Although the accuracy of teaching is preeminent when judging the quality of a book, credit must be given for its tone when appropriate. From page one of Hull’s work, the reader is struck with the author’s sincerity, transparency, his passion for people, his drivenness for all that God has for him, and his willingness to risk all for his perception of the will of God in relation to the charismata.

This book comes from the heart of a pastor. More specifically, from the heart of a pastor who is trying to transition parishioners of a cessationist mindset into the fullness of the gifts of the Spirit. There is a generous mix of true-life anecdotes and biblical teaching. Some anecdotes leave you laughing or celebrating, others leave you in tears. At times his language is plain, but poignant: “If you lay your heart on the altar, someone will come and jump up and down on it” (p. 172).

Aside from Hull’s firm belief in the continuation of spiritual gifts in today’s church, even miraculous ones, perhaps his greatest contributions are in the chapters on healing and on hearing God’s voice, in which are packed practical guidelines that encourage faith while acknowledging God’s sovereignty.

It is, however, with reservations that I recommend Straight Talk to Pentecostals. With characteristic frankness, Hull admits that “I have had a prayer language for more than thirty years, but I am still not 100 percent sure it is God or my own flesh” (p. 118). More important, Hull holds an unbiblical view of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which he views as conversion (p. 116). Although he decries cessationist thinking as “inbred” and based more on “custom” than “study,” he is himself a Lukan cessationist when it comes to the baptism in the Holy Spirit, stating that the Pentecostal interpretation of Spirit-baptism is “impossible” (p. 111).

He bases his interpretation of the six occurrences of Spirit-baptism in Matthew, Mark, and Luke-Acts on the one occurrence in Paul (1 Corinthians 12:13), arguing that Paul’s usage is more weighty because it was seventh and last and twenty years removed from the “fluidity of the first years when they [the first Christians] were all trying to figure out the role of the Holy Spirit” (p. 114). One problem with this is that 1 Corinthians 12:13 appears to be the believer’s baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ (a sensible and universal experience of all Christians), not the believer’s baptism in the Holy Spirit by the Heavenly Jesus that imparts a prophetic empowerment for service (a likewise sensible though not universal Christian experience; cf. R. Menzies’ Empowered for Witness). Hull shows no appreciation for the diversity of the NT writers and no appreciation for Luke’s uses of “filling” synonyms, which occur over 50 times in Acts alone. Neither does he show any appreciation for the probability that Luke, as a close companion of Paul and as someone who held Paul in high regard as a great man of God, is applying his considerable training in the Greco-Roman narrative style of historiography to clarify Paul’s epistolary writings for Christians thirty years removed from Paul. Instead, Lukan cessationist like Hull have effectively silenced Luke’s majority usage of “baptized” (3x) and “filled” (9x) in favor of Paul’s single usage of each term (1x[?]/1x). This use of Paul to parse Luke is a practice left over from cessationist Protestantism, and a hearty adieu by biblical exegetes is long overdue. (For more thorough discussion, see Roger Stronstad’s Spirit, Scripture and Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective and The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke).

 The Praying in the Spirit Series. 

Robert Graves making a presentation at the 2014 meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies.

Robert W. Graves wrote Praying in the Spirit (Chosen Books) in 1987, when it received great reviews from a number of Pentecostal/charismatic scholars and leaders including John Sherrill, Dr. Vinson Synan, Dr. Gordon Fee, Dr. William Menzies, Dr. Howard Ervin, Dr. Walter Martin, and Dr. Stanley Horton. It is the great privilege of the Pneuma Review to republish it here.

What They’re Saying Now: Some Non-Charismatics Reevaluate Tongues (Winter 1999)
What They’re Saying Now: Some Non-Charismatics Reevaluate Tongues

Some Marvelous Effects of Praying in the Spirit (Spring 1999)
Some Marvelous Effects of Praying in the Spirit

Focus of the Charismatic Experience: Tongues, the Holy Spirit, or Christ? (Summer 1999)
Focus of the Charismatic Experience: Tongues, the Holy Spirit, or Christ?

Just What Is the Nature of the Prayer Language? (Fall 1999)
Just What Is the Nature of the Prayer Language?

Better Than I Was, Not Better Than You Are (Winter 2000)
Better Than I Was, Not Better Than You Are

Part 1 of: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Spring 2000)
That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Part 1)

Part 2 of: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Summer 2000)
That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Part 2)

Figure 1 from: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Summer 2000)
Consensus on First Corinthians 13 by Non-Pentecostal Scholars

Figure 2 from: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Summer 2000)
Proposed Dates of Charismata Cessation

Figure 3 from: That Glorious Day When Tongues are Not Needed: Until Then … (Summer 2000)
Charismata in Post-Apostolic Church

Editor Introduction: How the Prayer Language Comes (Fall 2000)
Editor Introduction: How the Prayer Language Comes

How the Prayer Language Comes (Fall 2000)
How the Prayer Language Comes

Now That You’ve Spoken in Tongues (Winter 2001)
Now That You’ve Spoken in Tongues

Singing in the Spirit (Spring 2001)
Singing in the Spirit

Afterword: Beyond the Charismatic Experience (Summer 2001)
Beyond the Charismatic Experience

Praying in the Spirit: Works Cited (Summer 2001)
Works Cited

The 1987 version of Praying in the Spirit is also available for sale here (Kindle and softcover).

