I submit for your consideration two apparently unrelated questions:

• Is the Assemblies of God a cult?
• Is Wikipedia an authoritative encyclopedia?

I submit that the Assemblies of God is as much like a cult as the Wikipedia is authoritative. We are, instead, a movement.

A Word on Wikipedia
Over the last few months Wikipedia has taken much heat over its collaborative form of public authoring and editing. Nearly anyone can post an article, make an edit, or undo edits. This is good, and not-so-good: The good of it is that Wikipedia benefits from the collective mind of many editors. Where one editor may have it wrong, several others can guide an article to incremental perfection (in theory). On the other hand, one misinformed or biased “editor” can make subtle or egregious changes, and it may not come to the attention of those best armed to correct it. Thus, Wikipedia’s “democratic” version of truth becomes “reality” … or “Wikiality.” (See Stephen Colbert’s “Wikiality” report from August 1, 2006.)

Here’s a brief roundup of stuff that has surfaced in the media—note, this is only what’s surfaced. Wiki-vandalism and counter-factual edits occur frequently, perhaps daily. This is just a sampling of the most sensational Wiki-news:

• On May 26, 2005, Brian Chase created an article on John Seigenthaler, Sr., former assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy and founder of the First Amendment Center. Containing numerous falsehoods, the article claimed: “For a brief time, [Seigenthaler] was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.” The article was remained uncorrected until September 23 — four months. Seigenthaler journaled the affair in an op-ed piece in USA Today on November 30, 2005. (See: “A false Wikipedia ‘biography,'” “Seigenthaler and Wikipedia — Lessons and Questions,” and: “Wicked truths about Wikipedia show weakness of online encyclopedia: South Florida Sun-Sentinel“.)
• On November 9, 2005, an article on Jens Stoltenberg, prime minister of Norway, was edited to accuse him of languishing in prison for pedophilia. Editors corrected the article in 22.5 hours but by then the Dagbladet newspaper had already featured the edit on the front page. (See: “Norwegian Wikipedia Locks Page about Prime Minister,” and “Wikipedia and Vandalism“. Oh, and there’s a lousy machine-translation of the Dagbladet article here.)
• On December 1, 2005, former MTV VJ and so-called “podfather” of podcasting, Adam Curry, anonymously edited a Wikipedia article on podcasting to inflate his own role and deflate others’. (See: “Adam Curry Caught in Sticky Wiki,” and Curry’s admission to “pilot error” on his blog. Meanwhile, Dave Winer complains about “People with erasers“.)
• On December 12, 2005, a Long Beach, N.Y., group associated with QuakeAID (also alleged Wikiality victims), announced a class action suit against Wikipedia on behalf of those “who believe that they have been defamed or who have been the subject of anonymous and malicious postings to the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia.” (See: “Wikipedia Class Action Lawsuit.”)
• On December 13, 2005, Alfred Cunningham releases, “Online Encyclopedia Is a Gathering for Internet Predators,” claiming that numerous Wikipedia contributors are pro-pedophilia.
• On December 19, 2005, A photo of Bill Gates on his bio page, mysteriously acquired both horns and mustache. (See: “Screen shots of Wikipedia vandalism.”)
• On January 18, 2006, popular British DJs, Scott Mills and Mark Chapman took turns defacing their own entries until Wikipedia locked the article from further changes. “‘We can’t be held responsible for anything,’ concluded Chapman, drily, inadvertently summing up the Wikipedia philosophy.” (See: “Wikipedia editing hobby goes nationwide.”)
• Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia co-founder, has come under criticism for repeatedly making edits to his own bio page on Wikipedia, removing credit for his fellow co-founder Larry Sanger, and deleting “porn” and “erotica” references to his adult search portal. (See: “Who owns your Wikipedia Bio?”)

Now, I enjoy and use Wikipedia frequently. It’s a quick read (though articles are not always well-organized) and is a handy source of links to external sites with more information. It’s also a good barometer of current thought on a given subject, but the thinking is often shallow and disorganized nevertheless. Wikipedia is admittedly weak on facts — nobody’s job is on the line. Professionally-edited publications have staff who fact-check articles going to press—reputations and careers are at stake after all. It pays to get it right. Wikipedia, with one paid staff member, has nobody. And, in practice, efforts to fact-check and repair articles are still subject to fellow collaborators ability to revert an article to its former status if they feel like it.

Wikipedia illustrates “truthiness,” a word selected by the American Dialect Society as the Word of the Year for 2005. Truthiness is, “the quality of stating concepts or facts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.” Indeed, Wikipedia scores high on the truthiness index: all the editors who get their words publicly viewable fully believe, or wish, their writing to be true. But as we can see with the recent controversies over personal bios, we have no reason to endorse Wikipedia’s truthfulness … its accuracy … it’s reflection of reality.

As the Wikipedia disclaimer states:

“[N]othing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. … The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.”

On Wikipedia and the Assemblies of God
In early January, an article came across my feed reader piquing my interest. I have a feed sucking down references to the Assemblies of God in weblog entries, and Google’s blog search evidently spiders Wikipedia “talk” pages. (Talk pages are publicly viewable “behind-the-scenes” discussion among the contributors for any article.) On the talk page for the “List of Purported Cults” article, Wikipedia user T. Anthony (aka. Thomas R., a conservative Catholic), was debating the status of the Assemblies of God as a purported cult, eligible for inclusion on the list.

This invited research.

