The second issue is the self-inflicted wound of isolation. “Oneness Pentecostals have purchased much of the negative feelings about themselves by becoming so isolationist and anti-intellectual. This isolationism is beginning to crumble.”n This is true and there are a number of reasons for this. One that is often overlooked is the Internet. Some Internet sites facilitate discussion among various Oneness groups, thereby breaking down many of the walls of tradition that cannot be backed up with Scripture. Many Oneness ministers have been, and are currently, attending universities whose theological perspective is decidedly Trinitarian, and, in some cases, decidedly non-Pentecostal.
This is a positive thing, as Oneness people are no longer isolated in a corner with no challenge to their doctrines and no voice in the religious community. Dr. Crownover pointed out that, “The birth of Urshan Graduate School of Theology is probably the single most important step in creating more positive relations. As a result, Oneness theology can now begin the long process of being translated into the language of theological scholarship, and Trinitarian scholars will increasingly be able to draw upon a body of literature produced under the careful rules of academia.”o
Forever Divided?
It seems clear that in order to get past the first hurdle there must be a spirit of forgiveness, both in giving and receiving. There is no doubt that both sides felt victimized and demonized. One can admit a wrong attitude without giving up their doctrinal position. Many of the problems between the two groups have been rooted in attitude rather than theology.
What we have in common first, and foremost, is a common Pentecostal experience. When we examine the historical path that led us to where we are today, we come to the same people and places at the beginning of the 20th century. Both groups recognize the Deity of Christ, but with different perspectives. If we are to discuss the way we interpret Scripture on this subject, we may need to invent or borrow neutral terms that do not have the baggage that currently goes along with each position. When Trinitarians defend their position, the tendency is to stress distinctions or separation in the Godhead, thus leading to the accusations of tritheism. When the Oneness side answers back, the stress is on the unity of the Godhead, specifically in Jesus (“For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form”
Colossians 2:9, NASB), thus leading to accusations of denying the Father. So the pendulum continues to swing from extreme to extreme.
Apart from the doctrines on the Godhead, probably the biggest mountain is the teaching on salvation. This is particularly tricky because most inside the UPCI teach that one must be baptized in Jesus name and receive the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues in order to follow the New Testament plan of salvation (
Acts 2:38). There are also those who hold to the Oneness view that, while baptizing in Jesus name and believing in the Pentecostal experience of speaking in tongues, do not see the last two as essential to salvation. In reference to this view Bernard had this to say, “It is indisputable that a minority of Oneness ministers in the UPC and outside the UPC have believed that the new birth occurs at repentance only. However, this view has indeed been a minority. Within the UPC it is lessening, although it may be increasing outside the UPC.”p
I do not believe that the walls of separation can ever be completely broken down between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals due to the doctrine of salvation held by many inside Oneness circles. On the doctrine of the Godhead, however, there is plenty of room for improvement in relations. In the area of attitudes, specifically with regard to a feeling of spiritual superiority, there are many things that can be done to improve relationships. One of the things that will continue to break down walls of separation is to stand together on issues that we have in common through our shared Christian values and Pentecostal experience.
Finally, by showing common courtesy when speaking before diverse groups, we avoid building unnecessary walls of separation.
ninetyandnine.com
© 2007, Andrew Degraffenreed
Andrew Degraffenreed lives just outside the DC beltway with his wife and kids, while completing an externship at the American Center for Law and Justice in DC and preparing for the bar exam. He can’t wait for global warming, as this winter was far too cold.
End Notes
aJames L. Tyson, The Early Pentecostal Revival (USA: Word Aflame Press, 1992),176.
b Andrew Bar David Urshan, The Life of Andrew Bar David Urshan (Portland, Oregon: Apostolic Book Publishers, 1982), 180.
c Talmadge L. French, 75.
d G.T. Haywood, 64.
e Andrew Bar David Urshan, 102.
f Ibid.
g G.T. Haywood, The Life and Writings of Elder G.T. Haywood (Portland: Apostolic Book Publishers, 1984), 22
h Ibid, 19.
i Raymond Crownover “Christianity without the Cross” to Andrew Degraffenreed. 13 April 2004..
j David Bernard “Oneness Relations” to Andrew Degraffenreed 5 March 2004. Raymond Crownover “Oneness Relations” to Andrew Degraffenreed 26 February 2004.
k Raymond Crownover “Oneness Relations” to Andrew Degraffenreed 26 February 2004.
l Raymond Crownover ,“Oneness Relations”to Andrew Degraffenreed. 26 February 2004.
m David K. Bernard, The Oneness view of Jesus Christ (USA: Word Aflame Press, 1994), 153.
n Ibid
o Raymond Crownover “Oneness Relations,” to Andrew Degraffenreed. 26 February 2004.
Linear Mode
