Pentecostal(?) Eschatology in the PAOC’s Proposed New Statement of Faith

PAOC Pentecostal EschatologySince 2015 the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) has, once again, been in a process of refreshing its Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths (SOFET), including its eschatology. Overall, the new proposed statement regarding eschatology is slightly more Pentecostal than the current SOFET, and it is more in line with the PAOC’s earliest statements on eschatology and the eschatology of other Pentecostal groups.

I expect that attendees at General Conference next month, when the proposed statement will be voted on, will only have about a minute to speak to the motion, so I will give some extended explanation here for why I am “in favour of the motion.”

Eschatology that is More Pentecostal? For sure!

Like much of the proposed Statement of Essential Truths (SOET), the section that focusses on eschatology, with the title “Restoration,” adds some Pentecostal emphases that are not in the PAOC’s current SOFET [now, previous SOFET].

A passion for the kingdom” is core to Pentecostal spirituality. Consistent with this, the proposed statement affirms “Christ will complete at his second coming the restoration begun when he initiated God’s Kingdom at his first coming.” This emphasis on the kingdom of God that is already coming, but not yet fully here, is core to Pentecostal eschatology.

Another new statement that adds Pentecostal flavor to the proposed statement is the affirmation that at the second coming, Jesus Christ will “defeat all powers that oppose God.”

Though not uniquely Pentecostal, I also appreciate the addition that final “judgement is God’s gracious answer to humanity’s cry for justice to prevail throughout the earth and is consistent with God’s character as loving, holy, and just.”

And the final “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” just makes me want to raise my hands and start speaking in tongues. 😊

Unreasonably Short?

Anyone who compares the proposed SOET to the current SOFET will note that there is significantly less detail regarding eschatology in the proposed version. The proposal has only 169 words on “Restoration,” whereas the current version includes 326 words on “The End of Time.”

In many ways, the proposed, condensed version marks a return to the past. After forming in 1919, the PAOC functioned from 1920-1927 with a “Statement of Fundamental Truths” (SOFT) that included just under 200 words on eschatology.[1] It included an affirmation of “the rapture of believers,” but without an assertion of its timing, and of “the premillenial and imminent coming of the Lord.” This is similar in content to the proposed SOET—though the specific words “rapture” or “millennium” are absent, the 2022 proposal maintains the “imminent return of Christ.”

Over the years, the PAOC added increasingly more detail to its statement on eschatology. In 1928 the PAOC approved a revised version of the SOFT, expanding the eschatology section slightly to 210 words. This revision added a statement that the rapture “takes place before what is known as the Great Tribulation.”

In 1980 the PAOC further expanded its “Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths” (SOFET). Even though Scripture references were moved to footnotes (reducing the word count), the eschatology section was expanded to 343 words. This version added in numerous details such as Christ’s “victory at Armageddon,”  explicit mention of the land of Israel, and that “unbelievers remain after death conscious of condemnation until the final bodily resurrection and judgment of the unjust.” It also moved to an explicitly pre-tribulation view of the rapture.

In 1984 the General Conference amended the SOFET in a way that marked somewhat of a return to the 1928 position, allowing for either a pre-tribulation or mid-tribulation view of the rapture.[2] The paragraph on “The Tribulation” was condensed, but added that the Antichrist would emerge in the midst of the tribulation.[3] Today, as of April 2022, the eschatology section of the SOFET is fairly detailed at 326 words long.

SOFET Eschatology Length Summary

  • 1918 = under 200 words
  • 1928 = 210 words
  • 1980 = 343 words
  • 1984 = 326 words (current length)
  • 2022 proposal = 169 words

Less Detail on Eschatology is the Norm Among Other Canadian Pentecostals

Most other Canadian Pentecostal denominations include less detail on eschatology than the PAOC, and most do not reference the rapture or even the millennium. This points to the fact that there is nothing inherently Pentecostal about numerous eschatological points that are in the PAOC’s current SOFET.

Despite the reduced length, the PAOC’s proposed 169-word paragraph on eschatology is still more words than all but one Canadian Pentecostal denomination that I looked up:

Pentecostal Eschatology Outside Canada

If we look at Pentecostals outside of Canada, we also see little detail regarding eschatology:

Clearly, the amount of detail regarding eschatology within the PAOC’s current SOFET is not the norm among Pentecostal statements of faith.

