The other day I saw an article online about a reformed guy enjoying a Pentecostal service. I’m currently attending a charismatic church, but I miss the deeper teaching of a reformed church I used to attend but left mainly because I felt spiritually dry there. So I forwarded the article to the reformed pastor of my former church and asked what he thought. His responses are at the bottom of this post.
Based on his very reformed responses, I had these questions and comments:
So I should have clarified that the aspect of that article I identified with was the struggle I’m currently experiencing in my attempt to better understand why in churches I’ve experienced so far, reformed theology and the use of spiritual gifts rarely exist together.
And based on your response, it seems you got the basic idea I was trying to communicate, but just wanted to clarify that I do not identify with Pentacostalism (as in putting emotionalism and experientialism before Biblical theology ala TBN) in any way shape or form. I’m not desiring reformed dog barkers with $5 prayer hankies!
No Bible teacher I’ve encountered has ever made stronger Biblically based and Biblically proven arguments than the teaching I’ve received from you specifically on sovereign grace and on covenant giving. While I value the perspectives of church leaders throughout history, can you help me more fully understand the Bible’s perspective in this matter regarding spiritual gifts? (I’ve listed what I define as spiritual gifts at the bottom of this document.)
If you are willing, I would very much appreciate your Biblically based responses to these follow-up questions based on your responses to my questions about a previously mentioned article:
1) You said, “we do not read the church fathers promoting spiritual outbreaks and mass conversions on par with what we read about in the book of Acts…we do not see a continuation of the Pentecost experience”
- a. according to my studies of Luther, Wesley and Finney, plus sources like these listed below, it seems church fathers absolutely ‘promoted’ mass revivals and met with significant results
http://www.inthenameofjesus.org/Revival%20History/Revival%20History.htm
http://www.evanwiggs.com/revival/history/argintin.html
http://pewforum.org/surveys/pentecostal/
b. modern day spiritual outbreaks, mass conversions and continuation of Pentecostal experiences are also well documented:
i. Impact of Reinhart Bohnke Crusades in Africahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYFNGYFZjQw
ii. Impact of Billy Graham Crusades – I’ve attended 3 and each time people coming to faith flooded the stadium (http://www.billygraham.org/CrusadeMinistries_Index.asp)
iii. Luis Palau Crusades have 1 million conversions documented (http://www.palau.org/about/luis_palau_bio/)
2) You said, “we need to be okay with the fact that it’s different”
a. the logic you used here implies that because I personally don’t observe believers claiming no possessions as their own, sharing everything they have, and no needy persons existing among them (Acts 4: 32, 34-35), occurring effectively today, that I just need to be okay with the fact that it’s different. That makes me sad. I am not okay with believers having unmet needs while others lounge by their winter home pools. I long for no believer to have need the same way I long for believers to regularly experience miracle-working power as the great commission of a sovereign God is carried out.
3) Encouraging someone to be “willing to allow God to withhold gifts” is fine. But by word and action, most reformed churches actually go beyond that to say “God doesn’t give the same spiritual gifts today”, and that is the view I’m struggling with:
a. No human ‘allows God’ to do anything, obviously. So it’s kinda goofy language, since He does as He pleases, but I believe the point being made is that believers should contently accept God’s will, no matter the outcome. To that point, I agree.
b. But by that logic the statement “it’s short-sighted to think God’s sovereignty allows for spiritual gifts,” doesn’t make sense.
c. And it seems to imply our duty as a long-sighted believer is to accept God as a withholder of gifts, which doesn’t jive scripturally assuming gifts from His Spirit are good gifts.
4) You said, “This was a sovereign dispensation of God’s will for that moment in time.”
a. I agree there is no human catalyst to the initiation of the Spirit’s outpouring. I agree that our ‘courage and openness’ does not initiate anything from God. Human’s can only respond, not initiate.
b. However, the prophesy and promise Peter refers to in Joel doesn’t indicate any end to the outpouring – at least not prior to the end, when God restores Israel’s fortunes, hands out judgment, stop stars from shining, end Jerusalem invasions, etc.
c. And in Acts 2: 33 Peter’s use of words indicates that with the morning’s events, the outpouring had begun as an indicator of future events, not that he was referring to something occurring in the recent past.
d. Then verse 39 explicitly states that the promise is not limited to just that moment in time, generation or place
5) Totally agree God is not the author of confusion, and I think this is where this article’s author and others like him have really messed things up.
a. If someone claims to be a teacher of the word, they don’t get to take ‘literary license’ (Rev 22:18),
b. This is a perfect example of emotionalism taking things to an extreme
c. But the opposite is also true: teachers don’t get to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to selectively teach. No adding (tendency of charismatics) and no taking away (tendency of reformers).
