As an educated Baby Boomer (but not an American history major), I found much of the narrative informative. For instance, at the pivotal Battle of Kings Mountain, there was only one British officer present who led Loyalist regiments against the Patriots. Throughout the series the Loyalists were presented fairly, as persons who followed their conscience, not as fools or villains, although some, like Colonel Tarlton, were.

George Washington is highlighted as man of tact and courage, indispensable in keeping the poorly supplied Continental Army and its untrained militias together. The series stressed that the American victory ultimately came because the Americans wore the British out, not that they had won many battles.

Washington’s choice of resisting being crowned after the war and retiring to Mt. Vernon, plus his refusal to run for a third term, were shown as pivotal for the democratic development of our nation. We can be especially thankful of this in view of the tragedies and tyrannical governments that followed the 1960s era of independence from French and British colonial governments where insurgent generals often became cruel and long-lasting tyrants.

On the other hand, The American Revolution made a frank presentation of Washington’s involvement in land speculation of Indian-owned territory and his order for the destruction of towns and crops of the Indians in Western New York. The description of that campaign was especially difficult to watch, as it must have been for many of my Baby Boomer contemporaries. We were not normally taught these negative aspects about Washington, even though such things are now routinely taught in practically every American history course. Washington’s role as slave owner was also clearly shown, including how he meticulously administered the return of runaway slaves to their owners at the end of hostilities.

This differs with the traditional versions we Baby Boomers learned as high-school and college students. You can find such a perspective in the video, “The First American” (2015) put out by the Gingrich Foundation and hosted by Newt and Callista Gingrich along with a roster of conservative luminaries. In this presentation, the only reference to Washington’s relationship with slavery was about his will, in which he freed his slaves. Also not mentioned were the campaigns against the Indians. However, to be fair about the latter, some sort of military action was necessary to secure the New York and Pennsylvania fronts from constant Indian raids.

But conservative critics do have real reasons for their claim that Burn’s The American Revolution was partly a “hatchet job” (pun intended). A detailed review by Dan McLaughlin in the National Review, “No, Ken Burns, the United States Is Not an Iroquois Nation” (Nov 22, 2025), cites several historical errors including a big ideological misinterpretation.

Most disturbing was the absence of any description of English constitutional history in forming the opinions and attitudes of the Colonists. All but the most uneducated Colonists were aware that their “rights as Englishmen” were related to the Magna Carta and its interpretive development. They also knew that the English Civil War overthrew and executed one King, and later the “Glorious Revolution,” idolized by most colonists as a triumph of Protestantism, deposed another. All of this makes the colonial attitude towards their rights and their King historically located and understandable. None of this was mentioned in The American Revolution. This reflects a Leftist disdain of constitutional history as “bourgeois” and irrelevant. Indeed, this is the most serious error and omission of the series.

Despite these flaws, I would affirm that The American Revolution reflects in a major degree the biblical perspective of history. That is, that heroes have serious flaws, but are still providentially used by God. In the Bible the real hero of the Old Testament is God, with multiple “supporting characters” who are imperfect and sometimes disreputable. Moses sinned by destroying the tablet of the Ten Commandments. His brother Aaron, first High Priest, lied about his role in forming the golden calf. In fact, the heroes in the Book of Judges, who were chosen by God to save the Israelites from destruction and oppression, had major flaws, as in Samson and his inability to keep his pants up. David, certainly Israel’s best king, is not spared narrative criticism. His adultery and murder of Uriah was exposed by the prophet Nathan and detailed in the book of Second Kings (chapter 12). And although David repented (Psalm 51) he could not avoid the consequences of his sins. These included a rebellion against him by his son Absalom and ultimately a divided kingdom.

In the New Testament, we see Peter denying Christ three times. After Pentecost, when he was indeed strengthened by the Holy Spirit, he slid away from the freedom of the Gospel and cowardly appeased the “men from Jerusalem” (Galatians 2:11-14).

