The Hope of the Believer . . .

Visiting Other Churches: New Series No.5...  

ASSEMBLIES OF GOD: PENTECOSTAL AND MISSIONARY 

There are three Assembly of God churches in my home town of Denton, Texas, and I have visited all three of them. While preparing this article I visited the First Assembly of God a second time so as to become better acquainted and to ask questions of its pastor, Bill Bennett. I received materials about the denomination not only from the presbytery office in nearby Gainesville but from the international headquarters in Springfield, Mo.

In visiting a church I look for what is distinctive, that which sets it apart from others. At the First Assembly of God I felt a sense of urgency on their part, which is, unfortunately, all too rare among churches, which are often rather dull and lackadaisical. At First Assembly there is lots of Body life, with many participating in various ways. Thirteen were on the large stage leading the service, with an array of musical instruments, including four guitars, some of them electric, a piano and an organ. Women took a substantial role, playing instruments, singing solos, and testifying. From its early history this denomination has ordained women to the ministry and they serve as pastors in churches.

The testimonials interested me, coming more from women than from men. Standing at their seats, they recounted victories of faith in their lives. One lady told how she flushed her medicine down the commode and found health through prayer. A divorcee told how she had found a Christian husband, not by seeking one but by waiting upon the Lord. She found him or he found her at work. Since she was at church alone, I was curious why the man whom the Lord had chosen did not attend church with her, so after church I asked her. I was relieved to learn that he was usually with her, but that he had to work that Sunday. Then I wondered if she was only then testifying about finding her husband, if she had waited until he was not with her, lest she embarrass him, but I did not ask.

There was enthusiasm. In their testimonials they spoke of loving each other, "winning the victory," and of reaching some poor soul in a nursing home. They worshipped God by clapping and raising their hands, and speaking words of praise. At one point we stood for 20 minutes praising God with uplifted hands. While I comfortably joined in, I could not have done that earlier in the morning at the Church of Christ where I attended. We praise God in a different way, more quietly and more laid back. No one ever raises her hands or cries out "Praise God!" It would be out of order in a Church of Christ as well as most other churches. I sometimes wonder what God thinks about the different ways in which his children worship him. We would all agree that God first of all wants whatever we do to come from our hearts.

The call for a monetary offering was vigorous and unapologetic. The treasurer, I presume, got up and said, "You know what I'm here for." He called for money, insisting that 10% of what we have belongs to God, and that if we do not give that we are robbing God. The members put their offering in envelopes and then into a plate as it passed.

There was an altar call. Three ministers received the people as they came forward to pray and seek. There was laying on of hands, healing, tears, praising God. One would say, "Do you love Jesus this morning?" and another "Church is fun!" That last exultation really impressed me. Whoever heard of church being fun!

The sermon, which was not short, was on "Precious Things," based on 1 Pet. 2:4. The pastor spoke at length on the preciousness of the family, urging husbands to love their wives and fathers to nurture their children. Recalled for his wife to join him in the pulpit. They make a handsome couple. He said to her, looking her in the eyes, "You are precious to me." He then told the men how to prove their love for their wives: by being faithful, considerate, and by showing appreciation. A real man, he said, is one who shows responsibility in his home.

The preacher not only preached but performed. At one point he danced before the Lord as he spoke. He likes to say, "God loves you!" and "Amen!" and even "Hello!" and "Rear, Hear!" over and over. The last expression reminded me of the old Scottish Presbyterians who prefer "Hear, Hear!" to "Amen!". To say the least, one is not likely to doze off listening to the pastor of the First Assembly of God in Denton, Texas! There is time for a nap, understand, but it is unlikely.

The pastor closed his message by inviting couples to come forward for a renewal of commitment. At least 20 couples gathered around the pulpit, joining the pastor and his wife, in prayer and praise, and one could see the couples whispering loving words (presumably) into each other's ears. While such things might appear overdone to a visitor, one nonetheless got the impression that family life is taken seriously at the First Assembly of God.