Back in August of 2005, another Catholic from Australia, user Jachin, added the A/G to the list—no surprise given that the new Family First political party in South Australia has been “energetically derided as a fanatical right-wing fundamentalist Christian organisation” for its conservative values and close ties to the Assemblies of God in Australia (the former A/G superintendent, Andrew Evans, co-founded the party and is the SA Parliamentary Leader for the party). However, T. Anthony removed the listing by August 30 and asked for a source citation. Apparently, the BBC was blamed for the cite, but T. Anthony couldn’t find it. All the BBC had to say was that the A/G is “Another small Pentecostal body in which each congregation retains its autonomy.”

(Now, T. Anthony is no A/G-lovin’ fool. His grandmother is A/G, sure, but she has “strong faults” and “unpleasant aspects,” and he finds that “Pentecostalism is odd.” While open to persuasion, he’s just not sure we’re a cult.)

The discussion continued through September, when T. Anthony noted the Assemblies of God returned to the list despite his earlier edit. Throughout September, he continued requesting the elusive BBC citation, but like Yeti, the Roswell Alien, or the Loch Ness monster, it remained missing. The best Anthony could find this go-around was a discussion on the Sydney Morning Herald website—from a discussion forum, not the newspaper itself. This kind of citation is not sufficient to warrant inclusion on the list.

By November the A/G was off the list once more at T. Anthony’s insistence, consistently and politely continuing to demand a cite for verification. Again, the BBC is the alleged culprit, without evidence.

And in the latest round (the one that caught my eye), on January 7, 2006, T. Anthony removed the A/G from the purported cult list once more. Again, he asks for the evidence that the BBC ever referred to the Assemblies of God as a cult or even, in British terms, a sect. T. Anthony has searched the reliable sources on the Net and has turned up nothing. He allows that, “individual AoG preachers may make their congregations cult-like, but I don’t see how you can justify the entire religion being a purported cult by any normal definition.”

Still, as ever, he remains open. Just give up the proper citation and he’ll throw in the towel.

What gives?
Normally, I would dismiss this kind of discussion—if I even noticed it in the first place—because every religious movement has its evangelists and detractors. Nothing in the Wikipedia talk pages raises the bar on the discussion. No new evidence is shared, no thoughtful dialog ensues. We have one quixotic defender of the A/G, who doesn’t even agree with us, and a void of silence — until the Assemblies of God is quietly added to the list for another go-around.

But this minor skirmish is taking place on the most highly visited encyclopedia site online. You know, and I know, that Wikipedia isn’t authoritative. But not everybody who reads the site knows or cares about that disclaimer. Sites and publications like this frame issues, people, and events in a certain light, and it’s possible—likely, even—that a few motivated detractors can do more damage to a reputation than an army of evangelists or a horde of neutral editors could correct.

So what if Norway’s prime minister got out of jail with a clean bill of moral health in only 22.5 hours—it made front page news. So what if Seigenthaler didn’t kill his boss—his reputation was besmirched for four months!

Wikipedia has made itself a gateway for … something. I don’t know what. I can’t call it a gateway for “truth,” or “facts,” or “knowledge,” because those aren’t claimed and evidence abounds otherwise. It’s a gateway for organized opinion, I suppose, but even then, it’s only organized on the page. Behind the thin veil of order and neatness and clean design is a chaotic brew of dissension, reverted entries, vandalism, petty retribution, honest inquiry, sound editing, and puerile commentary.

You get what you pay for? On a good day, I suppose. But on a bad day you might pay for far more than you deserve. Like Seigenthaler. Like Stoltenberg.

Were it not for the lone efforts of T. Anthony we’d be stuck in the cult-bin. I applaud him.

So what is a cult?
According to the Wikipedia editors, a cult is merely whatever a trusted media source identifies as a cult. This circular definition keeps the list in harmony with Wikipedia’s policy on neutrality, no original research, and verifiable sources. So, if the BBC ever does run a piece asserting that the Assemblies of God is a cult, we’re on the list. Period. And no amount of apologetics or frothing at the mouth will change it. It doesn’t matter which definition of “cult” you use, and there are several, it only matters what others with media leverage have said.

The editors involved on this article have agreed to a policy for taxonomy that attempts to remain neutral. In order to avoid any claims of personal or ideological bias, all entries on the list must be verified with a citation from a trusted news source. To assist the editors, there’s an orderly list, in descending value and international scope, of sources which can be trusted to call it right. Never mind the fact that articles from the AP, Reuters, BBC, CNN, the New York Times, and so on, can be equally biased as any single editor on Wikipedia, as long as it is a legitimate cite, it’s fodder for the list.

Truth by democracy.

Before we can make lists of a certain kind of thing, whether it be antique bread knives, 4th-dimensional super-beings, best rock songs of the 80s, or mind-twisting cults, it is helpful to define what the thing being listed actually is. To do this, I refer you to a nice overview written by the late Jan Groenveld, from the Cult Awareness Information center, titled: “Identifying a Cult.” Here are some salient distinctions between commonly used definitions of “cult”:

Secular Definition

CULT — From the Latin “cultis” which denotes all that is involved in worship, ritual, emotion, liturgy and attitude.

This definition actually denotes what we call denominations and sects and would make all religious movements a cult.

Christian Definition

CULT — Any group which deviates from Biblical, orthodox, historical Christianity. i.e. They deny the Deity of Christ; His physical resurrection; His personal and physical return to earth and salvation by faith alone.

This definition only covers those groups which are cults within the Christian religion. It does not cover cults within other world religions such as Islam and Hinduism. Nor does it cover psychological, commercial or educational cults which do not recognize the Bible as a source of reality.

