Essentials of Salvation

Mission of the Church: How an Apostolic View Effects Church Polity

Introduction

Apostolic Pentecostals grew from the holiness movement of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Because of our roots, we have adopted a mostly congregational form of church polity. The progress of time has modified this, helping us to have a unique polity, based on an Apostolic Pentecostalhermeneutic. From this starting point, changes have been made, and I would argue we are seeing the development of an Apostolic Pentecostal ecclesiology. As an example, the leadership of the general body, district body, and local assembly,displays a hierarchical view, but in practice is a loose fellowship rather than an Episcopalian model. There has been much research of late into Pentecostal ecclesiology, but very little in the way of Apostolic Pentecostal ecclesiology.

This paper seeks to examine the roots of the Pentecostal movement, and how this affected our ecclesiology. In addition to this, the paper seeks to examine how the doctrines, which make Oneness Pentecostalism unique, may have impacted the ecclesiology of the Apostolic Pentecostal church. A brief history of the Pentecostal movement will establish a foundation, followed by an examination of the congregational model of ecclesiology which started us on the road towards an Apostolic ecclesiology. Next, this paper seeks to examine distinctive aspects of the way Oneness Pentecostalism, as exhibited in the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), conducts church government. A discovery of the distinctiveness of an Apostolic Pentecostal church polity, through an examination of the history, doctrine, and organizational efforts of the men and women in the early decades of the formation of what was to become the UPCI will be made. Finaly, we will look at how our unique views on soteriology and the godhead may impact our praxis as far as governing the church is concerned. As the core doctrinal beliefs were formalized into written fundamental doctrines, the church’s form of government was molded as well. While the early Pentecostal churches remained kingdom focused in both polity and eschatology, this did not prevent the development of ecclesiological practices which would define the polity of the Apostolic Pentecostal church in the twenty-first century.

A Brief Examination of History

​In order to establish an Apostolic Pentecostal church polity, it is necessary to examine the roots of the movement. During the beginning of the twentieth century, the new issue (the doctrine we know as oneness), was a divisive doctrine and caused a schism in the early Pentecostal church. What began under Parham and Seymour as an outgrowth of the holiness movement turned into a revelation that the Holy Ghost was received by “speaking in an unknown tongue”. This was a third work of grace to many, and was only bestowed upon a person once they were saved, and then instantaneously sanctified. Another cause of the schism in many people’s view was Durham’s doctrine.

Durham was a Pentecostal preacher from Chicago who received the Holy Ghost at the Azusa Street Revival in 1906. He began to question the doctrine that a second work of grace was independent. He began teaching his “finished work” doctrine, which states that repentance, being baptized in Jesus’ name, and receiving the infilling of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in unknown tongues, was the plan of salvation. According to Durham all three parts were necessary and vital aspects of one’s salvation. This was a new doctrine and very divisive because most of the Pentecostal movement at the time believed in a second work of grace. The second work of grace was after salvation, and included sanctification. Durham viewed sanctification, not as a second work, but as a part of salvation.To have all of these teachings rolled up into a single salvation plan was unheard of in Pentecostal circles. Durham used Acts 2:38-39 as his primary text when teaching this doctrine. There were attempts at healing the division Durham created. Reed notes that Woodworth-Etter’s healing revival in the Houston area attempted to heal the division caused by Durham’s teachings. She (Woodworth-Etter) placed a great emphasis on Jesus and the power in Jesus’ name.

This may have influenced the revivals taking place in Azusa street. The name of Jesus was being emphasized in a camp meeting in nearby Arroyo Seco. It was at this camp meeting where the Jesus’ name baptism being proclaimed, unintentionally. This led directly to the development of the doctrine of the Oneness of God in the new Pentecostal movement. Ewart notes Evangelist R.E. McAlister was selected to preach at this camp meeting on the topic of water baptism. Jeremiah 31:22 was already in the subconscious of many of the ministers there, and expectancy of God doing a “new thing” was high. Ewart quotes from McAlister’s sermon saying, “the scriptural answer to this [triune baptism] was that the apostles invariably baptized their converts once in the name of Jesus Christ…” This caused an immediate visible shock in the audience, and McAlister attempted to clarify his statements immediately. McAlister was not successful though, because it was said and now in the forefront of the minds of those attending. One minister (John G Schaepe) attending the conference was deeply moved by McAllister’s statement. Reed notes, “… Schaepe was immediately inspired to study and pray throughout the night … into the early hours … [and] he was heard running through the camp, shouting that the Lord had shown him the truth on baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.”

