Receiving Luke Acts

Receiving Luke Acts

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

               

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

Review Essay

Receiving Luke-Acts

The Rise of Reception History and a Call to Pentecostal Scholars

Martin W. Mittelstadt

Evangel University, Springfield, Missouri mittelstadtm@evangel.edu

In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote to you about all that Jesus began to do and teach

Acts 1:1

I embarked on my formal journey into biblical studies in 1982. Like most young students, I was raw and unsure of my path. I settled down for lengthy stays at two Canadian institutions: first, a small pentecostal college in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and then Providence Seminary, a nondenominational seminary outside of Winnipeg, Manitoba. Upon graduation from college in 1986 and seminary in 1990, I had mastered the historical-critical method (source, form, redaction, and tradition criticism). As I considered options for further educa- tion, I found myself intrigued by emerging and enticing hermeneutical trends. I pondered my next turn and decided on the PhD program in New Testament at Marquette University. By the time I completed my dissertation, I had found a new methodological home among narrative critics. My life in the 1980s with questions squarely focused upon historicity and reliability gave way to new

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/15700747-04003005

1

368

review essay

terminology that included story, plot, narrators, and a host of other literary con- ventions. In 2000, I launched my life as a professor and scholar. A specialist in New Testament studies, I had arrived. I would settle in for a long career as a literary critic; and, if I may say so, it’s been a great ride.

Shortly after my arrival at Evangel University, I started teaching courses on pentecostal history and theology. I found the learning curve steep, not least due to the explosion of scholarship on Pentecostalism. In hindsight and to my delight, these paths merged in my Reading Luke-Acts in the Pentecostal Tradi- tion.1 I sought to give voice to the growing body of scholarship by and about Pentecostals on Luke-Acts, but in an attempt to locate myself in my tradition, I wrote somewhat autobiographically. In this essay, the autobiography contin- ues. Though I may sound self-absorbed, let me submit that this journey may mirror a rather natural turn for many biblical scholars. I hope to lure pente- costal students and scholars on a new methodological journey. I invite them to make a U-turn and revisit the Scriptures interpreted and experienced by both the giants of the Christian story and less celebrated, often forgotten inter- preters. Both the well-known and the lesser-known readings contribute collec- tively to our identities and development. I speak here of the methodological emergence of reception history. After a short introduction to this burgeoning method, I summarize recent reception commentaries and studies on Luke- Acts. I limit this review essay to studies on Luke-Acts primarily for the formative and sustaining influence of the Lukan narratives on contemporary Pentecostal- ism.2Inthefinalturn,Iseektoenticepentecostalscholarstorevisitearliertrails and to read and receive afresh the Lukan story shaped and performed by our foremothers and forefathers. For such a task, I would suggest slightly altering Luke’s opening words in Acts 1:1, so we might receive what Lukan interpreters have declared “that Jesushasbeen doing and teaching.”

1 What Is Reception History?

The recent evolution and success of reception history fits well with the cur- rent allure of postmodernity and rise of interdisciplinarity. If proponents of historical criticism strive to recreate the world behind the text and literary critics seek to encounter the Bible as story, reception historians take another step forward—or backward. Whereas the historical critic employs a formulaic

1 Martin William Mittelstadt, Reading Luke-Acts in the Pentecostal Tradition (Cleveland, TN:

CPT, 2010).

2 Mittelstadt, Reading Luke-Acts.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

2

review essay

369

“two-step” hermeneutic from “what the text meant” to “what it means,” recep- tion historians choose a slow, scenic, and meandering path to rediscover “what the text has meant.”3Reception historians revisit stories of the Scriptures read, interpreted, viewed, and performed through the centuries. In a move postmod- ernists should celebrate, these scholars give voice to the “other” and the many. Reception histories offer a museum-like tour of readings on the Scriptures between original authors and current readers. Reception historians hope their tour will invite—even rescue—current readers prone to believe they should view this intervening period as an obstacle to avoid.

The interdisciplinary bent of reception history makes it difficult to provide an easy definition. The method emerges first among mid-twentieth-century philosophers. In his work on philosophical hermeneutics, Hans-Georg Gada- mer presumably coins the termWirkungsgeschichte(literally, “history-effected consciousness”). H.R. Jauss and W. Iser, among the pioneers of reader-response theory, describe a chain of readings on the same material as Rezeptionsge- schichte (literally, “reception history”). New Testament scholars join the jour- ney by way of trailblazers such as Ulrich Luz, Anthony C. Thistleton, and John L. Thompson. Luz writes of the “history of influences,” specifically the “history, reception, and actualizing of text in media other than a commentary; e.g. in sermons, canonical law, hymnody, art and in the actions of sufferings of the church.” Thistleton cleverly likens the discipline to the Bible’s Nachleben, lit- erally, its “afterlife” or post-history. Finally, in his “Reading the Bible with the Dead,” John L. Thompson may supply the best definition by way of his subti- tle: “What You Can Learn from the History of Exegesis That You Can’t Learn from Exegesis Alone.”4 As I see it, reception historians take a rather Baktinian approach and reject any interpretation of the Bible (and presumably any text) that marks a certain end of the road or arrival. Instead, they search for lost voices, interpreters both new and old, and place these voices in the grand sym- phony of interpretations, a never-ending succession of performances on the biblical story.5

3 See Heidi J. Hornik and Mikeal C. Parsons,The Acts of the Apostles through the Centuries,Wiley

Blackwell Biblical Commentaries (Chicester: Wiley Blackwell, 2017), 2.

4 Forsummariesonreceptionhistoryandfullbibliographicdetailsontheseandotherpioneers,

see the extensive introductions in the works under review. On the science and art of reception

history, see further the fine introduction edited by Emma England and William John Lyons,

Reception History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice(New York: Bloomsbury, 2015), and

the upstart Journal of the Bible and Its Receptionpublished twice annually since 2014. 5 On the open ending of Acts, see my Reading Luke-Acts, 161–163.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

3

370

review essay

2 Receiving Luke-Acts in the Christian Tradition

Though students and scholars struggle to follow the developments across the entirety of our discipline, I contend that the sheer volume of scholarship on the post-history of our biblical texts demands our attention. Amid this onslaught, Luke-Acts has received not a little interest by reception historians. I begin with contributions to commentary series, and then turn to stand-alone commen- taries.

