Mainline Cults?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> Richard Masoner wrote:

> IMHO, mainline and evangelical denominations are little different from
> groups -- such as J.W. and Mormons -- which have traditionally been
> identified as cults.

> But I do not agree that mainline and evangelicals are categorically
> different from "cults," though I will concede that there may be some
> difference in degree.

Brother Masoner raises an interesting question.  What really constitutes
a "cult"? Traditionally cults are defined as those religious movements
which do not accept Holy Scripture as their sole rule of faith or who
very clearly go beyond the plain teaching of Scripture in their beliefs
or practices.   This definition has been broadened by conservative
Evangelicals to include anyone who does not agree with what they
consider to be "historic" Christianity.  This is the reason they include
Apostolics on their "hit" list, grouping us with Mormons, Jehovah
witnesses, et. al.  They are very uncomfortable with Christians who
embrace different doctrinal beliefs from what they consider the norm. 
In reality, they embrace the same theology as conservative Apostolics. 
In fact, it would be better to say that Apostolics have embraced
conservative Evangelical theology.  Apostolics use their theology
textbooks in their Bible Colleges and read their populist Christian
literature.  Apostolic theologians almost exclusively quote conservative
Evangelical theologians in their writings.  The only differences between
Apostolic theology and conservative Evangelical theology is found in
water baptism, the doctrine of God, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and
holiness.  There is very little difference in the rest of the theology
of these two movements.  In response to the accusations of "cultism"
made against Apostolics, Apostolic church leaders and theologians have
gone to great lengths to define the movement as Evangelical in hopes of
winning acceptance.  Isn't it ironic that those who share the most
similarities doctrinally with the conservative Apostolic movement are
those who are eager to condemn it as heresy and label it a cult?  

I think a lesson should be learned from the attitude of conservative
Evangelicals toward Apostolics and toward Pentecostals. Important
questions need to be answered.  Why are Apostolics so eager to identify
with a movement which is so eager to portray them as heretics and
cultic?  Why are Apostolics refusing to fellowship with mainline
denominations which are more tolerant and accepting of Apostolic
doctrinal variations?  Why do Apostolics seek to label other Christian
movements cultic when they personally know the heartache, anguish, and
pain they feel when their Christian heritage is denigrated to the status
of a cult and associated with unbiblical and aberrant faiths such as
Mormonism and Jehovah Witness?  Finally, are Apostolics completely
unaware of the history of the Pentecostal movement and the animosity
Fundamentalists and conservative Evangelicals have always expressed
toward it?

Apostolics are eager to embrace conservative Evangelical theology
because it expresses the Fundamentalist theology they are familiar
with.  One theologian has correctly identified conservative
Evangelicals.  He says they are really Neo-Fundamentalists.  They
embrace the essentials of Fundamentalist theology but have emerged from
isolation and separation from other Christians.  But their emergence is
not for dialogue, understanding, and acceptance.  Their emergence is for
confrontation and rationalistic apologetics to present and defend their
version of "historic" Christianity.  This is a model many conservative
Apostolic theologians are following.  This is the model Beisner, Bowman,
and Boyd follow in their criticism of the Apostolic faith.  Having just
finished reading Boyd's book, his theological methodology is clear.  He 
has retained all of his former Apostolic theology, except for the
aforementioned Apostolic distinctives.  He has even retained a
conservative Apostolic attitude.  Whereas before he was certain that
Trinitarians were lost, now he is certain that Apostolics are lost. 
Whereas before he believed Trinitarians were heretics, now he believes
that Apostolics are heretics.  Whereas before he was confident that
Apostolic Pentecostalism was historic Christianity, now he is confident
that conservative Evangelicalism is historic Christianity.  Whereas
before he was certain that he had conclusively demonstrated that
"Oneness" was the explicit teaching of the Bible, now he is certain that
Trinitarianism is the explicit teaching of the Bible.  Whereas before he
ignored the results of contemporary theology as an Apostolic, he now
ignores the results of contemporary theology as a conservative
Evangelical. Whereas before he engaged in a self centered monologue as
an Apostolic, he now engages in a self centered monologue as a
conservative Evangelical.  Whereas before his elitism and judgementalism
was Apostolic, now his elitism and judgementalism are conservative
Evangelical.  Same theologian.  Same attitude.  And almost identical
theology.

