In 2002 I was contemplating an interstate move on the basis of a dream. ‘Move to Sydney,’ the Spirit had said, ‘and you will become the Academic Dean of Hillsong College.’ At the time, I had been working two part-time jobs – one at a local Bible college, and the other, pastoring a church in Melbourne. I was thriving in both positions, happily settled in a lovely home and had no plans to move to an unknown city a thousand kilometres away. In Sydney, Hillsong College wasn’t advertising a new position externally, nor was it their policy to do so. I was an unknown entity, connected only vaguely through my current networks. Still, the guidance had been spectacularly clear. Dreams and prophecies from six to seven independent sources all pointed in the same direction. The Spirit’s leading had checked all the boxes.

This excerpt is chapter 4 from Tania Harris, The Church Who Hears God’s Voice: Equipping Everyone to Recognise and Respond to the Spirit.

At the same time, the idea of leaving my jobs, friends and family with no possibility of employment was a radical one, particularly for a risk-averse single woman. When the time came to move, I was confronted with the ludicrousness of my situation and the all-consuming question: could I trust what God said?

At first, the answer seems obvious. Scripture assures us that God does what he says he will do: the word from God’s mouth does not return to him ‘empty’ but ‘achieve[s] the purpose’ it was sent for (Isa. 55:11); ‘God is not a human, that he should lie … Does he speak and then not act?’ (Num. 23:19; also 1 Sam. 15:29). But then the question comes: did those verses mean the same for me as they did back then for Samuel? Would God’s words ‘not return empty’ for me just as they wouldn’t return empty for Isaiah?

The answer depends on your theology. Some would say ‘yes’. Others would say ‘no’. Most Protestant theologians would say that my ‘hearing God’ experience was not as authoritative as those in the biblical accounts and could not be trusted in the same way. The experiences of the Bible are seen to be ‘special’ and unrepeatable, while contemporary encounters are seen to be more subject to human influence. Hence, the only reliable way to hear God today is through studying the Bible, listening to sermons, reading Christian books and obtaining the ‘wisdom of counsel’. Conversely, another group of theologians (largely from the Catholic tradition) would say that we can hear from God in the same way as the Bible characters did. So, if my Spirit revelation was authentic, I should follow it and believe for it to come to pass. Still another group would say that my experience was illegitimate from the outset: God doesn’t speak like that any more, so it was either the product of mental instability or, worse, diabolical influences.

My questions about moving to Sydney highlighted a theological problem that has existed ever since the Scriptures were canonised in the fourth century. It is the reason why many churches today reject the idea of direct Spirit-revelation. The problem boils down to how we view the relationship of our Spirit-talking experiences to Scripture: how do our Spirit encounters compare with those in the Bible?

Can you see our theological conundrum? The practical realities of contemporary revelatory experiences make them as authoritative as the Bible writers. This looks as if we’re placing our experience on par with the Bible, something most Protestant Christians would emphatically reject as illegitimate. The question is: how does the spoken word of the Spirit relate to the written word of the Scriptures?

Four answers to the theological problem

The answer to our theological problem is crucial because it shapes our understandings of how the Spirit speaks today, how we recognise it and how we respond to it. In turn, this frames our ideas about discipleship and ministry, as well as the nature and role of the Scriptures.

Four different frameworks have been proposed to address the problem of ‘Spirit versus Scripture’. In this chapter, we examine each of them closely. The first and third approaches assume that our contemporary experiences are discontinuous with the biblical experience. The second and fourth anticipate continuity with the biblical experience. We will see why the first three options are inadequate and why the fourth provides the only logical basis for a theology of hearing God’s voice.

1. God on mute

The first theological framework, ‘God on mute’, holds that the Spirit no longer speaks in the same way as in Bible times. As we’ve noted, this position, known as cessationism, holds to the belief that divinely inspired speech ceased with the close of the canon in the early centuries of the church (or when the original apostle died). Hence, the only way God ‘speaks’ today is via the Scriptures: God’s voice is heard through studying the Bible, listening to sermons and reading books that expound the Bible. Direct revelatory encounters are no longer plausible.

This perspective also holds that God can only speak about that which has already been said in the biblical past. The Spirit does not speak specifically on personal matters such as where to live or what job to take. Neither does God speak about his plans for the future or how to deal with ethical issues beyond the Scriptures. Instead, divine insight comes through careful application of the biblical text – we hear God best when we hone our hermeneutical skills. As evangelical theologian James Packer wrote:
While it is not for us to forbid God to reveal things apart from Scripture, or to do anything else (he is God after all), we may properly insist that the New Testament discourages Christians from expecting to receive God’s words to them by any other channel than that of attentive application to themselves of what is given to us twentieth century Christians in holy Scripture.¹
The cessationist perspective has ebbed and flowed in the church since its inception. Today it is typically found in the Reformed and dispensational segments of the Protestant evangelical tradition,² but it is becoming less popular under the influence of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement in mainline churches.³

The thinking behind contemporary cessationism largely stems from a desire to protect the authority, uniqueness and sufficiency of the Scriptures. This is not an unimportant concern, since history shows us that whenever the Scriptures lose their priority in the church, doctrinal compromise soon follows. For cessationists, then, any claim to extrabiblical revelation is invalid, subversive and even demonic. It is seen to ‘add’ to the canon and attack the Bible’s uniqueness. Any additional voice ‘weakens the power of the Word’ and results in a ‘spiritual free-for-all’, giving rise to heretical movements in the church.⁴ As one of cessationism’s leading proponents, John MacArthur laments: ‘New revelation, such as dreams and visions, are considered as binding on the believer’s conscience as the book of Romans or the Gospel of John.^’5

The cessationists have a good point. As we’ve seen, when we claim to hear God’s voice, we are invoking divine authority. The Scriptures themselves tell us that authority derives from the speaker (e.g. Jer. 23:29; Heb. 4:12). If God were truly speaking, we would be expected to obey his words to us as much as the biblical characters were expected to obey his words to them (e.g. Rev. 1:3). Any valid perspective on Spirit versus Scripture must acknowledge that a true word from God is authoritative, whether situated within the Bible or outside it.

However, the great tragedy of the cessationist position is that it silences the voice of the Spirit in the church, the very pinnacle of the New Covenant. It defies the words of the apostle Peter when he proclaimed that Pentecost represented the long-awaited fulfilment of God’s promise for the communicating Spirit. Peter made it clear that the ability to hear God’s voice in the manner of the Old Covenant prophets (Acts 2:16–17) was not just for those gathered in Jerusalem that day but was also for all those who were ‘far off ’ (Acts 2:39) – in Judea, Samaria and the nations beyond. It wasn’t just for the first generation, but for their children and all those who followed. As prophesied by Joel, the Spirit would remain for ever under the New Covenant.⁶

The promise of the New Covenant remains today. God has spoken and continues to speak by his Spirit. While the preservation of Scripture’s role is crucial, there is another way to maintain it.