2.1 Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture(ACCS)

The twenty-nine volume ACCS realizes the dream of general editor Thomas Oden. The layout of each volume consists of excerpts in the chronology of a commentary that gathers some “seven centuries of exegesis, from Clement of Rome to John of Damascus, from the end of the New Testament era toA.D.750, including the Venerable Bede” (3.xi; 5.ix). Each volume includes a common “General Introduction” and “A Guide to Using the Commentary.” These intro- ductions seek to acquaint readers with Oden’s vision for a sort of Christian Talmud, a living commentary on Scripture methodologically analogous and contemporary with the advent of the Jewish Talmud. Each volume includes four invaluable appendices: (1) an alphabetized list of Christian writers and works cited; (2) standardized “Biographical Sketches” of each author cited in the work; (3) a timeline of writers by language (Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Cop- tic), region, and date; and (4) bibliographies of works cited in the original lan- guages and English.

In the introduction to Luke, editor Arthur A. Just, Jr., Professor of Exegeti- cal Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, pro- vides further specifics for his project.6 He begins with a helpful summary of Luke’s use in early Christianity. Though Matthew and John garner the great- est attention (particularly among the Eastern Fathers), four commentaries— better stated as sermon collections—on Luke are extant: Origen (285–254), Ambrose of Milan (339–397), Cyril of Alexandria (375–444), and the Venera- ble Bede (673–735).7 Just explains that “church fathers did not typically write down their sermons and read them to their congregations but preached them without a manuscript. They were recorded by stenographers who would edit them for later publication” (xxi). Largely consisting of expository, line-by-line

6 Arthur Just, Jr., Luke,ACCS3 (Downers Grove,IL:IVP, 1998).

7 Medieval commentators beyond the period under examination include Theophylact, an

eleventh-century Byzantine exegete; Euthymius Zigabenus, an early twelfth-century Byzan-

tine theologian; and Walafrid Strabo, a ninth-century German theological writer (xvii).

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

4

review essay

371

commentary of pastoral reflections on the primary text interspersed with sec- ondary texts, the sermons would regularly last for an hour! The oldest extant commentary comes from Origen. The collection contains thirty-nine homilies with twenty from the infancy narrative, thirteen from Luke 3–4, and an array of stand-alone sermons (including Luke 10:25–37; 12:57–59; 17:20–21, 33; 19:29– 40; 19:41–45; 20:21–40). Just speculates that these thirty-nine sermons probably came from a collection of some 150 or more sermons, mostly lost, over the entire Gospel (xxii). Cyril’s collection also covers some 150 sermons preached aslectio continuaand includes more than fifteen hundred Scripture references (xxiii).

Not surprisingly, early preachers of Third Gospel homilies settled regularly upon stories unique to Luke. Beyond the expected emphasis on Christmas and Easter passages, preachers found much fodder from the major feasts to emerge by way of the Lukan birth narrative (circumcision, presentation, annuncia- tion). Mary proved particularly important as the model par excellence for those who have taken the vow of virginity, Simeon for his anticipation of the gospel for all nations, and Anna as an exemplary widow (a common concern for preachers). On the other end of Luke, preachers turned often to Luke’s unique and riveting account of the disciples on the Emmaus road and various proof texts (Luke 23:34, 43; 24:29; xxv). Unique Lukan parables such as the good Samaritan and the lost son received an array of interpretations. Preachers such as Augustine often attended to Jesus’s teaching on proper use of possessions: “The Christian soul understands how far removed he should be from theft of another’s goods when he realizes that failure to share his surplus with the needy is like theft.” Further, Augustine sees Jesus’s teaching on forgiveness and giving in Luke 6:37–38 as “two wings of prayer on which it flies to God.” Finally, “par- don the offender … and give to the person in need” remind readers of Luke’s accent on almsgiving (see Luke 6; 12; 16; 18) and Jesus’s call for disciples to live generous lives (xxvi).

Like Just, Francis Martin, Professor Emeritus of New Testament at the Dominican House of Studies inWashington,DC, values the early Christian writ- ers in his Actscommentary. He appreciates the church Fathers for their vibrant faith that brings readers (and listeners) into living contact with the realities described in the Scriptures. Martin laments the loss of passion, particularly among modern historians, many of whom advance understanding and intel- ligibility of the text, but all too frequently and unnecessarily sequester “the world of the text both as a mediator of events and often as a language event itself” (xxiv). Martin observes that the Fathers pay little attention to authorial intent (even if they are aware of this dimension). In fact, they seldom mention “Luke” (as author) or consider what might be deemed “Lukan theology” in their

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

5

372

review essay

writings. Instead, they “read the Scriptures [as] a unified whole … belonging to the authorship of the people of God”; for Martin, “our individualism tends to overlook this aspect of the process of receiving, writing, editing and reception as these were present in the ancient world and particularly in Israel and the church” (xxv–xxvi). Having said this, Martin also warns against inherent dan- gers with abandoning historical concerns in exchange for moral, mystical, or spiritual meaning (xxii–xxiii).

Martin introduces the most enduring reception question, namely, the re- ceived text of Acts. Acts represents the only book in our present Bible for which there are two vastly different and complete textual traditions, known as the Alexandrian and the Western traditions. Though most commentators argue for the primacy of the Alexandrian tradition, the later (probably second- century) and expanded Western version retains some currency in early Chris- tianity (xxi).8

Martin relies on the earlier work of Paul Stuehrenberg, who identified some forty writers of this period to comment on scenes in Acts.9Of these, only three commentaries have survived. John Chrysostom (344/354–407), Bishop of Con- stantinople, delivered his Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, the earliest com- plete collection, during Easter season of the year 400 (xxi). And like his work on the Third Gospel, Bede’s substantial work on Acts survives. Between these, Ara- tor (ca. 490–550), a subdeacon of Rome, produced an epic Latin poem for Pope Vigilius. At 2,326 hexameters long and covering the entirety of Acts, Arator’s composition serves as the earliest surviving work to follow the Western text ahead of Bede.10 Selections from incomplete works, some of them translated by Martin in English for the first time, include Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil the Great, Cassiodorus, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus the Blind, Ephrem the Syrian, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poitiers, Irenaeus, Jerome, John Cassian, Justin Martyr, Origen, and Theodoret of Cyr.

2.2 The Reformation Commentary(RCS)

Not surprisingly, RCS functions as the sequel to ACCS and, in so doing, shares the overall purpose, method, and audience (xix). Series editor Timothy George

8

9

10

On the textual history of Acts, see the discussion below from Esther Chung-Kim and Todd R. Hains. Acts,RC6 (Downers Grove,IL:IVP, 2014), lxii–lxiii, 117, and Hornik and Parsons, Acts, 6–8.

Paul F. Stuehrenberg, “The Study of Acts Before the Reformation: A Bibliographic Intro- duction,”Novum Testamentum29, no. 2 (1987): 100–113.

Francis Martin, Acts, ACCS 5 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1998), indicates rare instances in which ancient commentators employ the Western Text via “WT” (xxi).