What bothers me about the the debate about the Apostolic faith between
conservative Apostolics and conservative Evangelicals, i.e.
neo-Fundamentalists, is that it completely ignores the spiritual life of
Apostolics.  Following Protestant Scholastic theology, spirituality is
separated from theology in the understanding of the Apostolic faith. 
How can one understand and evaluate the Apostolic faith if not from the
foundational reality of the experience of Jesus Christ in the midst of
the Apostolic community and the Jesus centered worship and life it
creates?  This experience and worship is the purest expression of
Apostolic theology and it bears little resemblance to the conservative
Evangelical theologies Apostolic theologians have uncritically embraced.
Also, although Gregory Boyd has a Ph.D., he willingly choose to present
a populist apologetic against the Apostolic faith bereft of any
substantial dialogue with contemporary scholarship.  The theologian who
was the mentor for my Master's degree thesis would have had a coronary! 
"Not up to the standards for responsible contemporary scholarship,"
would have been his reply to a lowly Master's student. Boyd had to
purposefully ignore the theological understandings of some of
Christendom's preeminent theologians in his assessment of the Apostolic
faith.  It will be interesting to see his response when his populist
presentation is made public in an academic forum and critiqued for its
lack of theological insight, depth, and creativity.  

Apostolics should not be eager to embrace the theology of conservative
Evangelicalism.  Apostolics should develop their own theology which
expresses the reality of the Apostolic faith from its experiential
foundations in the Apostolic community.

Why would Apostolics refuse to fellowship with the mainline
denominations?  Once again, it is because of their desire to establish a
conservative Evangelical identity.  The question of whether to
fellowship with mainline denominations or not can easily be put to rest.
Where did the charismatic movement start?  In mainline denominations! 
Why?  Because like the household of Cornelius God considered them worthy
while the Holy Apostolics and Trinitarian Pentecostals infused with
conservative Evangelical theology considered them unclean.  They have
received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit!  The Apostolic Peters in this
world need to rearrange their theology and go and in love explain the
Apostolic Gospel to them that they might be baptized in Jesus' name and
know the fullness of God in Christ!  Incidentally, Catholic charismatics
frequently baptize adults by immersion as they express a new faith in
Christ resulting from their spiritual baptism. What an opportunity for
dialogue!  In my experience mainline denominations are indeed open for
dialogue.

Why do Apostolics persist in the denigration of the faith of others?  It
is the only perspective they know.  It is consistent with the
conservative Evangelical theology they have chosen to embrace.  It is
also much easier than to reassess one's theological thinking based upon
Christian experience.  Those who criticize the Apostolic movement do not
comprehend  Apostolic spirituality.  Let me make this personal.  They do
not know the love of God which exists in my heart.  They do not know the
joy of salvation I feel.  They do not comprehend the presence of God
which I am experiencing right now as I type this post.  They have not
witnessed the glory of God descend in an Apostolic service baptizing
hungry souls with the Holy Ghost.  They have not heard the cries of
praise from Apostolic lips. They have not seen a new Christian baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ and emerge from the water speaking in
unknown tongues.  They have not experienced the brotherly love of the
Apostolic community.  They do not know the depth of love and affection
Apostolics have for Jesus Christ.  They don't realize that the theology
they are criticizing arises from the experience, faith, and life of the
Apostolic community.  They don't understand Apostolic Pentecostalism
because they have not participated in the dynamic spiritual life which
constitutes the essence of the Apostolic faith.

Could it be that Apostolics also don't understand the dynamic spiritual
life of mainline denominations?  Two experiences have molded my
theology.  The preeminent experience occurred in an Apostolic community
when I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, was baptized in Jesus
name, and disciple in an Apostolic way.  I am an Apostolic by spiritual
birth.  I will always be an Apostolic.  I am only at "home"  in an
Apostolic Church.

