Save the AG > When in Rome...

[ Click here to go back to the main page ]

This article by Rev. Whittaker has been split into four pages. Please click the page you want to view:

[ Page 1 ] - [ Page 2 ] - [ Page 3 ] - [ Page 4 ]

What Was, Is, and (Maybe yet) to Come

At this point in our discussion I believe useful to reproduce the two versions of the Assemblies of God Constitution and Bylaws Article IX, Section 11 (Resolution 19) which were presented and eventually approved in Denver, CO.

Section 11. Article IX The Ecumenical Movement.

The General Council of the Assemblies of God disapproves of ministers or churches participating in any of the modern ecumenical organizations on a local, national, or international level in such a manner as to promote the ecumenical movement because:

a. We believe the basis of doctrinal fellowship of said movement to be so broad that it includes people who reject the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the universality of sin, the substitutionary atonement, and other cardinal teachings that we understand to be essential to biblical Christianity.

b. We believe the emphases of the ecumenical movement to be at variance with what we hold to be biblical priorities, frequently displacing the urgency of individual salvation with social concerns.

c. We believe that the combination of many religious organizations into a world super church will culminate in the religious Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18.

(This is not to be interpreted to mean that a limitation may be imposed upon any Assemblies of God Minster regarding his or her Pentecostal witness or participation on a local level with interdenominational activities.)

This statement, originally adopted as Resolution 13 at the 1963 General Council, was reaffirmed in 1995, was amended by the General Presbytery and presented in Denver in August 2005 in the final form that follows. Note: The original version mailed to credential holders did not contain the underlined phrase "or Ecumenical". A supplementary resolutions booklet was given to the delegates when they arrived at the Council.

Section 11. Interdenominational or Ecumenical Relationships.

The General Council of the Assemblies of God encourages ministers or churches to fellowship with other Christians of like precious Faith who hold to the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the universality of sin, the substitutionary atonement, the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and His second coming.

The General Council of the Assemblies of God shall not belong to any interdenominational or ecumenical organization that denies the evangelical beliefs stated in the above paragraph, and urges its ministers and churches to avoid entanglement with such interdenominational or ecumenical organizations except as opportunity may arise to support Biblical values in the culture or provide opportunity to bear witness to our evangelical and Pentecostal faith and experience.

I would like to briefly encapsulate some of the comments that were made from the floor in favor of Resolution 19.

First of all, when reading the original from 1963, one can discern a clear line of reasoning that sets forth, in prohibitive language (a no-no in today's politically correct world), the inherent dangers of the modern "unity movements" in whatever form they may appear. Subparagraphs a, b, and c gave a logical AND SCRIPTURAL explanation of said dangers. Also, the Scriptures cited did not offend in any way by irresponsibly setting dates, but rather established a philosophical foundation that warned against the universal trends of political/ecclesiastical unity already proven to be false throughout history. Finally, the parenthetical statement at the end of the original resolution addressed the issue of localized community ministry between people of "like precious faith" as being encouraged and permissible. What then was the problem that necessitated the change?

One notable figure who spoke in favor of the new bylaw was Brother Rhoden of the Potomac District, who set forth two basic arguments. The first was that it would "open up more opportunities for ministry to men such as Dick Foth" (a respected "minister at large" to the D.C. area), and, he went on to say, "How many of us had to change our eschatology when the Berlin Wall came down?" (Remember, I already stated that the old language made no embarrassing predictions or time related prognostications). This comment was met with scattered laughter from the delegates. Dr. Don Argue, past President of North Central Bible College, the National Association of Evangelicals and, according to the June 15th issue of the Washington Post is now an "informal adviser to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton", requested that a written statement be read from the Council Floor, but his request was denied by the Chair.

Those speaking against Resolution 19 ranged from pastors of local congregations (myself included), a retired missionary who labored under a death sentence from a Bishop in Ireland, and a retired Professor from Central Bible College, the late Dr. Opal Reddin. Dr. Reddin presented a very systematic line of reasoning that was supported by copious amounts of Scripture stating why the proposed changes were neither necessary nor desirable. The Chairman politely cut her off before she could finish.

The question was called for and a vote taken by secret ballot. The measure passed by a vote of 899 to 767.

