Gerald Hovenden, Speaking in Tongues: The New Testament Evidence in Context (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 181 pages.

In this book Hovenden provides a well balanced and informed study into a phenomenon that is gaining increasing interest and acceptance within the Christian community. What started has a distinctive among Pentecostals in the early 20^th century and later spilled over into the charismatic communities of Mainline and Evangelical churches is now the topic of much scholarly discussion. This is something that was rare in the past among biblical or systematic theologians.

Hovenden himself is a prime example of the expanding use of tongues in both the private and corporate spheres of spirituality. In his introduction Hovenden relates how this work grew “out of a long-standing interest” (1) in the phenomenon of tongues. He then goes on to tell of his early experiences as an Anglican discovering and then experiencing tongues. This window that Hovenden has opened on himself gives his study an added aspect of respectability. For Hovenden, tongues is not simply an academic study, although he does top notch academic work on the topic. It is, though, a dynamic and personal experience of the divine Spirit; one that he says is a “regular and … valuable part of my personal prayer life” (1). Academic study that flows out of such a profound experience is a breath of fresh air to an often stagnant discipline.

In this small work Hovenden bravely attempts to establish what Luke, Paul, and the earliest Christians actually believed tongues to be (3). In short he is trying to determine if tongues was viewed by the above mentioned groups as glossolalia, xenolalia, or something other than human language, i.e. angelic languages. He does this by examining the evidence of tongues in the ancient world, both historical and textual, to determine whether the early Christian communities understood tongues in light of what they knew of such occurrences in the Pagan and Jewish worlds. He admits that such a study will inevitably lead to comparisons of the Lukan and Pauline understandings of tongues, although this is of secondary importance with only a small section in chapter 4 devoted to such comparison.

The first section of his book is devoted to ‘tongues like’ activity in the pre- and para-Christian material. This is a survey of examples of ecstatic speech from both Pagan and Jewish literature. In dealing with Pagan examples Hovenden takes the reader through such ancient writers as Euripides and Plato, as well as fragments from the Delphic and other ancient oracles. He also deals with movements and groups that were more contemporaneous with first century Christianity such as the Mystery Religions and the writings of Livy (59 BCE – 17 CE). Hovenden shows that while there is ample evidence in the ancient Greco-Roman world for ecstatic speech there seems to be little hard evidence of such speech that was unintelligible. Instead they were almost certainly in Greek.

Does Messiah pay taxes? Journey through the Gospel to the Hebrews with Kevin Williams and find out.

And when they had approached Jerusalem and had come to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them, and bring them to Me. “And if anyone says something to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them” (Mathew 21:1-3).

In Part One of The Secret Codes in Matthew, and nearly every volume since this study began, the assertion was made that the apostle Matthew wrote this gospel as a testimony to the Jewish people. The assumption when we first began was that this born anew tax collector wanted the Hebrews to recognize the Messiah of Israel in his text. The series’ title—The Secret Codes in Matthew—intimates that there are aspects of this book that, unless viewed from a Jewish perspective, remain secret to Gentile eyes.

The same is true in the passage above. Within Judaism of the day, there was great anticipation for the coming of the Messiah. Their theology taught that the Messiah might come on a white horse, in which case he would arrive as a victorious king. However, they also believed that he might arrive riding on a donkey, in which case, Israel would have been judged unworthy.

“Rabbi Alexandra said, ‘Rabbi Y’hoshua set two verses against each other; it is written, “And behold, one like to the son of man came with the clouds of heaven” (Daniel 7:13), while elsewhere it is written, “See, your king comes unto you, … humbly riding on a donkey” (Zecharaiah 9;9). [He resolved the paradox by saying that] if they deserve it [he will come] with the clouds of heaven, but if not, lowly and riding on an ass.’” (Sanhedrin 98a).

In other words, if the Messiah were to arrive on a donkey, Israel would not deserve him. From our vantage, we might agree with great vigor, citing example after example of her transgressions. However, it would be wiser—and more harmonious with the will of the Holy Spirit—to ask ourselves if we deserved Him when He came to us? If the answer is “no” (as it should be), then we might be better served to join our Jewish brethren, arm-in-arm and in our sin, to greet the only One worthy to cleanse us of our collective iniquity.

