Theological Renewal (1975 1983) Listening To An Editors Agenda For Church And Academy

Theological Renewal (1975 1983) Listening To An Editors Agenda For Church And Academy

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

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected



Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107

T eological Renewal (1975-1983): Listening to an Editor’s Agenda for

Church and Academy1

Mark J. Cartledge

Department of T eology and Religion, University of Birmingham, Selly Oak Campus,

Elmfield House, Bristol Road, Birmingham, B29 6LG, UK


This article explores the theological agenda set out by Thomas A. Smail during the Charismatic Renewal of the mid 1970s and early 1980s through his contribution to the journal Theological Renewal, which he edited (1975-1983). Smail expounds a theology of renewal that engages with church and academy by offering a trinitarian framework and a christological focus. These features are placed in dialogue with his own personal experience of renewal in the Holy Spirit, contemporary issues in the Charismatic Renewal, and his theological education in the Reformed and Barthian traditions. What emerges from a critical reflection is not only insight into the theological climate of the period in which an early renewalist theologian was engaged, but also resources for contemporary Pentecostal/Charismatic theological construction.


T omas A. Smail, Charismatic Renewal, Church, Academy, Trinity, Christology


In 1964 Fountain Trust was born as an agent of the Charismatic Renewal (hereafter CR) in the United Kingdom. Michael Harper was its first director and the influence of the Trust was significant, especially during the 1970s. The Trust published a key magazine, Renewal, together with a companion journal from 1975 entitled Theological Renewal (hereafter TR). This journal moved from its home with Fountain Trust in 1981 and was published under the domain of Grove Books (then based at St John’s College, Nottingham)


I am grateful to Jimmy Dunn for the kind gift of all but one issue of T eological Renewal ; Bob Fyall provided the missing issue and to him I am also grateful.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: 10.1163/157007408X287795



M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107

until 1983. The editor of TR, Thomas A. Smail, also the second director of the Fountain Trust (1975-1979), was a significant influence in shaping the agenda of Charismatic theology during this period. But he was ultimately to become disillusioned with both the church and the academy because of their reluctance to engage with a theological renewalist agenda. The issue that I wish to address in this essay is the theological agenda pursued by Smail from 1975 to 1983. I want to suggest that this particular agenda is worth recovering as a distinctive theological voice with which to enter into dialogue. My intention is not to assess the wider work of Smail, although I think that is a serious task waiting to be done, but to consider the contents of the editorials and articles written by the editor himself. In particular I wish to enquire about their continuing significance as agenda items for Pentecostal/Charismatic theology.

Before I launch into a description of the material it is worth being reminded of the man himself. T omas A. Smail (b. 1928) was a young Scottish Presby- terian minister when he experienced charismatic renewal. By temperament and tradition unsympathetic to “the unsystematic spontaneity and emotional abandon of Pentecostal Christianity,”2 he was concerned with correct theology and ecclesial order informed by the theology of Karl Barth and T omas F. Tor- rance. A visit by Dennis Bennett under the auspices of the newly formed Fountain Trust, however, challenged Smail to “seek God himself,”3 which he continues to regard as being the heart of Christian renewal. T eology is sec- ondary to this desire. The desire found fulfilment during three weeks in November of 1965 during which he received charismatic renewal. On reflection, Smail recalls that there were three facets to his experience at this time: (1) a renewal of his relationship with God; which (2) resulted in a new closeness with other people; and (3) victory over moral struggles through the sanctifying work of the Spirit.4 To these facets charismatic gifts, such as tongues, were added; but Smail always understood charismata to be secondary to these primary features. It is these essential features that inform, and are informed by, his theology expressed in the editorials.


Tom Smail, “A Renewal Recalled,” in Tom Smail, Andrew Walker and Nigel Wright, Char- ismatic Renewal: A Search for a T eology (London: SPCK, 1993), 7-21 (8).


“A Renewal Recalled,” 14.


See T omas A. Smail, Reflected Glory: The Spirit in Christ and Christians (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1975), 17-18.


M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107


The Editorial Agenda: T eology and Renewal

Smail stopped writing editorials for a period (1978-1981, issues 10-16, 18- 19) after someone complained that they had begun to read like “theological book notes.”5 In these issues when he felt that he had something to say he did so via an article. From 1982, however, the editorial was resumed but as a way of introducing the contents of the articles in each issue, which is what he did except for two issues (17 and 20). In these issues he writes “farewells,” first from Fountain Trust when it terminated and second from the journal itself when it was discontinued by its new owner, Grove Books. Therefore, the most significant editorials are the earlier ones and the “termi- nal” ones, as they give a fair reflection of his understanding of theological renewal conceived in terms of the church and the academy.

The T eology of Renewal and the Renewal of T eology

In the opening editorial, Smail notes that the CR was evidently a move- ment in need of a theology and that the journal was intended to “encour- age charismatics to take part in that search for a theology.”6 In addition, however, it is clear to Smail that the CR is dissatisfied with much that passes as theology in the church at the time. Clergy have made either too little or too much of what has been offered them. For the first group, critical scholarship has been a hindrance and an irrelevance rather than a help. With their experience of CR came a new assurance of faith and it is this renewal experience that has made them defensive against attempts to theologize it. For the second group, theology was embraced with the force of “intellectual legalism” and right doctrine always took precedence over a living relationship with Christ. The debating of theological issues was substituted for listening to the word of God and prayer.7

As a member of this second group, listening to the testimony of Dennis Bennett enabled Smail to turn away from “theological law” to discover the grace of God afresh and the freedom that it brings. The contrast between theology and experience must never be allowed to become absolute because theology should always spring out of a commitment of faith. But this is not what Smail sees in the contemporary situation, in which a gulf exists between


“On Editorials, Exorcisms and Ecumenism,” TR 20 (1982): 2. 6

“T eology of Renewal and the Renewal of T eology,” TR 1 (1975): 2-4 (2) . 7

Ibid., 2.



M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107

academic theology and living faith “to the detriment of both.”8 The academic noncommitment of the university makes theology into a kind of free religious philosophy without binding Christian norms. T ere is a “deadness and spir- itual impoverishment” that has partly befallen the theological world.9 Refer- ring to the role of academic theology he says: “If it wants a hearing it must learn to speak not in tones of academic superiority, but in the tones of com- mitted faith and from the midst of the community of faith. It must speak in a way that is relevant to the tasks of that community in discovering and sharing the riches of God in Christ.”10 For Smail, all theologians have need of the renewal of the Spirit if they are to be productive within the Kingdom of God.