A few important questions arise when one considers the rationale for changing the 1963 resolution to its current form. What additional ministry opportunities will our Potomac Brother now have that he did not have in the past? I have personally had meetings and very in-depth discussions for years with everyone from Muslims to Mormons, and yet never violated the 1963 bylaw. What was meant when Brother Rhoden spoke of these "new opportunities"? And when comparing the specific, scriptural language used in 1963 to that of 2005, one can see that the criteria of "the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the universality of sin, the substitutionary atonement, the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and His second coming" could be (and are) interpreted so broadly that Pope Benedict XVI himself could sign off on them due to their vagueness and breadth. Also, when Resolution 19 removed subparagraph c), an actual doctrinal position relating to eschatology was simply done away with by a majority vote! Do we as the Assemblies of God no longer believe in a progressive movement towards the ultimate revelation of the Beast State and the False Prophet? We should have a position paper prepared, giving systematic exegesis of the Scriptures and open discussion of this issue before we glibly cast it aside because the Berlin Wall is no longer standing!

Before Denver, the parenthetical statement at the end of the 1963 Resolution gave me the liberty to accept an invitation from local "Pro-Life" groups (both in Wisconsin and Michigan) to pray the invocation at their annual banquets. The last of these events that I participated in was held in the fellowship hall of a local Roman Catholic Church with the priest present and featured a Lutheran keynote speaker. I was there connected with the Pro-Life effort, but never shared in an Ecumenical Mass where the transubstantiated "host" was offered as a bloodless sacrifice for my continuing salvation within the "true church" under the valid Episcopate in good standing with Peter's successor in Rome! (Please forgive my tone as well as my run-on sentence). I am simply stating that we did not need to completely revamp a strong statement that left no doubts as to where the AG stood, for one that is ambiguous and full of loopholes. Perhaps with the already mentioned "special dispensations" granted to select individuals under the old 1963 language, the General Council felt it was time to bring our Constitution into line with what we were already practicing.

This post-Council letter reiterates the question.

August 12, 2005

Brother Superior,

I just wanted to write you a short note now that council is concluded and as a question. With the limited discussion from the floor relative to the overall philosophy of the ecumenical resolution (I refer to Brother Rhoden's brief remarks and Dr. Argue's not being able to read his prepared statement), could we see a new strategic position paper on how to conduct ourselves in local outreach to Roman Catholics that would reflect the General Council's philosophy? Perhaps some of the published materials could be included in a column or interview section of an upcoming "Enrichment". My personal correspondence with The Professor (which were incredibly enlightening) along with the statements of the New England brother about one of their congregations celebrating an ecumenical mass under the leadership of a priest leads me to believe that more grass roots discussion would be beneficial. Thanks again for your leadership and any help you can give in this area... Asking, seeking, and knocking together,

Pastor Jeff Whittaker

August 12, 2005

Jeff,

I'm on a two-week vacation right now, so my response will be short! I try to keep up my emails daily or by the time I get back, it would be overwhelming.

I'll forward your note to the editor for Enrichment and see if they would like to do this.

Blessings,

"Brother Superior"

The next message I received was from The Editor of the ministers' journal of the Assemblies of God, and also marks the end of my conversation with Brother Superior. Some day I pray we will be able to finish it.

August 12, 2005

Dear Jeff,

I would be most interested in considering this and will work with our editorial staff. However, please know I have had an ongoing situation with some who want me to print some strong articles against any contact with the Catholics. I certainly do not want the Enrichment Journal to become a battleground over this issue. We have considered a place on the Web where these issues could be discussed and views exchanged. Jeff, please keep in touch!

Editor

August 12, 2005

Dear Brother Editor,

Thank you so much for your prompt and kind reply! I am greatly encouraged by the promise of some sort of constructive discussion. Your idea of providing someplace on the web for such discourse could serve the desired purpose well! I also firmly believe at the same time that some strong leadership from our national executives or appointed representatives on this issue could aid tremendously in diffusing unnecessary and potentially damaging exchanges. Defining the difference between cordial social intercourse with a clear understanding of our "reformed" position, and that of all out ecumenism characterized by joint worship services with transubstantiated masses or other confusing gestures. I truly do believe that all in leadership are agonizing over these questions, and I pray for all of us that we will receive the Holy Spirit's leading in this crucial hour.

Your Servant,

Jeff Whittaker

This concludes the first section dealing with the issues stemming from the Ecumenical Resolution presented at the General Council in Denver Colorado, August 2005. In the next section, I will present the surprising turn of events that quickly followed.

Navigation:

[ Page 1 ] - [ Page 2 ] - [ Page 3 ] - [ Page 4 ]

[ Or click here to go back to the main page ]