A guest article by Thang San Mung

Is Revival Soft or Strong?

A Pastoral Response to Current Revival Movements and Spiritualities

Introduction*

With a posting of its position paper by the General Presbyters of the Assemblies of God of America in 2000,[1] it became clear to sight about the growing tension, having long been existing even among the Pentecostals/Charismatics, in relation to the said current revival movements.[2] No doubt that one of the major concerns underlies with one’s uneasy feeling with certain phenomena that the said revivals brought.[3] While as no one is in the position to approve or disapprove it to others in practice, it is but one’s right to accept or reject it in terms of one’s own preference. However, to resist what God provided for our benefits at His own sovereign will just for the sake of personal inclination would be a big mistake and is even worth to call a blasphemy. At the same time, to entertain oneself just with the sounding but not having genuine spirituality inside also would be a void and meaningless spiritual quest. When ‘the fruit of the Spirit is gentleness so must genuine revival be’ is the statement of some to marginalize, frankly speaking, what seemed barbaric to their judgment, the metaphorical expressions such as “revival fire” or “rushing wind of God” or “spiritual tidal wave” and the likes are the explanation of some to validate those spiritual wild fires (cf., Acts 2:1-4). Therefore, this is our question, “Is revival soft or strong?”

1. The Rule for Us not for Them: The Fruit of the Spirit is Gentleness

As theological undergraduate student, we’re first introduced to the Systematic Theology,[4] in which basic Christian doctrines are analyzed and systematized for fresher. The impression that I had when came across through the study of the Holy Spirit is about the fruit of the Spirit as mentioned in Galatians 5. I thought that I got a rule, by which I would be able to measure out what in the church were happening around under the cover of the term “revival”. The statement, “the fruit of the Spirit is gentleness,” became my measuring rod to rebuke those who seemed little bit rough and wild in my sight, as a young pastor.[5] However, not soon after, I became noticed of that something was missing as I tried to press on my big words against those likely wild and rough. The more I pressed on, it seemed that the more I missed out!

Am I wrong at claiming the gentleness of the Spirit? No. I don’t think so. If then so what is wrong? Nothing is wrong with that biblical statement. However, still something is wrong. Later, I found out that me myself is wrong. While claiming the gentleness of the Spirit as my measuring rod, I myself had missed to be gentle and humble enough in dealing with those spiritual stuffs. After many years of my pastoral service with many failures, I came to learn at last that the measuring rod of Spirit’s gentleness is not for to rule out my parishioners, who are of course genuine seekers of God, but is the rule to myself and my actions, even my attitude, to check out my dealings with those who seemed rough and wild in their spiritual hungriness, instead.[6]

Included in this issue: “Following Jesus’ Example: Empowering Leaders in Global Missions” By Victor H. Cuartas. “The Ghost Of Alexander Severus: Third Century Religious Pluralism as a Foretaste of Postmodernity” By Woodrow E. Walton. “The Quest for a Pentecostal Theology” By Keith Warrington. “Chronicling the Works of God: An Interview with Darren Wilson.” “Bible Versions: The King James Only Debate” By David Malcolm Bennett. Book and Periodical Reviews.

How Shall We Lead the Church?

In this Pneuma Review conversation, church planter Victor Cuartas asks, what do Spirit-empowered leaders look like?

There is an urgent need for equipping leaders in global missions. Leadership is about service and influence. We found in Jesus the best example to follow in global missions. This article will focus on the example of Jesus in training and releasing others for ministry. This paper will conclude with different perceptions in regards to power.

The Kingdom of God in the Scriptures

When analyzing the teachings of Christ, one can see clearly throughout the Gospels the theme about the Kingdom of God. Jesus’ theme was the good news of the Kingdom of God, which was presented clearly by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Luke records Christ’s own words to describe His purpose with “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:43, NASV). “The kingdom of God in the Gospels means, God in His sovereign grace invading history in order to save His people from their sins and woes.”¹

Without a doubt the central theme of the teaching of Jesus is the coming of the kingdom of God. This expression is found in sixty-one separate sayings in the Synoptic Gospels.² Counting parallels to these passages, the expression occurs over eighty-five times. It also occurs twice in John 3:3, 5. It is found in such key places as the preaching of John the Baptist, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 3: 2); Jesus’ earliest announcement, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”³ The prayer Jesus taught his disciples, “Thy kingdom come” (Matt 6:10); in the Beatitudes, “For theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5: 3-10); at the Last Supper, “I shall never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day, when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God” (Mark 14:25); and in many other of Jesus’ parables.⁴

One can also consider the kingdom of God in terms of the importance for Israel. In fact, “The symbol of the kingdom evoked in Israel the remembrance of God’s activity, whether as Creator of the Cosmos, the creator of Israel in history, or ultimately as agent of God’s final intervention at the end of history.”⁵ Thus, the relevance of the kingdom of God is very important.

