Pentecostal emotionalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter silverwings_88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

silverwings_88

Guest
Now having pentecostal friends, and before, I’ve took to pentecostal worship before, and I tend to get the feeling that Pentacostalism’s greatest key to conversion is alot of emotionalism. They have the music, and the large atmosphere of their churches for the large ambience. Their speakers are charismatic, and some of them believe and say thigns such as, “I know in my heart,” or "I can feel it’s Truth’ or something along those lines. Anyways is there a biblical verse or more that warns us against such?

Has anyone else noticed this as well?
 
40.png
silverwings_88:
Now having pentecostal friends, and before, I’ve took to pentecostal worship before, and I tend to get the feeling that Pentacostalism’s greatest key to conversion is alot of emotionalism. …Has anyone else noticed this as well?
Yup–Henri Nouwen wrote a whole book on it (Intimacy). He speaks of the inevitable dissillusionment experienced especially by college students after such a “conversion” when they no longer feel the emotional high…
 
I have some Pentecostal friends, and I do love them even if I do disagree with them on many important theological doctrines. My experince with them is good and bad. Many of them love the Lord with all their soul and heart. And many of them get caught up in the emotional aspect of “church” and think that the Holy Spirit is not in the service unless it is a knock down drag out hip hop service with everyone getting jiggy wit it. I never did ever get into all that, I never was one to cut the rug even in a bar back in my wild days.

But most Pentecostals reject the Trinity and are “Jesus only.” That is the single most road block for me. Also unfortunatly many of them are very anti-catholic mainly because they hate what they think is the Catholic Church, much like many people do. If they only saw how the early Church that they think they know, was and has always been Catholic, they just might see the light. Many of them are absorbed with the book of Acts and don’t really get past it to the early Church Fathers to see that the Catholic Church has its roots that go all the way back to the Early Church, the one that they claim to love so much.
 
40.png
copland:
But most Pentecostals reject the Trinity and are “Jesus only.” That is the single most road block for me. Also unfortunatly many of them are very anti-catholic mainly because they hate what they think is the Catholic Church, much like many people do. If they only saw how the early Church that they think they know, was and has always been Catholic, they just might see the light. Many of them are absorbed with the book of Acts and don’t really get past it to the early Church Fathers to see that the Catholic Church has its roots that go all the way back to the Early Church, the one that they claim to love so much.
Wow… I think your friend is a Oneness Pentecostal. Normal pentecostals believe in the Trinity, whilst oneness pentecostalism is not trinitarian and considered a ‘cult.’ Then again… correct me if I’m wrong!

I wonder about that because my pentecostal friend and her church assembly confess the trinity as their doctrine.

I love her and her family so much, but the pentecostal aspect… It scares me sometimes. Even I as a Charismatic Catholic, it is rather odd that I would find them stranger!

Anyways, is there anything in the bible that can console me against such (which is why I posted under scripture)?
 
There is nothing wrong with having an emotional dimension to your faith per se. I too am a “Charismatic Catholic”. While my faith is not dependent upon highly emotional experiences – and I have had very few of them in my life – God has used those experiences to reinvigorate my faith. The error would be in thinking that such experiences were the substance of my relationship with God rather than something that can sometimes accompany my relationship with Him. That error would be similar to a couple in love confusing the feelings that sometimes accompany love with love itself.
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
There is nothing wrong with having an emotional dimension to your faith per se. I too am a “Charismatic Catholic”. While my faith is not dependent upon highly emotional experiences – and I have had very few of them in my life – God has used those experiences to reinvigorate my faith. The error would be in thinking that such experiences were the substance of my relationship with God rather than something that can sometimes accompany my relationship with Him. That error would be similar to a couple in love confusing the feelings that sometimes accompany love with love itself.
Likewise, I am a closet Catholic Charismatic. I have had some authentic experiences of grace through the Holy Spirit, and these have been verified by my priests and Spiritual Directors. (Please note I am not a visionary, that is not the nature of my experiences).

What I am about to relate has come from an elderly friend of mine. She went along to one of these Pentecostal churches to have a look. One group prayed over her and nothing happened. She was sent to a second, then a third group and nothing happened. Then she caught on that they were expecting her to speak in tongues to authenticate her experience. She remembered a prayer that she had been taught in Latin. Needless to say they shouted Alleluia as though she had a genuine experience because they did not understand that she spoke in Latin.

This is a part of the problem with Pentecostals for they teach that you must be able to speak in tongues in order to be Christian, and if you fail the test of speaking in tongues… in that case it leaves the way open for people to think that they are praying in tongues to the Lord, when it is auto suggestion, or the desire to have this experience.

