Loading ...Pentecostal warns of Episcopal ‘apostasy’
flockwoodDr. George Wood is the general superintendent of the 2.9-million-member Assemblies of God, one of the ten largest denominations in the United States and one of the fastest growing Christian bodies in the world.
I interviewed him, via e-mail, about one of the most notable theological views expressed by the Rev. Kevin G. Thew Forrester, bishop-elect of Northern Michigan — rejection of atonement theology.
Wood said anyone who denies that God sent Jesus Christ to die on the cross is “an apostate of the faith; and a church that ordains such a one is also apostate.”
Here is the key quote in question, from my interview with Thew Forrester:
“God did not send Jesus here to be killed or be crucified by the Romans, which is a brutal murder. But Jesus has become incarnate to reveal to us who God is. He’s a God of love and forgiveness and mercy. …Jesus’ death itself was not the will of God. God did not desire Jesus to be killed.”
Q. It wasn’t the plan from before the creation of the world?
THEW FORRESTER: “No. No.”
Here are the questions I asked Wood:
Do you believe it was God’s will or plan for Jesus Christ to come to earth and die on the cross?
WOOD: Yes, according to the Scriptures. 1 Peter 1:18-21 states: For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
Is this a peripheral point of Christian doctrine or is it heretical
to teach that the crucifixion wasn’t part of God’s plan?
WOOD: Even a cursory reading of the New Testament shows that the cross is a central theme to Christians. The Apostle Paul said, that the cross is “the power of God and the wisdom of God” and that among the Corinthians, he “resolved to know nothing . . . except Christ and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 1:24, 2:2). John the Baptist introduced Jesus as “The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). In heaven, Jesus is worshipped as the Lamb who was slain and with his blood purchased people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation (Revelation 5:8-9).
Could you support the ordination of anyone who teaches that it wasn’t God’s will or plan for Jesus Christ to come to earth and die on the cross?
WOOD: A wise person once said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. The facts of the Christian faith are that Jesus is God’s Son, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, died for our sins, rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is coming again. A Christian will agree with these facts. If a denomination or church is Christian, it will agree with these facts. If a so-called bishop does not agree with the central elements of the Christian faith, then he should not call himself a Christian, let alone a bishop – nor should a church ordain him. He is an apostate from the Faith; and a church that ordains such a one is also apostate. The Apostle Paul dealt with persons who turned to a “different Gospel,” who “perverted the Gospel.” He warned that even if he himself or “an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned” (Galatians 1:6-8).
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:46 am
This interview proves that everyone sees orthodoxy in a different light. Mr. Wood presumably supports the doctrines of the Assemblies of God, presumably including the idea that the Bible is the holy and inspired word of God, which, as I’ve pointed out many times here, is not a traditional Christian doctrine, having first arisen during the Protestant Reformation, and rejected since by most mainstream Christian denominations.
Once again, as I said regarding the Dean of Beeson Divinity School, I’m sure you could send a hundred emails to a hundred prominent pentecostals, and each person’s response would be the same, while emails directed to a hundred Episcopal theologians would yield a hundred results. If we wanted the theology of the Assemblies of God, or of whatever denomination Beeson represents, we’d leave the Episcopal Church and join those denominations. Instead, we’re happy where we are.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Timothy George is dean of a Southern Baptist seminary in Alabama. George Wood is the top elected official of the Assemblies of God, based in Springfield, Mo. The Southern Baptist Convention and the Assemblies of God are the two largest evangelical Christian denominations in the U.S. On this issue, at least, Southern Baptists and Pentecostals apparently see orthodoxy in a similar light.
A majority of Arkansans consider themselves to be evangelicals, and many will be interested to know what their own leaders think about this topic.
Earlier this week, I e-mailed a few other religious leaders from elsewhere on the religious spectrum. I’ll post their responses if I receive them.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
As an Episcopalian, I can only voice this view: The two branches of Christianity are very different, with very different histories (post reformation).
I think it is unwise to to parse Christianity in the way done here.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I suspect that protestant conservatives of whatever stripe, evangelical, reformed, pentecostal, etc., probably see orthodoxy the same way on this point. I also suspect that many non-evangelicals agree with them. I’m simply suggesting that we few beleaguered Episcopalians don’t necessarily agree with them.
I also recognize that there is a lot of opposition in the Episcopal Church itself to Bro. Genpo, as Frank has reported, and I suppose I understand that opposition, though I don’t necessarily agree with it. I think that Buddhism has much to teach Christianity, and that we ought to be open to learning its lessons, though I’m not suggesting that we abandon our traditional beliefs.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Caleb,
There is much that Christians can learn from Buddhism, as there is much to be admired in Buddhism. Our 13th article of faith states, “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” In other words, truth can come from many sources.
However, there is a big distinction between that and putting Buddha on equal footing with the Son of God. One will not be saved through Buddha. Sounds arrogant to some, I know. However, the “truth” is the “truth.”
