Craig S. Keener, “Apostles Today” YouTube (October 18, 2025).

Pastor John Lathrop says: “At the link you can hear Dr. Craig Keener speak about apostles (about 42 minutes long). In part of his teaching he shares the names of people in church history that he thinks qualify as apostles using Paul’s criteria for apostles.”

James F. Linzey, “International Pentecostal Leaders Minister in Coffeyville, Kansas: ORU Scholars Step into a Century-Old Prophetic Stream in Coffeyville” Christian Newswire (November 12, 2025).

Gordon Govier, “10 Striking Biblical Archaeology Stories of 2025: Research and natural disaster uncovered exciting finds from the ancient world” Christianity Today (December 23, 2025).

Craig S. Keener, “Yes, there IS a Christian genocide in Nigeria” Bible Background (December 28, 2025).

Craig Keener introduces this 26 minute video: “I am not interested in defending the partisan right or left, and that’s not what this is about. The suffering in northern Nigeria didn’t start recently—it’s been going on for decades. I have interviewed many friends from northern Nigeria, plus I depend on reports I received already when I taught there in the 1990s. In some places, there is ‘religious cleansing’ taking place, alongside other terrorist activity.”

Image: Filip Bunkens

Craig Keener, “Differing with John MacArthur on 1 Cor 14” Bible Background (January 5, 2026).

Joy Ren, “Influential Chinese House Church Faces New Crackdown” Christianity Today (January 16, 2026).

Updated on January 21, 2026: “Two of the detained face charges of ‘inciting subversion of state power.’”

Frank Viola, “50 Things the Holy Spirit Does” Frank Viola Unfiltered (January 25, 2026).

Bonnie Kristian, “Protesting in Church Is Wrong. So Is Immigration Theater” Christianity Today (January 20, 2026).

The subtitle of this opinion piece by Christianity Today deputy editor Bonnie Kristian reads: “Demonstrators should not disrupt worship services. ICE should be competent, cool-headed, and constrained by the Constitution.”

Craig Keener, “A charismatic view of suffering?: Suffering and baptism in the Spirit in Mark’s introduction” Bible Background (March 2, 2026).

Carey Nieuwhof and James Sells, “Reclaiming the Church’s Role in Mental Health: We have a holy opportunity to return to our roots—a chance to recover the kind of care that once marked every aspect of the early church” Leadership Journal (Fall 2025).

This article is from CT Pastors, Volume 38 of Leadership Journal.

PR

Myles Werntz, “You Don’t Need a Rule of Life: What you need is a church” Christianity Today (October 10, 2024).

Paraclete journal now available online

The Consortium of Pentecostal Archives has made the quarterly journal gratis available online. Paraclete (1967-1995) was a journal of practical theology for Assemblies of God pastors (replaced by Enrichment). Emphasizing the person and work of the Holy Spirit, articles covered Bible exposition, theology, and history. All 112 issues may be browsed and are available for full-text searches.

Brad East, “The Loosening of American Evangelicalism” Christianity Today (May 20, 2025).

This look into the current state of Evangelicalism’s morality in the USA is subtitled, “Long-standing norms against drinking, tattoos, and Catholic-coded church practices have rapidly fallen. What’s going on?” Many Pentecostal/charismatics may see similar patterns in their own churches, whether or not they consider themselves part of Evangelicalism with a capital E.

In case you missed it: Craig Keener, “How to Succeed at Suffering: Lessons from the Gospel of Mark” Influence (February 14, 2024).

Jared Michelson, “Why Choose the Path of the Pastor?: Despite fewer pursuing pastoral roles today, the vocation provides the unique privilege of making a profound impact by sharing oneself with others” Christianity Today (May 15, 2025).

Chad Harvey, “From Cessationist to Pentecostal: Discovering the Spirit’s transforming power” Influence (Spring 2025).