But I was in for a surprise. There was no speaking in tongues, not a syllable, not at any one of the three churches that I attended. This surprised me because the Assemblies of God are adamantly Pentecostal, and Pentecostal to them means the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which in turn means to speak in tongues. Tongue-speaking is the "initial" sign of receiving the Holy Spirit, they believe, which does not come at conversion but sometime in the believer's life, depending on the vigor with which he seeks "the gift." One may be a Christian and a member of the Assembly of God Church without having experienced glossolalia, but she is expected to seek the gift. They teach that every Christian can and should speak in tongues (for every Christian should receive the Holy Spirit, and these are equated) but they graciously recognize that this is not the case, even in their own churches. In any event no one would be ordained a minister in the Assemblies of God who does not speak in tongues.

This has been a question of some controversy in their short history as a denomination (They are only 75 years old), and it has apparently been settled categorically: If one has received the baptism of the holy Spirit this will be evident in the speaking of tongues. They are persuaded that they have Biblical precedent for such a claim. If one does not speak in tongues he has not received the Holy Spirit, and if he has received the Holy Spirit he will speak in tongues (period). Since they concede that one can be converted (and be a Christian) and not yet speak in tongues, this puts them in the awkward position of believing that one can be a Christian without having the Holy Spirit, while Paul in Rom. 8:9 insists that if one does not have the Spirit of Christ he cannot be a Christian!

An interesting anecdote from their early history concerns one of their most prominent and respected pioneer ministers, F. F. Bosworth, who, though he himself spoke in tongues, concluded after long and painstaking study that a Christian might receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit and not speak in tongues. There are other evidences of receiving the Spirit beside glossolalia, he decided, such as the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, etc.). Since this was at odds with the Assemblies of God position, Mr. Bosworth felt that he should surrender his credentials as a minister, which he did, finally joining another denomination. I found his letter of resignation interesting:  

It is with regret that I return my credentials, but I believe it is the consistent thing to do, since I do not believe, nor can I ever teach, that all will speak in tongues when baptized in the Spirit. I pray that at the next Council the subject of the Bible evidence will be lovingly considered from the Scriptures. (Like a River, p.66)  

When Bosworth issued a tract entitled Do All Speak in Tongues?, drawn from the question the apostle Paul asked, which clearly implies a negative answer, many of his peers seemed to waver for a time in their traditional position, as much because of Bosworth's exemplary life as from his argument. But the General Council ruled that it is the church's position that "the baptism of the Holy Ghost is regularly accompanied by the initial, physical sign of speaking in tongues," and that any minister who believes otherwise should not hold credentials in the Assemblies of God.

What impresses me about this story is that it was all done peacefully, without rancor and without division. Bosworth left in peace, with the blessings of his friends, and no sect formed around him as is usually the case in such disagreements. Except for a breach during its formative years over baptizing in the name of "Jesus only" rather than the trinitarian formula of Mt. 28:19, which the church held to after much debate, the Assemblies of God have never had a division. The likes of Bosworth and the less exemplary Aimie Semple McPherson and Jimmy Swaggart may leave or be ousted, hut they don't form sects among the Assemblies. Mrs. McPherson was with the Assemblies only three years, but she brought thousands into the church. She eventually left and started her own church. Swaggart also now has an independent ministry. Unlike other denominations in Denton, including my own, the three Assembly of God congregations are of one mind and one heart.

This concern for peace and unity goes back to their formative years where there are likenesses to our own Stone-Campbell Movement, one being that they too have been reluctant to assume denominational status. Like the Campbellites who wanted to be a unity movement within the church at large and not a separate church, the Assemblies of God (They first took the name "Church of God" until they realized it was already taken) wanted to be a Pentecostal movement among the established churches and not become a separate denomination. Again like the Campbellites who, when their unity message based upon the Bible alone was rejected by the churches, had to start their own denomination, the Assemblies, when their Pentecostal message was not only rejected by the denominations but even met with persecution, were forced to start their own church. I feel at home reading their material, for I note a fondness for "Movement" rather than "denomination" in referring to themselves. We do like our euphemisms, don't we?