So perhaps the “heroes” of the Bible were mostly like our Washington. He was the Father of a nation, hero in battle, master of fortitude and resiliency in the midst of setbacks But he also had the flaws of accepting slavery even though he knew it was evil, and perpetuating injustices towards the Indians.

The Founding Fathers’ faults have been routinely taught in American schools for decades now. Most recently, The New York Times’ “The 1619 Project” exaggerated these to the point of mendacity. The ill effects of such a negative focus will be felt in American educations for decades to come. It has resulted in a noticeable, some say catastrophic, decline in patriotism among the younger generation. (What will be the outcome of some future conflict with China fought by a demoralized and unpatriotic draftee Army?)

We can never revert to the traditionalist narrative of neglecting the negative aspects of American history – that would be both impossible in a free society, and more importantly, unbiblical. The Trump administration has begun to undo some of the gross exaggerations by attempting to mold educational textbooks and curriculum to a patriotic position. But American education is largely a state issue, and reversing decades of the exaggerated anti-American narrative and “The 1619 Project,” now embedded in the attitudes of teachers, would be an especially difficult task. Saying this, I commend reasonable attempts, as for example those done in Florida and other conservative states to correct the anti-American narrative with more balanced textbooks and curricula.

Since if we are not likely to get back the traditional patriotism of “The Greatest Generation” which lived through and fought the Second World War, what type of patriotism can come from a biblical perspective? That would be a reasonable love of country that cherishes its good points and achievements, but does not hide its sinful mistakes. St. Augustine, who did not use the term patriotism but rather love of one’s own homeland, noted: “So long as we are in this mortal body, we are away from the Lord… and we love, as is natural, our own land where we live for a time” (The City of God XIX.17).

Augustine also noted that our love of country was to be subordinated to our loyalty and love for the Kingdom of God, and he was especially aware of the temptation to glorify early kingdoms to the point of idolatry. This happened significantly in the Roman Empire when its citizens were required to offer incense to the Emperor – and many Christians were martyred for not doing so.

I talked about Mexico and how God must be pleased with how – after conquest and much injustice to the Indians by the Spaniards – Mexico has developed a largely “mestizo” culture, where their races have been blended and are now living harmoniously. Other countries, like Bolivia, have no done so well. I also noted how successive Mexican governments since the Revolution of 1917, which many Mexicans idolize, had begun a tradition of government corruption that was never effectively confronted. This led to the present danger of having Mexico divided into a collection of drug “principalities” where gangster lawlessness prevailed. Their patriotism and prayers for Mexico must continue in spite of an imperfect home country.

Then I called on them to love and respect their present homeland where they had come to live and work. Here they establish businesses without having to bribe the police or government bureaucrats. America fought wars for freedom which destroyed both Fascism and Communism, something to be immensely proud of.

And yes, American culture has many faults. But again, my congregants had the biblical obligation to pray for the American presidents and state governors and its governments. It was especially important to pray for wisdom in the American presidents with their ability to begin and end wars. At the time, several in my congregation already had children in the Armed Forces (that was fifteen years ago, I wonder if any died in Afghanistan or Iraq).

All of which is to say, there can be an Augustinian-Christian approach to patriotism that takes into account mankind’s universal sinfulness in its different national manifestations, but celebrates one’s national achievements.

PR

In 2024, we were blessed to minister in a 200-day revival with 205 consecutive services held across six European countries and two territories. We ministered as a family at all these meetings accompanied by our two small children. To say that there is a lot to be grateful for in such a life-changing experience is an understatement. The following is just a brief glimpse of our observations on what precedes and accompanies a genuine move of the Spirit:

Creative developing of fasting, prayer and giving of alms, all commanded by Jesus Himself as a regular expression of our faith (when you pray, fast, give as in Mt. 6), is the prerequisite for every Spirit-led revival. On the third day of our 10-day fasting, God used a six-year-old child to revive our dead Volvo, which no mechanic in a radius of 200 miles could crank for over six months.