On the other hand, what I have experienced is very personal, yet on a couple of occasions it was very public, to the point that on one particular occasion the priest who had been Presider and had witnessed the experience was able to tell me when I asked about it, that I had received the Grace of Jubiliation. He said that he had seen this happen on a previous occasion when a young bride received the same gift of the Holy Spirit. My experience happened in 1999. Since then I have had other experiences, and at least two of them have been of a similar nature, but not as “heady” as that first experience. I always seek advice about these things.

What happens in the case of the Pentecostal experience is that there is an expectation that something must happen. Then there is the aspect of music. As I said I am closet Charismatic. I find my body swaying to the music, and quite often I lift up my hands. In fact I even do so when we are singing the Gospel acclamation on a Sunday morning, especially when the words are simply: Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia … for my hands quite naturally become raised because I am praising God. The same happens with the Gloria and a few of the other hymns. I like the modern hymns and I welcome the contribution that has been made by the charismatic stream of Christianity.

Whilst I will raise my hands, this is not the same as those Pentecostals (AOG) who are constantly waving their arms in the air as they are getting a high from what is nothing more than a rock band.

MaggieOH
 
posted by MaggieOH

As I said I am closet Charismatic. I find my body swaying to the music, and quite often I lift up my hands. In fact I even do so when we are singing the Gospel acclamation on a Sunday morning, especially when the words are simply: Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia … for my hands quite naturally become raised because I am praising God. The same happens with the Gloria and a few of the other hymns. I like the modern hymns and I welcome the contribution that has been made by the charismatic stream of Christianity.
] smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_13_22.gifsmileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_2_24.gifpraise His Holy Name!
 
**
Does motion and commotion make you holy ?

No. Does the lack of it make you holy?
 
tom.wineman said:
Does motion and commotion make you holy ?

Are you referring to the behaviour of those involved with the Toronto blessing or are you referring to what I have described?

No one said anything about this making you holy. The only thing that makes a person holy is the personal demeanor when being drawn to God. Waving one’s hands about, which is common amongst the Pentes (I met a girl who calls herself a Pente) is more the “excitement” thing. It may or may not lift a person in the spirit.

I would never point to myself as being “holy” since I am very much a sinner, but the graces received from those experiences have helped me to retain my faith during some desert experiences that followed them.

MaggieOH
 
Having been a member of the Assembly of God, I can well remember the ever present emotionalism that prevailed in their services. I also can testify that there is almost no discipline among them and they they would routinely speak and pray in tongues aloud with total disregard for the scriptural injunctions that command that all such be interpreted or else kept below earshot for the edification of the church. Such disorder routinely reigned that one would have indeed surmised that the place was full of religious nuts as opposed to the Spirit of God. I often spoke to others about this but never got anywhere with it even when I was elected a deacon in that church.

Emotionalism is pretty much the key to their system of worship and the common comment is something to the effect that “I could just FEEL the Spirit moving there.”

I have to agree with our friends from Campus Crusade for Christ in their tract "The Four Spiritual Laws " which ends with a wise bit of counsel that reminds new converts to rely on their faith and the promises of God and not their feelings which can betray them.
see that here…greatcom.org/laws/english/received.htm

Naturally I do not totally agree with all their teachings, but their point about emotionalism is wise and well taken I think.
Pax vobiscum,
 
tom.wineman said:
Does motion and commotion make you holy ?

Kneeling, too, is a form of motion, and it does not make one holy either. Yet it is a very good thing to do at appropriate times, for we pray and worship God not only with our hearts but with our bodies as well.

Not only do our actions serve as an external manifestation of our interior disposition, they can in some ways help to affect our internal disposition.
 
Hi all. I suppose you could call me a ‘Practicing Pentecostal’. I attend a church in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, Australia.

A few thoughts:

Firstly, you can’t think of ‘Pentecostalism’ in the same way as you can think of ‘Presbyterianism’ or ‘Roman Catholicism’. ‘Pentecostal’ does not refer to a single church body, or even a unified body of doctrine, but rather a certain style of church, emphasising the outward expression of the Holy Spirit including glossalalia, prophesy, and the miraculous, and which does not affiliate itself with a more formal church structure. Pentecostal churches sometimes do form denominational bodies proper (most famously the Assemblies of God), but sometimes don’t, more commonly forming smaller church movements. So when we say something like ‘Pentecostals believe X’ we generally mean ‘Pentecostals tend to believe X’.

