SBC vs. AOG

[Route_70]

It will be a cold day in hell before I get my theology from a woman.

Do you think Apollos was of the same opinion?

Paul venerated Priscilla and Aquila, yet he still had his opinion of women teaching men.  I dunno.  You tell me.

 

[Jo]

It will be a cold day in hell before I get my theology from a woman.

....but taking it from a self proclaimed atheist is better?

 

[Route_70]

It will be a cold day in hell before I get my theology from a woman.

....but taking it from a self proclaimed atheist is better?

From an atheist/from a woman -- same difference.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I don't find in the Bible where a woman cannot be a preacher.

True.  But they are forbidden to hold authority over men in the local assembly, which means they cannot pastor.

...

The fact that patriarchalists continue to insist on this is the reason that we egalitarians have to produce detailed defenses of our position and refutations of yours.

So, can you summarize?

Ok, I'll try.

Most of us hold that Scripture is inspired and authoritative, and would generally not shy away from the term "inerrant."  But we recognize that no current translations are inerrant, nor is any particular hermeneutical approach.

So most of our differences result from our harmonizing Scripture passages differently, and deciding which are universal and which are primarily dealing with issues in particular First Century churches; in the latter case, the degree to which they applicable today depends on the similarity of situation.

Other differences arise from noting differences among translations, and then investigating further.

I'll say a bit more after I address the specifics you posed.

Seems to me that you have mixed up two different things. In our standing before God, all are equal: everyone has sinned.  In salvation, all is equal - there is no difference between free and slave, rich and poor, men and women - all must be saved through faith in Jesus Christ.  There is not a "rich man's" way of salvation, nor an American way to be saved.  All are equal here.

That is the usual patriarchal/complementarian understanding of Gal. 3:28, 1 Cor. 12:13, and Col. 3:11.  We see them as applying much more broadly.  In Christ and in the Spirit, we are all equal, and all the gifts and ministries are equally open to all, regardless of ethnicity, sex, or social standing.  The Law of the Obsolete Covenant is no longer in effect, and neither is its male-Levite-only priesthood.

But equally true in Scripture is different instructions for different people.  In the book of Titus, there are instructions for older men, younger men, older women, and younger women. There are instructions given for children and parents, for masters and servants, for husbands and wives.

Why should it be thought odd that there are different rules for men and women in the church?

We generally regard those passages in Titus, Colossians, Ephesians, and First Peter as a particular genre called "household codes" or "domestic codes."  We take them as applying first and foremost to those particular churches; Titus and First Peter, at least, have internal evidence to that effect.  The Ephesian passage has a literary construction that suggests that the adults in the household should be on equal footing; children are intrinsically different from adults.


I realize I've spoken harshly at points in this thread.  I am, frankly, not as gentle and charitable as some on my side.  I tire of the rhetoric and tactics used by some on your side.

Your side typically chooses the term, "Complementarian," and defines it tersely as "equal in value and status before God, different in role."  That sounds nice until we get to the corollaries that follow.

One is that Egalitarians are often implied or declared to believe that apart from plumbing and hormones, there are to be no differences at all between male and female.  This is not true.  We recognize that there are thoroughgoing differences between men and women, though not as universal and brightly delineated as many on your side would claim.  And we recognize that a "typical" man and "typical" woman in any particular "role" might approach that role differently.

Another corollary is that "role" is always defined such that ultimately a male is always in authority.  Of course in practical terms, this makes the assurances of "equality" moot.  It is akin to the "separate but equal" laws prior to the Civil Rights movement, and to the Orwellian newspeak of "some are more equal than others."

So in practical reality, your side advocates patriarchy, but hides it under the label of "complementarianism."

Much more than that, it bothers me that your side often accuses egalitarians of "twisting" Scripture when we don't like what it says, in order to make it fit our preconceived notions.  The truth is, we are trying our best to understand and harmonize diverse passages of Scripture, and it is only with difficulty that we are able to see YOUR handling of certain passages as "twisting" or otherwise misusing them.

Here are several of the passages that catch our eyes:

-- To many of us, Luke 24 and Acts 1-2 are programmatic for the Church paralleling the way Luke 3-4 were programmatic for the ministry of Jesus.  So we see the emphasis and repetition of the equality of men and women in "prophesying" to teach equality of men and women in fulfilling the Great Commission and delivering the word of God.

