Sunday, May 5, 2013
God is still with me
even when I am wedged in the middle like a piece of bologna and cheese between two pieces of bread.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
a major concern
** Please read this carefully and pray about this matter**...
The SPS resolution denies the Deity of Jesus Christ...my question is, what drove them to that thought? so pray that the Lord will intervene...
This year at the Society for Pentecostal Studies (SPS) annual meeting in March we will be discussing and voting upon a resolution that will change the nature of SPS. This resolution was proposed by the SPS Taskforce on Identity and Purpose, which was charged in 2010 by the SPS Executive Committee to review the identity of the Society and the purpose statement in the Society’s constitution. This constitutional amendment (from here on out it will be referred to as “the 2012 proposal”) was tabled last year and will resurface for discussion and a vote at this year’s business meeting.
The History of SPS
Bill Faupel and Kate McGinn, in their 2001 history of SPS, recounted the society’s origins:
To support fully, to the extent appropriate for an academic Society, the statement of purposes of the World Pentecostal Fellowship, which reads as follows:
The 2012 Proposal
The constitutional amendment proposed by the SPS Task Force on Identity and Purpose would remove the reference to the WPF’s statement of purpose from the SPS’s purpose statement and would replace it with: 1) a theological statement for SPS, and 2) an allowance for voting members to not be required to sign on to the proposed theological statement. This proposed theological statement is driven by a principle of inclusivity, which would allow any academic involved in Pentecostal studies to be a full voting member, irrespective of their religious or non-religious beliefs.
The following are the two major amendments under ARTICLE II: Purpose (additions in red):
My evaluation has two parts. I will examine the additions proposed above, and then I will critique the nature and consequences of this amendment.
First, the addition of Article II.3., Sentence 1: “The Society for Pentecostal Studies is committed in faith to the God of Jesus Christ and the economy of salvation.” The first sentence of the theological statement is at best ambiguous. Even the World Council of Churches has a statement which upholds the deity of Christ, which this theological statement does not uphold. This statement can be affirmed by a number of historic heretical movements, cults, anti-Pentecostals, and some non-Christians.
Sentences 2& 3: “We affirm that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the inception of the Pentecostal movement was a work of God. We also affirm subsequent Pentecostal and charismatic signs of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit inclusive of renewal movements within the historic churches and those characterized as non-denominational.” The second and third sentences of the theological statement can be affirmed by those of pluralistic religions, and theologically liberal Christians. This should be represented in Article I.2., which defines the term “Pentecostal” in the Society’s name.
Sentence 4: “It is the mission of this society to engage in understanding from the perspective of faith and the various theological and academic disciplines the gift that the Pentecostal and charismatic movements represent for the church and its mission.” The fourth sentence of the theological statement is simply a reiteration of the purpose of SPS in Article II.1 & 2 and redundant. Article II.1 & 2 reads as follows: “1. To stimulate, encourage, recognize, and publicize the work of Pentecostal scholars; 2. To study the implications of Pentecostal theology in relation to other academic disciplines, seeking a Pentecostal world-and-life view.”
Second, the addition of Article II.4.: “To welcome among its membership all scholars and researchers who, although not sharing the preceding faith commitments, can respect them and are interested in Pentecostal studies.” This additional objective negates the proposed theological statement and opens the possibility for it to be rendered impotent and functionally meaningless.
On the whole, the nature of this constitutional amendment would allow non-Pentecostals and non-Christians to be voting members and potentially leaders of SPS. This comes in conflict with the official purpose of SPS stated in Article II of the constitution (which is left unchanged by the amendment), as stated, “The purpose of this Society shall be to provide a forum of discussion for all academic disciplines as a spiritual service to the kingdom of God….” In his latest editorial Dale Coulter points out that SPS has a formative influence upon Pentecostal identity.[5] To give those outside of the Pentecostal tradition an equal platform to influence the spiritual and theological identity of Pentecostals is potentially problematic at best or inevitably destructive at worst.
As a consequence, SPS will potentially and over a matter of time lose its “confessionally pentecostal” nature (as Amos Yong cherished above) and function much like an academic meeting such as the Academy of American Religion, which would make SPS a redundant academic society. If this were to happen, SPS would no longer have the possibility to provide “an authoritative interpretation of the Pentecostal Movement” as the founders intended. Furthermore, SPS-sanctioned ecumenical dialogues would have even less or no ecclesial grounding whatsoever (although some question whether it ever had such grounding).