To believe that Israel first needed to be worthy—either among the Jewish or Gentile peoples of the world—would supercede the Messiah’s divinely appointed purpose. A redeemed people would have no need of a Redeemer. Yeshua (Jesus) said it best when he said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). May his name be praised for His goodness toward us!

So the Messiah’s arrival on the colt of a donkey fit perfectly with the Jewish religious thought of the day. They were not worthy—as none of us could claim to be.

Yeshua’s selection of a donkey and her colt not only found them unworthy by their own theology, but the colt may be significant for another reason. In David Stern’s Jewish New Testament Commentary, he writes, “Perhaps Mattityahu [Matthew] mentions two donkeys for a different reason, namely, to emphasize the immaturity of the colt, too young to be separated from its mother” (p. 62, brackets mine). This would indeed, be a lowly and unclean animal. Not at all a steed worthy of the King of kings.

Craig S. Keener, Gift & Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 224 pages.

Craig Keener, a New Testament professor at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has already made a name for himself in the world of biblical studies. The present work on the Holy Spirit will undoubtedly introduce his name also to the field of pneumatology. Gift & Giver is a concise and well-written book on the Holy Spirit. Its outline may as well be called exemplary, its goal and informative value priceless. Published by an academic publishing house, the book speaks well to a much wider audience than the academic world. From the perspective of the latter, one could also entitle the book “Discerning the Holy Spirit.” The framework of the book is formed by a discussion of the discernment and recognition of the Spirit and spiritual gifts. However, the decisive question for Keener is, “How do we discern the Spirit’s work today?” It is this question of applicability to our lives today that elevates the book beyond many of its academic contemporaries.

Keener admits that much of the material of the book is based on his earlier work 3 Crucial Questions about the Holy Spirit. However, the reorganization of that material and the application of biblical principles to daily life through personal stories of the author make Gift & Giver a more accessible book for a wider Christian audience than its predecessor. The sharing of personal stories is no longer limited to authors of the charismatic and Pentecostal movements but has long found entrance into theology as a valuable tool of teaching, confirmation and illustration. Difficult biblical and theological issues are dealt with in a scholarly and pastorally sensitive manner that offers a refreshing perspective on the work of the Holy Spirit. Even if one disagrees with Keener’s conclusions and personal insights at some points, the reader will remain challenged by the presentation of the biblical texts and their application to contemporary life.

Cornelius G. Hunter, Darwin’s Proof: The Triumph of Religion over Science (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003), 168 pages, ISBN 9781587430565.

The volume under review is a sequel to Hunter’s Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil (Brazos Press, 2001). The central thesis of the former book is that the theory—rather than fact—of evolution originally emerged in the mid-nineteenth century out of the deistic the concept of God with the added benefit of distancing God from the waste, pain, suffering, and evil so evident in the natural and human worlds. In Darwin’s Proof, Hunter further develops this main idea, but provides a creationist alternative to the naturalistic theory of evolutionary origins.

Hunter’s Ph.D. in biophysics (University of Illinois) means not that his interpretation of the alleged evidence for evolution is correct in all respects, but that it cannot be easily dismissed. This is especially the case in the first five chapters of the book where he lays out what he discerns to be the fundamental arguments against Darwinian evolution—its inability to account for the complexity of DNA structures, protein functions, enzyme pathways and cycles, nerve cells, and other life forms—and the inconclusiveness of the scientific evidence for evolution, especially the fossil evidence, data from comparative anatomy, and molecular, genomic, and phylogenetic (related to the evolutionary tree) similarities. Chapters six and seven then make more explicit the internal philosophical and theological contradictions (as Hunter sees them) of evolutionism.

The last four chapters constitute Hunter’s own proposal regarding the origins of life: adherence to a fairly traditional rendition of the biblical account of creation, fall and redemption as providing a narrative and philosophical framework for scientific inquiry in general and biological origins in particular (chapters eight and nine), and advocacy of the recently emergent and increasingly popular intelligent design theory as being compatible with Christian theistic approaches to rigorous scientific investigation (chapters ten and eleven).

