Listen to this really great 7 minute video with Frank Macchia as he explains the answer to the question:
Pentecostalism, rightly understood, is a critique of/radical alternative to evangelicalism, not a subset of it. Pentecostals who act like fundamentalists while simply adding speaking in tongues don’t understand their own tradition. Pentecostalism, at its core, is misfit religion; it is spirituality on the wrong side of the railroad tracks. When people who can’t find any other place to belong elsewhere come together and share a combustible experience of the Spirit, Pentecost happens.
–Pastor Jonathan Martin
(sharing here from a post on Facebook – soon as I learn the source, I’ll post it here.
For those who may be wondering how Pentecostals go about interpreting the Bible – the Assemblies of God’s Enrichment Journal, which goes out quarterly to all licensed and ordained ministers in the Assemblies, but that can also be viewed online, has an article (written about 10 years ago) by Roger Stronstad summarizing different elements or currents trends of Pentecostal Hermeneutics. I hadn’t seen it so it was interesting even for me to read – I was familiar with some of it but not all of it. lol.
In the article you’ll see one call the “pragmatic” hermeneutic. This portion gives you a little bit of history as to how the whole thing got started, well, at least a key even that seemed to really catapult the movement forward in a significant way. There were workings of the Holy Spirit going on all over the world at the time, but this and other events leading to the Azusa Revival seem to be the most well known. It is interesting too that this is listed first in the summary because really, the heart of Pentecostal theology, which can be really diverse with no one single simple definition, is pragmatics (used here in the sense of relating to practical considerations). In too many ways, its both a good and a bad thing.
Here is an excerpt:
As Martin Luther is the fountainhead of Lutheranism, John Calvin of Reformed Theology, and John Wesley of Methodism, so Charles F. Parham stands as the fountainhead of Pentecostalism. Parham was not the first to speak in tongues. In one sense that honor goes to Miss Agnes N. Ozman. In another sense, the birth of the Pentecostal movement is the climax to the growing swell of charismatic experiences among various revival and Apostolic Faith movements. What makes Charles F. Parham the father of Pentecostalism, Topeka, Kansas, the locus of Pentecostalism, and Agnes Ozman, the first Pentecostal, is not the uniqueness of this experience, but the new hermeneutical/biblical understanding of this experience.
Charles F. Parham bequeathed to the Pentecostal movement its definitive hermeneutics, and consequently, its definitive theology and apologetics. His contribution arose out of the problem of the interpretation of the second chapter of Acts and his conviction that Christian experience in the 20th century “should tally exactly with the Bible, [but] neither sanctification nor the anointing that abideth … tallied with the 2nd chapter of Acts.” Consequently he reports, “I set the students at work studying out diligently what was the Bible evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost that we might go before the world with something that was indisputable because it tallied absolutely with the Word.” He tells the results of their investigation in the following words: “Leaving the school for three days at this task, I went to Kansas City for three days services. I returned to the school on the morning preceding Watch Night service in the year 1900.
“At about 10:00 o’clock in the morning I rang the bell calling all the students into the Chapel to get their report on the matter in hand. To my astonishment they all had the same story, that while there were different things occurring when the Pentecostal blessing fell, the indisputable proof on each occasion was, that they spoke with other tongues.”5
In Parham’s report we find the essential distinctives of the Pentecostal movement, namely, (1) the conviction that contemporary experience should be identical to apostolic Christianity, (2) the separation of the baptism in the Holy Spirit from sanctification (as Holiness movements had earlier separated it from conversion/incorporation), and (3) that tongues speaking is the indisputable evidence or proof of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Well, be that as it may, I find it all very interesting and really, given the context, I don’t think you can really blame Parham for wanting to know what was the source of the Apostles zeal. I think too his quest for “Bible evidence” is evident of the times he lived in – people were big then on wanting empirical evidence for things and in this case it morphed a bit in to wanting “physical” evidence for knowing without a doubt one is in fact baptized in the Holy Spirit. Agree or disagree with this approach, I don’t think we can fault them for that. He was a man of his time really. And this is really the root of much Pentecostal theology and understanding of Spirit Baptism – that there is going to be “evidence” for it.
Well, feel free to give it a read and or let me know what you think.
i know many wonder about this and want to learn more about how Pentecostals teach about it.
This would be a good place to start (audio file).
The audio is of our friend Linda who is a ChiAlpha pastor at Perdue.
I think she does a great job at it.