They also advise that they are not the "Assemblies of God Church," which is redundant, but simply Assemblies of God, and they note correctly in passing that "church" is not a proper translation of the Greek ecclesia. And what is? Assembly of course! That means that "Assembly of God" is a more scriptural name than "Church of Christ" or "Church of God."

The Assemblies also eschew creeds and party names, and they baptize (in water) by immersion, noting that it is a command for every penitent believer. But unlike us, they haven't divided into umpteen sects. Neither are they sectarian in that they accept other believers as Christians, which is very much to their credit, considering their rigid stand on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. In 1918 the General Council passed a ruling that reached beyond their Pentecostal emphases, and yet without compromise: "Resolved, that we again declare our Christian fellowship with every true child of God, and that we stand ready to cooperate with all Christians." They even gave their blessings to Mrs. McPherson when she left and started a new denomination. And you notice that they did not quarrel with Jimmy Swaggart. It was quick, not-so-painful, tough-love surgery.

And I know of at least one case where they received a Church of Christ minister who had a "Pentecostal" experience, a fine man and a great preacher who would have otherwise been lost to the ministry. Re has now been with them for many years and he tells me he preaches the same gospel he's always preached and is freer than he's ever been. He was in fact once Pat Boone's minister. The Church of Christ kicked them both out for speaking in tongues. Once we too become sufficiently "Pentecostal" we will not solve "problems" that way.

Since they stand virtually alone as a major denomination that has not splintered into various sects, I have asked why. I find two probable reasons: Their emphasis upon the Spirit-filled life and their commitment to evangelism, both of which are antagonistic to the carnality of factionalism among Christians. And these two vital dimensions of the "true church" are the very ones neglected by most denominations.

They are the only denomination in the world that have far more members abroad in the mission fields than they have at home. Starting with a handful of "Pentecostals" in Topeka in 1901 and becoming the Assemblies of God in Hot Springs in 1914, they now have 16 million members in 118 countries, and only two million of those are in the United States! The Mormons may amaze us, but they are duds in comparison to the Assemblies, who go forth with a Spirit-powered message. They have 1,460 fulltime missionaries and 100,000 national workers in those 118 nations. Their Revival time, an international radio broadcast, can be heard 550 times each week in scores of languages all around the world. And they have 300 Bible colleges in foreign nations alone, far more than any other denomination. They have 400 missionaries in the United States who are appointed to minister to the handicapped, such as the deaf and blind and ethnic groups. If you can believe it, their publishing house in Springfield, Mo. turns out 23 tons of periodicals each day!

Does being Spirit-filled make a people more peaceful and does being Spirit-powered make them more evangelical and evangelistical? The Assemblies of God may answer those questions.

The ancient creeds declared that the Church of Christ upon earth must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The Assemblies of God agree, but they insist that it must also be Pentecostal. If by this they meant that the church must be Spirit-filled and Spirit-powered, irrespective of tongue-speaking, most Christians would agree. We would not only agree with their own F. F. Bosworth that one might receive the Spirit and not speak in tongues, but we would also believe that one might speak in tongues and not have the Spirit. 1 John 4:1-2 suggests as much, for it warns us to test every spirit since some spirits are not of God. Paul in 1 Cor. 12:3 also observes that some who claim to speak by the Spirit of God say things they ought not. Even more impressive is that while Paul spoke in tongues and recognized that it came from God, he placed no such emphasis upon it as do the Assemblies of God. He in fact deprecated tongue-speaking, insisting that he had rather speak five words that could be understood than 10,000 words in a tongue (1 Cor. 14:4-6,19).

Neither in Scripture nor in the history of spirituality, including the lives of the great saints of the ages, is glossolalia prominent or dominate but only occasional and unique, even if from God and for whatever reasons. The Assemblies are aware of the lack of tongue-speaking in the ministries of the great preachers. When they fail to find hard evidence for tongue-speaking even in such animated evangelists as Charles G. Finney, they say that it is Biblical evidence that really matters. But Scripture falls far short of indicating that receiving the Holy Spirit was always or even usually accompanied by tongue-speaking.