Perspectives on Spirit Baptism is a collection of five scholarly essays that define Spirit Baptism from five traditions: Reformed (Walter C. Kaiser), Pentecostal (Stanley M. Horton), Charismatic (Larry Hart), Wesleyan (H. Ray Dunning), and Catholic (Ralph Del Colle). Each view is formatted as a chapter, which concludes with responses from the remaining four scholars. The space afforded each view differs widely in some cases. For example, the Reformed view is only 22 pages, whereas the Charismatic view is 64 pages long; the difference (42 pages) is longer than the Catholic view (39 pages). The Pentecostal and Wesleyan views are 48 and 49 pages, respectively. Regarding the responses, there is again a disparity. Horton’s responses total only six pages, while Del Colle amasses just over 14 pages (the average was 10 pages).

All of the contributors to this volume are terminal-degreed scholars, but were they the most qualified? What brings this question to mind are the credentials of Kaiser and Horton. These are highly distinguished scholars, but their forte is the Old Testament, whereas Spirit Baptism is a New Testament phenomenon. Both men are venerable patriarchs (Horton will soon be 90) of their denominations and have high degrees of name-recognition (which publishers desire), but I sensed a lack of edge and freshness in their presentations and responses.

Kaiser starts things off with a historical summary of the responses to Pentecostal theology by John Stott (1964) and James Dunn (1970). Mysteriously, forty years after Stott’s dividing of Scripture into didactic and historical, Kaiser makes the same mistake, favoring Paul’s “didactic” passages over Luke’s “narrative.” Kaiser ignores three and a half decades of scholarship, beginning with I. Howard Marshall (1970) and continuing to this day, that corrects the misguided notion that Luke was merely a historian.

Neither does Kaiser fare well in the department of fairness. In his attempt to connect Spirit baptism with conversion, he quotes Pentecostal scholar R. P. Menzies in order to counter him with a quote from J. B. Shelton (also a Pentecostal), but he unfairly ends the Shelton quote at a point that serves his purpose. Had he continued with the same sentence, it would have destroyed his point. Here is Kaiser’s quotation from Shelton: “[Although] Luke is not averse to associating the Holy Spirit with conversion. [Kaiser even omits the ellipsis that indicates an omission.]” Here is the omitted clause and next clause: “…this is not his major pneumatological thrust. Some misunderstanding has arisen when the role of the Holy Spirit in empowering for witness is confused with conversion.” But as serious as this violation of scholarship is, it pales in significance to Kaiser’s later mischaracterization of Larry Hurtado’s position on tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. He quotes Hurtado approvingly when the latter confirms that the NT does not raise the question of the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. Then he chastises Hurtado for not thinking that this renders the doctrine invalid and for thinking that experience “can fill in the needed evidence here!” (30). Kaiser has grossly misread Hurtado, whose last clause of the quoted essay reads, “…the doctrine of initial evidence, whatever its historic significance for institutionalized Pentecostalism, should be set aside as a sincere but misguided understanding of Scripture.” Was Kaiser so desperate to compare the supposed experience-based Pentecostal view of Spirit baptism to Evangelical rationalism that he totally misread Hurtado? Whatever the case, Kaiser turns Hurtado into a tremendous strawman, and he owes Hurtado an apology, since Hurtado seems to be on Kaiser’s side. Hurtado is not a Pentecostal but appears more like a Lukan cessationist who does not believe Luke intended to teach Theophilus anything about the relationship between tongues and Spirit baptism even though Luke, following contemporary Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions, strategically linked them in pivotal scenes that demonstrate the programmatic Christ sayings of Luke 24:45-47 and Acts 1:4-8.

In our urban-dominated landscape, hunting, particularly sport hunting, has increasingly been viewed as a remnant of a barbaric era that is no longer needed and should be abolished. Clearly there is a cultural divide between hunters and anti-hunters. Hill and White sought to deepen their understanding of this intellectual and ideological divide and investigated how Christians have understood and understand their faith in regards to sport hunting. As Hill clearly says, “… this collection of essays was to provide a window into the different perspectives held historically by Christians in relation to sport hunting and to hear new voices on the debate. … The secondary goal was to encourage its readers to thoughtfully consider the various perspectives, many times not set in clear apposition, and the merits (and weaknesses) of each” (p.411). In brief, the book clearly accomplishes its goals.

