Amos Yong challenges classical Pentecostals to re-examine what ecumenism really is.

IV. Pentecostal Ecumenism: A Survey

If it is true to say that Pentecostalism has always been ecumenical, it is also true to say that in certain respects, the ecumenical movement has always been “pentecostal.” In what follows, I want to tease out three elements of what I call “pentecostal ecumenism” wherein central features of Pentecostalism are highlighted. These include the missionary thrust of the modern ecumenical movement, its concern for charismatic unity, and its emphasis on what I call the “diversities of the Spirit.” Let me comment on each in order.

Missionary Pentecostal ecumenism

Few Pentecostals today realize that the ecumenical movement was initially launched as a missionary movement, and in many respects retains that focus today. As missiologists and historians have noted, while the twentieth was the century of Pentecostal missions, the nineteenth was that of the Protestant missionary enterprise. It was during the nineteenth century that what we now call the mainline churches established themselves on every continent. It was also during this same time that problems were identified, many of which were far too large for the mission agencies of these individual churches and denominations to resolve on their own. The heart of the modern ecumenical movement was thus birthed at a global mission conference which convened at Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1910, and from which the International Missionary Fellowship (IMF) was established in 1921. Meanwhile, it was realized that missionary work could not proceed apart from confronting both the social and political injustices prevalent during the inter-war years and the doctrinal differences that separated the churches. Thus emerged the Life and Work world conference (1925) and the Faith and Order world conference (1927). These combined to form the WCC in 1948.¹⁶ In 1961, the IMF officially joined forces with the WCC, thus re-affirming the WCC’s commitment to the missionary witness of the churches.

I am getting ahead of the story without having made my point which is this: the early twentieth century was a time during which churches in the West awoke to the power of ecumenical unity for carrying out the task of the Great Commission. As the various churches began to assess the daunting project of world evangelization, they realized that such could be accomplished much more efficiently if they worked together rather than separately. In short, it was the missionary endeavor that brought hitherto self-sufficient groups, movements, and denominations together. I should not need to point out that the central impetus toward Pentecostal organization was also the collaborative power of common mission. Fulfilling the missionary mandate has done more to bring the Church together since the Reformation than anything else.

Part 3 and conclusion of Professor Grudem’s exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 13. The Duration of Prophecy: How Long Will Prophecy Be Used in the Church?

“The Duration of Prophecy” is Chapter 12 from The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today by Wayne A. Grudem.

The Relationship between the Gift of Prophecy and Scripture

In addition to the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, there is one other area of concern to the question of whether prophecy should continue being used in the church today. That area is the relationship between New Testament congregational prophecy and Scripture.

Does the continuation of prophecy challenge the sufficiency of Scripture or the closed canon?

Those who take a cessationist view of prophecy argue that once the last New Testament book was written (probably the book of Revelation around a.d. 90), then there were to be no more “words of God” spoken or written in the church. Scripture was the complete and sufficient source of God’s words for his people, and to add any more words from continuing prophetic utterances would be, in effect, either to add to Scripture or to compete with Scripture. In both cases, the sufficiency of Scripture itself would be challenged, and, in practice, its unique authority in our lives.

If New Testament congregational prophecy was like Old Testament prophecy and New Testament apostolic words in its authority, then this cessationist objection would indeed be true. If New Testament prophets today, for example, spoke words that we knew were the very words of God, then these words would be equal to Scripture in authority, and we would be obligated to write them down and add them to our Bibles whenever we heard them. But if we are convinced that God stopped causing Scripture to be written when the book of Revelation was completed, then we have to say that this kind of speech, uttering the very words of God, cannot happen today. And any claims to have new Scripture, new words of God, must be rejected as false.

This question is very important, because the claim that New Testament prophecy had authority equal to Scripture is the basis of perhaps every cessationist argument written today. Yet it must be noted that charismatics themselves do not seem to view prophecy that way. George Mallone writes, “To my knowledge no noncessationist in the mainstream of Christianity claims that revelation today is equal with Scripture.”¹⁴ Perhaps it would be good for those arguing against continuing prophecy today to give a more sympathetic hearing to the most responsible charismatic spokesmen, simply for the purpose of being able to respond to something that charismatics actually believe (even if not always expressed in theologically precise form) instead of responding to something that cessationists say that charismatics believe or say that charismatics should believe.