PR

The editor, Robert W. Graves is a Pentecostal scholar and president of The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship. This non-profit encourages Pentecostal/Charismatic authors, with awards for excellent new works. Mr. Graves has had a long-standing passion to defend Charismatic and Pentecostal claims of the present-day activity and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The topic of the book, a rebuttal of cessationism, is both important and sad. It is sad because many good Christians still dispute the reality of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12–14) in the life of the contemporary church. This is over a hundred years after the Azusa Street revival and over sixty years after the Charismatic renewal burst among mainline churches. The suspicion and resistance to the operation of these gifts came under renewed attack in recent decades by the popular and influential ministry of the Rev. John MacArthur. His radio ministry and multiple books have lambasted gifts of the Spirit as bogus and their practice as heretical. This reviewer has had the honor of being the object of his critical comments with an entire chapter criticizing my work.[1] In fact Mr. Graves edited an earlier volume of essays dedicated to responding to MacArthur’s cessationist best-seller, Strange Fire.[2]

The Kingdom Case against Cessationism has a forward by Dr. Craig Keener, currently the most well-known and distinguished Charismatic New Testament scholar. The book is made up of 12 chapters by various authors, several of which are widely known and respected, such as Randy Clark and Michael Brown. But all are distinguished scholars in their fields.

The articles are uniformly excellent, and I found Randy Clark’s contribution, “The Inaugurated Kingdom of God–Now and Not Yet,” particularly useful. The same for Mr. Graves’s contribution, “Cessationism and the Struggle for the Promises and Commands of Jesus.”

The Kingdom Case against Cessationism contains three essays by Jon Ruthven, whose death has been a serious loss to Pentecostal scholarship (and to whom this book is dedicated). They were taken from his PhD masterpiece that also produced On the Cessation of the Charismata.[3]

The Kingdom Case against Cessationism has an index of persons as well as an index of biblical citations and ancient church sources. It is especially valuable to pastors and church leaders who have people in their congregations who still hold to the cessationist view. It is a handy source of biblical answers to the folly and “heresy” of cessationism. Mr. Graves is to be commended for his scholarly and useful work for the Charismatic/Pentecostal churches.

Reviewed by William De Arteaga

Notes

[1] John MacArthur, Reckless Faith (Crossway, 1994).

[2] (Nashville Thomas Nelson, 2013) See Strangers to Fire: When Tradition Trumps Scripture (Tulsa: Empowered Life Academic-Harrison House, 2014). [Editor’s note: See the Strange Fire roundup at PneumaReview.com: “Are Pentecostals offering Strange Fire?” See also the PneumaReview.com interview with Strangers To Fire editor Robert Graves and reviews by Tony Richie, John Lathrop, and further reflections by Jon Ruthven.]

[3] Jon Ruthven, On the Cessation of the Charismata (Tulsa: Word and Spirit, 2010). [Editor’s note: See Amos Yong’s review of Jon Ruthven: On the Cessation of the Charismata.]

Introduction

Twentieth century Pentecostalism reawakened the world to miracles. The growth of this movement activated individuals in established religion to wrestle with a major player on the world scene of Christianity. Even so, as Pentecostalism expands, the cessationist view resuscitates a theological position that corresponds with the European intellectual development of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries named the Enlightenment. The proponents of cessationism believe that their cause is true and just. As a consequence of the strict emphasis on Enlightenment presuppositions in theology, their belief system allows no place for the miraculous in Christian living. The thesis of this paper argues for the clear biblical authority and support for miracles in contrast to the problem of the unbiblical history of cessationism. The topic is divided into five sections. First, a presentation of the problem of cessationism and the purpose of this study is submitted. Second, specific historical figures from church history represent the foundation for cessationism. Third, historical antecedents supporting miraculous experiences are surveyed. Fourth, a theological and biblical critique of cessationism is examined. Fifth, concluding thoughts and reflections on the unbiblical basis for cessationism is contested by the biblical revelation of the miraculous in Christianity.

The problem and study

The purpose of this paper exegetes the faulty presuppositions underlying cessationist opinion. This study examines the historical ethos behind cessationism and buttresses the biblical belief in the miraculous with Holy Scripture. In fact, the modern day cessationist view is not grounded in Scripture but rather in the principles of the Enlightenment, which support the secular American culture. An honest evaluation of cessationism would cause many conservative fundamentalists to reconsider the underpinnings of their belief system.