The church that was forced to leave the building during the pandemic, has now returned to multimillion-dollar buildings where God did not choose to start a 200-day Revival. And even when He did, the move was shut down for lack of parking space or nightly supervision. In all actuality, a church building is a result of a revival, its finish and its end. An association with a place, address or location is a sign of a centralized settlement. It was the forced getting-out of a church building (as in Acts 7) that caused the Great Azusa Revival to emerge as a grass-root movement engraved from the streets of L.A. to the Great San Francisco Earthquake and to the end of the world.

Revival must emerge from the Desire and Will of God in order to be supernaturally visited by the Power of His Glory! It cannot be approached as a man-made multiplication initiative, be it local, national or globally dimensioned. It is not a project to involve people, but a spiritual tsunami of authority and anointing that invites a prophetic projection of what God desires for eternity and not merely what man needs in the now.

When the now and then align, revival sparks! When the now has lost its sight on eternity, revival is long done and gone. What remains is but a motion imitating the wave of the Spirit, Who has already moved to other more receptive spiritual trenches and valleys of humbleness. It is in such societal peripheries and spiritual layers where God visits first with Revival before proceeding to the center of religious life. Meaning, the Heart of God for Revival is not in a religious center, but in a movement with a story. As a matter of fact, any association with externally imposed governing denies God’s centrality of what the Spirit wills for His Church. A man cannot vanquish the ocean and cosmos of space!

Happy New Year
2 Chronicles 20:25

Dony & Kathryn Donev began their ministry in the Church of God as teenagers. They share over 50 years of combined experience in the field and have authored multiple books to encourage others with the call to serve. Dony holds a doctoral degree from Pentecostal Theological Seminary and teaches at Lee Online. Kathryn is a Lee University graduate TN LPC/MHSP and leads the Homeschool Network in Polk County, which became the first homeschool sanctuary in the nation.

In 1999, Dony and Kathryn established Cup & Cross Ministries International with a vision for restoration of New Testament theology and praxis. Today they have over 50 years of combined commitment to Kingdom work. This book invites you to spend a few moments each day on the field sharing their experiences of serving as pastors, evangelists, chaplains, consultants, church trainers, researchers, missionaries and educators of His Harvest around the globe.

The struggle with precise definitions of revival comes from the fact that the nouns “revival” or “awakening” as we use it today, are extrabiblical. What we read in the Bible are active verbs like “revive” in Psalm 85:6 “Will you not revive us again, that your people may rejoice in you?” (c.f. Habakkuk 3:2, Psalm 119:25), “filled” in Acts 2:4 “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them,” or “awake/arise” in Ephesians 5:14 “Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”[1] There are more related words, but most of them are verbs connected to this idea of God revitalizing his people whether in their religious affections, in their vocational call as witnesses, in their spiritual health, and even in their relationship with God and with their neighbors.

Latham’s typology on the six senses of revival can help us understand the different revival encounters the church experiences today:

R1 A spiritual quickening of the individual believer

R2 A deliberate meeting or campaign especially among Pentecostals to deepen the faith of believers and bring non-believers to faith.

R3 An unplanned period of spiritual enlivening in a local church, quickening believers  and bringing unbelievers to faith.

R4 A regional experience of spiritual awakening and widespread conversions (e.g. the Welsh, Hebridean, East African and Indonesia revivals, and possibly Pensacola in    the 1990s).

R5 Societal or cultural “awakenings” (e.g., the transatlantic First and Second Awakenings).

R6 The possible reversal of secularization and “revival” of Christianity as such.[6]

This typology presents a wide semantic range of the term “revival” which is more appropriate for what’s really going on in the global church. This typology tells us that revivals today come in different shapes and forms, and that most often, what we experience in our Pentecostal churches are results of revivalism, or deliberate cultivation of revival experiences. The Asbury Revival, if we look at it from this semantic range, would fall under R3. Although we have heard testimonies that said they were praying for a revival at Asbury beforehand, it was an unplanned event and it did enliven the students, neighboring campuses, and led to the revitalization of student led prayer movements all over the nation.