2. Christians who don’t read the Bible

There is a tribe of Christians in Zimbabwe who are known as ‘Christians who don’t read the Bible’ – and proudly so. This group, known as the ‘Friday Apostolics’ (because Friday is their Sabbath), represents a second approach to the relationship of revelatory experience to Scripture.

Unlike the cessationists, the Friday Apostolics believe that contemporary experiences of hearing God are continuous with those of the biblical characters. That is, the outpouring of God’s Spirit meant that we can all hear from God in ways that are phenomenologically equivalent to the ways the Bible characters heard. Contemporary encounters are analogous to the biblical experience in purpose, manner and kind. At the same time, this capacity to hear from God directly is seen to make Scripture irrelevant. The reason the Friday Apostolics don’t read their Bible is because they say it ‘gets in the way’ of hearing from the Spirit.

To our ears, this perspective is an alarming one, but there is some sound reasoning behind it. The Apostolics recognise that God’s presence is always with them and cannot be limited to a material object. Rather than relying on a book, their emphasis is to live ‘like the apostles’ and have an experience of Christianity that is ‘as vibrant and alive as when Jesus walked the earth’. As leader Nzira says: ‘Here we don’t talk of Bibles. What is the Bible to me? Having it is just trouble. Look, why would you read it? It gets old. After keeping it for some time it falls apart; the pages come out. And then you can take it and use it as toilet paper until it’s finished. We don’t talk Bible-talk here. We have a true Bible.^’7

Anthropologist Matthew Engelke, who spent time studying the group, notes that part of the Friday Apostolics’ aversion to the Bible is that it is seen as a ‘white man’s book’. As such, it carries the baggage of colonialism that has plagued the tribe ever since the whites came. Moreover, the Apostolics say that the missionaries often said one thing and the Bible said another. Polygamy is cited as an example. For one elder, ‘We learnt that we could not trust the whites or their book.^’8

The Friday Apostolics also argue that because the Scriptures are culturally embedded, they are unable to adequately address the needs of modern-day Africa. The ancient Palestinian context of the New Testament means that it has limited relevance in a place that is haunted by AIDS and witchcraft. As they say, it is ‘out of date like a newspaper’. Instead, answers are found in hearing from the Holy Spirit live and direct.

The Apostolics even go so far as to say that the Bible acts as an obstacle to hearing from God. Like all religious artefacts, books are limited by their materialist nature. The very presence of the Bible, they say, threatens to detract from the immediacy of faith. When God’s voice is contained in a book, it takes away from the central focus of Christianity.

The position of the Friday Apostolics is not an option for those of us who place high value on Scripture. However, the Apostolics also raise some important questions. It is true that God’s presence cannot be contained in a material book. Whether a book, icon or building, God’s presence is never limited to a physical object. Solomon observed this in the building of the First Temple (1 Kgs 8:27), as did Paul with the Second Temple (Acts 17:24). People in our churches today can be guilty of this when they use their Bibles like a lucky charm or a magic tool, dipping into it whenever they want their wishes fulfilled. Like any object, the Bible can become an idol that is revered above its maker. Some scholars have even given this tendency a name: ‘^{bibliolatry’9} – described as worshipping the ‘Father, Son and Holy Bible’. As the Apostolics say, when treated in this way, the Bible can ‘get in the way’ of hearing the Spirit.

And yet, the Friday Apostolics put themselves in a precarious situation by giving the Bible such a low priority. When you discard the Bible, you risk displacing the church’s very foundations. We need the Bible. We need the Spirit. We must not dispense with one at the expense of the other.

3. Good, but not as good

The cessationists dismiss the Spirit; the Friday Apostolics dismiss the Bible. The third approach to our theological problem of ‘Spirit versus Scripture’ seeks to preserve both. This position says that contemporary revelatory experiences are valid, but they are phenomenologically inferior to the experience of the Bible-writing apostles and prophets. In other words, you can hear from God outside the canon, but just not in the same way as the Bible-writing characters did. Our Spirit encounters are ‘good, but not as good’.

The position is best articulated by Baptist theologian Wayne Grudem in his widely known book The Gift of Prophecy. Here, Grudem advocates for two types of revelatory experience. The first is the ‘special experience’ of the canonical writers, namely the Old Testament prophets and their ‘equivalent’, the New Testament apostles. The experiences of these characters are held to be flawless; God put his words directly ‘into their mouths’ and, as such, they are always accurate, infallible and authoritative. The second type is the ‘ordinary experience’ of New Testament and contemporary church members. For Grudem, these experiences are of lower quality and authority compared with those of biblical figures such as Paul and Peter. Contemporary revelatory messages are described as ‘a report in human words which God has brought to mind’. Because they cannot be God’s exact words, they are neither authoritative nor trustworthy. They can bring ‘strength, encouragement and comfort’ (see 1 Cor. 14:3) but should be treated in the same way as counselling and pastoral advice. As per the cessationists, Grudem argues that the only reliable way to hear God’s voice is via the Scriptures.

This ‘two-tier’ position is also reflected in the logos–rhēma schema so popular in churches today. Like Grudem’s framework, this envisages two different types of experience and is based on the idea that there are two meanings for the Greek term ‘word’ in the New Testament. The first term, logos (λÓγος), represents the ‘written word’ of Scripture, which is seen to be objective, infallible and fully authoritative. The second term, rhēma (ῥῆμα), represents the ‘spoken word’ of our contemporary experience, which is seen to be subjective, fallible and of minimal authority.

The goal of the two-tier schema is to preserve the role of the Bible while still allowing for the possibility that the Spirit can speak beyond the canon. As such, Grudem’s work was welcomed by Pentecostal–Charismatic Christians around the world. However, there are some real problems with this position. Perhaps the most obvious has to do with what Scripture says about the New Covenant in relation to the Old. While the two-tier position advocates for contemporary experience to be viewed as inferior to the Old Covenant experience, Scripture emphasises the opposite. The Old Covenant prophets, Jesus, Paul and the writer of Hebrews all strongly affirm the superiority of the New Covenant (see Chapter 6). The church era was long awaited because it was an upgrade of the old regime. This improvement would not just be for the leaders who were responsible for establishing the church, but for everyone. It cannot be that the New Covenant church has a harder time hearing from God than the Old Covenant prophets.

