The Quest for a Pentecostal Theology

From Pneuma Review Winter 2013

In this chapter from his book, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter, British Pentecostal scholar Keith Warrington asks, how do you define what the core beliefs of Pentecostal theology are?

 

Introduction

Clark observes that Pentecostal theology ‘is researched at the researcher’s peril’¹ while Ma observes that it is ‘simply impossible’ to clearly identify what is the best definition of a Pentecostal.² Chan is concerned that Pentecostalism may be ‘in danger of death by a thousand qualifications’³ while Hollenweger writes, ‘I do not know anybody who could convincingly define what “mainstream Pentecostalism” is’, compounded by the fact that despite their differences, ‘most Pentecostal denominations believe themselves to be mainstream’.⁴ The comments of the latter authors indicate the challenge that many feel in attempting to identify the heartbeat of Pentecostalism.

Theology

Some have sought to identify Pentecostals on the basis of their beliefs.⁵ A way of identifying the core of Pentecostal theology would be to note its main theological loci. Thus, Land identifies the heart of Pentecostal theology as focused on justification, sanctification and Spirit-baptism⁶ though most Pentecostals view it as comprising Jesus as Saviour, healer, baptizer and coming king,⁷ sometimes to which is added the sanctifying role of Jesus.⁸ These beliefs, that are clustered around Jesus, do not encapsulate all that Pentecostalism stands for, but they do represent some of the emphases traditionally maintained by its adherents. Macchia deduces that the ‘fourfold gospel is important for understanding the origins and enduring accents of emerging Pentecostal theologies’⁹ though Coulter reflects that although this may have represented Pentecostals as they were, it is less valuable as a depiction of their current position which is much more diverse.¹⁰ Complicating the quest for core beliefs is that Pentecostalism is often defined differently in various cultures.¹¹ Thus, for example, Korean Pentecostal, or Full Gospel, theology comprises salvation, healing, the second coming of Jesus, the fullness of the Spirit and blessing, the latter being a distinctive contribution of Yonggi Cho.¹² In it, he argues that God desires prosperity in all aspects of the life of a believer.¹³

That which most distinguishes Pentecostalism is the doctrine relating to the baptism in the Spirit. However, even the baptism in the Spirit has received varied comment by Pentecostals. For example, although many anticipate that a consequence of the baptism of the Spirit will be power, this has various nuances and expectations for different Pentecostals. Many expect to manifest this power in their lives specifically with regard to evangelism. However, the revision to the article defining the baptism in the Spirit as outlined in the AoG Statement of Fundamental Truths also identifies this power as resulting in a greater love for Jesus, while others anticipate that the baptism in the Spirit will result in a greater sense of God’s presence or a more consecrated Christian lifestyle, sometimes resulting in a crisis experience of sanctification. In practice, however, this power has been mainly associated with charismatic gifts.

But there are other divisive aspects related to this apparently central belief of Pentecostalism. The subsequent nature of the baptism in the Spirit to conversion has been a topic that has created a great deal of discussion in recent years. For example, while many assume that the baptism in the Spirit is subsequent to conversion, some disagree. Similarly, the distinctive practice of many Pentecostals has been speaking in tongues but its precise significance has been the subject of disagreement. While many Pentecostals associate the gift of speaking in tongues with the baptism in the Spirit, viewing it as the initial evidence of that experience, others do not; while some believe that when combined with the gift of interpretation they are equivalent to prophecy, others maintain that both are Godward expressions of prayer or praise; while some sanction their corporate use without interpretation, others do not.

There has also been a fluidity with regard to other doctrines during the history of Pentecostalism. Lewis identifies major changes, including the early twentieth century move away from the notion of a crisis experience associated with sanctification to a more progressive understanding of sanctification in the life of the believer, and the development of Oneness Pentecostalism. Other changes resulted from a closer relationship with evangelicals from the 1950s onwards, including less emphasis on pacifism, reduced ecumenical dialogue, restrictions on women in leadership, and a stricter understanding of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible.¹⁴ It is thus much more difficult to identify Pentecostals now on the basis of their doctrines because of the various nuances of beliefs, some of which are significant. However, and as importantly, this difficulty has been compounded by the fact that many aspects of theology once distinctive to Pentecostalism have now also been embraced by others; Pentecostal perspectives are not as distinct as they once were. An alternative emphasis needs to be discovered that best identifies the nucleus of Pentecostalism.