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

6

review essay

373

provides a standard “general introduction,” Reformation timeline, biographi- cal sketches, and works of the cited Reformers. Unlike editors of the ACCS, George faces the challenge of Reformation parameters. He chooses not to begin with Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses at Wittenberg in 1517 or end with the pass- ing of Calvin in Geneva in 1564, but commissions volume editors to adopt “the concept of the long sixteenth century, say, from the late 1400s to the mid- seventeenth century” across a wide range of confessions, theologies, and polit- ical agendas (xx, xxii). George similarly asks his volume editors not to sanitize the Reformers of political incorrectness, but to allow readers to wrestle with period-based anti-Semitism, sexism, and often unchecked polemical preten- tiousness. The sheer volume of material must also be attributed to the inven- tion of the printing press, which makes published documents more accessible and shrinks Europe in a manner not unlike current globalization via the world- wide web.

Since the Reformers employ pre-Enlightenment hermeneutics, they cannot yet conceive of biblical studies as an academic discipline apart from spiritual application, nor can they imagine the academy apart from the church. Having said this, interpretative methods employed by pre-Reformation theologians undergo slow but sure modification. Medieval interpreters generally followed theLatinquatrain,“Litteragestadocet/Quidcredasallegoria/Moraliaquidagas/ Quo tendas anagogia” (The letter shows us what God and our fathers did/ The allegory shows us where our faith is hid/ The moral meaning gives us rules of daily life/The anagogy shows us where we end our strife; xxvi). Some Protestant Reformers, however, begin to converge on the grammatical-historical sense of Scripture and seek a christological center. Diverse approaches and schools of exegesis evolve. Biblical humanists such as Erasmus opine that the Bible should contribute to personal renewal and societal reform; the so-called Wittenberg School builds upon the voluminous Luther and his three rules for reading the Bible as oratio, meditatio, tentatio (prayer, meditation, and struggle); Calvin emerges as “the father of modern biblical scholarship”; the British Reformers become the primary pioneers of the indigenous commentary; and the Radical Reformers (not unlike twentieth-century Pentecostals) write by way of letters, martyrological testimonies (especiallyThe Martyr’s Mirror), hymns, and histo- ries. Unlike the other Reformers, Anabaptists employ a rather unique Chris- tocentrism with their emphasis upon Nachfolge, a journey to Jesus as Lord (see xxv–xlii). Finally, though they take different hermeneutical paths, these Reformers generally surrender to a “consensus of the canon,” a view that brings every biblical passage into this larger context (xli).

In her commentary onLuke, Beth Kreitzer, Professor of History and Religion at Marymount California University, must concentrate primarily on homileti-

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

7

374

review essay

cal and reflective sources. Much like the church Fathers, the Reformers bring their academic concerns to their pastoral duties, so that “the gospel is always heard and interpreted within a worshipping community” (xlvii). Kreitzer sug- gests that the small number of period commentaries on Luke (such as that of Heinrich Bullinger) stems from the primacy of Matthew for public Scripture reading. Due to his proclivities toward John’s Gospel, Luther did not write a commentary on Luke, but he preaches regularly from the Third Gospel. Calvin produces a Harmony of the Gospelsbased on Matthew’s structure interspersed with independent Lukan passages, and Erasmus delivers a paraphrase of Luke. Though Reformation thinkers had not yet encountered the synoptic problem, they would often utilize sermons (and commentaries) to address the nuances of similar stories in the different Gospels (the Matthean and Lukan genealogies, for example; xlv).

The texts of these published sermons retain similar production patterns to predecessors described above. Though some preached from a manuscript, Luther (and others) used only outline, and students and colleagues (or, in Calvin’s case, a paid stenographer) took notes. Publication generally required the hand of another editor or editors and may or may not have included the original preacher’s input (xlvi).

Recurrent topics include such Lukan motifs as Jesus’s acceptance of Gentiles and rejection by Jews; the complex portrayal of women as disciples, confidants, and supporters of Jesus’s ministry; Jesus’s ministry among the poor, downtrod- den, and sick; and repentance. For the faithful, Luke creates debate among the Reformers concerning the use and abuse of wealth and the use of the sword (the Anabaptists against nearly all others). Luke’s portrayal of baptism (infant baptism and/or believer’s baptism) and the Lord’s Table (cf. Luke 22:14– 20; 24:30–31) garners no end of controversy. Though Protestants reject various elements of Catholic teaching, the Reformers expressed not a little disagree- ment among themselves, and their differences of opinion on these passages made ecclesial and political unity among Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvin- ists impossible (lii).

Reformers regularly employed Luke’s Gospel against opponents, not least toward Roman Catholic (ab)use of fasting, alms, and ceremonies that mirrored the hypocritical Pharisees. Not surprisingly, Luke provides the Reformers with the necessary fuel to refute all external practices that fail to produce internal change as empty and hypocrisy (lii). Luther’s comments on Anna the prophet- ess in Luke 2:36–38 capture well such concern:

if you want to fast and pray with this holy Anna, well and good; but take care first that you imitate the person and then the works. First become an

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

8

review essay

375

Anna … So you see that Saint Luke does not mean that she became godly and a prophetess through her works but that she was a godly prophetess first, and then her works also become good.11

65

On the matter of priestly celibacy, the Reformers turn to Luke so as not to give up spouses or families, homes or possessions. Levi was called by Jesus, left everything behind (Luke 5:28), but later returned home (and to his family) to host a great banquet. Jesus enters the home of Peter and his wife (!) and heals Peter’s mother-in-law (Luke 4:38). Luke’s story also provides useful instruction for ministerial training and compensation (a worker deserves wages; Luke 10:7; lii).

Turning to Acts, coeditors Esther Chung-Kim, Associate Professor of World Christianity at Claremont McKenna College, and Todd R. Hains, Academic Editor at Lexham Press, provide a seamless path from George’s introduction. Early in their introduction, Chung-Kim and Hains (K&H) employ the rather pentecostal-like words of John Donne to the members of theVirginia Company ahead of the journey to the New World in 1622. Concerning Acts 1:8, Donne declares:

The Acts of the Apostles were to convey that name of Christ Jesus, and to propagate his Gospel throughout the whole world. Beloved, you too are actors on this same stage. The end of the earth is your scene. Act out the acts of the apostles. Be a light to the Gentiles who sit in darkness. Be con- tent to carry him over these seas, who dried up one red sea for his first people, and who has poured out another red sea—his own blood—for them and for us.

xliii

According to K&H, Reformation-period Acts usage features new twists. First, though the sacraments retain significant importance, preaching begins to occupy center stage, and to do so, the Reformers turn to the sermons in Acts

11

On the matter of women, Pentecostals will appreciate that Beth Kreitzer, Luke, RC 3 (Downers Grove,IL:IVP, 2015), pays considerable attention to the voices of women, partic- ularly the letters, meditations, and sermons of Katharina Schütz Zell (ca. 1498–1562), wife of the Rev. Matthias Zell of Strasbourg, and the profound portrayals of Jesus’s birth and death through the eyes of a woman by Catharina Regina von Greiffenberg (1633–1694), an Austrian noblewoman and Lutheran mystic and poet (liv).