A second problem points to the biblical evidence used in support of Grudem’s position. His work has sustained heavy criticism from cessationist and Pentecostal–Charismatic scholars alike. This has largely been based on exegetical grounds and the grammatically unlikely notion of correlating the role of the Old Testament prophets with that of the New Testament apostles (in Eph. 2:20). It is also clear that Scripture reveals a spectrum of quality among the revelatory experiences of biblical characters. Most got it right, but some got it wrong (see Chapter 10). Furthermore, there is simply no textual evidence that God explicitly changed his way of speaking when the original apostles died out.

There are additional complexities with the two-tier position when it comes to its practical outworking. Some of them are seen in my own story as I contemplated relocation from Melbourne to Sydney. The question became: if what I heard was non-authoritative, should I move? And if I did move, should I believe for God to fulfil his word? Unfortunately, Grudem does not address the implications of his position in real-life experience since, as a New Testament scholar, his focus is on the text.

An additional problem lies in the fact that Grudem’s work is directed almost entirely towards prophecy (where a person hears from God for someone else), rather than the universal experience of hearing the Spirit first-hand. This means that most of his discussion is limited to the specialist gift of prophecy in church meetings, as described in the Corinthian letters (esp. 1 Cor. 12 – 14). While these passages are helpful in providing guidelines for the regulation of prophecy in the public service, they do not give us details about the universal experience in the context of everyday life. For that, we need to look

elsewhere.

It is in the books of Acts and Revelation that we find copious examples of the full revelatory experience. We learn how God spoke, how it was discerned and how it was then responded to. It is here that we see that the New Testament characters all treated their revelatory experiences as authoritative, irrespective of whether they were apostles or Bible writers (e.g. Philip, Stephen, Barnabas, Agabus, Ananias and James). Once God’s words were received and discerned, they were seen to be reliable enough to act upon in expectation of fulfilment. Their testimonies provide us with clear principles for hearing God in the contemporary church. We cannot ignore them.

And yet oddly we do. In spite of their prevalence in the Bible, these experiences are rarely addressed by academics in the Protestant arena.¹⁰ Grudem’s emphasis on the specialist gift of prophecy to the exclusion of everyday revelatory experience is typical of scholars. Part of it has to do with a tradition that values the teaching of the epistles over the New Testament narratives and a mistrust in deriving theology from stories. But if we are to talk about how to hear, recognise and respond to God’s voice today, we must take into account how the early Christians heard, recognised and responded to God’s voice. After all, it is their revelatory experiences that form the backdrop of the epistles.¹¹

In spite of the problems, the idea of an ‘inferior quality’ for contemporary experience has been adopted by most evangelical Christians in the West, including those in Charismatic and Pentecostal churches. This is a better place to land than cessationism. However, it is still a modified form of cessationism. It is good, but not as good. We maintain a belief in the ability to hear the Spirit’s voice but lose the fullness of its power. It also means that we don’t take hearing from the Spirit as seriously as we should. We make it an add-on rather than an essential part of the normal Christian life. It may bring ‘strength, comfort and encouragement’ (see 1 Cor. 14:3), but it has a low priority in the discipleship process.

As we’ve seen, the good-but-not-as-good position also leaves us with serious problems when applied to the practice of hearing God’s voice. Without a framework that assumes consistency with the biblical characters, people end up applying ‘discontinuous’ thinking to understand their experience and, in doing so, say one thing and practise another.¹² They say their experience isn’t ‘authoritative’, but then they act as though it is by obeying it and expecting it to come to pass. The good-but-not-as-good position simply doesn’t work. It’s as if one of our legs has been broken by cessationism but hasn’t been properly reset, and now we walk with a limp. It is time to adjust our thinking. Either we can hear from God in the same way as the biblical characters could, or we can’t. If we can, then we must follow the same practices as the biblical characters. Only then can the stories and testimonies of Scripture truly become our model.

4. ‘This is that’

The final theological framework in our discussion allows for the fullness of the Spirit’s voice to continue today without compromising the uniqueness of the Bible. This approach sees no phenomenological distinction between biblical and contemporary experiences. That is, we can hear from God today in the same way as the New Testament church did. It may be surprising to learn that this fourth perspective is found in the Catholic tradition.

Our reference point here is the Day of Pentecost when the apostle Peter proclaimed his famed words to the crowd: ‘this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel’ (Acts 2:16, kjv). God’s promise of the communicating Spirit was for people of all nations and generations. The voice of God that spoke to the Old Covenant prophets and the New Testament church is still the voice that speaks today. The Spirit speaks to continue the mission and ministry of Jesus. This means that the forms and patterns of revelation depicted in the early church continue in today’s church. The Bible itself is a collection of God-conversations – the ‘journals’ of people who heard from God and responded to it. It provides us with the models we need in order to understand and respond to our own experiences.

The ‘this is that’ position is based on the principle of consistency. This consistency applies first to God. It assumes that God’s ways of working haven’t changed. The God who spoke to the prophets aligns with the God who spoke through the incarnate Jesus and the Spirit in the early church. God continues to speak with love, power and authority. His voice still expresses the divine character, will and plans. Just as God spoke to the early church to apply the message of Jesus to the Greco-Roman setting, God speaks to the contemporary church to apply the message of Jesus to ours.

Where experience and theology meet

The fourth ‘this is that’ position was the one I arrived at when contemplating my interstate move back in 2002. It made sense that if God was the ‘same yesterday and today and for ever’ (Heb. 13:8), the divine principles embedded in the lives of the biblical characters could be applied to my life. So, I resigned from my two jobs, farewelled my home and moved to Sydney.

It wasn’t easy, but as I acted in obedience and faith, I saw God’s hand moving pieces of the puzzle together. One by one, the picture took shape. Watching God’s words come to pass was breathtaking. At every step, I witnessed his genius manoeuvres and piercing foresight. Even though my story was vastly different from that of Peter, Paul and other biblical characters, the same patterns remained. God was still faithful, sovereign and deeply personal. Hearing, recognising and responding to God’s voice not only helped to build the college in Sydney; it also transformed my life. The kingdom of God moved forward and I began to know God in ways I had never experienced before.

It was experiences like these that also led me to study for a PhD in practical theology. I longed to fill the gap between academia and practice that I had discovered as an undergraduate student in the Bible college library. Driven by a deep conviction that theology must work, my goal was to address the problems created by the ‘inferior position’, as well as to understand why the cessationist church believed as it did. From my vantage point, they have tragically missed out.

