The PAOC & the #Boozetalk

This past week I tuned into the live stream of the 2014 PAOC General Conference. It is a Bi-Annual conference for credential holders of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. The intention of conference is to connect credential holders across the nation of Canada for time of rejuvenation, connection, and among other things, to hold a national business meeting to pass denominational or "fellowship" wide legislation. The conference this year was hosted in the beautiful city of Saskatoon, which until about nine months ago was the city I called home. I do not currently hold credentials with the PAOC, as I live in England, and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of the AOG-Great Britain. [1] 

This brings me to one of the reasons I was keen to tune in for this year's General Conference. There was a particularly controversial piece of legislation being brought to the table around the issue of alcohol. The PAOC has a long history of abstinence that I believe is partially due to the movement being founded during the time of prohibition. The current reading of the legislation simply stated that “the non-medical use of mood altering substances” was listed under a moral failure. I know as someone who grew up in the PAOC that the wording “mood altering substances” created much confusion to what exactly that entailed. To get an answer to the vagueness of the term “mood altering substances” one had to dig back through the archives to see what exactly the term implied. It should be no surprise then that the confusion generated diverse opinion on what the PAOC believed on the issue of alcohol. This was also demonstrated by the lengthy discussions that took place on fellow blogger Jeremy Postal’s website.

The General Executive attempted to clarify those areas that are moral absolutes and those that are corporate convictions. The placement of “the non-medical use of mood altering substances” in the category of “moral failure” as it currently reads was not viewed as helpful to the fellowship. It was with this background that the following resolution was presented under the category of disciplinary action: 

10.6.2.2.3 The use of tobacco and the non medical use of alcohol or other mood altering substances.

The resolution sought to indicate that it is drunkenness that infringes on the biblical absolute whereas drinking alcohol as a credential holder infringes on our historic corporate conviction of abstinence. What I am sure surprised many within the PAOC family is that corporate conviction is not unanimous on the issue of alcohol. The heated discussion around 10.6.2.2.3 proves that even the historic corporate conviction of abstinence has shifted. It is certainly apparent that there is a significant percentage of PAOC credential holders that would advocate for moderation on the issue of alcohol. The rest of this blog will seek to summarize the discussion that took place at the 2014 PAOC General Conference.

To the best of my knowledge, I believe the house was in agreement on the following two points:[2]

Point #1 The consumption of alcohol is not a sin.

 Point #2 There are times when it is appropriate to limit our freedoms. 

For our purposes I will divide the discussion under the headings of PRO & CON. Those advocating for a moderate responsible use of alcohol will be represented by ‘pro’ heading. Those against any use of alcohol for the credential holder will be separated into the ‘con’ category. Here is a chart of what I believe represents a summation of the various positions represented during the discussions at the 2014 General Conference. 

I am now going to elaborate on each of the five positions represented in the chart.

#1. CON- The belief is that, while it may be allowable for non-credential holders to partake in alcohol, there is a different set of rules for those in leadership. “Higher standard” is interpreted in this view as ‘different standard’. Pastors and leaders are fundamentally different than their congregants because they have a higher standard to follow than lay members. The lay member of a congregation might be encouraged to follow their leader's example, but would not be reprimanded if they chose to exercise their freedom to partake in the use of alcohol. Those who represent the ‘con’ view would see the function and demands of leadership as exclusive, hierarchical, and set apart from the laity. Dave Wells summarizes the 'exclusive to leadership' approach,

“The context for By-Law 10 is our credential holders. It is not intended to legislate morality for all believers globally but to address what is wise for Pentecostal leaders in Canada and in our global ministries”

#1. PRO- The pro moderation view would argue that the New Testament does not call leadership to exclusive practices and behaviours apart from the rest of the church body. The call to be ‘above reproach’ [3] is interpreted as setting an example that others in the church should seek to imitate.[4] Leaders are viewed as servants who are themselves members of the body. There is no separation of the ‘professional holy person’ in this view, rather there is a plea that we are all baptized into one body. Whatever practices and behaviours are acceptable to the Body are therefore acceptable to the leader in the appropriate context. In this view the function and demands of leadership are always invitational, imitational, and inclusive to the whole Body.


