Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Pentecostal/ Charismatic


by 18 Comments

Why I am a P/pentecostal (Pt. 1d)

Brian LePort, JohnDave Medina, and Joshua Smith have all gone before me, writing on why they would identify as either E/evangelical, Roman Catholic, or Mennonite.

In this post, I will discuss my religious experience, Pentecostalism, how it is elusive to identity (and why that is an identity) and characteristics of a Pentecostal worldview.

Growing Up

Since my earliest years I have been in either neo-Pentecostal or Classical Pentecostal churches. At around the age of six, my parents started taking me to Christian Life Center, a large, multicultural, Classical Pentecostal, Assemblies of God community. It was in this community that I first became aware of God’s presence. Particularly in Children’s Church, I had encounters with the Holy Spirit that have shaped me. Much of who and what I believe today was because the encounters I had at those tear and snot drenched altars. These encounters continued throughout my younger years – whether in children’s church, youth group, adult service, or what was considered the promised land by most Pentecostal teenagers – youth camp.

Pentecostal worshipAt the age of 12, my dad became the outreach pastor at this church. Thus, involvement in church only escalated. The goal of my parents was and is to make the lives of the less-fortunate look a little more like the eschatalogical new heavens and earth by bringing the message of salvation, along with clothing, food, furniture, pool parties and cook-outs. Yes, I said pool parties and cook-outs (Pentecostals like, no, love food). Around this time I began playing drums for the youth group. Fast forward five years later and I’m interning, teaching Sunday school, and leading prayer meetings.

And then – seemingly out of the blue –  I found myself doubting everything: God’s existence (and if he does exist, does he love me?), denominational identity, calling. Shortly thereafter, I began studying theology at Southeastern University. While I was studying there, I attended various churches. First, an emerging esque Christian & Missionary Alliance community. Thereafter I became a youth pastor at an Assemblies of God church. Sometime after this, I started attending the CMA church again, and then ended up serving as an intern at a liturgical Presbyterian church for almost two years. Still, after all of the diverse denominational experience, I consider myself P/pentecostal.

P/pentecostal? 

What does it mean to be a “Pentecostal”? Much like Brian with Evangelicalism, I’m hesitant to use the term “Pentecostalism” with an upper-case “P”. Why?  Well, there doesn’t seem to be a solid definition of what “Pentecostalism” is. Discussing Pentecostal identity is extremely nuanced. In discussing this matter, sociological and historical matters are almost as important – if not as important – as theology. In the West, Classical Pentecostal groups such as the Assemblies of God – my clan -, the Church of God, and the Church of God in Christ have attempted to define Pentecostalism by doctrinal affirmations. Defining markers of these groups are speaking in tongues and a pre-millenial eschatology. To the contrary, Pentecostal groups in the global South typically have a larger umbrella and would probably define Pentecostalism more as a way of doing theology as opposed to a fixed theology. Thus, the late Walter D. Hollenweger contends that we can talk about Pentecostalisms in the world.

A few stories that overlap can exemplify Hollenweger’s ‘Pentecostalisms’. Around April 1906, the Spirit moved powerfully at Azusa. People began to speak in other tongues. Charles Parham and William Seymour understood tongues-speech as a sign of Spirit baptism. A similar experience occurred on a different part of the globe. In April 1906, a revival led by Minnie Abrams broke out in Mutki, India. Similar to Azusa, people began speaking in other tongues. What makes this interesting is that there isn’t any known contact between Azusa and Mutki. Where Azusa and Mutki diverged was interpretation of the tongues phenomena. It’s interesting that where many at Azusa believed tongues denoted a sign of Spirit baptism, many at Mutki believed tongues to denote prayer to God. It wasn’t until January 1907 that Americans from the Azusa mission arrived in India and began to insist that tongues-speech is evidence of Spirit-baptism (See William K. Kay’s, Pentecostalism). While both groups had a similar experience, they both came to different interpretations of their experience. As of right now, I see Pentecostalism(s) similarly.

While interpretation and doctrinal formulation is important, I think Pentecostalism is to first be defined as a worldview. A Pentecostal worldview is one that has an expectancy to experience God in unexpected ways. As James K.A. Smith says, it is “openness to a God who exceeds our horizons of expectation and comes unexpectedly” (Thinking in Tongues, 34). People in both Azusa and Mutki had a similar worldview and a similar experience of the Spirit. Can we say that because they came to a different – albeit similar – interpretation of tongues-speech that one is Pentecostal and one isn’t?