Dispensational Eschatology ≠ Pentecostal Eschatology

Beyond that, most Pentecostal theologians and historians would say that dispensational eschatology, which has led to the significant detail in the PAOC’s SOFET, is actually contrary to Pentecostal theological intuitions. For example, Amos Yong claims that dispensationalism is not “conducive to pentecostal spirituality.”[4]

Similarly, Matthew Thompson maintains that “Pentecostalism in North America…lost its distinctive core due to its lack of theological consistency in adopting evangelical theologies,” by which he specifically means “Pentecostalism’s ill-advised adoption and adaptation of Scofieldian dispensationalism”[5]

Some ways that Pentecostalism conflicts with dispensational beliefs are

  1. Pentecostals experienced the dramatic and miraculous gifts of the Spirit, whereas dispensationalism was characterized by cessationism—dispensationalists believed that the gifts of the Spirit ceased after the age of the apostles.
  2. Pentecostals believed Christ was coming soon and that they were empowered by the Spirit to lead an end-of-time revival before his return, whereas dispensationalists believed that each dispensation would end with a time of apostasy, including the Church age which would precede the return of Christ.
  3. Pentecostals emphasized the already/not yet of the kingdom of God, meaning that as the Spirit is active today, the kingdom of God is already present, even though it has not yet fully come. By contrast, dispensationalism makes a sharp line between the Church age and the kingdom age.[6]

The system of dispensationalism does not fit well with Pentecostal theology and experience. Given this, Peter Althouse notes that “Pentecostals had to modify the dispensational script significantly to include their own theological distinctives.”[7]

But not all Pentecostals have held to dispensational eschatology. Larry McQueen’s study of Pentecostal history reveals there was a variety of views regarding eschatology in early Pentecostalism.[8] Quite clearly, dispensational eschatology ≠ Pentecostal eschatology. McQueen adds, the more one “takes Pentecostal theology and spirituality into account, the less dispensational it [Pentecostal eschatology] appears to be.”[9]

A Rejection of the Past?

As noted above, the condensed eschatology section of the proposed SOET is similar to the SOFT that the PAOC had prior to 1928. So, in some sense, the PAOC is returning to its roots.

At the same time, the absence of language like “rapture” or “Armageddon” or “Antichrist” does not indicate that the PAOC is rejecting these ideas that are currently in the SOFET. Indeed, the proposed SOET still allows for pastors within the PAOC to continue preaching these ideas.

By analogy, the phrase “the new heaven and the new earth” is absent in the proposed SOET, but surely no one would conclude this means that people in the PAOC cannot or should not believe in such an idea!

At the same time, the reduced detail in the eschatology section does allow for a variety of views within the PAOC regarding some eschatological issues.

The Aim of a Statement of Faith

If I were to write the statement of faith for the PAOC, it would look different than it does. Each member of the PAOC’s Theological Study Commission feels this way.

This is a good thing. Because a denomination’s statement of belief is not meant to reflect the theology of one individual. Given this, it makes sense that it would allow for some diversity of eschatological thinking, just like the PAOC did in its earlier years.

What About the Rest of the SOET?

In my next blog post, I intend to explain 7 ways that the PAOC’s refreshed SOET is more Pentecostal in nature than the current SOFET. In the meantime, I encourage you to read the proposal for yourself (if you have access to it) and consider which ways you think the SOET reflects Pentecostal emphases.

Update: The proposed Statement of Essential Truths (SOET) was approved at the PAOC’s General Conference in May 2022. You can read the approved SOET here.

Leave a comment below by clicking here.


You might also be interested in these posts:

Andrew GabrielAndrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author of Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit as well as three academic books, including The Lord is the Spirit. He is a theology professor at Horizon College and Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on Twitter.
Endnotes

[1] The PAOC formed in 1919, and then became District Councils (Eastern and Western Canada) of the General Council of the Assemblies of God from 1920-1925. Even after the PAOC became independent, the February 1926 edition of the Canadian Pentecostal Testimony (p. 2-3) published the “Statement of Fundamental Truths Approved by the General Council of the Assemblies of God.”

[2] Thomas Miller, Canadian Pentecostals, 361.

[3] As a curious point of note, at the 1984 General Conference an amendment was carried to add the words “at that time” “between the end of the first sentence and the beginning of the second sentence,” but it seems those words were never actually added to the SOFET when it was published. Oops?!

[4] Amos Yong, In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political Theology, p. 326 (see also p. 330).

[5] Matthew Thompson, Kingdom Come, p. 3 (emphasis added).

[6] Larry McQueen, Toward a Pentecostal Eschatology, p. 45.

[7] Peter Althouse, “Eschatology: The Always Present Hope,” in The Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal Theology, p. 269.

