[ Click here to go back to the main page ]
Information Papers
Click to go to an individual essay:
[ "On Central Bible College" ]
[ "On A/G Leadership" ]
[ "On the Pentecostal Gospel" ]
[ "The Assemblies of God: Holy Spirit Directed, or Hierarchy Infected?" ]
On Central Bible College
I. Background: Folks from all over this country and all walks of life have asked me, “Mike, why is our leadership pushing for the merger of CBC with Evangel? We’re concerned with the impact this will have on the training of our ministers and missionaries!”
II. Discussion: there are two sources for finding out why our General Superintendent is pushing this: 1) what he says, and 2) what he’s authorized for publication
A. WHAT HE SAYS
1. I just had a discussion with him in his office on Tuesday, June 28th on the very subject (the General Treasurer was also present in this meeting)
2. To summarize, he said, “Mike, the facts are that we are not going to merge CBC with Evangel, all we are looking at is an overarching board since we are charged with making sure that our Springfield schools have economies and efficiencies. Also, we want to make it so that 5000 A/G kids can attend Evangel, not just 2000.”
B. WHAT HE’S WRITTEN
1. The report from the Commission to Study the Springfield Schools says on its introductory page “the purpose of the Commission is to determine how to merge the Springfield schools.”
2. After announcing the two year delay in the “vote on the merger”, he authorized Dr. Robert Cooley, whom the General Superintendent appointed to be chair of the above Commission, to send out letters to each of the schools asking them to appoint key members to a Task Force whose purpose was to “determine how to best execute the merger of the schools.”
C. One has to ask oneself, “If what the General Superintendent SAYS is true, then why would he authorize the continued funding of a commission whose WRITTEN products directly contradict his words?”
D. IMPACT ON CBC
1. No bible college in American history has ever survived being merged with or being converted to a university. Every one without exception has become a religion department (this has already occurred at our own Vanguard University which used to be Southern California Bible College. Vanguard has a religion department for its ministerial students)
2. The problem with merger/conversion is that the bible training, which is the center of the wheel at a bible college, and so pivotal to producing godly ministers and missionaries, becomes one of many spokes in the wheel at a university.
a) To reverse the logic in this situation, the comparable situation for our A/G laymen is to say that since we’re all Christian A/G Pentecostals here, why don’t we merge EU under CBC and let our medical students study the Gospel of Luke (he was a physician!)? It won’t work because the course of study is different for doctors than it is for ministers. Neither will this type of touchy, feely logic work for ministers at a school designed to prepare laymen!
3. The problem is not with either school, rather the problem is trying to mix two different missions each considered vitally important by our forefathers. Historically, the higher priority was placed on the bible college since it was established only eight years after the very first General Council and the liberal arts college took another 33 years to reach the top of the priority list.
III. Conclusions:
A. CBC is the single largest source of ministers and missionaries in the A/G
B. CBC graduates nearly as many ministerial students as the other 18 A/G schools combined!
C. As our regional schools have converted from bible colleges to universities, their ministerial course offerings, number of required bible course hours and ministerial graduates have all declined
D. With these kinds of statistics, WHY would our leadership continue to push for the merger of CBC into Evangel? We’ll try to answer that question in the next paper.
[ Click here to go back to the top of this page ]
On A/G Leadership
I. Background: although this is the seventh time the Evangel and CBC merger question has been officially studied by our Fellowship (the previous six attempts to propose a merger being shot down by the General Council or before), there are some more basic trends in leadership that give us clues as to why they’d consider the merger question.
II. Discussion:
A. The recent trends in A/G governance show that our Fellowship is headed for centralization of power not the Congregationalist view of our forefathers like E.N. Bell and J.R. Flower. NOTE: this trend is also in direct contradiction to the advertised benefits of the “Vision for Transformation” which is more decentralization and empowerment of local congregations and pastors!
1. Benefits of Centralization: the chief benefit is that it is easier to make changes to the organization if fewer members are involved in the votev=
2. Problems with Centralization: too much power is given to too few people
a) Knowing man’s propensity to grab for power and get rid of obstacles that impede goal accomplishment, both our American and Assembly of God forefathers carefully established our original constitutions to avoid the king or nobility syndrome.
