It was with joy that I read through this perceptive article by Dr. Wonsuk Ma. Dr. Ma is a Pentecostal scholar whose ministry experience was gained in four countries. A large portion of his spiritual and academic development grew in the Philippines where he and his wife were engaged in evangelism, church planting among mountain tribal groups, and heavy involvement with the Asia Pacific Theological Seminary. As a result of his enriching experiences, he developed a strong sense of what it means for Pentecostals to undertake ‘Mission in the Spirit’. Dr. Ma is both a skilled writer and teacher. Indeed, his insights serve as valuable resources to the wider Body of Christ.

This short article, focusing on the tragic examples of Samson and Saul, was motivated by the dire need to address the issue of moral failure in charismatic leaders. In particular, the question being explored is whether the intention of the Spirit’s presence includes both internal transformation as well as empowerment for external tasks. Dr. Ma sets out to prove that the internal working of the Spirit is no less important than the outward empowering. His goal in writing this article is to demonstrate through systematic examination of the stories that these heroes’ failure to receive the private and internal transformation of character led to their ministry failure.

Because this is a topic so close to my own heart, I was more than delighted to read what this scholar had to say. Though there are several other characters whose lives may have been examined, Samson and Saul were chosen because of the frequency in which the Spirit is mentioned in their stories (four positive mentions for Samson – Judg. 13:25; 14:6,19; 15:14, and ten mentions of ‘spirit’ for Saul: five refer to an evil spirit from God – 1 Sam. 16:15,16,23; 18:10; 19:9, two to the Spirit’s departure and opposition – 1 Sam. 16:14; 19:23, leaving three positive references – 1 Sam. 10:6,10; 11:6).

A great insightful from Dr. Ma is that these initial experiences of the Spirit with these men (Judg. 13:25; 1 Sam. 10:6-9) were:

1. more private than public, away from people,
2. with no enemy or danger coming against them, and
3. with no public exploit immediately undertaken.

Their primary experiences are described as Samson being ‘agitated’ and Saul was ‘turned into a different person’, and ‘having received another heart’. What does it mean to be made restless by the Spirit? What does it mean to have a new heart? The author uses a variety of cross references throughout scripture to shed much light on these phrases! Does not the Spirit grant radical inner change which cannot be attributed to human behavioral change?

How do these three observations carry meaning for us? Are our initial experiences of the Spirit meant to take us out of our comfort zones, open our eyes to a new way of perceiving the world around us, to make us more fully aware of our life’s calling and stir us towards it? Are these initial Spirit stirrings meant to cause us to enhance God’s giftedness, and to challenge us to submit to the process of character development? If that is truly the case, then the author correctly argues that divine success through us is dependent upon an appropriate response from us.

William P. Atkinson tackles the controversial issue of the supposed spiritual death of Jesus from a firm Pentecostal perspective, being an ordained minister in the Elim Pentecostal Church in the UK. He spent seven years as the president in his denomination’s theological college, and is presently associated with the London School of Theology.

This book under review won the annual book award from The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship. When one reads through it, it is easily observed why this distinction was given.

At the very beginning of the book, the author lets you know where he stands, and the conclusions to which he has arrived. Taking the theological appraisal farther than any previous research to date, Atkinson counsels that Pentecostals would experience unnecessary damage by adopting this aberrant theology, and thus be drawn away from the foundations of traditional Christianity. His advice is to reject the bulk of the teaching of JDS (Jesus Died Spiritually).

Because the teaching of JDS is central to the Word of Faith, this book, in a sense, also serves as a critique of that movement. The Word of Faith movement cannot be classified as a single denomination, but nevertheless has greatly influenced Pentecostals throughout the world by means of their mass media techniques (TV, radio, publications, Internet, etc.). Who can calculate the number of independent, Pentecostal or charismatic churches that have embraced these teachings? This spread of inaccurate interpretations is an obvious concern to the author.

In particular, Atkinson focuses on three individuals: E. W. Kenyon, Kenneth E. Hagin and Kenneth Copeland. Kenneth E. Hagin is the main person who initiated the Word of Faith movement, leaning heavily on the writings of E. W. Kenyon. Kenneth Copeland is still alive and continues to advance this teaching. These three men have articulated the JDS doctrine the most comprehensively and to more of an extent than any of their followers.

Indeed, many of their disciples have picked up on this teaching and taught it in different measures, even modifying it. But the basic foundations have been strongly laid by these three men. Many people have unconsciously assumed this teaching, thinking it is orthodox.

Atkinson insists that this whole theological stance only serves to misrepresent the incarnation, the role that Satan played in the crucifixion, and the events that transpired between the cross and the resurrection.

This work provides an analysis of the healing theologies by four major players in the 20th century. F. F. Bosworth and Kenneth Hagin are put forward as leading influences of a type of Pentecostal healing evangelism. Agnes Sanford and Francis MacNutt are examples of pastoral healing in more traditional settings.

There can also be no doubt that today the modern landscape of healing theology has been influenced to a large degree by at least one of these four schools of thought. Multiple familiar ministries today have been birthed as a result of the input from each of these four healing protagonists. Just as these heroes of faith built on foundations that existed in their time, we (perhaps unknowingly) also build on foundations they have laid. Therefore, after much time has passed, it is a good exercise to examine these foundations afresh. Biblical scholarship has increased. Does that allow us to examine their teachings with new light?

The author sets out to see if there are two approaches driven by two different theologies of healing: evangelistic and pastoral. What are some of the tensions produced by these different approaches, and can these tensions be resolved?

To pursue the answer, the author systematically lays out his work in a well organized and methodical approach. In the introduction, the author first sets up the Christian worldview that the four protagonists inherited in their times. A thorough, yet brief, biographical sketch of each of them follows with reasons why he has chosen these four people in particular out of many others that he could have chosen.

It is obvious that the author has taken much time and effort to become thoroughly acquainted with each of the four profiles, drawing from the vast material written by them and of them by some of their contemporaries. Then, with thorough documentation, the author sets forth the respective positions on each of the following questions:

1) How do each of them respond to the doctrine of cessationism, the declaration that events such as healings and miracles have passed away and are no longer relevant or available today?

2) Is healing guaranteed in the atonement? Is it available to everyone?