The field of practical theology is unique in that it takes Spirit-experience seriously. Practice and theology meet together as scholars bring the voice of everyday people into dialogue with experts. This approach is based on the simple idea that ‘everyone’s a theologian’.¹³ Whether we are aware of it or not, we are all constantly reflecting on how God is working in our lives. This ‘ordinary theology’ is worked out in the context of everyday circumstances and church traditions, rather than just by theologians, who may be removed from them.¹⁴ It values the insights people have gained from their experience because it assumes that the Spirit operates consistently in us all.

The data from my study was gathered over a nine-month period and involved listening to the ‘ordinary theology’ of people from three different Pentecostal churches as they reflected on their own ‘hearing God’ experiences. Each interview lasted up to an hour and involved questions such as: How did you hear God’s voice? How did you know it was God? What happened afterwards? After recording, transcribing and collating the findings, I identified notable patterns and themes. Then I examined them closely in the light of the four theological perspectives and the experiences of Scripture.

In the end, my research provided the answers to many of my original questions. Some were surprising; others were not. Many of them challenged the ideas of those I was raised with. Others provided solutions to the problems we face in our churches. The problems of Spirit-revelatory encounters have not gone away. My own experience with the ministry of God Conversations has been a constant reminder of the widespread confusion throughout the global church. I have seen evidence of cessationism and its impact. I’ve heard the tales of disillusionment and defeat. Experience continues to be held at arm’s length in the name of theology. We need to address the problems that Luther faced, deal with the dilemma of Joseph Smith and learn from the story of the murdered abortion doctor. We need to maintain the vital role of the Scriptures while still allowing the Spirit to speak as powerfully to us as he did to those in the first century.

***

Some people find theology a daunting topic. Perhaps it is because we tend to complexify what is really rather simple. Theology is simply our ideas of how God works. This is why this chapter, though theoretical, is so important. Whether we realise it or not, our thinking about hearing God starts with our theology of Spirit and Scripture.

In this chapter we’ve seen that there are four different approaches to the contemporary revelatory experience. These diverge at the point where Scripture comes to the fore. Either we see continuity with the experiences of the biblical characters or we see discontinuity with them.

Bringing experience and theology together also allows us to address the theological and ministry problems that threaten the potential of our prized New Covenant gift. Some of these solutions will become apparent in Part II. Others will be addressed in Part III, ‘Strategies for Building the Church Who Hears God’s Voice’. There are answers to our questions. There are solutions to our problems. Good theology always works.

PR

Notes

^[1] James I. Packer, God’s Words (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1981), p. 39.

^[2] Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000), Kindle edition: location 98.

^[3] Douglas Oss, ‘A Pentecostal/Charismatic View’, in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? (ed. Wayne A. Grudem; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), p. 239.

^[4] Tucker, God Talk, p. 64.

^[5] John F. MacArthur Jr, Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), p. 64.

^[6] See Jon Mark Ruthven, ‘“This Is My Covenant with Them”: Isaiah 59.19–21 as the Programmatic Prophecy of the New Covenant in the Acts of the Apostles (Part 2)’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 17 (2008): pp. 219–37; and Jon Mark Ruthven, ‘“This Is My Covenant with Them”: Isaiah 59.19–21 as the Programmatic Prophecy of the New Covenant in the Acts of the Apostles (Part 1)’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 17 (2008): pp. 32–47.

^[7] Matthew Engelke, A Problem of Presence (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007), pp. 1–2.

^[8] Engelke, Problem of Presence, p. 5.

^[9] James K.A. Smith, ‘The Closing of the Book: Pentecostals, Evangelicals, and the Sacred Writings’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 11 (1997): p. 59; Daniel E. Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit: A Ritual Approach to Pentecostal/Charismatic Spirituality (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), p. 246.

^[10] As observed by Robert E. Sears in ‘Dreams and Christian Conversion: Gleanings from a Pentecostal Church Context in Nepal’, Mission Studies 35 (2018): pp. 183–203. Recent exceptions include Anna Marie Droll’s work on dreams and visions in Africa, ‘“Piercing the Veil” and African Dreams and Visions: In Quest of the Pneumatological Imagination’, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 40 (2018): pp. 345–65; and John B.F. Miller’s work in biblical studies, Convinced That God Had Called Us: Dreams, Visions and the Perception of God’s Will in Luke-Acts (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007).

^[11] Paul explicitly mentions his own Spirit experiences on multiple occasions: 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; 2 Cor. 12:1–7; Gal. 1:11–16.

^[12] Cecil M. Robeck Jr highlights this disconnect between theory and practice in ‘Written Prophecies: A Question of Authority’, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 2 (1980): pp. 26–45.

^[13] Pete Ward, Introducing Practical Theology: Mission, Ministry, and the Life of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017).

^[14] For further discussion of this theory, see Jeff Astley, Ordinary Theology: Looking, Listening and Learning in Theology (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002).

Author’s bookstore page (where you may download and read an additional sample chapter): https://www.godconversations.com/product/the-church-who-hears-gods-voice/

Copyright © 2022 Tania Harris
Paternoster is an imprint of Authentic Media Ltd
PO Box 6326, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK1 9GG, UK.
authenticmedia.co.uk
The right of Tania Harris to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved.

For Christians who believe in the continuing gifts of the Spirit, testing national prophecies is a tricky task. In every election cycle, there are prophets announcing who the Lord’s pick is, and which candidate will win. In 2012, for instance, the prophetic consensus was that Mitt Romney was the Lord’s choice and that he would win. They were wrong.

In the 2016 election, Trump emerged as the prophets’ pick. As early as 2007, Kim Clement had delivered a prophecy that God would “raise up the Trump to become a trumpet.”[1] In 2011, ex-fireman Mark Taylor received a series of visions and locutions stating that Trump would become president and was chosen by God to bring America back to righteousness and its true Christian calling.[2] In July 2015, Charisma magazine published a prophecy by Jeremiah Johnson that God was raising up Trump to be a Cyrus figure in the 2016 election, and that Trump would be like “a bull in a china closet”[3] (Cyrus was a pagan king who was anointed by God to return the Jews to their homeland). In fall 2015, businessman Lance Wallnau prophesied that Trump was God’s “chaos candidate” and would be a “wrecking ball to political correctness.”[4] Numerous other, lesser-known prophetic people also reported dreams and visions showing that the Lord had a special purpose in Trump becoming president.

These prophecies played a large role in gathering charismatic support behind Trump and eventually securing his victory.  Looking back, did these prophets truly hear from the Lord? Or did soulish “wish for” prophecies lead to an outcome that was not, in fact, what the Lord had intended?

As we head into the 2020 election, how should believers weigh the Trump prophecies? Should we take them at face value and conclude that Trump is the Lord’s anointed, and so vote for him, because to do otherwise would be to oppose the Lord? Or should we view them skeptically and vote on other criteria, such as the candidates’ character and position on relevant issues?