3. One would also want to ask oneself, “If our forefathers did such a fine job of writing the Statement of Fundamental Truths that it has remained unchanged for 90 years, then why does the constitution, which they also wrote, required so much quick change?”
4. Second question: “Why is our A/G leadership wiping out all the bylaws that have to do with the Springfield schools’ governance and nearly every major department in the A/G and placing them instead under the A/G Operations Manual? And even more importantly, why did they state on pages 83 and 84 of the “Vision for Transformation” bylaws booklet that the approval for said Operations Manual was going to be reduced from the General Presbytery (approx. 250 members) to the Executive Presbytery (17 men)?
a) ANSWER: neither the General Council nor the General Presbytery are trusted to allow A/G leadership to achieve their ambitions as quickly as they’d like.
III. Conclusions:
A. A/G leadership appears bent on getting control of every major “industry” in the Assemblies of God
1. Proof of this lies in the last thirty pages of the Vision for Transformation bylaws booklet for General Council 2005
2. A key symptom of the grab for control is the push for a merger of CBC and EU
B. NOTE: the general superintendent told with me that he only wants an overarching board for the schools and NOT a merger
3. Please refer to what he writes versus what he says
C. However, let’s assume that his words override his writings for a moment
1. Having studied and been a part of the corporate world for nearly a quarter of a century, to my knowledge, never in the history of mankind has an overarching board been formed where the ultimate goal wasn’t to form a single institution!
2. Without a single institution for a goal, there is no purpose for a single board!
D. REMINDER: original intent is nearly always present in original writings. The general superintendent’s original documents all indicated the desire for a merger. He only changed his stance AFTER tremendous negative feedback from the field and from Evangel and CBC.
E. If the proposed bylaws changes are actually adopted, the general superintendent won’t have to ask for the General Council’s permission (nor the General Presbytery) to do anything including merging the Springfield schools.
[ Click here to go back to the top of this page ]
On the Pentecostal Gospel
I. Background: the reasons that the Assemblies of God was formed were primarily twofold; first, to insure adherence to a common set of scriptural beliefs (the Statement of Fundamental Truths), and second, to promote this uniformly held Pentecostal Gospel to a lost and dying world.
II. Discussion:
A. Our founding A/G fathers sought to achieve both of the above goals by a short list of simple functions: 1) establishing bible schools that taught from the Bible using the Statement of Fundamental Truths as an outline for coursework, and 2) publishing monthly and weekly periodicals to propagate God’s Word in a Pentecostal way and constantly referring back to the Statement of Fundamental Truths and its scriptural foundations.
B. They realized the chief lesson learned from the Welsh revival was the Revival produced Evangelism and not the other way around!
C. REVIVAL: Where is the loud cry for A/G members to seek God for renewal?
1. Where is the call for our Fellowship to follow God’s outline for revival listed in II Chronicles 7:14? “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
2. Where is the example set by our leaders who are so desperate for God that they cancel business in business meetings and replace it with fasting and prayer?
3. Why is the A/G overseas exploding yet in American it has begun its first-ever period of decline?
a) ANSWER: because overseas our A/G congregations are experiencing the supernatural power of the Holy God and American churches are comfortable in their wealth and prosperity
D. EVANGELSIM: have the Decade of Harvest and Vision for Transformation (two evangelism programs) produced results?
1. ANSWER: “No!”
2. A/G statistics show that our American fellowship is in decline for the first time in our history!
III. Conclusion: the American church needs revival not programs. In order to have revival, we must repent. In order to repent, shepherds must call the sheep to repentance! In order for the shepherds to place the call, they must lead their flocks by holy, righteous and humble example.
A. God have mercy on the A/G if we become a rich, humanly powerful church (Laodicea) that is an impediment to God propagating His Good News!
[ Click here to go back to the top of this page ]
The Assemblies of God: Holy Spirit Directed, or Hierarchy Infected?
