Chad Tyler Gerber is Assistant Professor of Theology at Walsh University, USA. This book is part of the Ashgate Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity. The series focuses on major theologians from the patristic period as individuals immersed in their own culture. It somewhat uniquely aims to understand the convergence or divergence of pagan and Christian thought on issues addressed by both streams. Accordingly, it hopes to ascertain the true creativity of a particular author and to assess the abiding value of his thought for modern times. This text is serious theology so lay people or even many clergy may not find it easily palatable. However, teachers and advanced students of theology will definitely find it a rewarding and worthwhile read. Augustine is indisputably one of the giants of Christian thought, and Gerber offers a fresh and vigorous look at his pneumatology. That alone is cause for acclaim. Accordingly, those interested in patristic studies in general or in Augustine in particular as well as his pneumatology will benefit from The Spirit of Augustine’s Early Theology. I suspect Pentecostal and Charismatic theologians should be especially interested in the depths of Augustine’s theology of the Holy Spirit.

Gerber explains that “Augustine’s pneumatology remains one of his most distinctive, decisive, and ultimately divisive contributions” to Christian theology. Several questions guide Gerber’s work on this text. How did Augustine’s understanding of the Spirit develop? Why does he identify the Spirit with divine love and cosmic order? What were the sources of his inspiration? Gerber focuses on the early Augustine and his first writings in order to get at the seminal roots of his more mature thought. He is particularly interested in the Platonic influence on Augustine’s pneumatology and in the possibility of his continuing commitment to the divinity of the human soul. (In a brief appendix, Gerber sums up his argument that Augustine rejected the divinity of the soul; but, he suggests Augustine appropriated certain functions of the Plotinian Soul regarding the particularity of the Holy Spirit, especially his idea of the Spirit as the “ordinator” of the world.)

Following the contours of Augustine’s early writings and the locale of their construction, Gerber presents his material in four chapters. After a brief introduction, Chapter One on “Nicea and Neoplatonism” (386-87 AD) examines the influence of Nicea and Neoplatonism on the budding theologian’s early Trinitarian theology as he writes from Milan. Gerber concludes that “at bottom” Augustine’s early Trinitarian theology was “pro-Nicene” and also made use of “Plotinian triadology”. He suggests the early Augustine still had much to learn about both Neoplatonism and pro-Nicene theology; but, he had sufficiently grasped the central tenets of both in such as way as to understand and express his theology in terms that would remain essentially the same throughout his subsequent writings.

In Chapter Two, “The Soul of Plotinus and the Spirit of Nicea,” studying the Cassiciacum Dialogues (386-87 AD), Gerber gets to a more specific pneumatology and also to the delicate relation in Augustine between Plotinus’ philosophy and Nicene theology. Gerber suggests that Augustine’s more or less random invocations on pneumatology at this point nevertheless adhere to a consistent “redemptive-historical perspective in which God the Spirit leads fallen souls to God the Son.” Augustine is apparently influenced here by the New Testament and by patristic writings. The theme of “return” is also evident, and Plotinus appears to have provided “a psychological model of ascent” in which the soul’s salvation involves a vision of “archetypal Truth and a ‘return'” to God as “the ultimate source of all things” (although Romans 11:36 is key). Gerber, however, judges the material too scarce at this point to make sweeping conclusions about specific ideas concerning pneumatology and cosmic order.

Oden and Packer have done evangelicalism a valuable service in this work affirming and outlining its underlying unity contra a reputation for fragmentation. Drawing upon a wide array of trans-denominational and international confessions, they posit a remarkable coherence among evangelicals regarding ‘primary’ doctrines. As senior statesmen of the evangelical movement they are uniquely qualified for this endeavour, representing (some would say) opposite ends of the evangelical spectrum (Wesleyan and Calvinist). Their collaboration is itself indicative of the unity they further affirm. Oden and Packer’s own analysis of and vision for evangelical unity strengthens the work substantially. Some repetitiveness is evident but this is a very readable book.

However, while One Faith takes an important step toward not only affirming but also advancing evangelical unity, it does not deal with what its authors consider ‘secondary’ doctrines that admittedly involve controversy. Is the alleged unity substantive when it is decided in advance to ignore diversity? How contemporary evangelicals deal with differences says something too. Nevertheless, the distinction between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ status issues is an ancient and useful one potentially capable of carrying the burden and blessing of diversity. Though not a specifically scholarly work, students of evangelicalism as well as evangelical laity and clergy will benefit from this book.

Reviewed by Tony Richie

Originally published on the Pneuma Foundation (parent organization of PneumaReview.com) website. Later included in the Summer 2024 issue.

