My Opinion: This Is How Apostolic Pentecostalism Has Changed

Comparing notes with an old friend the other day, we happened (you think?) upon the topic familiar to old heads: how much things have changed.  We both have long memories of Pentecostal history.  If you factor in the age of our mentors and iconic leaders in their prime, we go back over eighty to ninety years.  Our movement may not have changed as dramatically as the secular world during that span of time, but it is different in significant ways.  I see much of the difference as impoverishing rather than improving. 

It would be easy to chew on the soft cuisine of music, behavior in church, technology, and appearance, but those subjects have been masticated on so often that there’s not much left to say—and after all the discussion, not many have changed their minds anyway.  It’s not that these areas are superficial, but if we dig even deeper, we can see even more fundamental changes in the way we do church as opposed to decades ago.  Specifically, I refer to worship behaviors, types of responses to preaching, altar services, cultivating a spiritual atmosphere in church services, teaching customs, and leadership styles.  Contrast present trends to former years and one may readily see major differences. 

To be fair, before pinpointing these differences, we need to account for the context of society-wide changes that have influenced the church and bear some responsibility for the changes. Two-income families severely limit the time that people have for church activities.  Beyond the constraints on time, mental and physical fatigue degrade the energy levels people put into worship.  At the same time, higher education has driven up expectations for deeper and more complex output from the ministry.  Also, the increased affluence of church membership has reduced the sense that people have basic needs that they formerly looked to God to supply.  Add to these differences, people have more mobility, greater access to alternative spiritual resources via the internet, increased pressure to preserve quality family time, and more possessions that demand more care.  It is a different breed of folk with different kinds of needs who populate our church congregations today. 

The following paragraphs should be taken as a general observation, not necessarily as the way things happen every time or in every circumstance.  In painting with a broad brush, one can often mischaracterize specific situations.  I concede that this may very well be the case.  Neither should these observations be considered as stinging criticisms or rejections of the modern church services.  They are only comparisons of today as opposed to yesterday.  My position is that we should not totally abandon the ways of the past.  We should strive to blend the present with our former ways.  I’m sure I will be misunderstood by some, but this is my honest attempt to accurately describe the differences between the past and the present. 

Worship.  If your point of reference for worship styles is the latter half of the twentieth century, you know a wide margin exists between then and now.  Today, handclapping (or applause), jumping en masse, whistling, and general boisterous demonstration erupts whenever people enjoy or affirm a performance.  Formerly, people would raise their hands, some would stand, and many would whisper prayers under their breath while someone would sing.  The singer or musician would often encourage people to worship with them as they sang or played.  Nothing was ever called a performance; it was considered an act of worship.  All the attention was turned heavenward.  It is difficult to describe the atmosphere during those times. A dimension of the Holy Spirit’s operation made it seem like heaven had come down to embrace the earth. 

Preaching. Today, the style of preaching is integrated with the response to preaching in terms of effect.  They feed off each other.  Preaching services often resemble a pep rally rather than a serious endeavor to lead people into the presence of God.  Earlier, people would voice their amens if they strongly agreed with the preacher. Otherwise, they would listen quietly and intently, not because they weren’t interested, but out of reverence to the Word of God.  Another aspect of preaching that has diminished today is something we used to call conviction.  Preachers would deliver their messages in such an intense, sober, and compelling way that the audience would tremble.  Sometimes, people would cry out for forgiveness, or they would get up and run or stagger to the altar.  Many times, most of the audience would flood the altar space.  

Altar Service.  The altar service, or the response time after the sermon, comes and goes quickly in today’s churches.  Sometimes, people get emotional and spend longer on their knees, but most of the time, after ten or fifteen minutes, the preacher asks people to stand for dismissal.  Back in the day, dismissal was unheard of.  People would spend up to an hour—some longer—praying, repenting, worshipping, petitioning, interceding, and more.  Sometimes a spirit of travail would sweep over the people, a season of prayer in which everyone seemed to be caught up in reaching out to God for spiritual strength, purity, and mutual care for each other.  Those who had to leave did so quietly, so as not to disturb the spirit of the service.  Some people had something we called a burden for prayer, which meant they had an issue or concern that meant a great deal to them.  Also, when it seemed like prayer was flagging, the pastor or a church leader would exhort people to persevere.  Another round of intensive intercession would follow.  No doubt that there was as much spiritual growth that happened in the altar service as at any other time. 

