Freedom in Christ is no soft spot for the lazy. And the grace that does not enlist a man to serve but is misused as a license for Christian sloppiness and dilettante slovenliness degenerates from costly to cheap grace.

Paper no. 5 was written by Jim Lucas, the president of Canadian Pentecostal Seminary. The last line of the document reads, “For a Denominational Leaders Day at Trinity Western University,” so we’re looking at a speech more than an academic work. Here we go:

Paper #5:
The Ethos of Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada Churches: Spirit and Power
by Jim Lucas

Lucas, like many people, have trouble finding one unifying way to describe Pentecostals. Aside from 1) a common Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths, 2) a nation wide set of credentialing criteria, and 3) a joint mission program, we’re free as individual congregations to follow the Spirit wherever he may lead. In spite of this, Lucas describes some common threads in our shared experience which we’ll look at below.

1. Here are some of the areas where we’re different:
   1. Our style of worship
   2. Our style of preaching
   3. Our programs
2. Here are some of our similarities:
   1. Mission: We focus on the infilling of the Spirit to empower us for mission.
   2. Spirit-Baptism & Tongues: We talk about wanting more of the Spirit, but we really mean he wants more obedience from us.
   3. Urgency: The immanent parousia makes us frown on leadership structures and educational programs that take too much time to made produce results—the time is short! This is another reason why so much authority is placed on individual pastors (we presumably don’t have time to waste networking on a national level).
   4. Acceptance: A mark of the Azusa Street revival was the acceptance of any race or creed on the common ground of Spirit-baptism. A tension grew out of this since our holiness roots make acceptance of others difficult at times.
   5. Luke over Paul: We emphasize Spirit-empowerment for witness “rather than the Apostle Paul’s emphasis on the more soteriological dimensions of the life of faith” (3).

Let me break in here with some thoughts of my own.

1. Point 2e above was so shocking to me, I quoted Lucas directly. After taking some time to process the statement, I can that his description is correct. Many of us stress Spirit-empowerment over the ongoing nature of salvation. How can this be? It’s one thing to play Luke off against Paul and cozy up to one stream of Spirit-inspired writing over another, but is that really what we’re saying? When we concede this point, we’re emphasizing Jesus’ ascended sending of his Spirit “rather than” the ongoing effects of his death and resurrection! To compare the sending of the Spirit with the death of Christ isn’t to compare apples and oranges—more like fern-seeds and elephants! Perhaps our understanding of salvation has contributed to this. Most people I know view “personal” salvation as something that happened in their past, so it’s no wonder we emphasize something we can experience now. Perhaps we should recover Paul’s language of “being saved”, and understand the gift of the Spirit as part of that process.
2. I think Lucas’ views are a little too idealistic. His thrice-repeated refrain, “at our best,” demonstrates this. Here’s an example: “While Pentecostals talk about wanting more of the Spirit . . . when you catch us at our best, we understand that what we really mean is that He wants more of us. We must pour ourselves out. In other words, more obedience.” Well, that’s a good way of theologizing the issue, but when I hear people talk about “wanting more of the Spirit”, it invariably means a desire for a heightened emotional experience inside a church building. Again, Lucas is right: at our best, we would seek to be more obedient—I just haven’t seen us “at our best” very often. Digital Aura, in his response to the third post in this series reminded me of the disconnect between Seminary-style theologizing and on-the-ground praxis. If we want to discover our identity, we need to take a more serious look at life on the ground.
3. One last item. Lucas concludes by saying, “If you catch us at our best we will be seeking the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to reach the world for Christ.” I completely disagree. If you catch us at our best we will be reaching the world for Christ, trusting the empowerment of the Spirit as we go. Think of the parable of the good Samaritan. Do you know why we Pentecostals are not on the road with the Priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan? We were still waiting in Jerusalem to be empowered for the trip.