Encounter

A clue in our quest to locate the core of Pentecostalism may be gleaned from the early Pentecostals who were suspicious of creeds and preferred to concentrate on shared experiences. Indeed, Anderson deduces, ‘In its beginnings, Pentecostalism in the western world was an ecumenical movement of people claiming a common experience rather than a common doctrine’.¹⁵ Similarly, Hollenweger concludes, ‘What unites the Pentecostal churches is not a doctrine but a religious experience’.¹⁶ Indeed, Sepulveda cautions against seeking to identify Pentecostalism on the basis of its doctrinal beliefs for fear of

running the great risks of forgetting, and thereby mutilating, what is essential, viz. the primacy of experience over doctrine, and of relationship over belief; in other words, the freedom of the Spirit who does not permit himself to be confined by doctrinal categories which are in the end rational.¹⁷

Similarly, Ellington concludes,

Doctrines may be challenged and even overturned without striking at the heart of Pentecostal faith because the essential emphasis of Pentecostalism is not a teaching which must be believed or a proof which can be deduced and defended against all challenges, but a God who must be reckoned with in direct encounter.¹⁸

Although an overstatement, this does signal that which is fundamental to Pentecostalism—a personal, experiential encounter of the Spirit of God.¹⁹ It is this that best identifies the Pentecostal heartbeat.²⁰

A more productive route in seeking to identify Pentecostal theology may therefore be to recognize the central Pentecostal expectation of a radical experience of the Spirit, and, in particular, as it relates to their identity as children of God, their perception of God, their worship and service, their mission and evangelism, their reading and application of the Bible and their relationships with other believers.²¹

That which is central to their faith and practice are the concepts of ‘encounter’ and ‘experience’. They aim to know God experientially, whether it is via an intellectual recognition of his being or an emotional appreciation of his character and it is this that often makes them functionally different within the Christian tradition. Kärkkäinen concludes that ‘the essence of Pentecostalism can hardly be captured by any theological formulation; spirituality and spiritual experience is primary’.²²

For Pentecostals, revelation is  not just intended to affect the mind but also the emotions; theology is not explored best in a rationalistic context alone but also with a readiness to encounter the divine and be impacted by one’s discoveries in a way that will enlighten the mind but also transform the life. Indeed, Pentecostal theology may be best identified as a theology of encounter—encounter of God, the Bible and the community.

Such encounters are not merely viewed as self-authenticating or self-oriented; they are deemed to be valuable as motivational forces, leading to personal transformation as a result of the Spirit’s involvement in their lives. MacDonald, preferring to identify the spirituality of Pentecostals as ‘fully experienced gospel’ or ‘Christ-centred, experience-certified theology’, concludes that ‘any genuine experience with the living God will leave an emotional wake in a man’s psyche’.²³ Such encounters are believed to be reflected in the Bible, and Pentecostals fully anticipate an experiential outworking. Thus, where there is sometimes an absence of credal confession and formal ceremony in Pentecostal spirituality, there is the presence of experience, often spontaneous, emotional, heartfelt, intensely personal and life-transforming. Pentecostals embrace a spirituality that expects to touch God and to be touched by him. It may be intensely personal (I-Thou), sometimes has a numinous quality (resulting in a sense of awe) and mystical experiences are also possible.

Pentecostals do not simply affirm a list of biblical beliefs; they have encountered them experientially. Thus, the baptism in the Spirit is not simply to be recognized as a distinctive doctrinal feature of Pentecostal theology but to be understood as reflecting that which is central to Pentecostalism, namely encounter and experience. Thus, Chan identifies the baptism in the Holy Spirit as the matrix in which Pentecostals receive ‘a certain kind of spiritual experience of an intense, direct and overwhelming nature centring in the person of Christ’,²⁴ Coulter concluding that ‘the experience is more fundamental than the theological metaphor expressing it’.²⁵