Before delving into the text, readers should know that I was a contributor to this volume. My article, “Dominion Over Animals: Taking the Scriptural Witness and Worldview Seriously” (pp.33-348) summarizes my dissertation published in Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations, Wipf and Stock, 2009. My engagement with the specific contributions made by my fellow contributors to this volume occurred only after the book was published.

The editors did a superb job providing readers with an overall perspective on the topic. Their writing not only helped prepare readers to grasp the major themes and controversies, but their summaries of the articles enhanced reader pre-understanding and thus apprehension of the material. Heuristically, the book (both sections 1 and 2) stand as a model for educational best practice. I would note, however, that Hill’s contention that Christianity was a syncretistic religion (p.23) reflects a modernistic comparative religions bias and not the testimony handed down by Christ’s apostles.

The articles are organized into two major sections. Section One takes a descriptive approach to the debate over recreational hunting. Articles focus on historical attitudes and perspectives held by Christians over the centuries, starting with the biblical text and culminating with interviews of contemporary Christian hunters. The articles show how Christians argued both for and against sport hunting. Articles often described prevalent views by the way “Nimrod” of Genesis was portrayed in the literature. Interestingly, when hunting was in vogue, Nimrod was portrayed as a neutral or valuable character. When hunting was not in vogue, Nimrod became a term of derision and symbol of moral turpitude.

The second article entitled, “A Dying Legacy?: A Century of Hunting in the Stories of Texas Families”, Hill provides a sort of meta-analysis of the interviews contained in the following chapter. He keenly identifies key themes, concepts and sociological factors that impact one’s adoption (or lack) of hunting. If one wishes to have a quick, but not simplistic, look at the cultural-historical issues embedded in the hunting experience, this article is must reading. Though it focuses on the American, albeit Texas, experience, I suspect that the categories and insights will be useful elsewhere in the United States if not the world. The third article is actually a collection of interviews. These interviews are valuable for providing a more granular look at the motivations behind the desire to hunt as told by various hunters who claim a Christian heritage.

Section Two contains articles addressing the ethical or prescriptive views on hunting. Authors from both sides of the debate use a variety of rationales to support their position for or against the morality of hunting. Unsurprisingly, the majority of the emphasis focused on the justification (or lack thereof) for the killing of animals for “fun”.

Two articles that attempted to use Christian theology to condemn hunting (Killing and the Kingdom: A Case against Sport Hunting” by Shawn Graves and “Muscular Christianity and Sport Hunting: Missing the Target?” by John B. White were quite disappointing. Both ostensibly tried to use Christian teaching to condemn hunting but neither dealt with the concrete realities and teaching of the Biblical text. Their arguments reminded me of Supreme Court justices that attempt to argue that capital punishment violates the U.S. Constitution’s cruel and unusual punishments clause even though the authors of the Constitution clearly supported the death penalty. Any rational reading of the constitution clearly reveals that the authors were only referring to cruel execution methods such as Drawing and Quartering, etc., not to a condemnation of execution in general. Grave’s approach tended to avoid Scripture entirely choosing instead to rely on the vague notion of not causing harm. White’s article, on the other hand, argued that God’s intention was for humans to not kill animals. It never occurred to these scholars to even consider the ontological status of animals. If they did, the anti-hunting authors would perhaps understand that harm to an animal is categorically different (morally speaking) than harm to a person. (I suspect they would both grant that fact but apparently, they did not consider the full impact of that view). If God grants humans permission to kill His property, who are we to say that somehow violates God’s will? Neither of them considered how Christ was quite comfortable killing animals, sometimes for no apparent reason other than to demonstrate he could (e.g., miracle of the fishes). Dismissing this by saying that Jesus was God (though true) does not resolve the problem because Jesus was also the perfect human who provided an example of a sinless life before God.

Regrettably, Christian anti-hunters continue to commit two key mistakes that I have repeatedly pointed out over the years. First, they have either an inability or unwillingness to read literature that disagrees with their perspective. Not every scholarly article is found in top tier (often liberal) journals. Second, they are unwilling to consider the whole testimony of Scripture. Instead, Christian anti-hunters find a generic passage, such as “reconciling all things” and then use that generic principle to truck in every idea that fits their narrative even when specific passages counter those ideas. By rejecting or perhaps ignoring the principle of the general rule is constrained by the specific, they allow themselves to fly off into fanciful arguments without sufficient grounding in the Word of God.

Overall, this book provides an important contribution to the topic of sport hunting that is scholarly, yet accessible to college-level readers.

