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
3
1998 PRESIDENTIAL
ADDRESS
Pentecostal
Theology
Century
in the
Twenty-First
John
Christopher
Thomas
.
Pentecostalism is a relatively recent
phenomenon
in comparison to its Christian
siblings, given
that its formal
origins only go
back about a hundred
years. By any
means of calculation it continues to grow
very rapidly
in many places around the
globe
and accounts for a not
insignif- icant
percentage
of the world’s Christians. In a gathering of scholars who
specialize
in Pentecostal
studies,
it is not
necessary
to rehearse the many
sources that have exerted influence
upon
the tradition’s
identity and
thought. Although
there are differences of
opinion
on various points among many
of those
working
on these issues of Pentecostal identity,
there
appears
to be an
emerging
consensus that
despite
the enormous
cultural, ethnic, linguistic,
and
theological diversity
of those who make
up
the movement, certain
defining
characteristics
may
be identified that
many
in Pentecostalism share.
If it is true that Pentecostalism is still in its adolescence as a move- ment,1 with the many resulting
conflicts that such a stage of maturation brings,
then one would think that the tradition will at some
point
in the not-too-distant future enter its
period
of adulthood.
Normally
adult- hood
brings
with it a growing sense of one’s own
identity
and raison d’etre,
an
independence,
and a host of
–
responsibilities, especially
with regard
to various
dependents
some
daughters
and
sons,
others inher- ited. The nature and
significance
of Pentecostal
theology
in the twen- ty-first century
will be determined in
large part by
how the movement makes the transition from adolescence to adulthood.
In the editorial of the
inaugural
issue of the Journal
of Pentecostal Theology,
the
history
of Pentecostal
scholarship
was sketched in terms
lIn support of this analysis, see the Society of Pentecostal Theology presidential address of Cheryl Bridges Johns, The Adolescence of Pentecostalism: In Search of a Legitimate
Sectarian Identity,” PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 17 ( spring 1995): 3-17.
1
4
of three distinct
phases.
First there came a generation of Pentecostal scholars who
graduate theological programs
in an environment which did completed not nor even
encourage
perceive the viability of interaction between Pentecostal faith and critical
theological scholarship.2
One could
perhaps say
that these scholars received their
theologi- cal
training despite being
Pentecostal. The most one could do in that environment was to undertake research on a topic or issue of some rel- evance to the tradition. But more times than not, even this
luxury
was denied with the
unspoken suspicion
that the individual scholar in ques- tion could not be
sufficiently objective.
A second generation of Pentecostal scholars found opportunity for the first time to bring their Pentecostalism to bear upon their graduate research, but only
in the area of descriptive historical study or social scientific analysis of the Pentecostal movement.3 3
One of the best known and earliest such
study
was that of Vinson Synan
on the
history
of the Holiness-Pentecostal movement in the United States.4 But a variety of such works could be cited here as well.
Now Pentecostalism is witnessing the rise of a third generation of
cal
theologi-
scholarship, in which the distinctives of Pentecostal faith are critical informing
theological research across the entire range of theological subdisci-
plines.5
Among
the earliest such
attempts
were Ronald
Kydd’s
Charismatic Gifts in the Early
Church,6 Roger
Stronstad’s The Charismatic Theology of
St. Luke,7 and Harold Hunter’s
Spirit Baptism:
A Pentecostal Alternative.8 Now,
despite
the best efforts of William Faupel,
and Peter Hocken before
him,
it is difficult to keep up with the many
theses and dissertations that either address Pentecostal
topics
or take a Pentecostal
approach
to a given
topic.
If the assessment of that
inaugural
editorial was
anywhere
near the mark,
the last few
years
have
perhaps
witnessed the
emergence
of still
2Rickie D. Moore, John Christopher Thomas, Steven J. Land, “Editorial,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology
1 (October 1992): 3.
3Moore, Thomas, and Land, “Editorial,” 3.
4Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States (Grand Rapids,
MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971).
Moore, Thomas, and Land, “Editorial,” 3-4.
6Ronald A. N.
Kydd,
Charismatic
Gifts in the Early
Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984).
7Roger
Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984).
8Harold D. Hunter, Spirit Baptism: A Pentecostal Alternative (Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, 1983).
2
5
another
generation
of Pentecostal
theological scholarship.
Given the growing
numbers of Pentecostals
pursuing graduate theological
train- ing,
the
landscape
at many seminaries is changing, if not
always
on the faculties,
at least in a new freedom with
regard
to research
options
for Pentecostal research students. This
boomers, busters,
and Xers
–
generation
–
which includes
not
only
benefits from the
demographic shift that has resulted in Pentecostals
being
the
largest
student con- stituency
at
many
institutions,
but also from the
paradigm
shift from modernity
to postmodemity, as a variety of
methodologies
and
partici- pants
are
finding
a place at the academic table. In
addition,
this fourth generation
has the
opportunity
to
read, assess,
and
critique
academic works
by
Pentecostal
scholars,
an
opportunity largely impossible just
a few short
years ago. Being
able to
pursue theological training
in con- structive Pentecostal contexts, to learn from the
attempts
of those who have ventured into the academic
study
of Pentecostal
theology,
and to enter into
dialogue
with a
growing
number of interested
outsiders, many
members of this most recent
generation
are
exhibiting
a confi- dence that
suggests
the
inferiority complex
of
previous generations
is beginning
to disappear and with it the
courage
to construct Pentecostal theological paradigms
from the
ground up
is beginning to emerge,
par- adigms
that are faithful to the ethos and worldview of the
tradition, rather than
ill-fitting paradigms
that often are
greater
hindrances than helps
in the articulation of a Pentecostal
theology.
