Do we react to a caricature of pentecostalism and the charismatic movement?

[Jon 316]

Having been in the Pentecostal movement for most of my Christian life and having studied its history and doctrines for an undergraduate dissertation I often wonder if some reformed believers understanding of it is based upon 1) a caricature or 2) The excesses which they may have encountered in their own personal experience or perhaps God Tv or TBN or some other dubious channel.

While I am only too aware of many of the false teachings, excesses and errors within the movement, the truth is, what is often demonstrated on the God channel is not a true rflection of the pentecostal and charismatic movements.

Its also worth noting that modern pentecostalism is suffering the same problem as evangelicalism, that is, the movement has drifted from the surer foundations of earlier days.

Here are some quotes from pentecostal and charismatic leaders which are insightful into the depth of their biblical commitment.

“We may not even hold a doctrine or seek an experience except in Christ. Many are willing to seek ‘power’ from every battery they can lay their hands on, in order to perform miracles, draw the attention and adoration of the people to themselves, thus robbing Christ of his glory, and making a fair showing in the flesh…. A true ‘pentecost’ will produce a mighty conviction for sin, a turning to God. False manifestations produce only excitement and wonder. Any work that exalts the Holy Ghost or his gifts above Jesus will finally land up in fanaticism. Whatever causes us to exalt and love Jesus is well and safe. The reverse will ruin all. the Holy Ghost is a great light, but focused on Jesus always, for his revealing.”

Frank Bartleman (Frank was a part of the Azusa Street Revival, the birth place of modern pentecostalism).

"A French Unitarian preacher once made the statement: 'Purity of heart and life is more important than correctness of opinion'.' To which another French Preacher answered: 'Healing is more important than the remedy, but without the remedy there would be no healing'. Certainly it is more important to live the Christian life than to merely know Christian doctrine, but there would be no Christian experience if there were no Christian doctrine."

Myer Pearlman, Knowing the doctrines of the Bible. 1937 (1st printed)

"I have discovered that those most mightily used of God always majored on 5 subjects: sin and salvation, then heaven and hell and finally judgment."

W.T.H Richards Pentecost is Dynamite, 1972

"For fifty years I have been teaching, counseling and praying for Christians from a multitude of national and interdenominational backgrounds. The problems in their lives have been as varied as their backgrounds, but underneath them all I have discerned one basic deficiency: They have never laid a sound doctrinal foundation. Consequently, they have never been able to build a stable, successful Christian life."

Derek Prince, Foundations for righteous living, 1993

"Like sailing boats, we need not only the wind of the Spirit- and we certainly do need it-to fill our sails and drive us forward for God, but the weighty keel of sound doctrine to keep our vessel upright on the sea of life"

"Every genuine experience experience of the Spirit finds its foundation in the truth of God's word".

David Petts You'd Better Believe It, 1999

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't react to the extremes in the movement. I react to the poverty of understanding of those within that are the "run of the mill" folks.

Re: the above, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

There was never a "sure" foundation for Pentecostalism to begin with. The reason it started out relatively orthodox at the beginning is that it still had a "borrowed" orthodox language from the Christian denominations it sprung from. I've seen it over and over that successive generations don't really have much use for the older foundations because, fundamentally, Pentecostalism is an existential religion just like the old liberalism was and it is bound to end up deteriorating and moving away from objective moorings.

 

[Marrow Man]

Much of my reaction against the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement comes from limited personal experience. As a new Christian, I briefly attended a charismatic church for a time (they even had Richard Keil, Jaws from the James Bond movies, and Demond Wilson, Lamont from "Sanford and Son" come as guest speakers/preachers). I was horrified by the excesses I saw, and I don't even thing this church was pushing the envelope.

This is not to say that I do not have deep love for those in the charismatic movement. One of the two guys who helped lead me to Christ was (and still is I think) charismatic. We still keep in limited touch (via Facebook). And your point is well-taken: much of the reaction against Calvinism is likewise based upon caricatures of Calvinists (sadly, often caricatures have some root in reality). We need to remember, in all cases, the requirements of the 9th Commandment.
This

 

[Jon 316]

I don't react to the extremes in the movement. I react to the poverty of understanding of those within that are the "run of the mill" folks.