6) I kind of skimmed that whole section of the author’s writing about Edwards, because I didn’t know any background about him or Menzies. So your insight into this part of the article was helpful. But Edwards’ rejection of charismata based on his conclusion than an outpouring of the Spirit does not imply the presence of gifts doesn’t make sense:
a. there are Biblical examples of the devil working spiritual power (little girl, simon, etc.)
b. there are present day examples as well (ala Benny Hinn)
c. So how do these examples of spiritual power working in a godless life lead to the conclusion that spiritual power is not for believers today?
7) Regarding the idea that spiritual gifts were for a baby church only until scripture revelation was complete,
a. Paul instructs believers to use spiritual gifts in scripture with no indication these were only to last until revelation of scripture was complete.
(2 Cor 6:7, 2 Cor 13:4, 1 Cor 12, 1 Tim)
b. In fact, quite the opposite – 1 Cor 13:10 - where it says the impefect passes away once perfection comes, when we see face to face. No one I’m aware of is seeing perfection face to face today, so we must conclude that the Spirit is still outpouring the power of these imperfect gifts.
c. Besides, the logic doesn’t make sense. Paul is chronologically one of the last contributors to scriptural revelation. Why would the instructions for spiritual gifts be deemed valuable as scriptural revelation if it was going to be considered expired as soon as the instructions were complete?
I agree no one should ultimately appeal to leaders such as Edwards for their theology. God’s word trumps any human wisdom for developing our theology. So even though church fathers may disagree, the Bible’s teaching makes a stronger case for spiritual gifts being for today thru God’s return rather than God intending them to end with the 1st century.
9) I believe we don’t regularly see miraculous outbreaks in most American churches today not because God stopped, but because we’ve gotten off the path:
a. in the fellowships where a way is made for the spirit to move, the theology tends to be weak (Armenianism, name it and claim it, prosperity doctrine, your best life now, etc.)
b. and where theology is strong, many don’t believe in or welcome the use of spiritual gifts
10) Specifically, I compared how Paul instructs believers to use prophecy (the gift we’re to most eagerly desire, 1 Cor 14:1) with how it’s actually seen played out in American churches today:
a. Churches either allow prophesies without maintaining order or without testing and excluding those proven to be false,
b. or they decide not to deal with the potential risk by discouraging or forbidding prophesies in worship
11) neither instances encourage that at least all the men contribute something (hymn, word of instruction, revelation, tongue or interpretation), yet Paul says all of these must be done for the church to be as strong as possible (1 Cor 14:26).
a. why wouldn’t churches pass on this expectation to their members? is it greed again? not wanting to drive away the shy, uncomfortable ones?
b. what if Paul encourages us as believers to all contribute as a means to strengthen our ‘ministry muscles’ and churches in America don’t enforce it because their pride and/or greed demands ever-increasing numbers, which in turn produces a weak, ineffective church? Seems really sad and wrong to me.
12) Before I ask God, myself, and others, ‘is there anything I can do to change this polarization and paralyzation of the church in America?’ I would like your input as to whether it needs to be changed.
Thank you,
Joan
Generally accepted:
a message of wisdom,
a message of knowledge
faith
Not encouraged:
a spiritual gift to impart healing to another
miraculous powers
prophecy
discernment of spirits
speaking in tongues
interpretation of tongues
**********************************
Hello Joan!
I hope you and the family are thriving. Sorry for the delayed response. I’ve been nursing a cold and trying to keep up with all my regular duties, but I fell behind in email.
You wrote:
How are you? I hope well.
Jim:
Yep. Things are mostly good. Although, I’ve had three funerals in the last months, all out-of-town, so that was a bit taxing. But, the kids doing well. James turns 20 (!!!) next Sunday and Meg will be 19 in June. It’s inexplicable how they can continue to grow older while I almost-magically maintain my boyish good looks.