A first-hand participant of the Asbury revival, Madison Pierce, testified via Facebook on February 15, 2023. Here’s an excerpt of the testimony:

The movements of the spirit in western evangelicalism always exist in the middle of a cultural moment. A generous interpretation of these movements reveals unique traits for each one. For example, fervor for the great commission at the Mt. Hermon Conference, overwhelming joy in Toronto Outpouring, zeal for the lost in Brownsville Revival, acts of healing at the Kansas City awakening, and manifestation of tongues at the Azusa Street revival. In each move of the spirit, God clearly manifests in a specific way for that generation. I find it interesting that God would mark this outpouring with:

A tangible sense of peace for an [sic] generation with unprecedented anxiety.

A restorative sense of belonging for a generation amidst an epidemic of loneliness.

An authentic hope for a generation marked by depression.

A leadership emphasizing protective humility in relationship with power for a generation deeply hurt by the abuse of religious power.

A focus on participatory adoration for an age of digital distraction.

It feels as if God is personally meeting young adults in ways meaningful to them. My generation was formed differently then [sic] previous generations and so the traits of this revival are different then revivals of old.[7]

For Pierce, the revival was timely for his generation. After a pandemic that brought fear of disease, anxiety, isolation, depression and grief, the younger generation has been asking for authentic encounters with God.

Although I evaluate this revival at the R3 level, we still don’t know its long-term effect. Who knows with the reinvigoration of student led prayer movements and the varied campus revivals around the nation, this revival may reach all the way to R6? We look forward to seeing its long-term effect.

In conclusion, revival is the spontaneous act of God in revitalizing his people and recentering us to his will, his love, and his passion. When the human “I” becomes less, and the eternal “I AM” becomes greater, the result is a restoration of wholeness and witness. The 2023 Asbury revival is just a reminder from God that he is still in control, and he is not done yet.

Let me end this essay by sharing Esther Jewel Holmes Shin’s testimony from her experience at Asbury. She posted it on Facebook on February 22, 2023. Here are excerpts of what she posted:

At Asbury people were delivered from demons, physical healings were taking place, repentance was a real thing, people were being saved. But mostly I heard testimonies of people who are experiencing internal healing.

A sense of belonging to those who feel alone. A sense of peace and hope to those struggling with mental health issues. People are being healed from social anxiety, PTSD, depression, trauma, panic attacks, and internal hurt from abuse of all types (religious, sexual, physical and power abuse.) All without hype or pressure. Just the gentle kindness of God’s love healing and restoring all things…

Truthfully, it was hard to leave…But we had responsibilities at home, and we needed to head out. But the beautiful thing with God is that he is not limited by geographic location. He is with us in our home. And I feel his presence more today than I have in a long, long time. I know everybody cannot drive to Asbury. But I promise you, no matter where you are located, if you will humble yourself and pray, God will be there. God is not pushy. He will not fill a space that has not been offered. But if you will make space for him in your heart (with your affection, thoughts, and time) He will gently, kindly, mercifully fill whatever space you have offered him.[10]

We don’t need to go to Asbury because our homes and our churches can be our sacred spaces. What we need is humility, repentance, and a recognition that we will never stop needing God. Let us not want revival for the sake of revival, but let us want God, desire God, and in humility lay flat on our face and pray: “Lord, have mercy on us. Take center stage in our lives and in our churches. Restore us to wholeness and embolden us to be your witnesses, so that the earth be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the water covers the sea (Habakkuk 2:14).”

PR

Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture is taken from the New International Version (NIV).

[2] Harvey Gallagher Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century (Addison-Wesley Pub., 1995).

[3] Douglas Jacobsen, The World’s Christians: Who They Are, Where They Are, and How They Got There (Chicester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2011).

[4] David W. Bebbington, “What Is Revivalism?,” Christianity Today, 1990, https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-25/what-is-revivalism.html.

[5] Mark J. Cartledge, “‘Catch the Fire’: Revivalist Spirituality from Toronto to Beyond,” PentecoStudies: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Research on the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements 13, no. 2 (2014): 225.