As mentioned above, many have tried to define Pentecostalism in a number of ways. To define something is to give it borders, to make it exclusive. Ironically, I think the difficulty in determining what Pentecostalism is or isn’t has given it an identity of non-identity. In my opinion, because there are Pentecostalisms this has caused Pentecostals to remain extremely ecumenical. This is seen especially true in groups such as the Society for Pentecostal Studies. While the SPS focuses on the development of constructive Pentecostal theology, praxis, and worldview (and more), they are comprised of people that are from nearly any denominational background, but typically hold to a similar worldview. Thus, this identity of non-identity has caused us to find affinity with people we typically wouldn’t. Such an example is Jeffrey Gros, a former president of the SPS who is also a Roman Catholic.

Further Characteristics of a Pentecostal Worldview

With this said, I think there are beliefs that are often characteristic of a Pentecostal worldview and historical classical Pentecostal churches. Some of these are more characteristic than others. Some of these might be considered non-negotiables. These also are reasons why I consider myself a Pentecostal.

  • Earliest Pentecostalism was very Christocentric. In his phenomenal book, The Gospel Revisited: Towards a Pentecostal Theology of Worship and Witness, Kenneth J. Archer contends that the five fold Gospel is at the heart of Pentecostalism. This would affirm that Jesus Christ is: Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, Spirit Baptizer, and Soon-Coming-King. Constructive Pentecostal theologians would attribute sacraments to each of these five parts of the Gospel. The sacramental sign for Jesus as Savior is water baptism, for Sanctifier it is foot-washing, for healer is it the laying on of hands and anointing with oil, for Spirit baptizer it is tongues-speech, and for Soon-Coming-King it is the Eucharist.
  • Azusa Pentecostalism had a strong racial reconciliatory dynamic. In the wake of the Jim Crow era, Frank Bartleman said,  ”The ‘color line’ was washed away in the blood.” To be Pentecostal (and I would also say a Christian) is to embrace the Pauline belief that there isn’t Jew or Greek, Slave or free, male or female.
  • Earliest Pentecostalism and contemporary Pentecostalism both share an affinity for story-telling. If you grew up Pentecostal, you probably heard stories like God healing Pastor Sol of colon cancer, or of a check Sister Lucie received in the mail just before rent was due. For Pentecostals, the living-witness of the Spirit’s activity is Christ’s body, the Church. And the medium of this witness are often stories. In a very real way, Pentecostals find stories to be sacramental, and as a Pentecostal, I believe they are.
  • Pentecostals believe in divine healing. Pentecostals believe that while there are physicians, Jesus is the “great physician.” This is a reality that I have experienced first-hand and part of the reason why I call myself a Pentecostal.
  • Pentecostals most-often have a synergistic understanding of grace. This is cooperation with God. While the Spirit is a gift, one tarries for their “personal Pentecost.”
  • Pentecostals believe the gifts of the Spirit – prophecy, healing, tongues, teaching, preaching, wisdom, etc – are for today.
  • Pentecostals are people of the Book. Nevertheless, Pentecostals typically have a quite different hermeneutic than Evangelicals. For Pentecostals, the end of interpretation isn’t always authorial intent (if that’s even possible to ascertain). To the contrary, they believe that the Spirit speaks through the Scriptures to particular contextual situations. Further, Pentecostals see stories in the Scriptures as stories to guide and give meaning to their experience.   

Conclusion

I’m confident that some will disagree with what I believe are features or characteristics of Pentecostalism(s).  Nevertheless, I think these are the notes played and heard by many Pentecostal communities globally. To those raised in Pentecostal communities, what I have listed probably resonates as a familiar tune or sound. Thus, I have attempted in giving a large-blanket definition of Pentecostalism, one that includes most and excludes few.

Instead of saying, “I’m a Pentecostal because I believe tongues-speech to be the sign of Spirit baptism” I’m a Pentecostal because a panoply of reasons that are characteristic of a worldview. In summary of the above, I think what my friend Dan Morrison posted on his Facebook grasps the heart of what it means to be a Pentecostal. He wrote,  “This is what it means to be Pentecostal… to live a life surrendered to the Spirit, making life the adventure that it is.”