Re: the above, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

There was never a "sure" foundation for Pentecostalism to begin with. The reason it started out relatively orthodox at the beginning is that it still had a "borrowed" orthodox language from the Christian denominations it sprung from. I've seen it over and over that successive generations don't really have much use for the older foundations because, fundamentally, Pentecostalism is an existential religion just like the old liberalism was and it is bound to end up deteriorating and moving away from objective moorings.

I totally take your point, and agree actually. This quote from Packer has been dear to me evers since I discovered it.

“Christian history has seen many movements of experience-orientated reaction against theology’s supposedly barren intellectualism. These movements have thought they could get on without serious theological study, and have discouraged their adherents from engaging in it. In the short term, while living on theological capital brought in from outside by their founders, they have often chaneled spiritual life in an impressive way, but with the passage of time they have again and again lapsed into old errors and forms of imbalance and stuntedness which, for lack of theological resources, they are unable effectivly to correct, and which prompt the rest of the church to stand back from them.”

J.I. Packer.

However, agreeing that the foundations of the movement were shaky, and agreeing that the good stuff the had was 'borrowed'. The aim of my post, I still feel, stands. That is, within the movement there are and have been strong leaders who have understood the need for doctrine and Christ centredness. While they have stood for experience and continuation of certain gifts, these things, for these leaders, are secondary to 'right' doctrine and Christ centredness. Sometimes teh charismatic stereotype missess this fact.

And your point is well-taken: much of the reaction against Calvinism is likewise based upon caricatures of Calvinists (sadly, often caricatures have some root in reality). We need to remember, in all cases, the requirements of the 9th Commandment.
This

Thanks for mentioning this as I meant to add that fact myself, that is, the fact about calvinistic caricatures.

 

[Marrow Man]

Calvinists can be guilty of putting forth caricatures of Arminians as well. Sure, there are a lot of extreme folks out there (and even extreme congregations), but I've found that a lot of Arminians simply don't understand Reformed doctrine (more than a surface level understanding) and/or have had bad experiences with Calvinists hitting them over the head. I have found that many are more than willing to sit down with you and listen as you lead them through what the Scriptures actually say. They find they have more in common with the Calvinist than they think. I'm not saying they always become "instant Calvinists", but it often sets them on the path and some find their way into Reformed churches eventually.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's always interesting how we can think of our own camps as immune to the problems of sin.

{insert Church here} may easily fall prey to extremes that represent the poles of religious experience. You see it in philosophy even as you witness it historically within the Church - a bounce between the extremes of rationalism and existentialism, head and heart, one and many, etc.

Cold orthodoxy is bad so let's make it all about the heart. Too much emotion is bad so let's jump to rationalism.

I'm not going to try to defend "Calvinists" in general. In fact, one of the problems I have with so many self-described Calvinists is that they're really nothing of the sort. They're self-styled theologians that have the 5 points and then cobble together an eclectic mess of other doctrines that don't cohere. They eschew all Confessions preferring to tread their own path vice confessing Biblical faith within a Church.

Orthodox Christianity is taught and then worked out in the life of a Church committed to the disciples therein. The problem I have commending any of the above Pentecostal leaders is that they failed as leaders because they shaved off key pieces of orthodoxy, which left a mess in its wake in succeeding generations. It's nice that I have a sense of orthodoxy but theology is a dialogue within the generations of Church men that came before as well as a body of doctrine and sanctifying work that ensures that the generations that follow will call on the name of the Lord. It is generational and the curse of these leaders is that their children's children do not call upon the name of the Lord.

 

[toddpedlar]

As far as I can tell, TBN is a relatively accurate reflection of what is mainstream in Pentecostal circles. There is no "excess" there.

 

[toddpedlar]

I don't react to the extremes in the movement. I react to the poverty of understanding of those within that are the "run of the mill" folks.

