Reconciliation between fundamentalists and pentecostals?

[kidsminister]

I just learned several months ago that the fundamentalist movement was (partially, at least!) begun as a response to some of the "fringe" pentecostal groups and practices that had begun to spring up as a result of the Azusa Street Revival.

That the fundamentalists decided to go back to the Word, and take a stand against such practices.

Now I know there are many variations of fundamentalists, as there are many variations of pentecostals.

But, as an Assemblies of God minister, I feel a little bit of friction when I speak to a fundamentalist (not talking about anyone on this board; I'm referring to "real life" ;).) Is there any possible way to bridge the gap between us - at the very least, to "agree to disagree" on our doctrinal differences?

My in-laws are extremely fundamentalist - so much so, that they didn't even attend church on Sundays for a long time because they thought that all the churches in the area were too worldly and liberal for them. I've never discussed my beliefs thoroughly with them - I once mentioned some problems I have with Jerry Falwell's methods (not a slam on Jerry himself; just a personal question on how he goes about sharing his opinions/faith with the world...), and my MIL just blew up at me.

I honestly have not been acquainted with a lot of fundamentalists - my family is pretty much either Assemblies of God or Lutheran - but the few people of that persuasion that I've spoken to have been downright hostile if I didn't believe exactly as they did.

Is there any hope for reconciliation between our two groups? I think that you have a lot to offer us, for example, by teaching us about being strongly committed to the family. And the fundy web sites I've explored have given me some fabulous recipes :). I offer the olive branch of peace between us, and I won't even try to make you speak in tongues - I promise!!

[Nova Scotian Boy]

You have peace with me, until i read your post i didnt even know there was tension or even a difference between Fundy's and Pentecostals. I always thought Pentecostal was a fundamentalist denomination. You learn something new everyday. If i may ask what are the differences and such between them?

[kidsminister]

Well...in some ways, pentecostals are fundamentalists. As in, we believe in the inerrancy and absolute authority of the Scriptures, and we take them literally. We believe in living a holy life, and that Jesus is the only way to heaven.

But where we differ is the area of spiritual gifts - tongues, prophecy, healing, etc. Some say they're for today; others don't. One person I spoke to as a kid (he was a fundamentalist Baptist) said that the practice of tongues is actually demonic.

I definitely don't believe there is tension between all fundamentalists and all pentecostals, and that there are people of both persuasions in all churches.

But since the fundamentalist movement was started initially as a backlash against the pentecostal movement, I wonder how much peace there is between the two...

[e=mv^2]

These quotes are from a similar thread. jlujan69 began the thead:

Are we or aren't we??

I was visiting the website of the World Fundamental Congress (whose official creed defines "fundamentalism" for this forum) and read about their take on the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement. First, I noted that at least according to the creed, Pentecostals would be fundamentalists. Yet, according to the conclusion of their article, fundamentalists still distance themselves from Pentecostals. The primary reason, predictably enough, has to do with the use of tongues. It seems that fundamentalists tend to be cessationist, and hence, tongues (among certain other gifts) is no longer in use. Furthermore, this issue is important enough to warrant separation from those churches who practice this. In other words, cessationism, for all practical purposes, is crucial to determining who is and who's not fundamentalist. At least that was my impression of the article. However, as important as cessationism is, it is not listed on the official creed of fundamentalism. My question is simply why?? If the powers that be are that determined to separate and distance themselves from Pentecostals, as this article states, then why don't they simply add the cessationist doctrine as one of the required tenets? That would definitely exclude Pentecostals, Charismatics, and others who don't hold to that doctrine. It would eliminate at least some confusion over how to relate to these churches. Because of this, I suspect that's why there are some in the leadership of this body (Bob Jones I, for one) who has considered some Pentecostals to be as "fundamentalist as anyone else". So, what have I learned from this article? Well, what I suspected initially. That is, on the question of whether or not my church is fundamentalist, it just depends on who you ask. Officially, we are but aren't. Interestingly enough, the only ones who are in agreement on this matter are liberal Protestants, Roman Catholics, and the lost in general. They say we (Pentecostals) most definitely are a bunch of right wing, fantatical, Bible thumping, radical fundamentalists. Oh well.