In June 2017, Robert Graves wrote:

Praying in the Spirit was updated and expanded this year. It is more than 65% longer than the original with current updates, new arguments, and added chapters. Of course, it needed it after 30 years! If you’re buying a copy make sure you get the Empowered Life Academic edition, 280 pages (Empowered Life Academic is an imprint of Harrison House Publishers).

This index was later included in the Winter 2023 issue.

Roger Stronstad is probably best known for his master’s-thesis-turned-book, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (1985) [Editor’s note: See the review by Dave Johnson], which is considered by some to be the start of a new generation of Pentecostal scholarship and literature, and is possibly one of the most-assigned texts in Pentecostal Bible colleges and seminaries. Stronstad is also well-known for his book The Prophethood of All Believers (1999) [Editor’s note: See Amos Yong’s review of Prophethood].

Spirit, Scripture, and Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective was first published in 1995 as a collection of essays presented by Stronstad in a guest lectureship at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary in Springfield, Missouri (chapters one, two, six, and seven) and papers presented at three different annual meetings of the Society for Pentecostal Studies (chapters three, four, and five). This updated 2018 edition includes the addition of a new, eighth chapter that investigates how Luke, John, and Paul present the ministry of Jesus (and His Spirit-empowered followers) as the “rebirth of the prophet’s ministry which was born in the leadership of Moses and his associates” (159).

The first chapter, “Trends in Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” provides a historical survey of the hermeneutical approaches practiced by various Pentecostals. Charles F. Parham’s “pragmatic” hermeneutic (also called the classical Pentecostal approach) focuses on the work of the Spirit as empowerment for service. Gordon D. Fee’s “genre” hermeneutic points out that the literary genre of a particular biblical text weighs heavily in how it should be interpreted. Howard M. Ervin’s “pneumatic” approach seeks to deal with the tension between faith and reason, the excessive rationalism that sometimes plagues critical-historical exegesis, and the mysticism of pietistic movements. Finally, William W. Menzies’ “holistic” hermeneutic, which looks at three levels: inductive (scientific exegesis), deductive (biblical theology), and verification (where experience, rather than establishing theology, verifies or demonstrates theological truth).

Chapter two deals with how hermeneutics is applied to Luke’s historiography. Stronstad points out that Luke is first of all a historian, and therefore, both Luke and Acts should be approached as two parts of one history, rather than the first as an evangelistic document and only the second treatise as a history. The similarities of Luke’s approach to that of his Jewish contemporary, Josephus, are examined, as well as the differences between the two writers. Whereas Luke’s contemporary, Josephus, laments the passing of prophetic revelation from the Jewish people, Luke celebrates the renewal of prophecy among faithful Jews that then spills over to Gentiles as they come to accept Jesus and be grafted into God’s people (23). Overall, the author views Luke as presenting the history of Jesus and the early Christian movement as the continuation of the chosen people of Israel.

Although Stronstad gives Pentecostal experience great importance in shaping interpretation, he consistently places primary importance on what the biblical texts actually say. He advocates strongly for using the Bible’s own terms for the Spirit’s activity, as evidenced in the closing paragraph of the fourth chapter, “’Filled with the Holy Spirit’ Terminology in Luke-Acts”:

Luke gives pride of place to the term, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” rather than to the term, “baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Thus, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” and not “baptized with the Holy Spirit,” is to be the center of our own pneumatology. Our task, therefore, is not to make our pneumatology Reformed, Wesleyan, or Pentecostal, per se, but, to make it biblical. In other words, rather than trying to conform Luke’s pneumatology to ours, we must conform our pneumatology to his. (77-78)

Chapter five, “Signs on the Earth Beneath,” consists of a discussion of hermeneutical method for interpreting Luke-Acts, followed by an in-depth exposition of Acts 2:1–21. According to Stronstad, hermeneutics has three elements: the interpreter’s presuppositions, principles that guide exegesis, and principles that guide application to Christian living today. He then goes on to demonstrate how these factors interact as he walks through the Pentecost narrative. This chapter is a useful guide for taking concepts and principles and making them real by showing them in action in Pentecostal exegesis.

In the sixth chapter, “The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts,” Stronstad makes the case for Luke having the “most fully developed Christology, in that it is an Old Testament Christology, incarnational, and the most fully Trinitarian” (116). Luke has the fullest presentation of Jesus as the prophet promised by Moses, sent by the Father and anointed and empowered by the Spirit. The Spirit coming on Jesus at his baptism, and the Spirit descending on the disciples at Pentecost, are about anointing for mission, not initiation/incorporation as some interpreters present Spirit baptism (130).