What do you think? What does it mean to be a Pentecostal? 

About these ads


by Leave a comment

The future of Evangelicalism/Evangélicos

For those interested:

Harold Heie (Senior Fellow for Christian Studies, Gordon College) made an announcement on Peter Enns’ blog (read “The Future of Evangelicalism”)  that he will be hosting a discussion on The Future of Evangelicalism with the participation of twenty other Christian scholars. David Bebbington’s “pillars of Evangelicalism” will be revisited during the series which will cover the following topics:

  1. Evangelicalism and the Broader Christian Tradition
  1. Evangelicalism and the Exclusivity of Christianity
  1. Evangelicalism and the Modern Study of Scripture
  1. Evangelicalism and Morality
  1. Evangelicalism and Politics
  1. Evangelicalism and Scientific Models of Humanity and Cosmic and Human Origins
  1. Evangelicalism and Higher Education

 

I thought I would notify readers of this blog since this is a topic adjacent to the series of post being written by JohnDave Medina and me.

Also, if you haven’t seen it yet, Time Magazine’s cover story this month is “The Rise of the Evangélicos” or Latino/a Evangelicals. To read the full article one had to be an online subscriber or find a hard copy of the magazine, but you can access a preview here.

Indirectly related to these discussions is Arlene Sánchez-Walsh’s blog post “Pentecostalism’s Long Road to Ruin?” which asks whether “critical intellectual inquiry” will be the demise of Pentecostalism. Sánchez-Walsh asks several provocative questions, including some about who should be the “gatekeepers” of orthodoxy and how one should define Pentecostalism’s purpose. I includes this link here because I find an interesting parallel between Pentecostalism and Evangelicalism at this stage in history: both originate (mostly) as American Christianities, both are younger movements, both flourished in the twentieth century, both face identity crises in the twenty first century. Similarly, one might ask whether the difference between the two (especially when reading the Time Magazine description of Lationo/a Evangélicos) will be easily discerned in the coming decades.


by 9 Comments

Pentecostal and Anabaptist perspectives

FYI: As readers of this blog know JohnDave Medina and I have begun a series titled “A Dialogue between a Catholic and an Evangelical” where we will be discussing the differences in our shared Christianity through this public forum. You may be aware that our other contributors resonate with different traditions as well. Daniel James Levy is a Pentecostal. Joshua Smith as an Anabaptist (Mennonite). Oddly, I came into Christianity through Pentecostalism, and I worship with a Mennonite Church now, so I resonate on some level with both of those traditions.

Of course, as I said in my first post of the series (see “Why I am an E/evangelical”) I think the label “Evangelical” remains in flux, so it is possible that one might be a Pentecostal Evangelical, an Anabaptist Evangelical, and even a Catholic Evangelical. It will be interesting to hear from Daniel and Joshua as to why they self-identify with Pentecostalism and Anabaptism respectively.

Make sure you pay attention for their entries and don’t forget that JohnDave’s first post is scheduled for next week.


by 41 Comments

Wrestling with the ecclesiology of Ignatius of Antioch (or, do I need a Bishop?!)

ignace

Bishop Ignatius of Antioch

I’ve been a low church evangelical for many years now. I entered Christianity through a sectarian Pentecostal group (some doubted we should celebrate Christmas because it was of “pagan origin”, so you imagine the type of ecumenism I was taught). I have thought about the teachings of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism/Episcopalianism and there are times when I find these groups quite attractive and other times when I find these groups to be concerning. Currently, I worship with a (modern, not Amish-like) Mennonite church, which I like because of their commitment to serious discipleship, and their emphasis on the Kingdom of God and the reconciling hope of their eschatology. Yet I worry at times that Mennonites are similar in some ways to my Pentecostal friends in that there is a lack of catholicity with little emphasis on the Lord’s Supper/Communion/Eucharist tradition that has enriched the church for hundreds of years.

As I have mentioned (see here) I have decided to participate in a group called “Read the Fathers”. One figure whose writings are listed early is Ignatius of Antioch (CE 35/50-98/117), a Bishop in the early church who is said to have been one of the more immediate successors of the Apostle Peter and a student of the Apostle John. I haven’t studied this figure enough to have an opinion on such claims, but that he was writing not too long after documents like the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation were composed demands attention.