Notable persons from church history supporting cessationism

Specific historical antecedents for the unbiblical belief in cessationism are copious. Numerous Christians holding a cessationist theology have contributed to this investigation. This section discusses the remarks of five particular people: John Chrysostom, Augustine, John Calvin, B.B. Warfield and John MacArthur. Their outspoken influence creates a thread of unbelief and skepticism enduring two millennia of Christianity.

“Is [Craig S. Keener] seriously suggesting that there is a cause and effect relationship between German anti-supernaturalism and cessationism?”
— From comments on Craig Keener’s review of John MacArthur, Strange Fire

It’s not cause-and-effect, though there is a relationship. Antisupernaturalism may have made it easier for hard cessationism to flourish and harder for continuationism to get a hearing, but the influence apparently went especially from cessationism to antisupernaturalism. (Here I am not referring to belief in the cessation of this or that gift, but the actual belief that miracles had ceased, i.e., hard cessationism.)

David Hume (1711-1776)
Image: Wikimedia Commons

David Hume (Scottish, not German) was able to gain ground in his argument against miracles, following English Deists (the connection with Deists is established quite clearly in The Great Debate on Miracles: from Joseph Glanvill to David Hume (Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press, 1981), partly because cessationism was so widespread that many dismissed evidence for current miracles. The same evidence for current miracles — testimony of experience — was also the evidence for biblical miracles, so discrediting the former led to skepticism about the latter. Openness to the possibility of current miracles also led to stronger defenses for biblical miracles. See on this point especially Robert Bruce Mullin, Miracles and the Modern Religious Imagination (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996).

Today there are sufficient credible miracle reports to turn the tide against skeptical scholars who deny claims of miracles in the Gospels. It is no longer plausible to argue that eyewitnesses do not claim these kinds of experiences in theistic contexts. For hard cessationists to deny miracle claims based on eyewitness evidence today (rather than to explore the reliability of the witnesses) is to play into the hands of antisupernaturalist critics, who are more than happy to use the same standard to deny all miracle claims in the Bible.

PR

Michael L. Brown, Authentic Fire: A Response to John MacArthur’s Strange Fire (Excel Publishers, Dec 12, 2013), 418 pages.

Authentic Fire, by Dr. Michael L. Brown, is a masterful answer to the intemperate and angry attack on Charismatic movement and Pentecostalism by John MacArthur in his work, Strange Fire.^[1] In the public launch to Strange Fire, MacArthur made clear his utter disdain for the Charismatic Movement in particular:

Nothing coming from the Charismatic movement has provided recovery or strengthening of the biblical Gospel. Nothing has preserved truth and sound doctrine. It has only produced distortion, confusion, and error. Yes, there are people in the movement who know and love the truth, have an orthodox Gospel, but are heterodox on the Holy Spirit. Not all of them are heretics. But I say again the contribution of truth from the people in the movement doesn’t come from the movement, but in spite of it …^[2]

Brown is one of the best-qualified persons in Christendom to answer MacArthur’s accusations. He converted from nominal Judaism into Pentecostal Christianity, and then for a season became a cessationist. However, his careful study of the scriptures showed him that cessationism was indefensible. Subsequently, mission trips to Third World areas showed Brown time and again that today God works powerful “signs and wonders”—just as in New Testament times. Well educated, Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, his dissertation was on the healing character of God in the Old Testament. He has written multiple books on a whole range of issues, from biblical commentaries to works on revival, and Jewish oriented apologetics.