It is, of course, true that this
generation
faces a variety of
dangers, some from outside, others from inside the tradition.
Although
wel- comed for their numbers, enthusiasm, and
vigor,
Pentecostals continue to receive mixed
signals
from the
academy. Despite
numerous recent initiatives,
with rare
exceptions, funding agencies
have still not demon- strated a willingness to allow Pentecostal scholars a piece of the fund- ing pie. Despite
the official denials and
explanations,
inadvertent com- ments from “blind reviewers” and unofficial comments from
sympa- thetic
development
officers reveal the existence of
surprisingly deep- seated
prejudices.
Even the American
Academy
of Religion, the
orga- nization that seems to have a tent
big enough
for
everyone, apparently does not believe that Pentecostals can be trusted with their own section or
group, despite
the fact that their
evangelical counterparts
seem to have
gotten
on
quite
well for a number of
years
now.
Simply put,
the academy
at large, like
evangelical
associations before
it, wants to make a place
officially
for this
large demographic group,
but is still reluctant to
empower
or entrust with
any
sort of
ongoing leadership
roles those who continue to be
openly
identified as Pentecostal.
Thus,
while
many in this fourth
generation
have the
opportunity
to interact with the best of
scholarship
in a variety of
places,
the
“glass ceiling”
continues to be
.
.
3
6
a factor in
everything
from
employment
to research
funding.
It remains to be seen whether this
generation
will have the
courage
to remain Pentecostal
despite
the concrete liabilities such a decision entails.
This fourth
generation
also faces a
variety
of
dangers
from inside the
tradition, dangers
that while
quite
different are no less real. Specifically,
this
generation
faces the twin
dangers
of
suspicion
and jealousy
from those inside the tradition. Several
things
account for this situation. First,
opportunity
to
study
at
leading
centers for biblical and
theological inquiry
around the world has been cause for concern on the part
of those who have been
guardians
of the Pentecostal
theological tradition. Sometimes this
suspicion
is the result of
anxiety
about new methodologies
or fears about contamination from “liberal
theology.” Unfortunately,
this fear is
compounded by
the fact that within certain parts
of our movement, the tradition’s
theological positions
have become fossilized so that much more effort is
spent rehearsing long held
opinions
than
sharing
the work of constructive Pentecostal theol- ogy.
Efforts to rethink certain issues, even when the
rethinking
results in
stronger,
more
articulate,
and better nuanced
understandings
of extraordinarily important
doctrines,
often are
simply ignored
if not met with criticism for
complicating
the issue.
In addition to
suspicion,
this and other
generations
face the
danger of jealousy. Part of the
problem
here results from the
competitive spir- it that has often been the hallmark not
only
of Pentecostal educational institutions but also of denominations within the tradition. It is this jealousy
that so often makes it difficult to
dialogue
or
support
one another for fear of
losing
one’s own
place.
What has often been absent in these situations is a leadership or, to use more biblical
terminology, an
eldership
that seeks to nurture and
empower
those whom the Lord is
raising up
rather than
protecting professional
and ministerial turf. Sadly,
these obstacles combine in
ways
that result in the loss of
many of the tradition’s best,
brightest,
and most dedicated individuals. In order to avoid the
repetition
of such a tragic situation with
yet
another generation,
leaders within the tradition must be intentional about their role as cultivators of those who are
coming
on the scene.
Thus,
most of the
responsibility
lies with those of us entrusted with
leadership roles. At the same
time,
those within this new
generation
can con- tribute to the
process
in at least two
ways. First, gratitude
needs to be expressed
for those of
previous generations upon
whose shoulders the most recent
generation
stands. The current
opportunities
would not be possible
without those who have
gone
before. Second,
passion
for the theological
heart of Pentecostalism needs to be demonstrated. Such a passion
for what God has done and will do
through
Pentecostalism can
4
7
go a long way
toward
undermining
the
caricature,
commonplace
at var- ious levels in the church, that
equates
academic
pursuits
with a loss of spirituality.
If these are some of the
dangers,
what of Pentecostal
theology’s future? Without
any
illusions on
my part
of
being
able to
predict
the future of Pentecostal
theology
or to offer a comprehensive prescription, the remainder of this address will seek to describe certain characteris- tics of Pentecostal
theology
in the
twenty-first century
and offer two attempts
at constructive Pentecostal
theology
in different academic dis- ciplines.
Characteristics
of Pentecostal Theology
in the
Twenty-First Century
Given the recent
history
and
developments
within academic circles of the tradition, the
following
five
aspects
would
appear
to be some of the more
prominent
and
important
characteristics of Pentecostal theol- ogy
in the next
century.
