Defining Issues in Pentecostalism

Classical and Emergent

Studebaker

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2008
• eBook ISBN: 9781498275668
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

This book brings together the papers presented at the McMaster Divinity College 2007 Pentecostal Forum: "Defining Issues in Pentecostalism: Classical and Emergent." It highlights the defining topics, past and present, of Pentecostal theology. The chapters are grouped under Pentecostal theology and biblical studies, with selections on classical and contemporary issues in each category. This book provides an introduction to the classical doctrines of Pentecostalism and key contemporary developments in Pentecostal theology in one volume. Professors desiring to introduce students to Pentecostalism will find here a concise and accessible introduction to the defining historical and contemporary issues.

part i

Defining Issues in Pentecostal Theology: Classical and Emergent

1

Baptized in the Spirit: Towards a Global Pentecostal Theology

Frank D. Macchia

Introduction

The subtitle of my contribution, “Towards a Global Pentecostal Theology,” might seem presumptuous. After all, there is no single theology for Pentecostalism globally. If anything, Pentecostalism globally is widely diverse theologically. Yet, the issue of whether or not there is a coherent message that is more or less constant throughout the diversity of Pentecostal movements globally cannot be dismissed out of hand. It is the purpose of this paper to explore this issue. The central question is, “Does Pentecostalism have a chief theological distinctive or a theologically distinctive message?” If so, how may we develop it in a way that brings many different Pentecostals to the table in conversation?

Spirit Baptism and Tongues: The Early Concern

I will start with an assumption that I believe the research will bear out, namely, that the dominant theological concern of Pentecostalism from the early decades of the Movement to the present was an experience called the “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” especially as accompanied by speaking in tongues and other spiritual gifts. If one were to purchase a book by a Pentecostal theologian prior to the 1970’s on the most cherished doctrine among Pentecostals, it would most assuredly be about Spirit baptism. The fact that such is no longer the case needs to be addressed, as I will below. At this point let me state my agreement with Pentecostal historian Grant Wacker that early Pentecostal literature shows an overwhelming majority interest in Spirit baptism.1 Such has, in my view, remained the case on a grassroots level throughout the decades of the Pentecostal movement. Korean Pentecostal theologian, Koo Dong Yun, notes accurately that “out of a number of intriguing characteristics of the Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement, ‘Baptism in the Holy Spirit’ . . . represents the most distinctive doctrine.”2 I thus concur with Allan Anderson that “a fundamental presupposition of all Pentecostal theology is the central emphasis on the experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.”3

There is no question but that Spirit baptism has been thrust forward as a theological concern in its own right due to the focus on it among Pentecostals worldwide. We should not neglect to note that the Pentecostals borrowed the category from Holiness revival movements. However, the Pentecostals and the Charismatics were the ones who brought the topic to prominence as a subject of theological discussion and debate.

The fact is, however, that Spirit baptism is no longer widely regarded by scholars of Pentecostalism as the dominant theological distinctive of the Pentecostal movement. The reason for this, put simply, is the challenge of theological diversity discovered among Pentecostal groups both historically and globally by Pentecostal historians. This diversity has to do both with how Spirit baptism itself is understood as well as the range of theological beliefs found among Pentecostal churches. I will explain.

In their focus on Spirit baptism, Pentecostals were inspired by the Holiness Movement, which described a post-conversion experience of “sanctification” (or consecration to God) as a “Spirit baptism.” John Fletcher had wedded John Wesley’s quest for Christian perfection with the revivalist’s penchant for crisis experience to arrive at an understanding of sanctification as a “second blessing,” or a “baptism in the Holy Spirit” subsequent to regeneration (or conversion-initiation). Meanwhile, a view of Spirit baptism as a post-conversion empowerment for witness was current in the Keswick revivals in England in the late 19th century, attracting adherents from a more Reformed theological influence, like D. L. Moody. The earliest Pentecostals adopted this Keswick view of Spirit baptism as empowerment but detached it formally from the Fletcherian view of sanctification as the needed third blessing (conversion, sanctification, and Spirit baptism as empowerment for witness). Most early Pentecostals ended up turning to John the Baptist’s prediction that Jesus would “baptize in the Spirit” (Matt 3:17), and to the fulfillment of this experience among the earliest followers of Jesus in Acts 1:8 and 2:4–5, to argue that Spirit baptism was not formally sanctification but rather a “charismatic” experience that empowers Christians for witness (e.g., Acts 1:8), especially in greater openness to extraordinary gifts (charismata) of the Spirit, such as speaking in tongues, prophecy, and divine healing. Spirit baptism was power for witness given to the sanctified life.