The 2013 Proposal
On February 15, 2013 the Executive Committe has proposed a new constitutional amendment (from here on out it will be referred to as “the 2013 proposal”) that will stand along side of the 2012 proposal as an alternative consitutional amendment. The 2013 proposal contains 1) the deletion of the 2012 proposal’s theological statement, 2) an allowance for voting members to not be Pentecostal or even a self-identified Christian (the same as 2012 proposal), and 3) and some Pneuma and Editorial Committee revisions. Below is the substantive revision being proposed in the 2013 Proposal (changes in red):
An Alternate Proposal
Therefore, I would like to suggest an alternate proposal for the consideration of SPS. I hold no office in SPS, nor do I have any authority in and of myself to define Pentecostal identity and the future of SPS. Therefore, I merely make the proposal below as a draft or starting point for SPS as a whole to discern whether or not this alternative course of action is in accordance with God’s will. My hope is that members of SPS will find this alternate proposal worthy of serious consideration and make further refinements where it is necessary.
My alternative proposal is found at the end of this letter, but I will give a brief summary here. This alternate proposal is also driven by an ecumenical and inclusive impulse, yet without undermining SPS’s Pentecostal identity or its role in the Pentecostal movement. I propose a constitutional amendment which has two major additions: 1) a theological statement, and 2) a two-tier membership framework which includes full membership (with voting privileges), and associate membership (without voting privileges).
First, similar to the Taskforce’s proposal to define the term “Pentecostal,” I have added a broad definition to Article I: Name, Section 2.: “For the purposes of this Society ‘Pentecostal’ includes ‘charismatic.’ refers to the Holy Spirit renewal movements within the Christian tradition including: the Pentecostal movement beginning in the 19th Century, the charismatic movements within the historic churches and those characterized as non-denominational.”
Next, let me briefly describe my proposed theological statement for SPS. Most SPS members will probably agree that a narrow confession of faith should not be required for voting membership. The Society must be broad enough, for instance, to include Catholic charismatics and Oneness Pentecostals in membership and leadership. Also, as an academic forum which serves the global Church and which promotes the scholarship of Pentecostals (in accordance with the Article II), all voting members and officers should at least be able to affirm a statement of faith that is both explicitly Christian and explicitly Pentecostal. As a result, I drafted the following statement (my changes in red):
At the same time, an added purpose for SPS which invites and includes scholars of various backgrounds is encouraged and welcomed in my alternative proposal:
The categories of membership of the Society for Pentecostal Studies shall be composed of:
Finally, the 2013 proposal’s amendments regarding Pneuma and the Editorial Committee are not addressed here and are not added to this alternative proposal. This will be up to the SPS membership to decide as a separate matter.
The official alternative constitutional amendment that I have proposed above is found HERE in PDF form.
As for proper procedure, I sent this letter to the Executive Committee to decide whether or not they will provide this alternate proposal to the voting constituency of SPS before 30 days of the 2013 business meeting.
Those who are against both the 2012 proposal and the 2013 proposal have unfortuanately not voiced their desires with others and have remained largley silent. As a result many against these proposals feel isolated and without a unified voice. I wrote this alternative proposal and made it public so that like minded members in SPS could come together in this online format and in other social media venues state our disagreement with both the 2012 and the 2013 proposals, and offer an coordinated alternative proposal as a starting draft. At this moment the following persons are against the 2012 and 2013 proposals, and support the alternative consitutional amendment provided in PDF format above:
Roger Stronstad (Past SPS President, 1994)
David Bernard (General Superintendent, UPCI)
Charles Self (Associate Professor of Church History, AGTS)
Darrin Rodgers (Director, Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center)
Glenn Gohr (Reference Archivist, Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center)
Ryan Beaty (Lead Pastor, VillageHouston)
Dan Morrison (student member, Ph.D. student, McMaster Divinity College)
Rick Wadholm, Jr., (student member, Ph.D. student, Bangor University-Wales)
Jeremy Crenshaw (student member, Ph.D. student, Regent University)
In order to show your support for such an alternate proposal for the future and identity of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, I would strongly urge you to publically leave your full name and the following comment, “I accept this alternate proposal and it should be considered at the next business meeting of SPS.” Then add any further comments or necessary revisions you would like to see made to the alternative proposal that I have drafted. And, please contact the Executive Committee members to express your support for this alternate proposal.