Community
It would seem safe to suggest that it is extraordinarily difficult to be a Pentecostal
theologian
or do constructive Pentecostal
theology
if one is not
part
of a believing,
worshipping
Pentecostal
community.
Given the
dynamics
of the Pentecostal
church,
with its
emphasis upon
our corporate
life
together
and an
appreciation
for the
spiritual
and
scrip- tural
phenomenon
of
unity
and
diversity
within the
body,
such an observation should
surprise
few. It should be obvious to most that to argue
the need for Pentecostal
theology
to be informed and
shaped by the Pentecostal
community
is more than an
acknowledgment
that Pentecostal
theologians
should be church attendees or conversant with the
theology
of the tradition.
Rather,
it is a confession of the extreme- ly tight interplay
that must exist between the ethos of the tradition and the work of those called to discover, construct, and articulate its theol- ogy.
If the intent of the Pentecostal
theologian
is to
speak
to, as well as for, the tradition, there can be no substitute for a
very
intense engagement
with the Pentecostal
community
in
ways
that
go beyond guest speaking
or somewhat “detached” observation.
,
Sadly,
some scholars
working
within the tradition have been char- acterized more
by
isolation from and an
antagonistic position
toward the
community
than critical active
engagement
with it. This isolation is in part the result of (a) the
academy’s influence,
which has at times projected
the view of the scholar as one who works in isolation from others; (b)
a lack of
appreciation
for the distinctive
way
in which
‘
5
8
Pentecostals do
theology,
often within the context of
worship; (c)
inse-
curity
on the
part
of those in leadership positions within local
churches, which sometimes results in rejection of the
theologian’s gifts; (d)
a lack of sufficient role models who combine
rigorous
academic
inquiry
with an intense
spirituality;
and
(e)
time constraints that
many
of us feel given
our other
responsibilities.
Whatever the
reasons,
it is sufficiently clear that some of the more recent
encouraging
contributions to con- structive Pentecostal
theology
have come from those whose
theological inquiries
are
pursued
within the context of a
worshipping
Pentecostal community
that informs and sustains it.
My guess
is that the best of Pentecostal
theology
in the
twenty-first century
will be characterized
by a strong commitment to community.
Integration
Another
defining
characteristic of Pentecostal
theology
in the twen- ty-first century,
I would
suggest,
is integration.
Specifically, integration would
appear
to be crucial in three
particular aspects
of the constructive theological
task. As each of these
aspects
is surveyed, it should become apparent
how the issue of
integration
is
closely
associated with
doing theology
within the context of a worshipping Pentecostal
community.
The
integration
of heart and head is clearly one of the most
signifi- cant
challenges
to the formation of those involved in the
theological task. Pentecostals,
perhaps
more than
most,
should understand that doing theology
is more than an exercise in rationalism.
Unfortunately often within our tradition,
theology
has been
pursued
in just this fash- ion, resulting
in a bifurcation of
theology
and
ethics,
a division that is both without
scriptural support,
as well as out of
keeping
with the
very heart of the tradition. The
integration
of heart and head means that the- ologians
within the tradition do not have the
luxury
of
simply focusing on
“pure” theology
while
leaving
for the so-called
“practitioners”
the task of working out its implications. This bifurcation seems to miss the point completely. Doing theology
in a way that is intentional about the integration
of heart and head should not
only
lead to a transformation of the
theologian,
but also make clear that the work of Pentecostal theolo- gy
is not
simply
concerned with
orthodoxy (right doctrine),
but ortho- praxy (right practice)
and
orthopathy (right passions/affections)
as well.9 It
hardly
needs to be noted that the
community
context for the pursuit
of such
integration
is essential.
9For these designations see Steven J. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A the
Passion for
Kingdom (Sheffield, England: Sheffeld
Academic
Press, 1993), 41-42. On orthopathos
cf. Samuel Solivan, The Spirit, Pathos and Liberation: Toward an Hispanic
Pentecostal Theology (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, forth- coming).
6
9
A second
aspect
of the
integrative
element of Pentecostal
theology in the next
century
concerns
relationships
outside the tradition. The term that
might
best describe this dimension in
dialogical.
How one relates to those outside one’s own
theological
tradition
is, of course, a perennial challenge.
While most Pentecostals would want to believe that God has done and is doing something special within their
particu- lar branch of the Christian
tree,
it seems to me that few of us would
want to suggest that what is taking
place
outside our movement is with- out merit or God’s
blessing.
In order for Pentecostal
theology
to func- tion as it should in the next
century,
we must be
willing
to
dialogue with a wide
variety
of theological
partners.
What is called for is not the kind of
“emperor worship”
that on occasion results when Pentecostals receive the attention of a major figure within the circle of academic the- ology.
There has sometimes been a tendency for Pentecostals to turn such
opportunities
into times of affirmation for the views of the schol- ar in
question,
whether or not
they accurately represent
the views and ethos of the movement. Nor is this a call for the
accommodating “house-servant” attitude that on occasion is exhibited when those in wider ecumenical circles invite this or that Pentecostal to participate in some consultation. Who of us involved in such work has not had the experience
at one time or another of
eventually understanding
that the purpose
of our
presence
was
simply
to
sign
off on the work of others rather than be
given
or take the
opportunity
to play an active role in the deliberations?