I hope it will help you
and bless you!
so john macarthur’s strange fire conference has been going on. what’s it all about? well it is mac’s attempt to confront and call out the pentecostal/charismatic/third wave movements as anything but christian. this is the basic thesis of the conference:
The charismatic movement offers nothing to true worship because it has made no contribution to biblical clarity, interpretation, or sound doctrine.
he calls it an “alien movement.”
it really does seem that any self respecting Christian who’s really given time to reading and reflecting on the Bible and or has done a wide enough reading in christian theology and or biblical studies (especially in the area of the person and work and theology of the Holy Spirit) would know this statement is totally ridiculous. the problem is that macarthur has put all his eggs in one basket and i think most know that is a big no-no. he’s ignorant of the movment historically and theologically. period. (i just heard him list 1966 and the drug culture that lead to vineyard leads to excesses… gosh, he just doesn’t know does he??)
it seems to be becoming more obvious that “Mac and the pack” has to be speaking to the TBN related crowd and the WOF folk and those that write the “pop” theology type books, of which, sadly, he
would could be correct – they have nothing to offer they can be frustrating to deal with (listen to, read, interact with)…. yet this statement reveals massive significant ignorance of the wider world of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement….
it denies the work of true pentecostal and or charismatic and or third wave theologians and scholars – there are many to mention, and while overall the movements are young – much good theology and scholarship has come of it – in fact it really is consider the third stream in historic christianity – catholicism, protestantism (word), and the pentecostal (spirit) movement.
well, anyways much as been said and for macarthur to critique a folks like piper and then weirdos like crowder in the same sentence is like comparing apples and oranges. you just can’t do that.
much has been said already and i wanted to share some links for consideration (this isn’t an appeal to become a charismatic so much as to show some sensibility in taking this issue on – really, agree or disagree, these folks should know better.
Marc Cortez – covers the good, the bad, and the ugly
Rodeny shares on Latino Pentecostalism
Michael Patton (a non charismatic) talks about how John MacArthur is “losing his voice.”
Scott Lencke confronts the odd [weird] approach of it all.
Here is an nteresting take on the Strange Fire conference titled: John MacArthur and the New Atheism: http://t.co/ggVjMbuTnD
David Hayward reflects on how John MacArthur consigns millions of Christians to Hell.
well, that should get y’all going on learning more about it all.
The following is a guest post book review of Larry McQueen’s Toward a Pentecostal Eschatology by my friend Monte Lee Rice, who lives in Singapore. This was originally posted on the goodreads site and is re-posted here with permission. Be blessed!
McQueen, Larry R. Toward a Pentecostal Eschatology: Discerning the Way Forward (Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series). JPTSup 39. Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2012.
McQueen’s published dissertation surveys and critiques the development of eschatological perspectives and diverse doctrines in the early North American Pentecostal movement. He begins by surveying recent Pentecostal approaches to eschatology over the past two to three decades, which have illustrated revisions away from classical Darbyian-rooted dispensational categories, in attempts to articulate eschatology in manners best congruent to core elements of Pentecostal ecclesiology, soteriology and spirituality. As McQueen shows, this includes efforts by persons such as Peter Kuzmic, J. Rodman Williams, Steven J. Land, Peter Althouse, Amos Yong, and most notable is the comprehensive proposal envisioned by Matthew K. Thompson in his own published 2010 dissertation, Kingdom Come: Revisioning Pentecostal Eschatology, JPTSup 37 (Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2010). McQueen’s work falls within this direction, which I will more specifically summarize further along in this discussion.
Next, McQueen devotes substantial effort towards reviewing early Pentecostal periodical literature representative of the two major streams of early Pentecostalism, namely the Wesleyan and Finished Work Pentecostal streams. Following are some of McQueen’s own conclusions reached through this critical survey. Concerning the Wesleyan stream as exemplified in early Church of God (Cleveland) periodical literature, McQueen argues that a diversity of eschatological perspectives existed, and not all strongly followed the Darbyian system. Others better rooted eschatological assumptions within ideas of Spirit baptism “in the via salutis and its meaning for the missional task of the Church.” McQueen thus argues that it was “Spirit baptism” which gave foremost “eschatological significance to the core testimony of the early Pentecostals,” narrated in what they called the “full gospel” of Jesus as Saviour Sanctifier, Spirit Baptizer, Healer, and Coming King (p. 141).
McQueen argues that the early Finished Work stream of Pentecostalism (along with Oneness Pentecostalism) more readily adapted and comprehensively expressed Darbyian dispensational doctrinal categories. This was due to greater compatibility with the finished work tendency to closely tie all soteriological benefits to the atonement, which are then presumed as wholly available through faith, rather than entered into in through the salvific journey that comprises Christian life (as assumed in more Wesleyan terms). Consequently, McQueen argues that this stream is more prone to an “over-realized eschatology” (p. 294). In his book review on McQueen’s work Peter Althouse (Pneuma 35 : 253-255) however, observes in McQueen’s contrast between the Wesleyan and Finished work streams, some over extended and far too rigid generalizations. Althouse argues that McQueen fails to adequately appreciate “cross-fertilization” between the two streams, which can be observed in several notable early Finished Work Pentecostal pioneers who articulated more process oriented soteriologies as well as softer dispensational categories. Hence, Althouse finds McQueen strict contrast between the two streams as “counterproductive to an ecumenical reading of early Pentecostalism.”