-- As noted previously, we see Gal. 3:28 and the related verses in Col. 3 and 1 Cor. 12 to be abolishing any hierarchy between social classes.

-- In Acts 18, we see Priscilla and Aquilla acting as equal partners in instructing Apollos.

-- We note that the "plain" wording of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 -- that women are to be "silent" in the assembly -- is incompatible with 11:4-5 of the same book, since that passage assumes women will be audibly praying and prophesying.  So whatever it means, it can't mean what it says.

-- We note that some translations of Rom. 16:1-2 refer to Phoebe as a "servant" and "helper," while others call her "deacon" and "leader."  This causes us to investigate.

-- We see that, taken on its own merits, Col. 4 gives the impression that Nympha was responsible for the house church in Laodicea, i.e. its pastor.


That should be enough for this post.  I'll get back to the rest of the thread later.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I do see a comical side to their VERY long, very deep theological expositions on why it is all right to have women preachers.

I find it more sad than comical.
It really shouldn't be necessary to adduce as support much more than Acts 2:17-18 and Gal. 3:28, but stiff-necked ignorant patriarchalists insist on wielding their various "clobber texts," and egalitarians are rather obliged to answer.

I clearly have been interpreting it all wrong for 50 years. Help me with those clobber verses you were talking about. Perhaps I have been reading too much into them.

Start with Paul's instruction to Timothy in Ephesians 5. Can you break this down for me regarding what Paul intended. I have always felt women can have a great role in ministry and they are critical in the smooth operation of most churches. The role of the pastors wife and other older women is critical in the instruction and training of christian ladies. I also don't see any reason why they could not lead men in some capacities but God through Paul's writings does seem to have an issue with it. Please break down Eph 5 for men so I can better understand what it really means.

Eph. 5:21 and 6:9 constitute an "inclusio" indicating how to interpret the domestic codes material which they bracket.  If we note the wording, we realize that husbands and wives, and masters and slaves, are to treat each other reciprocally.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I was not clear in my purpose for posting it 3 times.

1. Please address the "suffer not a woman to teach".

The tense of "epitrepo" in v. 12 indicates it applied to a situation there and then, not to all places at all times.  See Witherington's Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol. 1 or, for more detail, Payne's Man and Woman, One in Christ

2. Please address the "nor to usurp authority over the man".

Fee (very briefly in NIBC commentary on 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), Belleville (in some detail in chapter 12 of Discovering Biblical Equality), Witherington (see previous) conclude that the most likely meaning of "authenteo" is "domineer" or "dominate."  Payne (see previous) agrees this meaning is more likely than the simple "exercise authority," but concludes the most likely meaning is something like "seize authority."  So the prohibition is not related to women exercising authority over men per se, it is related to their doing so inappropriately.

Payne also finds importance in "oude" in v. 12.  He concludes there is no problem with women teaching men per se, but that the problem relates to teaching in the context of inappropriate exercise of authority (either "seized" or "domineering").

3. Please address the " to be in silence".

"Hesuchia" likely does not mean total silence, but, in keeping with the related word used in v. 2 of the same chapter, carrying a sense of "tranquil," and defined by its contrast to the disruptive nature of "seizing" authority, or being "domineering."

 

[sword]

I was not clear in my purpose for posting it 3 times.
1. Please address the "suffer not a woman to teach".

The tense of "epitrepo" in v. 12 indicates it applied to a situation there and then, not to all places at all times.  See Witherington's Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol. 1 or, for more detail, Payne's Man and Woman, One in Christ

2. Please address the "nor to usurp authority over the man".

Fee (very briefly in NIBC commentary on 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), Belleville (in some detail in chapter 12 of Discovering Biblical Equality), Witherington (see previous) conclude that the most likely meaning of "authenteo" is "domineer" or "dominate."  Payne (see previous) agrees this meaning is more likely than the simple "exercise authority," but concludes the most likely meaning is something like "seize authority."  So the prohibition is not related to women exercising authority over men per se, it is related to their doing so inappropriately.
Payne also finds importance in "oude" in v. 12.  He concludes there is no problem with women teaching men per se, but that the problem relates to teaching in the context of inappropriate exercise of authority (either "seized" or "domineering").

