Davids Sling The Promise And The Problem Of Pentecostal Theology Today A Response To D. Lyle Dabney

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

| PentecostalTheology.com

               

David’s

Sling:

The Pentecostal

Promise and the Problem

A

Response

Theology Today: to D.

Lyle

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

and

insightful

University pneumatologist

of

Dabney

Seldom,

if

ever,

have I read a review

essay

of such an elaborate

caliber as the one

provided

D.

Lyle Dabney.

Indeed, Dabney’s bution

goes

far

beyond any

review in

offering

a constructive al for the future direction of Pentecostal

the main

pitfalls,

as he sees

them,

but also the

promising prospects

for an ambitious

program

of

crafting

a Pentecostal

Spirit. My

minor

disagreements

by

the

Marquette

contri-

propos- theology.

He not

only

detects

theology

of the

Holy with and

emphases differing

from his

as

insightful analysis

of the

silhouette in

current state of Pentecostal

the

beginning

knows-from an inside

Pentecostal

spirituality,

Pentecostal

I have understood .

my

two

published

dissertations

doctoral

Habilitationsschrift)

on the overall

approach

approach

are not meant so much to criticize

Dabney’s suggestion to offer some further

thought

for our common

enterprise.

Dabney’s essay

contains a

competent,

theology.

His

biographical

of the article accounts for the fact that he not

only

perspective,

but also is

competent

theological attempts

so far.

my

task as a respondent

so to

speak-the

ethos of

to assess the

quality

of

to Dabney’s review to (the

doctoral dissertation and

post-

review of

my

dissertations,

to be the submission of a few comments

of

Dabney’s

rather than as

giving any

kind of

apology

for weaknesses of

my

writ- ings

that he

points

out

(of

which I am the most

cognizant person

of

all). Therefore,

I will first comment

promise

and

problematic

on the nature of these two books

to

give

the context for

my

remarks. Then I will comment on the

of Pentecostal

reflect on the

feasibility

of

constructing

in

light

of

Dabney’s proposal.

The Task and the Limitations

‘

theology

and,

finally,

will a viable Pentecostal

theology

Had I had the chance to write a book

(or two,

in this

case) specif-

147

1

Catholic/Pentecostal

dialogue,

theology

in light of the

ically

on the method and

topics

of Pentecostal

the contents and the directions of

my work would have looked much different. I would have had the free- dom needed not

only

to

analyze

the

dialogue

proposal.

was to write an ecumenical

move toward a constructive assignment

the doctorate and the

postdoctoral used was

systematic analysis,

hermeneutics and revelation categories

that the

dialogue

outcomes but also to

That was not

my

task.

My

analysis (my major

in both degree

is

ecumenics).

The method

for

example,

to do justice

tute- the

question

of

and

the

methodological more constructive published

article.

Consequently,

which means a careful

sorting

out of the main themes and

topics

of the material under

scrutiny

and a pres- entation of those outcomes- and those

only. Therefore,

to my sources

(and

this was the main concern of

my theological lage)

I could not

help

but

approach,

exactly

in terms of those

concepts

offered in the sources. Had I diverted from

this,

I would have been

charged

for

mispresenting

cal data. For better or for worse,

my

mentors

continually kept

me on

narrow road to such an extent that where I offered

those had to be

developed

attempts 1

my

ecumeni-

as

separately

their

when I looked at how Pentecostals defined identity

for the

purposes

of the

dialogue,

I had no other

way

to define it than with the one created

by

the Pentecostal team. I don’t

say

it is the “best”

one,

but that it was the one

placed

on the ecumenical table. I

agree

with

Dabney

that indeed the

question

but

unfortunately,

could

only

introduce in the

light

of

previous treatments,

mining

issue for ecumenics;

Reading

“Authority, Revelation, Dialogue,”

(1999): 89-114; “‘Trinity Filioque

of

identity

is a deter- it was a

topic

that I

without even

1 See, e.g., my “‘Reading

in the Spirit in Which it was Written’: Pentecostal Bible

in Dialogue with Catholic Interpretation,” One in Christ 4 ( 1998): 337-359;

and

Interpretation

in the Roman Catholic – Pentecostal

Pneuma: The Journal

of the Society for

Pentecostal Studies 21, no. 2

as Communion in the

Spirit’: Koinonia, Trinity,

and

in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue,” Pneuma: The Journal

of the Society for

Pentecostal Studies 22:2 (2000): 209-230; “Culture, Contextualization, and Conversion: Missiological Reflections from the Catholic – Pentecostal Dialogue

Asian Journal

of Mission 2, no. 2 (2000): 149-177, and “Church as Charismatic Fellowship: Ecclesiological Reflections from the Pentecostal – Roman Catholic Dialogue,” Journal

of Pentecostal Theology (forthcoming).

