In this review essay by seasoned missionary-scholar Dave Johnson, he takes a more nuanced approach to globalism, colonialism and the Filipinos efforts to contextualize the gospel and Church practices in the Philippines.

Hannah Keziah Agustin, “Colonialism Brought Evangelicalism to the Philippines. Churches Are Now Untangling the Two: Five Filipino Christian leaders weigh in on the American church’s influence on worship, culture, and politics” Christianity Today (June 28, 2023).

I would like to thank the editor of Pneuma Review for the opportunity to respond to Hannah Agustin’s article. I will divide this response into areas where I agree, issues that I think need clarification and points where I respectfully dissent. But first, I need to challenge her demographic facts. While she is correct that 80% of Filipinos are Catholic, the waters get muddied in identifying everybody else. The Pentecostal-Charismatic (PC) movement crosses all denominational lines and defies neatly packaged definitions. It also challenges statistics related to size. For example, the Catholic Charismatic movement, which holds as dearly to the Bible as do Evangelicals, numbered over ten million in 2008.[1] This does not include classical Pentecostals, such as the Assemblies of God and other groups, which are normally counted as Evangelicals, or Pentecostal Third Wave independent churches, some of which are huge. The origin of the majority of these churches, as well as some Pentecostal denominations, are indigenous. Considering that the population of the Philippines was 109.04 million in 2020,[2] it is safe to say that PC Christians comprise of at least 10% of the total Filipino population.

That said, she is correct in noting the strong impact of American evangelicalism in the Philippines. I share the respondents’ frustration about the importation of American culture, intentional or not, along with the gospel. While this is unavoidable to a certain extent, much could be done to reduce this by equipping missionaries with the tools of cultural anthropology. Unfortunately, most do not take advantage of this training. But the assumption of cultural superiority, intentional or not, also needs to be nuanced. This is not just an American problem. It’s a been a human problem since the time of Nimrod (Gen. 10) and Filipinos are no exception. Moreover, I have been appalled that perhaps as many as 95% of missionaries working here, whether from the West or other Asian nations, have made little effort to learn any of the indigenous languages.

All of the respondents mentioned things that the American missionaries brought into Filipino churches and allegedly forced on Filipinos. While much of this is true, none of the respondents mention efforts made by Filipino leaders to change things once the churches were turned over to them. This reflects the Filipino attitude of bahala na, which loosely means, “whatever will be will be and cannot be changed.” Fortunately, this is now beginning to change and I applaud these efforts.

Furthermore, the Filipino churches may be more indigenous than the respondents realize. Here, let me be clear that I am speaking from within my own PC tradition. In the Filipino Assemblies of God (AG), for example, the national ecclesiastical structure is almost a carbon copy of its counterpart in the States. How those leaders function within the structure, however, is completely Filipino. On the local church level, the differences between the churches in the Philippines and the United States are substantial.

More importantly, Obed Reliquette’s comment about American Evangelicalism’s attitude towards animism is largely true, but also needs nuancing in regards to the PC movement. PC spirituality, with its focus on the person and miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, resonates deeply with the Filipino’s original indigenous religious spirituality, which is focused on supernatural power. This morphed into Folk Catholicism in the Spanish era and continues to this day. This is probably the most significant reason for the stupendous growth of the PC movement in the Philippines in the last fifty years.

Finally, in an article about the Philippines, I do not understand why the author included a Filipino respondent living in the United States. The situation of Filipino-Americans, as reflected in their comments, is vastly different from Filipinos living at home. This should not have been included.

In summary, I agree with much of what has been said and share the respondents’ desire for greater indigeneity. I also think that the author should have done much more background research. Had she done so, she would likely have discovered that the situation is much more complex and nuanced than is reflected in this article. Thank you again for this opportunity.

PR

Notes

1. Christl Kessler and Jürgen Rüland, Give Jesus a Hand: Charismatic Christians: Populist Religion and Politics in the Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila Press, 2008.
2. Population of Philippines 2020 – Search (bing.com) https://www.bing.com/search?q=population+of+philippines+2020

Billy Graham in 1966

Billy Graham, Evangelicalism’s chief architect, declared, “As we approach the end of the age … I believe we will see a dramatic recurrence of signs and wonders which will demonstrate the power of God to a skeptical world.”[3] Nevertheless, “there is also a need for a word of caution: There are many frauds and charlatans … one must have spiritual discernment.”[4]

I find Graham and like-minded Evangelicals paradoxical.[5] This conundrum shows up in Christianity Today, the movement’s flagship periodical. While conciliatory,[6] this magazine reiterates that spiritual gifts are outside the norm.

An example is demonstrated in Andrew Wilson’s recent article, “Whatever Happened to Gifts of Language, Prophecy, and Healing? Let’s Ask The Early Church Fathers,” Christianity Today” (April 20, 2018).

Wilson contends that in Evangelicalism, historicity should be valued alongside orthodoxy. He asserts that a truncated theology is often a result of beginning “history in the wrong place.” When Evangelicals take “a longer view… tracing our roots back to the early church fathers,” it leads us to “surprises … Angels and demons … or, more surprisingly, miraculous gifts.”

