Related articles and links |  1 of 7

Though our movement has aided millions in their search for spiritual health, latent within her genius are characteristics that make her especially vulnerable to the dangers of anti-intellectualism. Of course, one scant article cannot deal adequately with each of these in depth; this task would command a volume of its own. Because some will insist on misunderstanding the aim of this piece, let me say it one more time: I do not view these factors as fundamentally anti-intellectual. Rather, they are only prone to being misjudged in relationship to the life of the mind; especially when not balanced out by other important building blocks, they stunt one's desire and/or ability to use his or her intellect for the advancement of the kingdom and the glory of God.

FULL GOSPEL, FRACTURED MINDS?: A Call to Use God's Gift of the Intellect Rick M. Nañez, Zondervan, 224 pp.; $18.99

(1) Many of the early Pentecostal leaders lacked education. This, of course, did not disqualify them from laboring for the Master. It did, however, set the standard for those who became their followers, for seldom will a student rise above his or her tutor. Several early Pentecostal leaders spoke openly of their disdain for education. It shouldn't come as a surprise to us that most of these had little formal education themselves. It seems to be our nature (no matter how saintly we are) to place little value on what we do not possess.

What's more, the schools that were deemed "colleges," which some of these attended, were frequently little more than tiny institutions that offered courses only up to secondary school level. Sometimes the curriculum was merely a loosely-knit program of indoctrination with proof texts. Pentecostal educator William Menzies states that one reason for the lack of general educational was the fact that these schools were more interested in "spiritual development rather than academic excellence."

Historian Edith Blumhofer informs us that in the 1930s and 1940s, preparation for ministry through Bible school training was still held as suspect among many Full Gospel people. In addition, a high percentage of those who enrolled in Bible institutes "had not completed a high school education, and some had never begun one." As if this combination wasn't challenging enough within itself, there were problems finding educated Pentecostals to teach at the schools. Even as late as 1944 (43 years after Topeka's outpouring), the professors at our best Pentecostal colleges possessed only an average of 3.9 years of post-high school education, and many of these had been schooled in institutes much like the ones they now taught in.

Again, I'm not suggesting that institutional higher education necessarily makes or breaks one's ministry. Nor am I signifying that attending establishments of higher learning deems one "pro-intellectual." It is common to find university students, and even professors, who are pro-education (perhaps "pro-information" is a better term), yet anti-intellectual (though I think it's impossible to find a person who is anti-education, yet pro-intellectual). So, not only were many of our early leaders anti-educational, they were also uneducated. This, in turn, shaped our movement in its embryonic years, steering it away from a deep respect for the life of the mind in general. The idea of educating the whole person was not foreign to the early Pentecostal movement but was severely dwarfed, and thus we still experience some of its influences today.

(2) Some of the doctrines adhered to by Full Gospel believers afford special opportunity for the promotion of anti-intellectualism. Here is a list of some beliefs that fall into this category: (a) the baptism of the Holy Spirit; (b) the verbal gifts; (c) the Rapture; (d) sanctification; and (e) altar theology. At first glance, these tenets may seem far removed from the issue at hand. With patience, I hope the reader will come to see my point.

next page... |  1 of 7

March (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50