In his pastoral and teaching roles of the Brownsville Revival, and in his numerous teaching positions at various Pentecostal and Evangelical seminaries, Brown has demonstrated his commitment to the Pentecostal/charismatic appreciation of the gifts of the Spirit. But Brown has also been a critic of the excesses within the Charismatic movement, especially the exaggerated prosperity theology so present in Christian TV ministries. One of his many books, The End of the American Gospel Enterprise, took special aim at this issue.^[3] In a recently released book he also criticizes, in his typical respectful but biblically forceful manner, the new “grace message” circulating in some charismatic churches. ^[4]

In fact, Brown may be considered among a special category of Christian theologian and critics—what I term, “prophetic critics.” That is, one who appreciates and affirms the moves of the Holy Spirit in revivals, but is critical of the improper “spillover” of revival, as when ministries and evangelists go beyond the bounds of scripture. In this august group one should first cite Jonathan Edwards, whose numerous writings both defended the First Great Awakening, but also critiqued its exaggerations.

Many past revivals have had such prophetic critics. For instance, Captain Kelso Carter was a leader of the first healing revival of modern Christianity, the Faith Cure Movement (1880s). However, he saw that many of its leaders were taking a wrong turn in advocating the rejection of medication as being contrary to healing prayer, and critiqued them for this.^[5] In the charismatic movement of the 1970s, Charles Farah, Jr., one of the early leaders of that movement, wrote a now classic critical work on the exaggerations of the Word Faith Movement, From the Pinnacle of the Temple.^[6] This work strongly criticized some of Kenneth Hagin’s teachings.

John MacArthur, Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship (Nashville, TN: Nelson Books, 2013), 333 pages, ISBN 9781400206414.

Introduction

In this highly polemical book, John MacArthur argues that as an aggressive though “counterfeit” form of Christian spirituality, the global Pentecostal-Charismatic movement is neither founded on nor representative of orthodox Christian doctrine. He claims it has infiltrated and is undermining orthodox Christianity with “counterfeit” theologies, worship beliefs, and practices—all emerging from its heretical doctrine of the Holy Spirit. MacArthur’s stated purpose for writing this book is to therefore galvanize the “evangelical church” in concerted condemnation against its existence, and honour the Holy Spirit by ridding the evangelical church of the movement’s influence, thus leading to the recovery of correct doctrines of the Holy Spirit.

Having read some highly constructive reviews and responses emerging on MacArthur’s book, in this review, I will hopefully avoid covering matters already well addressed, and provide critique on issues perhaps not adequately touched. I will begin first however with a thematic survey on the book’s content.

Survey

In sermonic style, MacArthur begins his treatise by setting forth the Pentateuchal narrative on Nadab and Abihu’s priestly offering of “strange fire” and God’s judgement against them, as his controlling metaphor for exposing the demonically sourced errors of Pentecostal/Charismatic spirituality that have infiltrated Evangelical Christianity. MacArthur then structures his book into three parts. In Part One (“Confronting a Counterfeit Revival”), MacArthur pursues two basic objectives. First (chapter 1) is to establish that the “systemic” reason for the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement’s existence as a false form of Christian spirituality, is its elevation of “religious experience over biblical truth.” (pp. 16-17). He then argues that at the heart of this aberration is the movement’s historical foundation upon a “deficient soteriology,” which conversely fosters this elevation of experience. Here, MacArthur directly blames the soteriological themes of 19th century Holiness Movement teachings (p. 27).

MacArthur moreover charges that this deficient soteriology under girded the preaching of early Pentecostal leaders, particularly that of Charles Parham. While stressing the dubious nature of Parham’s life and ministry, MacArthur argues that we acknowledge him as the originating founder of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement—in order to jeopardize the theological “legitimacy” of the whole movement (p. 26-28). MacArthur moreover argues that equally responsible for the “theological foundations” of the movement is E.W. Kenyon, whose seminal Word of Faith doctrine MacArthur stresses, is rooted in a synthesis of various early 20th century “New Thought” metaphysical teachings (pp. 28-31). Hence, in MacArthur’s construal of Pentecostal historiography, Parham and Kenyon together “are responsible for the theological foundations upon which the entire charismatic system is built,” and together represent its dubious “historical roots.” Hence, in MacArthur’s construal of Pentecostal historiography, the doctrinal and moral errors of Parham and Kenyon together establish the dubious theological underpinnings of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement (p. 31).

