Journal of Pentecostal Theology

http://jpt.sagepub.com

What Meaneth This? Pentecostals and Theological Inquiry

Dale M. Coulter
Journal of Pentecostal Theology 2001; 10; 38
DOI: 10.1177/096673690101000103

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jpt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/38

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Pentecostal Theology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jpt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jpt.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 WHAT MEANETH THIS? PENTECOSTALS AND THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY

Dale M. Coulter*
Lee University, School of Religion, Cleveland, TN 37311, USA
email: dcoulter@leeuniversity.edu

ABSTRACT

This article investigates what it means to maintain a Pentecostal theology

by asking whether Pentecostals have any theological distinctives to offer,
and, if so, how they may be identified. The first part begins with two recent
approaches that seek to articulate what is theologically distinctive for
Pentecostals through an appeal to spiritual experience. Following a critique
of those approaches, the author proposes a constructive framework within
which theological distinctives may emerge. The article concludes by
applying the framework to the doctrine of scripture as a test case in order to
determine what may be theologically distinct in the Pentecostal confession
about that doctrine.

The recent move toward greater theological reflection by Pentecostal

scholars has raised again the question of a Pentecostal theology.’ Second
and third generation Pentecostals were content to use existing theological
paradigms as a pedagogical tool to communicate essential aspects of
Christian tradition with a Pentecostal doctrine of tongues added .2 How-

*
Dale M. Coulter (PhD candidate, University of Oxford) is an Instructor in
Historical Theology at Lee University in Cleveland, TN, USA
1. I wish to thank the Koine Greek club at Lee University for the opportunity to
put my thoughts about Pentecostal theology down as part of a panel discussion it spon-
sored, April 9, 2001.I also presented a second draft of the paper to the Post-Graduate
Seminar at the Church of God Theological Seminary.
2. Cf. Douglas Jacobsen, ’Knowing the Doctrines of Pentecostals: The Scho lastic
Theology of the Assemblies of God, 1930-55’, in E. Blumhofer, R. Spittler and
G. Wacker (eds.), Pentecostal Currents in American Protestantism, (Urbana: Univer-
sity of Illinois Press, 1999), pp. 90-107; and Frank Macchia, ’The Struggle for Global
Witness: Shifting Paradigms in Pentecostal Theology’, in Murray W. Dempster, Byron

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 39

ever, a new generation of scholars has emerged intent upon establishing a

distinctive theological approach and content. The current debate stems

from the tensions inherent in these two opposing perspectives on the
nature of the theological task for Pentecostals. Does Pentecostalism offer
no distinct theological perspective apart from the issue of Spirit baptism

and tongues? That is, should Pentecostals merely add Spirit baptism while
reiterating existing theological paradigms regarding God, Christ, salvation,
and so on? Or, does Pentecostalism warrant a re-evaluation of the entire
theological enterprise, including the content of various doctrines and the
way those doctrines come to be known and expressed? What does it mean
to maintain a Pentecostal theology?
To be sure, these questions presuppose other questions-questions at
the heart of any proposal for a Pentecostal theology. For example, in one
sense, asking whether Pentecostals should be content to reiterate various
doctrines also requires some determination of the theological tradition(s)
to which they belong. And this is not simply a historical issue, but a
theological issue as well. It is one thing to suggest that historically Pente-
costalism emerged from Wesleyan-Holiness roots that were leavened in
some segments of the movement by a Reformed-Baptistic influence, and

quite another to suggest that either of these influences provides the proper
theological framework within which any potential Pentecostal theology
may flourish. The sub-question of theological resemblance between Pente-
costalism and the larger Christian community, and to which tradition(s)
Pentecostals may find a home, will be taken up in the first section of this
paper.
Upon suggesting where Pentecostals may belong in the Christian com-
munity, the issue of whether their particular perspective offers any insight
into the various theological loci can be addressed. Corresponding to any
determination of theological content would be an examination of theologi-
cal method, and more specifically, the question of how Pentecostals read
Scripture. Since I see these two issues as interwoven, I will deal with them
together as part of the second section of the paper.

Who Are We? Pentecostals and the Larger Christian Community

The question of resemblance to other Christian communities assumes at
least a partial answer to the question of identity since similarities between

D. Klaus and Douglas Peterson (eds.), The Globalization ofPentecostalism: A Religion

Made to Travel, (Oxford: Regnum Books International, 1999), pp. 8-29.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