De Matviuk deduces Latin American Pentecostalism to be characterized by ‘a religious experience with the divine’²⁶ while Urrabazo concludes, ‘For Latinos, God is not so much a concept, as an experience’.²⁷ Christenson describes Pentecostalism as ‘Christianity standing on tiptoe, expecting something to happen’.²⁸ When du Plessis was asked to identify the difference between him and the other Christian ecumenical leaders, he responded, ‘You have the truth on ice, and I have it on fire’.²⁹ McClung defines Pentecostals as understanding God to be the ‘One who is there-now’.³⁰ Pentecostals are less defined by their doctrines and more by their perception that God lives with them in the here and now. They believe that their experience of God is based on the NT kerygma but without the experience, they would argue that the kerygma is lifeless. This provides for a pneumatology that is experientially as well as biblically based, centred in encounter, as well as, and even more than, power. Thus, Lederle concludes, ‘there is something unique about the Pentecostal emphasis on experiencing God in the charismatic manifestations of his power’.³¹

It is no surprise to discover that there is sometimes fluidity in Pentecostal praxis and thought as they seek to locate a biblical framework that is sufficiently flexible for their spirituality, a spirituality that is, by definition, dynamic since it is pneumatic. Anderson writes, ‘Pentecostals are not unnerved by the search for a theological explanation for a divine act that has been experienced but not understood’.³² Pragmatism, sometimes used to describe an immature or unstable faith, may be, occasionally, an appropriate response to that which has no precedent or a limited historical context. Indeed, Pentecostals are prepared to accept the dangers of pragmatism rather than miss the opportunity of observing and experiencing a new work of the Spirit.³³ Wacker identifies this feature in the earliest years of Pentecostalism also, noting their remarkable capacity to

work within the social and cultural expectations of the age. Again and again we see them holding their proverbial finger to the wind, calculating where they were, where they wanted to go and, above all, how to get there … the ability to figure the odds and react appropriately made them pragmatists to the bone.³⁴

Williams concludes, ‘Pentecostals are basically people who have had a certain experience; so they find little use for theology or doctrine that does not recognise and, even more, participate in it’.³⁵ Although overstating his case, he does identify this central issue that for Pentecostals, defining an encounter with God as less important than encountering God in the first place. The absence of a definition does not necessarily invalidate the experience. Clark writes, ‘Pentecostal theology demands more than belief in an experience—it demands the experience of the experience itself’.³⁶ For Pentecostals, to know God is to experience him, Bond writing, ‘Theology follows experience. First comes the act of God, then follows the attempt to understand it’.³⁷

To try to ally all aspects of spirituality with a rigid biblical framework may be unnecessary and assumes that the Spirit’s activity is circumscribed by the Bible. Care must be maintained in retaining the belief that the Spirit is dynamic, sometimes radically so. It is thus vital to emphasize the role of the community of believers, who function as the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor. 6.19) and as a mouthpiece for his prophetic voice; they can help to ensure good practice and godly belief and to protect from the inappropriate elevation of individuals and experiences. Nevertheless, the benefits to be gained from affording the dynamic Spirit the opportunity to be creatively engaged in the Church and its mission must not be overlooked. Rather than the relationship between doctrine and experience be viewed as a tension³⁸ or even a difficulty,³⁹ it is more appropriate to recognize it as an opportunity to discover the creative mind of the Spirit who may wish to manifest himself in ways that are reflected in the Bible but who may also wish to radiate his presence in innovative and fresh ways. Believers are thus provided with the opportunity to observe their remarkable God working remarkably. Similarly, Hollenweger deduces that Pentecostalism is best expressed as providing an opportunity for believers to engage in ‘an adventure in fellowship with the Holy Spirit and each other’.⁴⁰ If the Spirit is exalted to his true role as God and, as such, is granted the freedom to be creative and flexible in leading believers, they may be surprised as to where they may go, though it will not be in the absence of his dignity, authenticity and glory.

There is thus an increasing readiness by Pentecostals to allow for the possibility of a phenomenon being divinely initiated even where there is no historical precedent for it, as long as its consequence has been to lead the believer concerned closer to God.⁴¹ Pentecostals are prepared to live with tensions, to accept the inexplicable and to acknowledge mystery. They recognize that one can begin to know God but never completely comprehend him. At best, he is imperfectly understood; after all, he is God. They are neither predicated to understand everything nor do they feel disposed to accommodate their spirituality within a framework that is tightly circumscribed by logic or rationality. They are much more prepared to believe that God is dynamic, not static; complex, even mystifying, but one who desires to be encountered. This issue merits a comprehensive and robust theological study that could helpfully result in the provision of a safe framework that would enable the articulation and outworking of a belief that explores the sovereign will of the Spirit as it is facilitated creatively, dynamically and with flexibility in the Church.