Chapter seven is about “Unity and Diversity: Lucan, Johannine, and Pauline Perspectives on the Holy Spirit.” Whereas Protestant interpretation has often tended to emphasize the unity of these authors, Stronstad here examines how each of these biblical authors have a unity around the Christ event, yet at the same time their diverse religious backgrounds give them diverse perspectives. Luke deals with the Holy Spirit in terms of service; John writes about the Spirit’s role in service and salvation; and Paul involves the Spirit in service, salvation, and sanctification (155).

Chapter eight, “The Rebirth of Prophecy: Trajectories from Moses to Jesus and His Followers,” is the new material added to the 2018 edition of this work. Here Stronstad discusses how the ministries of John the Baptizer and Jesus restored the prophetic function to God’s people. He especially focuses on the parallels between Jesus and Moses (the Mount of Transfiguration as an echo of Sinai, and Jesus’ impending exodus in relation to Israel’s national exodus). Just as prophesying was the sign that the elders of Israel had received the spirit that was on Moses, inspired prophetic speech at Pentecost is the sign that the disciples have received the Spirit that anointed Jesus (171).

In conclusion, Spirit, Scripture, and Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective is an informative read on the subject of Pentecostal hermeneutics by one of the foremost writers in the classical Pentecostal tradition. It takes themes that Roger Stronstad first addressed in his classic The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke and further develops them. This updated edition of the book brings Stronstad’s insight to a new generation of readers in the Spirit-empowered tradition.

Reviewed by Brian Roden

Wipf & Stock page (N. American distributor): https://wipfandstock.com/9781532680311/spirit-scripture-and-theology-2nd-edition/

Falling Under the Power of the Spirit

John Arnott at the Toronto Airport Christian outpouring (circa 2002)

The phenomenon of falling under the power of the Spirit occurred in the revivals of Jonathan Edwards. His assessment was that a person may “fail bodily strength” due to fear of hell and the conviction by the Holy Spirit or due to a “foretaste of heaven.”[1] John Wesley recognized falling to the ground as a manifestation from God, and records many such instances in his ministry. In fact, George Whitefield criticized Wesley for permitting the phenomena until it began happening in his own meetings.[2] The Kentucky revivals of 1800-1801, which involved Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians, was replete with similar demonstrations.[3] In the early 1800s, the revivals led by Methodist circuit riding preacher Peter Cartwright (who was converted in the Kentucky revivals) were often accompanied by people falling under God’s power, including some Baptists.[4] Finney’s ministry also frequently manifested fainting or swooning, what he called “falling under the power of God.”[5] The Welsh revival of 1859 was accompanied by swooning as “waves of power often overwhelmed” people.[6] In the 1860s, Andrew Murray’s church started to speak out against people who began to shout and cry and swoon in a revival in his church, until a visitor from America told him about similar manifestations in American revivals.[7] Decades before holiness evangelist Maria Woodworth-Etter’s involvement in the Pentecostal revival, many people in her meetings fell under the power of the Spirit, including Carrie Judd (Montgomery), an early leader in the C&MA.[8] Moody’s associate R.A. Torrey testified of people falling under the power of God due to conviction of sin.[9] Torrey himself fell under power of the Spirit when baptized with the Holy Spirit.[10] Presbyterian missionary Jonathan Goforth makes reference in his book By My Spirit to the phenomenon occurring in his revivals.[11]

Instances of falling under the power of the Spirit also occurred periodically at C&MA meetings for two decades before Azusa Street. In 1885 A.B. Simpson, the founder of the C&MA, received what we would call today a “word of knowledge” that someone was resisting the Lord. A woman responded, saying it was her. She came forward, and as Simpson anointed her for healing, she was overcome, falling under the power of the Spirit seemingly unconscious for about half an hour, and she received a healing.[12] In 1897 at a joint C&MA/Mennonite camp meeting in Allentown, Pennsylvania, C&MA General Field Supt. Dean Peck preached six services in three days and described: “At service after service . . . I saw people fall as dead under the power of God.” He said it was a genuine revival from God and talked about such things happening among the Methodists 50-60 years ago, but are not frequent now because many revivals are of human manufacture.[13] Manifestations of falling also occurred during the 1907 revival at Simpson’s Gospel Tabernacle, apparently with his approval.[14] Presbyterian Greek professor T. J. McCrossan, who joined C&MA in 1923, while serving as interim president of Simpson Bible Institute, wrote in his book Bodily Healing and the Atonement: “Hundreds are healed, who do not fall under this power, because they simply trust God’s promises; and it is the prayer of faith that heals. Going under this power seems, however, to bring an extra spiritual blessing. . . . This power is not hypnotism. . . . This is not devil power.^”[15] McCrossan spoke out of the experience of his own life, for not only did he frequently assist Charles Price in laying hands on the sick with people falling, but he himself fell under God’s power and was enraptured with visions when he was baptized in the Spirit in 1921 through Price’s ministry.[16]

This excerpt from Led by the Spirit: The History of the American Assemblies of God Missionaries in the Philippines is the third chapter. Missionary-scholar Dave Johnson has brought together a chronicle of over 300 Pentecostal missionaries serving in the Philippines from 1926 through the first decade of the new Millennium.