40

two groups presuppose that both groups can identify and articulate their
unique traits. It may be possible to discover some of these unique traits in
the midst of dialogue with another, and many Pentecostal scholars seem
comfortable with this approach. Thus, Pentecostals remain in dialogue
with various Christian traditions (e.g. Roman Catholicism) not simply with
the intent of fostering greater unity or common mission but also of foster-
ing self-discovery. However, even if dialogue with other traditions pro-
vides a fruitful approach to the question of identity, Pentecostals must
possess some grasp of what forms their theological core if that dialogue is
going to occur at all. As a result, I would propose that the question of a
Pentecostal theological identity must be part of the question of the resem-
blance of Pentecostalism to other Christian communities. I use the term
theological over against historical or sociological as different ways to
identify Pentecostals because, although Pentecostals have been good at
identifying the historical and sociological ’heart’ of the movement, the
question of its theological ’heart’ remains in dispute.3 I should also indi-
cate that by theological core I mean what Pentecostals confess about the
various traditional theological loci. Addressing this theological core or
heart of Pentecostalism-what it is and is not-becomes important in dis-
cerning who we are with respect to other Christian tradition(s).
The Question of Identity: A Theological Core to Pentecostalism?
Although Pentecostals cannot agree upon a theological core, this does not
mean that proposals are not forthcoming as to what comprises this theo-

logical core or heart. One such proposal was made by John Christopher
Thomas in his Presidential Address to the Society for Pentecostal Studies.44
Following Donald Dayton’s historical analysis of the theological roots of
Pentecostalism, Thomas suggested that the fivefold gospel of Jesus as

3. Cecil M. Robeck highlights the questions of concern in this paper when he

suggests that two of the issues Pentecostals must address are: (1) what constitutes a
Pentecostal; (2) how should Pentecostals view themselves in relationship to other
Christian communities. See Cecil M. Robeck, ’A Pentecostal Theology for a New
Millennium’ paper presented to the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Society for
Pentecostal Studies, (Patten College, Oakland, CA, March 13-15). pp. 3-4, as cited
in Amos Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to
Christian Theology of Religions, (JPTSup 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2000), p. 215.
4. John Christopher Thomas, ’Pentecostal Theology in the Twenty-First Century:
1998 Presidential Address to the Society for Pentecostal Studies’, Pneuma 21 (1998),
pp. 3-19.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 41

savior, sanctifier, Spirit baptizer, healer and soon-coming king articulates

the ’heart’ of Pentecostal belief and thus the best way to express this theo-
logical core. While Thomas’ proposal remains suggestive as a model for
Pentecostal theology, it has yet to be taken up in earnest by any Pentecos-
tal theologian. My own stance toward the fivefold is that it expresses more
of who Pentecostals were than who they are. This is not to say that
Pentecostals should ignore their own roots but rather to suggest that
historical precedent need not be the only or even the primary factor in
discerning the theological core.
To this suggestion may be added Steve Land’s implicit critique of the
fivefold gospel when he states, ’Perhaps this &dquo;Jesus name&dquo; or &dquo;Jesus only&dquo;
split...was also...a &dquo;logical&dquo; conclusion from the movement’s fivefold full
gospel concentration on Jesus as Savior, healer, sanctifier, Spirit-baptizer,
and coming king, in which the Spirit was understood as merely instru-
mental’.5 It is the Christocentrism, or, to use Land’s term, ’Jesu-centric
logic’, at the heart of this approach that becomes problematic for early
Pentecostals and the development of a Pentecostal theology as a whole.
Ironically, Land retains the theological ideas expressed in this approach
while removing the logical structure or arrangement of those ideas around
Christ. Instead, what becomes central for his theologizing is the ’three-
dimensional understanding of salvation’ articulated in the three blessings
of justification, sanctification and Spirit baptism.’ The eschatology that
’coming king’ expresses ceases to be a distinct category and becomes an
overarching theme infusing every theological category. Thus, while Land
suggests that Pentecostals retain this approach, he does so only by jettison-
ing the Christocentric structure and allowing each theological idea to
interact with one another within an explicit Trinitarian structure.’7

5. Steven J. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom (JPTSup,

1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), p. 96.
6. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality, pp. 82-98, 117-19, 125-64, 196-205.
7. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality, p. 211, where Land says that Pentecostals need
to retain the fivefold. For further critique of the fivefold see Terry Cross, ’Can There
Be a Pentecostal Systematic Theology? An Essay on Theological Method in a Post-
modem World’, in Teaching to Make Disciples: Education for Pentecostal-Charis-
matic Spirituality and Life: The Collected Papers of the 30th Annual Meeting of the
Society for Pentecostal Studies (Tulsa, OK: Oral Roberts University, 2001), pp. 145-
66 ; and Ralph Del Colle, who considers the Christocentric structure to the fivefold and
its impact on pneumatology in his article, ’Theological Dialogue on the "Full Gospel":
Trinitarian Contributions from Pope John Paul II and Thomas A. Smail’, Pneuma 20
(1998) pp. 141-60 (143).