It is equally the case that Charismatics need to become theological because theology is a gift, a charisma (grace gift), of the Holy Spirit. T eology that is spiritual contains within it aspects of the gift of discernment that enables the- ologians to see what is of God and what is merely human. This gift can be used to test the spirits and show how the gospel can be expressed in the contempo- rary world, thus taking the partial experience of Christians and relating it to, and correcting it by, the whole gospel. A healthy CR will always have a theo- logian, not necessarily a professional academic, but someone with intellectual ability used by God to relate experience to the truth of Christ.11 T is means that the first utterance of experience must be followed by a second utterance, which is theological, enabling the Charismatic to be apostolic and catholic. The search for a theology does this by relating experience to the “whole faith of the church.”12 T erefore, TR is aimed at enabling the CR to think theo- logically. It is aimed at those who would exercise leadership in the Renewal Movement in order that they might be resourced and that theology and renewal might be brought together for the benefit of both.

The Sign and the Signified: The Work of the Spirit in Event and T eology

On this subject Smail takes as his cue the ministry of Johann Christoph Blumhardt and his son Christoph in the Black Forest village of Möttlingen in the late 1830s and 1840s.13 Against a background of occult practices,


Ibid., 3.






Ibid., 3-4.


Ibid., 4.


“The Sign and The Signified: The Work of the Spirit in Event and T eology,” TR 15 (1980): 2-8.


M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107


and in particular a case of exorcism that resulted in the exclamation of the victory of Christ, they established a ministry of revival that moved eventually to Bad Boll and greater social and political significance. Smail first read of this story in the pages of the Church Dogmatics of Karl Barth, who expressed his indebtedness to the Blumhardts.14 While cautious about the story, Barth saw in it a stream of theology with which he would wish to identify as the triumph of grace. The victory of Jesus is eternally settled, objectively decided in the darkest corners of the world and now manifest and made known. Thus it becomes eventful and enables commitment and motivation to be rediscovered and renewed. “Spiritual renewal does not have to do with subjective emotional experience as against the grounded rational convictions of theology . . . A conviction as such is a belief in someone’s mind, but an event is a happening, it has an apart-from-me out-thereness about it, and the more closely the theological conviction stays to its eventful source, the more objective, powerful and committing it will be.”15 According to Smail, this is what we see on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:33), and theology speaks out of the significance of the sign that has been given. At Pentecost the signs point to the central events of the raising and reigning of the crucified Lord, so theology must listen to these signs and spell out their significance.

T eology is required to stay close to the event of Christ in its continuing eventfulness in the Spirit. This event of Christ should not be a mere memory but a continuous and contemporary sign to its reality and vitality, so the cry that “Jesus is Victor!” is heard again and again.16 T eology needs both a fresh contact with the historic event of Christ and a continued eventfulness in the Spirit. But this renewing work is never just an event; it is a semeion (sign) that requires explication by theology. And this is especially so for the CR. First, this is because theology has a catholic function, relating the part to the whole, and the particular to the universal, bringing out its promise and significance. Such catholicity will keep the Renewal Movement in balance and keep it attached to the universal center in Christ. Second, theology is also protestant and requires that we scrutinize renewal in the light of the normative Christian revelation in Christ and the scriptures. We need to be prepared to go back through our traditions to the New Testament source. T ird, theology in


Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. G.W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1961), IV.3.1, 168-71.


“The Sign and The Signified,” 4.


Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.3.1, 165-274.



M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107

relation to renewal has a prophetic role and will relate current manifestations of the Spirit to what is still to come. Jesus as Victor also points to the future, even though it is laid on the foundations of the past. “The Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of power and of truth. The truth again and again embodies itself in the event, and it is the ministry of the charismatic theologian, whether his worship is in a university or a prayer group, to find it there.”17

Fountain Trust: A T eological Farewell

In the editorial after the closure of Fountain Trust, Smail reflects on this decision and the way in which closure has raised questions for “allied enterprises.”18 The adoption by Grove Books meant that the journal would continue and its editorial board would seek to discern God’s agenda for the 1980s before offering theological service. The suspicion is that the items preoccupying the agenda of the 1960s and 1970s would be different from that of the 1980s. In particular, Smail notes the need for renewal to become contextualized rather than being classified as an experiential com- partment on its own. Baptism in the Spirit and charismata (grace gifts), so hotly contested in the previous decades, are no longer as pressing as they used to be. This is because the Spirit is not autonomous, but is always the Go-Between who relates the people of God to the living Christ and thus enables participation in his presence, love, holiness, and power in order to be sent out in mission.19

The agenda for the 1980s that Smail identifies is Christ and his kingdom. Christology is central to the church’s life and witness and needs the Spirit’s power in order to answer christological questions correctly (Matt 16:15-17; 1 Cor 12:.3). “[I]t is the same Spirit, who shows us the living Christ and brings us to share his life, who also gives us insight and authority to be witnesses to the King and his kingdom in the world.”20 It is in relation to God’s kingdom that prophetic insight will come. For Smail, the language of baptism in the Spirit is passé and needs to be located in relation to Christ and his mission in the world. This will deliver CR from its narrowness and divisiveness and free it for the whole church. “Renewal is not to be shut up any longer in a charismatic annexe to the gospel, but shown to belong at the centre in the


“The Sign and The Signified,” 8.


“Fountain Trust: A T eological Farewell,” TR 17 (1981): 2-5 (2). 19

Ibid., 3.




M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107


enlivening of our relationship to Christ and of our seeking of his kingdom.”21 The original agenda outlined in the first editorial, the theology of renewal and the renewal of theology, concentrated on the former, even if the two are con- nected. But “any theology of renewal worthy of the name has to be a corollary to a doctrine of Christ and a preliminary to a doctrine of the kingdom.”22 T erefore the scope of the articles to be published in forthcoming issues will seek to embrace a more Christ-centred and kingdom-centred renewal “to which the CR has been a forerunner and within which it will continue to grow and deepen.”23 This will be seen in ecumenical openness in order to appreciate the gifts that we all bring to understand the fullness of Christ.