A Discerning Voice

In his new book, On Discerning Trump’s Character and Presidency:  A Theological Reflection on How False Prophecy Influenced American Politics, historian William De Arteaga offers insight on these questions. For those familiar with De Arteaga’s excellent book Quenching the Spirit, it comes as no surprise that De Arteaga brings his considerable grasp of history and discernment literature, as well as his penetrating insight, to this work.

The first three-quarters of the book are actually not about discerning the prophecies themselves, but about discerning Trump’s character and his presidency. De Arteaga also traces what he sees as the decline of culture and of the Republican Party that made Trump’s presidency possible. While this may seem like a detour, it lays important groundwork for De Arteaga’s ultimate argument that the prophecies were wholly or in part false.

De Arteaga begins with an assessment of Trump’s character. Like others before him, he blasts Trump’s habitual reviling of opponents, his “aggressive speech and uncharitable tweets and off the cuff remarks” (14), and how these behaviors have contributed to the decline of civility and reasoned discourse in American politics. He questions how a man who frequently lies can be trusted. De Arteaga expresses disappointment that Christians would excuse and even embrace Trump’s immoral behavior and links this attitude to antinomianism – the heresy that conduct does not matter so long as one confesses Jesus as Lord. The analysis in this section is erudite and well-reasoned, but not especially novel if you’ve followed other criticisms of Trump in National Review, First Things, etc.

De Arteaga then traces the events that led to American Christians’ increasing sense of persecution by mainstream culture and secular authority to the point that many viewed 2016 (to borrow Michael Anton’s arresting metaphor) as the “Flight 93 Election.” The increasing secularization of education and popular culture, Supreme Court decisions and liberal legislation chipping away at traditional understandings of the family and sexuality, and the eradication of Christian values in schools led to a situation in which many American Christians felt they needed to turn the tide at any cost.

Prophecy

The most interesting part of the book is where De Arteaga specifically looks at the Trump prophecies and compares them with instances of false prophecy by sincere Christians in the past.

De Arteaga insightfully points out that evangelicals and charismatics tend to be largely ahistorical:

Many charismatic and non-denominational churches are a-historical: they have little or no understanding of Church history. They usually pay much attention to Scripture, but assume that, for instance, the “Catholic” period of the Church is so full of error it is not worth learning about. The Patristic period of the Church Fathers, and their wonderful discernment writing might as well have been written for another planet and race of beings. (83)

This ahistorical approach to Christianity has serious consequences. As is often said, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. False prophecy is not a new phenomenon. As early as 170 AD, the prophet Montanus prophesied the imminent return of Christ and led many believers astray. While the Catholic Church has dealt with its share of false prophecies, the regular stream of monks, nuns, and laypeople receiving visions and personal revelations led to the development of a rich literature of discernment. Spiritual directors arose to mentor prophetic people and help them discern which revelations came from the Lord, their flesh, or the devil.

De Arteaga discusses the very interesting example of David Wilkerson’s false prophecy, The Vision. De Arteaga does not doubt that Wilkerson was a very anointed minister who bore great fruit for the Kingdom; however, his apocalyptic predictions for 1973-1983 largely proved false. They were based upon “the fears, prejudices, and belief structures of his own subconscious mind and those in his immediate faith community” (76).

De Arteaga makes a strong case that many of the Trump prophecies fit the same pattern. Many of Mark Taylor’s prophecies, for instance, demonize Democratic leaders and unambiguously paint them as evil. They cater to right-wing fears, such as Obama’s intent to strip the people of their guns or run for a third term in violation of the Constitution. And some have proven false with time – for example, the prophecy that Obama would be forcibly stripped of his office instead of leaving gracefully with dignity. De Arteaga’s analysis of the Taylor prophecies is fascinating, and I wish that he had devoted more attention to the other prophets that foretold Trump’s presidency.

In the end, De Arteaga comes to a very nuanced conclusion. He neither says that all of the Trump prophecies were categorically false, nor does he say that they were all true. Rather, he concludes that they may have contained true revelation from the Lord, which got diluted with soulish concerns and wishes. The kernel of truth may have been what led charismatic leaders to embrace the prophecies, and Trump. Nonetheless, De Arteaga chastises charismatic leaders for what has been, for the most part, uncritical support of the President. Even if Trump is anointed by God for a special purpose, the Bible gives precedent for prophets speaking truth to anointed kings. For instance, David was the Lord’s anointed, and yet the prophet Nathan confronted his sin. De Arteaga urges prophetic leaders to fulfill this aspect of their function.

On the other hand, De Arteaga also raises the possibility that perhaps all of the Trump prophecies were false, even demonically inspired, and that following them has led to grave damage in the Body of Christ and to our nation. Many will disagree, but it is a sobering possibility to consider. Whatever you think of President Trump and the Trump prophecies, De Arteaga’s book is a worthwhile and thought-provoking treatment of an important subject.

Reviewed by Esther Tsai

Notes

[1] https://www.charismamag.com/video/40242-2007-kim-clement-prophecy-says-president-will-be-baptized-in-holy-spirit-build-the-wall-win-second-term.

[2] Mark Taylor and Mary Colbert, The Trump Prophecies (Defender Publishing, 2017).

[3] Jeremiah Johnson, “Prophecy: Donald Trump Shall Become the Trumpet,” Prophetic Insight, (July 28, 2015),  https://charismamail.com/ga/webviews/4-864964-30-224-231-371-9d7ae3cdab.

[4] Dr. Lance Wallnau, God’s Chaos Candidate: Donald J. Trump and the American Unraveling (Killer Sheep Media, Inc., 2016), 7.

Introduction to the latest issue of AJPS, 22:2, from Dave Johnson.

In this issue of the Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies we are pursuing a more general theme called Theological Issues in Asia. While a multitude of issues could be chosen, our intent here is to allow the various authors to define the issues for the contexts in which they serve. The Journal is downloadable for free at www.aptspress.org.

Jacqueline Grey, an Old Testament scholar who served as an Australian missionary in a Muslim majority nation for three years, opens this edition by discussing the concept of the Missio Dei (Mission of God), limiting her treatment to Isaiah 6:1-9:6.

Prudencio Coz, a Filipino pastor, opens his article by posing the question, “What is the difference between Monday morning and Sunday?’ He then deals with the issue of vocation and its reciprocal economic and spiritual implications.

