potentially already started crisis before we went into lockdown. The pandemic accelerated trends that were already in place. 

When you broaden out for just a minute and think about what social media and social media technologies mean for young people, they are not inherently good or bad. We know that social media companies do not have young people’s bests interests in mind. That is not how they operate. They’ve got armies of PhDs who are trying to keep eyes glued to the screen as long as they possibly can. A 15-year-old’s prefrontal cortex is no match for that. It’s not because they’re gullible. It’s not because they’re bad or weak people. The brain has not developed in a way that allows them to turn those things off as easily as adults. By the way, a lot of adults have trouble turning off social media. 

They’re constantly bombarded by messages that are not necessarily designed to be affirming, or to help them flourish. They are really designed to keep them looking, and sometimes what keeps them looking is not always great. Those are two of the really big things that we haven’t really developed clear social norms and parenting guidelines around. They’re emerging and people are getting better at it, but certainly there are a lot of parents who are just like, “Whatever. I don’t even know where to start. I’m just going let them go.” 

Doug Powe: Right.  

Josh Packard: Many adults were struggling with our own things through the pandemic, trying to keep jobs, to keep food on the table, to meet basic needs. And as much as adults might have tried to do and have done some real things with mental health, they couldn’t do everything all at once. I think those are two of the biggest factors that have sort of pushed mental health to the forefront for Gen Z. 

Doug Powe: That’s helpful, and we’ll come back to the pandemic a little bit later. I should have mentioned upfront that this is sort of self-diagnosis per the statistics. Do you believe that young people have a different understanding of mental health? I think that older people work with almost clinical definitions when we do talk about it. Do you think Gen Z understands mental health in different ways than many of us who are older understand it? 

Josh Packard: Yes, I think that’s right. Even when we look at the clinical diagnoses, those are certainly on the uptick with young people. But they are talking about mental health in a much more holistic way. Let’s just take one seemingly small thing that has important implications — the very term mental health. For people maybe my age and certainly older, mental health was often synonymous with mental illness. When we talked about mental health, what we meant was “you’re having a problem.” What we found in our interviews is that Gen Z doesn’t think about it that way. If they mean a problem, they will talk about mental illness. What they mean when they talk about mental health is mental health. It’s talking about mental healthiness, mental health issues or problems and what they can to help support their mental health and be healthy in the same way that I think previous generations addressed physical health. It’s not that you will only talk about your physical health when you go to the doctor because you have a problem or because something is broken. You’re also exercising at the gym, etc., and calling all that physical health. Well, Gen Z very much is in that same vein except with mental health, too.  

Doug Powe: That’s important to note because, while many of us know that we don’t often make that distinction, the distinction between mental illness and mental health is an important one. The report certainly helps to lift that up and to clarify that distinction.  

Your report shares interesting and good news that young people with a religious connection tend to do better. With that, however, is a challenge that those in faith communities also can do as much harm as good when it comes to helping young people. What role should pastors and others in faith communities play in helping young people who are stressed or anxious? Secondly, when the issues are deep, how do we make sure that we help them get the professional care they need and not try to solve those issues for them? 

Josh Packard: Those are great questions, and you’re right to point out that, at the extreme, there are ways that religion can be bad for you. It’s also worth noting, while it’s true in the Gallup research for the last 30 years and true across all the academic studies that religion is generally good for you, it is also true that, increasingly, this is a self-selected group of people. We also need to pay attention to whom religion was keeping away in many cases and any resulting mental health ramifications.  

Living a life that’s connected to something bigger than yourself or that’s driven by purpose — those are good things. There are a lot of young people who just don’t feel like they have access to those things because of their identity, or they don’t have access to a person who is welcomed by a lot of the religious institutions, or they don’t perceive being welcomed by those institutions. What religious leaders have to offer is that you are not alone in this world and you are intrinsically connected to a part of something that’s bigger than yourself — and that can be ancestral, that can be where you and your people come from. It can be something that’s bound up by an ideology, belief system, or theology that communicates that you’re a part of something that’s bigger.  