#2. CON- You might summarize this objection as “we’ve have always done it this way.” This view believes that as a fellowship we should stay as close to original intension of the founding movement. Pentecostals have a long history of promoting prohibition, and as such, it should be the duty of credential holders to remain faithful to founding history of the movement. As Dave Wells expressed in an email to credential holders, “Drunkenness infringes on the biblical absolute whereas drinking alcohol as a credential holder infringes on our historic corporate conviction of abstinence.” 

#2. PRO- This view recognizes that each generation of our fellowship will pass unique guidelines on ‘grey areas’ that will help serve that generation in that specific period of time. It is, however, the duty of each generation to adapt to shifting cultural contexts. This view may question the validity of being beholden to historical frameworks, however there is also an appeal to a wider historical framing of issues. On the specific issue of alcohol consumption, this view might call our tradition to submit to the historic Christian approach to the topic; which is to say: Total prohibition is a new concept in church history. 

 #3. CON- “Alcohol is only destructive.” There is no possibility for responsible use of alcohol in this view. Despite any precautions taken, the use of alcohol will eventually result in poor decisions by the credential holder; OR those who imitate the credential holder. The use of alcohol is only a slippery slope to destructive decisions and behaviours. The only approach to alcohol should be abstinence. 

#3. PRO-“There are positive examples of the uses of alcohol.” This view believes that alcohol can be consumed within the context moderation and wisdom. While there are examples of those who abuse alcohol, there are also plenty of examples of believers who have demonstrated healthy attitudes towards alcohol consumption. This view believes that while abstaining from alcohol may be helpful in certain situations, it is not the only approach available to leaders. 

#4. CON- “There is never an allowable context for the consumption of alcohol by leaders.” This view cannot imagine a situation where a credential holder might be allowed to drink. This view could not imagine a segment of Canadian society where the consumption of alcohol would be deemed a ‘non-issue’ by the local church. This view also extends to PAOC Global Workers who serve across the globe in various international contexts. Simply put: the context should never inform the practice of credential holders on alcohol consumption. Even though this view may not officially label alcohol consumption in the category of ‘sin’, by practice this view would always see any consumption on the part of the credential holder to be cause for disciplinary action, regardless of the context.

#4. PRO- “We need to allow for diversity and differing cultural contexts.” This position is perhaps best summed up in a comment from Pastor Billy Richards, “Paul says that he becomes like the Jews. Well the Jews I become like in Toronto … they all drink!!” This view believes that context should inform practice on the issue of alcohol consumption. This view is culturally sensitive, adaptable, and contextual on disputable matters, whether nationally, or internationally. 

#5.CON- “Tradition is over and above Scripture.” I realize that this is quite the claim I am presenting here. But I do believe it to be a fair assessment of those who were opposed to alcohol consumption for credential holders. Let me explain: 

It was during the conference that two New Testament scholars from our own tradition took to the microphones to challenge the house. A professor from Masters Seminary was quick to remind the house that there is no Scriptural basis for 10.6.2. The Professor proposed a resolution to delete the inclusion of Scripture in 10.6.2 due to the passages being taken out of context. The amendment was voted down, despite the testimony of two theologians to the mis-reading of the passage(s). This proves, I believe, the tendency to neglect the wider Scriptural witness in favour of what our tradition historically believes is correct. If the PAOC was primarily concerned about following the direction of Scripture on this matter, we would have heeded the advice of the scholars among us. 

I don't think I am saying anything new by highlighting this distinction. 
After all the context of this resolution, according to Wells,  is a “historic corporate conviction of abstinence”[5]. This is to say that the corporate body of Canadian Pentecostals are convicted of the current position of abstinence due to the historical precedence. There is no official claim that the position of (forced) abstinence is the teaching of Scripture.