[6] Cartledge, “Catch the Fire,” 225.

[7] Madison Pierce, “I’m hesitant to post my thoughts on what’s happening in Wilmore. A few of you may have heard about the “Revival” at Asbury University.” Facebook, February 15, 2023, https://www.facebook.com/madison.pierce.353 (Accessed April 11, 2023).

[8] Zach Meerkreebs, “The Chapel Service that Launched the Asbury Revival 2023,” YouTube, https://youtu.be/VGvvGbgUmMU (Accessed April 11, 2023).

[9] Thomas McCall, “Reflections on the Outpouring-Dr. Thomas McCall,” YouTube, March 11, 2023. https://youtu.be/RSRql64CBTc (Accessed April 11, 2023)

[10] Esther Jewel Holmes Shin, “So why was 4 days of driving to and from Asbury worth it? I will do my best in this post to communicate when I saw and heard during my time at Asbury,” Facebook, February 22, 2023. https://www.facebook.com/esther.j.shin.5 (Accessed April 11, 2023).

Greetings with Jesus’ joy!

With the arrival of coronavirus (COVID-19) on the world stage, more than 130 countries have been caught in a public health crisis of yet unknown devastation. Today, in the United States, along with other countries, “ordinary” life as we have known it, is no more. We now daily face a deadly virus, one stealthily transmitted by a person unaware of her or his infection. Suddenly, “social distancing” demands that we restrict human interaction – no handshakes, no high five’s, no hugs, no crowds.

The demand for tests and testing and the widespread closing of schools, universities and businesses, along with cancellations of social, political and religious events, all point to a severely crippled America. We see anxious shoppers entangled in chaotic scrambling for water, food, and yes, toilet paper! Just thinking of the long-term impact on the economy boggles the mind. A vaccine, scientists report, could be as far away as twelve to eighteen months.

In Washington, D.C., the rapid spread of COVID-19 compelled a historically contentious Congress to pass an unprecedented bipartisan funding bill. These funds will underwrite the costs of urgently needed resources – many associated with job loss, childcare, medical leave, emergency equipment, and nutritional needs. Clearly, the COVID-19 pandemic has the power to affect us all in ways more drastic and more frightening than anyone could have predicted.

People of faith, however, can access a greater power – the power of God. In times of great stress, people of faith need not be overwhelmed. Crisis may reign but God is strong and unmovable. Each of us can declare with the confidence of the psalmist: God is my refuge and my fortress… my God, in whom I trust (Psalm 91:2). Our attitude toward this “new normal” should not be hopelessness and despair.

As people of faith, we can pray that COVID-19 will peak, decline, and descend into nonexistence. Surviving this outbreak will take more than medical expertise and modified behavior; it will require the steadfast faith of God’s people, drawing strength from both “In God We Trust” and “E pluribus unum.” This is not a time to panic, but a time to activate our faith and trust the blessed assurance of God’s faithfulness to us.

At the same time, we must attend to precautionary measures:

• Educate yourself about coronavirus (COVID-19). Ask questions. Stay up to date with information from credible sources, such as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
• Maintain strict personal hygiene. Wash your hands throughout the day with soap and warm water, and avoid touching your face, eyes, and mouth.
• Prepare for a possible imposed quarantine. Stock up on food, water, medicine, household supplies, entertainment, communication devices and other essentials to sustain your household for 6-8 weeks.
• Pay special attention to elderly loved ones and to any person in the home with a compromised health condition.
• Maintain contact with family and friends through radio, telephone, television, and social media. Visit them “in person” on Skype!
• Remain calm and prayerful. Seek peace in spiritual pursuits. Explore new ways to stay positive, encouraged, and constructively busy.

Times like these are reminders that health, life, and normalcy are more fragile than we probably realized, but we must always remember that God is in control. Until we can congregate again in person, know that I care deeply about your well-being and will be lifting you in prayer.

Grace and peace be multiplied upon you!

Sincerely,

Dr. Antipas

A Pentecostal in Rome: Fuller Seminary Professor Mel Robeck shares his story about teaching a course at the Gregorian University in early 2018.