As usual, the writing of Matthew Schmitz, senior editor of First Things, is clear and cogent—and courageous. He fearlessly tackles daunting topics such as, in this case, immigration. It is a genuine pleasure to follow his almost seamless integration of personal testimony, social environment, rational investigation, and theological articulation. I particularly appreciate Schmitz’s compatible juxtaposition of Protestant ethical and social theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s realism and Catholic natural theologian Thomas Aquinas’s political theory. Well done!

I will confess up front that I am in a position of a high level of agreement with what I take to be Schmitz’s primary assertions. Liberal idealism is an impractical and unworkable assumption about the world in which we live. It arises out of an over-realized eschatology rooted in an inaccurate assumption that utopia has already been achieved if people will just act like it. Further, liberal Christianity’s idealism has an anemic hamartiology. It simply does not realize the depth and extent of human sinfulness.

I am in something of a shock over the intensity of Schmitz’s insistence that outright contempt is behind liberal attitudes toward American citizens in general. Indeed, religious elitists do often ascribe ignorance and inferiority to their opponents (John 7:49). But I wondered if Schmitz overstated his case here. I fear not. I know liberal Christians of whom contempt for others would not be an accurate description. Yet I must admit in my own dealings with liberal Christianity I have often encountered an arrogance and animosity toward conservative Christians that is nothing short of contemptuous.

Nevertheless, although my journey and that of Matthew Schmitz have much in common, they have different starting points—and that affects their direction. Schmitz initially assumed the need for open borders and viewed with contempt those who thought otherwise. His life experiences and development eventually changed his direction toward a more closed border mindset. I had the opposite experience. I initially assumed the dire need for strictly enforced closed borders. My familial background is Pentecostal Christian. Pentecostals are very conservative, both religiously and politically. Furthermore, my first jobs included construction work, working in a truck stop, and factory labor. Immigrants were frequent rivals for scarce resources. My brother-in-law lost his job as a sheetrock hanger because he could not compete with the low wages undocumented immigrants were constrained to endure. Secure borders were a matter of economic survival for us … even before 9/11 and another whole set of security concerns.

The kind of book Evangelical Christians need to be reading on navigating Christian-Muslim relations today is the kind of book Matthew Kaemingk has written in Christian Hospitality and Muslim Immigration in an Age of Fear. So then, I am beginning this review with a positive recommendation right up front. Please let me explain why.

Matthew Kaemingk is assistant professor of Christian ethics and associate dean at Fuller Theological Seminary. Kaemingk earned his Master of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary and holds doctoral degrees in Systematic Theology from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam and in Christian Ethics from Fuller Theological Seminary. Kaemingk is an ordained minister in the Christian Reformed Church. He presently lives in Houston with his wife Heather and their three sons Calvin, Kees, and Caedmon.

Matthew Kaemingk

Kaemingk’s research and teaching focus is on Islam and political ethics, faith and the workplace, theology and culture, and Reformed public theology. Thus Christian Hospitality and Muslim Immigration in an Age of Fear comes rather directly out of his primary expertise. And it shows. The Foreword by Jamie Smith, quite the heavy hitter himself and a Charismatic Calvinist on top of that, not only testifies to the credibility of Kaemingk’s work and frames it for readers but helps connect it with Evangelical Reformed readers as well as Pentecostal/Charismatic readers.

Matthew Kaemingk faces several pressing questions head-on. How can diverse people live together? How should Western Christians respond to their new Muslim neighbors? Can Islam and Christianity peacefully coexist? Are there limits to religious freedom and tolerance? How much religious diversity can a single nation withstand? He believes the far left’s unqualified concessions and the far right’s reflex aggressions are both mistaken. Yet he does not simply draw a line down the middle between the two. He proposes another option: “Christian hospitality” or, as he (cover aside) more often puts it, “Christian pluralism”. Yet before prematurely dismissing him at this point readers should note that he does not mean by “pluralism” what may be the first thought which comes to many minds (i.e. he is certainly no John Hick). Kaemingk is firmly committed to the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the one and only Savior and Lord. He is also firmly committed to loving neighbors—even enemies, if so they be—of other faiths.

Panel during the Friday, August 25, 2017, public forum entitled, “Learning to Engage Our Muslim Neighbors.” From left to right: Michal Muelenberg, John Azumah, Richard Mouw, Marion Larson, Rick Love, and Cory Willson (facilitator).