Is this gathering of U.S. Catholic Bishops the assembling of "the church"?

Is this gathering of U.S. Catholic Bishops the assembling of “the church”?

There have been several statements made in his epistle that seem to foreshadow the teachings of the more developed church, the ecclesiology to which aforementioned groups like Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans appeal. As someone who is worshipping with Mennonites, who has been educated by Baptists and Reformed thinkers, who has taught in churches with roots in Lutheranism and Pentecostalism, and who (admittedly) prefers “low church” Christianity (though I have grown fond of some form of liturgy and practices such as following a form of the liturgical calendar), I thought I’d post some excerpts here for conversation.

The first to grab my attention is from Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians (V) where he writes:

“Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, “God resists the proud.” Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.”

This seems Eucharistic (though I am trying to avoid anachronism). The Bishop performs the rite at the alter providing the bread to the people, and to deny the assembly is of grave concern. He writes later (XIII):

“For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.”

And then (XX):

“…breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.”

What we have in this epistle is the need to gather with the church, the importance of the Bishop, and the centrality of the Eucharist in worship. I struggled even more with a statement he made in his Epistle to the Magnesians (II):

“Since therefore I have been permitted to see you in the person of Damas, your godly bishop, and the worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and my fellow-servant, the deacon Zotion, of whom may I have joy, because he is subject unto the bishop as unto the grace of God, and to the presbytery as unto the law of Jesus Christ.”

The Bishop of one church represents the whole local church to the other church through that local church’s Bishop. Later in the epistle he writes (XII):

“…that in everything which you do, you may be prospered in flesh and spirit, by faith and love, in the Son and Father and in the Spirit, in the beginning and in the end, along with your bishop who is worthy of all honor, and the fitly-woven spiritual coronal of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to the mind of God.  Submit yourselves to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ [was subject] to the Father [after the flesh], and the Apostles to Christ and the Father, that there may be union both of flesh and spirit.”

Submitting to the Bishop brings unity, and it models Jesus’ submission to the Father, and the Apostles to Christ and the Father. He writes in his Epistle to the Trallians (II), “For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death.”

Subject to the Bishop as to Jesus Christ? 

Submit to the Bishop as to Christ? Always?

Submit to the Bishop as to Christ? Always? What if my Bishop was John Shelby Spong?

Now, as I said, I want to avoid anachronism. I realize that a “Bishop” doesn’t seem to be as authoritative as it might come to be later. There doesn’t seem to be Archbishops. It could be argued that at this stage in the history of the church a Bishop was like the “Sr. Pastor” over the church in a city. There was no acknowledgement of anything like denominations, so you wouldn’t have a Lutheran pastor, a Presbyterian pastor, and so forth and so on. You’d have one, single pastor (Bishop) who oversees other leaders (Presbyters and Deacons). We know from the emergence of groups like the various gnostic sects that this idea is challenged, and that catholicity is “in flux” for the perspective of historicism, but for those of us who affirm that Spirit’s guidance in developing the church to become what most of us would consider “orthodox” (e.g., Trinity, deity of Christ, nature of Christology, function of canonical books) what do we say to this (and other statements by Ignatius in other epistles)?

Also, for pragmatic purposes, in light of Ignatius’ words, what do you think he would have said if someone said, “My ‘Bishop’ is John Shelby Spong! Should I remain under his authority?” How would Ignatius have advised people under the episcopal rule of Spong? or Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori? or an Arian Bishop or a gnostic Bishop?

Your thoughts on this subject are welcome, whether you be of a tradition with Bishops or without Bishops. What do you think of the need for Bishops today? What do we do if we think Bishop lead churches have strayed from the Gospel? 


by 32 Comments

A coming evangelical collapse?

In the last week I have read three interesting blog posts that mention people exiling from evangelicalism (or Reformed thinking) that I have found interesting:

- Jason Stellman discusses his controversial departure from the Presbyterian Church of America to the Roman Catholic Church in “I Fought the Church, and the Church Won”–a guest post for the blog Called to Communion. He says that Catholicism was not alluring to him, but that he found it to be “the truth,” especially when he began to doubt the reformational language regarding Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Remember, this is the man who lead the trial against Peter Leithart for the Pacific Northwest Presbytery because Leithart was suspected of teachings that were close to those of Rome.