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

42

A second proposal,articulated from the moment Pentecostal writers

began to express themselves, centers on the theological idea symbolized in
the phrase, baptism in the Holy Spirit. For many in the Pentecostal move-
ment, ’baptism in the Holy Spirit’ was and is not only a theological
distinctive but the distinctive feature of the Pentecostal Movement. In fact,
much of the creative theological work by Pentecostal theologians depends
upon their reflection about the nature of baptism in the Holy Spirit or Spirit
baptism. Spirit baptism came to symbolize an experience or encounter with
the divine that had radical implications for the individual Pentecostal.
Although a Lukan construct, for Pentecostals the phrase came to embody
more than its Lukan meaning, pointing to a fundamental transformation of
’

self through a spiritual experience.

Furthermore, it is this spiritual experience or experience of the Spirit
that Pentecostals look to when distinguishing themselves from others. As
Simon Chan states,
Pentecostals themselves are not in agreement over the precise nature of
their distinctives. But what comes through over and over again in their
discussions and writings is a certain kind of spiritual experience of an
intense, direct and overwhelming nature centering in the person of Christ
which they schematize as ’baptism in the Holy Spirit’.g8

As a result much of Pentecostal theological reflection revolves around a

direct attempt to unpack the meaning of Spirit baptism or its underlying
experiential significance. North American Pentecostal theologians Anos
Yong and Frank Macchia both begin their theological musings from this
foundational experience summarized in Spirit baptism. Although Spirit ’
baptism points to a dramatic experience of the Spirit, the experience itself
can be severed from any particular manifestation and broadened to facili-
tate an examination of the entire Pentecostal faith. My colleague, Terry
Cross, also exemplifies this position, not because he begins with Spirit
baptism but because a dramatic spiritual experience and/or experiences
remains important to his theological project. Since Pentecostal theologians
have tended to see more potential in the second proposal, I would like to
discuss it more closely as it highlights both the promises and perils of any
attempt to articulate a Pentecostal theology and thus directly impacts the
9
questions of identity and resemblance.9

8. Simon Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition

(JPTSup, 21; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), p. 7.
9. I should note that I intentionally use the phrase ’experience of the Spirit’ as a
way of distinguishing it from other kinds of experiences. Although I am aware that

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 43

If an experience of the Spirit provides the only way to articulate the

theological core of Pentecostal identity, then it is questionable as to
whether this experience need necessarily distinguish a Pentecostal from
any other Christian. To examine this claim further, I propose to give a
brief analysis of the approach of two emerging Pentecostal theologians:
Terry Cross and Amos Yong. I have selected Cross and Yong because
they both utilize a dramatic experience of the Spirit-whether attached to
Spirit baptism or not-for their respective theological endeavors. Both
assume that the experience is more fundamental than the theological

metaphor expressing it, and take the experience, not necessarily Spirit
baptism to which it has been traditionally associated, as their starting
point. Yong’s work on a Pentecostal theology of religions depends upon
his reflection regarding a common pneumatological experience to be had
by all. &dquo; Cross, operating within a Barthian framework, grounds his forth-
coming work on ecclesiology in a direct experience of God not mediated
by the Church.&dquo; Regardless of the outcome of their theologizing, both
begin with a profound spiritual experience as the primary force in forging
a distinctive Pentecostal theology.

These views on spiritual experience raise important questions for the

development of Pentecostal theology. If the experience of the Spirit is
more fundamental, how is it that this experience sets Pentecostals apart?
What is it about the experience that forms a unique Pentecostal identity?
Could not Baptists, Epicopalians, and others, have had this experience and
yet not become Pentecostal? Conversely, are not denominational Pente-
costals merely former Baptists, Methodists, and so on, who have had this
experience? If one begins with only an experience of the Spirit, theologi-
cally what separates a Pentecostal who happens to be part of a classical
Pentecostal denomination from a non-Pentecostal-charismatic or other-
wise-who does not happen to be part of that same denomination? Indeed,

other kinds of experiences, for example, ethnicity, socio-economic position, and so on,
impact the way an individual sees the world, my focus will be solely on the Pentecostal
experience of the Spirit.
10. Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), pp. 96-182; idem,"’Not Knowing Where the
Wind Blows..." On Envisioning a Pentecostal-Charismatic Theology of Religions’,
JPT 14 (1999), pp. 92-102. While Yong’s primary thesis concerns inter-religious
dialogue, it hinges upon his addressing the question of Pentecostal-charismatic identity
which he attempts to answer in the fifth chapter of Discerning the Spirit(s).
11. Terry Cross, The Church: A People of God’s Presence, (forthcoming publica-
tion). See also idem, ’The Rich Feast of Theology: Can Pentecostals Bring the Main
Course or Only The Relish?’ JPT 16 (2000) pp. 27-47.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

