-
2.2 How Canadian Pentecostals Form a Ministerial Organization
Reflect on the following quote from the early conciliatory statement of the PAOC:
“be it resolved that we disapprove… of all such issues that divide and confuse God's people to no profit, and that aggressive evangelism be our motto.”
What do you think of the PAOC’s decision to allow a breadth of belief on some aspects of their doctrinal statement? Who should decide whether a matter is of secondary or primary importance, whether an issue is divisive and confusing, or clear and unifying? What do you think of the PAOC’s focus on evangelism over doctrine? Respond in a paragraph.
-
34 Replies
-
This is a challenging question that I think we as Pentecostals must continue to wrestle with. on the one hand, the PAOC’s commitment to “aggressive evangelism” over doctrinal scruples carries a wisdom that we would do well to consider. Doctrine and good theology are incredibly important, but our theology profits us little if we don’t put it into practice (which is itself a theological statement). However, clarity is very important for a team or organization to work together, and the avoidance of clarity on key theological issues can become an invitation for strife and/or broken fellowship. We can and should aim for maximal flexibility in our doctrinal positions for the sake of unity, but we should also seek to understand and respond kindly to disagreements rather than ignore or minimize their significance.
-
I think there is wisdom in discerning what we should hold tightly to and where there is space for differing opinions. There are always going to be differences that threaten to divide the Church, and while there are doctrines that we need to hold firmly, not everything is in that camp and we also need to seriously take the importance of unity in the Church and not neglect the mission of the Church for the sake of differing opinions.
-
I like that there was an allowance for breadth in some aspects of the doctrinal statement, as it allows for space to grow in what was at the time a growing and developing movement. That being said, there are some issues that are of secondary and of primary importance and these distinctions I believe should be expanded upon and made clear. I like in the book of Acts when considering what to do with the Gentiles there was a conference or meeting so to speak of Apostles and extra local leaders who had authority, and I think that same should be seen today.
Although I do like the breadth that was given for doctrinal difference, I think it could be confusing today, and almost impossible to embark on a program of aggressive evangelism when issues of primary importance are not resolved. Individuals could aggressively evangelize, but to do so coherently in a collective manner, this could lead to even more splits, schism, and confusion, with converts getting caught in the crossfire.
-
I agree with the reconciliatory statement – let’s not be divided over doctrinal issues! I think the decision gave every member the freedom to express their faith in different ways. Since the scriptures say that either way of baptism is acceptable – Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; Peter tells to baptize in the name of Jesus – I see this statement as unifying bringing oneness of beliefs. The scriptures should be the ultimate guide to making decisions and if Scripture is either unclear or silent, then we err on the side of unity, not division. I also agree that evangelism should be our focus, sharing the love of Jesus and making disciples. It is a commandment from Jesus!
Log in to reply.