(1990 – 1997),”

148

2

attempting

to offer

any

kind of

deeper probing.2 My struggle,

however,

is with

Dabney’s

logical”

definition of ecumenical

ecumenical

assumption

that a “theo- identity

seems to be the decisive

and desired one; this outlook runs

contrary

to much of the most recent

orientation in which there are serious

attempts

to broad- en the

concept

of

identity

to include other facets of Christian tradi-

or

self-understanding.

is the most reliable

of

defining

tions,

such as

spirituality Pentecostal

spirituality identity.

The

complexity strated

by

the fact that

Dabney development

of Pentecostal sociological

What I didn’t understand Pentecostal

resent “what the movement

I still think that

pointer

to Pentecostal

Pentecostal

identity

is demon- himself

appears

to determine the

representative be the most elaborate

identity

in North America in terms of

changes among

Pentecostals and in

society.

at all was

Dabney’s

team’s formulation of Pentecostal

believes.”

tion is of

any

value,

it surely can be

regarded

as a self-reflection

group

of international Pentecostals.

theological

but it just

might

be an indicator of the fact that for Pentecostals

spirituality

takes

primacy.

“awareness” and

“experiences”

ences cannot be mediated Pentecostal

tongues!3

lament that the

identity

does not

rep-

If the

dialogue

team’s defini-

by

a

Now,

it

might

not account of who Pentecostals

are,

their

concern with

if that

language

is not

should!-but rather

reminding

ties in

history,

and

certainly challenge

I also did not

quite grasp

the

meaning

of

Dabney’s

always

mediated

by language.

A the- ologian

of such caliber as

Dabney

knows that indeed

many experi-

by language,

By saying

this I am

not,

of course, undermin- ing

the value of

language-no theologian

us of the self-evident fact that several

types

of

spirituali-

the Pentecostalism of modem

our

way

of

speaking

and of

doing theology.

Summa summa rum with

regard

to the nature of

my

books: rather

than

being

constructive

proposals, analyses

of

existing

ecumenical

times,

they

were meant to be accurate data in

light

of

emerging

Catholic

2 I have attempted it elsewhere: “On Free Churches’ Identity in Ecumenical Context: Pentecostalism as a Case

Study,” Mid-Stream: The Journal of

the Ecumenical Movement (forthcoming).

3 Here I eagerly look forward to the forthcoming monograph by Frank Macchia, who has for years labored theologically in the field of glossolalia and its theological and ecumenical implications.

149

3

and Pentecostal

theologies.

Dabney’s

dia-

While I highly

appreciate

log

with

my

work article and have learned a

great

deal from

it,

in a sense I was

looking

forward to a more substantive

the content of

my analyses.

On the Promise

of Pentecostal Theology

engagement

with

theology

I prefer that was not

my

into the discussion

The order of the

pair

in the title of my article is intentional: rather than

focusing

on the

problem

of

doing

Pentecostal

to highlight the

promise.

Even

though, unfortunately,

task in

writing

these two dissertations under

review,

I dare to venture

opened by Dabney.

To a large extent I share

Dabney’s

too

easily buy

into more traditional

of

all, any major

Christian behind the main

danger against

the

background ments.

Teaching

that Catholic

theologians Rahnerian”

concern that Pentecostals not ways

of

doing theology.

But I

First

tradition has

already

left

that

Dabney

introduces especially

medieval, develop-

faculty, Dabney

well knows finding

themselves in a

“post-

and

certainly

soteri-

So it seems to me that

mind to

para-

are such that no

contempo-

ensnared

very easily.

theology

should be so

whatever

lyze emerging

Pentecostal rary

Pentecostal

theologian Second,

I don’t

“Pentecostal”

is

my

ecumenical

have two critical comments to offer to continue the discussion.

theological

of

theologizing

of

historical,

as he is in a Catholic

themselves,

era,

have fashioned their

theologies,

ologies,

with

dynamic, spirited approaches.

“dark forces” there are in view in

Dabney’s

theologizing

will become

think that Pentecostal

that it becomes a theology on its own terms.

Perhaps

it

bias,4 but I strongly believe

that Pentecostalism should not

major

so much on

crafting

its own

theological

almost

Christian

church)

but rather should

join

hands with other

theological traditions to work toward a more

comprehensive,

ogy (to

add to the

existing

tive

theological

method.

In

my judgment,

the

promise

of Pentecostal

hopeless

methodol- divisiveness

of the

contextually

sensi-

theology

does not lie

4 In addition to having been trained academically in ecumenics and having been

in ecumenical endeavors, I also serve as Docent of ‘ Ecumenics at

involved heavily the University of Helsinki.

150

4

in

contributing

Pentecostal ological approaches

art of its own but rather

on God

of the- baptizing

in dreaming of a future distinctive

theological

to the common Christian cause of

reflecting and God’s world in

light

of revelation. And

similarly,

the

problem

of

theology

is neither to be found in its

appropriation

created

by others,

nor in an uncritical

of those methods without discernment. It is as real a danger, howev- er,

to overlook those resources the Christian

struggle

to understand the

spiritual

wonders

so

long

in its continual wrought by

the

sovereign Spirit.