Universal Definition

CULT — Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members.

This definition covers cults within all major world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults. Others may define these a little differently, but this is the simplest to work from.

(From: Jan Groenveld, “Identifying A Cult,” [http://www.caic.org.au/general/idencult.htm], viewed 01/30/06])

And then, regarding the Christian definition of cult—especially the “Orthodox Bible-Based Cult”, Jan adds this comment:

A group is called a cult because of their behaviour — not their doctrines. Doctrine is an issue in the area of Apologetics and Heresy. Most religious cults do teach what the Christian church would declare to be heresy but some do not. Some cults teach the basics of the Christian faith but have behavioural patterns that are abusive, controlling and cultic.

This occurs in both Non-Charismatic and Charismatic churches. These groups teach the central doctrines of the Christian faith and then add the extra authority of leadership or someone’s particular writings. They centre around the interpretations of the leadership and submissive and unquestioning acceptance of these is essential to be a member of good standing. This acceptance includes what we consider non-essential doctrines e.i. not salvation issues (such as the Person and Work of Christ.) The key is that they will be using mind control or undue influence on their members.

(From: Jan Groenveld, “Identifying A Cult,” [http://www.caic.org.au/general/idencult.htm], viewed 01/30/06])

(Emphasis added.)

I like this structure. It resonates with what I’ve read on cults and various cult practices, and provides a nice framework to know what is being discussed when the world “cult” is brandished. I especially like the focus being on behavior over and above doctrine. On one hand, anything religious is a cult. But from within orthodox Christianity, typically only those groups outside of orthodoxy, with aberrant doctrines, are viewed as cults. However, given the framework above, we can say that even within orthodoxy, there may be an adherence to orthodox doctrines, and yet individual churches or pastors can rise to the level of cult-status by their behaviors. This is like seeing definition three (universal definition) worked out from within a group that is mainstream and religious.

So, is the Assemblies of God a cult? Yes. According to the secular definition. And if a BBC journalist were writing with this definition in mind, we might easily get tagged as a cult without failing any sort of cultic litmus test. And if that happens, guess what? Editors for the leading Internet encyclopedia have all the rationale needed to identify us as a cult.

And thus a long-standing meme is revitalized. Truthiness wins and truth gets knocked on the head.

I suspect there are several A/G churches operating as cults according to the universal definition—or even the Christian definition. It would come as no surprise to me. However, I wouldn’t be shocked if it turns out there are Baptist cults that fit the bill, too. Or Methodist cults. Anywhere you find people, something will go wrong somewhere, eventually. And before you know it, some intrepid Wikipedian is taking names and editing stubs.

But Pentecostals and Charismatics sometimes get a raw deal. Do a few searches online and you’ll find the A/G mentioned in connection with emotional abuse and mind-control on various watch lists. The whole “Holy Spirit” thing is just too weird for some Christians to grapple with. As one anonymous poster writes on FactNet.org, “Casting demons out or exorcism is a procedure that is not performed in mainstream religions; only extremist cults perform these kinds of bizarre, abusive, sadistic, mind-control rituals.”

If Not a Cult, What Then?
Way back in September 1998, historian Vinson Synan, dean of the Regent University School of Divinity, told the Pentecostal World Conference that about 25 percent of the world’s Christian population is Pentecostal or Charismatic. Yes. In all, one in four Christians today believe in this sort of stuff. And that number increases daily.

While there is evidence for an unbroken thread of Pentecostal/Charismatic-like mysticism running throughout church history, the modern phenomenon began with the “touch felt around the world” on January 1, 1901 when Agnes Ozman was baptized in the Spirit and spoke in tongues at Bethel Bible College, under Charles Fox Parham’s leadership. From 1906–1909, it reached a tipping point with the Azusa Street revival in Los Angeles, California, led by a former student of Parham’s, William Joseph Seymour. This revival and the worldwide attention it captured is often considered the genesis of the movement that became Pentecostalism.

From humble beginnings at a backwater Bible college under a racist teacher, to a racially integrated revival, to the formation of new denominations by 1914, to the charismatic renewals of the late 50s, to the incredible, explosive growth of the Pentecostal world in the global South (Brazil’s Pentecostal population exceeds that of America by far), the Pentecostal/Charismatic cultural phenomenon is nothing less than a full-fledged movement.

But what is a movement, you ask?

I’m grateful to Steve Addison‘s weblog for providing this succinct quote from Luther P. Gerlach and Virgina H. Hine, authors of People, power, change: Movements of social transformation, a sociological study of the Black Panthers and Pentecostals:

“A movement is a group of people who are organized for, ideologically motivated by, and committed to a purpose which implements some form of personal or social change; who are actively engaged in the recruitment of others; and whose influence is spreading in opposition to the established order within which it originated.”

On the surface, this helpful definition sounds suspiciously like the “universal definition” of cults cited above. However, looking closely, I see a significant difference between mind-controlling cults and movements like the A/G: with a cult, personal change is imposed by an authoritarian structure for the benefit of the hierarchy itself. With a movement, personal change is organic: it comes from within. In the case of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement that change from within is not imposed by any human agency, it is enabled by Divine agency acting from within, and the change benefits the individual first. Society then benefits as individuals are themselves empowered to be change agents within their culture.

Does that sound like Acts 2 to you?

Conclusion
Anything worth doing well is worth doing badly for personal gain. Simon the ex-sorcerer fell prey to this temptation when he was first impressed with Philip going about working miracles. Even after his own conversion, when Peter and John came to Samaria, Simon was fascinated that when the disciples laid hands on people, folks were filled with the Spirit. So, naturally, he offered money and then begged of them, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” Of course, that earned him a stern rebuke (Acts 8:9–25).