Both Darwin’s God and Darwin’s Proof will be welcomed by creationists and anti-evolutionists. It appears that these are the audiences that Hunter is addressing, at least in part, by publishing this very accessible book with a press targeting evangelical laypersons. Be warned, however, that while many of the arguments in these two volumes may be simplistically called into serving traditionalist apologetic purposes prevalent in evangelical, fundamentalist, creationist, and even Pentecostal and charismatic circles, Hunter’s approach signals a subtle but very important shift in the contemporary science and religion conversation. That is to say, while Hunter’s own theological commitments seem fairly traditionalistic, his engagement with the sciences is rigorous (rather than merely instrumentalistic or apologetic), his rhetorical approach is fair (rather than merely polemical), and his interaction with evolution and its supposed evidences is sophisticated (rather than merely dismissive). I would urge even those who agree with Hunter’s theological position to read him in order to learn something about science in general and evolutionary science in particular. On the other side, defenders of Darwinian evolution will be challenged not only at the presuppositional level (that is, with regard to the ideological, religious and metaphysical commitments undergirding evolution) but also at the evidential level (that is, with regard to the specific interpretation of the scientific and, especially, biological data).

Larry Martin, The Life and Ministry of William J. Seymour: and a history of the Azusa Street Revival (Joplin, MO: Christian Life Books, 1999), 384 pages, ISBN 9780964628946.

Dr. Larry Martin’s book The Life and Ministry of William J. Seymour is a valuable contribution to Pentecostal studies as the first volume in his series “The Complete Azusa Street Library.” Martin presents an easy reading biography of Seymour and also pieces together the history of the Azusa Street revival, drawing upon Douglas Nelson’s dissertation on Seymour (Douglas J. Nelson, For Such a Time as This: The Story of Bishop William J. Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival), Seymour’s periodical The Apostolic Faith, and Frank Bartleman’s account of the Azusa revival, as well as other many other sources and his own original research. The book is sprinkled liberally with photos and illustrations that highlight the times, culture, artifacts, places, events, and people associated with Seymour and the Azusa revival.

Martin traces the relevant history leading up to the Azusa revival, including the earlier life, times, and ministry of Charles Parham and Seymour, how they met, and the divine preparation for the Azusa revival. Through several chapters, he describes in detail the various events of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and subsequent developments within and following the revival, including the controversies, opposition, and divisions that resulted. He also incorporates a brief chapter on the expansion of the movement throughout the United States and worldwide. One chapter is devoted to Seymour’s travels and ministry following Azusa Street, and another to the circumstances around his death and the future of his ministry and legacy after his death.

The main drawback of the book is that Martin only briefly summarizes in one chapter Seymour’s travels and ministry after the 1906 revival to his death in 1922. Seymour’s contacts and activities during this time are important features that were omitted from this otherwise insightful volume. Perhaps they will be documented more fully in a later volume. Also not mentioned is Seymour’s recanting of the evidential tongues doctrine, nor is the theology of Seymour discussed, although a later volume in the series includes Seymour’s church polity and doctrine manual. A volume discussing and evaluating his theology would be beneficial.

Despite these omissions and a few grammatical errors, Martin has provided a valuable and accessible record of Seymour’s life and ministry and the events surrounding the Azusa Street revival for the annals of Pentecostal history. I look forward to reading all the volumes in Martin’s series.

Reviewed by Paul L. King

Richard N. Longenecker, ed., Community Formation in the Early Church and in the Church Today (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), 251 + xix pages, ISBN 9780801046964.

The new believer is not likely to progress far in his or her spiritual walk before coming across someone calling the church today to return to our New Testament roots. One of the foundations of this call is the desire to discover (or rediscover) what may be called “the New Testament model” of church structure and Christian community. Some have even gone so far as to suggest the abolition of church buildings and worship centers and the return to small home groups as “the only true New Testament norm” for Christian fellowship.

Regardless of whether there is validity to these claims or not, a number of questions still remain: Does the New Testament present the 21st century church with a model for Christian community? If so, is it a normative model, exclusive of any other structures? Or is there a freedom to be enjoyed in how the church today can be structured? Is the decision to be based on theological bases, sociological bases, both, or neither? It is obvious that the most basic of observations reveal a wide variety of church structures along denominational lines, and even within those same denominations.

These are important questions to the life and ministry of the church in general and every Christian in particular, and that church (and Christian) has been blessed with a collection of twelve essays, from a variety of Canadian and American scholars, which examines these questions in detail. The general perspective that developed from these studies (originally presented in June 2000 at the Bingham Colloquium, held at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada) is that Christian community formation is based on both the biblical doctrine of the gospel and the sociological elements that define each society in which that gospel is presented and followed.