There is a growing debate in theological circles that is challenging doctrines long held by evangelical Christians. The debate is over something called Openness theology: Is the future completely settled or is it open? Soon, this debate will be affecting what is heard from pulpits, and has had such an influence already.

Although this debate is not new to readers of Christianity Today, these two articles in subsequent issues offer a unique exchange between differing viewpoints. CT’s editors have done a good job finding two correspondents who treat each other with respect and candidness often missing from such discussions.

This openness theology in question goes by many names. Gregory Boyd of Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, MN) prefers to call it “open creationism.” Robert Brow and Clark Pinnock call it “Creative Love Theism.” The basic tenets of this open view theism are developed along these lines: God’s love relationship with creation requires that man have a libertarian free will. If mankind posses a will that can make choices truly independent of or contrary to its nature, than the future must be partially open. God does not therefore have exhaustive, definite foreknowledge because the future would thereby be completely settled and man could not have a will that was completely free. Openness theology is considered a progression in the free-will tradition of Arminius and Wesley.

The format of the discussion between Chris Hall and John Sanders is an E-mail exchange that goes back and forth. John Sanders, author of The God Who Risks (IVP) holds the open view, while Chris Hall, author of Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers (IVP), is a classical theist. Their friendliness and mutual respect could well serve as a model of discussion, as the CT editors suggest.

In their conversation, Hall and Sanders address a broad spectrum of theological, pastoral, philosophical, and exegetical concerns. Do our prayers affect God’s decisions? Does God predetermine or even know the future? Is God changed by the choices of free men? If God predetermines all things, does God therefore want every murder, rape and every other evil to occur?

Openness proponents believe they are offering a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God. They are challenging many great Christian thinkers throughout history by saying that God is everlasting, but disagreeing over the traditional understanding of eternity and saying that God has constrained Himself to time. While the philosophical issues involved are vast, this debate must ultimately be decided solely on Scripture. As both Chris Hall and John Sanders have demonstrated in this dialogue, there are some immense exegetical issues. How can predictive prophecy work in Scripture if the future is not completely settled? Is eternity a concept carried over from Plato by early church theologians, or is it a biblical teaching?

While this E-mail conversation has probably only raised more questions than resolved, it is noble of Christianity Today to present two sides of an ongoing debate. And, if history is any indication, the debate about man’s free will and God’s sovereign choices is not going away any time soon.

Reviewed by Raul Mock

Journey through the Gospel to the Hebrews with Kevin Williams as he unveils rich Hebraisms and prophetic Messianic insights.

In the first two parts of our series on the gospel of Matthew, we have looked into the apostle’s claims that Jesus is the promised Messiah. We have examined some rather subtle ways Matthew managed to get his point across. We have examined Jesus’ lineage and how Matthew emphasized Jesus’ right to David’s eternal throne. We have looked into what many rabbis consider the four epochs of time, and how the season of Jesus’ birth may be another sign of his kingship. And, we considered the arrival of the magi, the prophet Daniel’s followers, setting out on their journey to confirm what one of Babylon’s most famous sages had predicted—the arrival of the Messiah.¹

As we continue studying the words of Matthew, we will see that he continues to maintain his purpose—to show the Jewish world that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah of Israel, and all nations.

___

Matthew 2:13-14

Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him.” So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt.

Joseph, or as he was known by his countrymen, Yosef, was no stranger to prophetic dreams, nor to the appearance of God’s messenger. Joseph’s character is certainly one to admire. He did not wait until morning, he did not wait until he could discuss it with his other spiritual friends. He did not wait until it seemed convenient. He gathered his family and left Israel that very night!

Yet the question that seems unresolved, for me at least, is, “why Egypt?” After all, wasn’t Egypt the source of Israel’s oppression for so many centuries under the hands of Pharaoh? Yet, God decrees for Joseph to take his family to Egypt.

