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
book reviews
527
Wolfgang Vondey and Martin William Mittelstadt (eds.)
The Theology of Amos Yong and the New Face of Pentecostal Scholarship: Passion
for the Spirit. Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 14. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Hardcover $141.00.isbn9789004251748.
The scholarly work of Amos Yong is given effusive praise by the editors of this book: “his work represents an outstanding voice and perhaps the most prolific manifestation of Pentecostal scholarship today” (p. 3). Yong has attempted to lead Pentecostal scholarship into areas of scholarly pursuit that have been pre- viously unexamined by Pentecostals. His work interacts with a broad spectrum of academic disciplines, best captured this way by the editors:
The pneumatological theme evident throughout Yong’s writings mani- fests the theological and experiential start with the Spirit that proceeds to engagement and dialogue with other perspectives and disciplines and that represents a procedure whereby that interaction is opened up to what the Spirit is saying and where the interpretation of the Spirit’s direc- tion is leading.
p. 271
Illustrating the breadth of Yong’s interests, the authors present nine essays that address Yong’s engagement with science, politics, epistemology, social science (hospitality), theology, world religions, and the arts (film).
Yong’s wide-ranging work has caught the attention of scholars from other disciplines and traditions. The authors have provided four essays from schol- ars representing those other disciplines and traditions, including a summary explanation and analysis of Yong’s work by the Catholic scholar, the late Ralph Del Colle, someone well known to the members of the Society for Pentecostal Theology (sps), and one who regularly engaged in dialogue with Yong and his scholarship in the Society.
The essays that interact with Yong’s diverse interests are robust, interesting, and at times even provocative. Note Studebaker’s critique of Yong’s pneumato- logical approach as ‘limiting’ Trinitarian models (pp. 89–93). However, in other essays two areas of Yong’s most controversial interests—dialogue with other religions and fellowship with Oneness Pentecostals—are described with admi- ration. To those who criticize his ‘ecumenical spirit’ toward those with whom most Pentecostals would differ,Yong proposes a kind of hospitality that seeks to listen to the other and thus earn a chance to be heard by the other.To those who complainYong is sacrificing Christology for Pneumatology, he would argue that he wants to be Christ centered and Spirit driven in a kind of complementary relationship.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/15700747-03804010
1
528
book reviews
No part of Yong’s work, in my opinion, is more influential than his theology of disability. As the parent of a mentally challenged (now) adult son, I find Yong’s attempt to include the helpless and marginal in his understanding of God’s work in the world to be both inspirational and empowering to all. In the best sense of Yong’s pneumatological imagination, he has invited the church to think creatively about its view of marginalized people as well as its praxis in dealing with their ills. However, reminding the church that the disabled and marginalized also have a voice, Yong insists that the church listen to the voice of the helpless to see what the Spirit might be saying through them. As Hittenberger correctly points out in his essay, Yong insists Christians read biblical passages about the marginalized as providing redemption and empowerment for all people, including and perhaps especially for those who are typically treated as second-class (p. 151).
It is Yong’s pneumatological imagination that so engages epistemology, pro- viding Pentecostals with a kind of Spirit-infused epistemological lens by which there can be careful interaction with different religions, philosophy and cul- ture, political theory, and the arts as a means of discerning God’s truth or as a means of speaking to diverse areas of concern to the wider human audience in this world. Yong’s work invites Pentecostals out of their relatively narrow world focused almost exclusively on missions, evangelism, and spiritual experience to a much wider and broader world where so many ‘live and move and have their being’.
Yong relies on the philosophy of C.S. Peirce to provide a framework for his research. According to Yong, the metaphysics of Peirce provides a teleological view of nature, which can include spontaneity and chance. Yong believes this works well with his pneumatological imagination because, like the wind, the Spirit goes where the Spirit wills. The human experience of God’s presence can provide a natural connection with the empirical sciences without denigrating scientific inquiry.
This book is a valuable contribution to the burgeoning work of Pentecostal scholarship, not just Yong’s scholarship, but also the scholarship of the con- tributors. Although the book invites interaction withYong’s work, the book also provides a kind of introduction to the scholarly work of the contributors. Read- ing their work was akin to enjoying a lively session at anspsconference. If that were the only reason to read this book, that would be sufficient. Of course, of greater importance would be to read this book as a kind of personal assistant who helps you process the many and varied works of Amos Yong.
Notwithstanding the quality of this book and of Yong’s work, I also have some concerns. While it is true that ‘covering all the bases’ would make the book much too large for publication, nevertheless, it would have been helpful
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 503–531
2
book reviews
529
to have a Latin American scholar respond to some aspect of Yong’s work. Pentecostalism in Latin America probably represents the largest expression of the Pentecostal tradition in the world. It would have been interesting to read of howYong’s contributions have impacted that regional expression of the tradition.
The editors themselves raise questions about Yong’s work as representative of Pentecostal scholarship (p. 3). If Yong represents “the new face of Pentecostal scholarship” (p.3), just what does that mean? I wonderif said scholarship might be more diverse than just one ‘face’? Pentecostal scholarship might be multi- faceted and include influential voices from the Pacific region, Europe, Africa, and Latin America. Female Pentecostal scholars should be also recognized for theirfinecontributions.Thisisnottoquestiontheplaceof Yong’scontributions as prominent and of primary importance; it is to say that as Pentecostal schol- arship finds its place among the Christian traditions of the world, its ‘many tongues’ will include many people with their own unique contributions. Rather than focusing on just one (primary) modern paragon for Pentecostal scholar- ship, perhaps there is actually a rainbow of possibilities of scholarly influence expressed by a rainbow of scholarly mentors ‘each in their own tongue’.
Steven M. Fettke
Southeastern University, Lakeland, Florida
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 503–531
3