Drawing from a sampling of Church Fathers,[7] Wilson contends that healing, prophecy, and exorcism were evident five centuries across a vast geographical span. He selectively argues for the charismata.

Yet, in Wilson’s essay, telltale Evangelical caveats emerge. Reluctant to advance beyond the fifth century,[8] he suggests that there is “general agreement” that “languages, prophecy, and healing disappeared early in the church’s history.”[9] Sadly, Wilson insinuates that miraculous gifts can be an “excuse for speculation, self-indulgence, sectarianism, and silliness.”

Evangelicals love to flirt with continuationism but often disavow it as soon as their Reformed ethos gets upended. Tragically, most will side with Wilson, proposing that the charismata are “relatively unusual” (and the unusual cannot be normative).

In every era since Pentecost, God has been actively moving with His marvelous gifts. Rather than being mired in the doubts of modernity, Bible-believing Christians should steadfastly embrace the age of the Spirit. It is time to own the miraculous without caveats.

PR

Notes

^[1]. Douglas Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 356.

^[2]. Leonard Sweet, Health and Medicine in the Evangelical Tradition: “Not by Might nor Power” (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1994), 151, 158.

David Bebbington, The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 288 pages, ISBN 9780830825837.

In The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody, David Bebbington provides an outstanding introduction to modern evangelicalism by tracing its origins. In most treatments of the subject the distinguishing characteristic is usually along theological lines. That is, evangelicals are normally (at least until recently) defined in terms of what they believe. For example Alister McGrath in his Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity gives a list of “six fundamental convictions”¹ that define evangelicalism, and Stan Grenz gives a similar list in his Revisioning Evangelical Theology.² This kind definition-by-list could be cited over and over;³ the lists may vary, but it is almost always the discipline of theology that brings the planets of evangelicalism into their proper orbit. Bebbington, however, approaches the subject with a slight variation. He contends that evangelicals are first and foremost a people of the book—a Bible people (pages 23-26). Secondarily, they are a people with a message—the message of the cross (26-31). A third element in Bebbington’s explanation is the utter need and centrality of conversion—men and women must be “born again” (31-36). The final component which constitutes evangelicalism, is what Bebbington calls “activism” (36-40). Here he has in mind nothing more than the idea that someone who is truly born-again will live differently. What Wesley and other eighteenth century theologians called experimental religion—the actual lived-out experience of knowing God in everyday living.⁴

The author begins his examination of evangelicalism’s impact by focusing on two particularly influential representatives: Charles H. Spurgeon and Dwight L. Moody. It should be understood, however, that this volume is not a biography on Spurgeon or Moody. In total, only eleven pages are devoted to biographical elements, as such. Rather, the focus of the work is directed to examining the ways in which evangelicalism has influenced the world over the past century and a half. There are questions that Bebbington raises that challenge the way in which denominational lines are currently drawn. For example, within the evangelical world today, we usually make dividing lines along national boarders. However, the historical reasons behind this are remarkably complex. “Normally…the church history of Scottish Presbyterians has been written as though Scotland were the only natural unit for study. Equally, however, the Reformed tradition in different lands during the Victorian era, as a recent volume has shown, forms a suitable topic for investigation. The book includes Scottish congregations but highlights their similarities to Presbyterians in American and Congregationalists in England.”⁵

One of the most significant historical changes Bebbington tracks was the transition from enlightenment thinking to what became known as Romanticism. “[Romanticism] was a diverse and evolving phenomenon, but its essential temper can be identified by contrast with the Enlightenment. Instead of exalting reason, those touched by the new spirit of the times placed their emphasis on will, spirit and emotion” (148). This “Romantic spirit” (149) affected Christianity as well, and Bebbington demonstrates this throughout the second half of the volume. Evangelicalism responded to the challenges of Romanticism in at least three ways. The first way evangelicals responded was associated with the faith principle embodied in the practice of George Müller (259). “The idea of undertaking some venture in entire dependence on divine provision gathered support as the century wore on. It was applied to finance, to healing and above all to missions” (259). A second way in which evangelicalism responded to the threat of Romanticism was through the rapid growth of premillennial teaching. Premillennialism had not always been at the core of evangelicalism (137-141), but with the new challenges that were raised through the advent of Romanticism, Premillennialism became a central feature (259). The third and final way in which evangelicalism answered the challenge of Romanticism came in the various forms of the holiness teachings. Within the reformed churches it usually came in the form of the Keswick movement. Within the Wesleyan or Methodist traditions it came out in what became known as “entire sanctification.”⁶ Additionally, Bebbington argues that this third response of evangelicalism also was the impetus behind Spurgeon’s strident resistance in what became known as the “Downgrade Controversy” (260). Simply put, advancements in the natural sciences in the late nineteenth century called into question many long-held assumptions about virtually every aspect of life. Eventually this led many within Spurgeon’s own denomination (he was a Baptist) to also call into question the truthfulness and accuracy of Scripture. Spurgeon simply would not sit idly by and say nothing. “From our inmost souls, we loathe all mystic and rationalistic obscurations of the plain and full-orbed doctrines of grace” (260).⁷ Although the pressure of the conflict nearly ended his life, Spurgeon ultimately emerged victoriously from this conflict.