If you are against such an alternate proposal then please state the following, “I cannot accept this alternate proposal,” and then state your reasons. Please post a comment only if you are a member (student, associate, or full) of SPS.
Also, please send a link to this site to those who may be interested in this alternative proposal by email, facebook, and other social media venues. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely, William Molenaar
The SPS resolution denies the Deity of Jesus Christ...my question is, what drove them to that thought? so pray that the Lord will intervene...
An Open to Letter to the Members of the Society for Pentecostal Studies
Dear Friends and Colleagues:This year at the Society for Pentecostal Studies (SPS) annual meeting in March we will be discussing and voting upon a resolution that will change the nature of SPS. This resolution was proposed by the SPS Taskforce on Identity and Purpose, which was charged in 2010 by the SPS Executive Committee to review the identity of the Society and the purpose statement in the Society’s constitution. This constitutional amendment (from here on out it will be referred to as “the 2012 proposal”) was tabled last year and will resurface for discussion and a vote at this year’s business meeting.
The History of SPS
Bill Faupel and Kate McGinn, in their 2001 history of SPS, recounted the society’s origins:
The Society for Pentecostal Studies, founded in 1970, was first envisioned by four men—William Menzies and Russell Spittler of the Assemblies of God, Vinson Synan of the Pentecostal Holiness Church, and Horace Ward of the Church of God. Formed with the intent ‘to serve the church world by providing an authoritative interpretation of the Pentecostal Movement,’ the Society directed its energies toward bringing scholarship on the Pentecostal tradition to the fore.[1]In keeping with its mission to serve the Pentecostal movement, in 1979 SPS adopted as one of its objectives the World Pentecostal Fellowship’s (WPF) statement of purpose. This objective remains operative today in the SPS constitution:
To support fully, to the extent appropriate for an academic Society, the statement of purposes of the World Pentecostal Fellowship, which reads as follows:
(a) To encourage fellowship and facilitate co-ordination of effort among Pentecostal believers throughout the world.Over time, the voting membership of the Society grew to include those from outside of the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition, and even non-Christians interested in Pentecostal studies.[3] Amos Yong, a past president of SPS, described the historic inclusive nature of SPS:
(b) To demonstrate to the world the essential unity of Spirit-baptized believers, fulfilling the prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ, “That they all may be one” (John 17:21).
(c) To cooperate in an endeavor to respond to the unchanging commission of the Lord Jesus, to carry His message to all people of all nations.
(d) To promote courtesy and mutual understanding, “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, until we all come in the unity of the faith” (Ephesians 4:3, 13).
(e) To afford prayerful and practical assistance to any Pentecostal body in need of such.
(f) To promote and maintain the scriptural purity of the [World Pentecostal] Fellowship by Bible study and prayer.
(g) To uphold and maintain those Pentecostal truths, “most surely believed among us” (Luke 1:1).[2]
When the Society was originally formed, it was designed to provide a setting for the emerging group of scholars who were also confessionally pentecostal to convene, share their research, and prod one another on in their work. This was especially important given the then broader academy’s generally unfriendly, suspicious, and even hostile attitudes toward Pentecostal studies. Yet within this matrix, throughout its first forty years, one of the reasons the Society has not adopted any theological or doctrinal statement as a prerequisite for membership is its recognition that there ought to be room for discussion of important matters such as those pertaining to the Oneness-Trinitarian divide. As befitting a movement which is essentially understood by its spirituality rather than its discursively articulated dogmatics, the ‘oneness’ of spirit that held this generation of pentecostal scholars together may have been best exemplified in its opening plenary worship sessions. Pentecostals who found they could sing, pray, and praise together were thus also enabled (even empowered!) to engage in difficult theological and doctrinal discussions (also debates) about important matters. The history of this opening worship event has been one of the defining features setting the Society apart from other scholarly venues such as the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) or the American Academy of Religion (AAR).Because the WPF (now known as the Pentecostal World Fellowship) has changed its purpose statement, the SPS Taskforce on Identity and Purpose has recommended that the reference in the SPS constitution to the WPF’s purpose statement be changed.