Reviewed by Stephen M. Vantassel

Publisher’s page: https://www.mupress.org/God-Nimrod-and-the-World-Exploring-Christian-Perspectives-on-Sport-Hunting-P952.aspx

In this second volume, Torrance and McCall have collected 16 articles exploring the implications for science and theology regarding Christ’s incarnation and role as creator and sustainer of the universe (Col 1:15-17). As in the first volume, the text lacks a unified theology. However, for scientists, theologians, philosophers, and researchers interested in tackling ideas of science and faith as they intersect in the person and work of Jesus, this text would be a worthy place to begin. For if you are not interested in the focus of one article, simply turn a few pages and an entirely different focus will be explicated in the next.

The book opens with a splendid, and dare I say, must-read introduction by the editors, where they set the table for the articles that follow. The articles are organized into four sections, theological perspectives, biblical and historical perspectives, philosophical perspectives and scientific perspectives. This organization is helpful in relating to the reader what the writer’s point of view is. Nevertheless, in each case, authors bring, to varying degrees and intensities, their Christian faith into the discussion. In other words, the authors are not disinterested and objective writers but are those writing from a faith position. I have spotlighted a handful of publications to help readers in getting a sense of the diversity of topics and will end with some summary observations.

Murray Rae’s article, “Jesus Christ, the Order of Creation”, opens the Theological Perspectives section by arguing that science’s understanding of reality and the explanation given by Scripture (Col 1:15-17; 1 Cor 8:6, etc.) can be reconciled by recognizing that explanation for phenomena can occur at differing levels. He uses the music of Chopin to illustrate how science can explain a song by looking at the notes, and theology explains by looking at the score. As valuable as this heuristic is, Rae recognizes that we must also consider the impact that sin has fractured our world so that the score is in a sense broken. Nevertheless, God has left enough of the score intact to let us see the beauty and a glimmer of the ultimate purpose.

Brian Brock’s “Jesus Christ the Divine Animal?: The Human Distinctive Reconsidered” responds to Darwin’s denial that humans are qualitatively different from animals by reframing the issue. Brock contends that looking for something intrinsically different in humans when compared to animals, is a dead end. Rather, we should look extrinsically, namely to our relationship with God. From this perspective, Brock believes that evolution and a high view of scripture (i.e. Genesis story) may be reconciled while avoiding ensnarement with other problems such as the presence of evil. Brock’s idea here is an interesting rephrasing of the functional view of human identity (Gen 1:28).

The problem of evil is addressed in Brian Curry’s “Christ, Creation and the Powers: Elements in a Christian Doctrine of Creation.” Curry contends that the typical binary discussion of God and creation fails to account for the biblical testimony, which includes a third element, the evil powers. The presence of evil powers is necessary because scripture says that God is not satisfied with creation. God continues to work towards redemption and fights the powers to achieve those ends. Curry provocatively says that science can be a power that both enslaves and benefits its users. Readers will be stimulated by Curry’s forceful discussion, but some may be put off by the apparent leaning toward open theism.

In recent decades, the long struggle between science and theology has intensified, forcing Christian theologians to increase their attention on the doctrine of creation. The challenge facing theologians was is how to correlate and contextualize biblical teaching concerning creation with the findings of contemporary science. The effort is difficult because of the diversity and complexity of the issues which include how we got here, the relationship between revelation and reason, free-will and providence, and biblical teaching about nature. Knowing Creation (vol 1.) addresses these subjects through 16 articles by scholars from prestigious schools who self-identify as Christian. The editors explicitly sought to make the book interdisciplinary, arguing that too often academics become siloed in their field (p.18).

The book is organized into four sections each containing four articles: Theological Perspectives, Biblical and Historical Perspectives, Philosophical Perspectives and Scientific Perspectives. While the editors wisely decided to organize the articles by theme or emphasis, readers should understand that some of the categorizations were arbitrary. For example, Mark Harris’ article, “’The Trees of the Field Shall Clap Their Hands’ (Isaiah 55:12): What Does It Mean to Say That a Tree Praises God?” is placed in the Scientific Perspectives section but could have easily been placed in the Biblical and Historical Perspectives.

Given the diversity of topics covered in this text, an integrated review is impossible. So rather than write on all 16 articles, attention will be placed on a few select papers taken from each of the sections.