Huperetes was kind enough to post the following:
The origin of the term "Fundamentalist" is in a series of four volumes called "The Fundamentals," which was published in 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA). The books are still in print (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids Mich) and can be found on many Christian booksellers' web sites. I believe the original work should be the definitive authority. This writing should be allowed to speak for itself in defining who is or is not a fundamentalist.

The thread ended with jlujan69:
Thanks for the replies. After reading the website (which is what prompted me to post this OP in the first place), I'd sent an e-mail to their office stating my opinions. I forgot exactly what I wrote. Anyway, I received a reply from no less than Bob Jones III. He didn't confer upon me the title of "grand honorary fundy of the order of whatever" or anything like that, but it was rather cordial. He indicated that we seem to agree on much more than what we disagree on, and in the end, we are in the same family. I'd arrived at that conclusion before anyway. It's good to see others on this thread of the same mind on this matter.

Now I have only just begun studying the fundamentals so please understand that I may be wrong on this but...
There are 2 chapters of The Fundamentals that discuss the Holy Spirit. Those are chapters 34 (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fund34.htm) and 35. (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fund35.htm)
Chapter 34 is an apologetic effort directed towards the personage of the Holy Spirit. It gives evidences that show the Holy Spirit to be a thinking feeling entity and not just an influence.
Chapter 35 (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fund35.htm) is more closely tied to the topic at hand here and should be the one that we look to if we are to see what Fundamentalism states about the pentecost. I am not going to draw conclusions for you. I am only going to point out the chapter. It is not terribly long and it is worth reading.

[TwinCrier]

I think we fundies are viewed as hostile because we do not bend on views we see as biblical doctrine. In the definition of fundamentalist for this forum, it reads; "Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth;"Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth" The sparation part, not fellowshipping with those who hold differing doctrine is what appears as hate or intolerance to the more ecumenical, politically correct denominations. Yes, I would most likely defend Falwell if his methods were criticized, as I assume anyone would when a leader in their faith is criticized. Just say something in the least bit negative about the pope and see what happens.

[kidsminister]

I think we fundies are viewed as hostile because we do not bend on views we see as biblical doctrine. In the definition of fundamentalist for this forum, it reads; "Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth;"Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth" The sparation part, not fellowshipping with those who hold differing doctrine is what appears as hate or intolerance to the more ecumenical, politically correct denominations. Yes, I would most likely defend Falwell if his methods were criticized, as I assume anyone would when a leader in their faith is criticized. Just say something in the least bit negative about the pope and see what happens.

Except I am not part of an "ecumenical or politically correct" denomination, and I am not Catholic. I am pentecostal, which is, as has been stated, considered by many to be fundamentalist due to our shared belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, holy living, and Jesus Christ being the only way to heaven.

I have, in fact, listened to many people express concerns about pentecostal/charismatic leaders without becoming personally offended. In the case where I was discussing Jerry Falwell, I was not criticizing or condemning him, nor was I attacking his character. I was simply bringing up some questions I had about whether or not some of his methods are conducive to his ultimate mission of spreading the gospel.

That is a perfect example of my original post: Why do other evangelical Christians (who in many ways consider themselves to be fundamentalist!) feel so much hostility from those who wear the label of fundamentalist? Why do liberal Christians feel so much hostility from all of us? Is there a way that we can perhaps live a life of holiness and stand for the truth - not compromising our message or our lives - but still "letting our light shine before men that they may see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven"?

[e=mv^2]

Why do liberal Christians feel so much hostility from all of us?
Because we are not afraid to tell them when they are wrong. People do not like to be told that they are wrong.

[kidsminister]

Because we are not afraid to tell them when they are wrong. People do not like to be told that they are wrong.

Believe me, in the natural, I am not afraid to tell anyone that they are wrong...I am very blunt and I will say whatever is on my mind.

That is a trait that the Holy Spirit has worked on in my life.

There is a time to tell the truth and a time to listen to others - to hold our tongue and NOT tell them that they are wrong. Listening does not mean condoning or compromising!

Example: My best friend had a conversation with a woman who visited our church who happened to be a lesbian (and please know that I am NOT trying to start a debate on homosexuality - for the record, I think it's wrong!).

The woman was in tears because her partner had just decided that their relationship was not right and had left. My friend, of course, very strongly believes that homosexuality is wrong. But at that moment, this was not what this woman needed to hear. My friend gave her a hug and said, "Jesus loves you, and I am here for you if you need to talk."