Church has utilized for

idea of

placing

the

Spirit

in

This takes me to

assessing Dabney’s the forefront of

theological enterprise.

Should

Pneumatology

Be

Primary

I came to know

Dabney’s

was

preparing

just

for Pentecostal have concerns,

however,

in a

Theological

Method?

Die Kenosis des Geistes.5

caught my

attention while I

I

is

vitally important

not

theology today.7

I

should

play program

of

Pentecostalism,

let

to the

Spirit

to the detri-

name before

meeting

him in person

by reading

his

published

doctoral

dissertation,

That

study,

written under J.

Moltmann,

to write the

sequel

to

my

own doctoral dissertation.6 fully agree

with

Dabney

that

pneumatology

theology

but for all Christian

about whether

pneumatology

such a

leading

role in the

theological

alone that of other traditions. I am sure that

Dabney

doesn’t want his article to be read as

giving

undue

emphasis

but I fear that this

might

be the case with the approach

of the

theology

of the third article. While as a fully trinitar-

I would be the last one to

champion

role of the

Spirit,

I believe that neither in the biblical tra-

nor in the

history

of

theology

has the

Spirit

been

given

the

ment of

Christology,

ian

theologian secondary jectory

Heiligen

Ecclesiology

a filioque-type

of

5

With the subtitle Kontiniiitdt zwischen Sch6pfiing und

Erläsung

im Werk des

Geistes (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997).

6

For an

appraisal

and

appreciation, see, e.g., my

“Towards a

Theology

and

of the Spirit: Marquette University’s 1998 Symposium, ‘An Advent of the

Spirit:

Orientations in Pneumatology,”‘ Journal

of Pentecostal Theology

14 ( 1999): 65-80.

7

See further

my “Pneumatology

as a New Ecumenical ‘Model’,” Ecumenical Trends 27 (October 1998): 10-16; “The Ecumenical Potential of Pneumatology,”

no. 1 ( 1999): 121-145.

Gregorianum 80,

151

5

am sure-focus

I

first seat. In that sense, I am drawn to the

Pentecostal-Spirit-led,

on Jesus Christ as the center of the

(fivefold

or four- fold) Gospel.

Even

though

this basic

paradigm

conscious

theological way

to a balanced

reflection,

did not

emerge

out of it is a precious

methodological gate-

and

pneumatology

are not

theology. Christology

only

related but also interwoven in

that,

whatever Christ

is,

he is in the

Spirit:

Jesus Christ as the

Savior, Healer, Sanctifier,

King.

And

conversely,

whatever

ically “pneumatic

Baptizer,

and the

Spirit

effects in the believer’s

baptism,

or

eschatological

for a specif-

life,

be it salvation,

healing, sanctification,

hope,

it is the work of the

Lord,

Jesus Christ.8

A

corollary

issue has to do with how

Dabney prefers

the

starting point

of hermeneutics and Bible

reading.

His

sympathies

hermeneutics” offered

by

the

Baptist

Charismatic team member Howard Ervin

are,

I fear,

misguided.

here,

and I don’t think that is the

way

the

Spirit

should be

into the discussion of

understanding

There are several

and

appropriating

the it is highly susceptible in that it adds

problems

introduced

Word. First of

all,

ecumenically to the endless

fragmentation proliferating

the hermeneutical approach

to Bible

reading.

and division of the church. Rather than

Furthermore, “spiritual exegesis”

field,

we

badly

need a consensual

the

approach

of

pneumatic

a more accurate definition.

of the ancient

Second,

hermeneutics is abstract and defies

it shares the

dangers

of the

subjectivism

(revived

in modern times

by

the Catholic

Ignace de la Potterie and

others).

.

Unfortunately,

gians

have confused this

subjective-privatistic fallacy

with the

as-yet

undefined

approach

of

“postmodern is a real

compatibility

some Pentecostal theolo-

hermeneutics” and believe there

between these two

approaches.9 This

said,

one of the

many

reasons to

praise Dabney’s

that,

besides provocative

creative

ingenuity

be

continued,

Christian

theology

at

large.

enough

to stimulate a heated discussion. has done a great service to the Pentecostal

tioning

the

existing theological approaches.

not

only

for Pentecostals’

article is and

theological pregnancy,

it is

Lyle Dabney

theological guild by ques-

This discussion should

sake,

but also for the sake of

8 The New Testament, of course, expresses this in presenting the Christ not only as the giver of the Spirit but also as the receiver.

9 See also

my

“Pentecostal Hermeneutics in the

Making:

On the

Way

from Fundamentalism to

Postmodernism,”

Journal

of

the

E’uropean

Pentecostal

Association 18 ( 1998): 76-115.

Theological

152

6