When that happens, lots of other things sort of click into place, especially for a young person who’s spending most of adolescence trying to figure out if this thing happening to me is the biggest thing that’s ever happened to anyone in the whole world ever, or is this just a normal thing that happens. And how should I respond appropriately to that? I mean, that’s what socialization is. When you get that sense of purpose and that sense of connection, navigation becomes a lot easier. Setbacks are just setbacks; they’re not the end of the world. Faith can contribute to much more resilience for young people experiencing a lot of the stress and strife that often comes with growing up.  

There is a big caveat: in many cases, especially historically, for some reason and not across the board but with some faith and religious expressions, there’s been a tendency to think that mental health issues are an impediment to faith, that they are an indicator that you’re not praying in the right way (if you’re Christian) or believing in the right way or meditating in the right way, etc. So, there’s a reluctance in some communities to seek out professional mental health advisors.  

I mentioned at the beginning that we meet with a group of young people every month, and they’re phenomenal. They take time every month to meet with us on Zoom for a couple of hours, and we talk about everything. This project started because we knew this was an issue, and we were trying to figure out if Springtide had a role to play or if there was something useful for us to contribute to this conversation. If there was nothing useful, unique, and special, for us to say, we would let others who are better at this talk about it. What convinced me that we had something we should pursue was when one of our ambassadors said, “There was a time that I was really struggling with some mental health issues. I went to my youth minister, and I was told to pray about it. When that didn’t work, I walked away thinking ‘Great. Now, not only does my mental health suck, but my faith life sucks, too.’”  

It hit me because I felt, in that moment, that I could see that whole scene unfolding. We hear from a lot of people who are well-meaning, well-intentioned adults working in some sort of faith-based setting with young folks. We talk to a lot of young people like this young man who was sharing the story with me. In that moment, I was able to see there was no harm intended by that youth minister. They were using the best tools at their disposal to try and help that young person sitting across the table from them, and it wasn’t good enough.  

That cannot be all we have to offer a young person who’s dealing with depression, anxiety, or some other really serious issue. It’s an important part of a response. Faith, religion, and spirituality can be critical components to getting through those kinds of issues, working on them, and incorporating them and their treatment into your life, but they’re not the whole response. Here’s a story we have to tell that privileges, understands, and positions purpose, faith, and belief in spirituality in an important way but also recognizes its limits and points to this mental health thing young people are experiencing as a real thing that needs real professionals to come alongside in that domain as well as in their religious and spiritual lives. 

Doug Powe: You’ve already mentioned some key words, but what was also helpful in the report is that you share a framework for faith communities that can be helpful in their being a place that is prepared to welcome young people and help them deal with different mental health issues. In that framework, you talk about connection, expectation, and purpose. I’m going to let you explain the framework. I appreciate that you’re not saying, if you do these things, they will lead to the perfect community, but you’re sharing things that you need to consider as you’re thinking about the working with young people. That distinction is important for what it is you’re hoping to accomplish. 

Josh Packard: We also affirm the need for mental health first aid training and being prepared to connect young people with practitioners and resources. I was a professor for 15 years, and I often felt wholly unequipped to deal with some of the issues that students were facing and trying to navigate. I always felt very grateful that we had professional resources on campus that I could refer them to, but it struck me that we should be able to do more. Our organizations themselves should be structured in a way that supports young people’s mental health from beginning to end, that are what we call “mental-health friendly” organizations.  

Are young people going to have mental health issues? Are they going to have breakdowns and things like this? Of course. For some people, there’s a complex mixture of social and biological factors at play, and you’re not going to eliminate all those. We can do better, and we can prevent more of these issues from becoming crises. Part of the pathway forward is by implementing connection, expectation, and purpose.  