A few weeks later, this lady started coming to our Wednesday night Bible study, and God has really been working on her heart in a lot of different areas.

My friend is a lot like me - not afraid to say what she thinks in any situation. But at that moment, if she had told this woman, "Well, I'm sorry you're hurt, but homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God," this woman would have left and most likely not gone back to any church.

Back to the topic at hand: As Christians, the denominations all need to stop fighting each other and each thinking that we have the "corner" on all that is true and right in the world. What does the world think when they see our blatant hostility toward each other? Is it possible that we could all learn from each other, rather than fight so hard for our particular doctrine?

Our community put on a huge Halloween alternative celebration last year. The Lutheran Church, the Evangelical Free Church, the Catholic Church, and the Assemblies of God (my church) worked together to create a fun and safe alternative for the kids of the community. Over 100 kids heard the gospel message - some for the very first time. We need more examples of Christians working together instead of against each other!!

[e=mv^2]

There is a time to tell the truth and a time to listen to others - to hold our tongue and NOT tell them that they are wrong. Listening does not mean condoning or compromising!


Agreed and this is a good point. It is possible that "we" go overboard and get reactionary.

The woman was in tears because her partner had just decided that their relationship was not right and had left. My friend, of course, very strongly believes that homosexuality is wrong. But at that moment, this was not what this woman needed to hear. My friend gave her a hug and said, "Jesus loves you, and I am here for you if you need to talk."

A situation where someone is in pain and needs compassion is not the time for correction. It is the time for compassion. It is possible that some people have really bad timing.

Back to the topic at hand: As Christians, the denominations all need to stop fighting each other and each thinking that we have the "corner" on all that is true and right in the world. What does the world think when they see our blatant hostility toward each other? Is it possible that we could all learn from each other, rather than fight so hard for our particular doctrine?

One thing that fundamentalists do NOT do is claim to have a corner on christianity. Anyone anywhere can beleve on the name of Jesus and be saved. They do not need anyone or anything in order to do that.

Now correct me if I am wrong but how does the pentecostal church consider someone who does not speak in tongues/exhibit other gifts? Is that not a "required evidence" of salvation?

[twistedsketch]

But where we differ is the area of spiritual gifts - tongues, prophecy, healing, etc. Some say they're for today; others don't. One person I spoke to as a kid (he was a fundamentalist Baptist) said that the practice of tongues is actually demonic.
I disagree with that guy there. Sure, demons can counterfeit tounges, but unlike many non-charismatics I do not believe any of the gifts have ceased. However, the way many charismatic churches handle tounges, healing, and claiming promises does not sit well with me at all. Some of these related doctrines and practices are not Biblical, IMO. Out of the many charismatics that I have talked with, I have only met a handful that give the proper respect to 1 Corinthians 12.

BTW, you'll be happy to know that they were A-G, and most of my other experiences with them were positive.

[kidsminister]

Now correct me if I am wrong but how does the pentecostal church consider someone who does not speak in tongues/exhibit other gifts? Is that not a "required evidence" of salvation?

The Assemblies of God, of which I am a part, most definitely does not consider tongues to be an evidence of salvation.

We believe that it is the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Each believe receives the indwelling of the Holy Spirit upon salvation; and we believe that the Baptism is the release of the Holy Spirit to give us power to witness, as was promised in Acts 1:8, and evidenced on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

Our belief is that it is available to every believer...obviously that you must be a believer in order to receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit...but if you do not believe that the spiritual gifts are manifested today, you are still definitely going to heaven if you believe in Jesus Christ and have a personal relationship with Him!!

I chose the Assemblies of God, not because I think it makes me a superior Christian, but because its statement of faith most closely resembles what I believe, based on what I have read in the Bible.

Thanks for asking, though! I know that is a point of confusion for many, and I'm glad to have cleared it up for you... :)

[TwinCrier]

... In the case where I was discussing Jerry Falwell, I was not criticizing or condemning him, nor was I attacking his character. I was simply bringing up some questions I had about whether or not some of his methods are conducive to his ultimate mission of spreading the gospel.
We can't all have the same method of spreading the gospel. It's more important that a method bring about salvation than approval. Falwell's ministery seems to be doing pretty well to me.