It is difficult, on occasions, to articulate a response to that which one perceives God is doing simply by offering theological propositions.⁴² One may tell a story easier than one may define what happened. Similarly, prophets in the past have sometimes found it difficult to explain divine encounters to others (John, Rev. 1.17) and, on occasions, have instead fallen silent (Paul, 2 Cor. 12.4). Although Peter defended the encounter with God experienced by those in Jerusalem which resulted in tongues of fire resting on them and their speaking in tongues as a fulfilment of Joel 2.28–32, it is clear that the experience went beyond the prophecy for there is no mention there of speaking in tongues or tongues of fire. Peter offers a biblical framework of sorts in which the experience may be contextualized but it is a pragmatic response rather than a careful, comprehensive treatise. The fact is that the encounter was outside the received norms of how God worked and rather than attempt to completely explain it biblically, Peter offers a minimal biblical validation of the experience. The affirmation of the authenticity of the experience was not achieved by an intellectual rationale but by its effect in causing many to be prepared to listen to Peter who presented them with the possibility of engaging personally with God. The aspiration of some to explain every experience they have with and concerning God has an inbuilt problem. It results in his being restricted from doing that which may not be explained; the Creator would be reduced to the limits of the intellectual permission of the created.

In truth, encountering God via experience is often more challenging than encountering him via the intellect. As Kelsey, who is not Pentecostal, notes,

It is far easier to deal with ideas about God than with God himself. Ideas about God rarely overwhelm the thinker … when a man does encounter God, it is not God who is put under the microscope and examined with reason, but man who finds himself under scrutiny.⁴³

One experience with God can be more life changing than an encyclopedic knowledge of God. Rather than view experiencing God as the easier, less authentic and ultimately flawed means of encountering God (when contrasted with a cerebral appreciation of him), it ought to be realized that the former is often the way that God revealed himself in the Bible and can be a powerful transforming influence in the life of a believer. At the same time, an expectation of an experiential encounter with God can provide a guard against a merely cerebral theology.

Thus, Pentecostals value experience-based encounters with God because they have the potential to transform believers. They believe that if God initiates an experience, it must be in order to positively transform the individual concerned; a lack of consequence calls into question the experience or, at least, questions whether the person has benefited fully from the potential that the experience had to offer.
Pentecostals also value experience as potentially providing the impetus for mission. Offering an account of the meetings held at Azusa Street in the beginning of the last century, where many encounters with God were experienced with dramatic consequences, Bartleman writes, ‘Missionary enthusiasm ran high … Hundreds definitely met with God … Many received a call to foreign fields . . . The altars were seldom empty of seekers day and night … we determined to fight nothing but sin, and fear nothing but God’.⁴⁴ Although this is a snapshot of an extraordinary move of God, nevertheless, it represents that which best reflects the Pentecostal ideal which advocates the value of experience as powerfully instrumental in Pentecostal mission.⁴⁵

None of the above underestimates the dangers associated with encountering God via experience (no more than to assume that an intellectual appreciation of God does not also have potential drawbacks); meaningless experiences may be little more than vacuous sensations.⁴⁶ There is the constant danger for Pentecostals of so desiring authentic experiences with God that the latter may be debased to an expectation and insistence on experience on demand. The dangers of emotionalism, triumphalism and inauthentic, shallow, subjective and unscriptural experiences are to be guarded against by those who seek to encounter God. Dube warns against the danger of attempting to constantly maintain

an involvement in some active form of transcendence, an identifiable event and moment of ecstasy. The only way to sustain an adequate sense of this tension is to string together as many events of ecstasy as closely together as possible. Essentially, like any other sensational lifestyle, it is the life of addiction’.⁴⁷

Bueno similarly cautions Pentecostals to be aware of the variety of experiences and to remember that they often depend for their significance on historical, social, ethnic and cultural contexts; to attempt to homogenize them is unhelpful.⁴⁸ Nevertheless, Pentecostals seek to validate experience as an appropriate channel for an authentic encounter of and with God and it is incumbent on them that they consistently offer careful guidelines to ensure this occurs.