I, for one, have found the Society invigorating precisely because of this ‘confessional’ aspect of its annual meeting, which, at the same time, retains the inherent ecumenism of the spirituality of the movement.[4]
The 2012 Proposal
The constitutional amendment proposed by the SPS Task Force on Identity and Purpose would remove the reference to the WPF’s statement of purpose from the SPS’s purpose statement and would replace it with: 1) a theological statement for SPS, and 2) an allowance for voting members to not be required to sign on to the proposed theological statement. This proposed theological statement is driven by a principle of inclusivity, which would allow any academic involved in Pentecostal studies to be a full voting member, irrespective of their religious or non-religious beliefs.
The following are the two major amendments under ARTICLE II: Purpose (additions in red):
3. To support fully, to the extent appropriate for an academic Society, the following theological statement: The Society for Pentecostal Studies is committed in faith to the God of Jesus Christ and the economy of salvation. We affirm that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the inception of the Pentecostal movement was a work of God. We also affirm subsequent Pentecostal and charismatic signs of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit inclusive of renewal movements within the historic churches and those characterized as non-denominational. It is the mission of this society to engage in understanding from the perspective of faith and the various theological and academic disciplines the gift that the Pentecostal and charismatic movements represent for the church and its mission.An Evaluation
4. To welcome among its membership all scholars and researchers who, although not sharing the preceding faith commitments, can respect them and are interested in Pentecostal studies.
My evaluation has two parts. I will examine the additions proposed above, and then I will critique the nature and consequences of this amendment.
First, the addition of Article II.3., Sentence 1: “The Society for Pentecostal Studies is committed in faith to the God of Jesus Christ and the economy of salvation.” The first sentence of the theological statement is at best ambiguous. Even the World Council of Churches has a statement which upholds the deity of Christ, which this theological statement does not uphold. This statement can be affirmed by a number of historic heretical movements, cults, anti-Pentecostals, and some non-Christians.
Sentences 2& 3: “We affirm that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the inception of the Pentecostal movement was a work of God. We also affirm subsequent Pentecostal and charismatic signs of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit inclusive of renewal movements within the historic churches and those characterized as non-denominational.” The second and third sentences of the theological statement can be affirmed by those of pluralistic religions, and theologically liberal Christians. This should be represented in Article I.2., which defines the term “Pentecostal” in the Society’s name.
Sentence 4: “It is the mission of this society to engage in understanding from the perspective of faith and the various theological and academic disciplines the gift that the Pentecostal and charismatic movements represent for the church and its mission.” The fourth sentence of the theological statement is simply a reiteration of the purpose of SPS in Article II.1 & 2 and redundant. Article II.1 & 2 reads as follows: “1. To stimulate, encourage, recognize, and publicize the work of Pentecostal scholars; 2. To study the implications of Pentecostal theology in relation to other academic disciplines, seeking a Pentecostal world-and-life view.”
Second, the addition of Article II.4.: “To welcome among its membership all scholars and researchers who, although not sharing the preceding faith commitments, can respect them and are interested in Pentecostal studies.” This additional objective negates the proposed theological statement and opens the possibility for it to be rendered impotent and functionally meaningless.
On the whole, the nature of this constitutional amendment would allow non-Pentecostals and non-Christians to be voting members and potentially leaders of SPS. This comes in conflict with the official purpose of SPS stated in Article II of the constitution (which is left unchanged by the amendment), as stated, “The purpose of this Society shall be to provide a forum of discussion for all academic disciplines as a spiritual service to the kingdom of God….” In his latest editorial Dale Coulter points out that SPS has a formative influence upon Pentecostal identity.[5] To give those outside of the Pentecostal tradition an equal platform to influence the spiritual and theological identity of Pentecostals is potentially problematic at best or inevitably destructive at worst.
As a consequence, SPS will potentially and over a matter of time lose its “confessionally pentecostal” nature (as Amos Yong cherished above) and function much like an academic meeting such as the Academy of American Religion, which would make SPS a redundant academic society. If this were to happen, SPS would no longer have the possibility to provide “an authoritative interpretation of the Pentecostal Movement” as the founders intended. Furthermore, SPS-sanctioned ecumenical dialogues would have even less or no ecclesial grounding whatsoever (although some question whether it ever had such grounding).