The church is doing well and the Internet outreach has been posting surprisingly-high numbers. A few months ago, the folks at Reformed Voices decided they liked us and have been posting YouTube videos of our teaching all over the ‘net. That has drawn a whole new audience to our site. It’s a bit overwhelming and I certainly feel the weight of responsibility to make sure what I’m saying is solid and biblically defensible.
So, overall I’ve got no complaints. Life is good.
You:
This describes better than I could do myself where I sit theologically right now:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/may/25.42.html?start=1
But I trust your gift to be able to discern the word of God correctly, so if you have any spare time (ha), would you give me your feedback on this article? (…ie if you see any errors in his logic or interpretation)
Jim:
Well, first off, thanks for the compliment. Since you asked, I’m going to respond to this article. It might sound a bit harsh now and again. But, there were portions of it that assume far too much. So, please take me kindly when I challenge Smith’s suppositions.
Also, let me say right at the start that I am also attracted to spirit-driven worship and praise. I haven’t always been this way, but I’ve grown to understand and desire the proper balance of spirituality and doctrinal education. But, I have not embraced Pentecostalism for a great many reasons.
As for Smith, it’s hard to argue with another person’s experience. This article is a description of James Smith’s experience, not an exegetical apologetic or theological position paper. Nevertheless, there are a couple of red flags that are worth responding to.
I agree with Smith’s basic underlying (though unstated) premise that healthy Christianity is a balance between sound doctrine and appropriate spirituality. But, I wish he had defined his terms a bit better. If the brand of Pentecostalism he is promoting is synonymous with the Azusa Street revivals he referenced, then he is advocating a brand of emotionalism and experientialism that denies the necessity of definite, Biblical theology. Just watch TBN. They are the descendants of Azusa Street. The Bible is only necessary as a platform to prop up their over-the-top rantings. So, I would have appreciated Smith defining what he means when he uses the word “Pentecostal.”
The simple fact is that, since the Apostolic period of the church (roughly the first 100 years after Christ), we do not read the church fathers promoting spiritual outbreaks and mass conversions on par with what we read about in the book of Acts. In other words, even in the earliest church records we do not see a continuation of the Pentecost experience, nor the expectation that it would continue. Contemporary Pentecostals may be very sincere in their desire to see the Charismatic gifts revived, but even the most ardent, impassioned Pentecostal services fail to produce the sort of miraculous outbreaks that defined the Apostolic Era. So, something is undeniably different.
And, given God’s sovereignty, we need to be okay with the fact that it’s different.
In Smith’s article he argues that God’s sovereignty allows Him to surprise us … presumably with sudden gifts and spiritual healing, tongues, falling out, etc. But, that’s a short-sighted view of God’s sovereignty. We must be equally willing to allow that God can sovereignly withhold those gifts if He so pleases. Smith’s article only allows that God’s action is consistent with His sovereignty; but His inaction is equally entirely up to Him. God can say yes and God can say no.
A large portion of this article is devoted to the idea of being open to God “surprising” us. Smith writes, “And yet Peter exhibits openness to God surprising our expectations.” I’m not sure how Smith could derive that from the text. I don’t see Pentecost, nor Peter’s declaration that what was happening was prophesied by Joel, as the result of anyone’s “openness.” This was a sovereign dispensation of God’s will for that moment in time. Peter’s recognition and declaration was the direct result of the Spirit infilling him. Peter was overwhelmed by a power greater than himself. And, given his history of constantly placing his foot in his mouth, I fail to see where his “openness” or expectation was in any way a catalyst for God’s activity. The implication that God will pour out similar gifts of the spirit if we are “open” to it is just false.
Smith writes, “The heart and soul of that Pentecostal spirituality is not the manifestations, but rather the courage and openness to see God in those unexpected manifestations, and to say, ‘This is what the Spirit promised.’” Peter was correct in identifying the events of Pentecost as a move of the Spirit, promised by Christ prior to His ascension. But, we have no such promise that the Spirit will continue to act in the exact same way in every generation. Our relative “courage and openness” has nothing to do with the actions of a truly sovereign God.
Also, I don’t like the repeated references to “the madness of Pentecost.” God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). There was no “madness” involved, regardless of the literary license Smith opted to take.