PR

 

Notes

¹ Clark and Lederle (eds), What Is Distinctive, p. 109; T. Cross, ‘Can There Be a Pentecostal Systematic Theology? An Essay on Theological Method in a Post-Modern World’, in Teaching to Make Disciples: Education for Pentecostal-Charismatic Spirituality and Life: The Collected Papers of the 30th Annual Meeting of the SPS (Tulsa: Oral Roberts University, 2001), pp. 145–66; for an interesting but very localized assessment of differences in beliefs by Pentecostals, see R.D. Braswell, ‘Passing Down Pentecost’, Paraclete 28.3 (1994), pp. 1–11.
² W. Ma, ‘Asian (Classical) Pentecostal Theology in Context’, in Anderson and Tang (eds), Asian and Pentecostal, p. 73.
³ S. Chan, ‘Whither Pentecostalism?’, in Anderson and Tang (eds), Asian and Pentecostal, p. 580; D.L. Dabney, ‘Saul’s Armor: The Problem and the Promise of Pentecostal Theology Today’, Pneuma 23.1 (2001), pp. 115–46; V-M. Kärkkäinen, ‘David’s Sling: The Promise and the Problem of Pentecostal Theology Today: A Response to D. Lyle Dabney’, Pneuma 23.1 (2001), pp. 147–52.
⁴ W. J. Hollenweger, ‘Pentecostalism, Past, Present and Future’, JEPTA [Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association] 21 (2001), pp. 41–8 (46).
⁵ Nichol, Pentecostalism, pp. 2–3; R.H. Hughes, What Is Pentecost? (Cleveland: Pathway Press, 1963); R.H. Hughes, Church of God Distinctives (Cleveland: Pathway Press, 1968); Clark and Lederle (eds), What Is Distinctive, p. 17; R. Cotton, ‘What Does it Mean to Be Pentecostal? Three Perspectives. The Dynamic behind the Doctrine’, Paraclete 28.3 (1994), pp. 12–17 (12); N.D. Sauls, Pentecostal Doctrines: A Wesleyan Approach (Dunn: Heritage Press, 1979).
⁶ Land, Pentecostal Spirituality, pp. 82–98, 117–19, 125–64, 196–205.