Therefore, I believe, we could accurately say of the ‘con’ position:  “PAOC is the absolutely supreme and sufficient in authority in all matters of faith and practice for credential holders.” 

#5. PRO- “Scripture above all else.” This view seeks to emphasize the place of Scripture above a denominational or fellowship precedent. The "pro" camp would be skeptical of legislating practices beyond the scope of Scripture. There is an inclination to not go beyond the text. Scripture is said to have the final word on matters of faith and practice. The 'pro' camp is quick to note that while the Bible is explicit on the command to avoid drunkenness, there is no prohibition against moderate and responsible drinking. 

Those representing this position seek to confront the full range of the canonical texts. The 'pro' moderation view is not content to read one set of texts to the exclusion of another set of texts. For every text that declares, "Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler" (Proverbs 20:1) there is counter text of, "wine that gladdens the heart of man…” (Psalm 104:14-15) OR “spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household” (Deut 14:26). Dr. Richard Hays summarizes the approach to Scripture taken by this position:

"When we begin to seek the unity of New Testament witnesses- whether in general or on a particular issue- all of the relevant texts must be gathered and considered. Selective appeals to favourite proof texts are illegitimate without full consideration of texts that stand on the opposite side of a particular issue. The more comprehensive the attention to the full range of New Testament witness, the more adequate a normative ethical proposal is likely to be. Beware of the interpreter who always quotes only the Haustafeln (e.g. Col 3.22: "Slaves obey your earthly masters in everything') and never wrestles with Galatians 5.1 ("For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery")- Or vice versa." [6]

Concluding Questions

1.What say you? Which category do you find yourself most geared towards? Pro or Con?

2.Is there another category of distinction I could add to this list?

3. Which of the five points of disagreement, presented above, do you find the most compelling? 

Thanks for reading! 

Footnotes

1. As a side note, theologically I self identify under the category of Anabaptist- although I don’t think Anabaptism & Pentecostalism are mutually exclusive. You could call me a “Meno-costal”, or “Ana-costal”.  
2. I am generalizing. There is likely some exception to the points I have presented. 
3. 1 Timothy 3.2
4. “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” - 1 Corinthians 11.1 
5. Email sent to credential holders. 
6. The Moral Vision of the New Testament. 

Dr. Richard Hays on 'The Synthetic Task'

Dr. Richard B. Hays

I tend to be the kind of person that likes to ask a lot of questions as a means to learning. I love to learn in dialogue with my peers and teachers. My suspicion is that theology is best done in community, as a community, for the community. I can recall countless occasions where I was on a particular train of thought and was stopped dead in my tracks by the cross-examination of a teacher or peer. 

"Have you thought about this?..."

Given this information, it should be no surprise to you that I love to be the kind of student that would show up at their Professor's door with a few burning questions. Thankfully, I had really amazing Professors that generously gave of their time to meet with me. They would leave their tasks of marking, reading, and reflection and patiently listen to my queries. 

I remember on one such occasion that my Professor, in an effort to answer the 'question of the day', pulled from his shelf a well worn book. I read the bright red wording of the title of the book, "The Moral Vision of the New Testament". The binding of the book looked creased and cracked, almost as if it had been opened a thousand times before in search of invaluable information. I could see bits of paper protruding at random from various sections of the book. As my Professor flipped through the pages, I could see the vast array of blue pen that  underlined key sentences and cryptic notes throughout this book. I don't particularly  remember what my Professor told me that day, but I do remember thinking.... "I need to get this book". 