Section 1 Theological Perspectives

Simon Oliver’s article, “Every Good Gift is from Above” discusses the relationship between culture and nature and how the often-touted dichotomy between nature and culture is problematic (p. 31). In this, Oliver is spot on. The idea that nature is to be understood as non-human assumes an improper understanding of both nature and humanity. In short, it is a false dualism. Oliver contends that viewing creation as a gift from God helps overcome this dualism. He explains this by employing Marcel Mauss’ conception of gifts and giving. Oliver concludes by arguing that food unites culture and nature. He then continues to tease out the implications of the aforementioned premise by drawing on biblical narratives showing how food is strongly associated with reconciliation and communion (i.e. fellowship). In this way, food is both a gift and an offering. Oliver concludes by drawing attention to how food production is tied to much of the environmental problems of our day. Recognizing the interplay between food and culture highlights the importance of creation in our lives and in the biblical narrative.

Oliver’s insights are rather abstract and tend to arrive at theological conclusions that are at times a bit tendentious. Nevertheless, his ideas are stimulating and worthy of engagement.

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 238-241

For these countries alone, and for Pentecostals and charismatics in these countries alone, the estimated total of people claiming to have “witnessed divine healings” comes out to somewhere around 202,141,082, that is, about two hundred million. Among Pentecostals, an average of 73.6 percent claim to have witnessed or experienced divine healing, and among charismatics the proportion is 52 percent; given estimates of possibly half a billion Pentecostals and charismatics worldwide, we might be looking at claims of closer to three hundred million among them alone.¹⁵⁴ My estimates extrapolate on the assumption that numbers and percentages above are roughly accurate; in fact, all such figures are merely estimates, but they give us the best current ballpark figure to work from. Even if for some reason we later estimated only one-third of these figures (a much greater margin of error than seems likely), the numbers are already enormous even before we add (below) the noncharismatic claims.

Lest I be misunderstood, I must emphasize that in noting the prevalence of healing claims, I am not offering a blanket endorsement of all the beliefs on all issues that command majorities among these groups (elsewhere in the same survey), including beliefs about healings. I am also not suggesting that all claims of cures are authentic; still less am I suggesting that none of the claims could have alternative explanations,¹⁵⁵ though from my research I suspect that the majority of those who claim to have witnessed some miracles could specify some fairly substantive claims.¹⁵⁶ My point here is simply to invite attention to what this survey indicates about the vast numbers of people worldwide who claim to have witnessed supernaturally effected healings. The examples that I offer in the following chapters may make this observation more concrete, but my examples obviously pale before the statistics.

Such Claims Not Limited to Pentecostals

What may be more interesting in this survey, however, is the category of “other Christians,” with somewhere around 39 percent in these countries claiming to have “witnessed divine healings.” That is, more than one-third of Christians worldwide who do not identify themselves as Pentecostal or charismatic claim to have “witnessed divine healings.” Presumably many of these claimants believe that they have witnessed more than a single case. Note that these are not simply people who say that they believe that supernatural healing occurs; these are people who say that they believe that they have witnessed or experienced it.¹⁵⁷

Of course many of these claims would not withstand critical scrutiny, and presumably an even higher percentage would fail to persuade others predisposed not to believe. But those who would simply reject all healing claims today because Hume argued that such claims are too rare to be believable should keep in mind that they are dismissing, almost without argument, the claimed experiences of at least a few hundred million people. (Even if one were to err extremely on the side of modesty, one could easily speak boldly of “tens of millions” of claims.) In contrast to starting assumptions on which Hume built his case, it is no longer feasible to consider such claims rare.

As noted above, the greatest concentration of these claims is in Africa, Asia, and Latin America rather than in the West, though in chapter 11 I shall note abundant examples from the West as well. Non-Pentecostal Western Christian workers active in such areas often report dramatic phenomena similar to those reported by Pentecostals.¹⁵⁸ Worldview is probably one important factor in generating more faith recoveries in many non-Western regions;¹⁵⁹ for example, nearly a decade ago one of my students, a sincere Baptist pastor from India, complained that Americans he prayed for were rarely healed, but almost everyone he prayed for in north India was healed.¹⁶⁰