As far as belief in the Trinity goes, I’m yet to bump into ‘Oneness Pentecostalism’ which denies the Trinity. The AoG statement of Faith, (the AoG are the biggest unified body of Pentecostals) ag.org/top/beliefs/truths_condensed.cfm clearly hold to Trinitarianism, as does my own church:
c3iglobal.org/ (check out the ‘who we are’ section).

About glossolalia, ‘Praying in Tounges’ - I have heard that some churches (maybe even the AoG) at one stage did advocate glossolalia as a nescessary sign of one’s salvation. If so, they’ve changed their position: ‘WE BELIEVE…the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a Special Experience Following Salvation’
‘Baptism in the Spirit’ is something that’s supposed to happen as a separate event that comes after salvation. Glossolalia is supposed to be a sign of Spirit baptism, not salvation.

Now, emotionalism. I actually have no problem with big, flashy, high-production worship services. The objection is that such things could be manipulative, that they almost force certain emotions on people. To my mind, that’s the whole point. Because the illusion, the falsehood, is not in the moment of rapture that the music and the atmosphere encourage, the illusion is in the everyday humdrum that makes us forget that we have every reason to rejoice. When I go to church, one of the things I want is to be reminded, not only by words but by music and fellowship, and sometimes by dance and drama and performance that God is awesome and loving and good and that things are going to be better than anything I can imagine.

Of course, after years in the church, I can easily float through such things without engaging at all - worship still requires an act of will.

The real problem with Pentecostals, as a rule, is that we’ve got a horrible anti-intelectual streak. The error is not the we emphasise feeling and emotion, but that we denigrate good doctrine. I do bump into unitarian pentecostals, but in thouroughly trinitarian churches! The problem often is that not enough is done to teach the essential doctrines of the faith. This unfortunately goes hand-in-hand with a frequent silliness displayed in Pentecostal churches, hence the stereotypes.
 
posted by BenK
The real problem with Pentecostals, as a rule, is that we’ve got a horrible anti-intelectual streak. The error is not the we emphasise feeling and emotion, but that we denigrate good doctrine. I do bump into unitarian pentecostals, but in thouroughly trinitarian churches! The problem often is that not enough is done to teach the essential doctrines of the faith. This unfortunately goes hand-in-hand with a frequent silliness displayed in Pentecostal churches, hence the stereotypes.
As a former AoG, now a revert to the Catholic faith, that is exactly what I found to be so wrong. The group I was in said they interpreted the Bible very literally. God said it, He meant it. Yet when we would study things like John 60, suddenly it was all the context. The earth is only 6,000 years old because God said it, but communion is only a symbol. (Couldn’t the creation story be a symbol too? NO!) The Bible says go and forgive (John 20:23) but he meant go and teach forgiveness.

I got tired of literal unless it disagrees with our interpretation.

God Bless,
Maria
 
40.png
BenK:
About glossolalia, ‘Praying in Tounges’ - I have heard that some churches (maybe even the AoG) at one stage did advocate glossolalia as a nescessary sign of one’s salvation. If so, they’ve changed their position: ‘WE BELIEVE…the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a Special Experience Following Salvation’
‘Baptism in the Spirit’ is something that’s supposed to happen as a separate event that comes after salvation. Glossolalia is supposed to be a sign of Spirit baptism, not salvation.
The argument I have heard is that *glossolalia *is the sign of Spirit baptism. As well, everyone who is saved is/will be baptized in the Spirit; thus, everyone who is saved will at some point speak in tongues.

Working backwards: If you never speak in tongues, that means that you don’t have the baptism of the Spirit, which means that you aren’t saved.

I, of course, strongly disagree with that idea.
 
The group I was in said they interpreted the Bible very literally. God said it, He meant it. Yet when we would study things like John 60, suddenly it was all the context.
Heh, I think it’s very naive of anyone to assert an interpretation of the bible without reference to context.
The argument I have heard is that *glossolalia *is the sign of Spirit baptism. As well, everyone who is saved is/will be baptized in the Spirit; thus, everyone who is saved will at some point speak in tongues.
This is from the AoG website:

ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_hs/baptmhs_02_savedwithout.cfm
Can a person receive eternal life in heaven without the baptism in the Holy Spirit? If so, why should we be baptized in the Spirit?
Code:
           Receiving eternal life does not depend on being baptized in the                Holy Spirit; for salvation is by grace through faith alone (Habakkuk                2:4; John 6:28, 29; Galatians 3:6; 5:6; Ephesians 2:8). It is a                gift purchased for us by Christ when He was crucified. All we have                to do is accept the gift. Just as the repentant thief on the cross                next to Jesus was assured of entering paradise that very day we                too are assured a place in heaven with the Father if we believe                in Jesus Christ. It is most unfortunate that some have said, "Unless                you have spoken in tongues you will not go to heaven." This is not                true. It is contrary to the Scriptures.
 