The first is about connection. It’s about giving young people a place where they feel like they belong, so they don’t feel alienated in this world especially when it’s going to happen. It’s part of growing up. Your entire social life at some point is going to come crashing down upon you. I mean that’s part of what it means to be a teenager. I remember those moments distinctly. Having a place where you feel like you belong and that you can turn to in a community who knows you and cares about you unreservedly is critical. We’ve written about the complex process of belonging before, and there are some clear steps that people can take to foster belonging among young people in their organizations. 

The second is about expectation. Expectation is a little bit more complex. There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance that young people experience in many of the organizations where they must involve themselves, especially schools, where they know what the expectations are — they’re very clear. And yet they’re not necessarily given the tools to meet those expectations. 

And in many cases, they are given a set of tools and told that the set of tools will lead to the expectations that they’re supposed to get. They’re given a tutor, and they’re told, if you go to this tutor, it will help you get the grades that you’re expected to get. But those tools don’t always line up with those expectations. When those tools are used and they don’t lead to the kinds of outcomes that are expected, young people start to internalize that. Why can’t I do this thing that I’m supposed to be able to do, even with these resources? Now, sometimes it’s because young people aren’t doing all the work that they need to do, which needs to be noted. But a lot of times it’s because the tools are not really aligned with the outcome we’re trying to get young people to achieve.  

In churches a lot of times this looks like theologies. In the theology in some places, you’re expected to be caretakers of creation, but the congregation isn’t concerned about the climate crisis that young people feel so acutely. So, they’re trying to wrap their heads around this theology that seems to not care about consumption or is not pointing a finger at consumption or having anything to say about it along with this expectation that they’re supposed to care about creation. That doesn’t make any sense to them. The more we can align those or reduce cognitive dissonance, the more we support young people in their mental health.  

The last one is a sense of purpose. Do you feel like you are a part of something bigger than who you are alone? Do you see your story as being wrapped up in a story that transcends time and space and at least you and your neighborhood and your local community? Living with a sense of purpose is foundational to overall flourishing, to discerning the right decision in each situation, and ultimately to mental health.  

Doug Powe: In The State of Religion & Young People 2022: Mental Health — What Faith Leaders Need to Know, there’s a section on what faith communities should know. In that section, you talk about notice, named, and known. Let’s focus on known for a minute. How is it that particularly faith communities can really get to know people when it’s only a virtual space they may have access to? 

Josh Packard:  Notice, named, and known are the three steps toward creating belonging. Virtual is brand-new territory for cultivating a sense of belonging. One thing we’ve learned from young people is they love for you to show up in virtual spaces if you can show up authentically. All young people seem to have a keen sense of when adults are trying to put one over on them, and their default assumption may be that adults are always trying to put one over on them. So, when you show up there in those spaces jumping on the latest trends but it’s not really who you are, they see right through that.   

We should take their online lives seriously. About a year ago a young person told me after a presentation, “when the adults in my life dismiss my online life, they disqualify themselves from the conversation of my life.” I thought that was such a poignant statement. I asked her to explain more about what she meant. “Look, not everything that we do there is important. Most of it, in fact, is not important, but a lot of it is really important. We are turning to places like TikTok and Instagram and social media to explore what Diwali is.” They’re not going to Wikipedia, and a lot of them don’t live in very diverse communities. They’re going online to find out what Diwali is or what Rosh Hashanah means or the difference between Hanukkah and Christmas, for example.  

They are doing a lot of religious exploration, and their online lanes are wildly diverse. I think it’s not so much if you should be there and be one of those diverse sources. I suppose if you had the institutional capacity to do it and you’ve got somebody who understands that well and you want to do it, fine. More than anything, there’s an opportunity to engage them in real life conversations about what’s going on in their social media. And those can start small, but they often are a gateway to talking about bigger and further explorations.  

