The Fall 2008 (Volume 11, Number 4) issue of The Pneuma Review.

The Power of the Cross: The Biblical Place of Healing and Gift-Based Ministry in Proclaiming the Gospel

How do doctors respond to claims of healing? Are there any lasting social effects when people experience divine healing?

What kinds of healings are associated with contemporary Christian healing ministries, conferences for training Christians in praying for healing, and such ministry in many evangelical churches? How do medical doctors perceive the healings? How do healings relate to the revelations known as “words of knowledge” (I Cor. 12:8; 14:24-25)¹? Can associated physical phenomena be explained by psychological mechanisms? Why does God appear to heal some kinds of people more often than others?

These are important questions which for the most part have been ignored by critics of healing ministries, who have tended to concentrate on theological and historical questions rather than medical, sociological or psychological aspects.² These are the dimensions to healing which I wish to examine in this chapter, since the theological issues have been addressed by other contributors to this book. In particular I shall present some of the detailed findings from my comprehensive follow-up study of one of John Wimber’s conferences as an example of contemporary cases of healing.

Using a random number table, I then selected from these 1,890 respondents a random sample of 100 people whom I followed up between six and ten months after the conference. With ninety-three of them I was able to conduct in-depth personal interviews, involving my traveling almost literally throughout the length and breadth of Britain. Another seven people had to be interviewed over the telephone or by mail because they lived outside Britain or were unavailable for other reasons. My research combined the breadth of the questionnaire with the depth of the interviews. Some other potentially interesting cases outside the random sample were also followed up by telephone, mail or personal interview. Where appropriate, specialist medical opinions were sought regarding various cases of healing. Although each patient signed a form consenting to the release of confidential medical information, the doctors varied considerably in the extent to which they were willing to co-operate.

Editor Introduction: Postmodernism, The Church, and The Future  

Postmodernism, The Church, and The Future
A Pneuma Review discussion about how the church should respond to postmodernism

Suggestions and Comments from Readers

Reader T.S. writes:

I thought this critique of postmodern thinking on today’s college campuses was insightful: “The postmodern idolatry is that all spiritual ways of life lead to the same place. Any local truth is a valid truth. In the postmodern mind, they’re all paths to being good and doing good.”

This was from an interview with James Choung, called “From Four Laws to Four Circles: James Choung has found a way to tell the old, old story to a new generation” Christianity Today (July 2008). http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/11.31.html

Here is another, older critique by Os Guinness warning of the dangers of becoming too-relevant. http://www.christianitytoday.com/outreach/articles/trustingculturalgospel.html

In another article by philosopher William Lane Craig he says, “The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable. People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they are relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics. But, of course, that’s not postmodernism; that’s modernism! That’s just old-line verificationism, which held that anything you can’t prove with your five senses is a matter of personal taste. We live in a culture that remains deeply modernist” (in “God Is Not Dead Yet: How current philosophers argue for his existence,” Christianity Today, July 2008, emphasis his). Find this article online at:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html  

In the next issue (Winter 2009), Tony Richie wraps up our discussion with:

“Becoming All Things, Spoiling the Egyptians, and Occupying Culture till Christ’s Comes: Reflections on the Recent Postmodernism Conversation”  

The power of personal faith in Christ changing people and society around them. A study in Luke 19:1-10 by James D. Hernando.

Zacchaeus by Niels Larsen Stevns / Wikimedia Commons.

The story of Zacchaeus is one of the most intriguing in Luke’s gospel—a literary masterpiece filled with vivid imagery, drama, and biting irony. It is the story of the conversion of an arch villain in Jewish society who has a transforming encounter with the Lord. But it also offers marvelous insight into how the church transforms society one converted sinner at a time.