Perhaps today there are not enough stern rebukes going on in the Pentecostal and Charismatic world. Perhaps there are too many cult-like churches rising up in our midst because, after all, the temptation to capitalize on a movement’s power to change and mobilize is heady stuff. There’s a good reason we are admonished to “lay hands on no man suddenly” (1 Timothy 5:22). Men and women of anemic character, of uncritical, impressionable minds, and of weak doctrine and practice should not be suddenly thrust into leadership. I am not sure that “premature ordination” is really the root of doctrinal and behavioral excess in some churches, but it does seem clear to me that without leaders evidencing the spiritual transformation that is at the heart of our movement we are vulnerable to every Simon the Sorcerer who wants to mold his church into a cultic center of power.

Despite the inaccuracies of Wikipedia and the discussion over whether the A/G is a cult, or not, the truth is, perhaps there is more fodder for this claim than we would like. It’s Wikipedia’s job to be “truthy.” Whatever that is. But it’s our job to be spotless.

Think there’ll ever be a Wikipedia list of purported spotless denominations?

Websites of Note:

In addition to the articles linked to in my story above, I found these posts on Steve Addison’s blog worth reading:

• Are we a movement?
• Snyder on movements
• When the church goes to the dogs

Also see “The Origins of the Pentecostal Movement” by the inimitable Vinson Synan, Ph. D.

[tags]Adam-Curry, Agnes-Ozman, American-Dialect-Society, Assemblies-of-God, Assembly-of-God, Australia, BBC, Bethel-Bible-College, Bill-Gates, BlogRodent, Charismatic, Charismatics, Charles-Fox-Parham, colbert-report, controversy, cult, cult-watch, cults, Dave-Winer, encyclopedia, Family-First, Global-South, Jan-Groenveld, Jens-Stoltenberg, Jimmy-Wales, John-Seigenthaler, Larry-Sanger, mind-control, brainwashing, movements, MTV, orthodoxy, pedophilia, Pentecostal, Pentecostalism, Pentecostals, QuakeAID, Regent-University, religious-movements, Robert-Kennedy, Stephen-Colbert, truthiness, USA-Today, vandalism, Vinson-Synan, Wikiality, Wikipedia, William-Joseph-Seymour[/tags]

Update: See “The A/G: Desperately Seeking Disciplers” for the latest information on this issue, and to see what the A/G is doing about it.

Blogging from the heartland, Sean MacNair calls it like he sees it. In a brief post he concisely serves up highlights from 100 years of American church renewal (See: “The Pardoner’s Tale: My best (stolen) idea so far this year“). He buzzes over Pentecostalism, the Charismatic renewal, healing revivals, Billy Graham, the Charismatic Catholic renewal, the Jesus Movement, the megachurch-cum-denomination trend, worship innovations, and the Emergent Conversation. His point: Renewal threatens the status quo but ultimately gets institutionalized, fades into oblivion, or is assimilated into the mainstream.

Buried in his post is a subtle criticism of the movement that spawned them all, and the institution that formed as a result: Pentecostalism and the Assemblies of God. He writes:

New movements come, new movements go, and the people on either side of an impending change in style always look askance at the guy across the aisle, when in fact they don’t have to, this too shall pass or at least be assimilated.

For example, look at the Azusa Street revival in Los Angeles in the early 1900’s. The holy rollers came on the scene in waves, and boy were the established churches aggravated. Excessive emotion was being brought into the church, emotion not befitting the “house of Gawd” (adopt the proper pseudo-reverential tone here). These Pentecostals, as they were dubbed, were driven out and forced to establish their own fellowships. Eventually groups like the Assemblies of God sprang up, never intending to become a denomination, but after 30 years travelling down that road anyway. 100 years later the AOG is part of the establishment and new groups are trying to breath life into it. A movement that brought much needed life to the faith of many, and was thought of as a threat, did not remain so.

(Emphasis mine.)

MacNair’s criticism echoes Margaret Poloma’s evaluation:

Just as other once-charismatic religious movements have followed the path of over-institutionalization and over-regulation, which in turn has discouraged much of the original charisma, the Assemblies of God could suffer the chilling effects of routinization. … Paradoxically, the institution that developed out of charisma and has been strengthened by fresh outbursts also seeks to tame and domesticate this spirit. it remains to be seen whether — and how much — charisma will rule over bureaucratic forms and regulations, or whether organizational concerns will stifle the Spirit.

(Again, emphasis mine.)

 — Margaret Poloma, ‘The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas,” Christian Century, (10/17/90), pp. 932-934.

My knowledge is neither vast nor deep. But in my brief time with the A/G (since 1980 or so) I only recall two recent reformation movements directed at the Assemblies of God, and they were both internal: the “Decade of Harvest” and, on its heels, the “Vision for Transformation.” (If any of you know of others, internal or external, please let me know.)

Prompted by MacNair’s post, I thought I’d look at what exactly has been happening with the Assemblies of God in raw numbers over the past few decades to see if either of these reforms have had an effect. For my numbers I relied on the outstanding 2004 statistical report prepared by the A/G’s statistician, Sherri Doty, available from the A/G’s website at http://ag.org/top/about/Statistical_Report_2004.pdf.

As always, please correct me if I make any counter-factual claims below.