My intuition about The Moral Vision of the New Testament was confirmed by the praise of a few of my favourite authors:

"This book isn't just a breath of fresh air. It's a hurricane, blowing away the fog of half-understood pseudo-morality and fashionable compromise, and revealing instead the early Christian vision of true humanness and genuine holiness. If this book isn't a for our time, I don't know what is." - N.T. Wright

"There are few people I would rather read for the actual exposition of the New Testament than Richard Hays. This book is filled with wonderful readings that not only inform us about how to think better about the so-called 'problem of the relation between the New Testament and ethics' but, even more, speak of how lives should be lived in the light of Christ's cross." - Stanley Hauerwas

Here is my copy of the book today: 

Hays, in the introduction to Part Two of the book, has a tiny five page section titled,  "The Synthetic Task: Finding Coherence in the Moral Vision of the New Testament." I re-read this section today, almost by mistake, while I was doing a bit of study in a different section of the book. I was so blown away at the depth of content in these few pages that I was inspired to share with you my reader(s). 

Richards Hays on the "Synthetic Task"

Hays opens this section of the book with a crucial statement for any good interpretation of Scripture:

The New Testament is not a simple, homogenous body of doctrine. It is, rather, a chorus of diverse voices. These voices differ not only is pacing and intonation but also in the material content of their messages. No matter how devoutly we might wish it otherwise, we cannot hear these texts as a chorus speaking in unison. Indeed, a rigid determination to make the texts speak univocally will at best limit our perception of the range of these witnesses and at worst produce distortion of their messages. [pg. 187]

Hays is warning his readers of the temptation to read Scripture as 'flat univocal document'. I believe the best example of this in our contemporary reading(s) is when everything in Scripture is made subservient to Pauline theology, or rather misinterpretations of Pauline theology.  Our first responsibility as interpreters of Scripture is to listen to the individual witness. We must allow Luke to speak for Luke, or Matthew to speak for Matthew, or James to speak for James. It is only when we have allowed the individual voice to be heard do we make any attempts at harmonization and synthesis. 

We must let the individual voices speak if we are to allow the New Testament to articulate a word that may contravene our own values and desires. Otherwise we are likely to succumb to the temptation of flipping to some comforting cross-reference to neutralize the force of any particularly challenging passage we may encounter." [pg. 188]

Hays provides the following example of reading Luke through a Pauline lens to illustrate:

Does Jesus say in Luke's Gospel, "None of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions' (Luke 14.33)? This is a disturbing word; how are we to understand it? Flipping to 2 Corinthians 8-9, we find a less exacting norm: Paul exhorts the Corinthians merely to contribute generously to his collection for the Jerusalem church, "in order that there may be a fair balance" (isotes, 2 Cor 8.14) Paul advocates sharing, renunciation of possessions. Thus, a homogenizing of interpretations might filter Luke's stringent teaching through Paul's account of economic responsibility and conclude Luke 14.33 cannot mean literally what it appears to say; its hyperbolic language is "really" to be understood as a way of urging sharing or inner detachment from wealth. When the text is interpreted in this way, however, the Gospel of Luke's radical call to discipleship is muffled.

Imagine traveling back in time to see one of your favourite bands live in concert. For the sake of this example I am going to choose The Beatles. Paul, John, George and Ringo Starr skillfully play each of your favourite tunes. You hear some of the classics like Day Tripper, I wanna hold your hand, Twist and Shout, and She loves You. Doing good hermeneutics & synthesis in the New Testament is a lot like hearing each member of the band in a well balanced mix. It rocks! It flows together. It makes you want to dance. You hear each voice and instrument working together in union. Bad hermeneutics & synthesis is like turning up one member of the band so loud that it stifles the other members. It would be like Sir Paul McCartney coming out during the encore to play Blackbird for the audience only to discover that Ringo Starr is bashing away at his Ludwig drum set like a madman. Ringo has gone mad and is completely oblivious to everything and everyone else. So Sir Paul plugs in a tries to do his best to play overtop of the drums, hoping that Ringo realizes its time to start another song. You might think you are hearing Blackbird, an acoustic number, but you are actually filtering the aforementioned ballad through the tangental playing of one Ringo Star. In short... it would suck and Blackbird would be ruined for everyone.  (Also, Paul, John and George would most likely have to axe Ringo and hire back Pete Best to complete the tour) In summary: reading Pauline theology into Luke is a bit like only hearing Ringo Starr at The Beatles concert. (And no one wants that!) 