Yet it has been rightly said that Christian responses to Islam and Muslims in the post-9/11 world represent “a struggle for the soul of the Christian faith”. How individual Christians, congregations, and the larger church engage with their Muslim neighbors and with Islam generally has tremendous import for the mission of Christ’s church and for Christian witness worldwide. This conundrum is true around the world and is increasingly as relevant in North American communities, large and small.

While the American context was the focus, input came from leading majority world voices, particularly Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Organizers understood that living in an age of the global church requires wisdom from those parts of Christ’s body for the American church to properly and effectively continue to play its leading role in global missions. The hope is that this gathering will spur on future smaller consultations that bring together Muslims and evangelicals to discuss pressing issues and tensions that exist between Christians and Muslims in America. Several participants are already engaged in these types of conversations and projects with Muslims. For example, Fuller Seminary, Columbia Theological Seminary, and Pentecostal Theological Seminary regularly teach courses involving engagement with the reality of Islam and its adherents at various levels of theological and dialogical discourse.

The Centre for Pentecostal Theology (CPT) Press is initiating an ongoing series of “short introductions”. To date they include the present volume by Onyinah under review and Lee Roy Martin, Fasting: A Centre for Pentecostal Theology Short Introduction (2014). Several others are expected to follow in due time. The Centre for Pentecostal Theology is a residential library dedicated to facilitating the conception, birth, and maturation of constructive Pentecostal Theology across the theological disciplines. Obviously, CPT Press is the publishing arm of that same endeavor. (In the interest of full disclosure, I have previously published with CPT but not in the series under discussion.) The Series Preface explains that these short introductions “offer a distinctively Pentecostal perspective on various topics that are of relevance to the movement.” Further, they “are designed to introduce the reader to the topic at hand while not overwhelming him or her with all the secondary literature.” To be clear, “The goal is a straightforward introduction with helpful assessments by leading scholars in the tradition.” We may approach Onyinah’s Spiritual Warfare from this declared context. However, a reading of Onyinah indicates he has his own contextual concerns as well, which nevertheless appear complementary with those of CPT without necessarily completely contained therein.

Professor Opoku Onyinah is an Apostle of the Church of Pentecost (COP). He holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Theology from the University of Birmingham (United Kingdom). Currently, he is the Chairman of The Church of Pentecost. The Church of Pentecost originated in Ghana but now claims 20,000 congregations worldwide with more than three million members. Given Onyinah’s diverse background, it will not be too surprising to discern in Spiritual Warfare administrative and pastoral concerns articulated alongside biblical and theological scholarship. Indeed the Introduction affirms an intention to address laity, clergy, and academia.

Spiritual Warfare is organized in four sections: Part One: The Nature of Spiritual Warfare, contains three chapters surveying the history of demonology in Pentecostalism; Part Two: Redefining Spiritual Warfare, contains two chapters articulating the importance of the life and victory of Jesus Christ for demonology; Part Three: The Devil’s Scheme: Strongholds, has eight chapters identifying specific areas of demonic activity; and, Part Four: The Weapons of our Warfare, has thirteen chapters (including the Conclusion) which lift up resources available to believers in resisting and overcoming demonic powers.

As implied earlier, Onyinah’s Spiritual Warfare is very contextual. It draws heavily on the experiences of COP believers and churches in Ghana and similar locales. Since African Christianity, and especially African Pentecostal Christianity, has a distinctive appreciation and emphasis for the reality of the demonic, this contextualization is a decided strength of the work. Global Christianity can learn much here that can be of benefit for many other contexts. However, it is also the case, as it perhaps always is, that one context does not necessarily transfer to another in a straight line, so to speak. Readers from international contexts will likely wish to appropriate particular themes in a somewhat selective manner.

Spiritual Warfare has administrative insight, pastoral concerns, and academic depth. Often these are intertwined together on the same page or even the same paragraph. I found it interesting that Onyinah brings these diverse agendas together in ways that are often mutually enriching and challenging simultaneously. I imagine that pastors and laypeople will be stretched by the academic theological considerations. I also imagine that academicians will be stretched by the pastoral applications. And I am sure both will be enriched. Generally, it works well.

Spiritual Warfare indulges in some sweeping generalizations. For example, it castigates postmodernism without bothering to understand it or engage it. Accordingly, it misses sometimes. It also makes assumptions about praise and worship that fit more with populism than Biblicism. And it is quite selective in its list of categories of demonic activity, focusing on individual fetishes and mostly ignoring social atrocities. Admittedly, these features may be—to an extent, at least—elements of the contextualization mentioned earlier. Or they may simply be due to the creative attempt to accomplish so much on several different levels. However, the work would be stronger with more care in such conversations.