The Decade of Harvest:
The Decade of Harvest was instituted in the 1990s in light of several years of declining church growth in the area of church plants. From about 1965 to 1982 (the height of the charismatic renewal) more churches were opened than closed. But according to official A/G statistics this changed in 1983. Paul Drost, director of the A/G’s Department Church Planting, reflected on this in 1999:

[F]rom 1983 until the present, church plantings have been on a downward trend while church closings have been on an upward trend! The exception was 1990-92, which was the beginning of the Decade of Harvest. We do thank God for the first time in 7 years new church openings topped the 300 mark with 315 reported for 1999! (35 years of Church Planting: 1965-1999, viewed 01/02/06)

The Decade of Harvest saw 2,940 new A/G churches planted, but when you subtract the closed churches (2,077), the net change is just over half of what happened in the 80s. Drost claimed that the program’s emphasis on planting new churches not only offset the closings, but actually diminished the closings. The actual numbers do not bear that out (see chart below). The 1990s were a time of continued losses and faltering growth.

General Superintendent Thomas Trask has indicated this program-driven effort, though beneficial, ultimately might not have been directed by the Spirit:

“The Decade of Harvest was a program, a set of goals established by this church in the ‘90s. Goals were set for planting churches, adding ministers, and more. The goals were certainly good for this Fellowship, but we can’t be driven by a program; we must be led by the Spirit.” (Emphasis mine. From: “Where Is The Spirit Leading The Assemblies of God?“)

Worse, says, C. Peter Wagner, the Decade of Harvest is not only programmatic, but serves up evidence of the lack of vitality and evangelistic zeal in the Assemblies of God:

I mentioned how the Assemblies of God growth rate had slowed down in the 1990s, which was projected to be their “Decade of Harvest.” Here is the way the denomination chose to report progress to their constituency in mid-decade, 1995:

“The Harvest Task Force, in its first meeting under the new leadership structure, issued a clarion call to ‘retool and refocus for the harvest.’ Specific directives include (1) A spiritual call to revival. … While number goals can serve as a measure of progress, the emphasis needs to return to the basics.”

Notice how the language of this report focuses on yesterday: “Re-tool,” “Re- focus,” “Re-vival,” “Re-turn.” The prefix “re” means to reinstate something from the past. “Revival” literally means to bring back to life. What life? The life of the past. Help is obviously needed. Where will this help come from? The past! This sort of appeal is extremely common whenever evangelism bogs down. On the other hand, when evangelism is powerful, when soul saving is on a roll, you simply don’t hear this kind of language from leaders of growing churches and apostolic networks.

—C. Peter Wagner, Churchquake: The Explosive Dynamics of the New Apostolic Revolution (Regal Books: August, 2000), 61. (See “Inside the Book.”)

Indeed, after 1995, few mentioned the Decade of Harvest goals and program. When the 1990s closed, if it was mentioned at all, the Decade of Harvest was declared a mild success, then quietly ushered off the stage. Statistically, it’s true that more churches opened than closed in the 90s, but as I noted, the numbers were merely half that of the 80s. And the downward trend has continued on the same track through the first half of the new millennium. Here’s a summary:

The program apparently had little or no effect on church openings or closings. Perhaps Trask was right: it simply wasn’t of the Spirit. For a more comprehensive look at the trends, see this chart:

The “Average Net Change” line, in the chart, is a moving 10–year average. Clearly, in terms of physical churches, the A/G in North America is weakening despite the best efforts of the Decade of Harvest. Whatever the Decade of Harvest was supposed to “fix,” it didn’t improve anything from the church opening or closing standpoint. (Though, since 1975, the mean number of adherents per church increased from 136 to 226–-churches are now, on average, 166% fuller than they were three decades ago.)

Interestingly, as the A/G decided to focus away from the Decade of Harvest program in 1995–1996, the rate of new conversions suddenly reversed its trend. Looking at the reported conversions, we see that from 1990 to 1997 there was a dramatic increase in reported conversions from the years before (nearly double), but since 1997, annual reports of conversions have steadily decreased. It’s possible the DOH emphasis could have been a contributing factor, but it could also be coincidence. (For instance, the Brownsville Revival began in June, 1995, spawning other revivals nationwide). See chart:

Now, church planting is one way to look at the A/G’s relative health from a “church growth” perspective. Another method, of course, is to look at membership and adherents. There are problems with either number, of course. Church membership is not necessarily indicative of the number of people who attend a church or who claim to “belong” to a church, since the primary benefits of membership are the voting privileges in church business matters. That number is necessarily smaller — especially in larger churches. On the other hand, the count of attenders, or adherents, is more volatile and less subject to validation. So, the number is more “fuzzy.” I prefer looking at adherents, though, since church membership is becoming increasingly less relevant as a method of determining a church’s overall attendance.

Despite the Decade of Harvest’s apparent ineffectiveness, we saw that conversions were nevertheless up. So, how did the A/G’s numbers fare in terms of adherents? Here’s the chart:

Clearly, the A/G is still growing, in terms of numbers. But something interesting emerges when you compare the new converts versus the adherents. If you only look at the net change of adherents in each year, and compare it with the new converts each year, perhaps we could get a view of how “sticky” the conversions are. Presumably, each new convert stays in the church for a time, for discipleship, before moving to a new church, unless the church has a high level of transient attenders (say, for example, a church near a large college).

Looked at this way, the picture seems startling, to me. Not only are the new believers outstripping the net change in adherents, they seem to have no impact on the growth trend at all. If the data are accurate, we may be bringing folks to Christ in the A/G, but we’re not keeping them. One explanation is that people leave the A/G for a church more in harmony with their childhood expectations, say a mainline or other Evangelical church. A more disturbing explanation is that we’re preaching the gospel and getting decisions, but that these new believers are falling by the wayside, and not staying plugged into church anywhere. There’s no way to know, really. Not from the stats.