From there, Smith inexplicably appeals to Jonathan Edwards to bolster his case that Reformed theology and Pentecostalism go hand-in-hand. Edwards was convinced that the charismatic gifts had ceased altogether. And he was not persuaded by “strange manifestations, convulsing bodies, and shouts and yelps.” (And, by the way, such manifestations were notably lacking at Pentecost. Why would the Holy Spirit be interested in convulsing and yelping?) In his article discussing the same ideas Smith proposes — Does Pentecostalism Have Reformed Roots? An analysis of the argument of W.W. Menzies by W. van Vlastuin — van Vlastuin writes of Edwards:
——————————
Menzies refers to Jonathan Edwards as a Pre-Pentecostal theologian. I wonder if this is possible. As early as 1738 Edwards wrote about the gifts of the Spirit (Edwards 1989:149-173; 351-365; cf. Gerstner 1991:161-179). He dealt with the question whether an outpouring of the Spirit would imply the presence of gifts. Edwards’ answer was negative. The revival-theologian gave different reasons for that.
Edwards distinguished gifts and grace. He compared the gifts of the Spirit with clothes. Men can have nice clothes without living in the fear of the Lord. For him the gifts were not a proof of a high spiritual life. In this way the pastor of Northampton (Edwards) rejected the charismatic position. He relativised the gifts much more in stating that the devil can work these gifts as well. In this aspect he agreed with Calvin.
According to the revival-theologian the spiritual gifts belong to the childish period of the church (Edwards 1989:149-150). The Holy Spirit gave these gifts because the revelation of God in scripture was not yet finished. Edwards connected the charismatic gifts closely with the apostles. With the end of the apostolic time, also the time of special gifts ended. This means that Jonathan Edwards was a strict cessationist (Van Vlastuin 2001:89-91).
Menzies mentions the problem of cessationism. But he does not really deal with it. His implicit suggestion looks in this way: The reformed theologians accept the gifts of the Spirit. They err that the gifts are only for a time. When stating that there is an ‘overwhelming evidence that the gifts of the Spirit never did cease entirely’, Menzies corrects the reformed position and appeals to this theology to maintain the Pentecostal position. This way of proving is not careful.
Dealing with reformed theology in this way gives the impression that we can take away the element of cessation out of the reformed theology while the same theological framework remains. This is not true. Because Edwards rejected the charismatic gifts for this time and values them in another way, it is not possible to appeal to Jonathan Edwards for the Pentecostal movement. Edwards even warned against the use of the charismatic gifts of tongues, prophecies and miracles. This is not only a difference to Edwards’ theological conviction, but his theology is an antithesis against the charismatic-pentecostal way of thinking. There may be many agreements between this theologian and Pentecostal theologians, but these agreements cannot justify an appeal to Edwards for the most characteristic mark of the Pentecostal movement.
http://www.glopent.net/pentecostudies/2007/fall-2/vlastuin-2007
—————————————————————–
I included that whole graph because it is an intellectually-researched response to the question of Edwards’ position on the gifts of the spirit. Why Smith would choose to appeal to Edwards is beyond comprehension, unless he assumes that people would not research the matter any further and just take his word for it.
Then, I would also take issue with the notion that the church is “genetically Pentecostal.” That’s a cute turn-of-a-phrase, but it’s not Biblically defensible. The Church is founded on Christ, built by Christ, defended by Christ, purchased by Christ, redeemed by Christ, and eternally secure in Christ. Never does the Bible claim that the church is secure because of its “genetic” connection to Pentecost. Pentecost was a singular event, like crossing the Red Sea, Moses on Mt. Sinai, Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem, or John receiving the Revelation on Patmos. There is no reason, nor Biblical warrant, to expect or insist that the Pentecost experience continue throughout the life of the church. Sure, the Bible records the event — but, where does the Bible say that it will continue to all generations of the church?