Rather,
what is needed is honest, sometimes even hard- hitting exchanges
where
theological
differences and similarities
may be
fully appreciated.
The
goal,
it would
seem,
is to
testify
to others about what we know to be true and to reexamine our faith in the
light of the
testimony
of fellow travelers who have a genuine desire for dia- logue. Sadly,
not all who claim such a desire for
dialogue
live
up
to their
promise. However,
it is
only through
such honest
exchanges
that we can
hope
to draw nearer a more
perfect understanding
of the Kingdom,
while at the same time
avoiding
the
temptation
of
falling into the
trap
of
letting
other
groups
and their
agenda (both
stated and hidden)
define who we are and what we are about.
Given the incredible
magnitude
of the
theological
task that lies before
us, integration
is also needed in
approaching
our work
together within the tradition. The word that
might
best
convey
this
aspect
of integration
is interdisciplinary. For too
long
academic institutions have been characterized
by
more and more
specialization
with a
resulting sense of isolation with little or no
opportunity
for
interdisciplinary
dia- logue.
As
my colleague,
Steven Land, is fond of
saying,
the universi- ty has plenty
of
“(di-)versity”
but little
“uni(-ty).”
The Pentecostal the- ology
that
emerges
in the next
century
will
likely
be characterized
by
a
7
10
rejection
of such artificial isolation and the construction of more holis- tic
approaches.
Granted,
this
process
takes more
energies
than a process
that stands within
only
one
theological discipline.
But the fruit of such efforts is well worth the labor. For
through
collaboration of this fashion,
creative new constructions
emerge
that would otherwise be out of the reach of scholars
working
on their own. The need for a healthy community
in which to
pursue
such
theologizing
should be
apparent.
Accountability
Pentecostal
theology
in the
twenty-first century
will
likely
be char- acterized
by
a
greater degree
of
accountability
than
currently
exists among
scholars
working
within the movement. The
accountability here envisioned is not to be seen as a form of
censorship,
but rather as an
example
of the biblical view of the
body
of Christ at work. For Pentecostal
theologians,
there is more at stake in our work than mak- ing
a name,
professional
advancement,
or
development.
Our children are at stake, and there are
right ways
and
wrong ways
of
disagreeing
in front of the children.
Unfortunately, given
the maverick attitude and insecurities of
many
in
academia,
often the children are used as pawns where the welfare of the teacher rather than the student is primary.
My point
here is not to
say
that there is no room for
honest, vigor- ous,
and
forthright disagreement.
Passionate
disagreements
are to be expected
where so much is at stake. Nor is this
plea
to be heard as a call for monolithic
uniformity
on all
interpretive
issues. The lack of a healthy diversity
would be a denial of the kind of diversity modeled in the canon itself.
Rather,
this
accountability
entails a rejection of carnal ways
of
relating
to one another and
assessing
our own
importance. Perhaps
an
example
from the
local church
would be
helpful
at this point.
If a person fancies him- or herself as
having
this or that
partic- ular
spiritual gift,
but no one else in the
community
confirms such a charism in that
individual,
it may well be that the
person
needs to take seriously
the lack of affirmation from the
community. Likewise,
it would
appear
that Pentecostal
theologians
need to be attentive to con- firmation or the lack of it in our
theological
constructions. The
point, after
all,
is not to be able to claim exclusive
rights
to the
truth,
but together
to draw nearer to it.
Contextual
.
The
emerging
Pentecostal
theology
will also
likely
be contextual in nature. The diverse voices from all
parts
of the world that make
up
the Pentecostal
family
must not
only
be
encouraged
to find a voice, but also be
encouraged
and
expected
to
speak
their own
theological language, making
their own contributions to the
larger
Pentecostal
family.
8
11
Modernity
has
long
embraced the idea that one
theological
size fits all. On this view the
challenge
is to articulate an a-cultural or
“pure”
the- ology
that
may
be
applied
to
any
and
every
context.
Fortunately,
such a position is beginning to show
signs
of deconstruction. The
diversity of Scripture undermines this view when it reveals that
uniformity
is not to be confused with
spiritual unity.
In addition, the rich
theological
and experiential variety
manifest in global Pentecostalism
suggests
that we as a movement are not faced with the task of
repaving
a
highway; rather,
we stand at the
edge
of a jungle with machete in hand
seeking to clear a path.
Clearly,
one of the
great strengths
of contextual
approaches
to Scripture
and
theology
is the
empowerment
that takes
place
for those within
specific
contexts that
engender
the confidence
necessary
to enter into the difficult work of
theological
construction. This
approach also reveals dimensions of the text and
theology
that have
gone
unno- ticed,
at
best,
or have been
ignored
or
downplayed by
those in other contexts. Of course, it is
always possible
for contextual
approaches
to distort as well as clarify. But it should be noted that distortions are
part of all approaches and that
specific
contexts determine which
aspects
of the faith call for
emphasis. Accountability
to and for the
larger Pentecostal
community
should
go
a long
way
toward
ensuring
that con- textual
theological
contributions
(and
it should be noted that all theo- logical
contributions are
contextual)
do not become too
idiosyncratic and that the
larger community
is not allowed to ignore the
implications of the work of sisters and brothers located in contexts unlike our own. Thus,
it falls to those who find themselves in leadership positions with- in the tradition to partner with sisters and brothers across the
great
cul- tural, ethnic,
and national
expanse
of the movement in order that the distinctive contributions of the whole
body
are not
only
heard but also engaged.
