Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 413–435
Book Reviews
∵
Amos Yong
The Dialogical Spirit: Christian Reason and Theological Method in the Third
Millennium(Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2014) xvi + 336 pp. $39.00.
The Dialogical Spirit is a collection of previously published articles by the prominent Pentecostal thinker, Amos Yong. This book is structured into four sections each seeking to tackle the challenge of a different “post …” which characterizes our current age: (1) the ‘Postfoundationalist Turn’, (2) the ‘Post- Christendom Era’, (3) the ‘Postsecular Milieu’, and (4) the ‘Postmodern Situa- tion’. These four sections have three dialogue partners with a chapter each. In this way, Yong has written a book which not only promotes dialogues, but also seeks to exemplify such a dialogical methodology.
The first chapter provides an overview of the main issues regarding the struggle between evangelicalism and post-foundationalism as well as a clear, although necessarily selective, description of Charles Sander Peirce’s episte- mology. The aim is to show that evangelicals can use Peirce to “reconstruct a non-foundationalist theology without jettisoning the idea of truth as corre- spondence.” (25)
The second chapter provides a “strong misreading” of America neo-pragma- tist Richard Rorty in order to develop a “post-Rortyean pragmatic theology” (56). Initially, Yong seeks to salvage five theses from Rorty’s work (56–61). However, the reader is left with the admission that Rorty’s philosophy is non- conducive to dialogue and so, instead, Yong returns to Peirce’s more realist and theistically open “pragmaticism” (72). In what follows, Yong constructs a dia- logue between the two American pragmatists, but with such selective accounts of both of their philosophies, this is a highly problematic section of the book with little apparent purpose.
In the final chapter of this ‘post-foundational’ section, Yong seeks to intro- duce Donald L. Gelpi to his Pentecostal readership. The goal, and indeed the major take-away from this whole first section, is the idea of a theological
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi: 10.1163/15700747-03703006
1
414
book reviews
methodology whereby “doctrinal statements and beliefs […] emerge from experience … and [are] confirmed by on-going practice” (86). Yong gestures towards a theological methodology that is based in the actions of a community, which undergoes semiotic interpretation continuous until the eschaton. This seems a viable proposal for our post-modern age. Unfortunately, Yong spends so much time unpacking the complex epistemologiesof his threedialogue part- ners that his own constructive theological conclusions are less than they might be and often are left to the reader to infer.
ThesecondsectionbeginswithatributetoBaptisttheologianJamesWilliam McClendon, Jr. Yong summarizes McClendon’s three-volumeSystematic Theol- ogy and brings its vision (characterized as a “this is that, then is now” princi- ple) to include Wesleyan and Pentecostal thinking. In particular, this chapter endorses the missiological impetus of McClendon’s narrative-theology, which includes a shared openness towards other religions.
Chapter five gives both a biographical account of theologian Veli-Matti Kärk- käinen and uses this to explore the future of “evangelicalism as a pluralistic and global phenomenon” (122). Thus, in keeping with the post-Christendom theme of this section, Yong argues that evangelical theology needs to be more aware of its own contextual bases in ecumenical discussions and more open to the practices and structures of other religions in inter-religious dialogue.
The final chapter of this section provides a “pneumatological assist” to James K.A. Smith’s Reformed vision of Radical Orthodoxy. In so doing, Yong provides this book’s first explicit and constructive pneumatological engagement with a dialogue partner (160–164).
Chapter seven commends John Polkinghorne’s work in science-Christian dialogue for remaining theologically orthodox whilst methodologically “begin- ning with the empirical data of Christian faith”(170).Yongadvises Polkinghorne towards further consideration of divine action at Pentecost (177, 182) and the use of “empirical data” from other religions (181–183)
InchaptereightYongfollowshisownadvice(toPolkinghorne)anddescribes the development in Buddhist–science dialogue through the Mind and Life Instituteoverthelastthreedecades.Thisendswithanencouragementtowards, rather than much engagement with, Christian-Buddhist-science trilogue (and even a suggestion for quadralogue with the inclusion of disability studies).
The ninth chapter continues with Buddhism by examining the life and work of Western-Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace. Yong suggests that a specifi- cally Tibetan “global Buddhist tradition” can provide “additional resources and alliances” (221) to other religions in the area of philosophy of mind by devel- oping a “postmodern science of consciousness” (219) against materialism and scientism.
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 413–435
2
book reviews
415
Chapter ten intensifies the inter-religious focus as it probes the “dual reli- gious identity” approach of Jesuit/Hindu practitioner Francis X. Clooney. Yong sees Clooney’s work as a promising approach to Christian missions; as “faith seeking understanding in a pluralistic world” (230).
Chapter eleven considers possible methodological stances of religious stud- ies. In seeking to have it all, Yong argues that one can maintain the postures of methodological atheism, agnosticism and theism, of the etic and the emic, of reductionism, religionismandagnosticism by engaging in methodological lud- ism. André Drooger’s methodological ludism is “a playful mode of studying the religions” (259) which allows for multiple belief systems, identities and view- points to be held simultaneously.
The final chapter brings Yong’s collection full circle. This appreciative review essay of Benno van den Toren’sChristianApologeticsasCross-CulturalDialogue, brings together Yong’s reoccurring themes in methodological dialogue: an over- all focus on Christian missions, which is practice orientated, community based, and open to revision through the influence of other perspectives and traditions.
Yong concludes by highlighting some broader issues in theological method- ology; namely, that “only a Pentecostal imagination is able to sustain the dialog- ical task in a pluralistic world” (285), and stating that there is still an important placefor Scriptureand tradition.In sodoing he reassertshis identityas anevan- gelical theologian, even if the understanding of evangelicalism throughout this book has been broadened. Yong succeeds in introducing new dialogue part- ners into the discussion about theological methodology. However, this book is overburdened with descriptions so that many of Yong’s constructive arguments remain somewhat behind the scenes and are left to the reader to infer and draw out for themselves.
Joanna Leidenhag
Doctoral Candidate, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
PNEUMA 37 (2015) 413–435
3