⁷ Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, pp. 21–2; W. Vondey, ‘Christian Amnesia: Who in the World Are Pentecostals?’, AJPS [Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies] 4.1 (2001), pp. 21–39 (32–4); Wacker, ‘Wild Theories’, p. 21; F. Macchia, ‘Theology, Pentecostal’, in Burgess and van der Maas (eds), NIDPCM [The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements], pp. 1120–141 (1124).
⁸ B. Bay, ‘The Current Tendencies of the Wesleyan-Holiness Movement and the Growth  of Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity’, AJPS [Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies] 7.1 (2004), pp. 255–64; Land, Pentecostal Spirituality, p. 18; Thomas, ‘Pentecostal Theology’, pp. 3–19; for a critique, see Cross, ‘Can there be’, pp. 145–66.
⁹ Macchia, ‘Theology, Pentecostal’, p. 1124.
¹⁰ D.M. Coulter, ‘What Meaneth This? Pentecostals and Theological Inquiry’, JPT [Journal of Pentecostal Theology] 10.1 (2001), pp. 38–64 (41).
¹¹ M.L. Tan-Chow, Pentecostal Theology for the Twenty-First Century: Engaging with Multi-Faith Singapore (London: Ashgate, 2007).
¹² D.Y. Cho, Five-Fold Gospel and Three-Fold Blessing (Seoul: Young San Publishing, 1983).
¹³ D.Y. Cho, Salvation, Health and Prosperity. Our Threefold Blessings in Christ (Altamonte Springs: Creation House, 1987), pp. 11–18, 55.
¹⁴ P.W. Lewis, ‘Reflections of a Hundred Years of Pentecostal Theology’, CPCR [Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research] 12 (Jan. 2003).
¹⁵ Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism, p. 60.
¹⁶ Hollenweger, ‘From Azusa Street to the Toronto Phenomenon’, p. 7.
¹⁷ J. Sepulveda, ‘Reflections on the Pentecostal Contribution to the Mission of the Church in Latin America’, JPT [Journal of Pentecostal Theology] 1 (1992), pp. 93–108 (101).
¹⁸ S.A. Ellington, ‘Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture’, JPT [Journal of Pentecostal Theology] 9 (1996), pp. 16–38 (17).
¹⁹ V-M. Kärkkäinen, ‘“The Re-Turn of Religion in the Third Millennium”: Pentecostalisms and Postmodernities’ (EPCRA [European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association] conference paper, University of Uppsala, 2007) pp. 1–14 (5); H. Zegwaart, ‘Christian Experience in Community’, CPCR [Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research] 11 (Feb. 2002); D.E. Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit. A Ritual Approach to Pentecostal/Charismatic Spirituality (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), p. 10; D. Gee, The Pentecostal Movement (London: Elim, 1949), p. 30; D.J. du Plessis, ‘Golden Jubilee of Twentieth Century Pentecostal Movements’, IRM [International Review of Mission] 47 (April, 1958), pp. 193–201 (194); Nichol, Pentecostalism, p. 55; G.L. Anderson, ‘Pentecostals Believe in More Than Tongues’, in Smith (ed.), Pentecostals from the Inside Out, pp. 53–64 (55–6); J.K. Asamoah-Gyadu, ‘An African Pentecostal on Mission in Eastern Europe: The Church of the “Embassy of God” in the Ukraine’, Pneuma 27.2 (2005), pp. 297–321 (314); Cross, ‘A Proposal to Break’, pp. 49–58. For a non-Pentecostal Roman Catholic enquiry of the relationship between power, experience and the Spirit, see B. Cooke, Power and the Spirit of God: Toward an Experience-Based Pneumatology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). In it, he describes himself as someone who is in search of an experience-based pneumatology.
²⁰ Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism, p. 256; A. Semple McPherson, This Is That: Personal Experiences, Sermons, and Writings (Los Angeles: Echo Park Evangelistic Association, 1923) p. 713; R.P. Spittler, ‘Spirituality, Pentecostal and Charismatic’, in Burgess and van der Maas (eds), NIDPCM, pp. 1096–102 (1096–097).
²¹ K. Warrington, ‘Experience: The sina qua non of Pentecostalism’ (SPS [Society for Pentecostal Studies] conference paper, Cleveland, 2007), pp. 331–38.
²² V-M. Kärkkäinen, ‘Pentecostal Theological Education in a Theological and Missiological Perspective’ (EPTA [European Pentecostal Theological Association] conference paper, Iso Kirja, Sweden, 2006), p. 13; W.J. Hollenweger, ‘Creator Spiritus: The Challenge of Pentecostal Experience to Pentecostal Theology’, Theology 81 (1978), pp. 32–40.
²³ W.G. MacDonald, ‘Pentecostal Theology: A Classical Viewpoint’, in Spittler (ed.), Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism, pp. 63–5; S.K.H. Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), p. 7; Land, Pentecostal Spirituality, p. 184; J.D. Johns, ‘Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview’, JPT [Journal of Pentecostal Theology] 7 (1995), pp. 73–96 (91).