The 2013 Proposal
On February 15, 2013 the Executive Committe has proposed a new constitutional amendment (from here on out it will be referred to as “the 2013 proposal”) that will stand along side of the 2012 proposal as an alternative consitutional amendment. The 2013 proposal contains 1) the deletion of the 2012 proposal’s theological statement, 2) an allowance for voting members to not be Pentecostal or even a self-identified Christian (the same as 2012 proposal), and 3) and some Pneuma and Editorial Committee revisions. Below is the substantive revision being proposed in the 2013 Proposal (changes in red):
The purpose of this Society shall be to provide a forum of discussion for all academic disciplines as a spiritual service to the kingdom of God by the implementation of the following objectives:While the Pneuma and Editorial Committee amendments appear to be helpful, the substance of the 2013 proposal is functionally equivalent to the 2012 proposal, and can be critiqued with the same evalutaion that I have provided above regarding the 2012 proposal.
1. To stimulate, encourage, recognize, and publicize the work of Pentecostal scholars and scholars of Pentecostalism;2. To engage in understanding from the perspective of faith and the various theological and academic disciplines the gift that the Pentecostal and charismatic movements represent for the church and its mission.3. To welcome among its membership all scholars and researchers who, although not sharing the preceding faith perspectives, are interested in Pentecostal studies.
An Alternate Proposal
Therefore, I would like to suggest an alternate proposal for the consideration of SPS. I hold no office in SPS, nor do I have any authority in and of myself to define Pentecostal identity and the future of SPS. Therefore, I merely make the proposal below as a draft or starting point for SPS as a whole to discern whether or not this alternative course of action is in accordance with God’s will. My hope is that members of SPS will find this alternate proposal worthy of serious consideration and make further refinements where it is necessary.
My alternative proposal is found at the end of this letter, but I will give a brief summary here. This alternate proposal is also driven by an ecumenical and inclusive impulse, yet without undermining SPS’s Pentecostal identity or its role in the Pentecostal movement. I propose a constitutional amendment which has two major additions: 1) a theological statement, and 2) a two-tier membership framework which includes full membership (with voting privileges), and associate membership (without voting privileges).
First, similar to the Taskforce’s proposal to define the term “Pentecostal,” I have added a broad definition to Article I: Name, Section 2.: “For the purposes of this Society ‘Pentecostal’ includes ‘charismatic.’ refers to the Holy Spirit renewal movements within the Christian tradition including: the Pentecostal movement beginning in the 19th Century, the charismatic movements within the historic churches and those characterized as non-denominational.”
Next, let me briefly describe my proposed theological statement for SPS. Most SPS members will probably agree that a narrow confession of faith should not be required for voting membership. The Society must be broad enough, for instance, to include Catholic charismatics and Oneness Pentecostals in membership and leadership. Also, as an academic forum which serves the global Church and which promotes the scholarship of Pentecostals (in accordance with the Article II), all voting members and officers should at least be able to affirm a statement of faith that is both explicitly Christian and explicitly Pentecostal. As a result, I drafted the following statement (my changes in red):
3. To support fully, to the extent appropriate for an academic Society, the following theological statement[6]:I would like to point out a number of things about this statement. First, the footnote qualifies the purpose and nature of the statement. Second, the first sentence of the statement emphasizes a Pentecostal spirituality (a Spirit and Word approach) prior to and equal with a minimalistic Pentecostal statement of theology. Third, one will recognize it as a modified version of the original Nicene statement of faith (325 A.D.). Dr. David Bernard confirmed, by personal correspondence, that this modified Nicene statement is acceptable to Oneness Pentecostals.
We believe that personally experiencing a transformative and empowering relationship with the Holy Spirit and regarding the Bible as the standard rule for faith, life, and mission are essential to Pentecostal identity.
We believe in one God;
Who is revealed as the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible;
Also as the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, fully God and fully human; who for our salvation, lived, died, and after three days bodily rose again, ascended into heaven, and poured out the Holy Spirit upon all flesh; until which time he shall come to judge the living and the dead;
Also as the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life; who for our salvation, indwells those who are in Christ, sanctifies, unifies the people of God, and empowers the witness of the Church through miraculous gifts; until which time the Holy Spirit shall resurrect the dead, and renew all things. Amen.