< Paper #4: Defining Pentecostal Identity – Differences between Charismatics and Classical Pentecostals by William Sloos

Paper #6: There is No Spoon by J. Martini >

• Lost in the Barrens © 1956
• M&S Paperback (McClelland & Stewart) © 1989
• 244 pages

This is juvenile fiction at its finest. Mowat used his experience of life in the Barrens of Northern Canada (see: People of the Deer & The Desperate People) to tell an adventure story about a white city-boy and a young Cree making big decisions and surviving off he land.

The pacing is perfect, and the content’s meaty enough to enjoy this book even as an adult. I dare you to read it without imagining yourself in those situations. The book certainly deserved its 1958 CLA Children’s Book of the Year award.

As I read it I had this vague sense of déjà vu. I suspect one of my grade-school teachers might have read this to our class. I can hardly wait until my three-year-old son is old enough to enjoy it when I read it to him.

But play is part
of any living creature’s
energy.

I like to think birds walk
for fun. . . .

Paper number four was written by William Sloos, a guy I went to Bible College with back in the ’90s. Let’s have a look:

Paper #4:
Defining Pentecostal Identity – Differences between Charismatics and Classical Pentecostals
by William Sloos

Sloos’ topic is interesting. Have you ever wondered what separates pentecostals from charismatics? He tackles the subject with some opening remarks on the two movements, followed by nine differences between them (according to P. D. Hocken). Sloos concludes by pointing the way forward toward a renewed Pentecostal identity.

I. Opening Remarks on Pentecostals and Charismatics

Classical Pentecostals (CPs) came first, with the Charismatic Movement (CM) following. The latest incarnation of the CM is often called “Third Wave”. CMs are thriving worldwide, outnumbering CPs. It’s often difficult to distinguish between the two groups, but P. D. Hocken offers 9 criteria:

II. Nine Differences (P. D. Hocken)

1. Origins: CPs began in one main location, Azuza Street, while the CM had a more diverse genesis.
2. Missions: CPs are revivalists, focusing on worldwide evangelism, while the CM is more focused on inner-church renewal.
3. Holiness: CPs were birthed out of the holiness movement and are often frustrated with the CMs apparent lack of holiness-style life-transformation.
4. Ecclesiology: CPs understand Spirit-baptism as an individual empowering for mission, while the CM views it as a gift for the existing church as a whole. (As Johnson pointed out in his paper, CPs focus more on Luke-Acts theology while the CM leans on Pauline doctrine.)
5. Ecumenicism: While both movements have had their share of criticism, CPs grew respectable to the wider church world as they aged while the CM was often birthed within each different denomination.
6. Eschatology: CPs are generally dispensational pre-millennialists while the CM has no “eschatological cohesion” (9).
7. Healing: CPs focus more on physical healing, while the CM stresses inner healing and emotional recovery.
8. Spirit-Baptism: CPs define Spirit-Baptism as a subsequent empowering event to salvation, while the CM describes it more as an actualization of the Spirit as given at conversion.
9. Initial Evidence: CPs stress tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit-baptism while the CM makes no “law of tongues” (10).

III. Three Ways Forward

1. Foundational: We need to stay in touch with our roots. CPs blazed the trail for the CM to follow.
2. Missional: CPs must remain focused on worldwide mission.
3. Reinventing: CPs are “intensely pragmatic” (13). There have always been theological debates within our movement. What we’re experiencing now is not a loss of identity that will fragment us, but more of the growing pains of reinvention.

Some follow-up thoughts of my own:

• It was interesting to review Hocken’s  nine theses with an eye to the churches I’ve been involved with. If you asked me to plot the position of PAOC churches I’ve known on these 9 points, they would be all over the map. Mission v. renewal, and physical v. inner healing are just two of the areas where I see the distinction between CPs and the CM diminishing (for better or worse).
• I struggle with including “foundational” as a way of moving forward as a movement. While it’s good to remember our roots, there a fine line between being thankful and degenerating into arrogance and pride. I respect my CP roots, but that’s what God did in our collective past. Looking at the topic biblically, didn’t John the Baptist criticize the Jewish people for idolizing God’s work in their past? (“And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham” (Matthew 3:9 ESV)). What would have happened if the Jewish church in Jerusalem decided to prize foundationalism at the expense of the Gentile mission? Let me phrase the question more constructively: what does a movement’s healthy relationship with its past look like?
• Sloos’ third way forward (reinventing) reminds me of Johnson’s phrase about CPs being “innovators and risk takers, entrepreneurs who follow the leading of the Spirit” (Defining Eschatology, 3). This is becoming a collective theme in our movement, and I (for one) am thrilled.