Accurate or inaccurate, reports of prophetism, dreams, visions, and healings (sometimes of incurable, terminal illnesses) on a massive scale characterize many areas where Christianity is expanding rapidly and with intense religious fervor among non-Christian populations.¹⁶¹ Although some¹⁶² Westerners historically used cultural dominance from colonial cultures or (especially in Latin America) force to spread Christianization, many indigenous evangelists today instead embrace the missiological model they encounter in Acts and believe that they are following Paul’s model.¹⁶³ One Western charismatic missiologist argues that whereas some Asian Christians appreciated Western missionaries bringing teaching about God, many Asian missionaries are now demonstrating God’s power through miracles.¹⁶⁴ Another writer recounts that missionaries to one region in Africa who merely left behind Gospels returned to find a flourishing church with nt-like miracles happening daily, “because there had been no missionaries to teach that such things were not to be taken literally.”¹⁶⁵ Indigenous readings of Scripture often noticed patterns there “that the missionaries did not want [local believers] to see.”¹⁶⁶

Although the most visible growth has occurred in the last three decades,¹⁶⁷ already in 1981, at one large U.S. seminary with students from many nations, Christiaan De Wet of South Africa wrote a thesis on signs involved in church growth around the world. He surveyed more than 350 theses representing most of the world and interviewed countless missionaries. He complained, “My research has turned up so much material on signs and wonders that are happening and churches that are growing, that it is impossible to use all of it.”¹⁶⁸ He noted that miracle claims help drive Christian growth in many parts of the world.

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.

Beth Snodderly and A. Scott Moreau, eds., Evangelical and Frontier Mission: Perspectives on the Global Progress of the Gospel (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2011), 312 pages, ISBN 9781870345989.

To the Pentecostal/charismatic readers of The Pneuma Review this work’s title may not seem all that relevant. However, here are some reasons why this collection of twenty articles grouped in six topics is an important work for any evangelical/pentecostal person interested in the spread of the Gospel throughout the world. In particular, the book puts the focus on the progress of mission organizations in evangelizing the frontier “unreached” people-groups that can be found in every nation, including ones in the West.

First, the work is comprehensive in surveying the past one hundred years of Protestant missions. The first essay by A. Scott Moreau focuses on this historical survey of evangelical missionary efforts. The impetus for such a review came from the World Council of Churches 2010 Edinburgh conference as well as the evangelical Lausanne conferences of 1974, 1989, and the recent the 2010 Cape Town and 2010 Tokyo gatherings.

Second, while not the major focus, this volume does not neglect Pentecostal missions. Assemblies of God (AG) missionary to Thailand, Alan R. Anderson contributed a balanced critique of his own mission agency that has seen tremendous growth in Africa, Latin America, and Korea. Today there are over twenty fraternal Assemblies of God organizations with which American AG missionaries work. Such success can also stir up conflicted aims and purposes between the parent mission agency and these national churches. Also, success in parts of the world create questions as to why other areas have not seen similar growth in Christian converts and churches (e.g. South Asia and the Islamic world). Anderson suggests that a “theology of the hard work” is needed. Another renewal-influenced contributor is pastor-theologian Gregory A. Boyd whose article is on spiritual warfare, a theme that resonates with Pentecostals worldwide.

A third helpful aspect of this book is the representative profile of contributors both in terms of roles (academics, pastors, missionaries, and mission directors) and perspectives (gender, geography, and ideas). Some like Ralph D. Winter and Renè Padilla are well known while others such as Yalin Xin are not. Both Winter and Padilla argue for a wider purpose of the gospel of the kingdom that includes a holistic approach to Christianity. Xin contributed a biographical essay on Deborah Xu who has been instrumental in the Chinese house church movement.

Lastly, the net result in reading this work will be to expand one’s understanding of key concepts at the center of mission work today. Most notably is the “missional church” model that should apply to all Christian churches and mission agencies. This emphasis is often summarized in the maxim, “From everywhere to everywhere.” Unimaginable to those who gathered at Edinburg in 1910, the secular societies of Western culture by 2010 have become as missions-needy as those many in the Majority World. Missions is no longer defined by political geography but by cultural ethnicity. Padilla’s article states this emphasis in four statements and serves as a final word and challenge: (1) all churches send and all churches receive, (2) the whole world is a mission field, and every human need is an opportunity for missionary service, (3) every Christian is called to follow Jesus Christ and to be committed to God’s mission in the world, and (4) mission is life both on the individual and communal levels.