In his final editorial, Smail bemoans the fact that the news of the demise of TR has hardly resulted in “public mourning and lamentation through the land.”24 Only three letters have been received on the subject, a fact that perhaps indicates the indifference of the constituency on the matter. He notes, however, that TR has been the only journal with a theological remit “spawned by the charismatic renewal” and with a fairly large circulation (although no figure is given).25 The lack of lament is also matched at the editorial end because it had become increasingly harder to locate individuals within the constituency able and willing to write theological articles on a modest scale. British Charismatics “have been at best a-theological, indifferent to the theological issues the renewal raises, and at worst anti-theological, suspicious of the questions and the questioners that would complicate the experiential simplicities in which they were rejoicing.”26 This means that the CR movement has lacked theologians (as well as bishops) and the gap between the theological classroom and the Charismatic platform has been wider than it need have been, since the Spirit is involved in both. He suspects that the endeavor to bridge the two has overstretched itself, but he hopes that at least some might have seen the need for a bridge and to begin to find a few bricks toward it. Indeed, hope for the future is to be found in the contents of the final edition of the journal and his own


Ibid., 4.




Ibid., 5.


“Envoi,” TR 25 (1983): 2-3 (2). 25

Ibid., 2.





M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107

article with the “positive implications it contains.”27 His final comment is important to note: “The specifically charismatic phase of renewal may be behind us, but the Spirit has riches to unfold and renewing work to do that will affirm the best in it and far surpass it.”28

With these editorial contributions we can get a sense of the context from out of which two specific features are discerned: (1) a trinitarian framework, and (2) a christological focus.29 It is to these features I now turn.

A Trinitarian Framework

The most significant and impressive feature of the editorials is the way in which the key doctrine of the Trinity provides a framework for Smail’s contributions and encourages the journal’s readers to think in a trinitarian fashion in relation to their experience of renewal.

In Tune with the Trinity

In 1976 and 1977 Smail published three editorials, all of which were dedicated to the doctrine of the Trinity; and each was written from the perspective of one of the persons of the Trinity. In the first of these reflections, he acknowledges that at the current time the doctrine was getting a bad press as either speculative or outmoded.30 Smail counters this by arguing that rather than being speculative the doctrine of the Trinity guards the gospel from free speculation and gives it a framework in which it can be itself. The God of Scripture in speech and action is indicated in the doctrine of the Trinity. The actions of revelation, creation, and salvation only make sense if God is three persons and the same God. This doctrine performs more than one function because it is both substantial and regulative: “because it


Ibid., 3.




During this period Smail published a book that addressed the lack of trinitarian thinking in the CR and in particular offered it as a pathway to maturity in the context of Christ’s example of obedience to his Abba (Father). In the postscript to the book he reinforced the framework and focus identified in these editorials. He wrote: “I have tried to suggest that the right theology for renewal is not a testimony-based teaching about experiences and gifts, but the classical trinitarian theology that has its roots in the New Testament and that centres in the incarnation, death and resurrection of the only Son of the Father as the focal point of all creation and recreation.” The Forgotten Father (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1980), 185.


“In Tune with the Trinity,” TR 4 (1976): 2-6 (2).


M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107


describes the structure of God’s own revealed being, it also regulates our being as Christians.”31 Equal and distinctive glory is accorded to all three persons and this is to be reflected in the church’s worship and liturgy. Often the church’s failure is a reflection of its inability to do this and a proper theological renewal restores this balance, thus allowing the doctrine its regulative function.

The Holy Spirit, and any authentic movement associated with the Spirit, glorifies the Son and the Father. This means that a renewed church has the same shape as the God it worships. This follows 1 John 1:3: “T at which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you that you may have koinonia [= the fellowship of a shared life] with us, for our koinonia [= shared life] is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.”32 It is this shared life with the persons of the Godhead that constitutes the life of the church and it is mediated through the fellowship of the Spirit (1 Cor 13:14). It is as members of a fel- lowship in tune with the Trinity that we shall be renewed in the Lord. CR will become mature to the extend to which it “relates itself equally and specifically to (1) the Spirit who is the eventfulness of God, (2) the Son who is the given- ness of God, and to (3) the Father who is the Godness of God. . . .”33 The order reflects the conviction that the coming of the Spirit and the work of the Son is given that we should come to the Father. This first editorial focuses on “glori- fying in Spirit, the eventfulness of God.”

The Holy Spirit, the Eventfulness of God

Smail argues that fundamentally CR is a protest again the failure of the church to be itself and to give freedom to the Spirit to do his work. The Spirit’s work is to be God here and now in the eventfulness of everyday life through his people. The Spirit’s action can be best classified as an event rather than as an experience, because the Spirit’s deed is an opus operatum (work performed) and an objective work apart from feelings and emotions.34 Often emotions accompany this work but cannot be identified with it. Indeed, Smail notes just how much of the New Testament lacks emotive description of the Spirit’s action. What the Spirit does is always someone’s experience, but what is proclaimed is the activity of the risen Lord (Acts 2:33). “Charismata are happenings that proclaim and demonstrate to those who have eyes to see the


“In Tune with the Trinity,” 2. 32

Ibid., 3.




Ibid., 4.



M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107

contemporary livingness of God, and they have an event-status and make a public witness of their own, quite apart from what our emotional tone may be while we are exercising them.35 The “eventfulness of God,” therefore, is to be preferred over and against the “experience of the Spirit.”

From this Smail makes three points. First, where this eventfulness is frus- trated, then Christianity becomes a form of legalism and authoritarianism (2 Cor 3:5). Such imposition never gave life but death. Second, this enables us to appreciate the epiclesis (invocation of the Spirit) in the Eucharist. T us the effectiveness of the sacrament depends on the “eventfulness of the promised Holy Spirit working in it to bring us Christ and to join us with Christ in his offering of himself to the Father.”36 T ird, the need for leadership in the church should not lead to the imposition of legalistic structures. Leadership should not be about lordship (1 Pet 5:3) but about the means of releasing others to ministry and overseeing that ministry. Submission should be mutual out of reverence for Christ (Eph 5:21). “Authority in the Church thus depends not finally upon institutionalised office, but upon the action of the Spirit as he manifests himself in a varied eventfulness in the different gifts and ministries he imparts, and is never to be confined in static and legal structures, where the Spirit loses his freedom.”37 The emphasis of CR is the fact that here and now among people the God of heaven and history acts once again, in other words that the church is charismatic.

The Son, the Givenness of God


Smail asserts that the doctrine of the Trinity not only describes the life and action of God as revealed in the gospel but also regulates the Christian life. The Spirit’s ministry is a form of service to the Father and the Son because his mission is to glorify them. This means that the Spirit points to the heart of the gospel, to the person and work of Jesus Christ. To be trinitarian also means being christocentric, whose distinctive work Smail terms the “givenness of God.” He states: “Jesus Christ in his incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension and coming again is the unique, objective, normative, and effective work of God that constitutes the gospel. His unique position, his objective reality, his normative status, his effective act of salvation together comprise his givenness. . . .”39




Ibid., 5.


Ibid., 6.