44

it ispossible to answer all of these questions by suggesting that an

experience cannot set Pentecostals apart. Furthermore, I would suggest
that this conclusion lies behind the attempt of some Pentecostals to defend
the idea that they are no more than ’evangelicals’ plus tongues, or ’evan-
gelicals’ plus a radical experience of the Spirit.]2 That is, Pentecostals
should stop denying their own immediate historical heritage in the ’evan-
gelical’ subculture and the more remote connection through ’evangelical-
ism’ to the Protestant Reformation. I take this to be Don Bowdle’s point
when he states, ’Apart from commitment to baptism in the Holy Spirit and
the spiritual pursuits issuing from that experience, is there a need to
reexamine every component of the historic Christian faith...?’’3 If an
experience is all that separates a Pentecostal from a non-Pentecostal then
what theological contribution do Pentecostals have to make qua Pentecos-
tals beyond associating this experience with the baptism in the Holy
Spirit? Both Cross and Yong represent two possible responses one could
offer to this line of questioning.
In a recent article Cross attacks this criticism by claiming that Pente-
costals ’have experienced God in ways others do not confess. Rather than
viewing theology as a description of our distinctives, we need to under-
stand the all-encompassing difference which our experience of God makes
in every area of our lives-especially those that are theological’.&dquo; Cross
seems to suggest here that it is only the experience of God that results in a
distinctive theology for Pentecostals. He clarifies this idea elsewhere when
he states,

12. I place the term ’evangelicals’ within quotation marks because I recognize the
meaning of the term is in dispute. Cf. Donald Dayton, ’Some Doubts about the
Usefulness of the Category Evangelical’, in Donald Dayton and Robert K. Johnson
(eds.), The Variety of American Evangelicalism, (Downers Grove. IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1991), pp. 245-51.
13. Donald N. Bowdle, ’Informed Pentecostalism: An Alternative Paradigm’ , in
Terry L. Cross and Emerson B. Powery (eds.), The Spirit and the Mind: Essays in
Informed Pentecostalism, (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2000), pp. 9-19
(18). While Don Bowdle belongs to the Church of God (Cleveland, TN), his coun-
terpart in the Assemblies of God appears to be William W. Menzies. See Menzies’
’Synoptic Theology: An Essay on Pentecostal Hermeneutics’, Paraclete 13.1 (1979):
14-21; and idem, ’The Methodology of Pentecostal Theology: An Essay on Hermeneu-
tics’, in Paul Elbert (ed.), Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honor of Howard M
Ervin, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985), pp. 1-14. (The latter article is a slightly
modified version of the former).
14. Cross, ’The Rich Feast of Theology’, p. 33.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 45

As a Pentecostal, I would also add that theology reflects on the God we

experience in the encounter with the Spirit. The Holy Spirit re-presents the
original event of revelation in Jesus Christ, bringing to life the Good News
to our hearts... When we hear the gospel message-the truth that Jesus
lived, died, was buried, and raised to life for me-the Holy Spirit encoun-
ters us with a re-presentation of the initial event of revelation. This personal
encounter with God brings alive the Gospel story and indeed brings to life
our very souls. We are transformed by the encounter with the Spirit

(author’s emphasis).’S
Together these two statements indicate that Cross does not merely want to
begin with an experience but with the God of the experience, who through
the Holy Spirit, offers theological knowledge to the individual.&dquo; There-
fore, the ’all-encompassing difference’ or the transformation stems from
both the experience (encounter) and the God experienced, with the Spirit
becoming the conduit for each.
What is commendable in this approach is Cross’ desire to hold together
transcendence and immanence as well as head and heart. The experience
itself comes from within the individual while the God experienced remains
beyond the individual supplying the cognitive content. I would designate
the latter as the historical revelation of Christ and the former as a personal
revelation of this same Christ. In this way, an encounter with the transcen-
dent God does not collapse into a subjective feeling of the numinous
within the human spirit, but the experience of the Spirit so enlivens the
human spirit that both intellect and will become transformed. The Spirit
generates (re-presents) a personal revelation of the historical revelation of
Christ’s person and work that renews and revives.&dquo; While the God
experienced retains the transcendent pole of this encounter and supplies

15. Cross, ’Can There Be a Pentecostal Systematic Theology?’, p. 5.

16. Cross makes this quite clear in a paper he presented for a discussion on
Pentecostal theology at Lee University. See Terry L. Cross. ’The Relationship of
Pentecostal Theology to Christian Theology’, (an essay delivered to the Koine Greek
Club at Lee University, April 9, 2001), p. 11.
17. Cross’ view seems quite similar to the way Calvin conceives of the Lord’s
Supper, except Cross holds there no mediatorial sign. Calvin indicates that the body
and blood are ’represented’ under the bread and wine but these signs, because they are
sacramental, communicate through the Holy Spirit something of the real presence of
Christ. See 4.3, 8-10, of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion II, (ed. John T.
McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), pp. 1362-
63, 1368-71.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