Re: the above, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

There was never a "sure" foundation for Pentecostalism to begin with. The reason it started out relatively orthodox at the beginning is that it still had a "borrowed" orthodox language from the Christian denominations it sprung from. I've seen it over and over that successive generations don't really have much use for the older foundations because, fundamentally, Pentecostalism is an existential religion just like the old liberalism was and it is bound to end up deteriorating and moving away from objective moorings.

This needs to be paid attention to. There is NO "sound" Pentecostalism. It's unsound by its very nature, and as Rich has said, the only reason the early 20th century Pentecostals sounded at all "solid" was that they used the right words... but when people use words in one way but intend a different meaning, a la Humpty Dumpty, they cannot be praised for using the right words. When the right words are used, but different meanings are assigned, they're not teaching soundly.

 

[A.J.]

As far as I can tell, TBN is a relatively accurate reflection of what is mainstream in Pentecostal circles. There is no "excess" there.

The Philippines has some of the largest communities of Pentecostals in Asia. And as far as I can tell, Todd's statement is accurate.

-----Added 3/24/2009 at 11:39:43 EST-----

There are of course a few exceptions to the rule. An example would be the Alliance of Biblical Pentecostals. Warning: Anti-Calvinistic content may be found in their website.

biblical-pentecostals . org (Just remove the spaces.)

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

As far as I can tell, TBN is a relatively accurate reflection of what is mainstream in Pentecostal circles. There is no "excess" there.

The Philippines is one of the Asian countries with the largest community of Pentecostals. And as far as I can tell, Todd's statements is accurate.

-----Added 3/24/2009 at 11:39:43 EST-----

There are of course a few exceptions to the rule. An example would be the Alliance of Biblical Pentecostals. Warning: Anti-Calvinistic content may be found in their website.

biblical-pentecostals . org (Just remove the spaces.)

I believe Todd is being sarcastic in his excess comment. I have fellowshipped with Charismatic, Pentecostals, Rhema affiliates, and Vineyard people. I use to work at a Christian Retail business for years. Believe me there is excess and very poor theology in most of these three camps. I actually believe they discredit themselves and show disrespect to the Word of God by their revelations and babblings. I have friends who are caught up in these movements and I reguard them as true brothers and sisters. I love them dearly. And I still will break bread with them.

Don't let this get out too far.... But I use to refer to myself as a Calvinistic Bapticostal many, many, many years ago.

Those movements are an afront attack on the inspiration of the Word of God. Case in point, look at most of their doctrines and then look at their teachings concerning the Trinity, and anthropology. Somewhere along the line a very large part of them get off track due to their understanding of revelation. I use to read Watchman Nee and came to the conclusion that his cultural upbringing brought in some of his ancestral buddism in his teachings concerning the latent power of the soul. He seems to have just mixed his Christian understanding in with his view of buddist anthropology. I know he would deny this as being the case.

As I said before, those movements are an afront attack on the inspiration of the Word of God.

 

[MW]

The criticisms reformed people make on the charismatic movement is simply the result of normal Christians observing professed Christians influenced by paranormal activity.

 

[TimV]

The aim of my post, I still feel, stands. That is, within the movement there are and have been strong leaders who have understood the need for doctrine and Christ centredness.

Need for what doctrine? Whatever superficial nonsense that allows them their excesses.

I've seen in your posts that you are trying to find a meeting place, a common ground, between dipsy pentecostalism and Reformed theology, but you aren't going to find it.

 

[DonP]

Why is it that most pentecostals, and other charismatics are so weak in soteriology, the gospel, grace and god's sovereignty?
They are usually the weakest of all amrminians in knowledge of God and scripture, and they often say doctrine is and schismatic and unnecessary and they don't even know that that statement is a doctrine.

I am more concerned for how serious they are about their Arminianism than I am about the tongues.
When they think their decision is what save them and Christ died for all and His blood was not efficacious enough to save who He died for and that one can get unborn again of their free will and reborn again, and such other heresies of seemingly central and essential nature to saving faith, that concerns me more and is what I seek to educate them on 1st. As Aquilla and Priscilla.
And most often when maturity and understanding of scriptures comes, the tongues go. Interesting.