‘In Tune with the Trinity: 2’, TR 5 (1977): 2-7. 39

Ibid., 2.


M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107


The uniqueness of Christ is constituted by the fact that God became human and through Mary took the flesh of Adam, which was fallen and lost. In so doing he regenerated it, sanctified it and healed it, and offered it as the full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, now risen and ascended to the right hand of the Father. This act is unique and can never be repeated. Although the Spirit indwells humans, it is not an incarnation because the Spirit is not theirs but Christ’s and they remain other than him. The objec- tivity of the incarnation exists independent of its reception and belief. Subse- quent to its completion the Spirit effects in us the fruit of Christ’s life and work. Its uniqueness and objectivity point to its normativity. The Spirit reflects in us what has already taken place in Christ, which is a new humanity regener- ated by the Spirit that shares the normative descent of the Spirit that Jesus experienced at his baptism. T us sanctification is the working out of his death in us of the “old man,” and his resurrection in us is the life of the “new man.” T erefore, Christ is the norm and prototype of the working of the Spirit in the adopted children of God. This means that as the Spirit glorifies Jesus he makes the presence of God in Jesus again but in us, reflecting the Lord’s glory and shaping us in his likeness, displaying the normativity of Christ for the Spirit and for us.40

For Smail, the work of Christ makes possible the empowering of the Spirit, since he has both come from and returned to the Father (John 16:7). The effectiveness of the Spirit is linked to the power of the cross and resurrection of Christ, and his power is not his own power but is released by the resurrec- tion of Christ (Rom 8:11). This Jesus is the “ eschatos Adam” (last/final Adam), the ultimate human person who does not keep his life to himself but becomes the life-giving Spirit to be reflected in us (1 Cor 15:54). This means that the source of the Pentecost event is Christ, even if the Spirit is the active agent (Acts 2:33). The purpose is that all the house of Israel may recognize that Jesus who was crucified has been made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). Without this proper focus on Christ, it is possible that the emphasis on phenomena could result in a form of Gnosticism. Such experiences and phenomena should be tested by reference to “Christ clothed in his gospel” (1 John 4:2-3).41 Char- ismatic gifts and ministries, whether healing, counselling, praise, community living, or ecumenism, can so easily detract from Christ and become things in themselves. The use of scriptures as the primary witness to the givenness of Christ will enable us to defend against these gnostic trends.42


Ibid., 3. 41

Ibid. 42

Ibid., 7.



M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107

The Father, the Godness of God


Smail reminds us that the Spirit is the gift of the Son and also the promise

of the Father (Acts 2:33). The shape of the Spirit’s work is the humanity

of Jesus and the source is the deity of the Father. In the filioque (“and the Son”) controversy the Western church wished to affirm the divine role of

Christ as coexecutor and codistributor of the life of the Spirit to the church

(John 16:17). The Eastern church placed the emphasis differently and wished

to affirm the Father as the ultimate source of the Spirit, even if the Spirit

processed through the Son. An “identity-in-subordination” characterizes the relationship between the Father and the Son. So the Son is identical with, shares, and reveals the Father (John 10:30; 1:1-3; 1:18) and yet is distinct from him (John 14:9, 10). So the Son does not do his own will (John 5:30; 6:38) and works (5:19) or speak his own words (John 14:24), but rather he does the will and works, and speaks the words, of the one who is greater (John 14:28). The one person of Christ is both identical with the Father in his being, love, and power and also subordinates himself to the Father and comes from, obeys, and leads to the Father. Following the Eastern tradition we need to see that spiritual life has its ultimate source and goal in the Father.44

For Paul, as for John’s Gospel, the work of the Spirit is to establish a twin relationship with the Son (1 Cor 12:3) and the Father (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15- 16). We look through Christ to the Father, who is both in him and other than him. This means that CR is neither a Jesus movement, concentrating on our relationship to Christ, nor a Spirit movement, concentrating on our relation- ship to the Spirit, but a movement from and back to the Father, hence trinitar- ian. Christ, on the basis of his work, enables humans to have dealings with the Father directly. We pray “through and with Jesus Christ our Lord” to the Father.45 It is, however, the love of the Father that initiates atonement and this is expressed by Christ. When we are confident of this love, then we can ask the Father for his gifts and offer ourselves in self-giving service. This mediation is encapsulated in the biblical phrase “through Christ we have access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph 2:18).

Smail summarizes this access to the Father in three ways.


First, it is access to the ultimacy of God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The


“In Tune with the Trinity: 3,” TR 6 (1977): 2-7. 44

Ibid., 3.


Ibid., 4.


Ibid., 5-7.


M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107


triune God revealed in the gospel is the only God that exists. There is nothing beyond or higher than this God. The glory of this God has been revealed in the face of Jesus Christ. In Christ we encounter God as he really is from eternity to eternity, giving spiritual assurance and confidence. Second, in the Father we have access to the wholeness of God. The Father is both Creator and Redeemer; he both works in Christ and is united to Christ. God restores creation in Christ and makes it whole again. Therefore, renewal is world-affirming rather than world-denying, interested in people, relationships, music, the arts and creativity, as well as social involvement. “The Holy Spirit of the Creator stands sponsor for a charismatic human- ism that looks for everything to be made new in Christ, ultimately in the revelation of the new creation and of the sons of God at the last day, but also proximately as the first fruits of the Spirit appear in men [sic] and societies.”47 Third, in the Father there is access to the majesty of God, for he is the source and origin of the whole Godhead. This majesty is shared by Christ and the Spirit and cannot be domesticated. His “presence is a matter of promise and prayer rather than presumption or possession.”48 This knowledge leads to a sense of awe in the presence of the Holy One and he gives himself to us in order that he might claim us for himself, making us whole that we might offer that wholeness back to him so that he may be all in all. “The Spirit is both the one in whom God gives himself to us as Father, and the one by whom we give ourselves to him as children.”49 Thus we enjoy eucharistic fellowship with the Father and praise him with confidence and awe.

Toward the Trinitarian Renewal of the Church

In the final edition of the journal, the editor outlines what he regards as the primary theological agenda for the church: trinitarian renewal.50 He takes as his starting point the concept of covenant and in particular the shape of the new (or renewed) covenant from Jeremiah 31:31-34. Here he notes that renewal is God’s initiative and the CR affirms this “living eventfulness” of God and open surrender to the sovereign and gracious God.51 Jeremiah, however, speaks of a twofold action: “I will become their God and they shall become


Ibid., 6.


Ibid., 7.




“Towards the Trinitarian Renewal of the Church,” TR 25 (1983): 15-22. 51

Ibid., 17.