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

9

376

review essay

for their apostolic patterns.12 In Acts, they discover “how to distinguish and apply law (for conviction and exhortation) and gospel (for encouragement and strengthening in faith and love); how to meet the audience where they are; how to speak to the perennial concerns of life and the pressing needs of the moment” (xlvii). Second, and like proclamation on the Third Gospel, the preaching dwells consistently on the sharing of possessions and the state of social welfare and the poor in early modern Europe (lii). On the theme of suffering, these preachers often cite Lukan narratives of false imprisonments, martyrdom, sickness, natural disasters, and shipwreck to encourage listeners captive to a world filled with chronic illnesses, insufficient remedies, stillbirths, or torture (lv). K&H reveal the unwavering christological center of sermons in Acts, whereby the living Jesus produces faith, dispels doubt, and grants justi- fication. Finally, these commentators and preachers, then and now, write and speak less on the latter half of Acts. Intensity begins to wane as the story of Acts marches beyond the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). In the era under obser- vation, only Calvin sustains a steady pace from the beginning to the end of Acts (lxii).

2.3 Illuminating Luke: Visual Exegesis by Hornik and Parsons13 In their Illuminating Luke, Heidi Hornik and Mikeal Parsons (H&P) take read- ers on a journey beyond the printed page to a “visual exegesis”; they employ a method summarized best by Paolo Berdini:

The painter reads the text and translates his scriptural reading into a problem in representation, to which he offers a solution—the image. In that image the beholder acknowledges, not the text in the abstract, but the painter’s reading of the text so that the effect the image has on the beholder is a function of what the painter wants the beholder to experi- ence in the text. This is the trajectory of visualization, and the effect of the text through the image is a form of exegesis. Painting is not the sim-

12

13

As for the art of preaching, Luther would have surely caused later Holiness Pentecostals to stumble: “I simply taught, preached and wrote God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philip and Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it. I did nothing; the Word did everything” (Chung-Kim and Hains, Acts, xlvii).

Heidi J. Hornik and Mikeal C. Parsons, Illuminating Luke, 3 vols.: The Infancy Narrative in Italian Renaissance Painting; The Public Ministry of Christ in Italian Renaissance and Baroque Painting; Passion and Resurrection Narratives in Italian Renaissance and Baroque Painting(New York: Trinity Press International, 2003, 2005, 2008).

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

10

review essay

377

ple visualization of the narrative of the text but an expansion of that text, subject to discursive strategies of various kinds. (1.6; 2:5; 3:8).14

H&Pfunction as a fine team for this interdisciplinary project. Not only are they wife and husband, but they serve together on the faculty at Baylor University— she as art historian, and he as New Testament scholar and specialist in the Gospels and Acts.15 In three volumes, H&P work systematically through paint- ings based upon scenes in theThird Gospel. For each scene, they set the context of the biblical text and examine Luke’s literary artistry.They turn next to feature a specific painting, usually one with a rich and enduring history. H&P provide a short narrative on the artist, the commissioning and location of the painting, the sources and precedents for the work, commentary on style and iconogra- phy, and a final application of the possible use of the painting by contemporary faith communities. They not only bring to life past literature, but also put “fresh paint” on works of art from the Italian Renaissance and Baroque eras to assure Luke’s ongoing voice and vision.

In volume one before they attend to the infancy narrative, H&P narrate the evolution of Luke, the author of the Third Gospel, received in Christian tradi- tion. They provide a short summary of early attempts to align the four Gospel writers with the “four living creatures” in Revelation 4:6–8 (Human/Angel, Lion, Ox/Calf, and Eagle). For Irenaeus, the ox symbolizes Luke. Like a calf, Luke signifies the sacrificial and sacerdotal order vividly associated with the fatted calf sacrificed upon the return of the prodigal son, a parable unique to Luke’s Gospel (3). H&P will surprise some by pointing to representations that iden- tify Luke not only as a physician (Col 4:14), but also as a painter and eventually the patron saint of the artist guild in Florence (11). During the early Renais- sance, numerous painters depict Luke as an “interviewer” of the Virgin Mary and Christ (Rogier van der Weyden, Vasari), or they portray Luke on the job as a painter of the Virgin and Child (Guercino, Vasari). The origins of Luke’s second-millennium career as painter and patron saint remain unclear. Since all paintings of Luke portray him with Mary and he writes more of her than any otherNTwriter, he best fits the bill for pursuit of a “vera ikon” (true image) of the Madonna. H&P also suggest that Luke’s literary artistry may have con- tributed to his emergence as a painter (19).

When H&P turn to Lukan scenes, they settle upon paintings in the Italian Renaissance era (1300–1520), specifically for its “high” moments in the visual

14 15

H&Prepeat significant introductory comments in Illuminating Luke, vols. 2 and 3. Some readers may recognize their names as contributors to “On Art,” a regular feature in Christian Century.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

11

378

review essay

exegesis of the Lukan birth narrative. They march through four major scenes and build their commentary around four respective paintings. In theAnnuncia- tion(Luke 1:26–38), Leonardo daVinci captures Gabriel’s message to Mary, “The Lord is with you!”; in hisVisitation(Luke 1:39–56), Jacopo Pontormo links Abra- ham’s near sacrifice of Isaac to the arrival of the Christ Child; in the Nativity and Adoration of the Shepherds(Luke 2:8–20), Domenico Ghirlandaio creates a stunning scene before the manger-turned-sarcophagus that memorializes the loss of an infant son; and finally, in the Presentation in the Temple (Luke 2:22– 38), Ambrogio Lorenzetti portrays in a single moment Anna’s prophecy and Simeon’s Nunc Dimittisfor a contemporary Sienese worshiper (123, 151–152).16

In volume two, H&P cover The Public Ministry of Christ (Luke 3–19) and extend their gaze from the Italian Renaissance through the Baroque period. They admit again the challenge of the selection process, but they settle on five beloved paintings.17 Michele Tosini captures in one moment the Baptism of Christ (Luke 3:21–22) and the temptation by Satan (Luke 4:1–13). In his Mirac- ulous Draught of Fishes (Luke 5:1–11) produced for the Sistine Chapel, Raphael zooms in on Jesus and Peter (among other disciples in a second boat) to ensure at least in part the “primacy of Peter” and legitimization of the papal line. The other stories are unique to the Third Gospel. H&P combine commentary on paintings of The Good Samaritan and The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 10:30–37; 16:19–31) by Jacopo Bassano. The first painting, presumably set in front of his walled hometown of Bassano, depicts the Samaritan gently plac- ing the wounded traveler on his donkey. Bassano contrasts the Samaritan’s rose-colored garment with the dark clothing of two passersby. In the second painting, Bassano uses the concept oftiepedezza(literally, the “indifference”) of the rich man and various guests at a table with Lazarus at their feet. Alessandro Allori, in his Christ in the Home of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38–42), sum- mons all viewers not to choose between, but to reflect upon the healthy tension between active and contemplative lives. Finally, Guercino produces no fewer than seven paintings of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32) and thereby defies a singular meaning to this parable. H&P would surely invite viewers of these

16

17

Though H&P fix their attention on one painting per passage, they include brief com- mentary on other paintings (and the respective artists), particularly as they relate to the primary painting at hand.

In Illuminating Luke, vol. 3, H&P discuss briefly several Lukan scenes unique to Luke that receive barely a “blip on the canvas of visual artists” (151). Outside of illuminated Bibles, this list includes the parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12); the bent woman (Luke 13); the man with dropsy (Luke 14); the parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14); the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18); and Zacchaeus (Luke 19). At this point, I can only wonder about the weight of attention given to certain passages among Pentecostals (see my conclusion).

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

12

review essay

379

paintings to consider the complexity of Jesus’s public ministry. For example, is the miraculous catch of fish simply a miracle of provision or a commentary on ecclesial authority? If Luke’s parables on social and economic disparity speak specifically to counter-Reformation, should they not carry similar open-ended weight for twenty-first-century interpreters?

In volume three,H&Pexamine in detail four paintings from the passion and resurrection narrative, namely,The Agony in the Garden(Luke 22:39–46) by Fra Angelico, The Way to Calvary (Luke 23:26–31) by Giorgio Vasari, The Crucifix- ion (Luke 23:32–43) by Giovanni Stradano, and The Supper at Emmaus (Luke 24:13–35) by Caravaggio. I found their introductory comments ahead of this final volume telling. The advance publication of volumes one and two afforded H&Pthe opportunity to draw upon early reviews. Much to their delight, art his- torians found clarity for interpretation upon better awareness of first-century historical and social contexts and literary perspectives, and biblical scholars found their eyes opened further through art and specifically views not possible by only reading the biblical text. I also sensed the mutual benefit of longevity experienced between H&P and, not least, their opportunity to coteach on this subject during their decade-long research period. In their epilogue, they share personal reflections worthy of consideration. They received and provided a rare opportunity to explore giants of church history not simply as scholars, but also as pastors, readers impacted by the biblical story. These include Ire- naeus (Luke the painter), Tertullian (miraculous draught of fish), Origen (sup- per at Emmaus), Augustine (good Samaritan), Ambrose (Jesus’s agony in the garden), Jerome (prodigal son), and Pope John PaulII(Jesus’s path to Calvary). Yet another point of intrigue included periodic examples of students (most of them Christian) who could not differentiate between biblical and nonbibli- cal sources in artistic pieces.18 Finally, H&P take pleasure concerning readers now capable of differentiating between “fresco, oil on panel, oil on canvas, and tapestry cartoons.” They revel in a readership able to identify the complex iconographic stories of historic “churches (S.Trinità,SS. Annunziata, S. Croce), a monastery (San Marco), and originally private chapels, some now famous (Sistine) and others still very private (Palazzo Salviati).” Readers gain insight into “the study of workshop practices (the Ghirlandaio), student-teacher rela- tionships (Vasari-Stradano), [and] artists/clerics (Fra Angelico)” and into the impact of personality and character contexts on viewing experience (from the pious Fra Angelico to the rebellious Caravaggio).19

18

19

I might liken this to countless references—made by not a few preachers—to Saul falling off his horse in Acts 9, or is it 22, or 26?

H&P, Illuminating Luke, vol. 3, 150–151.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

13

380

review essay

2.4 The Acts of the Apostles through the Centuriesby Hornik

and Parsons20

Roughly ten years after completion of their trilogy on Luke, H&P turn their attention to Acts and make notable shifts. First, unlike their trilogy,H&Pchoose not only to trace artistic interpretations of Acts from the Renaissance and Baroque eras, but also to embark on the more daunting challenge of address- ing both visual and literary interpretations and doing so over twenty centuries. Though many of the literary figures H&P cite repeat those addressed in ACS and RCS (for example, from John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Arator, and Bede to Aquinas, Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin), post-Reformation figures include a new cast of interpreters, including Barth, Bonhoeffer, Bunyan, Carey, Chesterton, Fosdick, Kierkegaard, Knox, Milton, Spurgeon, and an array of con- temporaries such as Johnny Cash, Oliver O’Donovan, Walter Wangerin, Rick Warren, and N.T. Wright. Though their method remains the same, introduc- tory statements remind readers of reception history’s task of scouring through “scholarly debris” and turning one person’s trash of days gone by into con- temporary treasure (2)! Not surprisingly, the first half of Acts (chapters 1–12) garners the greater attention, whether the ascension and Pentecost critical to the church calendar or dramatic accounts of Stephen’s martyrdom, Paul’s con- version, and Peter’s miraculous escape from prison (3).

Given their desire to sample accounts from the entirety of church history, I might describe the reading of this work as a multisensory experience akin to docudrama. I offer as an example their cinematic ability to reimagine Pen- tecost and Acts 2. Whether interpreters liken Pentecost with OT events, such as the burning bush (Cyprian) and Babel (Ambrose), or with the exclusivist pro-Apartheid propaganda by the Dutch Reformed Church versus the inclu- sivism promulgated by Justo Gonzalez, Acts 2 defies singular interpretation. In the art world, one might experience the prominence of Mary through paint- ings of Rabbula Gospels and Botticelli or Donald Jackson’s stunning visual of Pentecost that captures in one scene both ancient Jerusalem and the modern campus and church located at Saint John’s Abbey and University Church in Col- legeville,MN.21Of course, preachers such as Billy Graham and Pope John PaulII find Peter’s sermon a template for evangelistic preaching, but in the case of little-known African-American Baptist preacher Ella Mitchell, it becomes a call toward barrier-breaking inclusivity. For music lovers, H&P compile an impres- sive list of hymns based on Pentecost. For the numbers person, who would have

20

21

Though this volume is published with the Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries,H&P(and other commentators in this series) do not write for a specific Christian era or tradition. See the website at http://saintjohnsbible.org/. Accessed Nov 1, 2017.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

14

review essay

381

guessed that Acts 2:38 (not 1:8 or 2:4) with forty citations is the most quoted verse among some twelve hundred citations from Acts found in nearly three hundred creeds and confessions (61), or that Acts 2:42–47 with forty-six cita- tions is the most oft-cited passage in Acts (65)?22Since this is the first reception commentary on Acts to run into the modern era, H&P recognize the natural importance of Pentecost for Pentecostals, whether Charles Parham (the first to link Spirit reception with tongues), B.B.Warfield (the consummate cessationist and opponent to Pentecostals), or A.G. Garr and Dr. FinisYoakum (Azusa Street attendees who deal with the question of xenolalia) (55). WhenH&Ppause over Acts 2:38, they reflect briefly on the exegetical and controversial significance of “baptism in the name of Jesus” as formula for Oneness Pentecostal Frank Ewart. By way of summary, it is fitting indeed that H&P revive Pentecost as “Pneuma- tological Imagination,” a concept coined and championed by Pentecostal (!) theologian Amos Yong (56–58).23

2.5 Reading Acts in the Baptist Tradition

Given the success of reception-based commentaries from the patristic through Reformation eras, four Baptist scholars bring the Baptist story to the recep- tion road.24Parsons, the leading scholar on the reception history of Luke-Acts, surely provides the methodological stimulus for this project, a stand-alone vol- ume on Acts published by Baylor University Press.25

22

23

24

25

See H&P, Acts, Appendix 1. The only pentecostal denomination cited is the Statement of Fundamental Truthsproduced by the Assemblies of God for its reference to Acts 1:8 (263). See my “Reimagining Luke-Acts: Amos Yong and the Biblical Foundation of Pentecostal Theology,” in Passion for the Spirit: An Introduction to Amos Yong and the New Face of Pen- tecostal Scholarship, ed. Wolfgang Vondey and Martin Mittelstadt, Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies Series 14 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 25–44.

Though the Reformation commentary on Acts had not yet been published, the series is on the radar, and Parsons emerges as the leading figure.

Beth Allison Barr, Helen Barrett Montgomery, Mikael C. Parsons, and C. Douglas Weaver, eds., The Acts of the Apostles: Four Centuries of Baptist Interpretation: The Baptists’ Bible (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009). Though the project team has laid the foundation for a volume on Luke and issued a clarion call for “64 more books of the Bible,” no sub- sequent volume has appeared to date. Concerning boundaries for the Acts project, the editors return to the patristic and medieval relationship between the Third Gospel and Acts: “Perhaps the first question to be raised is whether or not it is appropriate to consider the reception of Acts apart from its counterpart, the Gospel of Luke. After all, the pre- sumed unity of Luke and Acts … remains axiomatic in current NewTestament scholarship (despite efforts otherwise!)” (4). The editorial team, undoubtedly influenced by Parsons, follows the distinct histories of Luke and Acts; see Mikeal Parsons and Richard I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

15

382

review essay

The editors introduce their work in a manner not unlike those described above, but with their Baptist twist, a collaborative and interdisciplinary effort to recover confessions, sermons, and any documents with Baptistic voice. They chart a story of “Baptist Battles” over views on the Bible, its authority, and inspiration; and through their navigation of Baptist proclivity for the “two-step” paradigm, the editors seek to enliven consciousness of unique Baptist expres- sions and to design a volume “to be helpful to Baptist pastors.” They suggest, “From sermon illustrations to Bible studies, this collection of primary sources could be a rich resource to help churches explore their Baptist heritage” (20).

For whatever the terms may be worth, the authors under observation range from Arminians to strict Calvinists, fundamentalists to liberals, charismatics to liturgists,andfromalegionof BaptistestablishmentssuchastheSouthernBap- tist Convention, the Progressive National Baptist Convention, American Bap- tist ChurchesUSA, Free Will Baptist, Pentecostal Free Will Baptist, Seventh-Day Baptist, and the Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptist (I can envision the church sign!). Beyond a Baptist audience, the project team hopes to foster ecumenical conversation and counterclaims akin to that of Catholic theologian James Burtchaell, who contends that “Baptists have not produced many out- standing biblical academicians … and their exegesis has been undisciplined” (8). As for Burtchaell’s deduction, readers receive ample opportunity to judge a collection of 750 texts and 250 authors, a veritable Baptist “Who’s Who” that includes John Bunyan, William Carey, Henry Emerson Fosdick, Billy Gra- ham, Thomas Helwys, Jesse Jackson, Clarence Jordan, Jitsuo Morikawa, Charles Spurgeon, Walter Rauschenbusch, John Smyth, Frank Stagg, Rick Warren, and among the academicians, G.R. Beasley-Murray, Millard Erickson, Carl Henry, George Eldon Ladd, James McClendon, E.Y. Mullins, Caleb Oluremi Oladipo, Clark Pinnock, John Polhill, Bernard Ramm, A.T. Robertson, F. Scott Spencer, and Augustus H. Strong. The editors also fulfill their goal to include previously neglected voices, particularly, those of women and African Americans, across four centuries of Baptist history and from around the globe. In just under one thousand pages, the editors chose not to shy away from Burtchaell’s disdain, for they include “warts and all,” some of which readers may deem “racist, misogy- nist, or heretical” (21–22).

Data fanatics will also pause at length to filter an array of statistics. The work includes two charts, one on the range and use of Luke-Acts references in twenty-five Baptist Confessions between 1611 and 2005 and the other on the use of Luke-Acts against the Nicene Creed. One appendix compares utiliza- tion of Acts among five lectionaries (Revised Common Lectionary [used by various Baptist denominations], Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, United Methodist); another contrasts references to Acts in the Roman CatholicGather

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

16

review essay

383

HymnalversusThe Baptist Hymnal. Though most Pentecostals do not employ a lectionary, a survey of Scripture use in pentecostal hymnals would surely speak to our use of Scripture and proclivities toward certain texts. If I and others claim the centrality of (Luke-)Acts in our tradition, would this ring true of our music?

As pentecostal readers meander through the commentary, they are surely not alarmed by occasional criticism of the validity of contemporary Spirit bap- tism. When asked, “But do you mean that this is for today?” Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary President B.H. Carroll (1939) answers, “Not a breath of it. I do affirm that God’s word distinctly restricts such signs to the day of authen- tication” (19). Similarly, the unequivocal language by National Association of FreeWill Baptists (1979) pulls no punches: “We believe that speaking in tongues as a visible sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is an erroneous doctrine to be rejected. Any implications of a ‘second work of grace’ has never been tolerated in our fellowship of churches, and will not be permitted” (126). On the other side, readers may experience surprise by the turn-of-the-twentieth-century proto-pentecostal yet Baptist pastor A.J. Gordon’s proclamation that the gift of the Spirit is “logically and chronologically … subsequent to repentance” (119); the late Howard Ervin’s claim that “Luke is not here [Acts 2] referring to the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion and regeneration” (131); and even Charles Talbert’s exhortation: “It would finally be a mistake to think of Pentecost as a once-for-all event for the evangelist. In Acts outpouring of the Holy Spirit is depicted as repeatable in the life of the church” (134). And what would many Baptists think of the feisty and polemical account of the Reverend Ella Pear- son Mitchell (1985, emphasis original)? In her testimony of Spirit baptism by an African American—and a woman no less (emphasis mine)—she declares, “God said that he would pour out his Spirit on all flesh, and he has dumped the bucket on a whole lot of women a whole lot of times.” She continues: “He poured it out on me many times before I rose up and came forward, before I made it known that as far back as my teen years I had been called by God, called to preach as well as to teach. This is in the mind and will of God, and God who changeth not has never willed it otherwise. It’s we faltering humans who have the hangups” (130). This sentiment parallels a similar lament by many pente- costal women; Evangelist Eleanor Frey possibly captured it best: “God Almighty is no fool … [why] would He fill a woman with the Holy Spirit—endow her with ability—give her a vision for souls and then tell her to shut her mouth?”26

26

See myReading Luke-Acts, 103. This statement come from Frey’s personal letters. I first dis- covered this statement in Grant Wacker’s Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture(Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 169.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

17

384

review essay

Since the matter of women in ministry remains controversial for Baptists (and not a few Pentecostals), the editors hardly veil their egalitarian penchant. The team pays stunning homage to the contributions of Helen Barrett Mont- gomery (1861–1934), a Sunday School teacher turned preacher, advocate for suf- frage, first president of the Woman’s American Baptist Foreign Missions Soci- ety, and first female president of the Northern Baptist Convention in 1916 (and any denomination in the United States!27). The editors solicit Sharyn Dowd and Alicia Myers to chronicle Montgomery’s remarkable story and to draw par- ticular attention to her publication of The Centenary Translation of the New Testament in 1924 for the one-hundredth anniversary of the American Baptist Publication Society. It was the first translation by a Baptist and the first English Bible translated from the original Greek by a woman to be published by an established publishing house. In fitting tribute, the editors use Montgomery’s translation throughout the commentary.28

I heartily agree with the editors’ characterization of some of their Baptist ancestors and contemporaries as “undisciplined,” but they were not “unin- formed,” nor necessarily “untrue.” To the contrary, “Baptist exegesis [of our Acts] is rich, complicated, conflicting, and conflicted. In the end, these his- toric ‘Baptist tongues’ of Scripture enable, indeed demand from us, a response, reminding us of the need for a ‘thousand tonguesto sing our Great Redeemer’s praise!’” (emphasis original, 8). On this note, I turn to Pentecostals.

27 28

Aimee Semple McPherson charters the Church of the Foursquare Gospel in 1923. Later published as The New Testament in Modern English and subtitled Montgomery New Testament (not to be confused with J.B. Phillips’s widely popular translation by the same title). Due to length limits, I am unable to comment on Montgomery’s translation of Acts, but Dowd and Myers provide an excellent summary and evaluation in their essay (37–70). The editors also include regular excerpts from Clarence Jordan’s popularCotton Patch Ver- sionof LukeandActs:Jesus’DoingsandtheHappenings(Macon,GA: Smith & Helwys, 1969). Jordan, founder of an interracial farming community and Civil Rights activist, utilizes his context to produce a magical translation. I would be remiss not to include an excerpt from Acts 10:35–45:

“‘I am convinced beyond any doubt,’ Rock began, ‘that God pays no attention to man’s skin … The point was made clear to white people when the news of peace was preached … about Jesus from Valdosta.’ Even as Rock was saying these words, Holy Spirit came over all the listeners. Even the white believers, who had accompanied Rock, were taken by surprise that the Holy Spirit was so freely given to other races.” (490–491).

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

18

review essay

385

3 Receiving Luke-Acts in the Pentecostal Tradition:

Back to the Future

If Luke-Acts proves critical to the theological and praxeological vision of twentieth-century Pentecostalism, we must take more than an occasional glance in our rearview mirror. We move forward not in a vacuum, but as part of a larger community of theologians and practitioners, both formal and infor- mal, amateur and professional, past and present. Reception historians look to the past not only to tell our story—in the manner of church historians—but to focus specifically on our collective reading, application, and performance of the biblical text across the pentecostal stage. We must celebrate our rich con- tributions, take an honest look at our “warts,” share them with one another, and build a better future. What might this look like? How should Pentecostals turn back time and revisit our use of the biblical text? And why Luke-Acts?

As a discipline for hunters and gatherers, reception history provides a method well-suited for researchers willing to comb the literature, collect and organize material, and make pentecostal collections available to a larger audi- ence. Beyond the invaluable work of traditional historians and theologians, reception historians provide us (and others) the opportunity simply to hear what Luke has been saying and to reflect upon what Luke-Acts has meant. Such an initial gift to the academy and the church would look similar to theACSand RCS, where editors primarily collect and align material, but offer only mini- mal commentary. I am convinced that a reception commentary on Luke-Acts in the pentecostal/charismatic tradition would create a new path for greater integration of our history in concert with biblical interpretation. If we turn to the Scriptures and reflect upon “what have we been saying?” it will compel us to ask, “where are we now?” and “where are we going?”

Beyond the basic and initial collection described above, however, recep- tion historians must also embark on a more difficult and rewarding journey. Reception historians seek not only to collect data, but to trace interpreta- tive trajectories and patterns and to reveal the importance of context, loca- tion, stratification, theologies, worldviews, and a host of other influences that impact readings. Indeed, failure to do so remains unfinished work (and my pri- mary critique of first-phase reception commentaries). Though we must begin with the contributions of hunters and gatherers, reception historians must do more than reproduce the Bible’s post-history; they must offer critical analy- sis of our received messages. To what must we return? Why did we lose our way? How do we recover from this? Future vision requires recovery not only from historical amnesia, but also from exegetical and interpretative memory loss.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

19

386

review essay

As a pentecostal, I cannot overstate the opportunity before us. Pentecostal students and scholars interested in our history of exegesis will discover a road filled with artifacts.29In fact, the task may prove too lucrative and require mini- excursions. For example, I stumbled upon some literature on the pentecostal use of Acts 19:11–12, and what I thought would be a short pause turned into a forthcoming essay in honor of Roger Stronstad. Many biblical scholars in the pentecostal tradition, myself included, stand squarely on the shoulders of Stronstad and his excellent work on the relationship between normativity and application. But how is it that a single biblical example of anointed cloths that touched Paul would not pass the normativity test, yet Pentecostals turn this story into a common and accepted practice for ministry to the sick?30 Second, I think of the poetry of Charismatic Catholic Kilian McDonnell. In five delight- ful collections of poetry, he includes some forty poems based solely on passages in Luke, and of these, sixteen poems launch from the parable of the prodigal son (if indeed the label is legitimate). McDonnell uses poetic license and the expertise of an experienced biblical scholar to bring these parabolic charac- ters to life. Readers will find his work not only delightful and stimulating, but a worthy addition for anyone who seeks to hear (and preach) the living words of Jesus.31

Though Pentecostals represent a comparatively young movement in the drama of Christian history, I would risk a guess that perhaps only Catholics

29

30

31

Among the pentecostal contributors to break into reception history, but not based upon Luke-Acts, see John Christopher Thomas, “‘What the Spirit is Saying to the Church’—The Testimony of a Pentecostal in New Testament Studies,” inSpirit and Scripture: Exploring a Pneumatic Hermeneutic, ed. Kevin L. Spawn and Archie T. Wright (New York: T & T Clark, 2012), 115–129; Emerson B. Powery, “Ulrich Luz’sMatthewinHistory:A Contribution to Pen- tecostal Hermeneutics?,” and Luz, “A Response to Emerson B. Powery,” in JPT 14 (1999): 3–17, and 19–26 respectively.

See my “Nothing to Sneeze At: Receiving Acts 19:11–12 in the Canadian Pentecostal Tradi- tion,” inReading St. Luke’sText andTheology: A PentecostalVoice. Essays in Honour of Roger Stronstad on his 75th Birthday, ed. Riku P. Tupparainen (Eugene,OR: Pickwick Press, forth- coming). During research for this project, I discovered a similar project by John Christo- pherThomas, “Toward a PentecostalTheology of Anointed Cloths,” inTowardaPentecostal Theology of Worship, ed. Lee Roy Martin (Cleveland,TN:CPTPress, 2016), 89–112. Killian McDonnell has published five collections through Saint John’s University Press in Collegeville,MN:Swift, Lord, You Are Not, 2003;Yahweh’s Other Shoe, 2006; God Drops and Loses Things, 2009;Wrestling with God, 2011; and Aggressive Mercy, 2014.

I just received Dave Gowler’s The Parables after Jesus: Their Imaginative Receptions across Two Millennia(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017). Due to its recent release and length lim- itations, I am not able to review his work in this essay. I will only say that Gowler produces what should be the definitive reception history of the parables for years to come, but he includes no references to McDonnell or any other Pentecostals.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

20

review essay

387

produced more Christian literature in the twentieth century than print-happy Pentecostals. In a recent conversation with Darrin Rodgers, director of Inter- national Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center (IFPHC), the world’s largest pen- tecostal archive, I discovered some staggering numbers. IFPHC (only one of numerous residential and online pentecostal archives) houses approximately 120,000 catalogued items; 3,500 periodicals (that is, magazines, newspapers, and newsletters; these total more than 200,000 issues); 6,000 folded tracts; 27,000 books and booklets; about 1,000 collections of personal papers (min- isters, evangelists, missionaries); and a conservative estimate of some 500,000 sermons.32 Many of these documents include testimonies of salvation, Spirit baptism, healing, exorcism, deliverance, and mission; reports of traveling evan- gelists; and accounts of revivals.Within these stories, biblical insights and inter- pretationareassumedorembedded.Giventheglobalreachof Pentecostals,the IFPHC collection includes literature in 140 languages. Though only 7,000 cat- alogued items are in languages other than English (Spanish, Swedish, French, and German publications round out the top five), Rodgers stated that, of some 5,000 catalogued additions per year, about 10 percent of annual additions are not in English.33 Indeed, we need reception historians not only to comb our English resources, but also to produce single-language commentaries in other languages and, better yet, to offer comparative analysis. Beyond translation of Luke-Acts, we must enlarge our understanding of “What has Luke meant in new languages?” or, to spin Amos Yong’s axiom, “How have we been hearing the many tongues and many practices of Pentecost?”

Finally, I invite readers across an array of disciplines to examine the efforts of H&P as a template for pentecostal research. The ACS, RCS, and Baptist col- lections reviewed above serve as fine templates for a future pentecostal com- mentary based primarily on printed literature; butH&Poffer the consummate example of a “commentary” that listens to readings and embraces the multi- sensory experience of the biblical story by way of artistic expressions. Though Pentecostals may not be known for their church art and architecture, recep- tion historians may surprise us. Many churches use biblical texts or slogans to speak of their identity; some take their name from Luke-Acts. For example,

32

33

Sermons became a primary publication form for many pentecostal publishing houses. Publishers found an insatiable market for individual homilies generally as folded tracts or larger collections typically from the pens of popular pastors, evangelists, educators, or ministers. Among sermons not published, Rodgers described personal collections, many of them from deceased pentecostal ministers; some of these collections may include up to fifty years of saved sermons by one minister.

Phone conversation with Darrin Rodgers, November 5, 2017.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

21

388

review essay

beyond obvious ones such as apostolic or pentecost(al), ministries regularly identify with places such as Berea, Emmaus, Mars Hill, and the Upper Room; labels such as fire, signs and wonders, or Acts 29; characters such as Zaccha- eus, Stephen, Tabitha, Barnabas, Lydia, or the Samaritan(s); and verses such as Acts 1:8; 2:4; 2:42–47. Another strength of Pentecostalism surely includes their emphasis upon music. In the spirit of H&P, how does our music tell and shape the Lukan story? And not to be forgotten, what about written forms such as confessions, creeds, constitutions and by-laws, credentialing documents, min- utes, position papers, “white papers,” and other sources that describe “what the Scriptures have meant” for faith and practice?

Perhaps no one says it better than LukeTimothy Johnson, a renowned Lukan scholar. In his review ofH&P, he concludes: “At the beginning of the twenty-first century, precisely when the limitations of the historical-critical approach to the Bible have become clear to nearly everyone, there has simultaneously arisen the corresponding realization that the examination of the world that produced the Bible is not nearly so satisfying or important as appreciating the world that the Bible produced.”34 Since Pentecostals have made a living by extending the lives of Lukan characters, retrieval of Luke’s story among Pentecostals looks like a journey worth traveling.

34

Luke Timothy Johnson, “Review of Illuminating Luke: The Infancy Narrative in Italian Renaissance Painting,”Bible Review(2004): 41. I am grateful to Matthew Paugh for his com- ments on this essay.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 367–388

22

Be first to comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.