There are two important aspects of the kingdom of God. Many scholars refer to the kingdom of God as “the already but not yet.” These are the present (already) reality and the future (not yet) of the kingdom. Every believer is already enjoying God’s kingdom, however the fulfillment of the kingdom will take place with the second coming of the Lord (John 14:3).

Has Christianity ever found itself in a world full of competing religions and cultures? What can we learn from how those followers of Jesus acted in their times? Should we hope for the same kinds of outcomes?

We are presently concerned with the relationship of our faith to the other religions of the world, especially with Islam and a newly radicalized Hinduism. Except for Islam and a radicalized Hinduism, this is nothing new for Christians. Jesus was born into a religiously pluralistic world; much more, the first Christians, as acknowledged by D.A. Carson in his The Gagging of God, “not only lived in a pluralistic world, but they operated from a base of perceived inferiority.”¹

For a visitor from the middle of the third century, it is déjà vu. All of the religions of that time are here and every one touting tolerance while displaying an intolerance of its own. There is an added feature not around in the third century, Islam and its Moslem adherents.

One of the Severan emperors, Alexander Severus, went one step further in the pluralist direction. In his own private chapel, he placed busts or statues of Apollonius, Abraham, Jupiter, Jesus, and Orpheus side-by-side.² Whatever his intent, it suggested that he saw Jesus and Abraham on a par with Orpheus and Apollonius. That parity attitude exists in the 21st century when pluralists suggest that Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism are just different ways of approaching the same God and, therefore, are of equal value. The ghost of Alexander Severus hovers over this postmodern 21st century. Back in 1993 Richard Unds assessed the postmodern golden rule as “Grant to all religions the same presumption of truth as you grant to your own religion. All religions are created equal.”³ Evidently, Severus thought that way himself; same situation, different century.

With the fourth century, a new order came with a triumphant Christianity—almost. With Julian’s ascension to the throne persecution against Christians broke out anew. Julian, in a gesture toward the Jews, started rebuilding the Temple on their behalf. Natural calamities hampered the project and it was abandoned in A.D. 363 upon Julian’s death. Jovian, Julian’s successor, restored to the Church its privileges. His successor, Constantius, closed all pagan temples.

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.

With so many English versions of the Bible available, why do some still use the King James Version exclusively?

Introduction

We live in an age in which there are many English language translations of the Bible, too many, in fact. There are very good versions and others which are not so good. But which one should we read? To some people the King James Version (KJV) is the only Bible. But are they right?

Like most of my generation (I was born in 1942) I was brought up on the KJV, sometimes called the Authorized Version. Its language, I thought as a child, was old fashioned and at times difficult to understand. However, it was dealing with ancient times, so this did not seem inappropriate.

As I began to take the Bible seriously in my late-teens, the archaic language became more of a problem. I was not yet a Christian, but I had a very strong suspicion that the Bible was, indeed, the Word of God, and I desperately wanted to understand it. However, much of it I found impossible to understand. The Gospels I could generally grasp, and some of the historical parts of the Old Testament, but the OT prophets and the New Testament letters were for the most part a mystery to me. While this was, in part, because I lacked the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the main reason was I just did not understand the language.

When I purchased a modern translation of the New Testament, the understanding began to flood in.

The King James Bible

Many people brought up on the KJV have been happy to let it go, as I did. That does not necessarily mean that any of them respect it less. It is primarily because language has changed so dramatically in the past four hundred years that in many places the KJV is very hard to understand and, worse, very easy to misunderstand. These people have therefore adopted more recent translations, written in modern English.

However, there are many others who refuse to let the KJV go. To most of these people the KJV is the only translation. Indeed, some regard it as not just a translation, but as a volume that has been directly, divinely inspired. That is, many believe that the King James translation was directly inspired by God, and this, we are told, cannot be said of any other translation. These people argue that if the other translations disagree with the KJV, then those versions must be wrong. As James White says, “most” KJV-Only people seem to believe this. In fact, that is the reason that the debate generates so much heat.¹

Ronald W. Pierce (Biola) and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis have edited a carefully constructed volume that aims to inform and persuade while remaining calm in the midst of discussion. The editors have done a good job making sure the authors speak with one voice; the chapters cross-reference each other, do not overlap, or contradicted another.