Over the past thirty-one years, I have flown 127 round trips between Los Angeles and Europe. Eighteen of those trips have been to Rome, nearly all of which included work with the Catholic Church. During these years, I have met with and spoken for many different Catholic groups, such as the Focolare Movement, the International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services Committee, the Chemin Neuf community, the Community of Sant’Egidio, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and several others. I have been privileged to have thirteen papal audiences with Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. I traveled with Pope John Paul II and with Pope Benedict to Assisi, where we prayed for world peace. I sat on the platform in front of St. Peter’s Basilica during the inauguration of Popes Benedict XVI and Francis, and listened as they preached their first public sermon as Pope. I processed into worship services with John Paul II and Benedict XVI, where I was invited to offer public prayer or lead the congregation in the Creed. I have learned much from all of these events and meetings. I have never sought any of these privileges. I view them solely as manifestations of God’s grace in my life that are consistent with His calling for me to work in the field of ecumenism.

About three months later, the Dean withdrew the invitation with deep apologies. I was informed that Dr. McCarthy, who funded this visiting professorship was dying, and because his medical expenses had run so high and he was trying to get his fiscal house in order, he had announced that he could not afford to provide the funds for my course. I was disappointed, of course, but I felt for the McCartney family at this time of loss. There was no further follow-up on this invitation. Dr. McCarthy died, and within three or four months, the Dean, Fr. Donath Hercsik, S.J. died suddenly at age 45. I had not given any further thought to teaching at the Gregorian.

The Pontifical Gregorian University. It is raining in this photograph from 2006.
Image: Luigi Santoro, Wikimedia Commons

On November 27, 2016, I once again received a letter from the Gregorian. This one came from Professor Fr. Felix Körner, S.J, who invited me to offer a course under the auspices of a five-year Atelier Ecumenico or “Ecumenical Workshop” grant. He had no knowledge of my previous contact with the university’s Dean. He requested that I offer a course on Pentecostalism for students in theology during the 2017-2018 academic year. The invitation came at a moment when I had just chosen to change my status at Fuller to Senior Professor of Church History and Ecumenics and Special Assistant to the President for Ecumenical Relations. The seminary gave me a multi-year contract, with substantial guaranteed funding for all of my ecumenical meetings and relief from all faculty meetings and committees. After some discussion with Professor Körner, I agreed to offer a course titled “Global Pentecostalisms: Developments, Doctrine, and Dialogue”. At the same time, Professor Körner invited me to prepare a “Public Lecture” on some aspect of ecumenism that would be given at the Gregorian sometime during my time in Rome.

Tony Richie: Consultation on American Evangelicals and Islam

Antipas Harris: How Can Christians and Muslims Relate?

I am grateful that my friend who participated in the Consultation, pastor-scholar Tony Richie, invited me to attend the public forum on Friday, August 25. This forum was appropriately titled, “Learning to Engage our Muslim Neighbors.” The diverse panel was made up of Rick Love, Marion Larson, Richard Mouw, John Azumah, Michal Muelenberg, and facilitated by Cory Willson.

Recently, the leadership at my church has been thinking about how hope, humility, and hospitality can be a profound way of expressing how we follow Jesus. Therefore, when Marion Larson used similar language to speak about stances to take as we approach conflict and welcome strangers, I was all ears. Three ideas she mentioned were Receptive Humility, Reflective Commitment, and Imaginative Empathy.

Part of Receptive Humility is being willing to receive gifts and hospitality. In my experience, this ability to graciously receive is something our Muslim neighbors understand much better than I do. We value being a good host, do we value being a good guest?

Having a Reflective Commitment is making a decision to be teachable, to intentionally reflect that I don’t have it all figured out and that I have much to learn. All of us need to be humble enough to recognize we are wrong about some things. I always want to be willing to let God surprise me.