3. Please address the " to be in silence".

"Hesuchia" likely does not mean total silence, but, in keeping with the related word used in v. 2 of the same chapter, carrying a sense of "tranquil," and defined by its contrast to the disruptive nature of "seizing" authority, or being "domineering."

In point one this is not the commonly accepted conclusion regarding the meaning of the verse. I agree it may not mean complete silence but with regards to maters of decision & leadership. That being said how could one pastor or even preach for that matter and still remain in your words "tranquel". Also the person in authority much sometimes "seize" control of the situation & to be the "dominate" person in the situation.
Using your references you are implying a woman can be pastor as long as she is passive, submissive, tranquil & does not act like she is in charge. 

 

[sword]

I do see a comical side to their VERY long, very deep theological expositions on why it is all right to have women preachers.

I find it more sad than comical.
It really shouldn't be necessary to adduce as support much more than Acts 2:17-18 and Gal. 3:28, but stiff-necked ignorant patriarchalists insist on wielding their various "clobber texts," and egalitarians are rather obliged to answer.

I clearly have been interpreting it all wrong for 50 years. Help me with those clobber verses you were talking about. Perhaps I have been reading too much into them.
Start with Paul's instruction to Timothy in Ephesians 5. Can you break this down for me regarding what Paul intended. I have always felt women can have a great role in ministry and they are critical in the smooth operation of most churches. The role of the pastors wife and other older women is critical in the instruction and training of christian ladies. I also don't see any reason why they could not lead men in some capacities but God through Paul's writings does seem to have an issue with it. Please break down Eph 5 for men so I can better understand what it really means.

Eph. 5:21 and 6:9 constitute an "inclusio" indicating how to interpret the domestic codes material which they bracket.  If we note the wording, we realize that husbands and wives, and masters and slaves, are to treat each other reciprocally.

In no way does this emply the two are equal. It tell wives to be in subjection to their husband. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.
4 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Then in fairness (reciprocally) he gives husbands a different but equally difficult challenge
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; telling us to care for them & give ourselves to them.

I don't see your inclusio point. Each has their different but equally important roles.

 

[sword]

I do see a comical side to their VERY long, very deep theological expositions on why it is all right to have women preachers.

I find it more sad than comical.
It really shouldn't be necessary to adduce as support much more than Acts 2:17-18 and Gal. 3:28, but stiff-necked ignorant patriarchalists insist on wielding their various "clobber texts," and egalitarians are rather obliged to answer.

I clearly have been interpreting it all wrong for 50 years. Help me with those clobber verses you were talking about. Perhaps I have been reading too much into them.

Start with Paul's instruction to Timothy in Ephesians 5. Can you break this down for me regarding what Paul intended. I have always felt women can have a great role in ministry and they are critical in the smooth operation of most churches. The role of the pastors wife and other older women is critical in the instruction and training of christian ladies. I also don't see any reason why they could not lead men in some capacities but God through Paul's writings does seem to have an issue with it. Please break down Eph 5 for men so I can better understand what it really means.

Eph. 5:21 and 6:9 constitute an "inclusio" indicating how to interpret the domestic codes material which they bracket.  If we note the wording, we realize that husbands and wives, and masters and slaves, are to treat each other reciprocally.

This is clearly teaching that we should treat everyone with respect and fairness. It is also showing that Gods loves us all equally but in no way does the first part of the verse remove the "Masters Authority" or the slaves responsibility as a slave.
It does not change their relationship it just defines how they should treat each other. Remember in that day it was common for a slave to stay on as a servant of his master even after freedom was earned. If the Master treated the slave well then they would often stay. 

 

[sword]

Norrin posted:
you said; "We generally regard those passages in Titus, Colossians, Ephesians, and First Peter as a particular genre called "household codes" or "domestic codes."  We take them as applying first and foremost to those particular churches; Titus and First Peter, at least, have internal evidence to that effect.  The Ephesian passage has a literary construction that suggests that the adults in the household should be on equal footing; children are intrinsically different from adults."

Sword replies:
Growing up my mom used to say you are massaging the truth. She would also say you are stretching the truth to try to make it fit your narrative, is this not what your doing here. The Bible is very clear on a TOPIC and you massage it to try to make it mean something very different. Your saying a wife must be in complete submission at home (household codes), but can be the Pastor (& spiritual leader) of a flock at church. I just don't see it. Your going to have to give us a lot more than "We generally regard" if I'm going to buy it.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I do see a comical side to their VERY long, very deep theological expositions on why it is all right to have women preachers.