Such a task
clearly
involves more than tokenism or the
par- roting by
those at the
margins
of more established
positions.
What is called for is much more difficult to achieve. On the one hand, it neces- sitates the
development
of mechanisms
by
which the multitude of Pentecostal voices
may
be identified and the various modes of dis- course both
appreciated
and
engaged.
On the other
hand,
it necessitates the cultivation of individuals and communities within a variety of con- texts
capable
of the articulation of constructive Pentecostal
theologies. By
such active
engagement
the entire
community may
be
strengthened and
critiqued.
Confessional .
A final characteristic of Pentecostal
theology
in the
twenty-first century
is that it will be more
avowedly
confessional in nature. With
9
12
the rise of
postmodemity,
the metanarratives of
modernity
are
begin- ning
to
crumble,
for their somewhat one-dimensional
emphasis/basis no
longer
satisfies
many
of those in the academic arena. In
scholarly circles,
the rules of
modernity
called for an
approach
to
any
and
every topic
that was neutral and
objective.
It was an
approach
that valued the renunciation of all
presuppositional baggage
that
might
distort or color one’s work and results.
Unfortunately,
the effect
upon many Pentecostal scholars has been to hide, if not renounce
outright,
their Pentecostal
identity
in order to do
scholarly
work that is
respected
in the
guild.
But if Pentecostal
scholarship
is to be more than
a joining
of ranks with the last defenders of
modernity,
an ironic twist if ever there was
one,
there must be a willingness to
engage
the
postmodern
world with the
gospel
in new and creative
ways.
For those
willing
to
accept such a challenge, the confessional stakes have never been
higher.
The call for a more
self-consciously
confessional
approach
should not be understood as
advocating
the defense of
every aspect
of the tra- dition at
any
and all costs, but rather as a decision to allow the
impli- cations of what we know to be true from the
way
in which God deals with us to have a place in the
way
we
approach Scripture, theology,
and ministry.
For one
thing,
this means not
being
content with the research agenda
of others but
allowing
our confessional context to
help
define the contours of our research, both with
regard
to subject and
approach. Such a move would not
only help
to
preserve
the
testimony
of the tra- dition’s ambivalent
relationship
to
modernity,
where we have been para-modern
at
best,10
but also
help
to construct and sustain “the havens of the
masses,”
“the little
outposts
of the
Kingdom,”
“the zones of liberation and freedom,” “the tents of
meeting”
so essential in min- istering
in a post modern world. 1 This
postmodern
context calls for a testimony
from the
margins
to a world
desperately seeking meaning and comfort. As the modem worldview
begins
to resemble that of the world at the time of the
early church,
Pentecostals seem to be in a unique position
to offer an
“apology”
from the
margins
that relies on both word and deed. No doubt some in the tradition will find this to be too much of a challenge. For those who have the
strength
to take it up, I believe the rewards will be
great.
1°For this terminology I am indebted to Jackie Johns. For a
of Pentecostalism’s
my colleague helpful analysis place
in a
postmodern world, see Jackie
D. Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview,” Journal
73-96.
of Pentecostal Theology 7 (October 1995):
llCf.
esp. the work of Cheryl Bridges Johns, “Meeting God in the Margins: Ministry Among Modernity’s Refugees,” Henry
Luce Fellows in
Theology Presentation, 1997.
10
13
Two Modest
Attempts
at Pentecostal
Theology
While it is
perhaps presumptuous
to
lay
before such an able and gifted group
as this one
“paradigms”
for Pentecostal
theology
in the twenty-first century,
for
integrity’s
sake it seems that I should at least send
up
a couple of trial balloons to illustrate
my
own limited
thinking on such issues.
Although
I do not intend to delineate the
ways
in which each of these
proposals
are related to the characteristics described in the
previous
section,
let me mention at the outset that
they
have been conceived and
developed
within the context of a
worshipping Pentecostal
community
that is confessional in nature,
they
aim for inte- gration
at several
levels,
and are offered here in an
attempt
to be accountable to a wider audience or, should I say, audiences.
While a large number of dialogue partners have contributed to these proposals, special
mention should be made of
my colleague
and friend Kimberly
E. Alexander with whom both these ideas were conceived and who has field tested them in Lee
University
courses offered in an extension at the Woodward Avenue Church of God in Athens,
Tennessee,
where I serve as a part-time Associate Pastor. Our consul- tations have
constantly
focused
upon
the
ways
in which our courses address the formational needs of those in our Pentecostal
community and have been intentional about a Pentecostal
process.
I am
happy
to offer
my
thanks
publicly
to such a valuable
colleague.
In what follows I shall make two
specific
and
very
different
pro- posals.
One seeks to reflect
upon
the
way
a Pentecostal
might approach
the New Testament in an
introductory
or
survey
course. The other
attempts
to
gain
some
leverage
on the difficult
question
of a Pentecostal
ecclesiology by
means of a clearly Pentecostal
paradigm. The latter
proposal
will no doubt be
regarded
as much more
hubristic, since I am
daring
to make a
proposal
in a
discipline
to which I am a stranger, theology proper.