[8] McQueen, Toward a Pentecostal Eschatology, p. 142. At the same time, McQueen notes that dispensationalism eventually took stronger hold in the Finished Work stream of the Pentecostal movement (p. 198). This stream includes the PAOC.

[9] McQueen, Toward a Pentecostal Eschatology, p. 58.

 

* If you enter an email address, it will not be published. Please keep your comments kind and relevant to the post.
* Please keep your comments under 1500 characters (about 250 words).
* No links please, unless you are citing a source.

Leave a Reply (A maximum of 1500 characters = about 250 words)

10 thoughts on “Pentecostal(?) Eschatology in the PAOC’s Proposed New Statement of Faith

  1. Andrew, I appreciate that you have approached this subject. When I accepted the Lord in 1980 in a PAOC church as a teen, it was after a season where I abandoned my faith. That pastor’s sermons on End Times lined up with your description of the 1980’s SOFET. I suspect that it was the changes to the 1984 SOFET that upset some in my circle of PAOC friends. The change disconnected the urgency of spreading the gospel from Pre-Tribulation doctrine. Up to that time, every end times sermon I had heard inside the PAOC church insisted that it is the Pre-trib doctrine that motivates us to urgently spread the gospel. I cringed every time I heard that argument, for I was six when my dad was killed in a workplace accident. When I questioned this idea of urgency in light of the sudden and unpredictable nature of death, I was sometimes told, curtly, about what we are supposed to believe, or what we used to believe. I hope nobody today holds on to the old SOFET that tightly.

  2. I just wrote about this in a paper for an class I’m taking as part of my MTS. It was so fascinating to consider the evolution of our eschatology – from our origins focusing on the soon return of Jesus, to our adoption of a more defined dispensationalism, to where we are today. A Pentecostal eschatology, one which is pneumatologically informed, inspires us in mission, and reduces fear based on the fact that we remain keenly aware of God’s Spirit with us, empowering us. I am so excited for this new statement which leaves room for a variety of opinions and even questions, and ultimately challenges us to return to wrestle with the text of Scripture.

  3. Thank you Andrew for your good perspectives. I am definitely not a theologian, but do share a lifetime of pastoral and other ministry and fellowship within the family of the PAOC. As such I am looking forward to the ‘refreshing’ of the SOET in various ways. With regard to eschatology I would certainly be interested in hearing views on the significance of the often-referred-to ‘signs’ of Christ’s second coming. I am growing in my sense that the signs through all ages of time underscore and affirm the Certainty of His Coming, not the ‘timing’ of this event, which, being known only to the Father, affirms the immanence of His return, and with that the urgency of watchful waiting, living and proclaiming…

  4. Hi Andrew, This is a well explained piece on the evolution of kindness within eschatology. This is a subject very near to me right now, and I most likely won’t forget it. You see, I was recently terminated from my position as pastor with the AGC (Associated Gospel Church). It was because of my relaxed position with eschatology and women in leadership. My head is still in a foggy state of shock. It is so delightful to see the Spirit of Jesus moving towards freedom of opinion. Although, I’m sure some would feel the more stringent approach to be ‘self-evident’ … I feel, and it seems that the PAOC’s are paying more attention to Kingdom on earth practicality of love. Good work. Blessings to you brother -Brad

  5. I spent about 20 years in Dispensational church cultures. Another feature of Dispensationalism is the claim that the New Testament has portions only for Israel and portions only for Christians. And that knowing which is which is called “rightly dividing the word of truth.” The other common belief within Dispensationalism is that the church will be whisked away in a pre-Trib rapture before trouble hits. Dispensationalism and pre-Trib are often regarded as synonymous. For example, it creates a partition between the church and “tribulation saints”. I personally disagree with this. I lean towards a pre-wrath position myself. The one thing I did appreciate though is the recognition that God is not finished with Israel. That His promises to Abraham are irrevocable. Though I believe this system of thinking has created partitions in some places where none exist.

    I spent a good chunk of last year going through the Prophets. I love these texts. Almost all of them, with perhaps the exception of Jonah and Nahum, have some very clear statements about the kingdom of God, or events leading up to the establishment of the kingdom of God. These statements are consistent with those statements made by Jesus, John, and Paul.

    I think one of the modern dangers of many Christian expressions today are doctrinal statements that support Supersessionism – and I’ve seen them. I’m pleased that your new Statement Of Essential Truth’s doesn’t do that. One of the clearest rebukes of this system of thinking would be Paul’s very clear statements in Romans 11.