But I had another experience.  This occurred in an Episcopal church. 
What was I doing there!  This is a good Apostolic question!  What was an
Apostolic Pentecostal doing in a Charismatic Episcopal Church on a
Saturday night?  I had been invited by a very close friend, one who I
loved very much.  I had spent countless hours with this friend talking
about the Apostolic faith, praying, and studying the Bible.  When it was
casually suggested by parents that we visit this thriving Charismatic
community I was reluctant, but finally acquiesced.  I was filled with
apprehension as we entered the cavernous auditorium.  Judging by the
casual dress and the appearance of the ladies I knew I wasn't in an
Apostolic Church.  But the music started playing and familiar choruses
were being sung.  Several priests adorned in their vestments appeared on
the platform in front of us and a worship leader emerged to lead songs
and praise.  From my vantage point I could see the faces of Christians
worshipping their Lord.  Hands were raised toward heaven.  Eyes were
filled with tears.  Months were speaking in tongues.  Jesus' name was
being praised.  And I was very uncomfortable!  This wasn't what I had
been told. These people weren't supposed to be Christians.  They weren't
supposed to sing like us. They weren't supposed to praise Jesus like
us.  They weren't supposed to be emotional like us.  And most of all
they weren't supposed to receive the Holy Spirit like us. I couldn't
understand how or why they were experiencing my Lord.  As my mind
wondered the music and praise subsided. A Priest walked to a pulpit. 
Now, I thought, I'll see a real difference.  Surely he is seminary
trained.  A dead, dull, boring, intellectual sermon would be
forthcoming.  But, I was amazed!  He spoke with power!  He spoke with
love!  He spoke with anointing!  He spoke and the people were
listening!  He called them to faith!  He called them to Christian
service!  He called them to renew their Christian life!  He called them
to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit!  He finished his sermon with
a call for all to partake of communion.  I didn't know how to respond! 
But as the congregation went forward row by row I followed my friend. 
We soon were part of a group of worshipers standing before at least four
Episcopal priests.  My eyes soon focused on the priest who was to serve
me the elements of communion.  His face was aglow with the Spirit of
God.  His hands were shaking as he administered a common cup and placed
a wafer on each celebrants tongue.  As I moved closer I could hear him.
He was crying and speaking in tongues. I went forward to receive the
elements, trying my best not to display the emotions I was feeling.  He
placed the wafer on my tongue, and then let me drink from the common
cup, while he continued to speak in tongues. My friend and I left as
other celebrants continued to sing and receive communion.  We had to be
up early the next morning to attend an Apostolic church.  But I knew the
presence and power of God I had experienced was real, and I would
struggle for years to try to understand it!

Just as the Apostolic faith cannot be understood apart from its true
spirituality, so the faith and life of other Christians cannot be
understood apart from their spirituality.  Religious debates are not
just about beliefs and doctrines, they are about the spiritual life of
people.  There is no virtue in criticizing the way other Christians
experience God.  There is no virtue in intellectually labeling heretics
or cultic with out experiencing their faith and life, participating in
their worship, seeking to understand their spiritual life. This is how
the Apostolic movement should  be judged.  This is how Apostolics ought
to judge other Christians. We should first be concerned with
"orthopraxis",  right spiritual life, and then proceed to "orthodoxy", 
right confessions of faith.  Apostolics and the conservative
evangelicals they follow often have the true basis for Christian
fellowship backwards.  They ignore the common spiritual life which binds
all Christians together in a search for a doctrinal consensus which
doesn't exist in their movements or in Christendom.  

Finally, it seems that Apostolics have forgotten a great deal of
Pentecostal and Apostolic history.  The Fundamentalists, and now the
neo-Fundamentalists, have always been the greatest adversaries of the
Pentecostal revival.  While the rest of the world was experiencing the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit they resisted and at at times attempted to
demonize what God was doing.  Conservative Evangelical theologians have
only recently began acknowledging the reality and scope of what God is
doing to renew Christendom.  They had little choice. Perhaps Apostolics,
like their conservative Evangelical counterparts, have little choice
too.  Experiences such as mine, rare in the 70's, are now becoming
commonplace.  I could not incorporate the reality of my spiritual
experience in that Episcopal church into my Apostolic theology. 
Simplistic answers weren't satisfying.  I lived a dichotomous
existence.  I had a public life as an Apostolic, but a private life of
doubt about the Apostolic exclusion of other Christians from salvation
and about the refusal of Apostolics to fellowship with other
Christians.  I only found answers when I moved beyond
neo-fundamentalism.  I learned that I could be an Apostolic and
acknowledge others as Christians.  I could be an Apostolic and tolerate
diversity.  I could be an Apostolic and fellowship with other
Christians.  I could be an Apostolic and give a contemporary expression
to my faith.  I could be an Apostolic and account for the spiritual life
I knew from my experience existed in other Christian communities.

How many Apostolics are living a dichotomous existence today?  How many
are ready to abandon their faith because it does not answer the
questions which arise from their experience with other Christians?  How
many Apostolics are disenchanted with the conservative Evangelical
bondage of the Apostolic faith and desire a new expression of the
Apostolic faith which arises from their experience of Jesus Christ in
the Apostolic community?  

Let us pray that God will grant us the wisdom and boldness to follow the
guidance of the Holy spirit as we seek to define the Apostolic movement
and present the Apostolic Faith for our generation.