One of the things we asked my 12-year-old son every week is: what’s the most interesting thing you saw on YouTube this week? It’s the only “social-ish” media that he’s allowed to use. We wouldn’t dare let him on Instagram or Facebook or anything else. We started having those conversations as the beginning of the steps into what’s catching his attention, and it tells us if you’re paying attention to that Why. What kinds of questions are you asking? It becomes the gateway to these kinds of questions. We can use social media as a way to have a presence that helps to shape the narrative or almost like a foil against which to help shape our interactions with young people. We shouldn’t dismiss them. 

Doug Powe: As we get ready to bring this to a close, I want you to share with our listeners with what really struck you in putting the annual report together?  

Josh Packard: I was a faculty member for a while, and we always used to see mental health issues, mental illness, as a barrier to doing the thing that we were supposed to do. I asked: can we get our students some more support so we can get back to the real task of them learning? 

I’m not sure that’s necessarily the wrong approach to take in that setting. But what we learned from putting together The State of Religion and Young People was that it might be the wrong approach to take in a faith-based setting where it is: can we deal with these mental health things so we can get back to the issue of faith formation that we’re really supposed to be here for? What we saw in the data was that engaging young people authentically and relationally and putting real resources into their mental health communicates a care and concern on behalf of religious leaders and adults for young people that young people often assume isn’t there. So, doing one is in service of the other. This is not simply can we deal with this and move on to the real work? In many cases, if you do it right, this can be the real work of showing what faith looks like in action. For example, a term that Christians a lot of times use is being the hands and feet of God, and young people are shockingly lacking in those examples in their lives. I think that this can be a pathway towards that if we take it really seriously. 

Blinded by Smoke and Mirrors

Blinded by Smoke and Mirrors
by Kathryn Donev

We are not to mess around in any way, shape or form with any type of witchcraft or divination. This is a command that the Bible is super transparent about. There is no question whether or not it’s okay. In Exodus we are told not to tolerate a sorceress or a woman that has magical powers or paranormal abilities. In Leviticus it is clear that we are not to practice divination or fortune soothsaying. The message is so direct that in Leviticus 20:27 it says that a man or a woman who has a ghost or a familiar spirit shall be put to death; they shall be pelted with stones. Not just a slap on the wrist or a gentle verbal scolding. And I don’t know about you, but to me, being stoned to death is a dreadful way to die.

In Deuteronomy 18:10-11 it says, “Let no one be found among you who consigns a son or daughter to the fire, or who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer, one who casts spells, or one who consults ghosts or familiar spirits, or one who inquires of the dead”. There is no question about it. These practices are all wrong. Period. End of story. No debate. No talking your way out of it. It can’t get any clearer. We know what will happen if we are tempted with this nonsense. Remember what happened to Aaron’s sons when they played with false fire. There are no second chances, and the consequence is for an eternity. Division from Christ. No eternal life. No Heavenly reward. It is serious. It’s not a game. Right? Are we clear to this point? Of course we are.

But are we really clear? All this stuff was surely just in Biblical times. Does Hocus Pocus exist today? Nah, it’s a fictional movie that’s no big deal to watch time and time again. We are surely strong enough to resist the indoctrinating. But are our children?  We allow them to watch “The Little Mermaid” and suppress the small detail that one of the characters is a sea witch. HELLO… Identifying with such has become popular to the point we ignore when our children mark their foreheads with lightning bolts.  Really!  An iconic symbol of danger. In what reality is this okay? And I’m not even going to go down the rabbit trail of all the dark children’s songs we sing where babies are falling from trees and children are plagued with rings around the rosies.

The entertainment industry has completely enchanted us.  They no longer even attempt to hidе the fact that they are bewildering with hidden agendas.  Agendas that confuse.  Right is wrong and wrong is right.  Good is bad and bad is good.  But woe to those that do this. We first ignore the evil, then we tolerate, then we promote it and then make fun of the people that still call evil, evil. But that’s okay.  Make fun of me if you wish. Call me strange.  I think protecting my family is more important than the opinion of others.