MacArthur’s second pursued objective of Part One (chapters 3 and 4) is to critique Pentecostal-Charismatic spirituality via Jonathan Edwards’ “distinguishing marks” of genuine spiritual renewal (e.g., “The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God”). MacArthur thereby argues that Pentecostal-Charismatic spirituality is neither birthed by nor honouring to the Holy Spirit. To argue this MacArthur alleges that the movement shifts people away from Christ by its false doctrines, worship practices and experiences wrongly attributed to the Holy Spirit (pp. 53), and through its fostering of immorality via its emphasis on miracles and prosperity gospel teaching. (pp. 60, 65-66). Crucial also to this critique, is MacArthur’s allegations that Pentecostal/Charismatic spirituality moreover undermines Scriptural authority by encouraging believers to seek extra biblical revelation (pp. 67-68), thus elevating false experiences of God over Scriptural and doctrinal truth (pp. 71-72). Finally, MacArthur charges that Pentecostal-Charismatic spirituality fails to produce genuine love amongst believers (pp. 74-76), which MacArthur roots to the movement’s narcissistic blending of “mysticism” (via charismatic worship practices) to the “materialism of prosperity theology” (p. 78). MacArthur concluding verdict is that Pentecostals and Charismatics are “playing with strange fire” (p. 81).

Robert Kimball Shinkoskey, Do My Prophets No Harm: Revelation and Religious Liberty in the Bible (Eugene, Oregon: Resource Publications, 2011), 206 pages, ISBN 9781608998456.

Robert Shinkoskey has two main proposals in Do My Prophets No Harm. The first proposal is that the Ten Commandments provide ancient Israel’s constitutional government. In theory, the Ten Commandments are “purely secular law, rather than a mixture of cultic and civic law” (p. 81). The first five commandments serve two purposes: the preservation of “freedom of religion for prophets and other dissidents who work to restore worship of the God of their ancestors” (back cover summary); and an adversarial purpose: to stand separate from the civic government. The role of the prophet is to call into question any policy or personal power that negates or abuses the last five of the commandments.

Shinkoskey’s second proposal is to challenge the notion of the cessation of prophecy. God always reveals Himself to those who are sensitive to Him, namely the prophets. This is necessary in order to preserve not only the first five commandments but also the second five. The prophets urge Israel to repent and return to their calling. Israel’s call is to honor and keep the second five commandments and to be a light to the nations: how to treat one’s neighbor in love and mercy and the stranger or alien among them.

This reviewer finds Shinkoskey’s analysis intriguing. He seems to suggest that the observance of the second five of the Decalogue promotes the worship of the God of the Exodus, the one who brought them out from slavery to Egypt. New revelation from God restores the people of Israel to their calling to be light to the nations. The prophets are those receptive to that revelation and must prophesy; hence, “Do my prophets no harm.” It is Shinkoskey’s contention that when a government exceeds its bounds whatever its form, monarchy, democratic republic, theocratic, those in governance seek to silence the prophets. It also occurs when complacency or satisfaction occurs in a nation. This is where religious liberty is threatened.

An excerpt from Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, by Craig S. Keener. From Pneuma Review Fall 2013.

From the introduction to Part 3, “Miracle Accounts beyond Antiquity”

Pages 209-210

The principle of analogy once used to argue against all ancient miracles (either the occurrence of some sorts of extranormal phenomena or their supernatural causation) now undermines that very argument. In Hume’s day, many Protestant theologians distinguished sharply between biblical and postbiblical miracles as part of their anti-Catholic polemic. Their polemic played into the Humean argument against ancient miracles based on the lack of many comparable modern claims. Many theologians in turn accommodated this nonmiraculous approach, further emphasizing the lack of postbiblical miracles and eventually often renouncing miracles altogether.