Whatever the case, these numbers tell me that the A/G’s evangelism efforts have failed over the last 20–30 years. Not even half the new converts are staying. Barna and others report that the majority of church growth is transfer growth: “More than 80% of the current growth registered by Protestant churches is biological or transfer growth.” (See barna.org.) If that analysis holds true for the A/G, then we are in seriously bad shape as an evangelistic enterprise.

And this, despite Barna’s findings that A/G adherents place a very high value on evangelism:

Members of the fellowship provided a wide variety of topics when asked about the single most important activity that Assemblies of God churches perform. The most frequently mentioned activity, offered by one in four members of the fellowship (26%), was evangelism. This included sharing faith, witnessing, winning souls, and reaching the lost. (See: “Assemblies of God Fellowship Study, 2003.”)

Only 8% felt that discipleship was most important. Do the math.

The Vision for Transformation:
After the Decade of Harvest program faded from view and it became clear to A/G leadership that something else needed to change, attention turned from purely mechanical emphases on church planting and evangelism to discovering what needs attention spiritually. Thus, Trask’s criticism of the Decade of Harvest as merely a program, and his insistence that the Vision for Transformation emphasis is Spirit-led. Let’s revisit Trask’s quote, and extend it:

The Decade of Harvest was a program, a set of goals established by this church in the ’90s. Goals were set for planting churches, adding ministers, and more. The goals were certainly good for this Fellowship, but we can’t be driven by a program; we must be led by the Spirit. We would be fooling ourselves if we thought the Vision for Transformation alone could change the spiritual climate of this church. It can’t. It won’t. Four words characterize what I believe needs to happen: renew, release, resource, and realign. Most importantly, we must have renewal — a passion for the things of God: prayer, evangelism, discipleship, worship, missions, and more.

Notice here the recurrence of the theme that Wagner commented on: “renew,” “release,” “resource,” and “realign.” To echo Wagner, at least two of these are backward looking emphases: “renew,” and “realign.” The difference, though is in the emphasis on “release,” and “resource.” Searching for these emphases revealed only this expansion:

RENEW — We must have a spiritual renewal within our hearts and churches – a fresh passion to win the lost, and then to disciple them.

REALIGN — We must seek ways to more effectively serve this church by realigning our ministries.

RELEASE — We must take whatever steps are necessary to release this church and its people to fulfill the call of God upon their lives.

RESOURCE—We must make the best use of the resources entrusted to us.(From: 2003-2005 Biennial Report: General Superintendent’s Report)

I like the first theme a lot, but I haven’t seen much about it in the official documents yet (it may be there, I haven’t found it). The emphasis currently seems to be on the fourth theme: “resource.” Namely: the headquarters and leadership resource.

According to AG.org, the latest incarnation of the Vision for Transformation (VFT) committee highlighted three emerging themes:

The Assemblies of God should be a network of fully empowered Pentecostal churches that multiply themselves through church planting.

The Fellowship should give emphasis and priority to the call of God and effective ministry in the credentialling process.

The Fellowship’s organizational structure should be aligned around mission and ministry to serve our ministers and empower local churches. (See “Progress Report.”)

The first theme sounds like a rewording of the Decade of Harvest emphasis. The second theme relates to changes in credentialing processes to both tighten (background screening) and loosen (local church credentialing) the ministerial application process. The third theme relates to changes at the organizational level, primarily in and around the national headquarters beauracracy.

In all, the VFT emphasizes mechanical and structural transformation more than spiritual transformation. To be sure, at each biennial business meeting, there is a “Spiritual Life” report given that carries strong calls for spiritual renewal, but those calls seem absent in much of the VFT reports ag AG.org.

For example, the Progress Report cited above lists VFT progress in the following areas:

• Facilitating the Credentialing Process
• New District Governance Models
• Mandatory Screening of Ministerial Applicants
• National Placement Service
• Cooperative Church Status
• Assistance to Language Credential Holders
• Local Church Credential
• Credentialing Reciprocity in the United States
• Requirement of A/G History and Polity Course by All Credentialed Applicants
• Global University and Berean Courses
• Church Planting
• Resolution 17: Internal Structure of General Council
  Culture (Culture at HQ — Rich)
• Structure (Constitution and Bylaws changes — Rich)
• Internal Economy (Budget by Deliverables)
• Training Systems (Methods and Tools)
• Metrics and Rewards (At HQ — Rich)
• VFT Committee Reappointed

  (See “Progress Report.”)

In short, the work that’s been done is almost entirely organizational and structural, not spiritual. It remains to be seen what long-term spiritual and corporate effects this will have. But the reports on HQ organizational change are mixed. From friends who work there, “It’s more of the same.” But CIO magazine provided a report, which I blogged on, that seemed very optimistic. (See: “The Assemblies of God’s corporate roadmap for transformation.”)

Conclusion:
I am an A/G boy through-and-through. I came to faith in a Baptist church, rededicated my life and was baptized in another Baptist church, but I was discipled and grew up in an Assemblies of God church. I went to an A/G bible college, studied at an A/G seminary, and still attend an A/G church where I occasionally enjoy the privilege of leading a Christian education course now and then. When asked, I leap at the chance to preach at an A/G church. I agree with A/G theology, I conform to A/G practices and I feel no need or desire to change my affinity. (That doesn’t mean that you who aren’t A/G are wrong. You might be, but it’s not because you’re not A/G! This is the way I do church. I recommend it for like-minded folks, but it is not the only way to be a solid, Christ-loving, God obeying, Bible believing, Christian.)