[kidsminister]

We can't all have the same method of spreading the gospel. It's more important that a method bring about salvation than approval. Falwell's ministery seems to be doing pretty well to me.

Twin Crier -

My purpose here is not to start a debate about Jerry Falwell's methods or his ministry. He will answer to God, not me!

The point I was making regarding Falwell was that when I even dared to breathe a word questioning him, when I was among adults having what I thought was a civilized conversation among fellow Christians who simply had differing viewpoints, my mother-in-law completely bit my head off!

This is an example of what I was talking about - and perhaps it reaches further than just fundamentalists and pentecostals.

Why do we spend so much of our time trying to prove that we are right about doctrine, or that one of our leaders is legit and/or effective?

If we truly believe that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God, then why don't we pay more attention to what our mission IS supposed to be..."Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations..."

How many disciples are being made while we debate issues like speaking in tongues, eternal security, Jerry Falwell, or whatever?

Perhaps there is a need for reconciliation and unity among Christians of ALL denominations, so that we can start doing what Christ called us ALL do do!!

[TwinCrier]

Well, that's where the conflict is. Doctrine is very important, at least to fundamentalists. When you criticise someone's religious beliefs they are going to bite your head off. I'm sure you don't just sit by and smile when someone says something derogatory about your denomination or leaders in your church. You get more flies with honey. Probably pointing out what you don't like about another church isn't the best method for making firends.

[kidsminister]

Well, that's where the conflict is. Doctrine is very important, at least to fundamentalists. When you criticise someone's religious beliefs they are going to bite your head off. I'm sure you don't just sit by and smile when someone says something derogatory about your denomination or leaders in your church. You get more flies with honey. Probably pointing out what you don't like about another church isn't the best method for making firends.

1. First of all, I did not question anyone's religious beliefs. As I have mentioned several times in this thread, I was simply asking a question (as part of a conversation that had already been begun by someone else) as to what the general group thought about some of the things Jerry Falwell had said in the media. Just as a point of conversation.

2. It was a mixed group; some fundamentalists and some not. I had mistakenly thought that we could all have a civilized conversation together regarding comments that Rev. Falwell had made to the media, and whether they did more harm than good for the cause of Christ.

3. The person in question was my mother-in-law, someone I had known very well for five years at that point, not someone I was trying to "make friends" with.

4. As I mentioned, I did not "point out what I did or did not like" about someone's church, or their denomination. My in-laws were not even attending a church at that point, and I certainly would not criticize a church I had not attended, anyway.

5. Doctrine is important...I agree wholeheartedly. But is it important enough to make Christians argue and fight?

6. As a matter of fact, I have sat and listened to people criticize my denomination and its leaders. On these forums, no less. I really don't care what people think of them, because I serve Jesus Christ, not man!

8. This particular incident that you are so interested in happened almost seven years ago. My mother-in-law and I have a very good relationship, and my husband and I have worked out many of the doctrinal differences that existed between us and his parents, and they even admit now that we're saved ;) . I was using that as an example of the tension that seems to exist between fundamentalists and other Christians.

9. Finally, I am so OVER the Jerry Falwell conversation! I have never met him personally, and so I cannot say I love him or hate him. He's a person, just like me. A sinner saved by grace. Someone with whom I will spend eternity. He has his calling and ministry; I have mine. He would probably question some of my methods; I would probably question some of his. Doesn't mean I hate him - like I said, I don't even know him.

Have a nice day...God bless you :) .

[jlujan69]

Now correct me if I am wrong but how does the pentecostal church consider someone who does not speak in tongues/exhibit other gifts? Is that not a "required evidence" of salvation?

Absolutely not. The group that claims that tongues is evidence for salvation also teaches it's necessary for salvation. Of course, water baptism is also a requirement, and at least some (perhaps not all) go to the extreme and claim that only through them can you be saved (due to their "proper" understanding of the nature of God, salvation, and baptism). That group is known as Oneness Pentecostals.

[twistedsketch]

Don't Apostolics believe the same thing?

[jlujan69]

Don't Apostolics believe the same thing?

I believe Oneness and Apostolics are virtually one and the same.

[e=mv^2]

Thanks for the correction/clarification.