Regrouping and Moving Forward

After the war, the Philippine District Council (PDC) lost no time in organizing and getting on with the job of fulfilling the Great Commission. The Missionary Field Fellowship also organized and received evaluation and direction from the Foreign Missions Department regarding relations with the PDC.

The National Church Regroups

The fourth District Council was held in Camiling, Tarlac, about ninety miles north of Manila in December 1945. Since no missionary could be present, the Foreign Missions Department had given permission to elect an acting superintendent whom they would ratify later. Rudy Esperanza was elected to this position as well as to his former post as district secretary. Several months later, Noel Perkin confirmed Esperanza’s appointment by letter with a slight but important change. The word acting was not mentioned, and he was appointed as the district superintendent with full power to act in that authority.[1] Why this action was taken is not explained. It may be because there was no missionary available. It is also possible that, because of the pending independence of the Philippines and the renewed emphasis on the indigenous church, the Foreign Missions Department wanted to transfer authority to Filipino leadership as quickly as possible. Also, the United States gave the Philippines its independence on July 4, 1946, removing the legal necessity of American leadership in the PDC. No American would ever again hold the leading office, although Americans would hold other offices within the PDC and later, the General Council.

Those who attended this convention found the fellowship sweet. They were happy to be together again after the terrible war. The meetings were marked with a wonderful presence of the Holy Spirit, reminding the conferees that God had not abandoned them as well as no doubt challenging them to get on with the task of reaching the lost now that the restrictions of war were no longer present. One of the key issues to getting the work back on track was to reopen Bethel Bible Institute, this time in Esperanza’s hometown in Pangasinan.[2] No reason is given for reopening there instead of Baguio even though the road to Baguio, which ran through Pangasinan, had been heavily bombed and was hard to travel. The move also may simply have been due to a more preferred location because Esperanza was pastoring there and could more easily oversee the school.

The PDC continued to hold annual conventions where business was conducted, officers elected, and God’s will sought on various issues facing the nation. The ravages of the war continued to be felt, and the country struggled to recover. All over the world nationalism, with its anti-Western posture, began to rise as the colonial powers, themselves devastated by the war, were unable to maintain control of their colonies. One by one, these colonies began to gain their independence, often by bloodshed. While the Filipinos had gained their independence peacefully, they were not immune to these events. At the 1950 convention, there was some discussion of nationalism. However, those attending the convention, admittedly with a strong missionary contingent present, went on record as expressing great appreciation for the missionaries and the sacrifices they had made, and expressed the desire that more would be sent. Part of this positive attitude may have come from the fact that during the convention, they were dedicating some permanent BBI facilities financed by missionary supporters. However, the general feeling was appreciation for a growing unity in spiritual things.[3] This must also be seen in the national context where Americans were esteemed because American and Filipino blood had mixed freely in the war.

During the historic 1953 convention, the PDC was recognized by the Foreign Missions Department as a sovereign General Council with the freedom to elect its own officers and govern its own affairs. In all practicality, it had been doing so since the end of the war. The PDC changed its name to the Philippines General Council of the Assemblies of God (PGCAG). Rudy Esperanza was elected as the general  superintendent. Three districts were formed: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao, with authorization to divide into more districts as the work expanded. The genius of forming these districts was that it allowed closer oversight of the 103 ministers and seventy-five established and pioneering churches among the far-flung islands of the archipelago.

Organizing the Philippine Field Fellowship

The missionaries also formed themselves into the Philippine Field Fellowship (PFF), incorporating with the Philippine government’s Securities and Exchange Commission in 1949. Although the details are far from clear, it appears that there was a field committee in place by 1951, although apparently not all missionaries were informed about it—which may have caused a bit of consternation for one couple.[4] The earliest minutes date back only to 1959 and indicate that the missionaries were actually divided into two smaller field fellowships until that year. The missionaries on Luzon were part of the northern fellowship, and those in the Visayas comprised the southern fellowship (there were no missionaries in Mindanao until the 1960s). The entire field was administered by one committee with representatives from each of the fellowships. When the two fellowships merged into one field in 1959, the missionaries began meeting annually for business and election of officers. The meetings were normally one day or a part of a day in length but eventually expanded to as long as four or five days as worship services, ministry to children, and a retreat were included.

The missionaries were part of the PDC/PGCAG and served in various capacities in official district and General Council positions. In that sense then, they came under the leadership of the PDC/PGCAG. However, because the missionaries were under the authority of the FMD, they also had their own leadership structure with the establishment of the field committee and the new office of field secretary, a new level of leadership within the FMD that was instituted during the war years.