This is not without precedent. For all the evil Egypt represents, the land of pyramids and snakes was also the land of plenty and provision for families of the Bible. Abraham went to Egypt during a famine. Jacob and his 12 sons all lived in Egypt. Joseph brought the Israelites fame while they lived in the land of Goshen, before the great Exodus. After the destruction of Solomon’s temple by the Babylonians, Egypt became home for the prophet Jeremiah. For reasons we may not understand God has selected Egypt as a place of provision for His people on several occasions.

It is also worth noting that Jewish society flourished before the birth of Jesus in one of Egypt’s most celebrated cities, Alexandria. There were so many Egyptian Jews, that the scholars in Jerusalem took up the task of translating the Hebrew Bible into Greek, the language of Alexandria. Today we know that translation as the Septuagint and it is still used in comparative analysis of New Testament Greek. It would be unfair to think that Joseph fled to a forsaken, pagan, region. In Alexandria, Joseph would have found kin.

Interview with Charisma editor, J. Lee Grady: Special to the Pneuma Review

Pneuma Review: Many in the Pentecostal/charismatic movement have said that the church is experiencing renewal. Do you agree, and if so, how has it touched you?

Lee Grady: There is no question that the charismatic church has experienced a level of renewal since the early 1990s. I think history will show that this movement began in or around 1993, culminating in two significant explosions in Toronto in 1994 and in Pensacola, Florida, in 1995.

Were these movements revivals? So many people want to quibble over the terms, and some argue that Toronto and Pensacola did not bring widespread evangelism. But it is still too early to determine that. I meet people all the time who experienced some kind of spiritual refueling in one of those movements, and today they are doing significant things in ministry. Many people who had become dry and “barren” spiritually found a fresh touch of God’s presence in either Toronto, Pensacola or in one of the many spin-off movements that were triggered by those two moves of God.

As far as my own personal experience, I was touched by the Lord in 1996 when I went to Pensacola. For me it was simply a fresh impartation of grace and a renewal of faith that God will indeed visit the United States in revival. I had a deeply moving encounter with God while in Pensacola in which the Lord dealt with my own cynicism. I came back from my three days there a changed man.

PR: In your 1994 book What Happened to the Fire? (Chosen), you listed several key issues that must be addressed before revival could sweep the church. Included in that list were heavy-handed leadership and spiritual abuse. How do you feel the church has dealt with these issues?

Grady: The charismatic church is still dealing with authoritarianism. I see it everywhere in independent churches where leaders either do not have the proper accountability structures, or they are too young and spiritually immature to know that they need such accountability.

Three years ago we ran an article in Charisma about the signs of an unhealthy church, and we focused on manipulative, authoritarian leadership as a major sign of problems. The response we received from that article was incredible. So many people wrote us to tell about their horror stories. This made me realize even more how much of a problem this is in our movement.

Editor’s Introduction to Worldviews in Conflict

Welcome to the Dialogue

It is my privilege to introduce this paper by Larry Taylor and a dialogue about a practice many have embraced without first weighing the theological consequences.

Our subject is the teaching of spiritual mapping, identifying and expelling territorial demonic forces. This teaching has not been extensively challenged in Pentecostal/charismatic writings. In fact, the opposite appears to be true, the practice of spiritual mapping has been readily accepted.

Not just to rock the boat, Professor Taylor of Portland Bible College is asking us to consider on what basis this teaching has been accepted. Is spiritual mapping biblical doctrine, or is it derived from another source?

If spiritual mapping is a biblical teaching, we perhaps should all be involved in identifying and systematically removing the forces of evil from our neighborhoods and nations. If spiritual mapping cannot stand on scriptural grounds, its validity and our participation should be evaluated in that light.

Brother Taylor has invited response and interaction with himself on this subject. The Pneuma Review’s editorial committee has been endeavoring to locate a participant to respond to this paper. If all goes as planned, Taylor’s paper will be presented in two parts, followed by a rejoinder by someone offering another view of spiritual mapping, then followed by a response by Taylor. You are invited to write in and interact with this subject, whether you have an insight or a disagreement.