Stanley N. Gundry and James Stamoolis, eds., Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, Counterpoints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 294 pages.

This book is a fine addition to Zondervan’s Counterpoint series, in which controversial theological issues are examined from a variety of stances by reputable scholars and/or denominational leaders. This particular book offers a variety of perspectives on the relationship between the evangelical movement and the oldest Christian community, the Eastern Orthodox Church. Respected evangelical scholar J. I. Packer writes the forward and five pastors and theologians, some evangelical and some Orthodox, offer answers to the question of whether Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelicalism are compatible. All five present their answers (yes, no and maybe) and the other four are given the opportunity to respond to the presenter. The presenting writer is then allowed to respond to the respondents.

Bradley Nassif, an Orthodox theologian with an extensive background in evangelical higher education and ecumenical activity offers the sole affirmative response for the compatibility of these two Christian traditions. Nassif demonstrates not only a thorough grasp of his own tradition but an impressive comprehension and positive assessment of evangelicalism. His primary thesis is that Orthodoxy and evangelicalism are compatible because Orthodox theology is evangelical, whether or not Orthodox adherents and church leadership care to identify it as such. Nassif uses David Bebbington’s fourfold definition of evangelicalism to show Orthodox and evangelical compatibility. First, both groups emphasize “crucicentrism” (centrality of the life, death and resurrection of Christ), “biblicism” (commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture), “conversionism” (personal commitment of one’s life to Christ) and “activism” (witness and holy living). Nassif grants that both Orthodoxy and evangelicalism do not often emphasize specific doctrinal elements contained in these basic agreements to the satisfaction of each group, but the agreement is nonetheless there in principle.

Michael Horton, a Reformed evangelical theologian, writes next, denying the compatibility of the two traditions. Horton begins by appreciating the areas of commonality between the two, such as a high view of Scripture and conservative Christology (doctrine of Christ’s person and work). He finds problems, however, with the high view of church tradition espoused by Orthodoxy in relation to Scripture, finding there the same problem he perceives with the Roman Catholic view. Even more fundamentally, however, Horton alleges that Orthodoxy does not possess an adequate view on issues of sin, free will and salvation, particularly with regard to justification and sanctification. He contends that, due to Orthodoxy’s stress on sanctification, it promotes a salvation by works that fundamentally denies justification by faith alone. He claims that the evangelical view denies any role of the human in salvation and that this, in contrast to the Orthodox view, is the true Gospel message.

Mark A. Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism: The age of the Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys, A History of Evangelicalism, People, Movements and Ideas in the English-Speaking World I (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2003).

This is a splendid book that I found to be very rewarding reading. It is well thought out and it is presented in a way that makes for easy reading, yet challenges the reader to think and reflect on how the era covered in the book relates to today’s challenges in evangelicalism. Noll is able to cover the first three hundred years of English-speaking evangelicalism by capturing landmark events in such a way that readers will feel as if they were present in the shaping of these events. The book is divided into nine chapters, which are well integrated so that the book flows from one important event and/or leader to another.

The world of evangelicalism is not easy to define. Noll begins his book with an over view of the “Landscapes: Political, Ecclesiastical, Spiritual” that shaped the evangelical movement. By the time the reader reaches the third chapter, “Revival, 1734-1738” and the fourth chapter, “Revival, Fragmentation, Consolidation, 1738-1745” the reader understands why the revival became the centerpiece of the movement. Noll writes, “The evangelical revivals were unusual, however, in their frequency, their publicity and their function as a replacement for discarded aspects of traditional religion. They never, however, charted a simple course.” Noll captures the greatest challenge of today’s evangelical movement; how to replace the discarded aspects of traditional religion (revival is rarely practiced in mainstream religion, but is now rarely practiced in evangelical circles), yet not become the very thing (institutionalized religion) which the movement is attempting to replace.

Noll makes the point that, “Over time it became clear that for evangelicalism to take root, the longing for revival was more important than revival itself.” Through out the book Noll underscores the importance of this point. The preaching featured in the awakenings, “was a preaching aimed directly at popular affections, expecting life-changing results, emphasizing the message of divine grace as the God-given remedy for sin and often (though not always) dispensing with elaborate ratiocination.” Leaders into today’s evangelical movement should pay particular attention to this point. Rather than becoming preoccupied with doctrines, rules, prohibitions, and developing a “closed mind,” the movement needs to seek to appeal to people’s affections and help draw closer to Christ. In helping to explain the growth of the movement; Noll observes that, “evangelical Christianity coexisted with the Enlightenment.” The movement did not agree with all aspects of the Enlightenment; however, it was able to effectively dialogue with it. Noll does not shy away from critical reflection of the movement and its leaders. He notes that John Wesley was in many ways a tyrant, yet Wesley helped the evangelical movement to grow by expanding the role of laymen and to some degree challenged the stratified social order.