But,  All Saints Day Eve T-shirts that say “I eat children” or “You put a spell on me” are just for humor. Haunted houses with ghosts, goblins and much more horrific monsters are merely for the thrill.  Toy cauldrons that are paired with a mystical plushie that can help you cast a spell and the classical magic 8 ball that help you predict the future are just so cool.  If all these are for entertainment purposes only; it surely can’t go against God’s Word. Well in Act, Elymas became temporarily blind when he performed magic. I think this might be a clue whether or not it’s an okay thing to do. Simon in the New Testament did magic like he was God. He tried to transcend the Truth, but his heart was not right. This still happens today in many places including heavily in the territory of Cyprus. The occultic influence is so burdensome that it is hard to break through the spirit of oppression and depression.

We are so blinded that we don’t even think when we say things like “mumbo, jumbo” which comes from the African term for a male masked dancer of arcane rituals. We loosely say, “It’s not in the cards”. Well duh….this is referring to a fortune teller’s reading. Tarot cards and ouija boards are no game. We might should read about King Saul’s experience when he sought out a medium at Endor. It’s real stuff you do not want to tangle with. Demons are real. And they will control your life every chance they get. Even worse, they will prow on the innocent and malleable minds of our children.

We have been so blinded by false mysticism that we have lost sight of Biblical truths.  Yes, the Bible still has truths and not suggestions.  So why do we think it’s okay to read fantasy stories that promote these distorted practices. We think it’s okay to dabble with the dead because it’s just a silly graveyard game and we all know that zombies aren’t real. We think it’s not a problem to use the ghost filter because they are so cute like fluffy marshmallows. Paranormal cartoons and TV series that promote attractive vampires are harmless. Anime is an innocent escape from reality in which we can create a distinction between real world and make-belief violence, sexual content and Japanese influences. And let’s not forget the fashionable witch and wizard hats. It’s no big deal to dress up in a costume.  It’s only once a year. And goth is only dark clothes, right?  But these are all so far from the truth.  If your child is wearing dark clothes, dark make-up and bondage accessories, don’t ignore their cry for non-judgmental inclusion.  It’s a slipper slope. 

Jannes and Jambres who opposed Moses in front of the Pharaoh were only deceivers, corrupt in the minds and worthless in the faith. I personally don’t want to be considered a deceiver, or corrupt or worthless. I want my heart to be in the right place. I choose life in Christ. I will do my best to be separate from these contrary beliefs and practices. I don’t even want to be tempted with the euphoric “pleasures” that they are thought to bring. No looking back, forward we must go. Undistracted by smoke and mirrors.

I will maintain claim to my family and my territory. It is true that we are to love everybody, but when we allow  wicca influences to come into our community and begin to bewitch with innocent terminology like “apothecary”, “mood balancing” “centering” then we should be alert. Their idea of “alter” is not a Godly one. It’s definitely not a southern phrase when they say “blessed.” Astrology is not just looking at the stars either. Charms are not just cute trinkets and crafting is not an art project. God is the maker of all things. The moon, stars and all of nature belongs to Him and should be cherished as intended. Bodies grounding and moving to find peace should be center in Christ and not in Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism.  This is a warning to remove the blinders before there is no chance to turn back. Wake up people! Protect yourself and your family.

90 Years Ago, Narraganset Church of God Led in Benevolence

Narraganset Church of God was started by a women-preacher with only 10 members. Rev. Amelia Shumaker started the church only 15 days before the Great Depression began in 1929. She became a widow five years prior to moving to Chicago. Passing through the Great Depression by 1934, only five years after its establishment, the Narraganset Church of God was already a leader among the state benevolence ministries.

Located at 2254 N. Narraganset Avenue, the church officially took the name of its location in 1955. Early issues of the Church of God Evangel describe it as a South Side church, later corrected to the only Chicago Church of God. By 1994, the congregation has become one of only three Church of God locations in Chicago Metro. It was also where the first and only Bulgarian Church of God congregation in North America was founded also with only 10 members. (More from this timely research soon…)

Next Page »