Finally, in Smith’s arguments concerning “embodiment” he writes — “Pentecostal worship can get a little messy; indeed, sometimes there are bodies everywhere!” But, where in the Bible do you find ‘messy’ worship and bodies scattered around? It didn’t happen at Pentecost. And Paul argued for order and dignity within the church. Even among the Corinthians, who were notorious in their abuse of spiritual gifts, Paul wrote, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor. 14:40)
Now, please understand, I’m not arguing against laying prostrate before the Lord or assuming a position of humility in worship. I’m just asking for Biblical evidence that what we see in so many Pentecostal services is actually the Spirit of God at work. The Holy Spirit is a person — an intelligent, eternal, holy person. Why would He be interested in making people bark, yelp, spin, babble, fall down, convulse, etc.? At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit caused men to speak the mighty works of God in languages that were clearly understood by the people who had gathered at Jerusalem from the surrounding nations. That’s logical. That’s a proclamation of the gospel. But, there’s no record of the peculiar, often-frightening manifestations we see in the contemporary Pentecostal movement.
I love going to Main Street in Lexington because they have a Biblical balance of warm, inviting spirituality and sound teaching from the pulpit. And that’s how it should be. They do lay hands on people when they pray … and hug them at every opportunity. Their “embodiment” is the natural outgrowth of their spiritual, Biblical lives. But, it’s not scary or absurd. It’s attractive, the way the Spirit of Christ would be.
At the end of his article, Smith writes, “Because Pentecostals live out the Reformed affirmation of both the sovereignty of God and the goodness of embodiment, I don’t experience much tension between these core aspects of Reformed identity and Pentecostal spirituality.”
That’s a bit “wishful” on Smith’s part. The vast majority of Pentecostalism denies the Reformed faith and emphasizes physical sensation and personal experience far above sound doctrine and Biblical instruction. I do prefer a balance of spirituality and doctrine, but never spirituality at the expense of doctrine.
And I’m pragmatic enough to struggle with statements like this from Smith — “The explosion of the Spirit’s work in world Christianity reminds us that the church’s DNA is Pentecostal.”
Really? What explosion are we talking about here? True, there has been an explosion of un-biblical experientialism. But, where is the true power on par with what we read about in the New Testament? Who has been raised from the dead (actually raised, named, documented … not vague, nameless tales of someone who knew someone who said someone was raised during a revival somewhere in Africa)? Which people were lame from birth until the simple declaration “rise and walk” healed them entirely? Which people went to a foreign country and taught the Bible in a language they had not previously spoken? Who’s walking on the water? Who’s shaking off poisonous snakes? Who’s rising to the third Heaven? Who’s asking people why they lied to the Holy Spirit and those people drop down dead? The Apostles did all those things. THAT’S power. When that sort of undeniable power is evident in the Pentecostal movement, I’ll sign up immediately.
I am not fully convinced that what we’re seeing in the modern Pentecostal movement is a genuine “explosion of the Spirit’s work in world Christianity.” Unless what we witness comports with Scripture, the potential for deception looms large.
If it were up to me, Christianity would be imbued with magnificent power that the world could not deny. Certainly, there’d be a lot more praying in school if lying to a preacher could kill you. But, I just don’t see the sort of miraculous gifts that the Bible records. So, what are we going to say about that? Are we going to insist that it’s the church’s fault and we need to rev up our faith and insist on those gifts until God does something? Or, are we going to pretend the gifts still exist in the exact same way and try to convince others — sans evidence — that’s it’s true? Or, are we going to bow to the will of the Sovereign and recognize that whatever He is doing at this time and in this place is precisely what He has intended for us?
I wish James could been healed of his autism. I wish Libbie had been healed of her bipolar disorder. I wish that young Silas were healed of his Downs Syndrome. And I pray constantly to that end. But, they still struggle with their infirmities. So, whose fault is that? Is it mine? Do I not have enough faith? Is it GCA’s? Does no one in the body have enough faith? Is it the church at large? Is there no one in the whole contemporary church with enough faith and power to heal my loved ones? And if not, why not?
I cannot promote a powerless Pentecost. Instead, I bow the knee to the One who can heal, but has opted not to. I know that these diseases serve His ultimate good. I don’t understand it, but I know it’s true. And I know it’s what the Bible declares. All things work together for good, to those who love God, who are the called, according to His purpose.
I would gladly speak in tongues if the occasion ever arose where it was necessary. But, at present I agree with the apostle Paul. Though he spoke in tongues more than anyone at Corinth, he said, “… however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind, that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.” (1 Cor. 14:19)
That appears to be my calling — speak clearly and teach others. I’m content with that. Tongues and healings would be flashy and certainly give a dimension of power to the ministry of GCA, but it’s not up to me.
I serve a sovereign God. 
