2.2 How Canadian Pentecostals Form a Ministerial Organization

[Chris]

I believe that the issues at hand were secondary and tertiary issues and with this in mind, I think it was pragmatic of the PAOC to allow individual groups to hold to their own beliefs in these areas, while still being united overall. That being said, each person needs to decide for themselves the importance of specific doctrine and what they can and cannot agree to based on how much of a core issue they deem it to be. I feel that the focus on evangelism over doctrine was a good thing. At the end of the day it is better that the lost find Jesus than the church become stalled from lack of agreement over secondary issues.

[Nicole]

I find this matter really hard to land on in any sort of black and white way. I think it makes great sense to allow a breadth of belief on an aspect of your doctrinal statement that you don't believe is of primary importance. Ultimately, if your denomination or fellowship is led democratically, then the issue of primary importance is decided by consensus. If it's led in a more top-down way, then it's a matter to be decided by leadership. On one hand, I see allowing a breadth of belief encourages humility and love. It takes humility to not engage in strife or get puffed up with knowledge when we disagree with someone, especially about something we're passionate about. It upholds the power of love as a by-product of the Spirit to remain in relationship even when we are at odds on a matter of doctrine. On the other hand, matters of doctrine, even those that seem insignificant can massively impact our mission. What we believe directs what we do. If our beliefs are so different that we can no longer share the same mission, then I think it makes sense to say that in order to organize effectively around the mission that God has given us, we have to organize separately. I think this is an issue to be worked out with the utmost humility and reverence for the Lord, making sure that our hearts are free of offence and judgement.

[Brandon]

I believe in this early statement the focus on the importance of unity within the boundaries set would have been to a greater advantage. These statements should have in no way hindered Mr Frank Small in His endeavours or restricted him in walking in his convictions. But the benefits to having greater unity would still be available.

Leaders with the input of members and a general consensus should determine what matters are primary or secondary importance . . . clear and unifying. I often feel we undervalue the effect of unity.

Thirdly, I would argue that the PAOC put higher importance on evangelism over doctrine. I feel that they didn't want to get stuck in the weeds on matters that are less obvious and foundational doctrinally that would have no effect on principle matters relating to salvation, sanctification and church growth.

[Nate]

While I can see the wisdom in emphasizing evangelism and fellowship over doctrine, I do still think it is important to have clear doctrine. I am reminded of the early church councils of Nicea, Chalcedon and others, the purpose of these was to combat the heresy of the day and so they created creeds which answered every and all minute detail. If denominations are not clear about what we believe to be truth, it is easy to have division an confusion over our beliefs.

That being said, it is also important that the church hold “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” In love we must be able to have differences, while holding in unity what it is that we must hold fast on.