Comments on: Letter to a Pentecostal Scholar III: the promise and problems of historical scholarship

By: Wolfgang Vondey

Wolfgang Vondey — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:42:18 +0000

Hmm. This well-written response is actually a direct quote from an online essay available at http://www.patheos.com/Library/Pentecostal/Origins/Historical-Perspectives.html. Either the author reprinted it here or it was plagiarized by someone with the alias “Panama.” My response is: go read the very informative article in its fullness. Panama, thanks for leaving the clues.

By: Panama

Panama — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:30:35 +0000

First-generation historians of Pentecostalism, largely religious insiders who were or sympathized with Pentecostals, had much to lose by being overly critical, and even more to lose if they suggested that not all of the events surrounding the origins of the movement and its theological roots were providentially inspired. To be fair, secular and non-Pentecostal scholars in the social sciences (chiefly sociology and anthropology) were not terribly interested in a movement that they knew little about and probably had little sympathy for. After all, if all one knew about Pentecostalism emanated from the popular press and from Hollywood (Elmer Gantry in particular), then the movement never really stood a chance in the less-than-receptive halls of academia. Suffice to say that Pentecostal historical scholarship in the first half of the 20th century suffered from bouts of intellectual lethargy from its biggest supporters and from ignorant disdain from its detractors.

By: daniel irving

daniel irving — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:12:42 +0000

P.P.S. My apologies for the PPS, but I cannot omit the centrality of the cross as as characterizing any systematic theology.

By: daniel irving

daniel irving — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 01:45:54 +0000

PS. Wolfgang, specifically as to the question of what a Pentecostal Theology should look like; I believe it will incorporate the oneness of God in His essence, duality that is Messiah Head & Messiah body. It will incorporate a threefold redemption of spirit, soul, and body; a three-fold witness of heaven & three-fold witness of earth adding to a six-fold witness of Father, Word, Holy Ghost, Blood, Water, & Spirit (I John 5:7-8) unified seamlessly into a seven-fold witness of God. All of these components are reflected in the Golden Lampstand which stands as a model of God’s testimony concerning Himself that is Christ.

By: daniel irving

daniel irving — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 00:55:21 +0000

Christopher,
We agree these doctrines are unpopular. We must both concede that these were the doctrines maintained by the central-figures of the original Pentecostal outpourings, certainly the Azusa outpouring. The mantle of Azusa seems to have followed Durham and thence persons and organizations that sat under Durham. It was after these early years that the doctrines were watered-down for the sake of peace. I invite you to listen to Durham’s articles (see “Audio MP3″ at lamp-stand.com). He was uncompromising in these essentials of Pentecostalism. Is it exclusivism? Yes & No. It is “exclusive” in the sense that the church is a peculiar & called-out people. It is “inclusive” in the sense that “everyone that asketh receiveth” (Luke 11:10). Durham denounced these compromises as robbing men of the baptism.

Wolfgang,
It would be difficult for me to be much more specific in this limited forum. I have written more extensively on this subject on my website (see Subpart G – The Pentecostal Movement). In short a Pentecostal theology will incorporate much more than the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We have misunderstood Pentecost as the baptism, when the Baptism is rather a component of what is typified in the feast. I can confidently say that there is a Systematic Pentecostal Theology that is (indeed) a universal Systematic Theology. I have never heard it taught, but I am happy to go into as thorough-detail as anyone has the time to spare. I must also say I enjoy discussions as these tremendously. Daniel

By: Wolfgang Vondey

Wolfgang Vondey — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 00:31:19 +0000

Chris, I think you are overreacting to Daniel’s post. There is quite a difference between those who are trying to understand and preserve what they see as the essence of Pentecostal voices in the past and those who see nothing else but classical Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues. Your perspective is in danger of trying to portrait Pentecostal theology in either black or white colors when it is probable better to say that Pentecostal scholarship at the moment is both black and white. We have to catch both colors if we want to understand Pentecostal scholarship. So, also, when you ask if Pentecostalism is postmodern or modern, the answer is yes, precisely because Pentecostal scholarship is at the same time neo-modern and anti-modern in its position toward modernity while remaining in essence a child of modernity.

By: Wolfgang Vondey

Wolfgang Vondey — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 23:53:29 +0000

Thank you Daniel. I would agree with you that Pentecost is a central theme for a systematic theology for Pentecostals. But I challenge you to make more explicit what exactly that means. What is the message given at Topeka and Kansas, as you say, in the terms of a systematic theology? Is it the uncompromising zeal for God? If that is what you mean, that says a lot about how a Pentecostal would proceed but not what that Pentecostal theology would look like. Or is it the unpopular doctrines you list? If yes, how do you envision a broader systematic theology to unfold among Pentecostals? Of course, this is not really what this particular letter is about. My letters yet have to work their way toward the generation of Pentecostal theologians, but in advance I would question if it is really “systematic theology” that would result from Pentecostals. For sure, they should engage the work of systematic theologians, but is systematic theology genuine to Pentecostalism?

By: Christopher Wilson

Christopher Wilson — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:55:46 +0000

Daniel,

First I applaud you for voicing ideas which you know are unpopular; I do however disagree with your exclusionary thinking. It seems like in the end you are saying only those who speak in tongues are Christian? I know that you aren’t saying this quite so strongly, but that is the logical conclusion of believing that:
1. Tongues is the initial evidence.
2. Without spirit baptism, a believer will fall away in a short time.
And as tongues usually requires an extra act such as tarrying at an altar for an indefinite period of time, is it not adding a “work” to our salvation through faith?

I would caution you against such exclusionary thinking as I have seen many Christian operating in the gifts of the spirit who have never spoken in tongues.

Dr. Vondey,

It seems like developing a systematic theology for Pentecostalism is cutting against the grain of where the movement currently wants to go, at least at the academic level. In order to be systematic don’t you need things like categories, deductive reasoning, etc. which are almost by necessity exclusionary? I am legitimately at a loss as to how the movement can simultaneously be going in the direction of postmodernism, non-duality, etc. while trying to have a systematic theology which to me would otherwise be considered a remnant of modernism.

Your brother in Christ,

Chris

By: daniel irving

daniel irving — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 06:04:05 +0000

I believe there is no other place for a systematic theology to arise but from those of Pentecost I also believe a systematic theology will arise from within Pentecost shortly. The problem as I perceive it however, is that the Pentecostal message has been allowed to fall to the ground. A reading of the old articles by William Durham and other early Pentecostal leaders carries an uncompromizing-zeal that we just do not find today. The church must pick up and be faithful with the message given to it at Topeka & Azusa (e.g. tongues as initial evidence, the baptism as synonymous with receiving the Spirit, those baptized as constituting the “church”). These doctrines are grossly unpopular & we will receive opposition and the castigation of all around us. Until we have been faithful with what God has given how do we expect to receive more truth?