A Pentecostal
Approach
to the New Testament
Anyone
familiar with the
contemporary study
of the New Testament
appreciates
the
paradigm
shifts that have
recently
been felt with
regard
to
methodological questions. Currently,
a
plethora
of approaches
to the New Testament are
advocated,
either as stand-alone methods or in combination with other methods. The dominant approach
for most of the last
couple
of centuries has been that of his- torical criticism. But
recently
other
approaches
have
sought
to claim their share of the
methodological
market. Some of the more
prominent include narrative
analysis,
canonical
criticism,
contextual and
ideolog- ical
readings,
deconstruction, intertextuality,
and
history
of
effects,
to
11
14
name a few. For a
variety
of
reasons,
in most cases individual inter- preters simply opt
for one of the several available
options.
For the most
part,
Pentecostals have been
indistinguishable
from
many
of their New Testament
colleagues
with
regard
to
method, although
their results have often more resembled that of
evangelicalism
than others. But what would
happen
if Pentecostals
rethought
the task of
teaching New Testament Introduction or New Testament
Survey
from the ground up? Anyone
faced with the
prospect
of having to teach an intro- ductory
course on the New Testament understands full well the
strug- gle
of
deciding
what
beginning
students need to be
exposed
to in their initial encounter with the New Testament.
My suggestion
is that the nature of the Pentecostal tradition itself can offer some assistance in making
these decisions.
It would
appear
that from a Pentecostal
perspective
the New Testament documents fall rather
naturally
into four
categories:
Stories of Jesus’ Life,
Story
of the
Early Church, Epistles
and Sermons of the Early
Church,
and Vision of the
Early
Church. One of the
things immediately
evident from this
simple
division is how much connection there is between the New Testament documents themselves and the Pentecostal worldview. First, the sheer amount of narrative contained in this
part
of the canon is quite impressive and resonates with the
place of
story
and
testimony
in Pentecostalism.
Second, it is
significant
that one of the
categories,
the
Apocalypse,
has a very deep connection with a particular stream of the movement –
ecstasy, dream,
and
visionary experience.
Third,
the role of sermon and
epistle
within Pentecostalism (both past
and
present) hardly
needs to be mentioned. The other
thing that is
immediately recognizable
is how different this division is to most
introductory
courses on the New
Testament,
where
pride
of place is often
given
to
things
that are extratextual.
Obviously
these cate- gories
could be
supplemented by
a variety of excurses
(on,
for exam- ple,
The World of
Jesus, Judaism,
The World of the
Early Church,
The Graeco-Roman Environment, which
might
be
effectively
located after the sections devoted to the Stories of Jesus’ Life and the
Story
of the Early Church, respectively),
but the heart of the outline would focus on these four
categories.
With
regard
to the
specific methodological approach
to the individ- ual New Testament books, the
following proposal
seeks to
keep
the focus of
study upon
content and a variety of contexts.
1.
Content, Structure,
and
Theological Emphases
In light of our view of Scripture, primary emphasis should be
given to the content of the New Testament itself.
Consequently,
close atten- tion should focus on the actual content of the individual book.
Owing
12
15
to the fact that the structure and
shape
of a document often reveal much about the text’s
meaning,
issues of structure should not be reduced to the role of an addendum at the end of other discussions but should serve as a means of entry into the world of the text itself. The
particu- lar
theological emphases
of the
given
book should also be identified in this initial and
largest part
of the
approach
to
Scripture.
This initial discussion of the content of the book is followed
by
dis- cussions of the text’s various contexts.
2. Canonical Context
The first such context to which attention should be
paid
is the book’s context within the canon. Whatever the historical events that resulted in the current New Testament canon, it is clear that the struc- ture of the canon is not without
significance
with
regard
to a particular book’s
interpretive
influence. The
primary goal
of this section is to determine as far as possible the role and function of a given book in the New Testament canon. 12 Here, the
way
in which a book
picks up
on previous emphases, prepares
for later
developments,
or acts as a tran- sition from one section to another are all
very
much at issue.
Note,
for example,
the
way
in which the Fourth
Gospel
offers an account of Peter’s rehabilitation, which is
missing
from the
Synoptic Gospels, preparing
the reader for his
prominent
role in Acts. Even those with- out an
explicit
commitment to a canonical
approach
have
appreciated the
way
in which the book of Acts functions as a bridge between that which
precedes,
the
Gospels,
and that which
follows,
the
epistles/ser- mons and the
Apocalypse.
With
regard
to the
Gospels
and Paul’s
epis- tles,
this function is all the more
amazing
in that
by
most calculations the
epistles
of Paul
predate
the
gospels by
one or more decades.
3.
Original
Context
Although many approaches
to the New Testament
begin
with
ques- tions of Sitz-im-Leben, it is
only
after
considering
the book’s content and canonical context that attention is given to first readers. Part of the justification
for such a methodological move is
owing
to the fact that we know less about these issues than
any
of the others. How odd,
then, that we
spend
most of our time on the
things
we know least about. 13 This is not to
say
that behind-the-text concerns are
unimportant,
nor is it to
say
that
they
are without their own distinctive contributions. It is
l2See especially the helpful work of R.W. Wall and E.E. Lemcio, eds., The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).