Notwithstanding these supposed limitations to McQueen’s analysis, I find his concluding proposals for ongoing development of Pentecostal eschatology highly constructive. I will just briefly mention some of his key points. First, McQueen argues that Pentecostals should bring eschatology “into dialogue with their holistic spirituality, allowing the experience of the Spirit, in both its individual and corporate dimensions, to inform their hermeneutical practice and subsequent conclusions about eschatology” (p. 201). What results is a perspective towards eschatology, which McQueen finds within much of early Pentecostal literature, that is more shaped by the “dynamic spirituality” of Pentecostalism, rather than by the “predefined script of the future” that Darbyian dispensationalism espouses and imposes on the apocalyptic and prophetic texts of Scripture (p. 201).
McQueen provides some helpful guidelines on just how such a Pentecostal spirituality-informed hermeneutic would shape our reading of John’s Apocalypse as well as other apocalyptic texts, moreover— in manners that critically discern and engage spiritual conflict in context of contemporary culture and settings. He writes,
I suggest that Pentecostalism must reappropriate the book of Revelation, not as a text to be dissected and pieced together to form a map for the future, but as a symbolic world into which we enter in order to be challenged and transformed by the same Spirit in which John received the revelation. This method of reading the text in the present tense preserves the pathos of immediacy so valued in Pentecostal spirituality and reflects the way we interpret other portions of Scripture.” Hence, “We find ourselves in the visions of the innumerable multitude, the two witnesses, the thousand-year reign of Christ and the New Jerusalem. But we also find ourselves in the apathy of the Laodicean church . . . In essence, one way to discern the relevance of eschatology is to discern what the Spirit is saying to the churches (Rev. 2:7) through the visions of the book of Revelation. (pp. 286-287).
To further demonstrate this more robust eschatological understanding of Christian life, McQueen’s climaxes his book with a reading of John’s Apocalypse through the Pentecostal fivefold gospel motifs, while also integrating theological contributions via recent scholarship in Pentecostal eschatology (such as reviewed in his second chapter). Hence, McQueen stresses that
“recent theological contributions to Pentecostal eschatology that take seriously Pentecostal presuppositions point to the need need to articulate the fivefold narrative within a larger trinitarian and creational framework. Such a move expands the eschatological scope beyond individual salvation to include a vision of cosmic redemption and helps to unify the experiences of salvation within this larger vision for the kingdom of God. (p. 215).
Here, McQueen’s conclusions parallel themes strongly argued by Matthew Thompson (Kingdom Come: Revisioning Pentecostal Eschatology). Concerning the more common popular Pentecostal approach to the Apocalypse interpreted according to Darbyian dispensational categories, McQueen writes,
A major lesson learned form the past is that Pentecostals should not adopt uncritically any eschatological vision developed apart from a distinct Pentecostal soteriology and spirituality. Otherwise, the eschatology may impose various foreign elements that must be held in tension with Pentecostal perceptions or be allowed to compromise those perceptions. Such as has been the case with the long-standing ‘uneasy relationship’ between Pentecostalism and dispensationalism. (p. 215).
In the concluding chapter, McQueen states, “this study demonstrates that Pentecostal eschatology is not so much concerned with mapping a script of the future as it is in discerning the Spirit of the future in our present life and witness.” McQueen thus argues that this thesis can be substantiated in early Pentecostal literature and also by John’s testimony in the Apocalypse.” He strives to demonstrate this by utilizing the fivefold gospel as a hermeneutic for arriving at a distinctive Pentecostal reading the Apocalypse (p. 296).
Finally, another core motif McQueen challenges Pentecostals to integrate into their development an eschatology deeply reflecting Pentecostal spirituality, is the kingdom of God. He thus proposes,
Current studies in Pentecostal theology that take account of the fivefold gospel . . . point to the kingdom of God as an appropriate eschatological symbol. A constructive contribution to Pentecostal eschatology could be offered with the themes of the kingdom of God articulated in the Synoptic Gospel narratives serving as the principal entry points into the eschatological dimensions of the fivefold gospel.
Hence, as McQueen himself concludes, his study exemplifies a current response to Steven Land’s earlier call for “the revisioning of Pentecostal eschatology within an integrative view of God’s eschatological presence” (p. 297), in manners that moreover retrieve early Pentecostal motifs and core elements that characterize Pentecostal spirituality.
One of my NT professors from AGTS, Ben Aker has written what I would say is a tremendous article on the Biblical distinction between Regeneration and Spirit Baptism in reference to John 20:19-23 and Acts 2. Trust me, its really good!
Dr. Aker writes:
There are two Biblical texts that scholars often discuss, frequently misinterpret, and thus confuse regarding regeneration and the baptism in the Holy Spirit. They are John 20:19-23 and Acts 2. In the first of these references the word “breathed” occurs. This study then will focus on the meaning and use of the word in John 20:22. I propose that “breathed” refers to regeneration and concerns an actual, supernatural event in which Jesus imparts eternal life to the first disciples through the Spirit. This paper will discuss“ breathed” under two main headings: its lexical and conceptual meanings and uses and the contribution of John’s theology to its meaning and use.
Well, it blessed me and I hope it will bless you too!