Korean scholar Sang Yun Lee, drawing from his book, A Theology of Hope: Contextual Perspectives in Korean Pentecostalism (Baguio City, Philippines: APTS Press, 2018), takes a serious look at Yonggi Cho’s well-known Three Fold Blessing theology. Originally formulated and taught in the context of the devastation of post-war Korea, Lee contends that Cho’s message needs to be recontextualized to address the ecclesiastical and sociological challenges of the 21st century.

Myanmar pastor Stephen Shwe concludes this edition with a two-part article dealing with the tension between zeal and knowledge, especially when it comes to theological education or ministerial training.

The entire Journal team joins me in wishing you and your families a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

In Christ,

Dave Johnson, DMiss
Managing Editor

Missionary-scholar Jim Harries looks at the inherent difficulty in packaging and teaching theology in language translated from another culture.

This short article suggests that there are three possible translation-options when theological education from the West is transferred to Africa. None of those options are very satisfactory. The article concludes that a people need to engage theological education using their own languages.

Conflicting Understandings: Africa and the West

I offer some examples below of ways in which foundational understandings differ in parts of Africa with many people in the West:

• Western theology tells us that God can forgive sin.[1] Sin can be considered “an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.”[2] Sin, therefore, is an offence against God. In much of Africa people are more in fear of offending fellow community members than they are of offending God. People fear the shame that arises from condemnation by their community. To be discovered as having done something that one’s community disapproves of, is considered much more of a serious offence than to have done something that God does not approve of. Because acts can be performed secretly, an important means of discerning whether someone has offended their community is to look at the level of their prosperity. If someone ceases to prosper, perhaps showing visible signs of illness or poverty, then the cause for that can easily be assumed to be some secret shameful offence. The way to overcome shame, then, is to prosper. When African people discover that God forgives sin, that sets up the expectation that he will undo shame. Then that they will be healed and will emerge from their state of misfortune. A forgiven person should prosper. Someone will demonstrate their forgiveness through prospering. This common-sense understanding, according to African people, is often interpreted by Western theologians as being the prosperity Gospel, which they consider to be a very misleading teaching.

• James 5:14-16 reads as follows: “Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” This passage, as others, makes it clear that sickness can be caused by sin. Matthew 9:1-8 also illustrates this clearly. In the Bible, especially the New Testament, the treatment for sickness is often forgiveness. Disease being caused by sin, one would expect the forgiveness of sins to be linked to healing. The plain reading of many New Testament examples affirms this. Yet the emphasis for healing from the perspective of Western Christians focuses on the use of bio-medicines.
  ]]> https://pneumareview.com/transmission-trouble-clashes-in-english-language-theological-education-in-africa/feed/ 0 https://pneumareview.com/symposium-on-the-holy-spirit-and-theological-education-2019/ https://pneumareview.com/symposium-on-the-holy-spirit-and-theological-education-2019/#comments Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:08:04 +0000 http://pneumareview.com/?p=15597

  When: Thursday, October 24 through Friday, October 25

  Where: Place Ballroom, Potter’s House of Dallas

   

  I would like to invite you to the “Symposium on the Holy Spirit and Theological Education” at Jakes Divinity School in Dallas, TX. The symposium will be held at the Potter’s House of Dallas in the PLACE Ballroom, Thursday – Friday, October 24 and 25, 2019. We will convene a few of the nations erudite scholars to help us think deeply about theological education that transforms the challenges of our world.

  Join Bishop TD Jakes and me, as we welcome Dr. Yolanda Pierce, Dr. Leonard Sweet, and a host of other thinkers for this symposium.

  The “Symposium on the Holy Spirit and Theological Education” is an annual academic forum that invites a general Christian audience, pastors, ministers, and theological students from around the world, scholars, and JDS students to participate in conversations that promise to be intellectually stimulating and theologically challenging. At the same time, it will inform Christian leadership and practice.

  Registration is $85. It includes all sessions, the opening dinner Thursday evening, a light breakfast Friday morning and a boxed lunch during the closing panel discussion.

  I truly hope you are able to join us. If so, please go ahead and register here. This symposium will be one of a kind!

  Sincerely,

  Dr. Antipas

  ]]> https://pneumareview.com/symposium-on-the-holy-spirit-and-theological-education-2019/feed/ 0 https://pneumareview.com/pentecostal-theological-education-asia-pacific-theological-seminary/ https://pneumareview.com/pentecostal-theological-education-asia-pacific-theological-seminary/#comments Thu, 10 Aug 2017 21:36:10 +0000 http://pneumareview.com/?p=13376 Asia Pacific Theological Seminary

  What does Spirit-filled education look like around the world? Dave Johnson, part of the faculty and leadership at Asia Pacific Theological Seminary, introduces us to the school and the state of education in the Asia Pacific region of the world. Part of the Pentecostal Theological Education Around the World series from PneumaReview.com.

   

  Introduction

  Let me begin by introducing our school, the Asia Pacific Theological Seminary (APTS) (www.apts.edu) and the Asia Pacific Region (www.agwm.org/asia-pacific.html) . For our purposes here, the Asia Pacific region includes all of the countries from Mongolia in the north to New Zealand in the south and the small island nations in the Pacific Ocean.

  Located in Baguio City, Philippines, APTS is the Assemblies of God regional school for advanced theological education in the Asia Pacific Region with over 1,500 alumni, mostly Asians, who are serving in various capacities all over the region and the rest of the world. We currently have around 144 students from various church backgrounds who come from twenty-nine different countries and are served by a resident international faculty from the USA, New Zealand, China, Malaysia, S. Korea, Japan, Myanmar, Taiwan, and the Philippines.

   

  How readily available is theological education for Pentecostals in your region?

  I cannot speak for other groups, but my own denomination, the Assemblies of God (AG), has around 101 Bible schools that serve students just over 30,000 AG churches and numerous students from other groups.[1] These figures do not include China, where the Assemblies of God does not exist as an ecclesiastical entity. One writer noted that China may have as many as 1,000 “underground” Bible schools that serve the house church movement, but this number can surely only be an educated guess since, to my knowledge, no actual statistics are available. However, since the church in China is overwhelmingly Pentecostal or Charismatic, it is safe to assume that most of these schools are also.[2]

   

  What are some of the greatest obstacles to Spirit-filled theological education in your culture and location?

  There is a lot of false teaching and misunderstanding regarding the person and work of the Holy Spirit. At APTS, we address this issue by teaching sound doctrine in our classrooms, chapels and our publications. Yet there is much work to be done.

  Since we have students from so many countries and since English is the most popular second language across Asia, we require the students to be able to read and write English at a master’s degree level. This requires that we offer English classes to help the students to gain greater proficiency and this is quite a struggle for many of our students, although most ultimately succeed.