- Roman Catholics are not alone in anticipating more people to flee evangelical and reformed community. The Orthodox Church is asking themselves if they are ready for the “coming evangelical collapse.” Kevin Allen provides a self-diagnosis for this communion in “Are We Ready for the Coming Evangelical Collapse?” He believes that the Orthodox will be “short-term beneficiaries, but that there are many hinderances to people joining their ranks as well.

- Peter Enns has written many blog posts providing an “in-house” critique of evangelicalism’s shrinking boarders warning that there are many who no longer feel at home in evangelicalism as it is self-defined currently. In “Outgrowing Evangelicalism: It’s Not Just for Scholars Anymore” he shows that it isn’t academics alone who are feeling marginalized within evangelical circles. Of course, the so-called “emerging church” has been saying this for sometime now. I think evangelicals seeking to realign and redefine evangelicalism may have a harder time than Roman Catholics and Orthodox because there has yet to “emerge” an alternative to evangelicalism than doesn’t have the feel of evangelicalism run amok with individualism or the type of church that seeks to be “ancient-future” in practice while being liberal-progressive Protestant in theology (something that may lack staying power).

Pentecostalism continues to expand globally and domestically (I think the Assemblies of God are one of the few larger denominations in this country that have seen growth over recent years). There remain many problems there as well. When the energy declines and the emotionalism dries many “thinkers” in Pentecostal ranks wonder what they are doing with their time. At least that was my experience.

Do you foresee a “coming evangelical collapse?” If so, where will evangelicals go? If not, what reforms do you think need to be made?

 


by 6 Comments

Re-baptism for former Oneness Pentecostals?

Although I have been away from Oneness Pentecostal circles for about seven years I continue to receive emails from people on this movement on occasion. Usually they come from people who have recently departed from Oneness Pentecostalism who seek to understand their new identity outside the sect. Sometimes they remain within the movement, but they are entertaining doubts about its teachings and practices. I do not reveal the identity of people who contact me because I know for many their decision to leave will have/has had a major impact on their family relations, their friendships, and even their identity as Christians. It can be a turbulent time when you leave a group that shares such an “us-against-the-world” identity. If you leave you are part of “the world.”

One of the most common questions I receive is “Should I be rebaptized?” There are two common reasons given: (1) Oneness Pentecostals baptize “in Jesus name” according to Acts 2.38 as a polemic against the Trinitarian baptism of Matthew 28.19. The sectarian motivation of this baptism concerns some when they begin to embrace the catholic church. (2) Some sense that they were coerced into being baptized. Maybe they were told that if they died that night without having been baptized ‘in Jesus name’ (and sometimes if they have not yet ‘spoke in tongues’)  they would go to hell, so they got their ‘fire insurance’ and submitted to baptism without fully understanding its meaning. For others this previous reason may have applied as well, but they add the nuance that they were baptized very young without a full understanding of what was happening.

For some “high-church” types this second concern may not make sense, but you have to remember that Oneness Pentecostals affirm “believer’s baptism” so technically this is the paradigm many former Oneness Pentecostals embrace. The idea of being baptized as a child and confirmed later in life is foreign to them. Since “believer’s baptism” emphasizes individual commitment and an understanding of that commitment you can see why someone who was baptized out of fear or ignorance may sense that their baptism is invalid.

When I am asked whether someone should be rebaptized you must remember that I am an evangelical answering this question. I imagine my Catholic co-blogger JohnDave Medina may have a different answer. I tell people “no” you do not need to be rebaptized, but I can see value in doing so.

I don’t affirm the dichotomy between baptism “in Jesus name” and baptism “in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit” since the “name” has to do with authority and identity and I think Acts 2.38 and Matthew 28.19 are speaking of the same source of authority: the God revealed through Christ. It is apparent from Acts and the Pauline Epistles that being baptized “into Christ” was an early and important idea. Likewise, Matthew and documents like the Didache show that baptism into “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” was important as well. Obviously the nature of doctrinal conflict in the church influenced the emphasis on “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” but I don’t think that nullifies baptism “in Jesus’ name.”

When I received an email on this subject yesterday I replied as such:

I was baptized in Jesus name as a pre-teen for many of the same reasons as you. I have had friends who share our experience who decided to get rebaptized, but I chose not to do it for a few reasons.