The solution? Hays suggests:

We are less likely to delude ourselves if we establish a firm methodological ground rule that we must listen to the whole witness of each individual text with care. Luke 14.33 must be understood, in the first instance, in light of Luke's larger narrative depiction of the early church's economic practices (especially in light of the pertinent passages in Acts that describe the Jerusalem church's sharing of possessions), not in light of Paul's pastoral instruction. Luke and Paul stand in some tension with one another on this issue, and we cannot interpret one in terms of the other. Only when we set their differing perspectives side by side will we rightly perceive the synthetic problem. [pg. 188]

Why don't we hear more about the tensions between the texts in discussions about the New Testament? Could it be that perceiving the tension and hearing the unique voices of the text is problematic to our conceived theories of inspiration? For instance, a mechanical//dictation approach to inspiration would inherently need to provide explanation for and against any differences. It can be troubling to many to discover that the God-breathed inspiration of the text appears to be resistant to a forced application of a 'univocal voice'. I myself have held more of the 'dynamic theory of inspiration', and yet in my synthesis of Scripture I have been just as a guilty of downplaying any tension in favour of a forced harmonization. How do we achieve a proper synthesis while at the same time maintaining the uniqueness of each author? 

Dr. Richard Hays provides some reflections and insight here:

Is the New Testament a complex polyphonic choral composition scored by God and performed by human voices under the direction of the Holy Spirit? Or is the New Testament a chaotic cacophony of many voices uncoordinated? The church has traditionally regarded the New Testament as a guide to faith and practice, but how can it serve as a guide if it is not internally consistent? ... Is there some way of discerning a wholeness or unity among the canonical writings? Only if we can give an affirmative answer to this last question can we speak of New Testament ethics as a normative theological discipline. Every proposed construal of the unity of the New Testament canon is "performance", one analogous to a director's reading of a Shakespeare play- a reading that seeks to discern and articulate the shape and meaning of the whole. How, then, shall we proceed in seeking to discover moral coherence within the cannon? There is no methodologically airtight way to derive proposals about the unity of the canonical witness; we can only read the texts carefully, asking what common ground they share, what themes and images appear repeatedly, what convictions their various stories and exhortations. The approach, in other words, must be inductive, beginning with a close reading of the individual texts. Then, having first displayed our readings of the text, we proceed by trial and error, testing various synthetic intuitions against the evidence. The task is dauntingly difficult, but it is inescapable if the church is to take its ethical bearings from the New Testament. Thus, we plunge ahead to the task, while acknowledging that our synthetic reading of the texts will always be subject to critique or supplementation by other members of the community of faith who may teach us to see things more clearly.[pg.189] 

Dr. Hays then provides us three procedural guidelines for proper synthesis. (I am going to quote them in full)

1. Confront the full range of Canonical witness.  

"When we begin to seek the unity of New Testament witnesses- whether in general or on a particular issue- all of the relevant texts must be gathered and considered. Selective appeals to favourite proof texts are illegitimate without full consideration of texts that stand on the opposite side of a particular issue. The more comprehensive the attention to the full range of New Testament witness, the more adequate a normative ethical proposal is likely to be. Beware of the interpreter who always quotes only the Haustafeln (e.g. Col 3.22: "Slaves obey your earthly masters in everything') and never wrestles with Galatians 5.1 ("For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery")- Or vice versa.  

2. Let the tensions stand
However acute the tension between two different witnesses appear, it must not be resolved through exegetical distortion of the texts. The individual witness must be allowed their own voices. A classic example of such distortion is the reading of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount through Pauline lenses ( or, rather, Pauline lenses as interpreted by the Reformation): in such a reading, the rigorous demands of the Sermon on the Mount are treated as impossible commandments designed to drive sinners to recognize their absolute need of grace. In such a reading, Matthew's voice is suppressed, and the Sermon on the Mount becomes as an instrument of a particular Reformation construal of Pauline theology. Such flattening of the individual witness is to be rejected. 