“At Pentecost an alternative to the imperial unity of Babel is created … Whereas the tower seeks to make people ‘not see’ and ‘not speak’ and sucks the energies out of the margins in order to stabilize and aggrandize the center, the Spirit pours energies into the margins, opens the eyes of small people to see what no one has seen before, puts the creative words of prophecy in their mouths, and empowers them to be the agents of God’s reign.”
Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Abingdon Press, 1996), 228.

I have some questions, which I am raising, especially to our Old Testament and Bible scholars, on a unique translation and consequent reading of the Babel story (Genesis 11). This is a translation, which I think may give greater clarity towards the “postcolonial reading” of Pentecost as the fulfilling of God’s aim towards human diversity, which He earlier pronounced at Babel. In a famous essay titled, “Des Tours de Babel,” Jewish philosopher Jacques Derrida, while recognising the meaning of the term “Babel” (Bavel) in the Babel story (Genesis 11), as “confusion” (it was not Derrida who suggested translating Babel as “confusion,” that was another’s translation that he chose to use), famously interpreted its usage within the tower of Babel story-line, as referring to Yahweh. Derrida relies on the following translation:

“Let us confound their lips, man will no longer understand the lip of his neighbour.”
YHWH disperses them from here over the face of the earth.

They cease to build the city.

Over which he proclaims his name Babel, Confusion,

For there, YHWH confounds the lip of all the earth.

Following is a rough sketch of Derrida’s reflection on the text. Like many similar readings, he understands God’s destruction of the tower of Babel as His judgement against human imperialistic and hence, homogenization endeavours. Hence, Derrida suggests that by implementing the “multiplicity of tongues, God imposes limits to translation.”

The uniqueness of Derrida’s reflection is how he uses the term “Babel” as a proper name for God. God thus “imposes His name” on that initial grand human enterprise—“Babel,” meaning “Confusion.” Derrida does not mean that God is confusion. Rather, what he stressed is that God is beyond human comprehension. He is thus correlating the term “Babel” with the divine name, Yahweh, which is untranslatable. However, Derrida infers that there is a mission thereby placed on humanity: “God weeps over His name,” and “He pleads for a translator.”

I want to add to this discussion, the thinking of an earlier Jewish philosopher who shaped Derrida’s thinking: Emmanuel Lévinas. Lévinas and Derrida are both known for their ethics of hospitality. Yet I find Lévinas expressing a more resolute sense of moral imperative. Lévinas also evokes a more pietistic faith. He appreciates as a central theme of the Torah, the belief that we know God’s presence through a right posture to our neighbour. A key phrase to Lévinas’ ethic is our proximity before the “face of the Other.” God is wholly other than us—but we see His “trace” in our neighbour’s “face.” Therefore, what the Torah summons us to, is concern for our neighbour, whom Lévinas regularly parallels to the fourfold descriptive, “the poor, the stranger, the widow, and the orphan.”

Candy Gunther Brown speaking during the plenary session.

Meeting highlights

Pentecostal/charismatic scholars in worship.

This year’s meeting was themed, “Global Spirit: Pentecostals and the World.” Via plenary sessions, symposiums, panel discussions, and paper deliveries through the varied Interest Group sessions, I with more than 350 people from across the USA, Asia, Australia, Africa, Europe, and Canada, were gathered to explore, dialogue, and address relations between globalization, Pentecostalism worldwide, and the missional movements of the Holy Spirit throughout the global Church and world today. In doing so, we thus identified and conceptualized theological frameworks most conducive for both assessing the present transformation of world Christianity through global renewal movements, and envisioning directions of worldwide renewal over the coming decades.

SPS co-founder, Vinson Synan, and Ken Archer.

Founded in 1970, the Society for Pentecostal Studies (SPS) has grown into an international scholarly community comprising 500-plus members, who represent more than 60 theologically diverse church traditions and denominations and 190 institutions. Hence, while centered on Pentecostal and Charismatic studies, SPS has evolved into an effective ecumenical forum, which has enabled Pentecostals to participate in theological dialogues within or with other bodies such as the Faith and Order Commission of the National Council of Churches (USA), the Wesleyan Theological Society, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, as well as with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions.

