Pentecostal Rationality

Epistemology and Theological Hermeneutics in the Foursquare Tradition

Simo Frestadius

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780567698919
• eBook ISBN: 9780567689405
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Denominations

This book not only articulates a tradition-specific Pentecostal rationality of Biblical Pragmatism, but also provides the first intellectual history of a major British classical Pentecostal denomination: the Elim Pentecostal Church. Pentecostal theologians increasingly acknowledge that their theological methodology should be informed by a Pentecostal rationality, epistemology and theological hermeneutics. Simo Frestadius offers such a Pentecostal rationality from a Foursquare perspective. Frestadius first analyses and evaluates some of the main contemporary Pentecostal rationalities and epistemologies to date, with a particular emphasis on the works of Amos Yong and James K.A. Smith and L. William Oliverio Jr., before proposing that Alasdair MacIntyre's tradition-focused and historically-minded narrative approach is conducive in providing a more tradition-constituted Pentecostal rationality. Utilising the methodological insights of MacIntyre, the book then provides a philosophically informed historical narrative of a major British Pentecostal tradition, namely, the Elim Foursquare Gospel Alliance, by exploring its underlying context and roots as a classical Pentecostal movement, its emergence as a religious tradition, and its two major 'epistemological crises'. Based on this historical narration and analysis, it is argued that Elim's tacit Pentecostal rationality is best defined as Pentecostal Biblical Pragmatism in a Foursquare Gospel framework. This form of rationality is then developed vis-à-vis Elim's Pentecostal concept of truth, biblical hermeneutics, and pragmatic epistemic justification in dialogue with William P. Alston. In doing the above, the book not only articulates a tradition-specific Pentecostal rationality of Biblical Pragmatism but also provides the first intellectual history of a major British classical Pentecostal denomination.

Part One

Searching for a Pentecostal rationality

An increasing number of Pentecostal scholars have offered theological rationalities that are based on Pentecostal intuitions with the aim of serving Pentecostal theology faithfully.¹ It is not hard to argue that the three central figures in this undertaking have been Amos Yong, James K. A. Smith and L. William Oliverio Jr. who have each developed philosophically mature theories of knowledge stemming from Pentecostal presuppositions, and in doing so have helped pave the way forward for distinctive Pentecostal rationalities. Consequently, the purpose of the first section of the book is to analyse and evaluate the theological epistemologies of Yong, Smith and Oliverio (Chapter 1) in order to appreciate the current landscape of Pentecostal theological rationalities, as well as to identify areas where further contributions could be made.

In Chapter 1 I will argue that Yong’s rationality is best identified as pneumatological correlationism in that he strives for a public theology and aims to bring the Pentecostal tradition into a mutually transformative dialogue with different sources of theological knowledge exemplified in other traditions/disciplines. However, I will suggest that it is questionable to what extent Yong’s Pentecostal rationality actually reflects the Pentecostal tradition he seeks to represent, and that his theory of epistemic justification needs further articulation. With respect to Smith, I will argue that his approach can be seen as a version of Pentecostal postliberalism, since his primary focus is on the internal logic of the Christian tradition which he believes is based on and sustained by the liturgical practices and biblical narrative of the Christian community. I will also suggest that the main weaknesses of Smith’s rationality appear to be his one-sided view regarding the relationship between practices/faith and beliefs/theology; the focus on present practices at the expense of the historical, theological and communal narratives that shape these practices; the apparent dilemma in his theory of justification with respect to beliefs/narratives; and his potential anti-realism. When it comes to Oliverio, his Pentecostal rationality is presented to be appropriately captured in his phrase ‘hermeneutical realism’ with a conviction that all knowing is theory-laden but nevertheless reflects, or at least can reflect, an external reality. Regarding Oliverio, I will seek to point out that, although initially it seems that he provides the needed historical and tradition-focused corrective to the Pentecostal epistemologies of Yong and Smith, his own proposal falls short of providing such a historically informed and tradition-specific Pentecostal rationality.

In light of the above, in the second chapter, I will suggest that despite the important contributions of Yong, Smith and Oliverio, further work towards the development of a truly tradition-specific and historically informed narrative Pentecostal epistemology is still needed. To aid this task I will introduce Alasdair MacIntyre’s concepts of practices, tradition and rationality which provide helpful philosophical resources in constructing a truly narrative Pentecostal rationality.

The importance of this section is not just to provide the groundwork for the more historical and constructive sections to follow, but it also makes a contribution in its own right by critically evaluating the Pentecostal rationalities of Yong, Smith and Oliverio, as well as introducing the philosophical resources of MacIntyre which will aid the construction of a Pentecostal rationality.