< Paper #3: Defining Eschatology by Van Johnson

Paper #5: The Ethos of Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada Churches – Spirit and Power by Jim Lucas >

• Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend © 2007
• Thomas Nelson
• 360 pages

Beyond Opinion is a collection of essays on defending the faith. While Ravi Zacharias only wrote 4 of the chapters (including the introduction and conclusion), almost every other author is a member of his ministry (RZIM).

The book is divided into two sections:

1. Giving an Answer [traditional apologetics]
2. Internalizing the Questions and Answers [how our lives can line up with our words]

The second half of the book is the most valuable. Jeyachandran’s meditations on the Trinity were especially thought-provoking. I found it interesting that the second half of the book is the part that lined up with the entire volume’s subtitle, “Living the Faith We Defend”.

The first half was a mixed bag. When the author respected the challenger (e.g. Alister McGrath on Atheism, or Jeyachandran on Eastern Religions), there was a lot of insight and apologetic information. On the other hand, when the author disdained the challenger (e.g. Amy Orr-Ewing on Postmodernism, or Sam Soloman on Islam), the tone was arrogant and off-putting.

This book is a hearty read. The 360 pages are packed with fine print. That said, if you’re a Believer interested in defending your faith by both your words and your lifestyle, this book is an excellent read.

Disclaimer: I received this book for free as a member of Thomas Nelson’s Booksneeze program.

• The Age of Fable © 1855
• The Heritage Press (with additions © 1942)
• 369 pages

Bulfinch’s Age of Fable is a classic reference work that lives up to its reputation. The book is packed with anecdotes of deities, monsters, and heroes, some of whom I had never heard of before. Thanks to the “Index of Names”, it will be my first reference when I come across an unfamiliar character (okay, my second after Wikipedia).

The book attempted to do two things: acquaint the reader with the legends, and show how they are alluded to in poetry. While the legends were terse and informative, I found the poetry references tedious and arbitrary.

I was also confused by the scope of the book. The contents are overwhelmingly stacked toward Greek and Roman mythology, but there’s also chapters on Egyptian, Norse, and even Eastern myths. These chapters felt like unnecessary additions that didn’t do justice to their subject matter.

I should also say that my edition (I scanned my own cover, above) is beautiful. The fabric wrapping on the hardcover is embossed. The maps inside both covers are printed in two colours. Even the pages themselves are printed on high quality paper. Unfortunately, this edition isn’t in print—the link directs to a mere Dover Thrift edition.

Faith needs the Word as much as fruit needs the living root of a tree.

The third paper was written by our very own Dean of Master’s Pentecostal Seminary, Van Johnson. I fortunate enough to take a class in Romans from him while in seminary. This paper demonstrates his insight into pentecostalism, along with his knack for asking the right (even if difficult) questions.

Paper #3:
Defining Pentecostal Identity – Defining Eschatology
by Van Johnson

Like the rest of the papers we’re looking at, please read the original. One of my professors (Victor Shepherd) used to say that reading the Bible in translation was like sipping a fine wine through a tea-bag. The same might be suggested of these summaries. I’ll use the structure of the paper to summarize the key ideas below, before following with some thoughts of my own.

I. Prologue

The PAOC has lost sight of our unique identity—what God has called us to contribute to the Kingdom—partly due to our increased wealth. Movements like ours us complex, so an isolated “promotional push for Spirit Baptism is not the cure-all for our movement” (1). That which used to set us apart (tongues) is now commonplace among charismatics. Now that we don’t have to fight the war for tongues (the Golden Age of our movement), we’re in danger of becoming decadent and dull. We can find our way again by becoming “innovators and risk takers, entrepreneurs who follow the leading of the Spirit” (3).