As editor, Longenecker has grouped these essays into four natural sections. Beginning with the social context of the Greco-Roman world in the first few centuries of the church’s existence, the first three essay take us on a walk through the various communities, fellowships, and “voluntary associations” which were in abundance at that time and place. By way of archaeological descriptions and discussions, the reader discovers how closely the early church structures resembled similar structures of which the first Christians were well aware.

Archaeological examination is closely followed by biblical examination in the second section of the book. The fact that Christianity (and the church) stands or falls on the person of Jesus Christ, leads to the natural and necessary corollary that the ministry of the church should be guided and shaped by the ministry of Christ. “The paradigm of ministry for Christians was established by Jesus himself, whose example was followed—even though not always successfully or willingly—by his disciples and those who came to believe in him. Every model of ministry, therefore, if it is to be truly Christian, must be guided by the teaching and example of Jesus” (p. 59). Following on the heels of Jesus’ ministry was the ministry of his disciples, and Longenecker himself contributes a chapter on the vision and image of the church described by the apostle Paul in his missionary letters. The New Testament portion of the book continues with a look into Luke’s theology of ministry and leadership as presented in the book of Acts, and concludes with a look into the various elements of the New Testament congregations as described by Paul in his pastoral epistles.

In this review essay from the Winter 2005 issue, Pastor Graham Old reviews the book The Healing Promise by cessationist Richard Mayhue.

Richard Mayhue, The Healing Promise: Is it always God’s will to heal? (Christian Focus Publications, 2001), 228 pages.

Richard Mayhue states that his purpose in writing this book is to “develop a biblical model of healing by which we can test anyone who claims to heal—past, present, and future.”¹ Thus, I had high hopes for this book. I hoped that we would finally encounter an argument that relied upon a thorough examination of the biblical data and avoided the focus upon testimonies of bad experiences within the fringe element of the Charismatic movement. I hoped that we would find someone genuinely attempting to interact with the finest of Pentecostal and Charismatic scholars, rather than repeating the arguments of a former generation of anti-supernatural cessationists. I was disappointed.

Let us not build an argument on experience—good or bad

The book begins with the usual mockery of the fringe elements in the Charismatic movement. Mayhue is something of a protégé of John MacArthur, so it should not cause too much surprise to find the same methodology employed here that MacArthur resorts to in Charismatic Chaos. What is surprising is the way that Mayhue questions the place of experience in Charismatic theology, while simultaneously using bad experiences as a negative defense of his own position.

Yet, he seems completely unaware of the irony. The book contains a chapter on the bad experiences people have suffered at the hands of healers, a chapter on how healers can create the illusion of healings, a chapter on Joni’s struggle with physical infirmity and what she has learned through it, a chapter on the healing of John MacArthur’s wife, Patricia, and a number of references to the paucity of healing in the post-biblical Church. All of this from an author who would suggest that the problem with Charismatic theology is that it is based on experience!

Mayhue criticises Jack Deere, claiming, “one gets the distinct impression that experience at least equals scripture” in Surprised by the Power of the Spirit.² This is ironic, because Deere actually makes the point that Charismatics are accused of basing their theology on experience, when what often happens is that cessationists do exactly the same.³ Their lack of an experience of the supernatural—and their consequent perception that such a lack mirrors Church history—is the actual basis for their theology of cessationism. While Deere is ready to admit the place of experience in his theology—which is fully supported by the biblical approach to formulating our doctrine—Mayhue seems painfully unaware of the place that experience is playing in his theology.

Perhaps the lesson here is that we need to carefully assess our theological arguments and be aware of the place that experience plays in that. Pentecostals have often acknowledged the invaluable role of experience in confirming or clarifying theology (more so than Charismatics, who have not always been as honest as Deere in this respect).⁴ The thing that is to be avoided on all sides is using experience as the foundation of our theology. The degree to which Cessationism has done this is a topic that merits further consideration.

Earl Creps, “Fighting the Future: What’s in store for the charismatic/Pentecostal movement: adaptation or extinction?” Ministries Today (Jul/Aug 2004), pages 50-54.

A fight for survival? An exciting challenge?