[HumbleMan]

I've always considered myself a fundie with a pentecostal mindset, because I believe the gifts of the Spirit are still in operation today. But I don't believe the gifts are the centerpoint of our doctrine, as some P/C'ers do. They are just as wrong as the hyper-fundies who would believe the bible more than Christ if He were standing in front of them. Those two camps, or sects, of Christianity seem to have the most friction. I live within five miles of two Baptist "mega-churches", and I have met very few people who attend them that have solid, unbendable problems with the manifestation of the gifts. Most of them, like me, have problems with how they're "used" in some churches.

[Leimeng]

~ Interesting conversation. I find that so called pentacostals are oftentimes even more conservative and legalistic than so called fundamentalists. Both groups are very concerned with following the Word of God and making it a centerpiece of their lives.
~ Personally, I think it is most important to seek Christ in all we do and work to fulfill the great commission. Everything else is extras. (That is probably why there are sections of this forum where only Christians can post and read.)
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

(***Insert Personal One Liner Here***)

[jlujan69]

I've always considered myself a fundie with a pentecostal mindset, because I believe the gifts of the Spirit are still in operation today. But I don't believe the gifts are the centerpoint of our doctrine, as some P/C'ers do. They are just as wrong as the hyper-fundies who would believe the bible more than Christ if He were standing in front of them. Those two camps, or sects, of Christianity seem to have the most friction. I live within five miles of two Baptist "mega-churches", and I have met very few people who attend them that have solid, unbendable problems with the manifestation of the gifts. Most of them, like me, have problems with how they're "used" in some churches.

I find myself thinking along those same lines. At my Pent. church, we believe that any unity (I don't mean the unity that all blood washed believers have in Christ) amongst churches has to be doctrinally, not experientially based. From what I've been told by my pastor, and I'm not sure of the accuracy of this, this (and a couple of other distinctives of ours) has gotten us into some trouble with a few of our fellow Pentecostals and Charismatics.

[plmarquette]

.... for what it is worth brother ....
I was raised a Roman Catholic , attend a Independant Word of Faith Church , and am graduating in August with a Ma. in Theology ....

From what I have seen and heard about " decent & in order " , the often quoted scripture in Corinthians ... hear in part , know in part ... is out of context , as quoted ... when we are with the Lord , the gifts mentioned in Mark 16 and 1 Cor 12 will no longer be necessary , for there is no enemy to fight in heaven ... but here on earth , we would have to invalidate what is written in Malachi & Hebrews ... I Am , I change not , Jesus , the same today , yesterday , & forever ...

yes there was some flesh in Azuza street and with some of the people today ... but what did Jesus say ... check out the fruit of the minister and those ministered to .. is there a change of heart , do their walk and talk agree ... must be of God

what did Gamalaiel say to the san hedrin ... if this is of God and we oppose it ...acts 5 , we place ourselves between God and his ministers ...

just a thought , paul

[jamesMarion]

I do not think a recociliation between fundimentalists and Pentecostals is desirable. I personally think the differences are too great. I must add that I shudder to think what "gospel" was presented to the children at the halloween festival with so many different denominations in charge. This is simply my opinion.

[HumbleMan]

I disagree. I think any reconciliation between bodies of believers is desirable, as long as the central doctrine is still Christ centered. Is my belief that speaking in tongues or healings are still for today affect my salvation? No. Is someone's faith in the inerrancy of the bible going to affect their salvation? No. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ as the resurrected Son of the living God.

[kidsminister]

I do not think a recociliation between fundimentalists and Pentecostals is desirable. I personally think the differences are too great. I must add that I shudder to think what "gospel" was presented to the children at the halloween festival with so many different denominations in charge. This is simply my opinion.

Since I presented the gospel message at the Halloween festival, I can tell you exactly what was said:

1. God loves you and created a wonderful place called heaven, and He desires all of us to be there with Him.

2. But we have all sinned, which is going our way instead of going God's way, and that separates us from God.

3. The good news is that God sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross in our place. But He didn't stay dead - He rose again, and now if we ask him into our lives, we can live forever with Him in heaven someday.

4. When Jesus comes into our lives, he washes away our sins and forgives us.

5. Once we know Him, we need to grow as believers in Jesus - through praying, reading the Bible, and going to church to meet with other people who know Jesus.

That's it - I didn't force them to speak in tongues; the Catholic priest there didn't make the say the Hail Mary, and the Lutherans didn't make them go through confirmation. It was just a presentation of the basic gospel message, which is what it's ultimately all about!!