First, I think God is bigger than our constructs of time. He doesn’t have an order of salvation like we do. I believe someone could be baptized for all kinds of wrong reasons, come to more real and mature faith later, and God is not worried about which came first. God sees our whole life, not isolated events.

Second, faith doesn’t have to be pure and well-informed to be genuine faith. You may have had an immature ‘I don’t want to go to hell’ faith, but it was in Christ, and it was innocent even if ignorant.

Third, several years from now you will have matured even more in Christ. Will your baptism now need replacement then? Of course not.

That said, if you sense that being rebaptized now would allow you to confess some things (eg, the Trinity, the catholicity of your faith over against Oneness sectarianism) by all means do it, but do it for the present benefits, not because your first baptism was imperfect.

And that about sums up my views on the matter. I have not been rebaptized because I think that my baptism was biblical, it had orthodox meaning (even if it lacked orthodox intent), and God is not limited in time to the moment I was baptized nor to my spiritual maturity or lack thereof. Yet I do understand why being baptized with a fuller understanding could be an experience worth pursuing. I have friends who have done it and being baptized was a refreshing and enlivening event.


by 9 Comments

Ben Barkley on Trinitarianism and the doctrine of Oneness Pentecostals.

Ben Barkley and all his books.

Ben Barkley is a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has a new blog where he seems to be focusing mostly on Trinitarian theology. Also, like me he has a background in Oneness Pentecostalism. I think Ben is more theologically and philosophically minded than I am, so I am pleased to see that he has taken on the task of addressing and critiquing the doctrine of our Oneness Pentecostal friends. I invite readers of this blog to take some time to interact with some of his fine posts, whether Trinitarian or Oneness:

Part 1: Deep Things of God and Oneness Doctrine

“The main crux that Trinitarian’s should have with Oneness doctrine is the insistent denial that Jesus preexists. Jesus only preexists as the general Spirit of God and becomes the Son when the Spirit of God incarnates himself into a human carcass. And if following David Bernard, only for 33 years will be the Son; after all Jesus can’t be at the right hand of God because that is only silly figurative language (Dulle critiques Bernard on this point, but Dulle is more of a dynamic binatarian, in my understanding). For many obvious reasons the denial of Jesus’ preexistence is a huge theological error that needs to be taken seriously. And from my own reflecting on Vanhoozer’s “Is There a Meaning in This Text” and Sander’s “Deep Things of God”, if there is no eternal Trinitarian relationship this creates issues in epistemology and linguistics, and issues in our understanding of creation and salvation. Without the Trinity there is no way to know God and there is no Gospel. Further, if there is no Trinity I am not sure I can be a Christian.”

Part 2: Deep Things of God and Oneness Doctrine

” Just to give you an idea the Reformed Church in America has about 250,000 members, PC(USA) has less than 2 million, Evangelical Presbyterian Church has 140,000, the Christian Reformed  Church has 251,000, and the United Church of Christ has 1 million. In 1998 the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW) had 1.5 million and the UPCI has 3 million members. The 5 churches together hold around 3.6 million, whereas the 2 OP organizations have over 4.5 million members. Sure these are all estimations, but this gives us a gauge of seeing OP’s prevalence and this isn’t to take account OP’s other organizations like the ALJC (Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ), AAFCJ (Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus), WPF (World Pentecostal Fellowship) and so on.”

Barkma Blogger Barking at Dulle

“Jason Dulle wrote an essay called “A Oneness View of Jesus’ Prayers” that I will interact with in this blog post. He is one of the more talented of the Oneness apologists. He doesn’t offer the standard answers that have been given and really require a little more mental horsepower to consider. In this post I will try to relay how Dulle proposes to get out of Nestorianism and avoid Trinitarianism. Then try to offer some feedback and maybe even some of my own questions to his arguments, in hopes that someone will straighten me out if I say something off.”

Why I Left Oneness Pentecostalism

“Leaving Oneness Pentecostalism (OP) was one of the best things that I have ever done. But the time of transitioning and rethinking my faith was a very difficult process. My whole life I have been told that if you’re not baptized in Jesus name, filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues and follow the holiness standards then you’re going to hell (some are more lax on the standards, but those are of the liberal kind). Some insist that there is more involved with salvation.”: