Revitalizing Theological Categories A Classical Pentecostal Response To J. Rodman Williamss Renewal Theology

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

Frank D. Macchia’s review essay critically examines J. Rodman Williams’s three-volume *Renewal Theology*, positioning it as a significant attempt by a Reformed theologian deeply engaged in the Charismatic Renewal to “revitalize” traditional theological categories. Williams, a former Presbyterian who became active in the Charismatic movement in 1965, sought to imbue his Calvinist heritage with a new vitality, making traditional doctrines “operational” through the dynamic action of the Holy Spirit. His theological pilgrimage, described as a “Calvinistic” pursuit of God’s glory, aims to counter both divine immanentism (like process theology) and deism by emphasizing God’s sovereignty alongside His immediate and miraculous presence. Williams’s primary objective is pedagogical, intending to systematically explain Christian faith, particularly for Charismatic seminary students and broader audiences, a context that shapes the encyclopedic rather than critically reflective nature of his magnum opus. Macchia highlights how Williams “Pentecostalizes” his Reformed vision, particularly in his extensive pneumatology. Williams adopts a classical Pentecostal stance on Spirit baptism and tongues as initial evidence, interpreting Pauline texts through the lens of the Book of Acts and surprisingly finding support in Calvin for modern-day miracles and a post-conversion Spirit experience. However, Macchia identifies significant ambivalence in Williams’s engagement with the Holiness/Pietistic roots characteristic of classical Pentecostalism. For instance, while defending divine healing based on the Spirit’s sovereignty, Williams disassociates it from the atonement and integrates it poorly into his soteriology, maintaining salvation as fundamentally “spiritual.” Similarly, his “declaratory” understanding of justification struggles conceptually to merge with sanctification, and he appears to conflate Wesleyan “entire sanctification” with an unrealistic quest for absolute perfection, despite acknowledging the importance of striving for “relative” perfection and a sanctified life before Spirit baptism. A central critique from Macchia concerns Williams’s methodological inconsistencies and lack of critical dialogue. Despite claiming a fundamental role for pneumatic experience in hermeneutics, Williams’s actual practice often defaults to a “Scripture alone” approach that neglects critical biblical scholarship, such as Qumran research, or the distinct historical and literary contexts of different biblical passages (e.g., his treatment of tongues in Acts vs. 1 Corinthians). This leads to devotional readings that serve his theological purposes rather than engaging deeply with the complexities of biblical interpretation. Furthermore, Williams largely omits dialogue with contemporary theological voices, including major figures in systematic theology (Barth, Rahner, Moltmann), feminist scholarship, or liberation theology. This absence is particularly “painfully felt” in his discussion of women in ministry, where he uncritically upholds a theology of female subordination based on a narrow interpretation of creation, ignoring the lived experiences of countless Spirit-anointed women pastors in Pentecostal/Charismatic traditions, which contradicts his stated commitment to experience informing hermeneutics. Ultimately, Macchia concludes that Williams’s *Renewal Theology*, while commendably passionate and a fulfillment of a traditional “Bible-doctrines” style within Pentecostalism, falls short of the critical, contextual, and dialogic engagement necessary for contemporary theology. Macchia acknowledges Williams’s desire to safeguard the Reformed emphasis on God’s sovereignty alongside the Charismatic experience of His living presence. However, he advocates for a more revolutionary approach to Pentecostal theology, one that would deeply challenge and potentially abandon “dead theological categories” to allow for fresh, liberating expressions of the Spirit, particularly in solidarity with the suffering and oppressed. This call aligns with recent trends in Pentecostal scholarship that prioritize ecumenical, contextual, and critically reflective methodologies, ensuring theology remains relevant and open to diverse voices and experiences.