At the same time, an added purpose for SPS which invites and includes scholars of various backgrounds is encouraged and welcomed in my alternative proposal:
4. To welcome all scholars and researchers, who although not sharing the preceding faith commitments can respect them and are interested in the field of Pentecostal studies, to obtain associate membership, and also attend and participate in the annual meetings.Thirdly, I propose that only full members have voting privileges for the Society. In effect, this change encourages anyone who has an interest in Pentecostal studies, irrespective of their religious or non-religious beliefs, to be members of this Pentecostal academic society. My proposed statement reads (my changes are in red, and editorial changes suggested by the SPS Taskforce are in green):
The categories of membership of the Society for Pentecostal Studies shall be composed of:
1. Full membership: those persons who affirm the theological statement in Article II.3., persons who hold an earned graduate degree from a recognized institution of higher education, persons currently engaged in Christian higher education (administrative or instructional), or persons who have made significant literary scholarly contributions to Pentecostal literature and journalism shall be eligible for full membership. Full members are entitled to vote, to attend all meetings, and to hold office, and to present papers.As a result, this two-tier system of membership will both satisfy the ecumenical and inclusive principles which SPS historically and presently values, and upholds the Pentecostal nature and character of this academic society. There may be someone that might charge that, “This would make non-Pentecostal scholars second-class citizens in SPS.” In a sense this may be true, but this is not from a position of elitism or arrogance. It is perfectly natural to expect that Pentecostals would be the leaders and voting constituency of a Pentecostal academic society. Non-Pentecostals have their societies (AAR, SBL, etc.), this alternative proposal attempts to guarantee that SPS be a Pentecostal academic society that serves and belongs to the global Pentecostal tradition.
2. Associate Membership: persons not eligible for full membership but who, in the judgment of the membership committee, are otherwise qualified for membership shall be eligible for associate membership. Associate members shall be entitled to vote to attend all meetings, and to present papers, yet shall not be entitled to vote.[7]
Finally, the 2013 proposal’s amendments regarding Pneuma and the Editorial Committee are not addressed here and are not added to this alternative proposal. This will be up to the SPS membership to decide as a separate matter.
The official alternative constitutional amendment that I have proposed above is found HERE in PDF form.
As for proper procedure, I sent this letter to the Executive Committee to decide whether or not they will provide this alternate proposal to the voting constituency of SPS before 30 days of the 2013 business meeting.
Those who are against both the 2012 proposal and the 2013 proposal have unfortuanately not voiced their desires with others and have remained largley silent. As a result many against these proposals feel isolated and without a unified voice. I wrote this alternative proposal and made it public so that like minded members in SPS could come together in this online format and in other social media venues state our disagreement with both the 2012 and the 2013 proposals, and offer an coordinated alternative proposal as a starting draft. At this moment the following persons are against the 2012 and 2013 proposals, and support the alternative consitutional amendment provided in PDF format above:
Roger Stronstad (Past SPS President, 1994)
David Bernard (General Superintendent, UPCI)
Charles Self (Associate Professor of Church History, AGTS)
Darrin Rodgers (Director, Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center)
Glenn Gohr (Reference Archivist, Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center)
Ryan Beaty (Lead Pastor, VillageHouston)
Dan Morrison (student member, Ph.D. student, McMaster Divinity College)
Rick Wadholm, Jr., (student member, Ph.D. student, Bangor University-Wales)
Jeremy Crenshaw (student member, Ph.D. student, Regent University)
In order to show your support for such an alternate proposal for the future and identity of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, I would strongly urge you to publically leave your full name and the following comment, “I accept this alternate proposal and it should be considered at the next business meeting of SPS.” Then add any further comments or necessary revisions you would like to see made to the alternative proposal that I have drafted. And, please contact the Executive Committee members to express your support for this alternate proposal.
If you are against such an alternate proposal then please state the following, “I cannot accept this alternate proposal,” and then state your reasons. Please post a comment only if you are a member (student, associate, or full) of SPS.
Also, please send a link to this site to those who may be interested in this alternative proposal by email, facebook, and other social media venues. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely, William Molenaar
[1] D. William Faupel and Kate McGinn, “The Society for Pentecostal Studies: A Brief History,” in The Society for Pentecostal Studies Commemorating Thirty Years of Annual Meetings 1971–2001, 4. Today it is popular to leave the adjective “pentecostal” without capitalization referring to its diverse expressions instead of referring to only Classical Pentecostalism. However, I will instead use the term’s capitalized forms (i.e., Pentecostal, Pentecostals, and Pentecostalism) to refer to the diverse global movement which includes the Classical Pentecostal movement, the Charismatic renewal, and the Third Wave movements, as well as those within the global movement, except in direct quotations.
[2] Constitution and By-Laws, Revised March 27, 2009, 1.
