On December 9, I interviewed a Southeastern University alumnus willing to share his personal encounter with distorted, liberal theology among some of his fellow students and college faculty. David Thrower’s interview was published as a blog post here: “Liberal Theology at Assemblies of God University?”. It has come to my attention that Thrower has received hostile backlash and callous personal attacks via social media. In addition, it is reported that claims of an “anti-Pentecostal agenda” have been launched at the Institute on Religion & Democracy.
This week one gentleman, who is a graduate of Southeastern University, reached out to me with thoughtful, amiable questions regarding the blog interview. His questions merit a response. What follows is our virtual exchange:
Some have said that you and JuicyEcumenism.org simply have an “axe to grind. Some have hinted that [the Institute on Religion and Democracy] is anti-Pentecostal. I would like to know if that’s true.
CV: It is hard for me to believe that anyone touting IRD as “anti-Pentecostal” with nothing more than an “axe to grind” actually read my blog post highlighting Thrower’s personal story. At the start of the post I note that I myself was raised within the Assemblies of God denomination. My parents are Pentecostals. I identify as a Pentecostal. Though I currently attend an Evangelical congregation not affiliated with the Assemblies of God in metro Washington D.C, I believe and actively seek the physical evidence of the Holy Ghost.
Furthermore, the Institute on Religion and Democracy is a faith-based alliance of Christians representing Evangelicals, Mainliners and Catholics. We are not denomination-centric, but act as an ecumenical watch-dog organization that monitors and reports on cultural issues affecting the Church. One such issue is exposing distorted, liberal teachings that do infiltrate orthodox churches, seminaries, colleges and campus ministries. If IRD was somehow anti-Assemblies of God, then it is unlikely we would concern ourselves with threats targeting this denomination and seek to strengthen Pentecostals’ witness in public life.
George Paul Wood [son of George O. Wood, who serves as the General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God USA] and others have noted that the article lacks scholarship. My point was that your article amounted to a blog and a report and was not intended as a scholarly paper any more than Facebook postings were prepared and documented for peer review. All I wanted to know was – is it true?
CV: As mentioned twice in the original article, this was a blog post highlighting just one former student’s experience at Southeastern University. It is not documented for peer review. However, we take the easy road of denial when we dismiss concerns about possible distorted theology raised by a brother in Christ because his message is not delivered in a particular package.
I would gently remind critics that it was my IRD colleague Jeffrey Walton’s “unscholarly” report that helped to expose the liberation theology and other unbiblical teachings of Paul Alexander, an Assemblies of God minister and Society for Pentecostal Studies President, who after further investigation, was dismissed from the denomination’s ministerial list in 2013.
Let it be known that my ultimate purpose for publishing Thrower’s interview was not to condemn the Assemblies of God denomination, but to remind Charismatics and Pentecostals that we are not immune to false teachers though we are deeply-rooted in traditional Christian teachings. In fact, we must remember that it is precisely our unequivocal stand for the full, uncompromised Gospel that makes us a target. We must remain watchful because “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Ephesians 6:12)
Comment by Jason Wert on January 2, 2015 at 1:23 pm
If you and the IRD are anti-Pentecostal, then I’m Lady Gaga.
Comment by Rich Davis on January 2, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Whether IRD is “anti-pentecostal” isn’t at all relevant. It would be something like an ad hominem to even slyly suggest that this would undermine anything Chelsen said in her previous post.
Comment by George on January 17, 2015 at 10:28 pm
When the message hits close too home, shot the messenger. That will make it all go away. What if she’s right? What if the rules are quietly being changed in, not one, but possibly several schools? We could close our eyes, or we could go find out for ourselves? Does anyone realize what this means if it’s true?
Comment by John E on January 2, 2015 at 4:32 pm
This does not clear up the real problem with the article, which is that it is entirely one-sided. I am not Pentecostal and thus do not have a dog in this fight, but writing an article that casts an institution in a certain light without at least asking for comment from said institution (or for that matter the people mentioned) is a great example of Rolling Stone journalism. I am very disappointed with the way this is being handled.
Comment by Rich Davis on January 2, 2015 at 10:06 pm
Having an “axe to grind,” being “anti-pentecostal,” or indulging in “Rolling Stone journalism” — these are all ad hominem remarks at best.They might lead to disappointment, but they don’t show anything from the original post is false.
Comment by John E on January 7, 2015 at 10:02 am
My response was not ad hominem. It pointed to a real problem with article.
Comment by Horatio Hornblower on January 2, 2015 at 9:27 pm
Nice
Comment by Yoon Shin on January 5, 2015 at 9:33 am
Umm… to let you know, David Thower messaged me on Facebook and personally attacked me. I can furnish you with the whole exchange if you’d like since you continually refuse to add other voices. Trust me, David Thrower is no pariah, and this post is no adequate response to your previous post.
Your posts would have more credence if you actually had input from other students. My very conservative friend and I shared classes with David, and we wholly disagree with his experience. And I reached out to you Chelsen on Twitter for a counterpoint, but you didn’t accept my offer. I’m beginning to think you just want to save face by picking and choosing perspectives only you agree with. I’m astounded at how you even have a following. And if people think that’s an ad hominem, yes, it is, because ad hominem is not always a fallacy. I’m an apologist at heart and apologists of antiquity used legitimate ad hominems, and Chelsen’s articles open her to legitimate ad hominems.