  ]]> https://pneumareview.com/pentecostal-theological-education-asia-pacific-theological-seminary/feed/ 0 https://pneumareview.com/jelle-creemers-theological-dialogue-with-classical-pentecostals/ https://pneumareview.com/jelle-creemers-theological-dialogue-with-classical-pentecostals/#comments Sat, 06 May 2017 21:23:58 +0000 http://pneumareview.com/?p=13095 Jelle Creemers, Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals: Challenges and Opportunities, Ecclesiological Investigations 23 (New York and London: Bloomsbury/T & T Clark, 2015), x + 320 pages.

  The Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue has completed five rounds since it was launched in 1971. Each round has consisted of weeklong or so meetings for five or more years, followed in the last three rounds by multiple years of drafting and rewriting of the final reports. The first two rounds (1971-1976 and 1977-1982, with 1978 being a bye year due to the unexpected death of Pope John Paul I) engaged assorted topics of mutual interest, while the last three rounds have been more thematically focused: on the nature of the church (1985-1989), on evangelization and proselytism (1990-1997), and on becoming a Christian (1998-2006).

  Dialogue that works toward understanding – not any watered down synthesis.

  Creemers teaches at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit in Leuven, Belgium, where he also completed his PhD degree that is the basis for this book. Whereas a number of other volumes have been published on one or more rounds of the Dialogue, this is the first one that covers the five completed rounds of discussion, and it is also the only to focus on the question of theological method. At one level, followers of the Pneuma Review might consider this a rather dispensable exercise. Pentecostal ministers especially are doers rather than theoreticians and considerations of method seem quite speculative and abstract. Even if readers might be interested in the topics taken up in the Dialogues, Creemers’ reflections might seem beside the point (of evangelism, for example!). Yet I encourage potential readers, especially Pentecostal clergy, to withhold judgment for three reasons. First, there have been many who have argued that Pentecostals are ecumenical even if they might deny or not even realize this, and if that is the case, engaging this volume will provide one fascinating point of entry into the what (is ecumenism) and why (Pentecostals are such) of this important set of issues related to unity that Jesus prayed for. Second, the writing opens up to a narrative of the Dialogues, and in that sense there is an unfolding of a plot full of twists and turns involving primary agents (who were present in many if not most of the rounds) and other secondary characters (those participants in two rounds or only one) that might be unanticipated for theological books. Last but not least, to think about the methodological underpinnings of these exercises provides another window into the nature of Pentecostal spirituality and realities that the movement’s practitioners and ministers will find informative, especially vis-à-vis their own efforts to comprehend themselves theologically.

  There have been many who have argued that Pentecostals are ecumenical, even if they might deny or not even realize it.

  So what does Creemers find? Or, first, how does he go about looking for Pentecostal theological method when such is rarely or never made explicit? There are four main chapters in the body of the book through which the quest is undertaken. First, Creemers profiles how members of the Pentecostal Dialogue teams have attempted to understand themselves as a conversionist, revivalist, and restorationist movement, and how such starting points already chart certain methodological trajectories. Second, efforts – contested, as the book portrays – to adequately represent a quite diverse worldwide Pentecostal movement in the dialogue teams are indicative of how an egalitarian set of ecclesiological sensibilities generates a fragmented movement and this also has methodological implications, not least for how the Dialogues have unfolded. Third, then, Creemers analyzes one weeklong session within each of the five rounds – the second year, because that is when the main topics are presented for that round of dialogues – and unveils how reading and exposition of papers have been followed by “hard questions” raised by both sides to the other for discussion (first intra-murally and then inter-murally) in order to clarify perspectives, identify differences, and anticipate possible convergences or ways forward. Finally, the aims, sources, and approaches of each of rounds of Dialogue are assessed, in chronological order, and then also vis-à-vis their Final Reports.
  ]]> https://pneumareview.com/jelle-creemers-theological-dialogue-with-classical-pentecostals/feed/ 0 https://pneumareview.com/pentecostal-theological-education-indonesia/ https://pneumareview.com/pentecostal-theological-education-indonesia/#comments Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:14:15 +0000 http://pneumareview.com/?p=12977

  What does Spirit-filled education look like around the world? Theologian and educator, Ekaputra Tupamahu speaks with PneumaReview.com about Pentecostal theological education in Indonesia. Part of the Pentecostal Theological Education Around the World series.

   

  PneumaReview.com: When did American Pentecostal missionaries start to go to Indonesia?

  Ekaputra Tupamahu: To make a long story short, early American Pentecostal missionaries, especially the van Klaveren dan Groesbeek families from Seattle, came to Indonesia in the 1920s, which was about 14 years after the Azusa Street Revival. It is important to note, however, that some ministry work had already been done by Dutch Pentecostals prior to the coming of the Americans.

   

  PneumaReview.com: Were the missionaries from a particular denomination or were there representatives from various Pentecostal groups?

  Ekaputra Tupamahu: Early American missionaries in Indonesia came from various Pentecostal groups such as Assemblies of God, Pentecostal Church of God in America, and other groups.

   

  PneumaReview.com: Did the missionaries focus on one particular area of Indonesia or were they spread out in different parts of the country?

  Ekaputra Tupamahu: They focused on many different parts of the country. Some missionaries (e.g., William Arnold Parson, Eugene Loving, Ralph Devin, etc.) worked in the eastern part of Indonesia. The Short family worked primarily in Kalimantan. The Busby family focused on the western part of Indonesia, especially in North Sumatra.

   

  How long after their arrival in Indonesia did American Pentecostal missionaries start schools for theological education and what was their purpose for starting these schools?

  Ekaputra Tupamahu: Well, when the first Assemblies of God missionary, Kenneth Short, arrived in Indonesia, he immediately planned on establishing a Bible school. Almost all Assemblies of God missionaries focused their worked on planting and developing theological schools in Indonesia.

   

  PneumaReview.com: Did the founders of these schools have advanced theological degrees?

  Ekaputra Tupamahu: If “advanced theological degrees” means graduate degrees (master or doctoral degrees), then the answer is “no.” Most, if not all, of them didn’t have such degrees themselves. They were mainly trained in a Bible Institute setting. So the goal of theological training in Indonesia has been mainly for evangelism and pastoral purposes, not for producing theological scholars or academicians, which is a reflection of these missionaries’ training. In the past 15 years, we have begun to see more Pentecostal missionaries with master’s degrees and PhD’s in Indonesia.

   

  PneumaReview.com: Are any of the schools that can trace their roots back to the early missionaries still operational today?

  Ekaputra Tupamahu: I can speak about Assemblies of God schools in Indonesia. Yes, most of them can trace their roots back to the early American missionaries.