M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107

my people” (Jer 31:33). There is a mutual move: from God to humanity and, in response, from humanity to God. God is responsible for both of these moves, which he does in the first place in Christ, through his incarnation and sacrificial death. At the same time he is humanity returning to God, a perfect self-offering in free and loving obedience, which results in reconcilia- tion and renewal. Following this, Smail contends that the CR has not taken seriously the fact that renewal begins with the incarnation and the cross of Christ. These have neither been denied nor are made of central importance. One cannot start with Pentecost, because it follows Calvary and without the cross the grasp of grace will be superficial, eccentric, and self-centred. God’s grace and humanity’s sin have priority over the gifts of the Spirit, and unless they are restored as central, the heart of renewal will be missed. Once God has established this renewal, God reaches out to his people to involve them in it. Christ’s work is personally and corporately actualized (Jer 31:33-34). The law of God is written on the hearts of flesh, so that knowl- edge of God involves communication, fellowship, and union. This is what John refers to as koinonia or shared life, which is given by the Spirit (1 John 1:3-4). Smail states:

The Holy Spirit is God’s personal indwelling of another who is distinct from himself, in such a way that the distinction is not abolished, but the two participate in a joint sharing of life together. When the Holy Spirit indwells the Church, the Church does not become God and God does not become the Church, but Father and Son give themselves utterly to their people and the people give themselves utterly to God and to one another. It is within that large context of the mutual self-giving of God and his people that the work of the Holy Spirit has to be understood.52

CR has reminded the church that the work of the Spirit is not just invisible and mysterious, but also public and visible through worship, relationships, and signs of healing as benefits of the new covenant.

The trinitarian nature of renewal can also be derived from the text of Jere- miah 31: the sovereign initiative of God the Father, who sends his Son and Spirit to reconcile the whole of creation. T us renewal is neither merely per- sonal nor “churchly,” but is the renewal of the whole creation: material and natural, social and political, human and cultural. This is the breadth and depth of renewal. It is God’s enactment of the covenant, becoming human so that humanity can return to God, and so has its “normative enactment” in Christ.53


Ibid., 19. 53

Ibid., 20.


M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107


The Spirit takes the things of Christ and makes them known to us (John 16:13-15). This means that there is no autonomous realm of the Spirit outside of the realm of Christ. To think in these terms is to be captivated by charis- matic phenomena and to lose the controlling centre in Christ. The Spirit’s work does not centre us in himself or his gifts but in the Father (Gal 4:6) and the Son (1 Cor 12:3).

This also means that our relationship with the Spirit must not be independ- ent of our relationship with the Father and the Son.54 But it is also the case that our relationship to Christ should not be independent of the Spirit. If the Spirit is dependent on Christ, then it is also true that Christ is dependent on the Spirit (Luke 1:35; 3:21-23; 4:18; Rom 8:11). Smail contends that Pentecostal- ism is wrong to separate the two works of Christ (salvation) and the Spirit (empowerment), and Western Christianity has often lost the work of the Spirit by concentrating on Christ at the Spirit’s expense. He suggests that if CR avoids the two-stage theology of Pentecostalism, it may help to address the error of the Western church. The Holy Spirit is both Lord and God and at work in the life of Jesus from his birth to his resurrection; he is the bond of union with the Father and renews the church in the first fruits of a new human- ity. T us interdependence and balance must be maintained in our relations with the Spirit and Christ.

A Christological Focus

It is in the context of this trinitarian framework that Smail articulates his Christology as a focus. It is expressed through the editorials in three dis- tinctive ways: by reference to the cross, reference to the resurrection, and its application to spirituality and ecclesiology. In this essay space permits me to comment only on the first two ways.


Spiritual Renewal and the Gospel of the Cross


Smail argues that the gospel in its fullness integrates the work of the Spirit in the church with the work of Christ on the cross. There is a connection


Ibid., 20-21.


For his application to ecclesiology and spirituality, see: “Authentic Authority,”

2-5; “A Whole Offering,” TR 3 (1976): 2-6; “1 Corinthians 12.13 Revisited,” and “T eological Presuppositions of Pastoral Practice,”


“Spiritual Renewal and the Gospel of the Cross,”

TR 2 (1976): TR 9 (1978): 2-6;

TR 20 (1982): 26-32. TR 7 (1977): 2-8.



M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107

between the objective deed of reconciliation and the experiential application of it. To promote one at the expense of the other can lead to an imbal- ance in the Christian life. Christ himself holds these two together for he is both crucified and risen, but the temptation is always to stress the one or the other. An emphasis on theologia crucis (theology of the cross), while a valuable corrective by Luther in his day, can today become an obstacle to renewal and a denial of the power of the resurrection. There are prob- lems for evangelicals and radicals with their emphasis on the cross at the expense of resurrection.

For the cross is for the sake of the resurrection; it is not a destination but a door into all the fullness of God that lies beyond it. At that door we are stripped of all claims and riches of our own but only in order that we may be made rich by God himself. T us we are forgiven from the past of sin in order to enter the inheritance of sons [sic], we are crucified with Christ in order to be raised up with him. The gospel has at its end the victory of the rejected, the triumph of the crucified, the living of the dead.57

The CR is a reaction against a theologia crucis that refuses to be also a theologia gloriae (theology of glory). We require both, and the CR needs to be constantly aware that the work of the Spirit is dependent on the cross. The risen Christ is eternally the crucified one, still bearing the marks. The renewed person is likewise marked by the cross (Gal 6:17). “The Spirit comes from the cross and the works of the Spirit will always be in contact with and conformity to their origin.”58 Four consequences follow from this. The need: (1) to submit to the critique of the cross and not be “puffed up,” self-indulgent, and divisive (1 Cor 4:6); (2) to allow the cross to be our comfort, forgiveness, and assurance; (3) to conform to the cross, wit- ness to it, and reject a cross-less triumphalism; and (4) to attend to the commission implied in the cross, in and for the world.

Spiritual Renewal and the Resurrection of Christ


“Pentecost is Easter for everyone.” For Smail, this slogan refers to the rela- tionship between the coming of the Spirit and the rising of Christ. There is a close analogy of content between the two events and even a measure


Ibid., 3-4.


Ibid., 4; cf. D. Lyle Dabney, “ Pneumatologia Crucis: Reclaiming T eologia Crucis for a T e- ology of the Spirit Today,” Scottish Journal of T eology 53, no. 4 (2000): 511-24.


“Spiritual Renewal and the Resurrection of Christ,” TR 8 (1978): 2-6.


