Added Pentecostal Emphasis: Missional Empowerment

Where most of the proposed SOET is condensed in comparison to the current Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths (SOFET), the Spirit baptism section is the only section that is slightly longer in the SOET—118 words vs. the current 94 words.

Shocking.

The current [now previous] SOFET affirms that baptism in the Holy Spirit results in “power to witness.” The proposed SOET brings even more focus to this, giving attention to this Pentecostal emphasis within both paragraphs of this section of the SOET. The first paragraph states that it empowers believers to proclaim “with speech and action…” and the second paragraph notes that Spirit baptism empowers believers “to be his witnesses with speech and action…”

The hope is that the added emphasis on the missional nature of Spirit baptism will spur the Church on its Spirit-empowered mission and remind us all that the point of Spirit baptism isn’t just so that we can all sit around speaking in tongues. While it’s great that Spirit baptism can enhance our private spirituality, there is more to Spirit baptism than this alone. (I explain the significant value of speaking in tongues in chapter 4 of my book Simply Spirit-Filled.)

“ The point of Spirit baptism isn’t just so that we can all sit around speaking in tongues.

What about Other Results of Spirit Baptism?

When I presented an earlier draft of the Spirit baptism section at the 2018 PAOC General Conference in Victoria, BC, I remember when one attendee stood at a microphone and suggested that the SOET should state that sanctification is another result of Spirit baptism.

My response was that the proposed draft accentuates the historic Pentecostal emphasis that Spirit baptism results in empowered witness (Acts 1:8). This is something that is “essential” and that the PAOC General Conference can agree on. By contrast, we might have differing opinions regarding the connection of sanctification and Spirit baptism.

Nevertheless, the SOET’s emphasis on empowered witness does not hinder one from preaching that through baptism in the Holy Spirit a person “comes to know Christ in a more intimate way and … grow spiritually.” These words, which are not in the proposed SOET, are found in the current SOFET.

Added Pentecostal Emphasis: The Significance of Tongues

One thing that the proposed SOET adds that is not in our current SOFET is an explanation of the link between the significance of baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. To quote from Canadian Pentecostal theologian Peter Neumann, “Why Tongues and Not Purple Hair?”[1] In other words, why would tongues be a suitable sign for Spirit baptism?

Speaking in tongues isn’t just a random sign—though purple hair would be. Rather, as the proposed SOET explains, speaking in tongues, which is an act of communication, “signifies the nature of Spirit baptism as empowering our communication.”

BUT…What about Initial Evidence?

Some might wonder if the section on Spirit baptism is less Pentecostal since the words “initial evidence” are not present. Interestingly enough, the phrase “initial evidence” did not appear in the PAOC’s SOFET until 1980. And the PAOC wasn’t less Pentecostal before 1980.

“ The phrase “initial evidence” did not appear in the PAOC’s SOFET until 1980.

When the proposed SOET speaks of “the sign of speaking in tongues,” it is reengaging language from the PAOC’s first SOFET (1928-1980). That earlier statement included two sentences regarding tongues: 1) Spirit baptism “is indicated by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues,” and 2) “the baptism of the Holy Spirit is regularly accompanied by the initial physical sign of speaking in other tongues.”

Aside from the fact that this earlier SOFET uses “sign” and not “evidence,” you might also note that it includes the qualifier “physical,” which the PAOC hasn’t included since 1980. The phrase “regularly accompanied by” also raises questions.[2]

If we go back even earlier, before the PAOC had its own statement of faith, in February 1926 the PAOC’s publication The Pentecostal Testimony printed the Assemblies of God’s statement of faith. It said that “the full consummation of the baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is indicated by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues.” The “full consummation of” language also raises questions.

Some in the PAOC may feel that the familiar language of “initial evidence” presents a clearer and more definite relationship between speaking in tongues and Spirit baptism. But this simply isn’t the case. The reality is that PAOC credential holders already interpret the phrase “initial evidence” in a variety of ways. For example, some would argue that “initial evidence” means “immediate evidence” or “only evidence,” whereas others would not. Some would argue that “initial physical sign” means the same thing as “initial evidence,” but others would not. It turns out “initial evidence” isn’t as clear and definite as some might think.

“ PAOC credential holders already interpret the phrase “initial evidence” in a variety of ways.

Privileging Tongues

One might argue over what qualifiers (initial? physical? regularly accompanied by? full consummation of?) the proposed SOET should or shouldn’t include with the term “tongues” or “sign.” Nevertheless, it is clear that the SOET privileges tongues. The SOET presents “the sign of tongues” as unique—otherwise it wouldn’t be the only sign that the SOET mentions.

The SOET’s affirmation that “the sign of speaking in tongues indicates that believers have been baptized with the Holy Spirit” is justified given that the book of Acts reports three occasions where those who were baptized in the Spirit “began speaking in tongues” (Acts 2:4, 10:46, and 19:6).

Not what I would write!

The proposed SOET is not what I would write. And the proposal is different than what the PAOC’s Theological Study Commission (of which I am a part) had originally drafted. This includes the section on Spirit baptism.

That’s because the SOET that the General Conference will vote on next week (May 2022) has been revised many times over the last 7 years as a result of thoughtful theological reflection and input from people across the PAOC.

As I wrote previously, the SOET is not meant to reflect the theology of one individual, nor even of a small group of individuals. And, indeed, this draft statement is a statement that reflects the views of the PAOC community.

After years of open discussion and multiple opportunities to submit feedback regarding the SOET drafts, I expect that attendees at General Conference will not have much time to speak to the motion to adopt the proposed SOET. So, over these last 3 posts I have now given some extended explanation for why I am “in favour of the motion”…even though the SOET would be better if I just wrote it myself (ha ha).

You might also be interested in these posts:

• 7 Ways the PAOC’s Proposed Statement of Faith Adds Pentecostal Spice
• The Changing of the PAOC’s Statement of Faith … Again
• Pentecostal(?) Eschatology in the PAOC’s Proposed New Statement of Faith

Andrew 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.

The post What about Tongues? Spirit baptism in the PAOC’s Proposed Statement of Faith appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.