Anyway, I hope that helps somewhat. You may not agree, but that’s how I see it.
It’s always good to hear from you. My love to you and yours.
In Him,
Jim Mc.
Here’s the area where you can never run out of opportunity! You’ll never be bored again with these inbound linking techniques :
1) External linking technique for SEO (links are votes)
a. Research current links
i. Check yahoo by searching ‘linkdomain:url’
ii. Check google by searching’link:url’
b. Increase links to internal pages
i. Ask churches, ministries to link to specific areas
ii. Write posts on relevant forums with link back to internal page
iii. Submit press releases (with links to internal pages)
1. start here: http://bignews.biz/blog/?p=6
2. then go to high rank, free sites listed here:
http://www.avangate.com/articles/press-release-distribution_69.htm
iv. Bookmark articles and product pages
1. salon.com
2. del.icio.us
3. stumbleupon.com
4. reddit.com
5. cafemom.com
v. Send popular, product relevant bloggers copy of product release
1. How to find review bloggers
a. Search keyword on google’s blog search for last 6 months
b. Scan cafemom.com’s Christians
2. Ask to post reviews of our products
a. on their blog
b. on amazon
c. on epinions
3. This includes sending a blogger to recurring events
a. Also post on locals (citysearch, yahoo local, etc.)
vi. Set up and actively work profiles on major social networks that link back to a section within site, not home page
1. give more than sell
2. match tone with community
3. no marketing copy ever
vii. Check competitor back links
1. Search http://www.[competitor]
2. Contact sites in results list
viii. Submit section links to relevant free directories
1. how to find directories:
a. [keyword phrase] add url, add site, link to us, advertise, blog
ix. Submit section links to relevant major local directories
x. If you buy online advertising, request a text link (display keyword phrase)
xi. Add a “link to us” page
1. provides various graphic options
2. ex: http://www.pr.com/link-to-us
xii. Offer embeddable resources, then promote
xiii. Offer to set up and host a blog for key influencers in exchange for occasionally reviewing product
xiv. Viral marketing
1. these are hi-risk, so keep low cost
2. ex: add a ‘Suggest a Bible Study/Resource Topic’ link to site
a. Allow submissions to be posted and ranked by users
b. Respond to high ranking requests
3. ex: Linkbait contests
a. link to us by xx/xx/xxx
b. we’ll randomly send a copy of this resource to 5
Part 2 outlines Copywriting methods to optimize web content for search engines :
a. Techniques
i. Include keyword phrases in the order people are most likely to search in a readable way
ii. Never use text in graphics
iii. Use descriptive phrases as much as possible
1. Phrases get more results than single words
2. Instead of ‘our service’ use ‘our church growth analysis’
3. Display keyword phrases in product search results and portal displays
iv. Use eye catching titles. Here’s a sample of copyblogger.com’s top formulas:
1. The Secret of [keyword phrase]
2. Little Known Ways to [keyword phrase]
3. Get Rid of [keyword phrase] Forever
4. 5 Quick Ways to [keyword phrase]
5. What you wish [keyword phrase] knew
6. Who Else Wants [keyword phrase]?
v. since buying decisions are emotional
1. attempt emotional connection in first sentence of articles and descriptions
2. instead of features, list benefits, met needs, on every product description
3. maximize buying over browsing phrases
a. ex: ‘discount bible studies’ > ‘bible study reviews’
vi. Bullets
1. End intro with period, not :
2. Bold a keyword-heavy title
3. Capitalize bullets
4. End bullets with periods
b. Quality
i. Address timely topics
1. Allocate resources so someone is responding immediately to current events and news
ii. Keep content online forever
1. Think long tail, you never know what someone wants to know
c. Quantity
i. Lots of relevant content is very good
ii. Store newsletter archives on our site
iii. Upload as many PDFs as possible
iv. Launch a blog on our domain for every major brand and MBU
1. Encourage staff to post blogs
v. Encourage user generated content
1. Allocate resources to drive online discussion
2. End articles asking a question for user response
vi. Convert unused, archived content to digital format
1. Accurance is a great company. Allocate funds here!
vii. Optimize old and user generated content with keywords and links
1. Allocate low-level resources here
viii. Give users a platform to contribute articles
1. there are many who will write quality articles at no cost
a. they have a heart to mentor, encourage
b. they want the exposure