In the end, Guatama Buddha himself will bow and confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only through him can Buddha be saved.
April 24th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
David, you point up one of my main problems with quotes like the one from Bro.Wood. He said:
“A wise person once said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. The facts of the Christian faith are that Jesus is God’s Son, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, died for our sins, rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is coming again. A Christian will agree with these facts.”
Well, Bro. Wood violated his own rule. He presents as “facts” things that have been debated for two thousand years, and as to which there is no evidence. A fact is something that can be proven. He says that a “Christian will agree with these facts.” Well, if someone can agree or disagree with something, it’s not a fact. I can say that I think the building I’m sitting in is cute or ugly, and you could agree or disagree with that assessment. But if I give the street address of the building, or the number of square feet in it, or its height, those are facts about which there shouldn’t be any disagreement, or if there is, a good survey should end the disagreement.
In theology, we don’t have surveyors or historians who can tell us the real dimensions of Noah’s Ark, if it existed, or what really happened 2000 years ago. We’re left with the biblical and other texts that we have, and there is a genuine debate as to what these texts show.
Likewise, David, your post presents, in a well written and concise manner, your religious views. I respect these views, and understand that they are shared by millions of people worldwide who consider themselves to be Christian. I realize that no doubt far more Christians believe those things than agree with we liberal Episcopalians. However, as I’ve pointed out here many times, our views are as legitimately Christian as any other, and seem to us to embody the spirit and teachings of Christ more than the conservative beliefs.
My point is that there are few provable “truths” or “facts” in theology, and each of us must decide what we believe. That’s why it’s called faith. Otherwise, we’d just have a survey and be done with it.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:45 am
A small point of correction for Flockwood’s comment abt Beeson Divinity School (where Timothy George is Dean [George is also the Managing Editor of Christianity Today magaine])–Beeson isn’t a “Southern Baptist seminary”–it is an interdenominational, Evangelical divinity school located at Samford University, a Baptist-affiliated college. Samford is affiliated with the Alabama Baptist Convention, but the Divinity School (Beeson) isn’t. Their website’s FAQ page says “the divinity school is in a unique position of being an interdenominational and evangelical school within a historically Baptist university.” (http://www.beesondivinity.com) In fact, its interdenominational faculty and student body includes several Episcoplains/Anglicans, though mostly hailing from the more conservative wing of the movement.
As for the blog itself, I am a Pentecostal, and I’m sorry, Caleb, but not all Pentecostals agree on everything, either! This is true for most denominational traditions, even among Baptists! In fact, historically, Baptists are VERY well known for having disagreements over all kinds of issues, and their decentralized form of church governance allows for great diversity of opinion among individual congregations, although the more recent trend in the SBC has been toward greater homogenization of opinion (sometimes coercively). It sounds like the American Episcopalians have essentially embraced the more antinomian tendencies of the Baptists!
And as for the doctrine of the Atonement; I’m no expert on the history of soteriology, but I am under the impression that many Catholics and Eastern Orthodox embrace some sort of Atonement theology as well; that it is not entirely some invention by the Protestants. I also agree that scripturally, it is clearly supported by the verses Wood mentioned, and many others, although it isn’t the “entire” story of how our salvation “works,” nor is it the totality of what Christ came to accomplish on Earth in establishing His kingdom here. But I do find it odd that some Episcopalians would be so against it, since their liturgy, church architecture, and emphasis on the Eucharist seem to heavily underline the centrality of the cross and Jesus’ shed blood (and broken body) in one’s journey with God, as an essential way that God chose to show His love for us, set an example for us to follow (take up one’s cross and follow Him), and a sacramental means of grace, leading to our reconciliation with a holy God.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:51 am
Lovely typo– “Episcoplains”. Caleb, what do you make of that?
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
So. . . .he disagrees with Thew Forrester. So do most of the Standing committees of the ECUSA. So far as the rest of that: we have a lot of denominations for good reason, and lots of variation within each of those. Belaboring the fine points is what seminary professors get paid for, but I’m frankly glad I don’t.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 am
From Caleb’s New World Order Dictionary:
“Episcoplain:” n. A low church Episcopalian, esp. one associated with a Baptist university. Ex.: “He’s so Episcoplain that he knows all the words in the songs in the Broadman Hymnal.
“Episcofancy:” n. A high church Episcopalian, esp. one associated with either a large urban Episcopal church, or a liberal mainstream university. Ex.: “Our new rector is so Episcofancy that even the Catholics think his services are too much.
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Episcoplain–ha ha, touché!
Yeah, Beeson is odd for a loosely-Baptist affiliated school in that they are all about embracing the historic Christian creeds (Apostles, Nicene), since most Baptists are decidedly non-creedal. But they have a strong Reform/Calvinist influence at that school (which may help explain that), so a lot of Presbyterian Church in America types, and probably a few Episcofancies as well, since the ones there tend to prefer the term “Anglican,” haha.
[BTW, the only reason I know all of this is bec it is one of the seminaries I am looking at attending...]