²⁴ Chan, Pentecostal Theology, p. 7; M.J. Cartledge, ‘Pentecostal experience’, JEPTA [Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association], 28.1 (2008), pp. 21–33.
²⁵ Coulter, ‘What Meaneth This?’, p. 43.
²⁶ M.A.C. de Matviuk, ‘Latin American Pentecostal Growth: Culture, Orality and the Power of Testimonies’, AJPS [Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies] 5.2 (2002), pp. 205–22 (208); M.M. Poloma, The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads (Knoxsville: University of Tennessee Press, 1989), p. 213.
²⁷ R. Urrabazo, ‘Therapeutic Sensitivity to the Latino Spiritual Soul’, in M. Flores, G. Carey (eds), Family Therapy with Hispanics: Toward Appreciating Diversity (Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 2000), pp. 205–28 (213).
²⁸ L. Christenson, ‘Pentecostalism’s Forgotten Forerunner’, in Synan (ed.), Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, pp. 25–31 (27).
²⁹ D.J. du Plessis, A Man Called Mr. Pentecost (South Plainfield: Bridge Publishing, 1977), p. 182.
³⁰ L.G. McClung, ‘Truth on Fire: Pentecostals and an Urgent Missiology’, in McClung (ed.), Azusa Street and Beyond, pp. 47–54 (48); MacDonald, ‘Pentecostal Theology’, pp. 59–74 (62).
³¹ H.I. Lederle, ‘An Ecumencial Investigation into the Proprium or Distinctive Elements of Pentecostal Theology’, in Clark and Lederle (eds), What Is Distinctive, pp. 158–71 (166–67); E.L. Blumhofer, ‘Pentecost in My Soul’: Explorations in the Meaning of Pentecostal Experience in the Assemblies of God (Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1989); Edwards, ‘Afro-Caribbean Pentecostalism’, p. 46; J.D. Johns, C.B. Johns, ‘Yielding to the Spirit: A Pentecostal Approach to Group Bible Study’, JPT [Journal of Pentecostal Theology] 1 (1992), pp. 109–34; C.B. Johns, ‘Partners in Scandal: Wesleyan and Pentecostal Scholarship’, Pneuma 21 (1999), pp. 183–97.
³² Anderson, ‘Pentecostals Believe’, p. 58.
³³ K. McDonnell, ‘The Experiential and the Social: New Models from the Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue’, One in Christ 9 (1972), pp. 43–58 (47).
³⁴ Wacker, Heaven Below, pp. 13–14.
³⁵ J.R. Williams, ‘Pentecostal Spirituality’, One in Christ 10 (1974), pp. 180–92 (181).
³⁶ Clark and Lederle (eds), What Is Distinctive, p. 40 (italics in original); also pp. 69–75; T. Neuman (‘Paul’s appeal to the experience of the Spirit in Galatians 3:1–5: Christian experience as defined by the cross and effected by the Spirit’, JPT [Journal of Pentecostal Theology] 9 (1996), pp. 53–69 (59)) concludes, ‘Paul’s appeal to experience is crucial to his argument in Galatians’.
³⁷ J. Bond, ‘What Is Distinctive about Pentecostal Theology?’, in Clark and Lederle (eds), What Is Distinctive, pp. 133–42 (135).
³⁸ Gause, ‘Issues in Pentecostalism’, pp. 113–16.
³⁹ L.D. Hart, ‘Problems of Authority in Pentecostalism’, Review and Expositor 75 (1978), pp. 249–66.
⁴⁰ Hollenweger, ‘Pentecostalism, Past, Present, and Future’, pp. 43–5.
⁴¹ This is reflected also by R.A. Knox (Enthusiasm: A Chapter in the History of Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950), pp. 520–28) who notes that some spiritual experiences common to early Methodists had limited biblical precedent.
⁴² M.T. Kelsey, ‘Courage, Unity and Theology’, in Spittler (ed.), Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism, pp. 232–44 (233).
⁴³ Kelsey, ‘Courage Unity and Theology’, pp. 240–41.
⁴⁴ Bartleman, Azusa Street, p. 107.
⁴⁵ P. Pomerville, The Third Force in Mission: A Pentecostal Contribution to Contemporary Mission Theology (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1985), p. 104; A.M. Lord, ‘The Voluntary Principle in Pentecostal Missiology’, JPT [Journal of Pentecostal Theology] 17 (Oct. 2000), pp. 81–95 (91); A.A. Ayuk, ‘The Pentecostal Transformation of Nigerian Church Life’, AJPS [Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies] 5.2 (2002), pp. 189–204 (191); A.H. Anderson, ‘Towards a Pentecostal Missiology for the Majority World’, AJPS [Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies] 8.1 (2005), pp. 29–47 (43).
⁴⁶ C. Dube, ‘From Ecstasy to Ecstasis: A Reflection on Prophetic and Pentecostal Ecstasy in the Light of John the Baptizer’, JPT [Journal of Pentecostal Theology] 11.1 (2002), pp. 41–52.
⁴⁷ Dube, ‘From Ecstasy to Ecstasis’, p. 48.
⁴⁸ R.N. Bueno, ‘Listening to the Margins: Re-Historicizing Pentecostal Experiences and Identities’, in Dempster, Klaus and Petersen (eds), The Globalization of Pentecostalism, pp. 268–88.

 

This chapter is reprinted with permission from Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (London: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2008).