Likewise, we must not force harmony through abstraction away from the specific messages of the New Testament texts. Confronted with the diversity of New Testament witnesses, we are often tempted to dissolve the plurality of perspectives by appealing to universal principals (love, justice, and so on) or dialectical compromises. Such conceptual movements away from a text's specific imperatives are often escape routes from its uncomfortable demands. For example, Romans 13 and Revelation 13 are not two complementary expressions of a single principal or a single New Testament understanding of the state; rather, they represent radically different assessments of the relation of the Christian community to the Roman Empire. Nor can we average them out and arrive at a position somewhere in the middle that will allow us to live comfortably as citizens of a modern democratic state. If these texts are allowed to have their say, they will force us either to choose between them or to reject the normative claims of both. Whatever synthetic account we give of the unity of the New Testament witnesses, it must be sufficiently capacious to recognize and encompass tensions of this kind. This synthesis that we seek will not require a forced harmonization of the New Testament's diverse perspectives.

3. Attend to the literary genre of the texts 
In the effort to "use" the New Testament for doing ethics we may find ourselves seeking to extract universal maxims or principals from texts whose literary form is not readily amendable to such reductionistic analytic procedures. Parables, for example, resist paraphrase, as does visionary apocalyptic imagery. What moral principal shall we extract from the parable of the growing seed, which mysteriously sprouts and grows without our understanding how (Mark 4.26-29), or from the parable of the dishonest manager (Luke 16.1-8)? What moral maxim shall we deduce from the vision of the New Jerusalem, which "has no need of sun or moon to shine on it" (Rev. 21.9-21.5)? In our eagerness to discern ethical relevance, we must not force tone-deaf, literarily insensitive interpretations upon the texts. The New Testament is, after all, not a collection of general treatises on ethics. Its major texts are narratives (the Gospels and Acts), pastoral letters to specific congregations (the Pauline letters), and a richly symbolic apocalyptic vision (Revelation); only the catholic Epistles take the form of general moral wisdom for the church at large. In our effort to discern the unity of New Testament ethics, we must take care to respect the character of these witnesses. The sort of unity that we discover here will have to be a unity appropriate to texts that are neither theoretical nor propositional in their mode of expression. 

Conclusion from Dr. Richard Hays

"These three guidelines serve to keep us honest by ensuring that our synthetic proposals respect rather than erode the texts with which we work. They serve to ensure that we have all the pieces of the puzzle on the table and that we have not snipped off any of the corners of the funny-looking individual pieces. Taken by themselves, however, these guidelines might lead to disintegration rather than synthesis: we might find more tension than unity. We might find the New Testament texts to prefer a disparate collection of incommensurable moral perspectives. Ernst Kasemann posed the dilemma sharply in his famous dictum: "The New Testament canon does not, as such, constitute the foundation of the unity of the Church. On the contrary, it provides the basis for the multiplicity of the confessions." The problem, then, is whether we may legitimately speak of a unity that somehow underlines the multiplicity. Specifically with regard to ethical issues, is it possible, while respecting the above guidelines, to discern within the New Testament firm common ground on which a New Testament ethic can be constructed? The Christian church has historically affirmed that such a discernment of unity is possible. Our task is now is to articulate wherein that unity lies."[pg. 191] 

Thanks for reading...

Questions For Reflection

1. Do you agree with Dr. Hays statement that, "The New Testament is not a simple, homogenous body of doctrine"? Why or Why not? 

2. Can you provide any more examples of reading Scripture as a 'flat univocal document'?

3. Why, in your judgement, do you we tend to think of 'unity' more as 'uniformity' in our various approaches to synthesis? 

4. Is there a procedural guideline you would add to Dr. Hays list?