The meaning of the word tongues as used in the book of Acts is languages. Pentecostals don’t get this. Why would the Holy Spirit give 120 people an ability to go preach to other nations if the people of the other nations couldn’t understand a word that was said?
Common sense.
Had Peter and Paul traveled about babbling nonsense, who in the world (literally!) would have converted to Christianity???
 
I live in south Georgia and have been to several Pentacostal/Assemblies of God/Full Gospel services over the years.

There is a great deal of emotionalism, which can be a transient high.

I went with a Pentacostal friend to visit a mutual friend in the hospital recently, and the three of us prayed together inside the hospital room for our ailing friend’s recovery. After our prayer, my Pentacostal friend exclaimed to me, "Can’t you just FEEL the overwhelming presence of God here in the room!? Can’t you just FEEL God’s tremendous, overwhelming healing presence right here in the room??

I was tempted to just say “yes” and let it go, but I told my friend that regardless of the FEELING, I KNEW that Jesus was present in the room because He stated that whenever two or more are gathered in His name, He is present. I also stated that I had actually received Jesus in the Sacrament of Communion two days earlier, so I knew of His presence and reality.

I hope that I reflected Catholic teaching in my response.

I think that **if **Pentacostals, and other Protestants, believed in the Real Presence at Communion, then there would not be so much dependence on the “FEELING” of Jesus in the Church or in a room where prayer is being said. If they believed in the Real Presence as Catholics do, then they would receive Jesus at Communion and not have to constantly exclaim the “FEELING” in the Church or in a room where prayer is being said.

Likewise, I think because Catholics receive the Real Presence at Communion, there is much, much less need to search for the “FEELING” of Jesus in Church or in a room where prayer is being said.Catholics prayerfully receive Jesus at Communion, and so there is much less need to exclaim that Jesus is “felt” inside of a room.
 
A little behind the curve here, but I felt this might be helpful to those looking to put emotional Pentecostalism in its place. Here are some resources:

First: Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper is an excellent book on the nature of the Mass and its connection to revelation. However, it also makes great points to why early Christian worship was not purely romantic and charismatic. There was order an form to the Christian Divine Liturgy even from the first. Yet there are also Biblical backups to this theory.

One of the oddest ways we can see this is in 1 Corinthians 14:26-40. Now, this is usually taken out of context by femenists to show that Paul was a mysoginist. But, that is because they read the text too narrowly. We must remember that Pauline letters are usually answers to questions or quick reminders in the face of problems. Here, we see that Paul wants order and flow to the Mass. As he says ‘two or three prophets should speak, and the others discern’ and then, a little further on (in the most powerful verse against pure emotionalism in religion) ‘Indeed, the spirits of prophets are under the prophets’ control, seince he is not the God of disorder but of peace.’ Seems a pretty strong condemnation of rapant emotionalism to me.

Finally, we have the old Lewisian argument. Emotionalism is a very personal thing. And indeed personal, private experiences of God are very important to the individual believer, but the experience of the entire church is needed. To paraphrase Lewis, “Your individial experience is like a beach you walk on. The experience of the church is like a map of the beach. You may have a more personal experience with your part of the beach, but you do not see it all. The map is needed when you must go beyond your individual limitations and boundaries.” (That can be found in Mere Christianity.)

And of course, there are philosophical arguments against it. If individual emotion is all that matters, what then happens if two pray for different things? God is good, and he will do what is best, but doesn’t that mean that there is more going on that just the individual believer’s emotional understanding of God? Yes, it does. There is more going on. God is a personal God, but he is also a corporate God. He is the head CEO of an earthly institution known as the Church of the Saints.
 
40.png
MariaG:
As a former AoG, now a revert to the Catholic faith, that is exactly what I found to be so wrong. The group I was in said they interpreted the Bible very literally. God said it, He meant it. Yet when we would study things like John 60, suddenly it was all the context. The earth is only 6,000 years old because God said it, but communion is only a symbol. (Couldn’t the creation story be a symbol too? NO!) The Bible says go and forgive (John 20:23) but he meant go and teach forgiveness.

I got tired of literal unless it disagrees with our interpretation.
As a current AofG, I must agree. There is a tendency to ‘pick and choose’ those Scriptures that are to be interpreted literally. Why not interpret Matt 16:13-20 literally?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top