I would love to have some conversations with reformed charismatics, I never had so can't comment on that phenomenon.

In his Service,

 

[ww]

The aim of my post, I still feel, stands. That is, within the movement there are and have been strong leaders who have understood the need for doctrine and Christ centredness.

Need for what doctrine? Whatever superficial nonsense that allows them their excesses.

I've seen in your posts that you are trying to find a meeting place, a common ground, between dipsy pentecostalism and Reformed theology, but you aren't going to find it.

I don't find myself reacting to anything but the real thing as it is more than enough to point me to numerous errors found within the origin and the modern day version of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement.

 

[toddpedlar]

As far as I can tell, TBN is a relatively accurate reflection of what is mainstream in Pentecostal circles. There is no "excess" there.

The Philippines is one of the Asian countries with the largest community of Pentecostals. And as far as I can tell, Todd's statements is accurate.

-----Added 3/24/2009 at 11:39:43 EST-----

There are of course a few exceptions to the rule. An example would be the Alliance of Biblical Pentecostals. Warning: Anti-Calvinistic content may be found in their website.

biblical-pentecostals . org (Just remove the spaces.)

I believe Todd is being sarcastic in his excess comment. I have fellowshipped with Charismatic, Pentecostals, Rhema affiliates, and Vineyard people. I use to work at a Christian Retail business for years. Believe me there is excess and very poor theology in most of these three camps. I actually believe they discredit themselves and show disrespect to the Word of God by their revelations and babblings. I have friends who are caught up in these movements and I reguard them as true brothers and sisters. I love them dearly. And I still will break bread with them.

My reason for saying "there is no 'excess'" there wasn't sarcasm, but actually to make the point that you do, Randy

Jon was implying that TBN shouldn't be pointed to as a picture of mainstream charismatic and pentecostal belief. He argued that it was "dubious" and as I heard him, that it represented "extreme" pentecostalism.

My statement was meant to say "TBN is exactly what pentecostalism is". It's not "excess" or "extreme" but a good representation of what the bulk of Pentecostals would support in doctrine and practice. It accurately reflects teaching Pentecostals and other charismatics get, and accurately shows the practices that many (of course, not ALL) engage in.

 

[DonP]

Can someone tell me what this means if there is no private use of tongues?

1 Cor 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God NKJV

Could it mean don't speak in tongues at all and just silently speak to God.

That no one is to ever speak in tongues unless there is an interpreter because tongues is out loud.

That seems consistent with

1 Cor 14:13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

But then it goes on to say :
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. NKJV

So does this indicate praying in tongues not interpreted with his Spirit is possible? And if so is this wrong? As Paul exhorts if one did this is it unprofitable. He should interpret. So then if he can interpret is it OK to do it alone?

Doesn't sound like this is praying silently, but praying in tongues privately.

------

Where does Paul speak in tongues if not in church? Out evangelizing?
1 Cor 14:18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
NKJV

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

This is off-topic, Don, but if you look at the wording in 1 Cor 14:28, "keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself ", it is clearly referring to something inaudible -- not mindless babbling outloud in a closet and getting tingly feelings.

 

[toddpedlar]

Reposting a post from a thread that was closed is generally frowned upon.

Can someone tell me what this means if there is no private use of tongues?

1 Cor 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God NKJV

Could it mean don't speak in tongues at all and just silently speak to God.

That no one is to ever speak in tongues unless there is an interpreter because tongues is out loud.

That seems consistent with

1 Cor 14:13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

Paul laid out very specific constraints on tongue speaking in his time, and can in no way be said to be advocating some sort of private practice of tongue-speaking today, as you seem to be arguing for. The use and purpose of tongues at the time as signs to the unbelieving Jews is very clearly laid out. I'm not sure why you get the idea from that passage that Paul is advocating some sort of private practice of tongue speaking...

I would suggest also that you look at the other (closed) thread and see the arguments very clearly laid out against the continuation of tongues by Rev. Winzer among others.