This year at its General Council the Assemblies of God will make some of its most important decisions as regards the authority of Scripture, the dependency upon the Holy Spirit, and the calling and preparation for ministry that it has ever made in its over 90 year history. The decisions are: 1) will we once again regard the Scripture as the only source of God’s revelation to humans to the degree we hold is proclamation up as the chief work of the Church, 2) are we willing to return back to that fork in the road where we decided it was better to follow worldly patterns of leadership from the secular psychology movement rather than humbly allowing the Holy Spirit to do His work in the Church, 3) and finally, do we need for the Assemblies of God to retain at least one institution that still promotes the Holy Spirit’s calling of those who are simply willing to say ‘yes’ to God as opposed to those who sit themselves up as the ones who set ‘professional standards of credibility’ in order to limit the ‘calling’ to those who are of the intellectual, social, and political elite? These rather simplified questions will be disguised in many official and benign ways that seek to promote the ideas of those who are in power and ‘in the know’, those who have arrived at the pinnacle of intellectual and ecclesiastical power. However, the biblical example of God’s work and calling is explained in no other way than the Holy Spirit’s calling and direction for the church of Jesus Christ.
Recent trends in American Evangelicalism and the Assemblies of God in particular obviously show the turning away from the dependency on Scripture alone and the Holy Spirit’s use of Scripture to convict of sin, lead to truth, baptize believers, and to build and guide the church. Why this turn away from a dependence on Scripture as God’s revelation to a dependence on the wisdom of man’s innovation? The answer lies in the Assemblies of God’s fascination with American popular culture that has long since given completely in to secular humanism. What will be examined here is how secular humanism, by way of postmodern pluralism, has infiltrated the leadership of the Assemblies of God in recent years. Many will find it incredible that such a wicked worldly philosophy could be the underlying factor in the A/G’s move from Scripture’s Gospel to a social gospel. In order that the following method be compatible with its content, biblical examples will be used to show the sharp contrast between Scriptural authority and the modern trend of humanism in each of these three areas.
1.“Will we once again regard the Scripture as the only source of God’s revelation to humans to the degree we hold its proclamation up as the chief work of the Church.?”
Has not the Pentecostal movement, of which the Assemblies of God is a part, always believed we are living in the last days which Paul describes to Timothy in 2 Tim 3-4? We are certainly living in perilous times (2 Tim 3:1) when there are many of our own ministers who are lovers of money, boasters, proud (3:2), haughty, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God (3:4) who have a form of godliness but denying its power (3:5), always learning [leadership and preaching style] but never coming to the knowledge of the truth [of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ] (3:7). However, in sharp contrast to this list of humanistic manifestations, Paul quickly turns to the difference in both his own leading and in Timothy’s following. He says the Scripture’s Gospel which is to be believed and preached by the minister is first doctrine (3:10) then manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, persecutions, and afflictions (3:10-11). He includes believers of all subsequent times by adding, “Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” (3:12). These are to be the marks of not only the minister of the Gospel but even all disciples of the Gospel. Paul goes on to make it quite clear that it is Holy Scripture alone which makes one wise (3:15), is given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (3:16, and which makes the man of God complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work (3:17).
It is interesting here that Paul mentions only Scripture. Why? Because, of all people, Paul knew better than to place any merit in himself. He knew the Gospel went against all human wisdom (see 1 Cor. 1 and 2) and, when compared to the Gospel, all human abilities, achievements, pedigrees, and promotions was nothing but a pile of excrement (see Phil. 3:3-11). What a contrast there is between Paul’s list of humanism and his description of the Gospel. He knew that because God’s revelation of Himself to humanity came only through Jesus Christ and the written testimony to that revelation (Scripture) everything else was just a worldly human philosophy that led only to damnation. He explains the digression from knowing God to damnation in Rom 1:21-22; “because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.”