As with all articles, and especially controversial ones, the views expressed in this dialogue are not necessarily the views of all of the editors or the membership of the Pneuma Foundation. It is our privilege to present differing viewpoints that encourage the free exchange of ideas among disciples of Jesus. I hope that you will participate in this discussion. Please add your comments below.

— Raul Mock, Executive Editor

“The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to the texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn.”
– Martin Luther

In recent years it has become increasingly clear that the devil is not going to go away, either in reality or as a topic of immense importance. In the past four decades he has gained attention at the box office and, more recently, at various church leadership conferences under the billing of “spiritual warfare.” Hollywood has enjoyed a disturbing love affair with the devil, dating back to Rosemary’s Baby in the late 60’s, which was soon followed by the smashing success of The Exorcist in 1973. Thanks (in no small part) to the computer industry, patrons today are offered a steady diet of scurrilous gore involving pools of blood, projectile vomiting, super-powered demons, twisted witches and candle-lit satanic rituals set in Gothic style.

On the other hand, the entertainment industry is not alone in its interest in and fascination with the macabre. In at least one segment of the church, there is a renewed militancy aimed at escalating the arms race against the devil and his horde. The most innovative aspect of this aggressive strategy involves “spiritual mapping.”¹ This is the practice of strategically locating and identifying the distinct demonic forces that lay behind a city or region, naming the demons, and driving them out. Although the practice is not limited to Pentecostal-type churches, the theological ideas that support it fit comfortably in many Pentecostal and Charismatic churches today.

In this particular paper I will explore the biblical and theological problems that I believe are associated with spiritual mapping, while focusing much of my attention on assessing the distinct cosmology that appears to serve as the basis for the practice. It is my theory that a weak, unbiblical cosmology has served to promote the doctrine of spiritual mapping. I open the subject by explaining the practical importance of cosmology. Secondly, I examine the biblical doctrine of creation, searching for a valid Christian cosmology. Turning briefly to the area of demonology, I examine Scripture’s view of Satan, particularly his power in relation to believers. Fourthly, I offer a biblical assessment of the practice of spiritual mapping. Finally, I conclude with a practical observation of the current state of Pentecostal-type churches and offer a pastoral call to return to basic-life teaching.

Due to the limited objectives of this particular study, I will not be assessing every aspect of the practice of spiritual mapping. There may be spiritual, psychological, and ecclesiastical rewards from the practice that lie outside the scope of this study. Moreover, I do not intend to present a thorough doctrine of Satan and demons. There are numerous books on the subject, some recent, that superbly handle the doctrine of Satan and demons. I have noted several for the benefit of the reader at the conclusion of the article.

Woodberry and Shubin have compiled a number of testimonies of Muslims coming to faith in Jesus as Messiah, thereby reminding all of us of the life-changing power of the gospel. It is no secret that people living in Muslim dominated nations pay a heavy price for coming to trust in Jesus—so why do they? What do they find in Messiah that makes them accept the surrender  of their livelihoods and the ostracism of their families?

It is good to note that according to Mission Frontiers, Islam adherence is growing faster than Christianity—but only by increase by birth. If only conversions are measured, the ratio is nearly 3 to 1 conversions to Christianity versus conversions to Islam.

This article explains that most Muslims believe that: Jesus was not crucified (though His enemies planned to kill Him and He had a willingness to die); He was a prophet; the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels (understood to be the New Testament) are thought to be holy books by Muslims; and—though not often mentioned—the Qur’an teaches that Jesus was sinless (even though Mohammed was not).

From this starting point, Muslims are coming to Jesus by encountering Him in the Bible and finding truth more plausible than Islam; by having a powerful dream or vision of Jesus revealing Himself; the example of other Christian’s love; and the revelation of God’s love (something rather foreign to Islam) and His invitation to a personal relationship. You may be amazed how God is using dreams and visions to draw people to Himself. Woodberry and Shubin say that one in four of those surveyed stated emphatically that a dream or vision were key in bringing them to Jesus and sustaining them through oppressive circumstances.