13 As my good friend Blaine Charette once observed to me.
13
16
to
acknowledge,
however, the
provisional
and
hypothetical much historical critical work on New Testament documents.
nature of
4. Context in the Church
The next area of
emphasis
concerns the book’s context within the church. Here, the
primary goal
is to discover
something
of the book’s effects in the
history
of the church. The
history-of-effects
method is an attempt
to trace the effects a given text has had since its writing. In this approach,
the text is likened to a source of water that
may
flow in a variety
of directions.14 In one sense, to hear voices from the church with
regard
to a given book is like
hearing
testimonies of the effect this or that book has had in the church. One thinks
immediately
of the impact
Romans has had
upon (and through) Augustine, Luther, Wesley, and Barth or the Sermon on the Mount
upon Wesley, Tolstoy,
and Bonhoeffer. But there are also more mixed testimonies, such as those related to Philemon, where both slave and slave-holder have
appealed to the value of the text,15 or the
way
in which Matthew 23 was utilized in Nazi
Germany’s
anti-Semitic
propaganda.
Discernment is
required of these testimonies no less than in testimonies offered in the context of Pentecostal
worship,
but the
history
of effects has an enormous con- tribution to make to a Pentecostal
study
of the New Testament
5. Pentecostal Context
The final
component
in this
approach
is to say
something
about the context of a
given
book within Pentecostalism. This section seeks to combine both testimonies of the book’s effect with
implications
this book
may
have for the movement. An
example
of this
may
be offered from the book of Jude. On the one hand, the
importance
of Jude is tes- tified to by the fact that Jude 3 was used on the masthead of no less an important publication
than The Apostolic Faith
by William Seymour
in the
heyday
of the Azusa Street revival. On the other hand, who within the tradition would not believe that Jude’s harsh words about false teachers and their characteristics should find
application
within a movement that has had to contend with false teachers from the
begin- ning ?
Although
brief,
perhaps
these few words offer
enough
of an outline to reveal the contours of such an
approach
to the New Testament and might
serve to facilitate reflection on what
impact
such
revisioning might
have in other
disciplines.
140n this method cf. U. Luz, Manhew in History (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994).
15Cf. the provocative work of A. Callahan, Embassy of Onesimus: The Letter Paul to Philemon
of
(Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1997).
14
17
A Pentecostal
Approach
to
Ecclesiology
One of the areas within the tradition where
theological
reflection arguably may
still be in its infancy is ecclesiology. While bitter debates have taken
place
over this or that
particular ecclesiological
under- standing, largely pertaining
to
polity matters, theologians
of the Pentecostal movement
appear
to be taking their first small
steps
toward the
discovery
and articulation of a Pentecostal
ecclesiology.16
It is to this
disputed
area that I will venture to focus
my
last remarks of this address.
By
means of the work of Don
DaytonI7
and Steve
Landl8,
among others,
I have come to be convinced that
standing
at the
theological heart of Pentecostalism is the fivefold
gospel:
Jesus is Savior, Sanctifier, Holy
Ghost
Baptizer,
Healer,
and
Coming King.
It is this conviction that led in large
part
to the choice of the five-fold
gospel
as the theme for last
year’s Society
of Pentecostal Studies
program,
for which I served as
program
chair. It is
my
belief that when a Pentecostal theol- ogy
is written from the
ground up,
it will be structured around these cen- tral tenets of Pentecostal faith and
preaching.
In fact, I have to admit a great
deal of
surprise
at
my colleagues
in
theology proper
that this approach
has not been taken
up formally,
for it seems like such a natur- al place to begin and
appears
to have so much
promise
for the articula- tion of a theology that is distinctively Pentecostal. One of the
very help- ful
things
about this
paradigm
is that it immediately reveals the
ways
in which Pentecostalism as a movement is both similar to and dissimilar from others within Christendom. To mention but two
examples,
when the fivefold
gospel paradigm
is used as the main
point
of reference, the near
kinship
to the Holiness tradition is obvious, as is the fundamental difference with
many
of those within the
evangelical
tradition.
Perhaps
the time has come for those within the Pentecostal tradition to ask what contribution the fivefold
gospel paradigm
can make to an understanding
of Pentecostal
ecclesiology.
Rather than
simply
modi- fying
one of the
competing
views of the church
currently being advocated or
opting
for one of the several New Testament
models, while
ignoring
or
conflating
the
others, perhaps
the time is
right
for a construction that is not
only
conscious but intentional about its
l6See especially the promising work of Frank D. Macchia, “The Church as an End-time Missionary Fellowship of the
Spirit: A Pentecostal Perspective on the of
Pneumatology
for
Ecclesiology” (paper presented
to the Pentecostal/National Council of Churches Dialogue, Oakland, CA, 12 March 1997). Significance
17Ronald W. Dayton, The Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991).
18Land, Pentecostal Spirituality.
15
18
connection with the movement. In the brief comments that
follow,
I shall
highlight
a few of the salient features which I can envision for such an
attempt.