Today, however, abundant claims of miracles, particularly from the Majority World, challenge Hume’s skepticism about the existence of many credible eyewitnesses. Hume demanded “a sufficient number” of witnesses of unquestioned integrity and intelligence who would have much to lose by testifying falsely.¹ In today’s academic climate, many who testify to miracles have much to lose even by testifying truly; but I shall first respond to Hume’s quantitative demand. In contrast to the environment assumed by Hume, today hundreds of millions of people claim to have witnessed miracles. Moreover, eyewitnesses claim what they believe are miracles even in the West, and this has been the case through most of history, even when Hume framed his argument within the theological framework of academic circles often reticent to acknowledge miraculous claims. Some of these eyewitness claims involve even the healing of blindness, the raising of the dead, and nature miracles. I will treat some of these subjects in turn in subsequent chapters: claims from the Majority World (chs. 7–9); Western history (ch. 10); the modern West (ch. 11); and some specifically dramatic claims like those involving blindness, death, or nature (ch. 12).

Virtually no one would suggest that all claims reflect clearly authentic miracles (see discussion in ch. 13). Nevertheless, such claims, however we interpret them, clearly exist on an eyewitness level and hence need not be excluded from first- and second-generation testimony in the Gospels and Acts. Statistics suggest the vast numbers of claims; my primary interest in chapters 7–12 is to illustrate some of the variety of sorts of cases involved in them. While the primary point of these chapters is not the interpretation of events, some of these reports may have a bearing on that question. At the least, given the vast number and variety of claims, one can no longer simply take for granted that uniform human experience a priori excludes extranormal events for which many observers would find a specifically theistic interpretation particularly persuasive (see discussion in chs. 13–15).

PR

This excerpt is from Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, 2 volumes, Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2011. Used by permission. All rights to this material are reserved. Material is not to be reproduced, scanned, copied, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without written permission from Baker Publishing Group.

Footnotes appear in the full digital issue of Pneuma Review Fall 2013 and in the book from which this excerpt is derived.

An excerpt from Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, by Craig S. Keener. From Pneuma Review Fall 2013.

From Part 3, “Miracle Accounts beyond Antiquity”

Chapter 7, “Majority World Perspectives”

Pages 214-219

A Multicultural Approach

Social scientists have noted that, despite a variety of interpretations, “people from all cultures relate stories of spontaneous, miraculous cures,” based on experiences that they have had.¹⁵ This observation has some relevance for how we approach biblical narratives involving healings. As Justo Gonzalez remarks in his commentary on Acts, the frequent denial of narratives’ historicity because of their miracle reports employs a questionable epistemological criterion. Bultmann denied that modern people who use scientific inventions can believe in miracles,¹⁶ yet “what Bultmann declares to be impossible is not just possible, but even frequent.” Miracles are, Gonzalez points out, affirmed in most Latino churches, despite the influence of the mechanistic worldview from much Western thought.¹⁷ Cuban Lutheran bishop Ismael Laborde Figueras notes that it is hard to find Latin American Christians who do not believe in miracles.¹⁸ Noted Latina theologian Loida Martell-Otero likewise emphasizes prayers for healing in the Latina community,¹⁹ and notes that Latinas’ experience helps shape their way of reading Scripture.²⁰

Some Asian theologians have likewise complained that the approach of Bultmann’s school is irrelevant to Asian realities. Asian worldviews, Methodist bishop Hwa Yung notes, affirm miracles, angels, and hostile spirits.²¹ Indeed, pace Bultmann’s rhetoric, most religious Westerners also fail to see any contradiction between miracles and the use of modern science²²—including a number of scientists.²³ “Modern” worldviews are too diverse to fit any one paradigm,²⁴ and despite his cultural assumption that his argument is true, Bultmann never provides a reason for it.²⁵ Cross-cultural studies suggest that socialization rather than exposure to science accounts for most of the skepticism in some circles.²⁶

Whereas fewer than 18 percent of Christians in 1900 lived outside Europe and North America, today more than 60 percent do, and an estimated 70 percent will by 2025.²⁷ As the center of world Christianity has shifted to the Global South, the dominant Christian perspectives in the world have shifted with it.²⁸ Although far from being the only groups involved in this shift, charismatic and Pentecostal forms of Christianity have been in the forefront of the recent expansion of Christianity, reportedly growing six times over in the three decades from 1970 to 2000.²⁹ Not surprisingly, readings of Scripture in the Global South often contrast starkly with modern Western critics’ readings.³⁰ These readings from other social locations often shock Westerners not only because others believe the early Christian miracle narratives to be plausible but also because these readers often take these narratives as a model for their ministries.