Perhaps the greatest value in this volume is that it addresses the topic of spiritual warfare at all. Or at least that it takes the topic seriously. Many modern theologians avoid the topic (even Pentecostals) or approach it only in abstract form (Tillich) or primarily as institutional expressions (Wink). Onyinah takes the topic seriously and addresses it with theological credibility from a historic Pentecostal perspective. To an extent, this text may help to authenticate and legitimate Pentecostal theological discussion of demonology. Overall, I would certainly recommend Spiritual Warfare to readers—as Onyinah intends—from the Church and the Academy. Furthermore, if Spiritual Warfare by Opoku Onyinah (and Fasting by Lee Roy Martin) is a representative foretaste of CPT’s Short Introduction Series, one can only hope and pray that further volumes will be forthcoming soon and frequently.

Reviewed by Tony Richie

To begin, and in the interest of full disclosure, I have previously written on the question of the identification and relation of the Triune God and Allah being considered by Duane Litfin. (http://pneumareview.com/do-all-abrahams-children-worship-abrahams-god/.) In that article I essentially argue that the true and living God is not contained or controlled by any religion (Isaiah 66:1 and Acts 7:49). Why should it be considered inconceivable that God is infinitely greater than any religion’s perception and presentation of divine reality and identity? Yet I am a Christian. I unreservedly confess my faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as Lord and Savior (John 14:6; Romans 10:9). For me, the question is not to which religion does God belong but who among us belongs to God and in what way. According to the Bible, in some sense all creation and every creature belongs to the Creator God (Psalm 24:1; 1 Corinthians 10:26). However, according to John’s Gospel the Church belongs to Christ as the bride belongs to the groom (3:29). Christians belong to God as those who have heard God’s word in Christ (8:47). And Christians belong to Christ as the Father’s gift to him; therefore, Christ gives the Spirit to them to make known the otherwise unfathomable depths of divine mysteries (16:15). In my estimation, Christians can (and should) consistently affirm that God isn’t the exclusive property of any particular religion and also that God is definitively and decisively made known only in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Jerusalem, seen from the roof terrace of the Austrian Hospice of the Holy Family in the Muslim Quarter of old Jerusalem, looking towards the south. In the foreground is the silver dome of the Armenian Catholic chapel, “Our Lady of the Spasm,” the fourth station of the Via Dolorosa. In the background, left side, the golden Dome of the Rock.
Image: Justin McIntosh / Wikimedia Commons.

Pastor-scholar Tony Richie says there is no Jewish-Christian-Muslim God. Nor is there a simple answer to the “Same God” question.

When people realize I participate in interreligious dialogue and cooperative efforts they often ask me some version of the question in the main title of this post.[1] If I manage to mention that I have written a couple of books on Christian theology of religions from a Pentecostal perspective, I can almost certainly count on that question coming up. Actually, it usually centers more on two of the three “Abrahamic religions” (world religions tracing their origins to the biblical patriarch Abraham). They ask whether the Christian Trinity and the Muslim Allah is the same God. Almost always they want a simple, straightforward yes or no response. There is complexity implied in saying there is no Jewish-Christian-Muslim God, and it is not what they want to hear. To an extent, they are correct. There’s no such thing as a Jewish-Christian-Muslim God! Before unpacking what I mean by that bold statement I’ll briefly provide some important background.

Abraham’s well at Beersheba

Identifying or distinguishing a common deity is also important for Christian theologies of the other Abrahamic religion: Islam.[3] Islamist scholar Ataullah Siddiqui explains that “The divide between Islam and Christianity that most needs bridging derives from their different understandings of God and relationship with him”.[4] Christians may reasonably ask if it could be that just as Christians share with Judaism the worship of the same God, although through vastly differing faiths with different names for God and differing views of God’s nature, this same possibility exists for Islam. In other words, is it at least possible that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God? If so, then one thing is certain: they certainly have greatly different conceptions of God and how God ought to be served and worshiped.

Some Official Assessment

The wonderful folks of Life Pacific College (International Church of the Foursquare Gospel), located in beautiful San Dimas, California, were exceptionally gracious hosts. It was a special pleasure to be greeted in the first plenary by Jim Adams, LPC president, and the famous Jack Hayford (King’s University). LPC facilities were perfect for the needs of the Society, with ample space in a compact setting. And what a gorgeous campus! Aside from aesthetics, the statistics are impressive as well. Kim Roebuck, Assistant to the Executive Director, reports that there were 331 in attendance. Zach Tackett, SPS Secretary/Treasurer, informed the membership at its annual business meeting that the SPS 2015 figures represent the best membership roll in 5 years and that the Society is financially solvent. Certainly these appear to be signs that SPS continues to flourish as a vital venue for Pentecostal scholarship.