I encourage you to read the many testimonies in this article to be encouraged at what God is doing among Muslims worldwide. I hope this will bring you to prayer, for there is much to be done to reach Muslims for Jesus. Perhaps He is dramatically revealing Himself through dreams and visions because we have not gone to share His love in person.

Find the full article on-line here: www.missionfrontiers.org/issue/article/muslims-tell…-why-i-chose-jesus (URL revised Jan 16, 2014).

Reviewed by Raul Mock

I served as a mediator the other day. I have mediated many disputes over the past ten or fifteen years, but the last one was different than all the others. It involved a dispute between four Christian businessmen who had dissolved their partnership and in so doing had become deeply divided. To their credit, they chose to follow the peacemaker principles, which set forth a procedure to resolve disputes between people in the Kingdom of God.

One of the unusual things in the mediation was that each disputant could name a mediator, and thus there were four mediators and four disputants. One of the disputants had an attorney that acted as an observer and not a participant. All nine of us in the room were professing Christians.

The mediation was scheduled for two days. One of the other mediators arrived at the conference room we were using early on the second day to review the file and to place a full size crown of thorns in the middle of the large table around which we all sat. I was the second to arrive, and after the usual amenities, I noticed the crown and said something spiritual like “why the birds nest?” I thought I was being funny, but I soon felt chagrin with my remark. My co-mediator said he had the crown at his office (he is a pastor) and felt prompted to bring it to the mediation. He further advised me that he did not plan to mention it when the rest of the participants arrived. And so it was, the crown of thorns just sat there in front of everyone all day long, and no one mentioned it.

Mediations are not easy for the mediator or the parties, and this one was filled with acrimony, tension and fear since a good sum of money was involved, and several of the disputants no longer had the cash that might be necessary to bring the dispute to a close.

As the second day wore on, I found my eyes and thoughts drawn to that crown of thorns. It was mean looking, being made out of Bougainvillea canes that had many long, sharp thorns. I remembered how careful I had been lest I pricked myself while pruning such bushes. I winced as I contemplated how it must have felt when the soldiers shoved a similar crown on the head of the Savior.

From the Worship Leader series.

“All the earth shall worship at the throne of the …BZZZZZ!” What in the world was that? All eyes turn to the previously unnoticed sound guy sitting sheepishly at the back of the church.

Feedback, the wah-wahs, boominess in the lead vocalist—these sound distortions rivet everyone’s attention on the sound man and his system. Nothing kills a good worship set like sound trouble. How does a church pick the right equipment anyway?

Though worship is clearly the aim, how we get there can be influenced significantly by the sound equipment a church purchases. Churches congregate in various sizes ranging from home fellowships, to the average Sunday gathering of under one hundred people to megachurches of thousands.

Each church has it’s own specific needs. Some churches are stationary while others have to be set up and torn down Sunday after Sunday. Some bodies have existing sound systems that need upgrading, and others have been allocated funds to purchase new systems. To talk about all the different possibilities would fill a book. So, instead, I want to offer some general guidelines when purchasing sound equipment that I hope will lead to answers that will help.

Quality Before Quantity Whether you are buying a completely new sound system or are upgrading an existing one, the most important thing to remember is: quality before quantity. Too often, churches buy substandard equipment because they want all the nifty components at once. A church is much better off buying a few top-notch pieces of equipment to start and then adding as funds allow. Don’t get me wrong; you need the basics but please make sure that your basics are made up of quality components.

When walking into your local Sound Superstore, here are two options:

System A:   For “x” amount of money you can get a “budget” 24 channel board, with 4 “white label” 2×15” mains, 1 16-channel snake, 6 10” monitor wedges, 10 multi-use mics with non-removal 10’ cords, 4 150-watt mono amps, a reverb unit (that sounds like…well…a ‘56 Chevy in a wind tunnel), a 6-band parametric EQ, a refurbished cassette deck and a user manual the size of a tri-city phone book written in a foreign language. Sounds like a killer system, right?