M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107


of identity. The Spirit brings us into the likeness of Christ’s birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. For Paul, Christ’s resurrection is related to us in two ways. First, we will share in it in a full way in the future (1 Cor 6:14; 15:23; 4:14; Phil 3:21; 1 Thess 4:14), and it is a matter of hope for the future but founded on an event in the past: Christ’s resurrection. Second, it is related to us now in a proximate and partial way, immediate and yet incomplete. Here and now the Spirit enables us to enter into a preliminary and incomplete participation in the rising of Christ. This means that the risen Christ spreads around by pouring new life into others by means of the Spirit (1 Cor 15:45; Rom 1:4). The work of the Spirit as given by Christ authenticates and guarantees his exaltation as the risen Son of God. This same Spirit dwells in Christians and is the hope of a risen life (Rom 8:11). Therefore Paul can move both from the resurrection of Christ to the present work of the Spirit and from the present Christian experience of the Spirit to the resurrection. The resurrection is therefore the basis for our present experience and the reminder that it is incomplete. Thus it frames the eschatological now-and-not-yet of the Christian life.

Smail argues that the present renewal can be illuminated in two ways by the connection between Pentecost and Easter.

First, Christ’s resurrection contains both continuity and discontinuity together. The Jesus who rises is in continuity with the one who dies, and yet is in a radically different mode of being: a new man with possibilities and free- dom. T erefore wherever the Spirit is at work there is both continuity and discontinuity, fulfilment and surprise, and we need to keep both elements together. A new coming of the Spirit will always be in continuity with his previous comings, but will bring a new dimension and greater “effective eventfulness” than before. We need to become (discontinuity) what we are (continuity).

The Church needs nothing less than a coming of the Spirit in a new mode of his activ- ity and expression, and yet this will not bring in novelty or create a new Church, but will enliven and empower the very body of Christ which now seems so lacking in life. The discontinuity of the new act of God that renews us establishes a continuity with all that has gone before it, so that it is the old made gloriously new, with nothing lost. T at is in strict analogy with what happened in the resurrection of Christ.


Second, the nature of Christ’s resurrection determines the nature of the Spirit’s work. Some, following Bultmann, would see the resurrection of


Ibid., 5.



M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107

Christ as purely subjective and inward. Others would understand this resur- rection body as soma pneumatikon (spiritual body), the bodily life of Christ transposed to the new level of the Spirit, where nothing is lost but all is transformed and fulfilled. Smail aligns himself with this second tradition and criticizes the consequences of the first as understanding the work of the Spirit merely as inward and subjective, experiential and strange, whereas in the New Testament the concern is with the new humanity, the new kingdom and a totality of relatedness that soma (body) implies. Therefore, the risen Jesus relates both to people and to creation. This means that the work of the Spirit is the same: he makes people to be the body of Christ, is concerned for what is between them and not just what is in them, and his rule extends to creation. The move of the Spirit is in a social and relational direction that is embodied and made manifest in the wholeness of new creation.


This corpus of material raises a whole host of issues, but only a few of them can be considered here. A number of reflections are offered in order to begin to assess the contribution that this editorial material makes to con- temporary Pentecostal/Charismatic theology.

First, it could be suggested without too much contradiction that the sub- structure of Smail’s renewal theology is essentially Barthian. Barth himself is not noted for his developed pneumatology and it has been a common com- plaint.61 For example, Rowan Williams has criticized his pneumatology within the context of his trinitarian approach:

Problems begin to appear in Barth’s trinitarian scheme when the controlling model of revelation or self-interpretation proves difficult to apply to a theology of the Holy Spirit. What I have called the ‘linear’ view of revelation (God — the Word — the hearing of the Word) is no help at all in thinking about God’s ‘immanent’ being (in- und-für-sich), and the idea of the Spirit as donum (gift) and communio or nexus amoris (bond of love) has to be developed.62


Although note the attempts to reconstruct Barth’s pneumatology by P.J. Rosato, The Spirit as Lord: The Pneumatology of Karl Barth (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1981) and J. T ompson, The Holy Spirit in the T eology of Karl Barth (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 1991).


R.D. Williams, “Barth on the Triune God,” in S.W. Sykes, ed., Karl Barth — Studies of his T eological Method (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 147-93 (181).


M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107


Recently Eugene Rogers has classified the relationship between the Spirit and Christ in Barth’s theology as “anything Spirit can do, Son can do better.” This is characterised by christological content under the heading of pneu- matology.63 What Smail attempts to do, however, is to add pneumatology to his Barthian theology. Has Smail succeeded where Barth failed? The answer to that question will depend, of course, on your assessment of Barth. What can be said is that Smail has certainly developed Barth’s theology in an explicitly Charismatic direction, which is no mean achievement.

Second, it is clear that these editorials reflect the modernist historical and social location of the theologian. In the context of the differing theological traditions (Anglicanism and Scottish-Barthian Presbyterianism) we have a man working in a theological college that has an evangelical tradition and so we hear echoes of the debates with the Evangelicalism of this period as these also inform his judgments. Smail did not regard himself as an evangelical; rather he preferred the label orthodox. I suggest, however, that “neo-orthodox” might be a better label in the light of his theological rationality. It is during these years in the UK academy that a clear disjunction between theology and spirituality in theological education is imposed. The university considers itself to be doing academy theology, and the theological college or seminary pro- vides theology for ministry. This modernist dichotomy was extremely strong during this period and it can still be seen within certain sectors of UK univer- sity life.64 On the one hand Smail contests this dichotomy as misplaced and lifeless (as Barth would have done), but on the other hand its traces can be seen within his own discourse. The suspicious and patronizing attitude in the academy toward the CR and Pentecostalism is still in evidence as it was in Smail’s day, although there are exceptions now as then. Indeed, this attitude is also apparent within Smail’s own writing as, reading between the lines, one suspects he regards “Pentecostal theology” as something of an oxymoron.

T ird, the Barthian and modernist frame leads to a dichotomy between theol- ogy and experience, based on the objective/subjective divide and a suspicion of experience.65 For Smail many of the discussions appear to be framed in this dichotomous manner. It is interesting to observe that Smail in his theology


Eugene F. Rogers, Jr., After the Spirit: A Constructive Pneumatology from Resources Outside the Modern West (London: SCM Press, 2006), 9, 19-23.


This is explored by Gavin D’Costa, T eology in the Public Square: Church, Academy and Nation (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005).


I do accept, however, that some recent scholarship considers Barth to be more postmodern or post-liberal than modern, but my point is that as Barth is interpreted by Smail he is inter- preted in a modernist sense.