That doesn’t mean that my denomination — err … fellowship — doesn’t have its problems. We have problems. Every organization has problems. We’d be in Heaven otherwise.

The Decade of Harvest program was created to address some of those problems. I’m not sure it succeeded. It probably succeeded at something: perhaps more churches were planted than would have been otherwise, and that’s not bad. We need that emphasis today. Sometimes, healthy churches should spawn a daughter church rather than fund a new megachurch building program. Seriously. It should happen a lot more often.

The Vision for Transformation project was also created to address some of these problems, and it appears to be succeeding at transforming the organizational structures — but it will take considerable time before we know whether those transformations were beneficial or detrimental. And there’s no evidence yet that VFT has affected either A/G church growth or membership retention.

I’m proud of my adopted Pentecostal heritage. I’m proud of many, if not most, of my fellow Pentecostal believers. (I’m ashamed of some, too.) I was proud when Barna reported that Assemblies of God believers were more likely to be born again, to believe the Bible, to believe in Heaven and Hell, are more likely to pray, and more likely to share the gospel with unbelievers (see “Religious Beliefs Vary Widely By Denomination“). And we’re still among the fastest growing denominations in America.

And overseas? Whoa, don’t get me started there. (Well, I already have. See: “Diversity, the Global South, and the Assemblies of God,” and “Mormons, Church Growth, and the Global South“.) Well, actually, speaking of the Global South, I return to my theme, and the point of my conclusion.

We believe in evangelism, but we seem not to be doing it. We have the orthodoxy, but we lack the orthopraxy. And I think it’s because of our character, not our beliefs.

I think one of the biggest problems facing the American Evangelical church — not just the Assemblies of God — is our lack of emphasis on genuine spiritual transformation through and beyond the salvation experience. We seem to be content to get people to say the sinners’ prayer and let them warm the bench while the pastor does all the heavy lifting. Instead, we need a return to spiritual transformation and the expectation that character and behavior will noticeably improve after salvation, and continue improving. In the early-to-mid-1900s we had this expectation, and it devolved into legalism. Perhaps, in our reaction against legalism we have too quickly embraced a cheap and easy grace. There must be a balance.

As seen by the statistics above, we are not doing anybody a service by getting great evangelistic numbers if we are not following-through in discipleship and spiritual growth. If our retention rates are buoyed by “transfer growth” and babies instead of evangelistic growth we’re not growing: we’re homesteading.

(Thanks to Sean MacNair for prompting my romp through the stats. I apologize to all of you who waded through it — I didn’t expect it to take this long!)

[tags]BlogRodent, Pentecostal, Assemblies-of-God, Assembly-of-God, AOG, demographics, missions, religion, christianity, evangelical, Thomas-Trask, statistics, church-growth, evangelism, George-Barna, Global-South[/tags]

J. Lee Grady, over at Charisma magazine, has issued a call for clearheadedness among the charis-manics in his editorial, “It’s Getting Really Weird Out There.” The article cites strange goings-on at various Charismatic churches, and some classical Pentecostal churches.

This is where I cite my earlier post, “The Problem with Pentecostal Distinctives,” to reinforce his point. This is what happens when any group elevates experience and subjectivity above a commitment to sound biblical hermeneutics. This is why Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 12-14, addressing bad theology based on experience, grounding the Corinthians instead in the greatest commandment: love.

More than anything, we need to adhere to first principles: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, strength, and soul; and love your neighbor as yourself. While none of us, not one, can claim to keep these commandments perfectly, it’s the goal we aim for.

If I truly love God to any degree, I will be devoted to his Word and obedience to his commands. To the degree that I love God, I will desire to know him, to seek his mind on all matters, to obey the clear reading of Scripture. When I do that, I find myself returning to the Word over, and over; I’ll read devotionally, meditate on what he has to say, memorize it, study it. (Confession: writing this is convicting me.)

The most immediate means of knowing and loving God we have is bound between leather, and it’s usually gathering dust on the table by the door—where it’s easy to grab on our way to church. Too many of us, in the pew and in the pulpit, don’t bother to read it, much less study it the way it must be studied to truly apprehend it and live by it.

What happens when we fail to ground our practice (orthopraxy) on a clear understanding of scripture (orthodoxy)? We get this:

• A pastor reveals a “new revelation,” that the Bible says church leaders can have more than one wife.
• “At one charismatic megachurch, staff pastors successfully convinced all their wives and female staff members to get breast implants.”
• A church in California (known for its revival meetings and prophetic ministry) recently imploded after members learned that several men in the church had been having homosexual affairs with the pastor, who was married.”
• “A leader with an international following (who wears the label of “apostle”) recently informed his leaders that men of God who reach his level of anointing are allowed to have more than one sexual partner. Then his own son offered his wife to his father out of a sense of spiritual obligation.”
• “In 2000 Charisma reported that charismatic preacher Clarence McClendon had divorced his wife of 16 years, Tammera McClendon, and married another woman after only seven days. The ceremony was performed by Bishop Earl Paulk, founder of the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit in Atlanta. Several prominent ministers attended the wedding, lending their endorsement to McClendon’s actions. Tammera McClendon later informed Charisma that Clarence had told her while they were married that God had already shown him the woman who would replace her as his wife.”
• (From the Strang message board…) “[A]t Water of Life in Plano, TX. Doyle Davidson, says God ‘took Patty’ (his first wife) ‘out of my life in 1987’ even though they lived together until her death two or three years ago. In 1987, Davidson says ‘God gave him a new wife’ who was the wife of one of his staff members. Davidson fired the staff member a year or so ago when he went to their house and caused a major disturbance. Davidson was arrested and fined for public intoxication. Of course he says it was all a lie. [This] lady … has gone under cover with her husband and has said she committed adultery with Davidson and he tells her and his parishioners that ‘they did not committ adultery because “what God has joined together, man can not do away with.”’”

