Pentecost & Planting

The word “Pentecostal” carries a metric ton of baggage.

From snake-handling country folk to health and wealth swindlers to deliverance ministry exorcists, there is generally a big, giant cultural turnoff when it comes to all things Pentecostal. Very few younger evangelical leaders would dare claim the label, though folks like Jonathan Martin and A.J. Swoboda provide notable exceptions to the rule. Regardless, the tongue-speaking, spirit-slaying stereotype is a tough one to shake.

It’s not much better for the more sanitized category of  post-Jesus-Movement “Charismatic.” Gaudy word-faith-churches with husband-and-wife co-pastors sporting his and hers Benz’s and big 80’s hair come to mind instantly. And, likewise, countless storefront churches that boast awesome spiritual manifestations or prophetic revelation dot the charismatic landscape. There have been some good attempts in the last decade or so to reclaim the “charismatic” label, whether among the neo-Reformed churches (“charismatic with a seatbelt”) or the younger generation of evangelical/mega/emerging/liturgical churches that endeavor to be more spiritually vibrant in their worship or community life, and give place to the moving of the Spirit and spiritual gifts.

Indeed, among the younger churches, in nearly every evangelical denomination/movement, the old debates surrounding spiritual gifts or manifestations are pretty much dead. Baptist churches now feature as much hand-raising as the mid-80’s independent charismatic church. Virtually none of the prominent younger churches would self-identify as cessationist (except, perhaps, the newer PCA churches, and some SBC examples). Likewise, virtually none of them would believe or teach a “second blessing” baptism in the Holy Spirit accompanied by tongues, a’la traditional Pentecostalism. The Vineyard-driven “third wave” philosophy of Spirit-baptism at conversion, followed by any number of subsequent “fillings” and ongoing gifting, is probably the dominant way of thinking.

But all that said, I wonder if the idea at the heart of the Pentecostal and Charismatic project – that there is a marked difference between a church “filled” with the Spirit and a church not “filled” with the Spirit – is really impacting many of these new evangelical churches. In other words – are these churches “charismatic” in any substantive way? Specifically, is the missionalchurch – with all its emphasis on engaging culture with the gospel and doing holistic ministry in the world – lacking in what might be gained from a “Spirit-filled” perspective?

My gut-answer to that last question is a big, fat, “Yes.”

We missional folks are well known for our structural and formal strategies in the realm of missiology (as I’ve blogged about often), but not as well known for our solid ecclesiology, and perhaps even less for our pneumatology.

And it is these latter two categories that are the key to everything, really.

I know, I know, christology is huge.

But in my reading of the book of Acts (which our church, Dwell, has been journeying through for over a year), I see a very distinct logical order at the start of the narrative that seems to continue throughout: christology – ecclesiology – pneumatology – missiology. That is, Acts begins with the ascension of Jesus the King (christology), continues with the commissioning of the apostolic leadership of the church (ecclesiology), then hits Pentecost and the filling of the Spirit (pneumatology), and finally lands in the shaping of a people for God’s mission in the world (missiology). And this seems to continue in the ministry of the apostles: they bring the gospel of the King as his gifted and called leaders, the Spirit falls and fills, and the community forms for God’s mission. I know this order is arguable, but in the very least the filling of the Spirit always seems to precede missional and communal life in the early church.

And apostolic order seems to precede that.

Which gets me thinking about church planting. Right now, our church is in the midst of replanting itself after a difficult season of transition over the last year. While our initial approach in planting a church was very missional in the typical sense – focused on structural and formal strategies for engaging culture, being creative, doing justice, etc. – it was not very spiritual. And it lacked the apostolic kind of order (functioning in those mysterious foundational five-fold gifts, Eph. 4) that might facilitate that filling. In other words, our church during the first 3 years may not have been a truly Spirit-filled church.

And we are coming to realize our dire need for the filling of the Spirit, that we might be a substantially spiritual community for the sake of God’s mission. This is not least because of my own childhood experience in Spirit-filled environments – which I am beginning to recover and reimagine in the context of this new work. But it is mostly out of sheer necessity – we are desperate for the Spirit to fill us and move among us! We see that our deepest need is to be filled with all the fullness of God as a church, to be a Spiritual community in the truest sense, receiving life from the Vine and hearing the voice of Jesus. Without this our community life, not to mention our missional life, will be skewed and empty.

So maybe this is an encouragement for all of us missional types to consider whether we are moving our churches towards the deep waters of the Spirit, or whether we’ve become content with some of the shallower, surface-level strategies and philosophies. I’m not saying we ought to mimic the Pentecostalism or Charismaticism of the past – with all of their notable flaws – but rather that perhaps there may be, with the recovery of the church’s missional identity, a deep need for a recovery of our spiritual identity, too.

What do y’all think?