Thus Western scholar of global Christianity Philip Jenkins notes that in general Christianity in the Global South is quite interested in “the immediate workings of the supernatural, through prophecy, visions, ecstatic utterances, and healing.”³¹ Such an approach, closer to the early Christian worldview than modern Western culture is, appeals to many traditional non-Western cultures.³² Hwa Yung, the above-mentioned bishop of the Methodist Church in Malaysia, notes that the charismatic, Pentecostal character of Majority World churches reflects not so much direct influence by Pentecostals or charismatics as simply the worldview of the majority of humanity. They have simply never embraced the Western, mechanistic, naturalistic Enlightenment worldview that rejects the supernatural.³³

Referring to the analogous issue of hostile suprahuman forces, noted scholar of African religion John S. Mbiti complains that most Western scholars “expose their own ignorance, false ideas, exaggerated prejudices and a derogatory attitude” that fail to take seriously genuine experiences pervasive in Africa.³⁴ African psychologist Regina Eya warns that all claims to extranormal healing are dismissed by many Western scholars, the credible along with the spurious, because of the inappropriate application of traditional Western scientific paradigms to matters for which they were not designed.³⁵ Danny McCain, a Western professor who has spent more than two decades teaching in Nigeria, notes that “nearly all African Christians and most African theologians,” regardless of their views on other critical issues, reject Western antisupernaturalism. He acknowledges the existence of some false claims, but complains that “it is arrogant and unprofessional for Western scholars to outright reject the miraculous, totally ignoring the testimonies of thousands of people,” based simply on their own lack of such experience.³⁶

In addition to differing in their paradigms involving paranormal phenomena, many other cultures are in general more holistic, expecting spiritual beliefs to impinge on physical needs in ways that Western culture has often found uncomfortable.³⁷ For example, the concern of religion for health in traditional African thought³⁸ is likely a factor in the growth of African Independent Churches (AICs), most of which include a heavy focus on healing.³⁹ Newer Pentecostal and charismatic churches are also filling the same niche, sometimes at the expense of older AICs.⁴⁰ Because African culture has always connected healing with religion, African Christian movements that appropriated the biblical connection of healing with religion have grown, often challenging churchgoers in more Western churches who were secretly consulting diviners and traditional practitioners.⁴¹ Many newer churches have grown in Africa at the expense of more traditional ones, especially where the latter have refused to engage local cultures’ reigning cosmologies.⁴² In some areas, older mainline churches under indigenous leadership have likewise emphasized healing in a manner relevant to their African context.⁴³ Western observers may appraise such developments positively or negatively,⁴⁴ but what is minimally clear is that Africans from various belief systems are engaging issues that Westerners often ignore. At least some aspects of their interest in physical health are more in keeping with biblical cosmologies than much traditional Western Christian minimizing of the body is.⁴⁵

Regardless of how we interpret miracle reports and other supernatural claims, their frequency in various sectors of today’s world indicates that large numbers of intelligent, sincere people believe that such cures are occurring today, including through their own prayers. This is true even in the modern West; how much more likely would this be the case in a generally less skeptical culture like the world of the first Christians? There is no intrinsically historical reason to think that the Gospel writers had to invent such miraculous claims, or that Luke had to invent them even in the eyewitness “we” material in Acts (Acts 16:18; 20:10; 28:4–6, 8–9; cf. 21:4, 11, 19).⁴⁶ Nor is there any reason to insist that the reports must have originated in a reporter’s deception or imagination.

PR

This excerpt is from Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, 2 volumes, Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2011. Used by permission. All rights to this material are reserved. Material is not to be reproduced, scanned, copied, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without written permission from Baker Publishing Group.

Footnotes appear in the full digital issue of Pneuma Review Fall 2013 and in the book from which this excerpt is derived.