Enter the Villain

Luke quickly opens his story by introducing the main character in the briefest fashion. However, English readers seldom catch the innuendo of the Greek syntax. “There was a man called by name Zacchaeus.” Luke is undoubtedly calling attention to the man’s name, which is derived from the Hebrew root¹ meaning “pure” or “acquitted one.” The irony leaps out from Luke’s pen with the ensuing words, “and he was a chief tax collector.” Tax collectors (Gk. telonai) were locals hired by cities and towns to collect taxes for the Romans. Zacchaeus was a “chief” tax collector (Gk. architelones), which meant he probably had supervision over a region and number of tax collectors. Luke’s words “and he was rich” would certainly not go unnoticed by Jews in Jesus’ day. The privilege of collecting taxes was offered at a steep price and those who held that job set tax rates that often exceeded by far any quotas demanded by Rome. While tax-collectors had no authority to confiscate funds or property, they held great leverage over the people as they could exact severe penalties by reporting tax delinquency to the Romans. This they often did whether the charge were true or not.² And so here Luke presents an arch villain who is ironically named. He was anything but someone of pure or blameless character; he was, in fact, the exact opposite of his name. Keep in mind also that “tax-collectors” were notorious for their corruption and the mere mention of their profession aligned them with “sinners.” (See Matt. 9:11; Mark 2:15f; Luke 5:30).

The Action of Zacchaeus

Explanatory Note: Dr. Antonios Kireopoulos, a Greek Orthodox theologian, formerly Associate General Secretary for International Affairs and Peace at the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, was recently (January 1, 2008) appointed Senior Program Director for Faith & Order and Interfaith Relations at the NCC. The following is an exclusive interview with Dr Kireopoulos conducted by Dr. Tony Richie on June 10, 2008. Richie, a frequent contributor to Pneuma Review, is the Society for Pentecostal Studies liaison to the Interfaith Relations Commission and works closely with Dr. Kireopoulos on a number of theological task groups.

TR: Dr. Kireopoulos, thank you for talking with us. Please tell our readers something about your self, especially your background and ministry.

Tony Richie

TR: Would you also briefly describe your duties at the National Council of Churches on the Faith & Order and the Interfaith Relations Commissions respectively?

Dr K: Yes, of course. The NCC brings together 35 churches or denominations and ecclesial communities for the goal of intentional ecumenism or fostering unity among Christians. Faith & Order is the primary place where “heavy duty” theological discussion on diverse issues occurs in order to increase understanding and build bridges for healing and cooperation among Christians. Interfaith Relations addresses the reality of ministry on the ground, so to speak, in a religiously pluralist society, and brings a united witness of Christ into conversation with religious others through dialogue and collaboration offered in hospitality.

Cover from the 2011 Third Edition.

Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, revised and expanded edition (New York: Oxford, 2007), 316 pages, ISBN 9780195183078.

Philip Jenkins’ award winning study of developments in Christianity outside of the Western hemisphere should be riveting reading for anyone interested in the future of Christianity and of Christian ministry. It particularly informs the global context of Pentecostal Christianity. Jenkins asserts that “one of the most transforming moments in the history of religion worldwide” is currently occurring as “the center of gravity in the Christian world” shifts south, that is, toward Africa and Latin America. In fact, while the West becomes increasingly secular, Christianity is growing rapidly in the global South. Jenkins notes that these developments have “countless implications for theology and for religious practice.” For one thing, the nature of Christianity itself is changing through synthesis with the thought of other cultures. In a word, Christianity is becoming much more diverse. Moreover, it is becoming much more “Pentecostal” or “Charismatic” as these groups lead the Church in global growth. Contrary to what may have been the expectations of some, Christianity is not dying, but it is diversifying. Yet notably, the “dominant theological tone of emerging world Christianity” is what Jenkins describes as “traditionalist, orthodox, and supernatural.” Again, this description fits much better with Pentecostal Christianity than with so-called mainstream, liberal Protestantism.

Philip Jenkins begins by explaining that the first edition of his book was released September 10, 2001—one day prior to the terrorist attack by radical Islamic extremists led by Osama bin Laden. Thus, unexpectedly many of his predictions were eerily and immediately fulfilled. He also explains and defines his terms in light of subsequent developments and offers this revised and expanded edition to his earlier work. Then in ten well-written and readable chapters, he describes the phenomenal shift the Christian faith is currently undergoing and its both exciting and alarming implications. The book also includes detailed chapter-by-chapter endnotes and a relatively complete index that will be helpful to researchers. Charts and tables are scattered throughout the text offering statistical analysis and support for Jenkins’ major claims regarding Christianity in various countries and contexts.

