SPECIAL REPORT ON IMPACT 21 - THE 1998 UNITED KINGDOM AND IRELAND ASSEMBLIES OF GOD FELLOWSHIP WEEK (PRESTATYN: 18-25 APRIL)

From our "on the spot" reporter:

A resurgent Assemblies of God (AoG) came together for a week of business meetings and fellowship marked by optimism and a belief that the AoG has finally turned its corner. People were heard to comment about how the atmosphere in the business meetings was much more cooperative; the divisions of the past were not so apparent. The VISION presented by Paul Weaver and his executive team for the future of the AoG was dynamic, seeking to rein in and focus the efforts of a seemingly disparate movement.

Over the course of the week, there was much to encourage and edify the believer - mostly from the AoG's own contributors. Those who merit a special recommendation are Alan Hewitt (for his Wednesday evening message on Ziklag and his Thursday afternoon seminar on mentoring), Bruce Millar (for his early morning studies on the Book of Acts), Keith Monument (for his Monday morning sermon) and Andrew Colthart (for his Thursday morning ministry time). In one way or another, these certainly ministered to those present, causing us to examine ourselves and draw closer to the Lord. One wondered why the AoG could not bring itself to allow men like Keith Monument and Andrew Colthart to minister in the main evening meetings.

So why the title Clash of Ideologies for this report? Put simply, behind the optimism, renewed confidence and well-polished presentation of the way forward, there lies a deep rooted problem which was not addressed by this week, namely, the clash between the underlying theology of much of this week, and the traditional theology of the Pentecostal, and especially AoG, movement. There is a war being waged. The prize is the heart and soul of the AoG as a movement. The battleground is the vision which the movement should have, and the doctrine which underlies this vision.

Is the church here to conquer the earth? Are we on earth to establish the kingdom of God in preparation for Christ's return? This certainly appears to be the opinion of the executive of the AoG, who organised much of the week along this line and were quite happy to stand on the platform while the conference sang a number of "worship" songs clearly expounding the Kingdom Theology propagated by the Charismatic movement. If it was simply a matter of a few erroneous lyrics, then maybe we could argue that it comes down to how one interprets these lyrics.

This is obviously not the case, however, as was confirmed by the "star attraction" of the week, Columbian Caesar Castellanos, who quite clearly and unambiguously stated that the mission of the church is to conquer the earth. This was received most enthusiastically by the congregation, who were taken in by his boast of leading a church with over 23,000 cell-groups. As I reminded a friend later on - we should judge a ministry by its doctrine, and not by its perceived success. Doctrinally, Mr Castellanos stated that most of his ideas, especially on positive confession, are based on Mr Cho of South Korea, whose ideas have often enough been exposed as Buddhism dressed up in Christian garb. Add to all this the very obvious pyramid pattern of church government, popular amongst many dangerous cults, and his boast of many young people being saved without the gospel even being preached, and we have a very problematic mix.

Now here is the problem. If the AoG is moving into Kingdom Theology, then let the executive just come out and say so. The mere fact that such a doctrine is mutually exclusive to, and runs against, about a century of Pentecostal history should not deter them. If they believe such things, then let them have the courage of their convictions and boldly declare it. Then those of us who believe that it is Jesus who will return to establish His kingdom for the Millennium, and not the church in this present age, will know where we stand.

Do the executive still believe that the church will be taken from the earth, that there will be a tribulation upon the earth, that Israel will turn and call upon Christ for salvation and that then, after all this, Jesus will return to establish His kingdom? Or have such traditional AoG doctrines been abandoned in pursuit of temporal glory? Please do not misunderstand me on this. Traditional things are not always correct, and are always in need of reviewing. My concern is that no such review is happening. This replacing of our vision and ideals is taking place without any discussion. If we have been wrong in the past, then we must consciously, and not covertly, correct ourselves.

This author's opinion is that such new doctrines, imported from the Charismatic movement, represent an ill-thought and dangerous response to the challenge presented to the AoG by the Charismatic movement. If the executive of the AoG continue on its present course, then the movement will leave behind its founding principles, and also those who treasure them. In short, despite the papering over of the cracks, the clash of ideology still exists and its repercussions could be dramatic. We do, of course, welcome any response to this from the executive of the AoG or any of its members. Such an open debate would do much to clear the air in our fellowship.

Within the British AoG fellowship there is a ground-swell expression of concern, so much so that men and Assemblies have joined in a counter movement known as LINKS to which ministers and churches from the sister ELIM fellowship have also joined. These retain association with the original movements while, on occasions, fellowshipping separately around common concerns.

Judging by the numbers of individual people and more recently entire churches drawing away from the Elim and AoG denominations in New Zealand and Australia something similar is called for in these countries.

The 1,000 member AoG church at Glendene, NZ recently resigned, while an Assembly in South Brisbane, Australia, with about 200 adherents is taking steps along the same line. In the Northern Territory an AoG pastor who invited Philip Powell to minister was told that he should resign. He refused stating that it was not he or Philip Powell who had departed from the faith but the hierarchy.

We are not aware of any church resigning from Elim (their centralised form of government, makes that difficult) but we know of a large group, including members of the pastoral and leadership teams, who resigned from the Elim Church in Howick

Appeared in Volume 4.2 June/July/August 1998