Comment by Anthony Roberts on January 6, 2015 at 3:07 am
Agreed Yoon; there are better more thorough ways of talking about a school’s theological stance. Perhaps we should co-author a response to this article?
Comment by Evangelical Watchdog on January 5, 2015 at 1:49 pm
I quote a tweet by Chelsen here:
Chelsen Vicari @ChelsenVicari Dec 30
“Jesus didnt come to appease the world but to save it and challenge His followers to sin no more.We dont get to cherry-pick how we follow Him”
Neither should we cherry-pick our perspectives, yet this is what you have done. Though not a quote, here is what I gathered from your “article”:
“Look! We like to go hunting for “heretics”. Because of us, the “evil” of Paul Alexander has been exposed. We’ve done it once, we can do it again. Onwards toward heretic hunting!”
Yada yada yada. “Beware of the sound of one hand clapping.” Chelsen and the IRD can only hear their “perspective” so loud they forgot that there was another hand!
Ad hominems abound. If she can do it, you can too! Here is a question open for discussion and in accordance with her tweet, is it sinful to falsely accuse a university, professors, and others of teaching “harmful liberal theology” and thus creating division in the church when those questioned do no such thing? It isn’t like Chelsen would know the truth. She didn’t look for it. She found what she wanted to find and “brought it to light”. It isn’t my place to answer this question, but I would be very, very wary to do the same thing Chelsen has done in her writing.
Though my name here is Evangelical Watchdog, you might as well call me the Ecumenical Watchdog since the IRD can’t seem to do what they have set out too.
Comment by Anthony Roberts on January 6, 2015 at 3:04 am
Hello Chelsen and greetings in the name of Christ. For the past couple of weeks, I have been watching the responses to your article about Southeastern University (SEU) and even responded to David Thrower via Facebook; we were classmates at SEU. While I respect your work as a journalist, I think that one student’s opinion cannot speak for the reputation or theological stance of an entire institution.
It is my understanding that honest reporting–attempting to describe reality–is based on input from several angles. Though it may have not been your intention, your article does not offer a “helpful” or responsible glimpse into the theological stance of SEU.
David, who is my brother in Christ, clearly has had some negative “personal” experiences at the university for whatever reason. However, as a graduate from SEU who is now a PhD student one of the most progressive theological institutions in the country, I can attest to the conservative and Evangelical theological inquiry that goes on at Southeastern University. As I told David, if we are going to label liberation theology the most liberal stream of inquiry in the academy, we have not bothered to look past the 1980s. At the end of the day (you can interview other SEU alums about this) the education that I got at SEU always affirmed a solidly Pentecostal theology.
Finally, it seems that this article did not have the spirit of Christ within it. Brother Dr. Kenneth Archer is one of the most Spirit-filled believers that I have ever met. Yes, as a good theologian trying to prepare his students to wade through the plethora of theologies in the present day, he presents many views. A solid Evangelical Christian education is shaped by an awareness of worldviews outside of one’s own. Without people like Ken Archer and Murray Dempster, my personal beliefs would be swayed by every theology that I encounter.
Chelsen, I would appreciate if you would give some of us who are also SEU grads a chance to express our feelings about our alma mater; this would go a long way in giving a robust and fair reading of Southeastern University. Do you think that this would be a possibility?
Comment by David on January 6, 2015 at 3:17 pm
Indeed – like Chelsen said, the whole point of the interview was not to discredit the A/G, Pentecostalism in general, or even SEU as a whole – it was to raise some concerns about teachings in the Religion Dept at SEU only. Some people who have responded (Mr. Roberts and Mr. Shin) can be admired for their loyalty to SEU’s Religion Dept., but they miss the point by infinity. Also, these days, “conservative” seems to have a broad label for many people too, and some things being called “conservative” (and Mr. Roberts actually thinks James Cone is – with all respect to Mr. Cone, I don’t think he’d even appreciate that!) are really not. While it was true only one student was interviewed (and thus, the target of attacks against his faith, his perspective, etc), like Chelsen said this was not meant to be a scholarly inquiry but merely the testimonial of what one student experienced. Whether they agree with that student or not is beside the point, but the thing is so many of these people – such as Mr. Roberts and Mr. Shin – would not give Chelsen or this website the time of day if this article wasn’t published because at the end of the day (and probably not even the student they all of a sudden claim to “know” – how well did they know or talk to him before???) they could have cared less. So, why all the fury now?? If it is just the “lone personal experience” of one student, then why are they getting their feathers ruffled over it?? Honestly, the fact so much of this was responded to in the manner it was maybe reveals more than detractors are willing to admit. Just some food for thought….
Comment by Rev. Ruben Clinton Bedwell on February 3, 2019 at 1:57 pm
greetings in Jesus name, my name is Ruben Bedwell and graduated from southeastern in 1980. My brother quit Southeastern in 1978 because of the liberality that began to creep in. I did not understand about such things at the time but I am now. If anyone doubts that compromise has entered into the AOG let them read the AOG position paper on evolution. If compromise can be found in the higher levels of the AOG can we fool ourselves into the believe that it doesn’t happen in our universities? I have been with AOG ever since I was saved in 1973 and watched as it has slowly slipped to the left of center. I am not by myself. If we don’t cleanse our “temples” of higher learning and get back to Biblical teaching we fall by the wayside.