The following is an excerpt of an article written during the time when Alliance National Office revisiting the current statement of faith and in particular about the postmillennial position. The author, Steve Fowler has provided helpful resources for Alliance members to understand the issues at hand from a perspective of Essentials vs Nonessentials.
Steve Fowler on Essentials vs Nonessentials
From a historical perspective, it may be helpful to know that in the early days of the Alliance, we were as inclusive as the Scriptures allowed. You may be surprised to learn that ourinclusiveness included those who thought differently on the topic of premillennialism. The C&MA’s earliest leaders spoke often of a harmonized diversity. The hermeneutic was unity in love versus uniformity. They were clearly flexible and permitted a variety of beliefs that fell outside of what they believed to be the non-negotiables of the faith. They worked within a framework of doctrinal standards and rejected the following:
• Any belief that watered down the Trinity; the sovereignty of God; God as Creator (vs.
evolution); the authority, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture; the lostness of man; the
deity, humanity, incarnation, virgin birth, death, vicarious atonement, physical
resurrection, ascension, and Second Coming of Christ.
• Any belief that watered down or compromised the Alliance distinctives of Christ-centeredness, supernatural continuism, Christ as Savior, Sanctifier (the sanctifying baptism/filling with the Spirit), Healer, and Coming King.
• Anything that would disrupt unity on the points above.
The conversation on the topics listed above were considered “closed.” There was no room in the movement for those who didn’t hold to these beliefs. These were considered to be Tier 1 doctrines and were “off limits” to being what they described as “open questions.” An “open question” was simply an issue that fell out of the category of what our founders would call a Tier 1 non-negotiable doctrine (i.e. The Trinity, The deity of Jesus, The Authority of Scripture, etc.), and these “open questions” comprised a list of doctrinal positions that fell into what early Alliance leaders called Tier 2 and 3 doctrinal issues. You could be in ecclesiastical partnership with someone who might think differently than you on a particular theological topic as long as it did not fall into the previously mentioned “non-negotiables.” This methodology is the beginnings of what many used to describe us as being a “Big Tent” movement.
(Addressing whether the statement of faith should remove the view of premillennialism, a conversation among the Alliance before the general council of 2021)
I am indebted to Dr. Paul King’s work in his book Alliance Foundations: Alliance Theology and 3-Tier Hermeneutic Essentials, Distinctives, & Open Questions. Dr. King collected some of our history on these 3-Tiers. I’d encourage everyone to read Dr. King’s work. Here are some examples of what were considered “open questions” in the early days of the C&MA:
• Church government (polity, ordination, women in ministry).
• Roles of the ministry of women—both egalitarian and complementarian were
considered an open question, not to be aggressive about one way or the other
• Calvinism and Arminianism (election, falling from grace, etc.)
• Various worship practices
• Water baptism—2nd tier with 3rd tier liberty
• Views regarding communion
• Dedication of children
• Modern hymns and tunes (use of musical instruments, etc.)
• When to worship (Sabbath, etc.)
• Fasting
• Foot washing
• Catholicism vs Protestantism
• Various views on tongues, except tongues as the initial evidence or that there are no tongues today
• Varying views on Creation (but Darwinian evolutionary theory was not accepted)
• Views on sanctification
• End-times/2nd Coming, rapture, views on Israel (e.g., Zionism, Anglo-Israelism)
Some seem to believe and promote that the C&MA has always been premillennial and, by implication, that premillennialism was a Tier 1 doctrine. This is simply not true and is very misleading. In his book, Dr. King writes:
Belief in the premillennial Second Coming of Christ was a 2nd tier distinctive of The Alliance but with 3rd tier “open question” liberty—“We believe this but allow that.”
H. Grattan Guiness, supporting premillennialism, nonetheless wrote with Simpson’s approval in 1896, “I for one would treat this point as an open question.”
In 1906, the official committee that met to discuss essentials, distinctives, and open questions determined that the Alliance believed in premillennialism, but “liberty is accorded to our teachers in connection with the various opinions held” about end times events, timing, order, peoples’ interpretation of Tribulation, the Last Week of Daniel, Rapture, etc. The key caveat is that such views must be expressed “with the understanding that any spirit of antagonism toward those who may hold different opinions is discountenanced.”
From the founding of The Alliance in 1887, premillennialism was taught as an Alliance
distinctive, but not dogmatically. It was the softest and most malleable of the Alliance
distinctives. The original Alliance constitution demonstrates that flexibility:
Inasmuch as many persons who desire to become members of this Alliance and are in full accord with its principles in other points, cannot yet fully accept the doctrine of Christ's Premillennial Coming, it is agreed that such persons may be received into full membership, provided they receive the first three points of testimony (in the constitution), and are willing to give this subject their candid and prayerful consideration.
Dr. King writes, “Simpson has been described as an ‘A-millennial, Premillennialist.’ He believed in a literal physical millennial kingdom for the church in the future and a spiritual kingdom for believers to begin to experience now. While you may disagree with his thinking, Simpson believed that some features of amillennialism and postmillennialism can be compatible with premillennialism and fit into a premillennial framework. A pre-millennial framework can be malleable enough to encompass some a-millennial and post-millennial aspects.
(Other quotes)
The beauty of our movement in its earliest days was that the hermeneutic was unity in love versus uniformity. Unity is fragile and beautiful. Uniformity is suffocating. Larry Osborne in his book The Accidental Pharisee writes, “Uniformity is very different from unity. It’s based on clone-like similarities. That’s what makes uniformity so comfortable. It’s naturally cohesive. When everyone walks, talks, and looks alike, it’s not hard to get along. There aren’t many issues to work through. It’s rather easy to be patient, kind, and forbearing with a clone of myself.”
A. W. Tozer once said, “I have seen the motto, ‘In essentials unity; in nonessentials charity,’ and I have looked for its incarnation in men and churches without finding it, one reason being that Christians cannot agree on what is and what is not essential. Each one believes that his fragment of truth is essential and his neighbor's unessential, and that brings us right back where we started.”
I encourage all of us to ask ourselves if our potential rejection of this change might actually be a symptom of an organizationalauto-immune disorder. Could it be that we might speak and vote against something that may actually be good for us? I urge all of us to speak and vote our conscience in the upcoming days. As we do, I believe it is possible to do this without believing the worst about each other in the process. Let’s go after the vision A. W. Tozer cast. In essentials unity; in nonessentials charity.
Steve Fowler
Lead Pastor, Salem Alliance Church
The author short bio:
I’m a 4th generation C&MA licensed worker. My great-grandfather and grandmother were commissioned and sent out by A.B. Simpson in the late 1800s to Tibet. My grandfather and grandmother gave their lives to the demonstration and proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom in Southwest China and Hong Kong. My father and mother also gave their lives to the demonstration and proclamation of the Good News of the Gospel. They served as C&MA missionaries in Hong Kong, and I am currently serving as the Lead Pastor at Salem Alliance Church.
My heart in sharing my heritage is not to try and impress you or anyone else. I share it to simply state that I am privileged. I’m privileged to have roots that go so deep in the C&MA. More importantly, I am privileged to have been able to listen in on conversations about eschatology between missionaries and between my grandparents and parents. This has deeply formed who I am today.
No comments:
Post a Comment