With the advent of the field secretaries, the FMD began to take a stronger hand in governing the various fields and making missionaries more accountable to the home office. The field secretary was responsible for making this happen. The first field secretary for the Far East was Howard C. Osgood, a former missionary to China. He served as field secretary until 1955, when he was succeeded by Maynard Ketcham. A former missionary to India, Ketcham was field secretary for Southern Asia from 1951 until he succeeded Osgood in 1955. Ketcham defined the field secretary as a liaison between the missionaries and the national church bodies on the one hand and, between the U.S. constituency and the FMD on the other, as well as a recruiter of new missionaries.[5]

From all appearances the relationship between the missionaries and the PGCAG leadership was good, but Ketcham saw the need to address tensions between the two groups so in April 1958, he wrote an open letter to the missionaries. To get a clear understanding of his view of the way things were and the way he felt they should be, the letter is quoted here at some length:

I stated that there is more good will toward American missionaries in your land than I have seen anywhere else in the world. And, I firmly believe this to be the true [sic]. However, that feeling of good will, and the kindly nature of our beloved Philippino [sic] co-workers, should not blind us to certain fundamental facts. True, we Americans have drive, energy, vision, organizational ability. On the other hand, we are strangers in a foreign land. And, the only real excuse for our presence in the Philippines is as invited guests to counsel, advise encourage, [sic] stimulate, teach—but never to boss or to ‘carry the ball.’

It appears that we have two parallel organizations in the Philippines—the Missionary Fellowship (s) [sic] and the National church. Presumably all our missionaries are members of the Assemblies of God of the Philippines. And yet, while I was in the Philippines, I got the feeling that our Filipino brethren felt that the Fellowships were the organizations of the missionaries and the A.G. of the Philippines was the organization of the Filipinos. Frequently, in conversation with the local brethren, I heard the words ‘they’ (the missionaries) and ‘us’ (the Filipinos). I can realize that no one person or group is responsible for this situation. But, we must do all in our power to break it down. . . .

Then we must explain to our national brethren that the Fellowships are only concerned with the personal lives of missionaries. We must also explain to the Nationals (by word and deed) that our ministry comes under the direction of the A. G. of the Philippines. Then, I believe that missionaries will be elected to office in the National organization and the missionaries will be considered as [an] integral part of the same.

May I suggest certain steps which I believe should be taken, to implement the provisions of the Manual in regard to this matter:

1. Be very certain that the Missionary Fellowships live up to their names and are only ‘Fellowships’ of missionaries dealing with matters which are of peculiar interest to missionaries themselves.
2. Take all possible steps to explain this situation to the Nationals, so they will realize that the missionaries, in their Fellowship meetings are not making decisions which affect church members.
3. Take an active part as possible in all gatherings of the Assemblies of God of the Philippines, and accept any office offered to missionaries.
4. Try to work things out, as rapidly and gracefully as possible, so that all Bible Schools are on a plane of equality and come under the overall supervision of the national church. (A very delicate matter, I know!!)
5. See that local congregations have at least some say in the choosing of pastors for all churches.
6. See that the national organization has the privilege of stating if they approve the re-appointment of a missionary, when he proceeds on furlough.
7. See that the national organization has at least some say in the allocation of missionaries.[6]

Ketcham went on to say that if the missionaries would deal kindly with their Filipino counterparts, the Filipinos would respond in kind and issues such as the re-appointment of missionaries would not be a problem.

Ketcham’s comments must be understood in light of the times. When this was written in 1958, the PGCAG was only eighteen years old and was rapidly expanding. Consequently, it had not yet had the time to develop the leaders necessary to fill all of the positions that needed to be filled for the PGCAG to move forward. Therefore, missionaries were appointed or elected to fill these positions, hopefully according to their gifts and callings. Being in these positions, then, demanded that they submit themselves to the PGCAG leaders. In noting the missionaries’ drive, goal orientation, and efficiency to get things done, he recognized some legitimate cultural differences between the missionaries and their Filipino counterparts.

Points six and seven reveal the missionaries’ tendency to be independent and indirectly admitted to a failure on the missionaries’ part to consult the PGCAG leadership regarding missionary placement. The first generation of Assemblies of God missionaries, which some of these were, were known for being independent spirits and most likely found fitting into any organization a bit difficult. Yet Ketcham was correct in calling for them to do so since it was essential to demonstrate respect for and support of the Filipino leadership for the long-term success of the mission.

The organizational structure of the PFF and PDC/PGCAG now detailed serves as a backdrop to the work of the individual missionaries during the period after World War II.

PR

This chapter is an excerpt from Dave Johnson, Led By The Spirit: The History of the American Assemblies of God Missionaries in the Philippines (Pasig City, Philippines: ICI Ministries, 2009). Used with permission.

Notes for Chapter 3: Regrouping and Moving Forward

1 Letter from Noel Perkin to whom it may concern, February 22, 1946.

2 Rudy Esperanza, “Pentecostal Convention in the Philippines,” Pentecostal Evangel, March 23, 1946.

3 Minutes of the Eighth District Convention of the Philippine District Council of the Assemblies of God, April 24–30, 1950.