The 29 essays are divided into 5 sections starting with a historical review on women in ministry. Section 2 is a review of key Biblical texts from Genesis to 1 Peter. Section 3 focuses on the logical and theological perspective. An excellent response to complementarians is put forward here. Section 4 looks like the hermeneutical and cultural perspectives. Roger Nicole and Gordon Fee explain the basics of evangelical hermeneutics. Section 5 is aimed at practical application and is the weakest section with some chapters a bit polemical. Overall, it is a good survey of the topic but more reliable on the evangelical egalitarian position than the patriarchal side. A reader seeking to see that side must consult another book.

Reviewed by Patricia Riley

Originally published on the Pneuma Foundation (parent organization of PneumaReview.com) website. Later included in the Winter 2013 issue.

The Pneuma Review: For any of our readers who may not be familiar with your films Finger of God, Furious Love, and Father of Lights please give a brief description of each.

Darren Wilson: Well, put quite simply, they are documentaries that detail my six year search for the more of Christianity. I grew up in the church, but by my late twenties had grown pretty distant from God and was fairly fed up with the church as a whole. It seemed like it had become some sort of feel-good club, designed to perpetuate its own existence. I was surrounded by hypocrisy, with my own life being the chief example. Finger of God, then, became my first foray into searching for the answer to the question, “Is there more to Christianity than what I’ve always been told?” If I had to digest the three films into one sentence, it would probably be this: Finger of God is about God’s power; Furious Love is about God’s love; and Father of Lights is about God’s heart. Throw in a bunch of wild adventures with God around the world and you get a fairly decent idea of what you’re getting yourself into when you sit down with these films.

PR: Where did you get your training as a filmmaker?

Darren: My training was literally on the job. I was trained as a screenwriter (writing films) but I never, ever wanted to actually make them. When I started Finger of God, I had no idea what I was doing. For my first interview, it took me nearly five minutes to figure out how to turn on the camera. I had a sense of story, but that’s about it. The rest I learned by doing and making a lot of mistakes.

PR: How do you select ministries that you want to make films about?

Darren: At first, it was simply anyone who would say, “Yes.” But now that we’ve seen some success, I’ve had to become careful about what I do and who I go film. For the most part I work off of referral from a select group of people I trust around the world who keep me informed of hidden gems they discover along their travels. But recently, the Holy Spirit has been showing me more and more where He wants me to go.

PR: How have audiences responded to your films?

Robert L. Calhoun, Scripture, Creed, Theology: Lectures on the History of Christian Doctrine in the First Centuries (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 508 pages, ISBN 9781556354946.

Robert Calhoun was a well beloved lecturer at Yale Divinity School until his retirement in 1965. Before he retired, he planned to have his lectures in the area of historical theology prepared for publication, but those plans fell through until more recently, decades after his death. This book represents the completion of those plans, carried through by George Lindbeck. Lindbeck also contributed an informative 62-page introduction.

These lectures cover a span from Jesus to Gregory the Great. After an initial methodological clearing, Calhoun covers the New Testament in two chapters, one dealing with Jesus and the “Primitive Church”, and another dealing with Johannine theology. After that, the chapters proceed apace, for more than 400 pages total, covering most of the major developments. Some historical figures are given chapters of their own (Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine)—Clement of Alexandria and Origen share a chapter. Both “orthodox” and heretical figures are covered.

There is, of course, an obvious drawback to publishing lectures from so long ago: they will inevitably be dated. When Calhoun lectured, we had a lot fewer noncanonical gospels, and those that we did have had not yet made much of an impact on our understanding of the early church. Walter Bauer’s ideas about the lateness of “orthodoxy” had not yet made an impact in the English-speaking world. The introduction owns up to the dated aspect of Calhoun’s work, and assures us (rightly) that the lectures stand the test of time much better than we might have expected. Although the reader will want to supplement these lectures with something more recent, they are thoroughly solid in what they do discuss.

Calhoun’s writing is clear, and his judgments are measured. Future studies will undoubtedly quote a great deal from this book. We owe a debt to Lindbeck for seeing Calhoun’s promise through.

Reviewed by John C. Poirier

Craig S. Keener discusses volume one of his new commentary, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 1:1-2:47 (Baker Academic, 2102). Part of the Seedbed series from Asbury Theological Seminary.

Craig S. Keener discussing his commentary on Acts at the 2014 Society for Pentecostal Studies symposium.