But then it goes on to say :
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. NKJV

So does this indicate praying in tongues not interpreted with his Spirit is possible? And if so is this wrong? As Paul exhorts if one did this is it unprofitable. He should interpret. So then if he can interpret is it OK to do it alone?

It seems to me that whatever Paul is saying here, he is not advocating
private prayer language. If he says that praying in a tongue is unfruitful, then why do you take that as advocacy? If I told you that there was a practice I could potentially engage in, but that it was unfruitful, wouldn't you think that the best advice for me would be not to pursue such a practice???

Doesn't sound like this is praying silently, but praying in tongues privately.

Sure... and again, Paul is NOT advocating the practice, but making a negative statement about it. Most certainly he is NOT calling "private prayer language" a gift!

Where does Paul speak in tongues if not in church? Out evangelizing?

1 Cor 14:18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
NKJV

I'm still not sure why this passage is taken as supportive of modern glossolalia (i.e. incoherent babbling). There is no connection whatsoever to the modern circus-act tongue-speaking, or to any private practice.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Todd, you were nice to answer that but we're not heading down that road in this thread. It does remind of a Pentecostal problem in general: seeking ways to self-edify and an obsession with spiritual gifts as if they are an end to themselves.

 

[Mushroom]

Not much caricaturization that I see, just reality. Been to nearly every stripe of pentecostal/charismatic Church there is except snake-handlers, and scripture is given a far back seat to subjective erroneous experience. Wholly existential and mystical at it's foundation, and a very sad dungeon for any of the elect that are imprisoned by it.

 

[MrMerlin777]

I can only speak from my few years of experience in the Pentacostal community. I attended Penn Forest Church of God in Roanoke VA off and on for about 5 years back in the 1980s (the girl I was dating at the time attended there with her mother). The members of the church would get all "whipped into an emotional lather" running around the church as if it were on fire, shouting, laughing, or crying uncontrolably, even passing out in the floor. We would leave the church after service and my girlfriend's mom would look me straight in the face and ask me, "Don, why does God hate me?" Once all of the emotional catharsis had worn off there was no hope, no fruit of the spirit evident, just a cold let down (almost as if she was comming down from a dope high).

Now I'm no theologian, and I was much less knowlegeable then, but even at the time I could tell somthing was very wrong with the picture. I don't think that what I experienced could be called a caricature. It was very real, and I have every reason to believe that many of the people in that church at that time were hopelessly lost.

 

[cih1355]

I attended a Pentecostal church during high school and the first three years of college. My church did believe correctly about how man is justified before God, but it had a lot of false teaching and false practices. The church would have services where people would try to cast demons out of other people. I can remember several instances in church services where a person who thought he had the gift of healing would try to heal other people.

I went to a Pentecostal high school and even though I was taught young earth creationism, justification by faith alone, and some of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith like the Trinity, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, I was taught a lot of bad doctrine.

 

[DonP]

Seems to me an easy way to speak to these people rather than fighting the hard fight whether they are here or gone is simply to show them.

1 Cor 14:13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

Are you praying to interpret? If not you are in disobedience.

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. NKJV

If you don't interpret what you are doing is unprofitable even for yourself, it is unfruitful so don't do it. Do something that is fruitful for your understanding and spirit.

So no need to react to any caricature.
We entreat them as brothers, as Aquila and Priscilla did the baptist to more fully understand the covenant and fullness of the Spirit.

In His Service,

 

[toddpedlar]

Seems to me an easy way to speak to these people rather than fighting the hard fight whether they are here or gone is simply to show them.

To whom are you referring in the above? "These people" means whom?

1 Cor 14:13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

Are you praying to interpret? If not you are in disobedience.

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. NKJV

If you don't interpret what you are doing is unprofitable even for yourself, it is unfruitful so don't do it. Do something that is fruitful for your understanding and spirit.

So no need to react to any caricature.
We entreat them as brothers, as Aquila and Priscilla did the baptist to more fully understand the covenant and fullness of the Spirit.

In His Service,

The verses you discuss above, for the last time, do NOT refer to private prayer of any kind. A simple glance at the context shows this to be the case. This discussion is done.