4 Letter from Oneida Brengle to Maynard Ketcham, March 20, 1956.

5 McGee, This Gospel, vol. 1, 173.

6 Letter from Maynard Ketcham to the missionaries of the PFF, April 14, 1958.

Further Reading:

Read Malcolm Brubaker’s review of Led by the Spirit in the Summer 2010 issue of The Pneuma Review: http://pneumareview.com/dave-johnson-led-by-spirit/

Download the full book (in PDF) at: https://www.academia.edu/34297392/LED_BY_THE_SPIRIT.pdf

Find more excellent books from APTS Press, home of the Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies.

Paul King, who is a Bible teacher, evangelist, educator, historian, pastor, and cancer survivor, has distinguished qualifications to talk about what God has done and what God is doing. In this interview with PneumaReview.com, we speak with him about his own story and his recent book, Is It of God? that addresses crucial questions about biblical discernment.

PneumaReview.com: Please tell our readers how you came into the Charismatic Renewal.

Paul King: I grew up in the Christian and Missionary Alliance, which believed in the filling of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit on paper, but little in practice because of fear of Pentecostal excesses. I was baptized in the Spirit in my first year of college, out of the ongoing overflow of the Asbury College revival in February 1970. I was attending Geneva College in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, and had returned from a beach evangelism team to Florida, feeling very frustrated that I had no power to witness. A student ministry team from the Asbury Revival came to Beaver Falls in April 1970, sharing their testimonies of the great outpouring of the Spirit upon the students. They had something I didn’t have and I began seeking. A few weeks later, I wandered into an Assemblies of God church and the pastor laid hands on me and prayed for me. I did not speak in tongues, but I went out from there with a power I never had before, and I began doing street witnessing with great power and effects, and kids were getting saved.

Even though my Pentecostal friends said I didn’t get it, I did realize that although I didn’t speak in tongues, Jesus said the evidence of the baptism in the Spirit was power to be a witness (Acts 1:8). My ministry was so powerful and effective that Young Life asked me to join their staff. I prayed for the Lord to give me His better gifts, not tongues. I began to get words of prophecy and supernatural words of knowledge even though I had not spoken in tongues. But the Lord convicted me, saying, “If you are not willing to receive what you consider the least of my gifts, what makes you think you should receive any of my gifts?” I was so humbled and convicted, I repented, and began praying, “Lord, I want what you want. If you want me to speak in tongues, I want to speak in tongues. If you don’t want me to speak in tongues, I don’t want to speak in tongues. I was praying this 10 months after I was baptized in the Spirit while driving to my uncle’s home to paint his house. Strange words came to my mind and I spoke them out. I prayed, “Lord, if this is genuine, give me an interpretation.” Immediately to my mind came the words, “The arm of the Lord is extended to you,” and I knew it was real. I had no emotion like I did when I was baptized in the Spirit, just a calm peace (Good thing while I was driving!)

Every church has an awesome privilege of supporting, encouraging, training, and equipping each person to fulfill their God-given purpose.

Party Time?

Everyone loves a good party. We all love to celebrate our accomplishments and enjoy our successes—not to mention relishing the flattery of our peers. Relish …That reminds me, we’re going to need almost a dozen grills and we’ll probably have dessert catered by that ice cream shop down the street. Let’s see, we’ll need the hospitality team and the kitchen crew. I need to form a leadership team to delegate the responsibilities to the team captains of lay leadership …

Image: Yoori Koo

I’ve often been there. Have you? The times where even celebrations—times of worship, relaxation, and enjoying one another—seem like too much work to be worth it. Here’s the tension: It’s too much work without volunteers, and equipping volunteers is too much work. The process of equipping others to serve and lead in the local church is challenging, but it should also be rewarding for everyone involved.

I serve in volunteer leadership as the Director of Equipping at my local church, Pleasant Valley Baptist Church in Liberty, Missouri. Over the past several years, God has moved within our people to create a culture of service that we would not have dreamed possible.

We celebrate the fact that each person has a special God-given purpose in life, and we as a church body have the awesome privilege of supporting, encouraging, training, and equipping each person to fulfill that purpose. This celebration results from much more than just a nominal belief that each person is special.

We passionately believe that:

• Equipping and developing people is biblical.
• Each person is made in a special way.
• Each person deserves special attention.
• We must commit to each volunteer that they will have training, be affirmed, receive feedback, know expectations, have an opportunity to help evaluate ministries, and experience the joy of recognition and reflection.
• Hundreds of volunteers would love to be asked to serve.

With each belief comes a challenge that causes us to ask the question, “Are we just mentally on board with the principles of biblical equipping, or does our belief cross the line of conviction that results in action?” My passion is so strong that I left my position in the secular marketplace to give my life to equipping the people in the local church. I have never been so fulfilled, rewarded, or challenged—all coupled with the sense that I am doing exactly what I was made to do. I believe you can help your volunteers tap into that same belief and passion.