46

theological knowledge to the head, the experience reshapes the will

maintaining the immanent pole.
As commendable as this approach may be, it appears that non-
Pentecostals could have this transformational experience and still remain
non-Pentecostal, at least, in terms of its cognitive content. On the one
hand, Cross wants to claim that it is the kind of experience Pentecostals
have that distinguishes them from non-Pentecostals. He seems to see a
Pentecostal experience of the Spirit as a unique species underneath the
genus of spiritual experience. On the other hand, he wants to define the
nature of this kind of experience by reference to the God experienced, or
what I have interpreted as the historical revelation of Christ. He does so to
avoid the spectre of Schleiermacher and Feuerbach, and the development
of a theology solely from human experience or a sole concentration on
spirituality. However, the content to this experience does not offer any
theological distinctive to the Pentecostal. Presumably, Karl Barth could
possess the same content without the intense experience. If it is not the
content that differentiates the kind of experience, what is unique about the
particular experience Pentecostals claim? The only recourse would seem
to be that this experience ultimately remains ineffable. It is sui generis and
as such cannot be fully explained, only had. This is what I think Cross

must mean when saying Pentecostals ’have experienced God in ways

others do not confess
Cross’ attempt to forge a distinctive Pentecostal theology from an experi-
ence of the Spirit highlights an important insight about Pentecostalisrn.
Pentecostals have always espoused and continue to espouse an experience
that borders on the ineffable. 19 This explains why Pentecostalism remains
conducive to many cultures and why it is so easily adaptable to a variety of
ecclesiastical and theological contexts (the charismatic movement). But it

18. Cross plans to work out these ideas more fully in his forthcoming ecclesiology,
The Church: A People of God’s Presence.
19. I believe that this idea of an ineffable experience has great affinities with the
Western stream of Dionysian mysticism where union with God occurs in the midst of
darkness. The medieval mystical tradition interpreted this to be an affective union of
wills as opposed to a union of intellects. Thus, the individual enters a cloud of unknow-
ing as she negates all that is known and comes to embrace God in love (union of wills).
Tongues are analogous to the cloud of unknowing because they remove the intellect to
allow for an affective union between God and the believer in which the will is
transformed. It is interesting to note that Simon Chan attempts to explore the connec-
tion between Pentecostalism and medieval mysticism in Pentecostal Theology and the
Christian Spiritual Tradition, pp. 73-96.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 47

does not lead to any theological difference, which is one reason Pentecostals
have such difficulty determining their theological core. At most, an experi-
ence of the Spirit leads to a different starting point or source for theology (a

theological method). Although Cross’ approach to a distinctive Pentecostal

theology appears to be problematic, Yong offers another way of generating
a Pentecostal theology from an experience of the Spirit. Whereas Cross

tends to analyze the individual experience common to Pentecostals, Yong

proposes to examine what the collective experience of the Pentecostal com-
munity tells us about Pentecostal distinctives.
Yong’s primary intent is to contribute a Pentecostal-charismatic
perspective to the theology of religions and inter-religious dialogue. The
importance of this proposal for my purposes lies in the assertion that
’developing a theology of religions is central...to the forging of a Pente-
costal identity over and against that of other Christian communion? 20 To
accomplish this dialogue Yong offers a preliminary definition of Pente-
costalism and the charismatic movement in the fifth chapter of his work.
He finds the common basis between the two movements in the experience
of the Spirit both claim and so begins his explorations there. The phrase
Yong uses to capture and express what results from this experience is ’the
pneumatological imagination’, that is, the vision ’inspired by the Pente-
costal-charismatic experience of the Holy Spirit’. 21 Understanding the
Pentecostal-charismatic pneumatological imagination, then, should dis-
close what is distinctive about this movement.
Yong proposes to unpack this experience of the Spirit primarily by a
phenomenological analysis of the rituals and what he terms the ’charis-
mology’ (theology of charismata) within the movement.’-2 As a result, he

20. A. Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), p. 217. In light of his comments in the
section entitled, ’Pentecostal Identity and Theological Truth’ (pp. 215-19), it seems as
though Yong sees implications from his work for a Pentecostal theological identity.
While he remains primarily interested in interreligious dialogue. his interaction with
Cecil M. Robeck and his contention that developing a theology of religions is central to
forging a Pentecostal identity suggest that a consequence of his position is to inform
Pentecostals—not Pentecostals and charismatics—about who they are theologically. I
should also note that Yong does not see this identity as static but dynamic and
emerging in the midst of continued dialogue. I wish to thank Yong for his interaction
with me on this and other points in this paper.
21. Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), p. 133.
22. Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), pp. 162-65. Yong follows Daniel Albrecht’s
analysis here. See Albrecht’s Rites in the Spirit: A Ritual Approach to Pentecostal
/