One of the first
questions
raised
by
this
approach
has to do with where in the
development
of the
theology
one would
place
a discussion of
ecclesiology.
In contrast to
many theological constructions,
where this discussion is located near the end, often in a somewhat detached
fashion,
a fivefold method would necessitate a much more
integrated approach.
Therefore,
reflection about the
nature, mission,
and
identity of the church would constitute a portion of the discussion in each of the five elements
making up
the whole.
Thus, each of the five
major
divi- sions would conclude with a section devoted to the church, where the implications
of each element for the
community
and its life are explored.
Specifically,
discussions would focus on the church and salvation (or
the Church as Redeemed
Community),
the church and sanctifica- tion
(or
the Church as
Holy Community),
the church and
Spirit Baptism (or
the Church as
Empowered Missionary Community),
the church and
healing (or
the Church as
Healing Community),
and the church and the return of Christ
(or
the Church as
Eschatological Community).
Such an
approach
would make clear the
integral
con- nection between the
theological
heart of Pentecostalism as revealed in the fivefold
gospel
and the nature of its community life.
Obviously,
the biblical
metaphors
used for the church would find a prominent place in these discussions.
Finally,
this method would also
go
some
way
toward
reclaiming and
reappropriating
the sacraments for a tradition that has been a bit uncertain about them and their
place
in the
community’s worship.
Just as discussion of the church would no
longer
be
artificially separated from the doctrines that
give
it meaning, so discussion of the sacraments would become
grounded
both in the relevant discussions of the church and in the
larger
discussion of a particular aspect of the fivefold
gospel. Thus,
this
approach
to the church would
help
make clear for Pentecostals the
dynamic relationship
that should exist between these signs
and the
experience
of salvation itself.
In
addition,
it
might
also lead Pentecostals to a reconsideration of the nature and number of sacraments and the
discovery
that there is in our life and
practice
a sign to
accompany
each element of the fivefold gospel.
What are these five sacraments and how do
they
relate to the fivefold
gospel?
With
regard
to salvation, most would
agree
that water baptism
is an
appropriate sign
of salvation. With
regard
to
16
19
sanctification, my
own work19 and that more
recently
of Frank Macchia2°
suggests
that
footwashing
is a sign of
sanctification,
a prac- tice
present
in various streams of our tradition
including
Azusa Street (according
to the
September
1907 edition of The
Apostolic Faith).21
With
regard
to
Spirit baptism,
Frank Macchia has
argued persuasively that for Pentecostals
glossolalia
is the visible
sign
of God’s
presence par
excellence.22 The
relationship
of
glossolalia
to
Spirit baptism
for most Pentecostals is quite well known. With
regard
to healing, anoint- ing
the sick with
oil,
a practice based
upon
Jesus’
implicit
command in Mark 6:13 and the
practice
of the church in James
5,
has
long
func- tioned
sacramentally
for Pentecostals
despite
the fact that we have not used that
language
to describe the
practice.23
With
regard
to
Coming King,
the sacramental
sign
is
appropriately
the
eschatological banquet, the Lord’s
Supper,
a meal in which
past, present,
and future
converge24 as we
long
for his
appearing.
My
desire in this address is not to be
right
in all that I have here said, but
rather to serve as a
catalyst
for
theological
reflection that is wholly
Pentecostal. Reflection that is more concerned about its
right- ness for the tradition than its
acceptance
in the
guild. May
the Lord grant
us the
courage
to be what he has called and is calling us to be.
Community (Sheffield, England:
l9John
Christopher Thomas, Footwashing
in John 13 and the Johannine
JSOT Press, 1991).
20Frank D. Macchia, “Is Footwashing the Neglected Sacrament? A
Theological Pentecostal Theology Christopher
Response
to John Thomas,” PNEUMA: The Journal
of the 19 Society for
(fall 1997): 239-249.
21The practice of footwashing in
early
Pentecostal circles was wide-
For the practice of
remarkably spread. footwashing at Azusa Street see D.T. Irvin, ” ‘Drawing All in One Bond of Love’: The Ecumenical Vision of William J.
Together Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival,” Journal
of Pentecostal Theology 6
35 n. 23. On the other end of the continent the emerging Church of (April 1995): God
esp. washing beginning.
For Richard Spurling, one of the founders of the
practiced foot- from the
Christian Union, the
practice of Christian Union as
his involvement with the
footwashing
was footwashing predates
regularly practiced at the
Church where he was a member. In
Holly Springs Baptist
addition, A.J. Tomlinson was foot-
as early as 25 March 1901. See his diary entry for this detail. Still practicing another stream of the tradition is represented by C.H. Mason who appears to have washing
from
practiced footwashing early on as well. I am indebted to David Roebuck for the infor- mation on and to Dale Irvin for the information on Mason.
22Frank D. Spurling Macchia, “Tongues as a Sign: Towards a Sacramental
of the Pentecostal
Understanding
Experience,” Pentecostal Theology 15
1993): 61-76.
23John (spring Christopher Thomas, “The Devil, Disease, and Deliverance: James 5 :14- 16,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 2 (April 1993): 34-40.
24Land, Pentecostal Spirituality, 98.
17