Cultivating a Spiritual Atmosphere.  Church services today are designed to be upbeat and positive.  They are focused and contained, and leaders guard against letting the service meander aimlessly or waste time.  Much of the time, however, services seem to be tightly controlled and geared to an agenda.  Instructions are given as to the way people are to feel, what they should reach for as a spiritual goal, and how they should respond.  Leaders press themes, goals, and attaining specific targets.  Freedom of worship is encouraged, but only during a given window of time.  

While these features are not necessarily bad, it still differs greatly from the former era.  Then, no one, not even the leader, knew the direction that the service would take.  In fact, to impose an agenda on the service was considered carnal interference or quenching the Spirit of God.  Preachers felt that they should be sensitive to the Spirit for direction.  Time was of no concern.  People were coached to wait on the Lord.  God was not to be rushed.  Long seasons of prayer, sometimes accompanied by hymns spontaneously started by someone in the congregation, would happen.  There may have been a spirit of weeping, or of laughter, or of running, dancing, and jumping.  Nothing was choreographed.  It was all unplanned and unstructured.  No one got antsy or nervous.  This was simply the expected way for services to go.  It was accepted that God was in charge and who was man to question God?  One thing for sure, people entered the service with open minds and hearts, anticipating a move of the Spirit.  Everyone felt responsible to some degree for what was about to happen as though each person was either a catalyst or a hindrance to the service.  The upshot of this freestyle church service was that the church service would often erupt into congregation-wide praise, worship, and demonstration of the Spirit.  It was a contagious experience that often jumped from one person to another, from side to side and front to back.  To some, this seemed too chaotic and disorderly.  To those who participated, it was divinely ordered, ordained by God.  Many lives were touched in these special moments, hearts were renewed, and miracles happened. 

Teaching Customs.  Discretion governs teaching topics and styles in today’s church. We make sure to steer clear of inappropriate subjects in open services, meaning anything that could be deemed offensive or confusing to visitors.  This includes dress standards, controversial subjects like gender issues, and even addictive substances or behaviors like smoking, drinking, or prescription drugs.  Years ago, preachers had no qualms about straight forward preaching or teaching on any subject, regardless of who was in the audience.  They believed that visitors with sincere hearts would respond to strict teaching.  If they didn’t understand, they would ask questions and receive the truth.  At no time would preachers hold back or circumvent righteous teaching.  That would have been considered compromise or dereliction of duty. Also, no particular effort was made to temper the presentation.  Blunt, raw handling of every subject signaled the audience that the preacher would not shun to declare the whole counsel of God. Ministers of the day believed in strong teaching, the tougher the better. 

Leadership Styles.  Today’s leadership style is collaborative, team-oriented, subjected to peer review.  Pastors suggest more than dictate.  They focus as much on prohibitive behavior as they do deliberate action.  They must not offend, they must be fair, they must be sensitive to feelings, and they must be aware of optics as much as substantive action.  All these protocols slow the process down, and although everyone may find the leadership inoffensive, they also find the results often disappointing.  Our forebears were not restricted by these rules. While being kind and benevolent, they issued orders, demanded submission, unilaterally shaped the vision for the future, and controlled the resources with near absolute authority.  Under this policy, they could shift gears on a moment’s notice, assign tasks to people with little or no forethought, and act swiftly to meet any need they perceived.  While this style favored a dictator form of government, it also greatly simplified the decision-making process and allowed the church to move forward on impulse.  Critics were either ignored or condemned.  Preachers were fond of saying, “the church is not a democracy; it is a theocracy!”  The pastor was the law, period. 

The way Pentecost used to be is hard to explain.  If you have ever stepped into a room just after a story was told that provoked delirious laughter, but didn’t know what caused the reaction, you know what I mean.  It is a case of “you had to be there.”  In those days, we experienced electrifying services, overwhelming demonstrations of spiritual power, and a feeling of being carried into a heavenly dimension where the very presence of God was palpable and amazing.  May God help us to return to those roots where our young people can understand the pure spiritual motivation that inspired their parents and grandparents.