I find it more sad than comical.
It really shouldn't be necessary to adduce as support much more than Acts 2:17-18 and Gal. 3:28, but stiff-necked ignorant patriarchalists insist on wielding their various "clobber texts," and egalitarians are rather obliged to answer.

I clearly have been interpreting it all wrong for 50 years. Help me with those clobber verses you were talking about. Perhaps I have been reading too much into them.
Start with Paul's instruction to Timothy in Ephesians 5. Can you break this down for me regarding what Paul intended. I have always felt women can have a great role in ministry and they are critical in the smooth operation of most churches. The role of the pastors wife and other older women is critical in the instruction and training of christian ladies. I also don't see any reason why they could not lead men in some capacities but God through Paul's writings does seem to have an issue with it. Please break down Eph 5 for men so I can better understand what it really means.

Eph. 5:21 and 6:9 constitute an "inclusio" indicating how to interpret the domestic codes material which they bracket.  If we note the wording, we realize that husbands and wives, and masters and slaves, are to treat each other reciprocally.

In no way does this emply the two are equal. It tell wives to be in subjection to their husband. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.
4 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Then in fairness (reciprocally) he gives husbands a different but equally difficult challenge
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; telling us to care for them & give ourselves to them.

I don't see your inclusio point. Each has their different but equally important roles.

"Inclusio" is a literary structure that calls attention to the main point of a passage included within the brackets of the inclusio.  In this case, 5:21 begins the passage by telling the household members to "submit to one another," and 6:9 ends it by telling masters to treat their slaves "the same way" the slaves had been told to treat them.

"Role" enters into it barely, if at all.  If in the husband-wife relationship, only the wife has the "role" of submission, then v. 21 is nullified.  But this can't be the case, because v. 22 is grammatically linked to v. 21, in that v. 22 itself does not contain the word "submit."  Similarly, in the master-slave relationship, if only the slave has the "role" of obeying, then v. 6:9 is nullified.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Norrin posted:
you said; "We generally regard those passages in Titus, Colossians, Ephesians, and First Peter as a particular genre called "household codes" or "domestic codes."  We take them as applying first and foremost to those particular churches; Titus and First Peter, at least, have internal evidence to that effect.  The Ephesian passage has a literary construction that suggests that the adults in the household should be on equal footing; children are intrinsically different from adults."

Sword replies:
Growing up my mom used to say you are massaging the truth. She would also say you are stretching the truth to try to make it fit your narrative, is this not what your doing here.

No.  You are quoting from my reply to Walt, message number 43.  LATER IN THE VERY SAME POST I said this:

Much more than that, it bothers me that your side often accuses egalitarians of "twisting" Scripture when we don't like what it says, in order to make it fit our preconceived notions.  The truth is, we are trying our best to understand and harmonize diverse passages of Scripture, and it is only with difficulty that we are able to see YOUR handling of certain passages as "twisting" or otherwise misusing them.

The Bible is very clear on a TOPIC and you massage it to try to make it mean something very different. Your saying a wife must be in complete submission at home (household codes), but can be the Pastor (& spiritual leader) of a flock at church. I just don't see it. Your going to have to give us a lot more than "We generally regard" if I'm going to buy it.

No, I do not believe "a wife must be in complete submission at home," at least not in any unilateral sense.  Submission is mutual.  Now, each particular husband-wife team is free to figure out how best to implement that.  If one is the more natural "leader" overall, fine.  If each is best at leading in certain areas but not others, fine.  If they prefer to reach joint cooperative consensus on everything, fine.

 

[sword]

Norrin, what if she is the better leader. What if she is the Alpha personality, what is you are a very passive person.

The Bible is very clear in the responsibility to lead & be the head of the home.. You can not just walk away from your responsibility to be the head of the home just because your wife insists on making all the decisions.

In reality, in most of our homes, our wives make far more decisions than us husbands & fathers do. I see no scriptual problem with this. I also think most, if not all, majors decisions should be made together, but the ultimate responsibility to lead & make the final decision should fall on the husband. If a husband loves his wife like Christ loves the church then he will attempt to make her happy & care for her in every way he can.