Let us apply this Scriptural truth to today’s context within the Assemblies of God. There has been an undercurrent for decades (at least since the 1950’s) that places great hope for the Gospel’s advancement by means of human philosophies and methods. These are many and varied, but one of each will suffice. For this first point I’ll use an example from the area of method and for the second point I’ll use one from the area of philosophy. First, in the area of method, there have been for many years those who think a method of external unity in the Church will suffice for that internal unity that can only be brought about by the Holy Spirit’s work of both repentance of worldly religion and the subsequent desire for the truth. This can only come about when people turn from their idols of false religion and the lies of human origin and believe in the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. False unity through the ecumenical movement (both the World Council of Churches and other societies {even Pentecostal}, which promote external unity without repentance), only masks the need for the Gospel to do its work, in effect elevating a human method up above the work of the Holy Spirit. Could this method have any other source than humanism which promotes the human good and ignores or even denies human sinfulness and its only cure of repentance? Certainly the theology of the Roman Catholic Church and even liberal Protestant denominations have as their foundation the goodness of humanity. Why else would neither of these groups have the need for repenting of sin the basis of all their other doctrines? It is simply because they have been perverted with worldly philosophies. To have some semblance of external unity with any of them totally destroys any basis for evangelizing the lost among their members, which is most of their ranks. Is that not in itself a direct disobedience to the Great Commission of Mt 28:19-20, which calls the church to make disciples of Jesus Christ, to baptize them, and to teach them all that Jesus had commanded them?
Many of our own leaders have been promoting ecumenical dialogue for decades even though we have a bylaw which explicitly denounces ecumenism. Of course, if asked, they would all say they are not doing it as ‘official’ Assemblies of God representatives but only as individual Christians dialoging with other individual Christians. This is simply another form of Western philosophy’s compartmentalization of the individual. It makes you wonder what else they do to violate their own voluntary submission and loyalty to our Constitution and Bylaws (if not 16 Fundamental Truths) when they are not operating in an ‘official’ capacity. Maybe some of them have realized this hypocrisy and instead of changing their ways to abide by the decisions of the majority of the A/G’s cooperative fellowship (see resolution #10) they will disregard doctrine and church policy and simply change the bylaws to agree with what they have been doing ‘unofficially’ for years. That is what the proposed changes do in the ‘Vision for Transformation’ under Article IX. ‘Doctrines and Practices Disapproved’ Section 11, The Ecumenical Movement (page 46 of Proposed Changes). The proposal first changes the name to a more benign name, then changes the ‘disapproves of’ to ‘urges its ministers and churches to avoid’, and finally changes the entire focus from that of entire doctrines of churches (section a), which teach heresy, to that of an individual focus of ‘other Christians of like precious faith’ who simply can assert they believe the five major doctrines listed.
What this really means in everyday language is that any Assemblies of God minister would then be able to fellowship with any other ‘Christian’ because even the late Pope John Paul II would assert those five doctrines even though he upheld every other heresy the Catholic Church ever taught (even praying to Mary and dead saints, not to mention praying with Buddhist priests). Since this proposed change strips Section 11 of all meaning, why keep any of it at all, unless maybe what is proposed is a good smoke screen for people who think it sounds so much more ‘kinder and gentler’ and full of Christian compassion. What is really going on is the Assemblies of God’s caving in to postmodern pluralism which forsakes all particularities and confrontations for the sake of unity, a unity at all cost.
Another underlying factor is that the Assemblies of God gave up preaching and teaching sound doctrines long ago when it wasn’t ‘popular’ any longer in order to keep attracting the crowds and to become ‘uptown’ and ‘trendy’ like the other liberal Protestant denominations. In place of sound doctrine it began placing a huge emphasis on experiences and emotionalism that has been the mark of the last several nationally recognized ‘revivals’. With this emphasis on emotionalism rather than Scripture it is easy to see why many of our ministers place a greater emphasis on the Pentecostal experience of the Catholics and liberal Protestants than they do on what they believe. This is saying that it doesn’t even matter what one believes as long as he has had some type of emotional experience. Well, if that’s the case then there might even be some type of fellowship we can have with animists and demoniacs since it is well known that even some of them have spoken in ‘other tongues’ in their trances and satanic rituals. If this proposal wins the day it is only a matter of time that all other barriers and differences are ignored as well and the Catholic Church will achieve the purpose to which it has been dialoging with Pentecostals for decades, that is Pentecostals coming back into Mother Church where they still say is the only place of true salvation. Look who the fool is now.
2. Are we willing to return back to that fork in the road where we decided it was better to follow worldly patterns of leadership from the secular psychology movement rather than humbly allowing the Holy Spirit to do His work in the Church?