The intrinsic motivation for inviting people into ministry must be pure. It would help to be clairvoyant! But fortunately, God blesses leaders in the local church with the spiritual gift of discernment, guiding us when inviting someone to a specific ministry. You can be certain that you will be successful in matching each individual with his/her specific design if you truly have the other person’s best interest at heart and desire that the Kingdom of God is glorified. I find myself experiencing great remorse when my attitude falls to what I can get from an individual rather than what I want for the individual. One of our favorite statements is, “We are not about inviting people to fill roles, but roles to fulfill people!”

Introduction

I am personally fully persuaded that the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements have been raised up by God in manifestation of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit through the Lord Jesus Christ. However, I have noticed two reflex reactions that often occur when the subject of miracles is raised. Either a defensive stance or a polemical mode is soon evident. A defensive stance can appear when someone who affirms the reality of miracles in the Bible and in the daily life of faith is confronted by someone who challenges that very possibility. A polemical mode can appear when someone who challenges what appears to be an incredulous acceptance of so-called inexplicable events is confronted with someone who believes that miracles do happen. As much as possible, I mean to avoid such negative and non-productive reactionary modes by developing an understanding that is non-defensive and non-polemical. In a word, it will be positive—and therefore, hopefully, constructive and productive.

Supernatural Worldview

Next, Pentecostals believe the realities of the cosmos exceed what can be quantifiably measured by man. There is more to life than can be studied in a laboratory. Without discounting the importance of scientific processes, indeed, with all due appreciation and respect for its appropriate use, Pentecostals are not at all ready or willing to limit all life entirely to that narrow account. To do so is the height of human arrogance. Pentecostals, therefore, embrace a cosmology recognizing the existence and activity of spiritual beings or entities in relationship with the so-called natural or sensory perceived world of being. Again, this cosmology (and ontology) is also rooted in the nature of “the God of the spirits of all flesh” (Numbers 16:22; 27:16; cp. Hebrews 12:9). Indeed, Christian anthropology requires recognition of the essentially spiritual nature of human identity and existence (1 Corinthians 14:32; Hebrews 12:23). Consistent with this affirmation of the holistic nature of all existence, Pentecostals not surprisingly expect there to be miraculous moments when the thin veil between Heaven and Earth is opened up and interactive encounters occur in myriad forms that may include otherwise inexplicable events as well as experiences of dreams, visions, and other divine communications and revelations (e.g. Genesis 22:11, 15; 28:12; Acts 2:2; 7:55-56; 9:3; Revelation 4:1-2).

Certainly, these intuitively insightful ways of being and knowing can fly in the face of reductionist systems prone to deny any but rationalistic and naturalistic versions of reality. However, Pentecostal spirituality and theology do not contradict logic or reason so much as they transcend them, rising above their aridity and rigidity to affirm and embrace a larger, more expansive and inclusive, vision of the nature of reality. It is not reason or scientific knowledge per se which is problematic but their misuse in the exclusion of the supernatural out of infatuation for the natural. We need not denigrate human logic or reason, much less the natural created order; but, we must not deify them either. At the risk of sounding harsh, I sometimes wonder if the outlandish fetish-like fascination of modern society with the material world order might be nothing other than a sophisticated violation of the Decalogue’s prohibition against idolizing the creaturely (Exodus 20:4). In any case, it appears evident that Pentecostalism’s belief in the supernatural is an inseparable part of its overall theological make up; it simply cannot be jettisoned without violating its own innermost ethos. And yet in their affirmation of the miraculous Pentecostal Christians are notoriously out of step with most of the modern world. Or are they?

Paul Elbert is a physicist-theologian and New Testament scholar.

We may think of God as the leader of a cosmic community.¹ But God is not encountered only in spectacular and physically improbable or counter-intuitive historical events; he is also detected in his manifestation of human experience. One of the distinctive features of the NT documents is the description afforded the interaction of the God, the heavenly Jesus, and the Holy Spirit with Christians.² Global Pentecostalism³ and the international charismatic renewal⁴ are familiar with Christian experience that is evidently interventionist and that thereby would add energy to the universe.⁵ While pneumatological action can have a hidden character, such activity is perhaps more consistent with the God’s decision to be invisible than with an intrinsic reticence of the nature of the Holy Spirit’s presence. The creative activity of the Spirit in personal reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit, in the sharing of interpersonal spiritual gifts, or in interior giftedness via the Johannine chrisma demonstrates an evident experiential or observable manifestation. For this reason, Pentecostals should not feel constrained to conform to theories that God will not and does not interact with physical reality and that there is no room for the Holy Spirit in the continuing dialogue between religion and science. Rather, they might contribute to the picture of spectacular non-natural actions of the Spirit and to the probability of creative work of the Spirit in past Earth history and terrestrial life.⁶