[3] Faupel and McGinn, 6.
[4] Amos Yong, “Pentecostal Scholarship and Scholarship on Pentecostalism: The Next Generation,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 34:2 (2012), 162.
[5] Dale Coulter, “Philosophia et disciplina: Learning Under a Common Magisterium,” in Pneuma 34:1 (2012), 2-3.
[6] This statement of faith is not intended as a creed for the Church, nor a requirement for an individual’s salvation, but only as a basis of unity amongst those who hold in common what is essential to Pentecostal identity. No claim is made that it contains all truth in the Bible, or that it is a comprehensive summary of Pentecostal faith. The human terminology employed in such a statement is not inspired, but the truth set forth in such terminology is held to be helpful for Pentecostal unity.
[7] Student membership will remain the same, without voting privileges.
His thoughts
God's thoughts towards us are always good and it's always for us to have a good future. That's pretty good to think and meditate on...:)
Saturday, February 2, 2013
2 greatest commandments
1. Love God with all our hearts, souls, minds and strengths.
2. Love our neighbors as we love ourselves
Interesting thing is, these commandments are but the key to all the unanswered prayers we have. :)
2. Love our neighbors as we love ourselves
Interesting thing is, these commandments are but the key to all the unanswered prayers we have. :)
Sunday, January 13, 2013
it's all about Jesus Christ
I have been actually wondering and praying of what to teach my Sunday School class. I asked the Lord to let me know what he wants me to teach on, yet I did not hear anything from him, so I just waited openly and do you know that the Holy Spirit gave it to me in a very simple way. I was at a meeting and one of our SS teachers called out and said to his students, be sure to read the book of_ for our class . I was overjoyed because our SS teacher words became like an instruction for me alone, and I came home thinking hey, I am actually tired of teaching about the how to method, and in meditating on the reasons of why each book was written by the apostles. I believe the Lord led me to this thinking, every person who believes in Christ should know the deeper truths of the gospel, the manifestations of Christ in eternity and in time. So, what does that have to do with our SS teacher's words? if you are asking that question, my answer to you is, everything, because he is one who teaches on an entire book of the bible, not just by subject alone. His instruction to his class reminded me that sometimes when we give piece meals the person under our tutorship will grow like that too, sometimes good sometimes hmmmmm...the Holy Spirit I believe was reminding me, this year do something different. Set a good table before my students, not a feast of junk food, but, a table full of healthy heavenly food on this earth, filling them with the only BREAD OF LIFE, giving them LIVING WATER to drink.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
when God is in it
had a nice lunch with my best friend today, after we just sat chatting about home. During the course of the conversation, he asked me something, I gave him my answer and it surprised me (although I did not show it) that the answer I gave him was the same thing in his mind. Ideas started to flow from within both of us that we never had before, because he would always reject the idea of going there, God is good. It is time...:)
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Starting all over again!
(1). I'm renewing my goals I had, some need to be crossed out and some need to be renewed.
(2). Making a newer plan on how to achieve my goals so the vision God placed in me will be fulfilled.
(3). I'm making goals that I know will be reachable, anything else that seems unreachable but is in my heart, I will write it down and give to the Lord in prayer. Because I have found out, it's not by any might, nor by any power, but by the Spirit of God, it can be reached.
(4) Pray Up! and Get into the Word and then ACTION!
*****
why do I title this starting all over again, I guess it's because very little was achieved during this year of 2012. But, networking with God's people as well as those who profess their love for God, but questionable, have taught me many things, hehehe...not bad just some tactics that can be used business wise and is also helpful for the expanding of God's kingdom. Oh, bless His Holy Name!
(2). Making a newer plan on how to achieve my goals so the vision God placed in me will be fulfilled.
(3). I'm making goals that I know will be reachable, anything else that seems unreachable but is in my heart, I will write it down and give to the Lord in prayer. Because I have found out, it's not by any might, nor by any power, but by the Spirit of God, it can be reached.
(4) Pray Up! and Get into the Word and then ACTION!
*****
why do I title this starting all over again, I guess it's because very little was achieved during this year of 2012. But, networking with God's people as well as those who profess their love for God, but questionable, have taught me many things, hehehe...not bad just some tactics that can be used business wise and is also helpful for the expanding of God's kingdom. Oh, bless His Holy Name!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
2 thoughts on “An Open Letter to SPS”