https://pneumareview.com/the-coming-of-pietistic-pentecostalism-summary-and-reflection-on-amos-yongs-2015-downey-lectures/ Journal of Ministry Resources and Theology for Pentecostal and Charismatic Ministries & Leaders Wed, 06 Jun 2018 18:30:06 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 https://pneumareview.com/the-coming-of-pietistic-pentecostalism-summary-and-reflection-on-amos-yongs-2015-downey-lectures/#comment-35870 Wed, 03 Jun 2015 18:08:31 +0000 http://pneumareview.com/?p=9883#comment-35870 I would like to thank Dr. Yong for his kind comments and clarification. In my use of the word “subjective” I intended to convey an idea similar to “contextual” or, in Dr. Yong’s words, “perspectival” rather than an idea that connoted whims and fancies, but can understand why he prefers the latter two to the former. I appreciate his clarification of his view and suggested revision and would like to express my gratitude to him for taking the time to present at Ambrose University and read and interact with my written summary and reflection.
-Jenny-Lyn Harrison

]]> https://pneumareview.com/the-coming-of-pietistic-pentecostalism-summary-and-reflection-on-amos-yongs-2015-downey-lectures/#comment-35863 Sat, 16 May 2015 18:53:20 +0000 http://pneumareview.com/?p=9883#comment-35863 I am grateful to the editors of this site to upload the videos of my talks, and also to Jenny-Lyn Harrison for taking the time to listen to the talks, to take great notes, and then to write up this excellent summary. There is much to discuss that I will leave to others. I did want to suggest one slight amendment to Harrison’s summary of my first point on historiographical method. Although those who take the time to listen to the video recordings can draw their own conclusions about what I actually said, I think it would be clearer to summarize my view by saying that history-writing does not unfold in objectivistic terms as that is impossible for a context-bound human creatures to achieve, but is done perspectivally, we might say; our quest to understand the past is shaped by more than just accounting for “the facts” since even our way of telling about these “facts” is framed how we present the context, etc. Harrison’s summary suggests an objectivist-subjectivist dualism so that my pietist-pentecostal view of history would be of the latter, relativistic sort, according to which history is no more an account derived from our subjective whims & fancies. I am urging a more nuanced position that acknowledges historical factuality and actuality, but also recognizes that our accounts of the past are imbued with the historian’s perspective and other related biases (here understood descriptively).

]]>