Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Why I Am Not Pentecostal
One of the finest teachers I have ever had was Russ Spittler, former Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs at Fuller Theological Seminary. Russ is retired now. Russ is a Pentecostal. I learned from him in class, but argued with him mightily over lunch from time to time. That was a long time ago. I accidentally ran into him just a couple of years ago when he was guest preaching at a church I attended just prior to his retirement, some 25 years after I had studied under him. He did not remember me; I guess my arguments did not make an impression.
When I argued with Russ, it was about Pentecostal theology. To this day, I cannot see where scripture demands a necessarily independent Holy Spirit baptism. Even if you grant that such an experience is always unique and separate from other spiritual experiences I REALLY don't see justification that it is always accompanied by an utterance in tongues. With Russ, that was all I could find to argue about with him, he was and is a good man. I just wish that was all I could find to argue with concerning Pentecostalism in general.
The other day I ran across this good 2003 post concerning Pentecostalism. The author is pentecostal, but he is very open and honest about the drawbacks to that particular branch of Christianity.
These objections to pentecostalism were drawn to mind when I read this post from Adrian Warnock. Adrian's post is on an unrelated subject, but I love his approach to the topic. He quotes R.L. Dabney extensively to illustrate that in the absence of a doctrine of penal substitution the gospel pretty well unravels. I am a big fan of judging the validity and worth of an idea, or even a movement based on its results and consequences. In Adrian's case, the lack of penal substitution leads to a whole bunch of theological consequences that result in Christianity being reduced to little more than just another self-help movement dressed up in religious clothes. Even if you can make a good case prima facia case for dropping penal substitution, the consequences of making that case are horrible enough to drop the attempt.
This is precisely how I feel about pentecostalism. My arguments with Russ Spittler were inconclusive. (Well actually he clobbered me, but then he was a professor and I was a young foolish student full of passion and devoid of reading. Fortunately my passion kept me from conceding.) There is a case that can be made for pentecostal theology. That fact notwithstanding, its consequences are, in my opinion, too horrible to contemplate.
My bachelor party featured friends from both the pentecostal tradition and my own "frozen chosen" brand of Presbyterianism. Someone observed over dinner, before the party degenerated into more boyish fun, that Presbyterians never accomplish really great things, but then they never get so utterly corrupt either, while pentecostalism can see the heights of "success" followed quite rapidly by the depths of corruption. Sadly the depths of corruption often reverse not only success garnered, but maybe more.
The great corruptions of pentecostalism do the church so much harm that I wonder if we do ourselves a service by counting them as part of the fold? Evil, done in God's name, is in some sense "double evil." Not that Presbyterians, or the reformed church in general, doesn't do some pretty heinous things, but I think it is much less prone to it than pentecostalism -- and it is much more prone to self correction and denouncment of the problem.
I reject pentecostalism utterly, not because of its theology but because of its consequences. The consequences of ideas are, in the end, what really matter.
When I argued with Russ, it was about Pentecostal theology. To this day, I cannot see where scripture demands a necessarily independent Holy Spirit baptism. Even if you grant that such an experience is always unique and separate from other spiritual experiences I REALLY don't see justification that it is always accompanied by an utterance in tongues. With Russ, that was all I could find to argue about with him, he was and is a good man. I just wish that was all I could find to argue with concerning Pentecostalism in general.
The other day I ran across this good 2003 post concerning Pentecostalism. The author is pentecostal, but he is very open and honest about the drawbacks to that particular branch of Christianity.
Third, it can elevate ungodly men or women into positions of authority based on their charisma rather than Christian character. Pentecostals seem to attract con artist (i.e. Elmer Gantry and The Apostle). These leaders can be spiritual abusive, embezzlers or sexually corrupt.I have an unfortunate amount of personal knowledge concerning the elevation of ungodly men and women in the pentecostal church.
Seventh, we are afraid of rationality and science—to many Pentecostals these disciplines are the enemy of faith. College (even Bible college) is viewed as somewhere young people go to lose their faith (as well as their virginity). This discredits us in the eyes of many Americans who have advanced and continuing educations. We are often dismissed as uneducated and emotional—we were voted those most likely to maintain that the world is flat.
These objections to pentecostalism were drawn to mind when I read this post from Adrian Warnock. Adrian's post is on an unrelated subject, but I love his approach to the topic. He quotes R.L. Dabney extensively to illustrate that in the absence of a doctrine of penal substitution the gospel pretty well unravels. I am a big fan of judging the validity and worth of an idea, or even a movement based on its results and consequences. In Adrian's case, the lack of penal substitution leads to a whole bunch of theological consequences that result in Christianity being reduced to little more than just another self-help movement dressed up in religious clothes. Even if you can make a good case prima facia case for dropping penal substitution, the consequences of making that case are horrible enough to drop the attempt.
This is precisely how I feel about pentecostalism. My arguments with Russ Spittler were inconclusive. (Well actually he clobbered me, but then he was a professor and I was a young foolish student full of passion and devoid of reading. Fortunately my passion kept me from conceding.) There is a case that can be made for pentecostal theology. That fact notwithstanding, its consequences are, in my opinion, too horrible to contemplate.
My bachelor party featured friends from both the pentecostal tradition and my own "frozen chosen" brand of Presbyterianism. Someone observed over dinner, before the party degenerated into more boyish fun, that Presbyterians never accomplish really great things, but then they never get so utterly corrupt either, while pentecostalism can see the heights of "success" followed quite rapidly by the depths of corruption. Sadly the depths of corruption often reverse not only success garnered, but maybe more.
The great corruptions of pentecostalism do the church so much harm that I wonder if we do ourselves a service by counting them as part of the fold? Evil, done in God's name, is in some sense "double evil." Not that Presbyterians, or the reformed church in general, doesn't do some pretty heinous things, but I think it is much less prone to it than pentecostalism -- and it is much more prone to self correction and denouncment of the problem.
I reject pentecostalism utterly, not because of its theology but because of its consequences. The consequences of ideas are, in the end, what really matter.