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

48

suggests, among other things, that Pentecostals and charismatics accept as

part of their distinctives a transforming encounter with the Spirit (Spirit
baptism), a recognition of the operation of charismata and a calling into
question of the dualism between the material and non-material worlds.
Each of these elements comprise the pneumatological imagination that
Pentecostals and charismatics embrace by virtue of their experience of the
Spirit.
Two observations are in order regarding Yong’s approach. First, Yong’ss
identification of the pneumatological imagination with the Pentecostal and
charismatic movements is informative. It seems to imply that one cannot
distinguish a Pentecostal from a charismatic based on their mutual experi-
ence of the Spirit, nor someone from the Third Wave. 23 A Roman Catholic

charismatic will evince the same rituals, and thus the same worldview,
as any Pentecostal. But surely Yong would agree that there are serious

theological divisions between a Pentecostal, a Third Wave ’evangelical’

and a Roman Catholic charismatic? If this is the case, then it would seem
he must concede that one consequence of his position is its inability to
reach those theological divisions from an experience of the Spirit. Even
’the doctrinal symbol of Spirit baptism’ cannot serve to distinguish the two
groups; rather it ’brings us closest to what, if anything, can be termed the
&dquo;essence&dquo; of the Pentecostal-charismatic experience... ’ .2-1- Therefore, the
pneumatological imagination may provide a way of describing a common

Charismatic Spirituality, (JPTSup, 17; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).

Rituals do not point to liturgical practices but all that Pentecostals and charismatics do
to facilitate a divine encounter. Thus, there is a ritual field or environment created
through songs, worship, and so on, ritual modes of sensibility or attitutudes encouraged
and ritual consequences or benefits resulting from participation. Yong also refers to
rites, which do seem to indicate specific liturgical practices, but he focuses on rituals.
23. Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), p. 157, states, ’It is arguable that the Third
Wave, if taken as a whole... does indeed partake in the same stream which has fed the
neo-Pentecostal and charismatic movements. I have thus included them under the
broader "charismatic" label’. It is interesting to note that in his book, The Third Wave
of the Holy Spirit: Encountering the Power of Signs and Wonders. (Ann Arbor, MI:
Servant Publications, 1988). C. Peter Wagner declares that he is not a charismatic but
an evangelical Congregationalist open to the Holy Spirit, (pp. 18-19). How is it that an

’evangelical’ and a Roman Catholic come to be found as both representing ’the same
stream’?
24. Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), p. 165.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 49

spirituality and worldview between Pentecostals and charismatics but it is

limited to this function.’5
Second, the similarity of worldview between Pentecostals, charismatics
and members of the Third Wave amid the serious theological differences
that separate all three groups serves to sharpen the benefits and limitations
of beginning from an experience of the Spirit. Yong’s comparative analy-
sis between the Pentecostal-charismatic movement and Umbanda, a
spiritistic tradition in Brazil, depends upon the worldview each possesses
more than on their respective theological cores. Indeed, Yong wants to
withhold any theological discussion until other avenues directly pertaining
to the common spiritual experiences of both groups are exhausted. 16
Yong’s appeal to worldview as a way of distinguishing Pentecostals
accentuates a common move. This appeal has gained much currency in
recent discussions of Pentecostal identity. Thus, Jackie and Cheryl Bridges
Johns argue for a Pentecostal worldview over the course of several articles
as a way of setting forth Pentecostal distinctives.27 Both contend that

defining how Pentecostals view reality is a necessary step in fully articu-

lating a Pentecostal identity. While I would agree with the importance of
their collective efforts, there is a need for greater precision about what a
worldview does and does not do for the development of a Pentecostal
theology.
If a Pentecostal worldview depends entirely upon the spiritual experi-
ence of Pentecostals, it is questionable as to how helpful discerning this
worldview will be in determining the theological core of Pentecostalism.
Discussing a relational epistemology, as Jackie and Cheryl Bridges Johns

25. Unless I am mistaken, worldview, spirituality and pneumatological imagination

overlap to such an extent in Yong’s discussion that they become roughly synonymous.
26. Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), p. 254. In fairness, Yong’s goal remains pri-
marily the promotion of interreligious dialogue not the development of a Pentecostal
theology.
27. Jackie David Johns and Cheryl Bridges Johns. ’Yielding to the Spirit: A Pen-
tecostal Approach to Group Bible Study’, JPT 1 (1992), pp. 109-34; Jackie David
Johns, ’Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview’, JPT 7 (1995), pp. 73-96;
Cheryl Bridges Johns, ’Partners in Scandal: Wesleyan and Pentecostal Scholarship’,
21 (1999), pp. 183-97. (’Partners in Scandal’ was reprinted in The Spirit and
Pneuma
the Mind: Essays in Informed Pentecostalism, pp. 237-50. The final section on love’s
knowledge is not included in the reprinted essay. Instead, Johns reflects on the future
of Wesleyan and Pentecostal scholarship. My references will be to the version printed
in Pneuma.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