M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107

aims to be apostolic and catholic; that is, faithful to the gospel and the apos- tolic tradition as mediated via Scripture and to the history of the interpreta- tion of the text within the church. Despite the pressures from the modernist framework, Smail’s desire is to integrate Charismatic experience into a theo- logical whole. Yet, he is suspicious of experience as a category and source for theology and seeks to modify it in the light of Scripture and Christian tradi- tion. One detects, however, that he has actually bought into the dichotomy he is seeking to address within the academy and has done so in a way that appears to treat the category of “experience” as bordering on the vacuous.66 His theo- logical framework is premised on the theology versus experience dichotomy and he uses his Barthian categories, such as “eventfulness,” to classify what would otherwise be described in different experiential ways.67 One may ques- tion the adequacy of this manoeuvre from a Pentecostal/Charismatic perspec- tive because a case could be made for the “giftedness” of charismata that undermines the category of “event.” Charismata are more than “bursts of Spirit-inspired activity” or short-term functions, they are gifts graciously given, including the gift of eternal life (Rom 6:23).68

Fourth, through these editorials it appears that Smail regards the CR as hav- ing two phases. The first phase is its Charismatic phase when baptism in the Spirit, allied to charismata and glossolalia, predominates. The second phase is characterized by a focus on Christ and the kingdom. I suspect that historians of the CR would contest this description and I also suggest that it reflects Smail’s own predispositions and leanings, which by his own account does not regard the charismata as the most significant aspect of the movement. I would


T roughout Smail’s writings one gets the impression that he ignores the implicit theology embedded in the charismatic experiences and the complexity of the conceptual frameworks that are inevitably at play. See, for example, the idea that the Spirit generates and moves us through the experiences (vacuum?) back to Christ (reality?), Reflected Glory, 22, 24; or that a clear differentiation between a description of an experience (fact) and a theological interpretation (nor- mative and universal) can be made, ibid., 38-39. For a different philosophical appreciation of the category of experience, see Caroline Franks Davis, The Evidential Force of Religious Experience (Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1989], 1999).


See the discussion of “actualism” in G. Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of his T eology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 30-31.


The work of Max Turner on the semantics of charismata in dialogue with the “event”-ori- ented position of James D.G. Dunn would suggest that Smail’s position is, at the very least, in need of significant qualification; see Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: T en and Now (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1996), 262-75, esp. 264; and for the argument in greater detail see his “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament,” in Joel B. Green, ed., Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995), 146-74, esp. 155-65.


M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107


suggest that there never was any theological disjunction between Christ and charismata, even if there might have been a sociological account given of the move to greater institutionalization of the CR in the later years.69 Neverthe- less, these editorials aim to shape the agenda of the CR during the period and it is interesting that, given his background and experience of personal renewal, he sought to bring the two together in a way that could resource renewal theo- logically. The greatest achievement of these editorials in my estimation, despite the weaknesses of the modernist framework, is the biblical and systematic work that they contain. One might not agree with every detail of exegesis, or indeed with his reliance on Barth, but he has offered four important and, I would say, essential theological contexts for Pentecostal and Charismatic pneumatology. The first is the doctrine of the Trinity, the second is Christol- ogy, the third is ecclesiology, and the fourth is creation. A robust Pentecostal/ Charismatic theology will need to engage critically and constructively with the interpretation of Scripture and tradition in all these areas if it is adequately to resource ongoing Christian spirituality and ecclesial practice.

Fifth and finally, there is a postscript to the journal even though Smail exited from CR around the time of 1983, although it might be difficult to pin down the date exactly because he was disillusioned when he stepped down as the director of Fountain Trust in 1979.70 He left St John’s College, Nottingham around 1985 and began parish ministry in the Church of England. I visited him to discuss a research project in 1987 and found him to be clearly disillu- sioned with the CR movement.71 It was at this time that his book The Giving Gift was published.


This book contains an engagement with the catholic Anglican tradition, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Barth, while it also reflects the “man renewed in the Spirit who once led Fountain Trust.”73 Smail was able to draw on his renewal experience but channelled via various Christian traditions in the construction of his pneumatology. This was most evident in his work


Of course, if Smail is buying into the charisma/institutional schema of Max Weber, via Ernst Käsemann, he is not telling us! See Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion (English trans. London: Methuen, 1966), 2-3, 60-61; and Ernst Käsemann, Essays on New Testament T emes (English trans. London: SCM, 1964), 63-94.


This disillusionment is very clear as one reads the pages of The Forgotten Father ; note espe- cially the kinds of comments he makes on pages 9, 14-17, 25, 44, 104, 137, 139-40, 149-52, 155, 158, 179-80, 185-86.


Interview dated 5 March 1987.


Tom Smail, The Giving Gift: The Holy Spirit in Person (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1988).


Ibid., 10.



M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107

with colleagues Andrew Walker and Nigel Wright as they delivered seminars under the auspices of the C.S. Lewis Centre. In these seminars they gathered together people sympathetic to the CR and willing to be self-critical and theo- logically reflective. The essays published under the title Charismatic Renewal: The Search for a T eology


perhaps suggests that by 1993 some fulfilment of the TR dream was beginning to be realized, if only in a small way. The same authors also contributed to the Journal of Pentecostal T eology by offering an extensive critique of the “Word of Faith” movement.75 T erefore, the hope expressed in the final editorial might not have been misplaced after all! 76

Conclusion: An Agenda for Church and Academy?

In conclusion, I wish to address two basic questions that have informed the direction of this study.

Does this corpus of material provide a continuing agenda for Pentecostal and Charismatic churches? Certainly within the UK there is much that is rel- evant to the church scene here. The largest renewal network, New Wine, has adopted a Vineyard theology and style, although integrated in varying degrees within Anglicanism or other denominational commitments, such as Baptist. In this context there is no fear of experience and yet there is much in what Smail wrote in this period that could be heard and reflected upon today. It is also pleasing to see that Grove Books is providing resources for churches through their Renewal series.


This series is organized by a younger generation of scholars with different theological and ecclesial commitments. So the legacy of TR lives on, although it is expressed rather differently by a new generation of scholars seeking to resource the church for its ministry in the UK.

Does TR provide an agenda for Pentecostal/Charismatic theology? The answer to this question will, of course, depend on where you are coming from


Tom Smail, Andrew Walker, and Nigel Wright, Charismatic Renewal: The Search for a T eol- ogy (London: SPCK, [1993], 2d ed. 1995), although note that the approach to the experience/ theology dichotomy remains the same; see Tom Smail, “The Cross and the Spirit: Towards a T eology of Renewal,” 49-70 (50).