SPS could not happen without the diligent work of a great team of Interest Group Leaders: Scott Ellington, Daniela Augustine, Christopher Stephenson, Leah Payne, Sarita Gallagher, Doug Olena, James Bowers, Clifton Clarke, and Sammy Alfaro. As well, the work of Diversity Committee leader Meghan Musy, Librarians and Archivist chair, Derrick Rosenior, and other session leaders such as Dale M. Coulter and Daniel Tobin (Roman Catholic-Pentecostal dialogue) provided spiritual refreshing.

The plenary sessions with Linda Ambrose, John Goldingay, Teresa Berger, the Latino/a Pentecostalism session with Daniel Ramirez, Urias Mendoza, and Sammy Alfaro, and the great presidential address by Michael Wilkinson, were invigorating. Further, the artistic expressions by Carlynn Reed and Carlos Zapata, Jennifer Miskov and team, and Steven Felix-Jager were a refreshing innovation that ministered to all.

Lois Olena

Outgoing Executive Director Lois Olena (Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Springfield, MO) noted in her closing remarks at the SPS banquet that of its current membership of 557, SPS enjoys representation from 18 nations, 30 U.S. states, and 41 Christian denominations/traditions.

To me, in spite of its challenges, SPS has been to me “little taste of heaven,” because it has served in my life as a place where brothers and sisters in Christ, of diverse ethnicities and denominations, can experience “the other” in rich fellowship, mentorship, learning, collegiality, and laughter, as well as engage in times of challenging one another, searching and discovering, sharing ideas, celebrating one another’s accomplishments, and supporting friends through their struggles—not only once a year but all throughout the year as we continue to interact. SPS has been a place of vocational nurture, as our late president, Brother Jeff Gros, said in his 2012 presidential address: “The Pentecostal scholar in whatever church has a calling to be of service to the whole people of God and to the churches in their task of preaching, handing on the faith and nurturing the faithful. This Society has been a place where this ecclesial vocation has been and can be nurtured” [Pneuma 34, no. 2 (2012): 167.]

Tony Richie Summarizes and Reflects on Special White House Convening: “Celebrating and Protecting America’s Tradition of Religious Pluralism”

On Thursday, December 17th from 1:00-4:30 PM the White House conducted a special convening on “Celebrating and Protecting America’s Tradition of Religious Pluralism.”[1] Participation was by White House invitation only. Two Church of God ministers, Cheryl Bridges Johns and Tony Richie, were among those involved. Johns and her husband, Jackie, pastor New Covenant in Cleveland, Tennessee while Richie and his wife, Sue, pastor New Harvest in Knoxville, Tennessee. Johns is Robert E. Fisher Professor of Spiritual Renewal and Christian Formation at Pentecostal Theological Seminary. Richie is Adjunct Professor of Historical and Doctrinal Theology at Pentecostal Theological Seminary. Steven D. Martin, Director of Communications and Development for the National Council of Churches, was instrumental in effecting this significant invitation for these two Pentecostals.

The meeting was sponsored by the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. It focused on the deep American traditions of religious inclusion, freedom, and cooperation among those with different beliefs. Officials discussed steps they take to promote and protect these traditions. Attendees had the opportunity to discuss efforts to carry these traditions forward in positive modes. Devotees from the major faith traditions participated.

The day’s sessions were moderated by Melissa Rogers, Special Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She insisted that, “There are no second class faiths in the United States of America.” However, Rogers also admitted “We have not always lived up to our ideals.” Remarks setting a tone of sober discussion with serious political overtones were made by Cecilia Muñoz, Assistant to the President, Director of Domestic Policy Council; Amy Pope, Deputy Homeland Security Advisor and Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security; and Vanita Gupta, Principle Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.

Robby Jones, Chief Executive Officer of the Public Religion Research Institute, presented recent data describing the United States as an increasingly plural nation in terms of its religious population. He submitted that religious diversity is in line with our nation’s history. However, the US has never before experienced the high level of diversity it does now. Yet most people (including atheists) still have small friendship circles including only or almost only their own faith group. The least levels of interaction in the US appear to be in the geographical South (the Bible Belt) and Midwest (the Heartland), apparently because of lower levels of religious diversity than the overall national average. Nevertheless, white Evangelicals appear to be a prominent group expressing mistrust and suspicion of religious others. Tennessee is frequently cited as a key battleground state in the fight for freedom of religion. Accordingly, both challenges and opportunities arise. In a word, more interreligious interaction is needed at communal and individual levels.