50

do throughout their articles, certainly can help differentiate the Pentecostal,

mindset from a mindset determined by Enlightenment categories.28 It can
also help differentiate Pentecostals from ’evangelicals’, at least, ’evangeli-
cals’ of a more Reformed persuasion like Carl Henry. However, the
limitation of this approach lies in the difficulty of its differentiating a
Pentecostal from a Third Wave ’evangelical’ or from a Catholic charis-
matic like Donald Gelpi. The common spiritual experience of Gelpi and
Peter Wagner could predispose both of them to the exact relational epis-
temology Cheryl Johns characterizes of Pentecostals and Wesleyans. In
fact, Gelpi’s own testimony indicates that his charismatic experience led
him from an intellectual assent to a dogma to seeing his belief in the Spirit
as ‘...felt, living, and personal...,.2’ Therefore, exploring the spiritual

experience of Pentecostals and the worldview to which it leads is both

necessary and beneficial but is limited in providing insight into the theo-
logical core of Pentecostalism. Making this distinction becomes crucial for
determining what that theological core might be.
The second proposal to define a theological core of Pentecostalism as an
experience of the Spirit does not necessarily lead to a distinctive Pentecos-
tal theology. While an experience of the Spirit may help determine the
theological core, it cannot provide the sole basis for the various elements
comprising that core. If a distinctive theological identity is going to
emerge, it must do so from a number of different sources and with a
number of different elements. In the following subsection, I hope to
propose how one might ascertain the individual elements in the theological
core of Pentecostalism and make two suggestions as to what might form

part of that core. In so doing, I will also address the question of resem-
blance by noting what other branches of Christianity share these ideas.

28. As an aside, it is interesting that Cheryl Bridges Johns develops her ideas about
love’s knowledge from Martha Nussbaum, an Aristotelian scholar(!). Nussbaum uses
Aristotle to argue for the rationality of the emotions in the same way that Johns (and
Steve Land) want to argue for the rationality of the affections. See Johns, ’Partners in
Scandal’, pp. 195-97; Martha Nussbaum, Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy
and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Land, Pentecostal
Spirituality, pp. 131-36.
29. Donald Gelpi, The Divine Mother: A Trinitarian Theology of the Holy
Spirit (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984), p. 3. Gelpi’s questioning of
Neo-Thomist paradigms in theology could parallel Johns questioning of the Reformed-
evangelical paradigm in this regard.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 51

Identity and Resemblance: Arriving at a Theological Core

Discovering theological distinctives in Pentecostalism is no easy task, and
this task is made more difficult when considering what can be agreed upon
by all Pentecostals. Before proceeding to a consideration of what may be
theologically distinctive, it is important to reflect on the best way to pro-
ceed. My tactic up to this point has been to suggest possible weaknesses in
two approaches to a Pentecostal theology. Furthermore, it should be clear
that by theological distinctive I do not mean spirituality or worldview,
although both will contribute to a distinctive methodology and identity for
Pentecostalism whole. It should also be evident that my intention is
as a

not to remove an experience of the Spirit altogether but to suggest that it

must be part of a larger strategy employed. Finally, it may be helpful to
remember that by theological core I mean what Pentecostals confess about
the various traditional theological loci. This does not imply any commit-
ment to a particular structure within which those theological loci must be
arranged. On the whole, it may be wise for Pentecostals to reflect first on
how they view each theological loci before deciding on how to arrange
them within some framework. There is no need to bow to the pressures of
getting a correct organizing principle before moving to the loci them-
selves. Rather, this can emerge amid a dialogue with the existing loci. It
remains to offer some guiding principles to arriving at a theological core.
The work of historians of Pentecostalism has done much to plant the
movement firmly in the soil of nineteenth-century holiness theology. As an
extension of this work, Pentecostal theologians should look at drawing
from more remote theological traditions as a resource for a Pentecostal
theology. James Hamilton notes that theology in the nineteenth century ’is
the story of the decline of Calvinism...and the emergence of a new
theological consensus on Arminian principles which prevailed between the
Second Great Awakening and the rise of Modernism’ .30 Accessing the
original sources giving rise to this Arminian consensus can provide Pen-
tecostals with the tools needed to develop their theology. For example,
examining Arminius’ own views on God’s middle knowledge may help
Pentecostals plot a course between Clark Pinnock’s invitation to free-will
theism and a Reformed view of divine election, that ultimately retains
God’s involvement with the world without sacrificing essential ideas about

30. James E. Hamilton, ’Academic Orthodoxy and the Arminianizing of American

Theology’, Wesleyan Theological Journal 9.1 (1974) pp. 52-59. (Hereafter cited as
WTJ).