II. Spirit Baptism (Stronstad); Pentecostal Eschatology (Johnson)

Pentecostals have always been driven by a twin focus on Spirit Baptism and apocalyptic eschatology. Our ancestors believed that we were living in the end of the end times, which is why the Spirit was poured out afresh. This drove our concern for missions—the outpouring wasn’t just for us, it was the start of a great revival that would sweep across the whole world before the parousia.

III. The Integrating Belief Of Early Pentecostalism: Jesus, Soon Coming King

Early pentecostals understood the “already / not yet” dichotomy of the Kingdom. The King was not yet here, but already present by his Spirit. This conviction of Jesus’ soon return inspired many core beliefs besides Spirit-Baptism:

• This conviction made us a unique revival movement (focusing on Luke-Acts) rather than another charismatic renewal movement (focusing on Paul’s stress on the Spirit within the Church).
• This conviction also drove holiness—many early Pentecostals sold their possessions for the sake of mission because this world was passing away in light of the parousia.
• This conviction placed a high emphasis on Christology. The Foursquare gospel: Christ as Saviour, Sanctifier (later: Baptizer), Healer, and coming King was a common fare for preachers.
• This conviction also drove Pentecostal worship. The soon returning king was already present with us by his Spirit, so our worship has always been very experiential.

Now, the problem: “the Achilles’ heel of a revival movement is its built-in obsolescence” (7). While revival-centrism is great in the short-term, it’s disastrous in the long-term. After a century, has our belief in Jesus’ soon return been proven wrong?

Some follow-up thoughts of my own:

• There’s no question: the conviction of the soon return of Jesus was the motivation that empowered most of our Pentecostal trademarks. But Jesus hasn’t returned yet. Maybe it’s time we shift our eschatological emphasis towards the “not yet”. If he doesn’t return for another century, or millennium, will the practices built on that conviction (revival, holiness, Christology, experiential worship) collapse? Why don’t we gird up our praxis by emphasizing the presence of the Spirit, alive and active in his church? Is that not sufficient theological ground by which to “occupy until he comes” (8)?
• I loved Johnson’s description of Pentecostals as entrepreneurial risk-takers. Sure, the tongues battle was a defining moment, but we’re growing up as a fellowship and the world is changing. Would it not be valuable to join together in prayer to ask the Father what our next contribution to the Kingdom as pentecostals should be? I suggested expanding on Stronstad’s idea of “prophetic speech” at the end of the last post. What would pentecostals look like if they truly became prophetic witnesses?
• Allow me a metaphor. U2′s albums: Boy, October, and War are great, but I don’t know anyone who would describe their musical shift towards The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree, and Rattle and Hum as leaving behind what made them unique. Wilco didn’t lose its identity in the shift from alt-country A.M. to the experimental Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. Bands who never progress end up in that musical purgatory known as the casino circuit. This current “identity crisis” in the PAOC is a golden opportunity to move towards what God wants us to do next while remaining respectful and informed by our past. To do anything less is to deny our existence as Spirit-led believers.

< Paper #2: Baptized with the Holy Spirit by Roger Stronstad

Paper #4: Differences between Charismatics and Classical Pentecostals by William Sloos >

• The Crucible (Penguin Classics) © 1952
• Penguin
• 152 pages

There’s something refreshing about reading plays (something I don’t do nearly enough). It takes some serious literary wizardry to tell a compelling story within a mere few hours of dialogue.

Dialogue is (obviously) the foundation of any play, and Miller’s is snappy and engaging. It doesn’t take long to lose yourself in a mental picture of the ongoing discussions, arguments, and commiserations. Many of the lines are quote-worthy, especially this one.

The historical setting is the Salem Witch trials—a dark and tragic era of American history. The fourth act in particular brings this depravity to a head. I could almost hear the fifth movement of Berlioz’ Symphonie Fantastique echoing in the background while I read it.

You can’t go wrong with Arthur Miller.