Now for this second point I’ll use an example from the area of philosophy. There are many who have traded in the Scripturally revealed theology of prayer and asking God for help and direction through His Holy Spirit for the new and ‘in vogue’ philosophy of psychologically derived leadership. Most of the leadership manuals and conferences being promoted today in the church are straight out of Rogerian and Jungian psychology, which promote manipulation, exploitation, deception, and certainly self-centeredness. What all of these worldly philosophies deny is the need to repent of the basic sinful nature of all humans which says, “I will not deny myself of anything. I will certainly not repent of or consider sin my desire to be the center of my world.” This basic human sin is not only their basis it is a direct violation of Jesus’ command in Mark 8:34, “Whoever wants to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” Have we so quickly forgotten what this means? It means that all worldly philosophies must be unequivocally abandoned and Jesus Christ and His Scriptures must be whole-heartedly followed, even if it means being ostracized by society which does not understand, and neither does it want to understand. However, since popular culture has totally embraced all of these secular psychological philosophies as its doctrine, there has been an increasing head-long descent of culture into the abyss of selfishness and individualism. America now believes in a personal and individual gospel, one that is compatible with and complimentary to one being the center of his/her world, but totally opposite of Jesus’ Gospel. Let me ask this, “How long will the Assemblies of God embrace and promote those who are not only non-Pentecostal in doctrine but who promote a humanistic gospel which nullifies the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Paul told the Galatians, “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:6-8). Those who promote a ‘seeker friendly’ gospel who strive to make their churches ‘comfortable’ for sinners so as not to offend them with the word ‘sin’ have bought into postmodern pluralism which says, “Do everything so as not to offend anyone since we are all going the way we feel is right in our own eyes.” Seems as I recall that same sentiment expressed somewhere in Scripture. Not only should those secular philosophies be abandoned they should be exposed and those of the leadership of the Assemblies of God who have embraced them should be deposed. Instead of prayer and the Holy Spirit’s leading being the determinant for direction, our leaders are now hiring outside consulting firms, even a Jewish man, to come in and advise us as to our future. Can a Jew who is lost in his sins offer any direction from the Holy Spirit for the Church of Jesus Christ? If you say ‘yes’ then you have already abandoned your dependency on the Holy Spirit and have believed in another gospel. I have only one question for our leaders who think they can get the Holy Spirit’s direction for our future from someone who has not even believed in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, “What future?”
3. Do we need for the Assemblies of God to retain at least one institution that still promotes the Holy Spirit’s calling of those who are simply willing to say ‘yes’ to God as opposed to those who sit themselves up as the the ‘calling’ to those who are of the intellectual, social, and political elite?
Let’s first see how the early church allowed the Holy Spirit to do His work of calling. Paul and Barnabas were both ministering before the Lord at the church in Antioch when “the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” (Acts 13:2-3). The very ministry (and even conversion) of Paul was attributed to no person or church or ecclesiastical body – it was performed solely by the work of the Holy Spirit. Notice also that it was a local assembly of believers who sent him and Barnabas out and their laying on of hands and sending them was only a secondary result of an earlier word from the Holy Spirit. This same pattern holds true in other NT examples from Jesus’ calling of His disciples to those who preached in the early church. It remains to be seen if the Assemblies of God will return to this biblical standard or keep going down the road it started on years ago when it started desiring to be on the ‘right side of the tracks’ like the other big culturally trendy churches, with popularity, prestige, and political power.
The most noticeable outcome of this is changing the calling to preach the True Gospel of Jesus Christ into just another calling, such as to teach in a public school, be an accountant, or a lawyer. When this happens Scripture’s ability to judge and critique all other disciplines is destroyed due to biblical studies and pastoral training being just another division in the university model and the special calling to preach being brought down to the same level as every other earthly profession. Scripture then can no longer be the center that informs, corrects, reproofs, or has the power to reject any or all of the worldly influences that have made major inroads into all other disciplines over the last 50 years in America. Is the Assemblies of God actually willing to forsake this biblical truth and allow the preparation for the ministry to be even more controlled and managed by the hierarchical authorities and less by the Holy Spirit? Or is it willing to hand over the interpretation of Scripture to the scrutiny of the academy as opposed to be interpreted by the church? To deny this reality or to dispute it is simply being biblically naïve. There are many who have worked for decades to bring Central Bible College into and under the university model of Evangel. Again, what drives this agenda is the Assemblies of God’s fascination with the power of popular culture. What is wanted is an Assemblies of God version of Notre Dame. Are we willing to sacrifice all of our Pentecostal and Assemblies of God heritage in order to be like those who our Reformational and Pentecostal forefathers risked their lives and ministries to abandon?