   

  PneumaReview.com: Has any of your own theological education been in a school founded by the early Pentecostal missionaries?

  Ekaputra Tupamahu: I did my undergrad at an Assemblies of God Bible school, namely Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Satyabhakti, in the city of Malang, East Java. The school was founded by two female American missionaries, Marcella Dorf and Margareth Brown in 1955. Speaking of the role of women in ministry, that school was the testimony of the fruit of their labor. It has produced so many pastors, missionaries, church leaders, and teachers in Indonesia.

  ]]> https://pneumareview.com/pentecostal-theological-education-indonesia/feed/ 0 https://pneumareview.com/pentecostal-theological-education-fire-school-of-ministry/ https://pneumareview.com/pentecostal-theological-education-fire-school-of-ministry/#comments Sat, 11 Mar 2017 13:08:19 +0000 http://pneumareview.com/?p=12870 FIRE School of Ministry

  

  What does Spirit-filled education look like around the world? Brandon Paul, Director of Academic Affairs for FIRE School of Ministry, gives a brief sketch of the school and how they prepare men and women for ministry that makes a difference in the USA and beyond. Part of the Pentecostal Theological Education Around the World series from PneumaReview.com.

  Introduction

  FIRE School of Ministry is a post-secondary ministry school, located near Charlotte, North Carolina. Our primary focus is on equipping believers who want to serve the Lord in some ministry capacity. International missions work is a major emphasis, although many of our students are looking to remain in the United States and serve in pastoral ministry, worship, evangelism, etc. This interview has been completed by Brandon Paul, Director of Academic Affairs.

   

  What are some of the greatest obstacles to Spirit-filled theological education in your nation? 

  Obviously there are many obstacles to Christian education in general, but those specifically related to Pentecostal/Charismatic education would include:

  • Many are hesitant to embrace prophecy, tongues, healing, etc., because of excesses, mistakes, and weaknesses they have seen in the Charismatic Movement at large (e.g. inaccurate prophecies, extreme prosperity gospel preaching).
  • The Charismatic/Pentecostal movement is very fragmented.

   

  What are the greatest doctrinal challenges that you face in your country? 

  Many could be listed. Some of the more prominent ones would include:

  • Divorce and remarriage
  • Eschatology
  • Homosexuality
  • Postmodernism
  • Prosperity and wealth
  • Theodicy
  • Women in Ministry/Leadership

   

  What major themes do you stress as you train students for ministry? 

  Some of our major themes include:

  • Biblical studies
  • Compassion for the lost and hurting
  • Intimacy with God.
  • Integrity and Christlikeness
  • Passion for revival and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit
  • Valuing community, relationships, mentoring
  • Walking in the power of the Spirit

   

  What fruit have you seen in the lives of those who have prepared for ministry at your school?

  We have scores of graduates serving internationally, working in areas such as church planting, orphanages, combating human trafficking, community development, and education.  We also have graduates serving in the United States in pastoral ministry, music ministry, traveling evangelism, etc. Some go on to further education elsewhere.

   

  From the FIRE School of Ministry website:

  Does your heart burn to make a difference in this generation?

  If you are a radically committed follower of Jesus who wants to be equipped to fulfill your destiny in God…

  … check out FIRE School of Ministry!

  FIRE School of Ministry is a leadership training institute, birthed out of the fires of revival, which is called to equip authentic and devoted disciples of Jesus who have a burning desire to love, serve God and impact their world. Students are grounded in the Word of God, bathed in intimacy with Jesus, stretched in faith, immersed in the Spirit, and practically equipped for life and ministry.

  Modern culture is in a serious crisis, the church at large is greatly compromised, and the needs of the world continue to be staggering. There is a critical need today for fully-equipped, solidly-grounded, specially-trained, radically-committed leaders to arise and FSM is the ideal place to be trained.

  ]]> https://pneumareview.com/pentecostal-theological-education-fire-school-of-ministry/feed/ 0 https://pneumareview.com/pentecostal-theological-education-latin-america-theological-seminary/ https://pneumareview.com/pentecostal-theological-education-latin-america-theological-seminary/#comments Sun, 20 Nov 2016 19:31:20 +0000 http://pneumareview.com/?p=12456

  What does Spirit-filled education look like around the world? The President of Facultad de Teología, Allen Martin, tells us how this seminary is training men and women across the Spanish-speaking world. Part of the Pentecostal Theological Education Around the World series from PneumaReview.com.

  My name is Allen Martin and I have been a missionary with the Assemblies of God for the last 25 years. For over 20 of those years we worked with church planting and Bible School education among the Quichua Indians in the Andes Mountains of Ecuador. At present I am the President of the Facultad de Teología de las Asambleas de Dios en America Latina (in English: the Latin America Theological Seminary/LATS). I am also currently working on a Ph.D. in Intercultural Studies at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary.

  Facultad de Teología was born of the desire of Latin Americans who had graduated from the Instituto de Superación Ministerial/ISUM (Latin America Advanced School of Theology/LAAST) to continue their ministerial training. LATS was designed to offer advanced training to recognized church leaders by delivering on- site, intensive month-long modules, in easily accessible regional locations at a reasonable cost, thereby minimizing the time students would be away from families and ministry. The uniqueness of the program provides for mutual learning, mentoring, counseling, encouragement, friendship, growth and prayer as professors and students live, study and eat together.

  We are a Pentecostal seminary (Assemblies of God) whose aim is to train and equip Spanish speaking Pastors and leaders in all of Latin America. Because many Latin countries have a high percentage of native Indian groups we also a higher percentage of Indian students who study with us in those regions.

  Bible school education in the Assemblies of God in Spanish speaking Latin America is set up in such a way that the first three years of Bible Institute studies are taught under the direction of the national church in each country. Each of those 3 year bible institutes uses what is known as the Basic Plan as their model. The Basic Plan was developed by and is regularly revised and updated by an international team of educators, many of whom are career missionaries. In order to graduate with a four year BA degree the 4^th year of theological studies are then studied in a series of four, one month-long, live-in modules taught by a roving faculty called ISUM. We at the Facultad de Teología then offer the next level of theological training, it is the Master’s degree level. Similar to ISUM, our program involves 5, three week long live-in modules and the writing of a thesis, project or a published book at the end of their studies with us. Also similar to ISUM we hold our modules in bible school facilities in countries that are strategically located allowing for students to come from surrounding countries to study. We currently hold modules in 11 countries, including: Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, México, Dominican Republic and Cuba as well as having two centers here in the United States (Springfield, MO & La Puente, CA).

  ]]> https://pneumareview.com/pentecostal-theological-education-latin-america-theological-seminary/feed/ 0