Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
312
Book Reviews
Simo Frestadius,Pentecostal Rationality: Epistemology and the Theological
Hermeneutics in the Foursquare Tradition, T&T Clark Systematic Pentecostal and
Charismatic Theology (London,UK: T&T Clark, 2020). 228pp. $103.50 hardback.
In light of the impressive global impact of Pentecostal spirituality over the past century, there has understandably been an increasing scholarly focus on Pen- tecostalism. Yet, despite a few notable texts by thinkers such as Amos Yong and James K.A. Smith, the idea of Pentecostal “philosophy” remains underdevel- oped in important ways. Although Simo Frestadius clearly, and rightly, posi- tions his new book, Pentecostal Rationality, as being “primarily as an exercise in philosophical theology, or religious philosophy, rather than in philosophy of religion” (3), he offers a substantial account of how philosophy, as such, is an important archive upon which Pentecostal theologians might draw. Fresta- dius’s basic claim is that epistemology stands as something of a backdrop for being able to engage in productive theological work. The idea is quite sensible. In order to inquire into the beliefs and practices of a specific community, it is important to have a framework for what counts as warrant, what informs deci- sions about evidence, how progress is judged, and where the noetic boundaries of the community lie. In other words, we need to get a sense of Pentecostalism’s “inner logic” as located in specific historical communities (59).
Frestadius breaks his book up into three parts. Part One is devoted to review- ing the existing literature on Pentecostal rationality and developing, in conver- sation with Alasdair MacIntyre, the framework that he will then use as a lens for considering the Elim tradition, specifically, in Part Two. Part Three, is where Frestadius turns to his own constructive account of what he terms “Pentecostal Biblical Pragmatism” as grounded in MacIntyre’s conception of tradition spe- cific rationality and informed by the concrete history of the Elim Foursquare church.
Frestadius opens with a substantive and clear consideration of the episte- mological views of James K.A. Smith, Amos Yong, and L. William Oliverio Jr. Despite articulating important differences among these thinkers, Frestadius concludes that “the main weakness of these three proposals seems to be their ahistoricism, … which means that they are in danger of not fully represent- ing any particular Pentecostal tradition and its implicit epistemology” (45). As such, he takes their positions to be general abstractions (even if plausible and well argued) that stand in relation to Pentecostalism as something of a theological idea, rather than as embodied in the practices of an historical Pen- tecostal community. For this reason, Frestadius turns to Alasdair MacIntyre for a model of how historically located traditions generate specific commu- nity based rationality. Following MacIntyre, Frestadius contends that “there are
Pneuma
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/15700747-04202019
1
Book Reviews
313
no ‘traditionless’ arguments or (substantive) rationalities, and those that claim such neutral status can be shown to be rooted in a specific tradition within a certain historical context” (47). Frestadius offers five ways in which MacIntyre’s account is relevant to Pentecostal rationality. First, MacIntyre offers a way for- ward that overcomes the problems with modernist reductionism, while still avoiding some of the excesses of postmodern relativism (57). Second, his crit- ical realism avoids what Frestadius sees as a worrying anti-realism in Smith’s approach (57). Third, MacIntyre’s focus on tradition and communal rationality accords with the Pentecostal embrace of narrative form (58). Fourth, MacIn- tyre offers room for appropriating the “contextual elements of Yong, Smith, and Oliverio’s epistemologies” (58). And, fifth, MacIntyre provides “fresh method- ological insights” for analyzing Pentecostal traditions (58).
Applying MacIntyre’s approach to the Elim Foursquare tradition allows Frestadius not only to test the theoretical model with reference to an historical case study, but also provides him the occasion to offer what he claims is the “first intellectual history of Elim” (163). If this were all Frestadius accomplished in this book, it would still be a significant contribution to the existing litera- ture. His historical narrative is clear, lucid, and tracks with the various stages of a tradition’s development as outlined by MacIntyre. However, this intellectual history is made philosophically relevant when Frestadius interprets it as yield- ing an epistemological view that he terms, “Pentecostal Biblical Pragmatism.” Its “Pentecostal” identity is grounded in the specifically historical manifesta- tion of Elim’s own affiliation with historical Pentecostalism—and in this way Frestadius’s account seeks to overcome the ahistoricism that he finds in Smith, Yong, and Oliverio. It is “Biblical” in that it remains anchored in the Bible as the evidential source for belief and action. It is “Pragmatic” in that the hermeneu- tic approach to the Bible, and even the lived relationship to Pentecostalism as a broader movement, is offered up to the test of viable application in the life of the community. Of particular note is the way that Frestadius’s positive account is developed in a very productive conversation with the philosophy of WilliamAlston(seechapter9).Frestadiusthenclosesthebookbysummarizing his argument and then offering a few places where he thinks further research remains needed.
This is an excellent book for a variety of reasons, but three are worth high- lighting here. First, Frestadius demonstrates an impressive facility with philo- sophical texts and yet is able to consider them without oversimplifying things or losing his reader in technical jargon. Second, it pushes Pentecostal theology another important step forward in its appreciation of contemporary philoso- phy. Third, while building on the work of Smith, Yong, and Oliverio, Frestadius offers a decisively different way forward that opens new spaces for thought.
Pneuma 42 (2020) 263–323
2
314
Book Reviews
Ultimately, even though I think that there are plenty of places where criticism could be offered (e.g., his account of postmodernism is underdeveloped and tends to give too much room to the critics instead of appreciating the resources offered therein, his reading of Smith as anti-realist is ultimately wide of the mark in important ways, his book does solidly remain a work of theology rather than philosophy, specifically, and so is unlikely to be very compelling to read- ers not already sharing Pentecostal commitments), my objections are offered on the other side of deep appreciation for the direction in which he pushes us all, and the rigor with which he does so.
J. Aaron Simmons
Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina,USA [email protected]
Pneuma 42 (2020) 263–323
3
