http://juicyecumenism.com/2012/07/14/queering-the-pentecostals/

My perspective is that if the SPS is to be an open society to engage with other points of view, it is views and concerns like this that much be engaged with and publicly addressed.

I distinguish PERSONS from BELIEFS. All persons are created in the image of God as male and female, and therefore have inherent dignity, worth and value. Not all beliefs, however, are equally valid, and when these beliefs come out into the open, they must be engaged with so that we can walk in the light together.

My experience has been that some presenters at the SPS Annual Meeting present a provocative topic in order to engage discussion, but when engaged with, quickly want to silence discussion. This is unconscionable from a Christian worldview.

The culminating purpose in this Statement is clearly said to be “to uphold and maintain those Pentecostal truths, most surely believed among us.’”

My question, then would be, how can members sign up without an adherence to a minimal statement of faith of those Pentecostal truths, “most surely believed among us”? If so, do membership requirements have meaning and clarity? Or is ambiguity to be preferred in the light of the gospel message that we proclaim?

I never said I was the only one to oppose the current proposals. I realize others have publically opposed the current proposals. But to my knowledge, no one else has PUBLICALLY put forth an alternative proposal, and this is what I in fact said, “to my knowledge I am the only one who has publically opposed the current proposals to change the SPS constitution AND put forth an alternative amendment.”

I do recall that at the last business meeting there were a couple (not several) young members who voiced their support for the 2012 proposal. And no, I didn’t speak up in that meeting (although I would have spoken against the 2012 proposal).

You may not have directed your post to my open letter alone, but you implicated my open letter in your critiques and that SPS should somehow be saved from members like me (young, inexperienced, PhD lacking, etc.). And you charged those who want a faith statement (including me) as “without respect of the well-being of the Society.” Your original post was simply an ad hominem attack. You may claim it was not personally directed towards me, but you already admit that my open letter and alternative proposal is part of the un-named group that you are decrying.

All I ask is that members of SPS will not simply dismiss the alternative proposal that I have made public, and which has garnered support by both young and veteran members of SPS. I’m a full-member of SPS and expect to be treated as such. We must listen to all of God’s people (Acts 2:17), and discern what the Spirit is in fact really saying. Let me be clear, I’m not saying everything young members say is prophetic, nor am I using the “God-trump card” (as evident by my remarks above regarding some young members). This whole matter requires diligent prayer, and open conversation of all of the options for the future of SPS.

I understand you disagree with my method of writing an open letter. Can we agree to disagree? The SPS executive committee is leading members in only one direction (2012 & 2013 proposals) without providing alternative possibilities for the members to decide for themselves. I provided such an alternative in my open letter. I don’t believe I have not spoken out of turn, since not one senior member has publically proposed an alternative to the current 2012 & 2013 proposals (they have over an entire year to do this). To this day not one senior full-member has publically put forth an alternative (other than the ones who support the proposal in my open letter) for other members to consider before going into the business meeting in in about 2 week from now). Also, SPS currently has no forum for genuine discussion for SPS members. As I stated before, I corresponded privately with a number of SPS members. I also posted my letter on the official SPS Facebook page, and it was removed by the admins (they had every right to do so, so no hard feelings). My only option seemed to be an open letter on my personal blog, to which SPS members could direct other members. I made every effort to follow the proper due process of respecting those in authority of SPS. Some veteran leaders of SPS (past and present executive committee members) who don’t support my alternative proposal still welcomed my contribution to the discussion, and encouraged me by saying, “your speaking out is important precisely so that the collaborative discernment of the society can be more broadly informed.”

I realize that others in SPS may perceive the current situation in the way you describe it in your original post. I find that perspective very polarizing. I only ask for a calm, clear, and open discussion about the real possibilities and alternative proposals that SPS members can prayerfully consider, and vote upon themselves. I hope I have brought clarity to misunderstandings, and communicated a reasonable counter-perspective that is not hostile, but written in a spirit of grace and with sound argumentation.

SPS doesn’t need to be saved from “other members” in SPS, SPS needs open and free dialog so that we as members can come to well-informed, prayerful agreement under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
William Molenaar