In conclusion while all four authors related the story with accuracy, it seems that Synan and Reed view the “Finished Work” teaching of Durham as a heresy, noting that he died within the six months that had been prophesied. Men like J.R. Flowers helped to turn the Assemblies of God off of the tracks leading to Oneness Pentecostalism back to a trinitarian viewpoint, considering Oneness Pentecostals a fourth century heresy. The holiness movement had already made strides within the church for an expectancy of change. People had been prepped for revival, by the three great revivals which had just taken place within the memory of the old-timers of the church. Add to this the uneasiness in the political world, and the outbreak of the Great War as a result of the tension felt during this time, it is easy to see how revival in the Spirit spurred early Pentecostals to examine the Word and search for an answer to the questions of social change during this era. They found this answer in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. As I have said in the introduction, the early Pentecostal movement grew from holiness movement roots of the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies. David Bernard notes of the holiness movement that “It was a revival of the founding principles of Methodism, which developed from the ministry of John Wesley…” Wesley believed in the organizational methods of the local assembly. This was primarily to support his calling into the ministry. Because of Wesley’s desire to pursue the calling on his life, he supported the view of the local church governing its own affairs, and installingits own pastor.

Reginald Kissack notes “Here, then, is an independentcongregation, subject to no pastor but their own, neither liable to be controlled in things spiritual by any other man or body of men whatsoever.” As Wesley was a student in a seminary, he did not have his own Anglican Church to pastor. Because of the view held that only the ordained clergy which was assigned to a specific church could preach in that local assembly, Wesley would either have to get his own church, something he was not willing to do at the time, or not preach. This was not something he could refrain from either. Kissack continues, stating, The congregations are not strictly independent. Theydepend on one pastor, though not on each other. As these congregations increase, and the Deacons grow in years and grace, they need other subordinate deacons or helpers, in respect of whom they may be called Presbyters or Elders, as their Father in the Lord may be called the Bishop or Overseer of them all.

This ideology has been passed on to the holiness movement, and therefore into the Apostolic Pentecostal mind. This will change, subtly, due to our apostolic hermeneutic, as we shall see later in this paper. From these roots, the Pentecostal movement became distinct from the holiness movement in regard to pneumatology with the practice of glossolalia andxenolalia in the church.

Earlier in the century, before the Arroyo Secocampmeeting, Charles Parham, a holiness preacher and teacher,established a bible school in Topeka. Parham assigned work over the Christmas holiday season for his students as he left the area for other business. As Charles Parham’s students began their research to answer the question posed, namely “What is the Bible evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost?” The students answered, the Bible evidence is speaking in tongues. They began to pray for this to happen to them, and on January 1st, 1901, Agnes Ozman was the first to receive the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in an unknown tongue. This was the beginnings of a new church, although they did not know it at the time.

Early Pentecostal ways of “having church” were mostly defined by the view that we lived in the kingdom age, that the return of Christ is very soon, and that we should conduct church as the first century church did. Hollis Gause, in his critique of Clark Pinnock’s Pentecostal ecclesiology comments, “… early Pentecostal ecclesiology was also apocalyptic. The vision of the church and the kingdom were fused, and the descriptions and expectations of the church were hardly distinguishable from the descriptions and expectations of the kingdom.” Gause’scomments are significant in that it demonstrates the early Pentecostal church’s desire to model the church after the kingdom of God. Expectations were set high regarding the new issue of oneness, and the soon return of Jesus as God, manifest in the flesh, ran throughout most Pentecostal congregations.

