The Pneuma Review » mel

Mel Robeck and Amos Yong: The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism

Martin Mittelstadt — Sun, 21 Dec 2014 00:50:35 +0000

Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., and Amos Yong, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), xiii + 340 pages, ISBN 9780521188388.

The serious scholar of Pentecostalism recognizes the incredible complexity of Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity. The numerical and geographical explosion of Pentecostals continues to produce an ever-diversifying movement that proves both challenging and exciting for researchers. For this volume, coeditors Cecil Robeck and Amos Yong assemble a team of well-respected scholars, skilled in multiple disciplines and from across the globe, to lead us into and not through this spaghetti junction. True to the nature of a Companion volume, the contributors refuse to provide easy answers and choose instead to offer sufficient introduction to chosen topics so that readers may navigate their way through the maze of scholarship. The editors divide the book into three parts.

What is the glue that holds this worldwide movement together?

The historical section consists of chapters on the origins of the three major strands of modern Pentecostalism. Robeck introduces the volume with a survey of numerous attempts to discern the beginnings of Classical Pentecostalism. He exposes readers to various methodological approaches employed to locate the movement’s origin. Similarly, Michael McClymond narrates the emergence of the Charismatic renewal not as a Big Bang – with origins around a single locale or theme – but as a “String-of-Firecrackers” – a vast array of renewal movements across North America and around the world. David Reed explores the origins of Oneness Pentecostalism and refuses to reduce their origins simply to early separation or expulsion from opponents such as Trinitarian Pentecostals (and indeed by Christendom in general). Instead, he surveys a movement made up of manifold independent streams not only with little internal coherence, but often in isolation from one another. It goes without saying that the multiple roots of the Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity do not generate a uniform renewal movement.

What are the basic family resemblances among Pentecostals around the world?

In the second section, five contributors take readers on a world tour of Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity. From the Global North (North America and Europe including the former U.S.S.R.) to the Global South (Latin America, Africa, and Asia), each writer provides a short historical introduction to his respective region with particular attention to indigenous contexts. The contributors highlight critical issues relevant to specific regions such as political engagement, socio-cultural integration, current trends, and prospective areas for optimism and concern. Given the diversity of African or Asian Pentecostalism, careful readers will recognize the struggle of contributors to not succumb to generalizations that reduce or ignore the significant differences within such expansive continents (e.g., between Nigerian and South African Pentecostalism or Chinese and Korean Pentecostalism). Because these writers must work with a limited word count, they seek to locate Pentecostalism on a global map and whet the appetite for readers to zoom into specific nations of the various continents. Robeck and Yong utilize contributors who share ethnic and/or geographic identity with their assigned region.

Mel Robeck: The Azusa Street Mission and Revival

John Lathrop — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 01:15:22 +0000

Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., The Azusa Street Mission And Revival: The Birth Of The Global Pentecostal Movement (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2006), 342 pages.

About ten years ago, I audited a seminary course about the Pentecostal Movement. The course was a cooperative effort between Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and Harvard Divinity School. The classes were held at Harvard Divinity School and were team-taught by two professors, one from each of the respective schools. During that course, the Harvard professor, Harvey Cox, said that if Cecil Robeck ever sat down to write about Azusa Street that his book would be the definitive work on the subject. If that is true, we have the first volume now available (Robeck indicates in the book that he expects more volumes to follow). The release of this book is very timely; it coincides with the one hundredth anniversary of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the Azusa Street Mission.

Robeck has done extensive research for this book. The book is filled with detailed information about dates, times, places and people. He has gathered this information from a number of sources including interviews with eyewitnesses of the revival and the secular press. The variety of his sources allows him to show the reader how Azusa Street was viewed by both believers and unbelievers alike. Writing about one hundred years after the revival allows Robeck to step back and be fairly objective in interpreting the facts that he has gathered.