Is any of this truly new? No, junk like this has gone on throughout all of recorded religious history: any time the People of the Book abandon the Word to chase after subjectively inspired interpretations or extra-biblical revelations, things go massively off-track. (Just read about Aimee Semple McPherson.) I don’t lay the blame at the foot of either Charismatics or Pentecostals. I lay the blame at the foot of people who refuse to train their minds according to Scripture. I lay the blame at the foot of people who are not loving God with their mind, and letting their thinking be truly transformed.

Elsewhere on the pneumatic blogosphere, right now, there is a debate going on between cessationists and Charismatics/Pentecostals about whether or not the Baptism of the Spirit is for today, or whether it ceased with the creation of the canon. I haven’t gotten involved, because it’s not a pressing issue for me: I think the scriptures are clear, and I don’t have anything pressing to add. But what I’ve noticed about the discussion is that cessationists routinely cite examples like the above to illustrate why Pentecostal/Charismatic doctrine is essentially unbiblical.

So, we try to re-frame the debate based on what the Scriptures say, and these examples keep coming back to haunt our discussions. We try to move the dialog away from ad hominem attacks, and these all-too animated straw men who don’t represent me, my friends, or the best Pentecostal teachers keep getting thrown into the fray. It’s disgusting and disheartening. Meanwhile, too much of the discussion lacks the hallmark of love.

And the Assemblies of God is not immune. There’s plenty of charis-manic heresy and bad doctrine floating around within our ranks. Much of it is in the pews, but there’s still some coming out of pulpits.

May God save us from ourselves.

In the blogosphere:

• Brad Boydston agrees: “Any movement which sees emotional intense experience as defining and normative is by nature subject to emotional manipulation.”
• Stacy L. Harp (I think) at WritingRight calls for more judgment, and chimes in with her own judgment: “most Christians I get flak from are ignorant of Scripture, and are usually Pentecostal types…nothing personal against Pentecostals, but that has been my experience”
• Fr. Daniel, at Misere Mei gives three cheers for Grady, and cautions pastors: “No amount of counseling and restoration processes can restore the trust of those who have been violated by reprobates in the pulpit.”
• Colin McGahey at The Resurgence is still stuck on the remnants of the Word of Faith movement: “There is no correlation in the gospel preached in these prosperity churches to the gospel preached in the persecuted churches around the world.”
• Bad exegesis is why Totem to Temple left the movement: “After seeing ‘most everything’ in the Pentecostal / Charismatic / Word of Faith / Third Wave camps and their value of the esoteric and experiences of personal revelation over the exegesis, evangelism, and the ecclesiastics of the Word and Spirit, I had to leave years ago.”

In the Paris News story about the Assembly of God church shooting in Sash, Texas, Debbie Wolfe is quoted, remembering the scene when Sash A/G pastor James Armstrong was killed by the gunman:

“Brother Armstrong’s wife crouched down beside their travel trailer, and I know the man walked back and forth several times shooting. The Lord protected her.”

Can I tell you I am bothered when folks say this?

Does Mrs. Wolfe really mean to imply that God was not protecting Rev. Armstrong? That God was not protecting the other three who were murdered this Sunday?

Not really, I really don’t think that’s what she means.

But the words say it, and people who aren’t native speakers of “church talk” hear a different message than she’s intending to send. (For my part, I think she and others like her simply mean, “The outcome should’ve been different, but God must have had a different purpose in mind. We’re grateful it wasn’t even worse.”)

We heard a lot of this kind of talk after 9/11, and it distracted me then, too, because I suspect this language must cause pain for the survivors — and it must make it even harder for non-believers to want to serve or worship a God who seems so callous and arbitrary.

Christ told us not to fear the one who can destroy the body, but rather to fear the one who can destroy the soul (Luke 12:4-5). The real protection we need is from God and his holiness. As long as we are sinners, unable to attain holy perfection by our own strength of will, then we are targets of God’s ultimate judgment. As one of CS Lewis’ characters remarked about Aslan the Lion:

“No, he is not safe… but he is good.”

The moment we are conceived we enter into a world that is under the sway and influence of sin and is the rulership of Hell. There is never a moment when one of us is not in danger of physical death—we live precariously a moment’s breadth away from death.

That we are alive at all is a miracle, not a given.

And yet, for the true believer, death is not something to be feared. If you believe God has prepared a place for you in his Father’s house, then you know that death is only a transition into something much better, something that the joys of this life were only a mere, grimy, prelude to.

So, who is the recipient of greater grace and mercy? The widow Armstrong, left behind to muddle through this vale of tears, sorrow, and grief, alone without her husband? Or her husband, who is even now a part of the great cloud of witnesses cheering her on?

To live is Christ, to die is gain.

Someday, maybe, I’ll understand. Meanwhile, I’ll probably join Mrs. Wolfe in using language that is simply inadequate to the task.

[tags]BlogRodent, sash-texas, church-shooting, assembly-of-god, violence, death, god, pain, suffering, heaven, hell, mercy, grace, james-armstrong, survivors-guilt[/tags]