Can you explain your statement: "We generally regard those passages in Titus, Colossians, Ephesians, and First Peter as a particular genre called "household codes" or "domestic codes."

God tells wives to be subject to their husbands & husbands to love their wives.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Norrin, what if she is the better leader. What if she is the Alpha personality, what is you are a very passive person.

If she is the better leader, it's fine if she takes that "role."

The Bible is very clear in the responsibility to lead & be the head of the home.. You can not just walk away from your responsibility to be the head of the home just because your wife insists on making all the decisions.

I'm sorry, but I don't at all find the Bible to be "very clear" in saying that one particular sex is supposed to be in charge.

Now, if *either* party "insists on making all the decisions," there is a definite problem:  Carnal lack of Christlike character.

In reality, in most of our homes, our wives make far more decisions than us husbands & fathers do. I see no scriptual problem with this. I also think most, if not all, majors decisions should be made together, but the ultimate responsibility to lead & make the final decision should fall on the husband. If a husband loves his wife like Christ loves the church then he will attempt to make her happy & care for her in every way he can.

Can you explain your statement: "We generally regard those passages in Titus, Colossians, Ephesians, and First Peter as a particular genre called "household codes" or "domestic codes."

This page gives a pretty good explanation, though I find the Ephesian passage teaching more complete equality than that author sees there.

 

[sword]

Well I think unless we are using different Bibles we will have to agree to disagree.

My second major difference of opinion with AOG is your belief in healing.

The bible clearly teaches us to pry for healing and I even believe in fasting and in the symbolic anointing with oil for healing.
I clearly believe the Holy Spirit can heal if it's Gods will, but the idea that a man of God in this age can lay his hands on you and heal you is a little much.

If Jimmy Swaggart & Benny Hen had the ability to heal why didn't he travel from hospital to hospital and spread the gospel and heal the sick. It seemed like it was more about the show and sending in money for a prayer cloth than doing Gods work. Do you believe these TV healers are really healing the sick and doing Gods work.
 

 

[NorrinRadd]

Well I think unless we are using different Bibles we will have to agree to disagree.

Ok.

FTR, I use a variety of different Bibles, and I think that's always a good idea.  At minimum, I think everyone should regularly use at least one translation that differs from the one most frequently used at their church.

My second major difference of opinion with AOG is your belief in healing.

FTR, I'm Pentecostal, but not specifically AoG.

The bible clearly teaches us to pry for healing and I even believe in fasting and in the symbolic anointing with oil for healing.
I clearly believe the Holy Spirit can heal if it's Gods will, but the idea that a man of God in this age can lay his hands on you and heal you is a little much.

You may be mischaracterizing the AoG understanding of divine healing.  Here is a PDF of their official "Position Paper" on the topic.

If Jimmy Swaggart & Benny Hen had the ability to heal why didn't he travel from hospital to hospital and spread the gospel and heal the sick. It seemed like it was more about the show and sending in money for a prayer cloth than doing Gods work. Do you believe these TV healers are really healing the sick and doing Gods work.

Pentecostals don't typically believe that people "ha(ve) the ability to heal," as if it's a card we carry around to pull out and use whenever we wish.  Skeptics of Pentecostal and Charismatic beliefs have been brandishing that old saw about going around emptying hospitals for decades.  Really, even Jesus Himself didn't do that.  He was the ultimate example for believers, and even He only healed one person at Bethesda (John 5).  In chapter five of his Gospel, Luke specifically states that the power of the Lord was with Jesus to heal, suggesting that power was not always with Him in the same way.

I'm not a huge fan of any of the well-known TV preachers.  I did used to watch Jimmy Swaggert on occasion.  He never seemed to be a big "healing" preacher, though he was definitely AoG.  For about ten years from the mid-'80s to mid-'90s, I attended a "Faith" church (a.k.a. "Word-Faith," "Word of Faith," "Name it and Claim it").  Back then, Swaggert and David Wilkerson were AoG guys who were vigorously and persistently denouncing the Faith Movement.

On the other hand, it's my understanding that Benny Hinn is himself a Faith guy.  He became prominent around the same time I was leaving that Faith theology, so I'm not as familiar with him as with other Faith luminaries such as Dad Hagin, Ken Copeland, Charles Capps, John Osteen (Joel's dad), T.L. Osborne, and a few others.