Notes

1 For example, Land, Pentecostal Spirituality; Cheryl Bridges Johns, Pentecostal Formation: A Pedagogy Among the Oppressed (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); Lewis, ‘Towards a Pentecostal Epistemology’, 95–125; Mark J. Cartledge, Practical Theology: Charismatic and Empirical Theology (London: Paternoster, 2003), 41–68; Vondey, Beyond Pentecostalism, 16–46; Archer, The Gospel Revisited, 1–17; Christopher A. Stephenson, Types of Pentecostal Theology: Method, System, Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 111–30; Pauli Kuosmanen, ‘Towards Pentecostal Epistemology: Being Virtuous in the Spirit’ (MA diss., Iso Kirja College, Keuruu, University of Wales, 2016); Daniel Castelo, Pentecostalism as a Christian Mystical Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017).

Chapter 1

The ‘Pentecostal’ rationalities of Amos Yong, James K. A. Smith and L. William Oliverio Jr.¹

As noted in the introduction to the volume, the aim of this chapter is to analyse and evaluate three major contributions on Pentecostal rationality: (1) Amos Yong’s ‘pneumatological imagination’, (2) James K. A. Smith’s ‘affective, embodied and narrative knowing’ and (3) L. William Oliverio Jr.’s ‘hermeneutical realism’. I will engage with each scholar respectively by first describing the main tenets of their Pentecostal rationality; second, by exploring what they consider to be the appropriate sources of theological knowledge or ways of acquiring knowledge; third, by identifying their epistemic criteria regarding justification/warrant with respect to theological beliefs; and fourth, by providing some evaluative comments of their overall approach. Throughout this chapter I will use the words ‘rationality’, ‘epistemology’ and ‘philosophical hermeneutics’ more or less synonymously (see Introduction). That said, for Yong and Smith I will primarily use the word ‘epistemology’ and for Oliverio ‘hermeneutics’, as this reflects their preferred terminology.

1.1 ‘Pneumatological imagination’: Yong’s Pentecostal rationality

Amos Yong is arguably the most influential Pentecostal theologian today. He is a prolific writer, a creative thinker and a modern polymath who has made significant contributions to a number of topics within contemporary theology. Yong has also been one of the main Pentecostal theologians to provide a theologically and philosophically mature Pentecostal epistemology, hermeneutics and theological methodology.² His main works on theological epistemology have been Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective (2002)³ and a collection of articles published in The Dialogical Spirit: Christian Reason and Theological Method in the Third Millennium (2014),⁴ which Yong refers to as the practical exemplification and outworking of the method presented in the Spirit-Word-Community. ⁵

1.1.1 ‘Pneumatological imagination’

Yong’s theological rationality is captured in his concept of pneumatological imagination. It is pneumatological because Yong argues for a ‘foundational pneumatology’, which means that ontology and metaphysics are best understood pneumatologically.⁶ His foundational pneumatology is grounded on three theological principles. First, following Augustine, Yong understands the role of the Spirit as the bond of love between the Father and the Son, and hence in the Trinity the Spirit is the divine mediator in and into the life of God.⁷ Second, for Yong the Spirit is the ‘Spirit of power of life in creation’ as in Gen. 1.2 the Spirit hovers over ‘the deep void and darkness’ in a preparatory fashion so that ‘the Word of God that creates is carried by the ruach’.⁸ In this sense the Spirit provides the connection between the creation and the Creator, and so is central in sustaining the creation within the life of the Triune God. Third, the Spirit is not just the Spirit of Creation, but in the dispensation of the Pentecost event the Spirit is redemptively ‘poured out on all flesh’ (Acts 2.17) inaugurating a new era of God’s presence among people.⁹

Since Yong follows the common epistemic principle of allowing the order of things (ontology) to determine how things are known (epistemology),¹⁰ it naturally follows that for him God can only be known truly in the Spirit, and hence Yong’s epistemology is logically pneumatically orientated.¹¹ Moreover, in Yong’s foundational pneumatology it is evident that the Spirit is the mediator par excellence and thus utterly relational, whether that is within the Godhead, creation or at Pentecost. Therefore, if ontology is pneumatological then ‘whatever else reality might be, it is relational’,¹² and thus epistemology should also be relational.

The imagination, within Yong’s pneumatological imagination, is the human belief-forming faculty in relation to God and the world. Yong uses the term ‘imagination’ not as a reference to fanciful ideas, or to a priori concepts, but as images formed in the mind through experiencing the world.¹³ In this sense all knowledge is experientially based and Yong’s rationality can be...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Series
• Dedication
• Title
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• INTRODUCTION
• Part One SEARCHING FOR A PENTECOSTAL RATIONALITY
• Part Two NARRATING A TRADITION-SPECIFIC PENTECOSTAL RATIONALITY
• Part Three (Re)constructing Pentecostal biblical pragmatism
• CONCLUSION
• Appendix 1: Elim’s Chronology
• Appendix 2: Front page of Elim Evangel 6, No. 1 (January 1925)
• Appendix 3: Back page of Elim Evangel 6, No. 1 (January 1925)
• Index
• Copyright