The 2015 Latino delegation.

This year’s conference was graced by four plenary speakers whose respective deliveries provided complementary reflection on the themes of global Pentecostalism, globalization, and the transformation of world Christianity through charismatic renewal worldwide. First to note was Dr. Ivan Satyavrata’s opening plenary address titled, “‘The Wind Blows Where It Wills’: Celebrating the Spirit’s Free Movement in a World without Borders.” Dr Satyavrata leads the Assemblies of God church and its ministry networks in Kolkata, India, much of which was founded by the late Mark Buntain. Speaking for the Friday morning plenary session was Dr. Candy Gunther Brown, Professor of Religious Studies at Indiana University, USA, whose address was titled, “Healing and the Growth of Global Pentecostalism.”

The 2015 Women’s caucus.

The keynote conference speaker was Dr Allan Anderson, Professor of Mission and Pentecostal Studies at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. His address was titled, The Transformation of World Christianity: Challenges and Opportunities for Pentecostalism.” Anderson argued that the globalizing power of Pentecostalism is fuelled by an inherent tension it comprises, between a global charismatic, media-driven “meta-culture,” and a countervailing localization impulse that coupled with its supernatural worldview, makes Pentecostal spirituality naturally contextual with the common Majority Word holistic worldview, which perceives daily life as thoroughly pervaded with spiritual forces and realities.

Robert W. Graves, ed., Strangers To Fire: When Tradition Trumps Scripture (The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship, 2014).

Strangers to Fire represents a phalanx of biblical responses by a variety of authors to the cessationism first developed by the serpent in the Garden: “Did God really say?” That was a challenge to the idea of revelation from God, a notion more fully developed by the cessationist scribes who opposed Jesus. Jesus said to them, “you have not heard His voice, you have not seen His form, the word of God is not in your heart, for you do not believe the one whom He has sent [to baptize in the Spirit of prophecy]. You search the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life [but you don’t really believe or act on what the scriptures teach]” (Jn 5:36-47).

Cover for the November 2016 re-release by Empowered Life.

I have come to believe, however, that cessationism is only a reflection of the fact that Protestant theology is off center even in its soteriology, compared to the explicit mission and message of Jesus. The Reformation only slightly tweaked the Roman Catholic mass as the center of Christianity when it limited itself essentially to answering the question, “How much does it cost to go to heaven.” That isn’t the question upon which Jesus focuses. Rather, Jesus came to introduce the Kingdom of God—a synonym for the Spirit—that is, the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 (developed in 2 Cor 3 and Heb 8-12) and Isa 59:21 (the “punch line” of the most important speech in Christianity, cited in Acts 2:39). This new understanding of the goal of the Bible, that is, the mission of Jesus, revolutionized my understanding of Christian theology. Cessationism explicitly denies the core mission of the Bible that Jesus repeatedly commissioned his disciples to do: bring the people of God into the New Covenant of the Spirit of prophetic revelation and power. The very first paragraph of the “gold standard” of Christian theology, The Westminster Confession of Faith, explicitly denies the very core goal that the Bible itself affirms—the “prophethood of all believers”—the ideal state of the New Covenant. I spell out most of this in my new book, What’s Wrong with Protestant Theology: Tradition vs Biblical Emphasis (Word & Spirit, 2013).

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

I would also recommend Michael Brown’s excellent response to MacArthur, Authentic Fire. The argument is clear, trenchant, and irenic by a skilled debater.

“This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Jeremiah 31:33-34 NKJV

Are Pentecostals offering Strange Fire? (Panel Discussion)

Further Reading:

Interview with the editor: PneumaReview.com speaks with The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship President, Robert Graves, about their first published book, Strangers to Fire: When Tradition Trumps Scripture.

Read the reviews of Strangers to Fire from Tony Richie and John Lathrop.

“Are Pentecostals offering Strange Fire?” The panel discussion at PneumaReview.com about John MacArthur’s Strange Fire.

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

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

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

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