Reviewed by Malcolm R. Brubaker

Editors Notes: The Pneuma Review editorial committee asked Brother Richie to tell us about this paper and he said: “This article is a non-provocative but informative piece designed to introduce readers to the theology of religions and invite further reflection. I’ve done quite a bit of work in this area, including a forthcoming article in Pneuma: The Journal for the Society for Pentecostal Studies (Spring ‘06) and an American Academy of Religion panel discussion and presentation (Nov 21 ‘06). I know about the generally cautious attitude of many Pentecostal/charismatics toward ecumenism and/or theology of religions. In a sense, I am sort of that way myself. One of the reasons I thought of sharing this piece is because of its easy going but informative approach. Theology of religions is, whether we like it or not, forcing itself upon us in the face of rampant religious pluralism. We will have to deal with it sometime somehow.”

When I was growing up in a Pentecostal preacher’s family we pretty much had two groups of people in our community: Christians and non-Christians. Basically, that meant churchgoers and non-churchgoers because even the non-Christians had a more or less Christian belief background. Now I am a pastor myself but my how things have changed since Dad’s day! My church members have neighbors and co-workers who have religion enough all right but it is not Christian. Some of my parishioners even have friends or family of other faiths. Increased immigration and cross-cultural homogenization have helped make the United States a religiously diverse nation. ¹ Religious pluralism, in the sense of the reality of a plurality of religions among us, is a fact that must be faced by pastors and church leaders if we are to equip our people to deal with the religious diversity they encounter in their daily lives. The price of Pentecostals ignoring the problem of pluralism is too high to pay. We cannot afford the lost souls that could cost.

Developing a Pentecostal approach to Christians theology of religions has quickly become not only essential but also urgent. A seasoned Pentecostal scholar supplies a helpful definition of theology or religions, particularly Christian theology of religions.

Though extreme approaches unacceptable to most Pentecostals and Evangelicals do exist, the basic thrust of Christian theology of religions need not threaten us. Quite to the contrary, we need to account theologically for the existence of other religions and outline practically a manner of relating to their adherents. In this paper I overview our past attitudes and advance some options for the future if we are to face the challenge of religious pluralism in a mode that has compatibility with our Pentecostal identity.³

Pneuma Review Editor Raul Mock with Tony Richie at the 2014 Society for Pentecostal Studies convention.

Pentecostals have historically tended to exhibit a decidedly evangelistic approach to members of other religions.⁴ As staunch supporters of the missionary agenda of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), we have mainly viewed adherents of other religions mostly as potential Christians to be won over by our witness of Christ. Unfortunately, sometimes this has degenerated into demonization of non-Christians and of their religious faith and values. Biblical texts warning against the demonic elements of idolatry and false forms of religion (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:17; 1 Corinthians 10:20) have sometimes been indiscriminately applied to all world religions. Accordingly, Pentecostal attitudes toward relations with other religions often have not been very positive.

Mark L. Cartledge, Practical Theology: Charismatic and Empirical Perspectives (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press, 2003), 271 + xiv pages.

Theology. Charismatic spirituality. Sociology. Theories of knowledge and truth. Heady topics which Mark Cartledge has successfully integrated into one book, “Practical Theology,” one of the newest volumes in the continuing series “Studies in Pentecostal and Charismatic Issues.” This book is not exactly as easy book to read, but the patient reader will gain an abundance of insight into the relationship between practical theology and charismatic spirituality, which Cartledge presents through an empirical study of a local church in the United Kingdom.

Cartledge begins with a presentation of his methodology—the “how” of his study. He explores how theology relates to the social sciences, specifically to sociology. Since the outworking of our faith occurs primarily in a community setting (i.e., the local church), “theology should be conceived as an empirical discipline in the sense that it would aim to explore, describe and test theological ideas contained within a specific context [i.e., the local church]. The direct object of empirical theology therefore is the faith and practice of people concerned” (p. 14). Empirical theology (or empirical research) is the means; practical theology (or faith-in-practice) is the result.

How does practical theology relate to charismatic spirituality (and Christian spirituality in general)? Cartledge sees this faith-in-practice as having a number of significant components: the doxological belief that God is actively at work in the church and in the world (thus leading to worship), the devotional belief that God answers prayer (thus leading to prayer), and the missiological belief that God desires others to be brought into a personal relationship with him (thus leading to evangelism). All three of these beliefs are acted upon both individually and communally, and an empirical study of these beliefs as evidenced in a church community setting would “contribute to the life of the ecclesial community to which the person belongs. … Thus the process of practical theology becomes itself a mechanism for transformation within the kingdom of God [as both the researcher and the community reviews the results of the research]. Practical theology viewed in this light is theology in the service of the church for the world” (p. 26).