Four developments, however, complicated this picture and added considerable variety to how Spirit baptism was understood among Pentecostals. First, though many early Pentecostals sharply distinguished Spirit baptism from sanctification in polemics against the Holiness Movement, they tended, when away from these polemics, to speak of Spirit baptism as a sanctifying experience of the love of God poured into our hearts, using Rom 5:5 as their proof text.4 As a consequence of this trend, Singaporean Pentecostal pastor, David Lim, even speaks of Spirit baptism as “vocational sanctification.”5

Second, there was an argument among early Pentecostals as to whether or not the sanctification experience advocated within the Holiness Movement (à la John Fletcher) was still necessary. Under the influence of William H. Durham (of Chicago), believers coming into the Pentecostal Movement from outside the strict boundaries of the Holiness Movement regarded sanctification as accomplished by the “finished work” of Christ on the cross and thus available to believers from the moment of initial faith in Christ. Among these “finished work” Pentecostals, Spirit baptism, as a post-conversion empowerment for witness, simply followed conversion rather than conversion and then sanctification as a distinct experience. Arguably, the close connection between Spirit baptism and the sanctified life grew weaker in this wing of the Pentecostal Movement.

Third, a movement erupted within the nascent Assemblies of God denomination, populated by “finished work” Pentecostals who followed William H. Durham, that interpreted Spirit baptism as the crowning moment of a conversion-initiation process involving repentance, faith, and water baptism, after the pattern of Acts 2:38. This movement, called today Oneness Pentecostalism due to its Christocentric and modalistic understandings of the Trinity, represented a marked departure from the typical Pentecostal understanding of Spirit baptism as a post-conversion revival experience.

Even the Oneness Pentecostals, who regarded Spirit baptism as intimately connected to water baptism as part of a conversion-initiation complex, have not held to a single view of Spirit baptism, since some have conceived of the relationship to water baptism more loosely than others.6 Furthermore, some Trinitarian Pentecostal groups (e.g., in Chile and Germany) have associated Spirit baptism with Christian regeneration, apart from water baptism.

Fourth, the doctrine of speaking in tongues as initial evidence of Spirit baptism has been variously interpreted among Pentecostals. Many early Pentecostals considered tongues the means by which the world would be evangelized (through xenolalia, i.e., miraculously speaking unlearned foreign languages). This passion soon waned (understandably). Others considered tongues an in-depth praise or groaning in the Spirit opened up through Spirit baptism. Some Pentecostals outside of U.S. Pentecostal denominations do not regard tongues as necessary for Spirit baptism to be experienced. Even within the U.S., where the doctrine of tongues as evidence of Spirit baptism has strongest support, various understandings of the doctrine may be found. For example, the prominent pastor Jack Hayford, of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, has written of Spirit baptism as opening up the capacity or privilege of in-depth prayer in tongues but has refused to see tongues as absolutely necessary to the Spirit baptismal experience.7 Pentecostal founder William J. Seymour viewed tongues as the Bible evidence that the powerful experiences of the Spirit among Pentecostals were bringing together people from all races and nation...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Contributors
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: The Dynamism of Pentecostal Theology
• Part One: Defining Issues in Pentecostal Theology: Classical and Emergent
• Part Two: Defining Issues in Pentecostal Biblical Studies: Classical and Emergent
• Epilogue
• Pentecostal Studies Resource Guide