Because of the willingness and desire to see a book of Acts church reborn in the twentieth century, many distinctive ecclesiological practices developed, such as uneducated preachers (meaning not formally trained) and women and minorities. Gause affirms this belief, stating “Pentecostal ecclesiology has always made a place for ministry by the disfranchised, especially women and the uneducated.” Because of the strong desire for a kingdom age church, many ministers were ordained into Pentecostal churches who had no formal training in any seminary. Other denominations were quick to label Pentecostal preachers as ‘lay ministry’ in a derogatory fashion. This only led to the devaluation of the term lay ministry amongst their own ranks.

Paige Patterson, while defending the congregational view of church polity, comments, “there is little reason to believe that the earliest church boasted a system any more complicated than that of a congregation of believers under the lordship of Christ led by Spirit-filled pastors and deacons.” This is similar toApostolic Pentecostal churches, yet we add to our church governmental structure. We, as Apostolic Pentecostals, attempt to conduct church as the first century church did. House churches in ancient cities were mostly autonomous works and yet it should also be noted that they were overseen, often from afar, through letters and visits by the founder of the church, usually one of the Apostles. From this history, the Pentecostal movement developed a unique polity through a combination of observation of the practice of the first century church, an understanding of its historical roots in past movements such as Methodism and the holiness movement.

Another difference in the early Apostolic Pentecostal movement was the belief of the spiritual power of preaching assalvational. New Testament preachers expounded, yelled, proclaimed and voiced the gospel message. Because of the exuberance of their preaching, the message of the cross became famous across the Mediterranean. Apostolic Pentecostals must go forth, and declare the gospel to the world. This is our reasonable service, as servants who have been bought with a price. As Jones notes, “God uses the synergy between speaker and hearer to implant truth in the human heart, to move the needy to do that which can meet their need, and to save them that believe.” This effected our views on church government, giving much more power to the office of Pastor, Evangelist, and Prophet in regard to voting rights within the UPCI. Some change to this was made decades later, allowing all licensed ministers to vote on issues in the district and national levels.

Lastly, Pentecostalism’s history provides guideposts for conducting church government. God instructed Joshua to build a memorial. By remembering our past, we strengthen our future. Johnston, while describing the early history of the push to organize the Pentecostal church, notes “They were looking for something old and something new.” By looking to the past, Goss and others in the early Pentecostal movement, were hoping to find true apostolic praxis to renew and refresh the church which was starting to succumb to eighteen centuries of weight applied by the effects Christendom had on the church’s organization and theology. They were not necessarily looking for a new government, but were rather looking for an authentic experience of the movement of God amongst the people. This included how to conduct church affairs, i.e. the ecclesiology of the church. The way we govern our churches is affected by the way we view Scripture, as we will examine in the next section.

How Doctrine Effects Church Polity

Because of the distinctive doctrine of the oneness of Godand the new birth, Apostolic Pentecostals, at least as represented by the UPCI, have a unique perspective on hermeneutics. Apostolic Pentecostals developed further the doctrine of sanctification, that is, as Melvin Dieter puts it, “a continuum of grace and response that leads persons from the guilt and despair of their sin … to the crisis moment of the justification and the new birth.” The Apostolic Pentecostal church refined its doctrinal view on the new birth, based upon further revelation and insight from the teachings of Scripture. Apostolic Pentecostals maintain a high view of the Scriptures. An apostolic hermeneutic requires this. A working definition of an apostolic hermeneutic as defined by David Bernard is: We are to understand and apply the Word using both exegesis and exposition. We understand the Word is infallible, yet our reading and interpretation of it is not. To overcome our limitations as humans, we must consider the grammatical and historical context in which the Word was written, and base our interpretation on objective biblical principles rather than human authority.