What most of the leaders are unwilling to see, however, is the fact that the Holy Spirit does not need America’s or the Church’s university model to do His work. In fact, other churches in history have become so proficient and proud at being able to learn the workings of the Holy Spirit in His special calling to the ministry that they were able to relieve Him of all the bother and to take over His work themselves. This not only assured them of even greater influence and power they had over their constituents, but it also assured them of gaining even more social, political, and cultural power they had by selecting only those petitioners who met their ‘established standards’. In an age when the church of Jesus Christ in America is inundated with the pressure from culture to conform to its social structures and standards, it is very apparent the Assemblies of God has already begun to trade in its reliance on the Holy Spirit’s calling for a hierarchical one that is more in line with ‘modern trends’ which are compatible with a culture that has long since lost any respect for ministers, Scripture, and the Church.
It can even be disguised by a trendy label such as “The Vision for Transformation”, but the only thing being transformed in the Assemblies of God is its reliance on God the Holy Spirit into a reliance on its own hierarchy, a reliance on hierarchical structure rather than the Holy Spirit. This move towards the church doing everything by a more culturally acceptable method is in line with the church growth/seeker sensitive movement which has traded in the preaching of sin/repentance for that of style/acceptance. Many Assemblies of God ministers have fallen for this trick of the enemy and are more concerned about their hearers being ‘comfortable’ rather than converted, the same path that others have already gone down simply for the same desire to have more popularity, prestige, and political power. God help us.
How can this assessment be made about Spirit-baptized ministers who claim to be following the ‘leading of the Spirit’? Well, Paul said himself, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. . . . I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothes. . . In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” (Acts 20:28-29,33,35). Why does Paul mention all of these things together to the Ephesians? There is no doubt Paul considered the ministry a special calling that necessitated little attachment to the kingdoms of this world and its wisdom (see esp.1 Cor 1) and a wholehearted attachment to the kingdom of God’s world and its wisdom found only in Jesus Christ (not in psychology, intellectual elitism, or any other human method). The one trait that Paul was able to show as the authenticating mark of his special Holy Spirit calling to preach was his persecutions/afflictions, which were due to his unwavering dedication to the truth of Jesus’ Gospel (not an appeal to a spiritual experience, which of all people Paul could have done). To be hated by the world meant he was preaching the true gospel of Jesus Christ. How many present day Assemblies of God ministers have that trait as the authenticating mark of their ministry? How many ministers are afraid to speak the truth if there is a risk of retaliation?
Is there anyone who doubts that the Assemblies of God has become so uptown and trendy that it now has the chance to ‘stake its claim’ to have a major university like all the other churches who have gone (and fallen) before it? There is no doubt, but providing educated lawyers, doctors, and school teachers is NOT what brought success and growth to the Assemblies of God. It is rather obvious that it still does not because even with the Assemblies of God having now climbed the social and political ladder during recent decades it is actually loosing numbers among its white European constituents, go figure. The Holy Spirit convicting, saving, and baptizing believers in the Holy Spirit, and then calling them into the ministry to preach His salvation message, so that people all around the world could hear that message, is what caused the Assemblies of God to grow in its early years (just like the early church). Why would the Assemblies of God trade in that heritage and bring Central Bible College into and under the university model so as to effectively nullify it as an institution that has for over eighty years clung to this biblical example (described above) of ‘laying hands on and sending away’ those who the Holy Spirit has set apart for the work to which He has called them? This eighty year pattern has kept it close to the local church where the Holy Spirit does His calling/sending and loyal to the authority of Scripture as the only rule for faith and conduct. Moving this work of the Holy Spirit over into the university model only assures one thing; it will be farther away from where the Holy Spirit does His calling/sending and closer to a culturally acceptable method. Is this a chance the Assemblies of God wants to take? If so, why would it?