T omas Smail, Andrew Walker, and Nigel Wright, “‘Revelation Knowledge’ and Knowl- edge of Revelation: The Faith Movement and the Question of Heresy,” Journal of Pentecostal T eology 5 (1994): 57-77.


A useful historical and theological account of Pentecostal/Charismatic scholarship of this period is given by Mark W.G. Stibbe, “The T eology of Renewal and the Renewal of T eology,” Journal of Pentecostal T eology 3 (1993): 71-90.


Grove Books Ltd, Ridley College, Cambridge, from 2000.


M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107


in terms of theological tradition and commitments. TR provides important historical and theological resources for continued reflection, and therefore lis- tening to its testimony is an important exercise. The trinitarian framework and christological focus are the key contributions from my reading of the editorial material. However, the editor of TR did not foresee the emergence of academic Pentecostal theology and its impact on those in the CR studying theology. This is a theology that goes beyond Europe and America and is now global in its appreciation.78 It is not just concerned with baptism in the Spirit and glos- solalia, but wishes to add a general pneumatological dynamic to the theologi- cal task. T is means that such a contextually sensitive theology will be pnematologically driven, trinitarianly framed, and christologically focused.79 In this mode Pentecostal/Charismatic theology’s future is bright, but the con- cept of “renewal,” while important historically and theologically, may not be adequate to carry the full load of Pentecostal/Charismatic theology’s work.80 T erefore I doubt that TR will set the current agenda because times have changed. Nevertheless, it does provide an important dialogue partner from the past that can contribute insights for reflection. The recovery of early Pentecos- tal sources is proving increasingly important for the construction of contem- porary Pentecostal/Charismatic theological identity, and I would suggest that this exercise shows that a recovery of CR source material is also important for the same developing theological tradition.


Anderson, A. An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Barth, K. Church Dogmatics. Trans. G.W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1961. Dabney, D.L. “ Pneumatologia Crucis: Reclaiming T eologia Crucis for a T eology of the Spirit

Today.” Scottish Journal of T eology 53, no. 4 (2000): 511-24.


This is demonstrated by recent studies by Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global T eology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005); and Frank D. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pente- costal T eology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006).


This is a rewording of the components mentioned by Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 28-29.


Although see the ambitious agenda of Amos Yong, “Poured Out on All Flesh: The Spirit, World Pentecostalism, and Renewal of T eology and Praxis in the 21st Century,” PentecoStudies 6.1 (2007): 16-46 [, accessed on 12 December 2007].



M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107

D’Costa, G. T eology in the Public Square: Church, Academy and Nation . Oxford: Blackwell,


Franks Davis, C. The Evidential Force of Religious Experience . Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1989]


Grove Renewal Booklets from 2000. Cambridge: Ridley Hall.

Hunsinger, G. How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of his T eology . Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1991.

Käsemann, E. Essays on New Testament T emes . English translation London: SCM Press, 1964. Macchia, F.D. Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal T eology . Grand Rapids: Zondervan,


Smail, T.A. Reflected Glory: The Spirit in Christ and Christians . London: Hodder and Stoughton,


———. “T eology of Renewal and the Renewal of T eology.” T eological Renewal 1 (1975): 2-4. ———. “Authentic Authority.” T eological Renewal 2 (1976): 2-5.

———. “A Whole Offering.” T eological Renewal 3 (1976): 2-6.

———. “In Tune with the Trinity.” T eological Renewal 4 (1976): 2-6.

———. “In Tune with the Trinity: 2.” T eological Renewal 5 (1976): 2-7 .

———. “In Tune with the Trinity: 3.” T eological Renewal 6 (1977): 2-7.

———. “Spiritual Renewal and the Gospel of the Cross.” T eological Renewal 7 (1977): 2-8. ———. “1 Corinthians 12.13 Revisited.” T eological Renewal 9 (1978): 2-6.

———. “The Sign and the Signified: The Work of the Spirit in Event and T eology.” T eological

Renewal 15 (1980): 2-8.

———. The Forgotten Father . London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1980.

———. “Fountain Trust: A T eological Farewell.” T eological Renewal 17 (1981): 2-5. ———. “On Editorials, Exorcisms and Ecumenism.” T eological Renewal 20 (1982): 2. ———. “T eological Presuppositions of Pastoral Practice.” T eological Renewal 20 (1982):


———. “Envoi.” T eological Renewal 25 (1983): 2-3.

———. “Towards the Trinitarian Renewal of the Church.” T eological Renewal 25 (1983):


———. The Giving Gift: The Holy Spirit in Person . London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1988. ———. “A Renewal Recalled.” In T. Smail, A. Walker, and N. Wright, Charismatic Renewal:

A Search for a T eology , 7-21. London: SPCK, 1993.

———. “The Cross and the Spirit: Towards a T eology of Renewal.” In T. Smail, A. Walker,

and N. Wright, Charismatic Renewal: A Search for a T eology , 49-70. London: SPCK,


Smail, T., A. Walker, and N. Wright. “‘Revelation Knowledge’ and the Knowledge of Revelation:

The Faith Movement and the Question of Heresy.” Journal of Pentecostal T eology 5 (1994):


Stibbe, M.W.G. “The T eology of Renewal and the Renewal of T eology.” Journal of Pentecostal

T eology 5 (1993): 57-77.

Rogers, E.F. After the Spirit: A Constructive Pneumatology from Resources Outside the Modern West .

London: SCM Press, 2006.

Rosato, P.J. The Spirit as Lord: the Pneumatology of Karl Barth . Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1981. T ompson, J. The Holy Spirit in the T eology of Karl Barth . Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications,


Turner, M. “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament.” In Hearing the New Testament: Strate-

gies for Interpretation , ed. J.B. Green, 146-74. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Carlisle: Pater-

noster Press, 1995.


M. J. Cartledge / Pneuma 30 (2008) 83-107


———. The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: T en and Now . Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1996. Weber, M. The Sociology of Religion . English translation London: Methuen, 1966.

Williams, R.D. “Barth on the Triune God.” In Karl Barth — Studies of His T eological Method ,

ed. S.W. Sykes, 147-93. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.

Yong, A. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global T eology .

Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

———. “Poured Out on All Flesh: The Spirit, World Pentecostalism, and Renewal of T eology

and Praxis in the 21st Century,” PentecoStudies 6, no. 1 (2007): 16-46 [http://glopent.

net/pentecostudies/2007/yong-2007.pdf/view, accessed on 12 December 2007].


Be first to comment

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