Charles Clanton and others note, “Forgiveness of sins came through faith in the work of Jesus Christ upon the cross, repentance of our sins, and obedience in water baptism for the remission of sins.” Additionally, I will add one must be ‘born of the Spirit.’ Following this is the process of sanctification, in which the ‘new creature in Christ’ is to walk in holiness before the Lord. As an Apostolic Pentecostal church, we practice and teach what the apostolic first century church did. Bernard states “The church saw its mission as reaching every individual with the gospel.” Stan Gleason expands on this, saying, “The endgame of being a Christian in the first century was more than just to bring others to faith in Christ. Their pattern took discipling one step further by modeling Christlike practice alongside disciples until they themselves began to make disciples.” This adds a dimension to our ecclesiology, noting that our discipleship methods affect the way we conduct church. Because we are discipleship driven, we organize our leadership around the concept of making disciples. It is taught and preached to everyone, in the hopes that the church will fulfill its obligation to the Great Commission.

The gospel is defined in Scripture as the death, burial, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Apostolic Pentecostal hermeneutics interpret 1 Cor. 15 (the death, burial and resurrection) as teaching the doctrines of repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Because of our focus on the individual as they relate to the gospel, Simon Chan says we may miss the communal aspect of receiving the Holy Spirit. Chan notes, “… the primary focus of Spirit-baptism is to actualize our communal life or our fellowship in Christ.” While the bringing together of the body is a benefit, uniting us as a people, the Holy Ghost seems mostly to operate on a personal level as one walks with God. The Holy Spirit is given to guide the individual (John 16:13), and yet the Holy Ghost is also working amongst the body corporately. The believer is to minister to the body of Christ through the gifts of the Spirit. The Holy Ghost ministers to individual churches. Because of this, the need to join an overarching church governmental structure is not necessary. For the Roman Catholics, it is necessary in that they must be linked through Apostolic succession to their first pope, Peter. Apostolic Pentecostals have no such need. Therefore, we have accepted a congregational, independent church government style.

This is not to say we need to be completely independent however. Another area of distinct Apostolic Pentecostal polity is in the realm of spirit-filled accountability. Bernard mentions, “All of us, including preachers and pastors, need to follow and submit to spiritual leaders.” Precedence for this is modeled by the Apostle Paul, as he instructs Titus and Timothy in the art of pastoring a congregation of believers. We all need a person of spiritual authority over us in our lives. Accountability is vital in proper spiritual growth. Spiritual accountability has also shaped our polity. Although an autonomous work, a church’s pastor is subject to a sectional presbyter and district superintendent. Having this accountability built-in to the structure of the church is one more example of a unique Apostolic Pentecostal polity.

Bernard also notes that “The Epistles provide further evidence of a healthy, close-knit organization for the purposes of fellowship, establishing ministerial standards, and collecting offerings. James, Peter, and John were pillars, or general leaders, of the church (Galatians 2:9).” Based on an Apostolic Pentecostal desire to conduct church as the earliest Christian churches did, we have changed our polity. We have gone from an independent self-serving church model which Wesley envisioned to one that can best be described as a confederation of independent churches. Apostolic Pentecostal churches have come together and organized under a hierarchical leadership model to best fulfill the mission of the church.

In summary, this does several things for Apostolics. First, it provides a method of accountability, with leadership having men and women over them to hold them accountable before God. Secondly, this helps to standardize our Apostolic interpretationand understanding of the scriptures. Finally, it also provides financial support to the body as a world-wide organization foreffectively evangelizing our world. Next, we will discuss the mission of the church as it relates to church government.

What is the definition of the mission of the church? I would agree with Kevin DeYoung’s definition. DeYoung notes, “The mission of the church is to go into the world and make disciples by declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit and gathering these disciples into churches, that they might worship the Lord and obey his commands now and in eternity to the glory of God the Father.” Our mission as an Apostolic church is to reach this world for Christ. In today’s world of global interconnectedness, it is imperative that the church structures itself internationally. To this end, the Global Missions Division of the UPCI has and continues to establish a national church structure in all the nations of the world. By replicating our North American structure in other continents, we provide for a globally recognized faith, where the individual believer, despite moving from one country to another, can have confidence that the doctrine taught will be an Apostolic Pentecostal doctrine when they see the UPCI name on the door. This should not be twisted to mean only the UPCI is making it into heaven, but rather that with the international recognition of the UPCI the individual believer can locate a Bible believing church in which to practice his or her faith. This would be much more difficult if we did not have an overarching organization to rely on for guarding biblical truth.