FWIW, here is the official AoG Position Paper rejecting "Positive Confession" (i.e. "Name it and Claim it").

 

[sword]

Thanks for the clarification, the attachments were very informative and make a lot sense.

Based on your understanding, what is the difference in the baptist position of asking God to heal someone through fervent prayer & strong faith that God can heal (anointing with oil and fasting optional but important) and your A of G position on healing.

It almost looks like we believe the same thing but explain it in different ways? 

 

[BALAAM]

I have been around Pentecostal people all of my life. I have always liked Jimmy Swaggart and don't doubt his or anyone else love for God or dedication. With that being said:

It is the most confusing doctrine to me that I have a hard time following it. For instance; Salvation is by grace through faith totally apart from any human merit. But, if you commit this particular sin ( ie drinking alcohol) you will lose your soul and your salvation. I used this illustration because I heard Donnie Swaggart say this.

Yesterday, I caught just a few minutes of their church service on tv and Gabriel Swaggart was hollering and said, "It is not pleasing to God and does not honor God if you suffer lack in any area."

In my opinion, these guys are a lot more like most of the ifb folks I know. A lot of hollering and shouting but pretty weak on Bible. Jimmy Swaggart has a study bible out with his notes interspersed with the text. Not on the bottom as a note or in a side margin but right within the text. One of his notes said that the infilling of the Holy Spirit ALWAYS is evidenced by speaking in other tongues and he goes on to say that if you don't have this experience you will never be much good for the Kingdom of God.

At this stage of my life I don't think I could ever sit in a church like this and listen to this kind of stuff.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I have been around Pentecostal people all of my life. I have always liked Jimmy Swaggart and don't doubt his or anyone else love for God or dedication. With that being said:

It is the most confusing doctrine to me that I have a hard time following it. For instance; Salvation is by grace through faith totally apart from any human merit. But, if you commit this particular sin ( ie drinking alcohol) you will lose your soul and your salvation. I used this illustration because I heard Donnie Swaggart say this.

Many Pentecostals, including AG, are Wesleyan Arminian in soteriology.  Here is a Wikipedia link where you can see Wesleyan and Classical Arminiansm compared and contrasted.

In actual practice, many AG preachers are what I would call "Hyper-Wesleyan."  I have actually heard a few Pentecostal preachers use the expression, "Saved by grace, kept by works," which is the sort of thinking expressed by Donnie Swaggert.  That really is not consistent with the official AG view as laid out in this PDF adopted in 1978.

Yesterday, I caught just a few minutes of their church service on tv and Gabriel Swaggart was hollering and said, "It is not pleasing to God and does not honor God if you suffer lack in any area."

That is not typical AG preaching.  This document on "Materialism" is more typical; it is not an official "Position Paper," but it does indicate the more common and appropriate view within the denomination.

Back in the '80s, Jimmy was a vigorous opponent of "Faith" ("Name it and Claim it") preaching, which has always included Prosperity preaching.  I vaguely remember his study guide giving his view on proper Biblical "Faith," and at one point he said something along the lines that God doesn't want us to be in lack, and that we can believe Him to meet our needs, but that if we need a car to get around, that does not mean we need a Cadillac with all the bells and whistles.  An old car with dents and bad paint serves the "need," as long as it's safe.

However, I also recall that after his skirt-chasing disgrace, he was surprised to find that it was some of the Faith preachers he'd always opposed who gave him the quickest and warmest forgiveness, so that may have moved him and his kin in their direction.

In my opinion, these guys are a lot more like most of the ifb folks I know. A lot of hollering and shouting but pretty weak on Bible. Jimmy Swaggart has a study bible out with his notes interspersed with the text. Not on the bottom as a note or in a side margin but right within the text. One of his notes said that the infilling of the Holy Spirit ALWAYS is evidenced by speaking in other tongues and he goes on to say that if you don't have this experience you will never be much good for the Kingdom of God.

This PDF is the official AG Position Paper on Baptism in the Spirit and Speaking in Tongues.  I disagree with it at multiple points, as does AG scholar Gordon Fee.

Even among those who hold to the official AG party line, most would not cast things so stupidly as Swaggert did there.

At this stage of my life I don't think I could ever sit in a church like this and listen to this kind of stuff.

Well, yeah.  There seems to be a dearth of balance and nuance from behind the actual pulpits.