The culture in North America has experienced a significant shift. Many call this new philosophy of life “postmodernism,” even if using such labels recall the old culture of “modernity.” Whatever you call it, this shift is pervasive and it appears to be here to stay.

How the church is to respond to this paradigm shift is the subject of the article “Fighting the Future.” From the title, we hear Earl Crep’s opinion of what most churches are doing in response to the “threat” of change this new culture brings us.

Earl G. Creps is is the lead pastor of 360church in Berkeley, California. earlcreps.com

Creps has met pastors who cling to the culture that has defined the Pentecostal/charismatic movement and who believe that defending that culture against the possible alternatives defines faithfulness. There are also emerging leaders who believe they must eliminate anything “pentecostal” in order to be relevant to the broader culture. Creps says, “Abandoning our experience of the Spirit is not an option, but conducting ministry as if we are still in a hotel conference room in 1984 may actually limit the operation of the Spirit in the 21st Century.” He urges a third way be considered, adaptation to the cultural realities without forsaking the supernatural. He calls for spiritual mentorship and self-disciplined ministry that refocuses on Jesus’ mission and makes space for well-rounded charismatic ministry.

I recommend this article to all ministry leaders as an excellent introduction to the critical place of decision facing us all. The Body of Christ must heed the voice of the Spirit lest we become caught up in traditions (good or bad) that raise blockades to the ministry of the Anointed One.

Reviewed by Raul Mock

The full text of the article is available at http://ministrytodaymag.com/index.php/ministry-today-archives/159-trends-and-culture/9310-fighting-the-future [as of Aug 25, 2014]

In 1977, after a consideration of all New Testament literature, J. K. Moon gave this classic Pentecostal/charismatic, albeit eclectic, definition of the anointing:

The anointing is the special presence of the Holy Spirit in the life and ministry of God’s servant which produces an inspiring awareness of the divine presence. His entire faculties are enhanced (heightened illumination, courage, wisdom, discernment, faith, guidance, memory, vocabulary, emotions, intellect, and physical performance) beyond natural abilities. The Word of God is quickened to accomplish its regenerating, healing, edifying, and sanctifying objective. And those ministered to are invested with a God-consciousness. …¹

The Lukan and Johannine Anointings

Oil of anointing, by Stan Myers.
Used with permission

In 1981, David Bundrick specifically addressed the Johannine anointing and isolated it, rightly so, as one particular kind of anointing, i.e., distinct from the Lukan anointing. Bundrick hinted at the distinction when he wrote that, “While emphasis today is placed upon ‘the anointing of the teacher,’ this text [1 John 2:18-27] demonstrates that ‘the anointing upon the student’ is vital.”2 But neither Moon nor Bundrick clearly defined and delineated both the Lukan and the Johannine anointings.

James K. A. Smith, Speech and Theology: Language and the Logic of the Incarnation, Radical Orthodoxy Series (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), 186 pages, ISBN 9780415276962.

The book is more complex than its title suggests. Speech and theology is a splendid inquiry into the question: how we can speak about God. More precisely, it addresses the question of why we can speak about God at all. Smith’s answer is indicated in the subtitle: it is the logic of the incarnation that allows us, and even compels us, to speak of the ineffable mystery of God.

Speech and theology is directed primarily toward an academic audience. It is published as part of Routledge’s Radical Orthodoxy Series which offers writings of a contemporary theological movement that operates across many Christian and non-Christian traditions, and which works alongside other academic disciplines such as politics, economics, the natural sciences, social and cultural theory. The increasing interest in the central themes of Radical Orthodoxy should also direct attention to this author, who seeks to create a new Christian phenomenology which asserts the Incarnation as the condition of possibility for language generally and for speech about God in particular.

The dilemma of theological language is that every act of human speech about God, who is infinite and transcendent, must employ language and concepts that are finite and immanent. Smith proposes that this should not reduce us to silence. On the contrary, he argues that the transcendent God must appear in terms of immanence or, otherwise, cannot be revealed at all. Consequently, immanence and transcendence should not be viewed as opposites. In the Incarnation, the transcendent God entered into the finite world, not simply participating in it but being embodied by the immanent and thus allowing the finite and the infinite, the immanent and the transcendent, to exist side by side as the very possibility of finite language about an infinite God.