Erickson, in Christian Theology, notes the Greek work ekklesia is defined as an assembly of the citizens of a city. The word kuriakos means belonging to the Lord, and seems like it should be the definition of ekklesia in the Apostolic Pentecostal world-view. We see ourselves, not simply as an assembly of the population of the city, but rather a group “belonging to the Lord” as Erickson defines it. The mission of the church is to spread the gospel. The specifics on how the church organizes itself to accomplish this are vague, as Bernard notes. Bernard comments, “While God has given principles to guide us in being the church and doing church, He has given us broad discretion and liberty to operate in ways that are most suited to our own social, economic, political, and cultural contexts.” Erickson continues his discussion on the church by defining the Hebrew term ‘edah. This term means, according to Erickson, “[‘edah] refers to the people, particularly as gathered before the tent of meeting.” This is the model exemplified by the UPCI today. We are a united body of people who have come together to worship our King.

Luke states, in The Acts of the Apostles, “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (Acts 2:46).” Because they went from house to house, and the temple, the church at Ephesus was likely a collective name of all the house churches in that city. This meant that, although there were multiple house-churches in the first century, they were collectively labeled as the church of _______. This did not mean that they each had their own agenda, but rather they all practiced following Christ in unity. Because all the churches in that area were most likely “daughter-work churches” of the original churches founded by Paul and the other Apostles in many of the ancient cities of the Mediterranean.

Regarding the early church, Elliot notes “In accord with the familial focus of Jesus’ teaching, they continued to conceive of themselves as constituting a new surrogate ‘family/household of God’ and described their social relations and responsibilities in familial terms.” The main thrust of Elliot’s argument is that the early, first century, church was not egalitarian as some posit, but rather hierarchical. This seems congruent with the corpus of the New Testament, including references in Acts and the Pauline epistles. Bernard makes note of this structure as well, commenting, “The Epistles provide further evidence of a healthy, close-knit organization for the purposes of fellowship, establishing ministerial standards, and collecting offerings. James, Peter, and John were pillars, or general leaders, of the church (Galatians 2:9).”

Structure is a necessary element, and a flat model of egalitarianism is not evident in the Scriptures. Eugene Wilson notes this, stating “The type of structure any organization maintains has a substantial impact on the type of followers it retains.” He goes on to say a flat model is the preferred method vice a hierarchical method of structure. A hierarchical method, according to Wilson, is too structured and stifles spiritual growth. I disagree. By Wilson’s own example, William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, had an hierarchical, structure in the polity of the church he founded. The Salvation Army continues to exist as a church today. In contrast, the Welsh Revival, as he noted, had little structure and is now a footnote in history. I believe good organization promotes a healthy church. To grow, we must think strategically, and strategic thinking isbest used within the confines of solid governmental structure. Creative thinking is typically structureless, and is an excellent way to brainstorm and develop new ministry methodologies.Strategic thinking is a left-brain activity which requires structure, and should be used when developing long-range goals and plans.

Conclusion

The polity of the Apostolic Pentecostal movement has been shaped significantly by an Apostolic Hermeneutic. Because of the fundamental belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture, and the strong desire to be Kingdom minded, Apostolic Pentecostals were initially averse to efforts for organizing the church. Rather, they felt it was more “in-tune” with the Spirit to be free-flowing and structureless. As the movement grew, strategic-thinking leaders took the reins and developed a hybrid congregational/confederation style of church government. This may have been due to Charles Parham’s initial anti-denominational teachings. Despite this anti-denominational attitude, James Tyson notes, “In various parts of the nation groups of ministers gathered in local ‘associations’ for fellowship and mutual aid.” This loose confederation is what the UPCI adheres to today, requesting local assemblies to be in affiliation with the UPCI, though some choose to only associate with the UPCI. The UPCI accepts both positions, and continues to promote unite by having its members affirm taking the whole gospel, to the whole world, by the whole church.¹

Bibliography