The answer is simple. The Holy Spirit has always done things that were somewhat unconventional, unimaginable, and even uncontrollable. Bringing Central Bible College under the auspices of the university model will allow the church to produce ministers who are predictably conventional, imaginable, and especially controllable. What would be eventually done away with is that embarrassing aspect of the calling into the ministry by the Holy Spirit being attended with persecutions/afflictions like Paul. Maybe the Assemblies of God could mature past those embarrassments that call on us to say with Jesus “it is better to give than to receive”. It could possibly even do away with those ministers who have “left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake” (Mt 19:29) and have only those who have gained much wealth in the ministry. (After all, isn’t it a fact that the higher up the ecclesiastical ladder you go the more houses, land, cars, clothes, and golf outings you have to show as the ‘authenticating mark of your calling’). That way those who have become wealthy in the ministry would not be convicted by those who have given all and continue to give all. In this year of great decision let us aptly apply to our own fellowship, “But many who are first will be last; and the last, first.” (Mt 19:30).
Could it be that the Assemblies of God ministers who gather in Denver will be most concerned about helping the weak and the last and the least rather than helping themselves achieve their own agendas of power, prestige, and profit? Keeping an autonomous Central Bible College free from university and hierarchical entanglements will ensure following generations of an institution that upholds that special Holy Spirit calling into ministry, even if by the world’s standards it looks weak, last, and least. Of course the Holy Spirit would raise up another work to replace it anyway (such as one of the A/G’s other smaller regional Bible colleges, Master’s Commission, or even other Bible institutes which would have to be started to accommodate the Holy Spirit’s work), but why is that necessary? Voting delegates at Denver should not be hoodwinked to believe that what is ‘financial and institutional progress’ might just be a disguise for human prestige and social power. Hasn’t the greatest trick of Satan always been to deceive people into believing that what is actually their eventual downfall really looks like the most delicious fruit ever (it looked delicious to Eve too). God help us to stay weak in the world’s eyes so that through our weakness Christ might be made strong (1 Cor 1:26-31; 2 Cor 12:9-10).
However, in order to do so, those who are in power must willingly humble themselves by having the mind of Christ (Phil 2:1-11) whose purpose it was to condescend to the lowly. Jesus did not give into the religious power structures of His day, He rejected them as humanly contrived and He tore them down. Could it be that Jesus still wants His people to think like Him? If so, then the church should still be about lifting up the lowly rather than catering to the rich, intelligent, and the trendy. In fact, the Holy Spirit is still about doing what Jesus did during His earthly ministry. If church bodies do anything differently then they can be assured of one thing – the Holy Spirit will build His church without them because the church will be built only one way – His way.
The Assemblies of God will decide this August if it will go back to doing things with prayer and the Holy Spirit’s leading or if it will continue down the road of being culturally relevant without the need of the Holy Spirit. If we decide on the latter there will no longer be any reason to call ourselves Pentecostal. Let’s quit blaming the sheep for not being Pentecostal enough when the shepherds are constantly using non-Pentecostals as the greatest spiritual consultants and authorities. It’s time the Assemblies of God returned to being Pentecostal in practice rather than only by consent and this August in Denver would be a great place to start. It seems the best way to do it would be to call for the Assemblies of God to elect leadership who will renounce those worldly methods and philosophies which have been leading the church away from Pentecostalism and the True Gospel, trash the Vision for Transformation, lead and call the rest of the council to repentance so that the Holy Spirit will once again have humble and contrite believers upon whom to fall (like in the Bible), and, rather than waste people’s time with useless procedure, allow the Holy Spirit to do His work in our midst. Oh by the way, before you head to Denver call someone who can’t afford to go and offer to help pay their way so it won’t just be the wealthy and powerful there making all the decisions. It could be that the Holy Spirit still speaks and moves through ministers who are last, lowest, weakest, and poorest. Perhaps even more so.
[ Click here to go back to the top of this page ]
[ Click here to go back to the main page ]