Paul Rhodes Eddy (Ph.D. Marquette University) is professor of biblical and theological studies at Bethel University, and Gregory A. Boyd (Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary) is the senior pastor at Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. These two scholars have set forth to analyze the plausibility of conceptualizing the story of Jesus of Nazareth as mere legend.

Debates about the historical reliability of the gospels are not new. However, Eddy and Boyd here look at the issue from a new perspective. In fact, they take a particular approach of investigating whether the synoptic gospels can be judged as actual history on the one hand, or fictional legend on the other. In so doing, they analyze eight commonly held contentions of those who hold to a form of the legendary Jesus hypothesis. I will elucidate these eight contentions momentarily, but first it would be helpful to elaborate on the legendary Jesus hypothesis. There are three general groups of scholars that maintain, in some form, the idea that the Jesus of faith was some sort of legend. For example, some scholars (e.g. Bauer, Drews, and Wells) maintain that the Jesus (or Christ) of faith is entirely fictional, and that there is no historical basis of belief in him, either as a person or the son of God. A second group of scholars, typified by Bultmann, hold that while a historical person named Jesus in fact lived, the reports of him are saturated with legend and myth, insomuch as we have very little accurate historical information regarding him. Third, there are numerous scholars (Funk and Crossan, e.g.) who argue that while the present form of the gospels may contain myth and/or legend, there is a historical ‘core’ of truth to them.

These various groups of scholars contend that the naturalism of the present era excludes the plausibility—and even the possibility—of the supernatural occurrences reported in the gospels. Moreover, they posit that the Hellenistic Judaism of the era in which the Jesus-legend arose was conducive to the type of fabricated myths that one finds in the gospels. Third, they note that the parallels of Jesus-like (i.e. miracle workers, etc.) people in the surrounding areas in the same time frame, undercuts the validity of the reports of Jesus of Nazareth. They also contend that the relative silence in non-biblical literature and the relative silence in the epistles of Paul of the historical (not the risen Jesus, i.e.) Jesus, make the case for the gospels’ historical reliability tall indeed. Sixth, they point out that the oral nature of the first transmission of the gospels was inherently free-form and unstable, thus possibly allowing error and myth to creep in to them. Moreover, they question whether the writers of the gospels themselves intentioned their writings to be viewed as historical. And finally, these Jesus-legend advocates generally hold that those who view the gospels as historically accurate hold the burden of proof to prove it.

The author’s stated purpose is “expanding the definition of calling” (p. 6) as understood in traditional Pentecostal theology and to “show that a theology of calling and work requires a theology of the Spirit and giftings” (p. 17). Terry Cross informs readers that “This project [the Poiema Project, funded by a Lilly Endowment] began in a committee meeting. Originally, the faculty and staff of Lee University were the intended readers for his book”—which consists of “a discussion regarding calling within the context of [a] Christian liberal arts university” (p. 7).

Cross’ discussion regarding Pentecostal definitions and theology of vocation is not substantive—only a small portion of the text addresses these topics. The author maintains that historically, Pentecostal reflection on theology of call is limited, referring only to ministerial call. Cross does not approach the larger discussion of vocation from a Pentecostal perspective, supporting this decision based on his assertion that not much material is available.

Terry L. Cross

Although the author devotes a chapter to “A Theology of Work,” one weakness of the text is the omission of definitions for those terms similar to or related to vocation and call, such as profession, career, job, etc. An inclusion and comparison of these definitions would facilitate readers’ understanding of the precise relationships among these terms, distinctions in their meanings and in the way these terms are understood in Pentecostal and other Christian traditions.