In this dialogue,⁷ Polkinghorne suggests that “the most grievous absence from this conversation is that of the theologians.”⁸ Exceptions, for example, like Moltman’s conclusion that theology and science share a common wisdom,⁹ Marcum’s observation that “Christian theology without the input of the natural sciences may become imaginary,”¹⁰ and Yong’s recognition of the possibility of a new theological paradigm that grants to the book of nature and to science an authentic role in a pneumatological theology wherein a diversity, distinctiveness and integrity of voices may be “as heard originally at Pentecost to be divinely ordained for the glory of God,”¹¹ are all encouraging developments. Nevertheless, Polkinghorne is no doubt correct that twentieth-century theology has been, for the most part, “conducted from within ghettoes walled off from scientific culture.”¹²

I see no good reason why Pentecostals need be “walled off” from or unaware of science and technology. The way forward is to fully understand that it can be God’s calling and a blessing to be a Christian within a scientific career.¹³ Pentecostal-based educational institutions need to move rapidly beyond the idea of simply offering science courses as a means to get students into medical school or just to meet some minimum mandated requirement of accrediting agencies. In this regard, the chemistry department here at Lee University has made a great deal of progress with undergraduate research so as to offer a good major. While science is expensive to teach, Pentecostal education needs to step up to the plate and attempt to boldly enter the main stream of American scientific education with more faculty, much more emphasis on academic production than on the acquisition of academic history, and vigorous participation in research. In my view, this is more important for Pentecostals and their potential place of influence in the thinking community than their current effort to educate the masses. The fact that the Church of God Theological Seminary offers a course in theology and science–which, in my opinion, given the urgency for Pentecostal ministers to be at least acquainted with the experimental discoveries of modern science, might either be made mandatory or offered as a part of the theological requirement–is also a positive sign. Pentecostals will also find that the experimental discoveries of modern science are both eminently preachable and not at all biblically threatening. In fact, I have found these two categories, the book of nature and written revelation, to be quite harmonious.¹⁴

Are Pentecostals offering Strange Fire? (Panel Discussion)

Excerpts from Pouring Holy Water on Strange Fire: A Critique of John MacArthur’s Strange Fire & Charismatic Chaos by Frank Viola.

The central focus of this critique is simply to show that both Scripture and church history yield strong evidence that spiritual gifts are still extant in the church today.

My primary intention in writing it is to help my non-charismatic brethren who have been influenced by MacArthur’s books to reconsider and re-examine their understanding of the present-day work of the Spirit. My hope is that my non-charismatic brethren will open up their hearts more fully toward their charismatic brethren and sistren and vice versa.
(page 11).

3. Commending & Criticizing MacArthur’s Charismatic Blasting

Having read both Charismatic Chaos and Strange Fire, I want to cut to the chase in this Introduction and tell you where I think MacArthur is dead-on and where I think his conclusions are flawed and even outrageous.

The rest of this critique will provide evidence and examples supporting each point:

1. The charismatic world is an easy target for any critic because there are a lot of problems within the camp.

There is no doubt that a number of high-profile charismatic leaders are guilty of outlandish teachings, absurd practices, stunts, gimmicks, exaggerations, and even fraud. And so are some of their followers. MacArthur is right about this and he articulates the problem well.

However, MacArthur is not the only person who has made this observation. Many charismatic leaders have as well. MacArthur even quotes some of them in Strange Fire.

Just as those charismatic leaders were not able to reel in the excesses that exist within the movement, I do not think MacArthur’s attempts will do so either. In fact, MacArthur’s latest book is his third attempt on this score (The Charismatics, 1978; Charismatic Chaos, 1992; Strange Fire, 2013).

(page 13).

3. MacArthur is wrong in that he paints the entire charismatic world–which would include all charismatics and all charismatic churches–with the same broad brush.

The fact is, I have met many charismatics who were not guilty of any of the problems that MacArthur benightedly lays at their feet.

For example, the late David Wilkerson was a tremendous help to me when I was in my 20s. He encouraged me to make Christ, not the Holy Spirit, preeminent in my life.

Wilkerson—a charismatic leader—wrote a classic article called A Christless Pentecost on this subject.

I would encourage anyone who buys MacArthur’s arguments to read The Cross and the Switchblade and ask yourself if it is possible that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit are still operative today.

In addition, I wonder if MacArthur would admit that Teen Challenge, founded by Wilkerson, has been a blessing to many lost young people.

Throughout his books, MacArthur continually uses phrases like, “Charismatics believe … such and such.” “Charismatics think … such and such.” And then “the charismatic movement is guilty of . . . such and such.”

This is simply false. It would be accurate to say, “some charismatics believe” … or even “many charismatics believe …” or “some in the charismatic movement believe… .”

Using MacArthur’s logic and approach, one could easily write a book about the toxicity of the Reformed movement by painting all Reformed Christians as elitist, sectarian, divisive, arrogant, exclusive, and in love with “doctrine” more than with Christ.