The book gives considerable attention to the pastor of the Azusa Street Mission, William J. Seymour. Robeck looks at various factors that contributed to making Seymour the leader that he was, namely his upbringing and spiritual journey. Seymour comes across as a very humble and devout man, who was a team player. One indication of this was that he had a leadership team at the mission that was made up of both men and women and was multi-ethnic. Another evidence of his team spirit was his desire to cooperate, and work with leaders of other Pentecostal ministries. Though Seymour was humble he was also very strong, he had to deal with difficult issues at the mission as well as multiple attempts by leaders, from outside of the mission, who tried to discredit him or steal his ministry.

The book also gives one a good look at the services of the Azusa Street mission. Robeck writes about various aspects of the services including, the worship, preaching and singing that took place at the mission. One very interesting section dealt with singing in the Spirit. The revival had many critics, from both inside and outside the church, but one thing that seems to have especially touched the visitors at Azusa Street was hearing the congregation sing in tongues. When writing about the mission Robeck does not attempt to gloss over, or cover up the shortcomings of the mission, questionable practices and false doctrines are mentioned along with the revival’s positive aspects.

Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches and Ecumenism: An Interview with Mel Robeck

Mel Robeck — Thu, 16 Jan 2003 00:10:57 +0000

A conversation with Professor and Pentecostal Statesman Cecil M. Robeck, Jr.

PneumaReview.com: As a Pentecostal, how do you define ecumenism?

Mel Robeck: The term “ecumenism” is derived from the Greek word oikoumene, which comes from the noun, oikos. The basic meaning of oikos is “house,” and by extension, oikoumene refers to those things, which have to do with the household. I understand the ecumenical household to be the “Household of God,” the Church, the whole “People of God,” the Christian community. From my perspective, then, ecumenism is a term reserved primarily for the issues of relationship that exist between Christians. My understanding of what constitutes a Christian is fairly simple. A Christian is one who confesses that Jesus Christ is his or her Lord and Savior.

In my ecumenical work, I begin with the biblical premise that there is only one Church and that all who confess Jesus Christ are part of that Church, regardless of their denominational label. But if we drive down the street in any of our cities, we can see that there is something wrong. How is it that we have so many denominations—over 30,000 around the world today—while there is only one Church? Why is it that many of these denominations have nothing to do with one another, yet there is only one Church? Why do we speak against one another, and yet we say that we belong to the same Church?

Many people who are not Christians ask these same questions. Unfortunately, these questions compromise the message of reconciliation that we preach, the message that God has offered through Jesus Christ, a means of breaking down all barriers between God and humankind, and between all individuals. The result is that those outside the Church are either confused about the effectiveness of the Gospel, or they are completely scandalized by what they view as our “hypocritical” claims.

The so-called “Ecumenical Movement” first came into being as a direct result of these evangelistic and missionary concerns. The World Council of Churches, which was founded, in part, as a result of these concerns, seeks to overcome the historic divisions between its member denominations. Along the way, it has also addressed other human, inter-religious, and environmental issues that represent the concerns of the churches that are members of the Council. The World Council of Churches has invited all Churches who can confess that “Jesus Christ is both God and Savior according to the Scriptures” to join together in a common quest for visible Christian unity. Very few Pentecostals have taken them up on their offer.

We have been made one by the Holy Spirit, but our inability to live and work together with other Christians with whom we may at times have deep differences, is clearly confusing to the world.

As a Pentecostal, I believe that this invitation is a legitimate one that is consistent with the Gospel. I believe that we must begin by acknowledging the spiritual, and therefore, the invisible character of the unity that makes Christians part of the Church—but the Church does not stop there. The Church while invisible, at the same time shows a visible face to the world. We have been made one by the Holy Spirit, but our inability to live and work together with other Christians with whom we may at times have deep differences, is clearly confusing to the world. For the sake of mission alone, then, we need a united witness to the reconciling power of the Gospel. I view such a pursuit as nothing more than a response to the Pauline exhortation of Ephesians 4:3 (NRSV), “making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” While interdenominational cooperation is a good first step, it is limited in what it can actually achieve. It allows us to continue to live with the status quo, cooperating on our own terms, and not when it is difficult for us. Interdenominational cooperation does not ultimately challenge us toward fuller healing and reconciliation, while a genuine quest for some form of “visible unity” challenges us at a very deep level.