Cross states that “‘Calling’ has a rather univocal definition for Pentecostals. It usually refers to God’s communication to preachers to make full-time ministry their career” (p. 45). The “usually” here is troubling and raises the question: What if the text included a more comprehensive discussion, based on further research, of call/calling as understood in the Pentecostal tradition? Would this result in uncovering a deeper or more diverse understanding of call, even though resources for the research of call in that tradition may be limited?

Carolyn Osiek, Charles Fischer Catholic Professor of New Testament at Brite Divinity School of Texas Christian University, and Margaret Y. MacDonald, Professor of Religious Studies at St. Francis Xavier University, have created a work that examines the day-to-day life of the women in the early church. They cover a variety of topics that would have affected every woman: marriage, birth, child rearing, childhood, motherhood, wet nurses, nannies, slaves, wives, widows, and grandmothers. Chapter 1 introduces three views that are commonly used to examine women in the early church: patriarchy vs. the discipleship of equals, public vs. private, and ascetic vs. domestic life. They also discuss basic activities of the house church such as hosting the assembly, education, communication, socialization, charity, evangelization, and mission.

Chapter 2 focuses on wives noting that the Biblical ideal was not often reality. Evidence for this period regarding Christian women is fragmentary. Despite this, the authors insert this evidence into an “imaginary scene (18) based on what we know of a typical Roman family.” The chapter examines Colossians and Nympha’s role, on Prisca, Ananias and Sapphira as well as other ancient texts. Chapters 3 and 4 cover birth, childcare, and raising children in the house church. Topics include abortion, infanticide, exposure, nursing, and mortality rates for both mother and child. Besides using Roman medical texts the authors also, use the writings of Plutarch, John Chrysostom, The martyrdom of Pertpetua and Felicitas, the life of Macrina and the infancy gospel of Thomas.

Chapter 5 deals with the female slave and builds on the work of Jennifer Glancy (Slavery in Early Christianity) and J. Albert Harrill (Slaves In The New Testament: Literary, Social And Moral Dimensions) to illustrate the problems of Christian female slaves and the church’s problem with them. This chapter is loaded with Roman law, rabbinic writings and non-Christian authors. The sixth chapter examines Eph. 5:22-33 using two points of view: the first as a document against Roman ideology and the second as an apologetic ideal representing the church. Asking if the injunction to marry as an option could have been a way for women to wield influence in the house church is the topic of chapter 7.

Rebecca Skaggs with Thomas Doyle lead us into a biblical and thoughtful look at the reality of suffering.

The Issue

Why is there suffering in the world? Further, why does it appear that often “good” people suffer when the “wicked” often thrive? Where is God when people suffer individually and collectively? For centuries, both philosophers and theologians have sought to analyze the issue and suggest a coherent and reassuring response to it. In the face of actual suffering, however, these philosophical and theological concepts often fall short.

Believers have a particularly difficult task in understanding suffering since they firmly believe that God cares and is able to alleviate suffering yet he often does not. C. S. Lewis, who himself cried out in anguish when his beloved wife died a painful death from cancer,¹ frames the dilemma for believers as follows: “If God were good, he would wish to make his creatures happy, and if God were almighty, he would be able to do what he wished.” The logical conclusion follows then that since the creatures are not happy, either “God lacks goodness or power or both.”² This perspective causes a seemingly irreconcilable paradox.

The problem of suffering is so difficult, that some choose to avoid the issue altogether. Oliver McMahan in his study of the Pentecostal view of suffering provides evidence that “unfortunately, the Pentecostals and charismatics in the United States have not historically allowed the world to observe its grief. [they have] neglected, avoided and even worked hard to deny the experience of pain and grief.”³ He makes the point that an emphasis has been made on miracles, healings, signs and wonders leading to “a parade of power without penance or pain.” According to McMahan, “a painless Pentecost” leads to power struggles, pride, and “puritanical doctrinal disputes.” He notes the obvious absence of accounts of those who were not healed, miracles which did not happen.⁴ Of course, there have been some Pentecostal scholars through the years who have called for the consideration of the issue of suffering, pain and grief.⁵