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

52

the divine attributes. 31 It also implies that Pentecostals develop not simply
an appreciation for a particular theological tradition but an understanding

of tradition. As a guiding principle, Pentecostals must look beyond the

nineteenth century when asking what their distinctives might be.
A second guiding principle would be to investigate how doctrines inter-
acted with one another under the pressures of the emerging Pentecostal
movement and its insistence on a radical experience of the Spirit. Steve
Land’s work provides a good example of how this approach succeeds in
developing authentic theological distinctives for Pentecostals.32 However,
in the same way that Land breaks up the fivefold gospel to allow escha-
tology to serve as an overarching principle, I would break up the three
blessings to allow them to interact with other doctrines. Confining sanctifi-
cation to a segment in the development of salvation may restrict a richer
understanding of how it guarantees justification and extends beyond Spirit
baptism.33 If, as Land indicates, abiding in love is the core of Pentecostal
spirituality, then revisioning sanctification involves seeing it as directly
pertaining to the development of all the affections, or the acquisition of

31. There is an interesting theological connection Pentecostals have with Roman

Catholics and others through Arminius. Arminius’ own thought was a Thomism
modified by the Jesuit theology of Luis de Molina and Francisco Suarez. Arminius
embraced Molina’s concept of middle knowledge as a way to combat his Reformed
opponents. Cf. Richard A. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of
Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of
Early Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991). Barry E. Bryant adds
to this by tracing the view of middle knowledge from Arminius to Wesley. See his
’Molina, Arminius, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley on Human Free-Will, Divine Omnis-
cience, and Middle Knowledge’, WThJ27 (1992), pp. 93-103. However, it should be
noted that Wesley Anglicized his Arminianism such that one can speak of Wesley’s
theology as having its own integrity. On Wesley’s Arminianism see Luke L. Keefer, Jr,
’Characteristics of Wesley’s Arminianism’, WThJ22.1 (1987), pp. 88-100.
32. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality, pp. 23-32.
33. Land views salvation as ’eschatological trinitarian passion’ exemplified in ’a
developmental process with three dimensions’ that takes one ’from belonging to a
community ordered by and for righteousness to being identified with Christ whole-
heartedly in order to fulfill all righteousness, to being empowered to actualize the
missionary purpose of God in the world...’ [my emphasis]. While these three
dimensions are not necessarily crisis moments as in the early Pentecostal view of the
three blessings, Land does seem committed to the view that they build upon one
another and thus remain in a logical structure. See his ’The Triune Center: Wesleyans
and Pentecostals Together in Mission’, Pneuma
21.2 (1999), pp. 199-214 (211-12).
See also Pentecostal Spirituality, pp. 201-205.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 53

virtue, since love is the summation of the virtues. Examining the interac-
tion between all of the theological loci among early Pentecostals, and in
contemporary pursuits of a Pentecostal theology, will aid our discovery of
a theological core.
The first two guiding principles lead Pentecostals toward the Wesleyan
quadrilateral as the means to hold in tension the various sources compris-
ing their theology. All Pentecostals follow Wesley’s theological descen-
dants in adding an experience of the Spirit to the theological mix. To rely
exclusively on this experience in forging their theological core is not only
to engage in a kind of memory loss but to retain the ahistorical emphasis
of some early Pentecostal historians. Using the quadrilateral as a guiding
principle forces Pentecostals to hold various sources together with one
another even as we seek to reflect creatively on our own theology. To that
end I now offer two possible suggestions for a theological core to Pente-
costalism.
The first suggestion for a theological core of Pentecostalism would be its
dynamic view of revelation as an ongoing enterprise where the Spirit con-
tinuously speaks to the church throughout its earthly existence. While I will
develop this suggestion further in the final section, some preliminary
thoughts are in order. It is important to remember that this theological idea
does not turn Pentecostals into charismatics but vice versa. This idea also
implies that Pentecostals have more in common with Roman Catholicism
and Eastern Orthodoxy than with Protestantism. In both Roman Catholi-
cism and Eastern Orthodoxy there is a recognition that the Spirit continues
to speak in ways that not only clarify Scripture through the illumination of
a specific passage but also by extending the content of Scripture in signi-

ficant ways. Thus a clear line of doctrinal development can occur in the
church as the Spirit continues to reveal the truth to it. Likewise, the rise of
the Oneness issue within Pentecostalism is explained only in reference to
the assumed perspective that ongoing revelation leads to doctrinal develop-
ment. 34 Pentecostal scholars recognize that the Spirit’s speech extends
beyond Scripture, but do not follow the implications of this idea to their
conclusion that doctrines evolve as part of the living community of the

34. Del Colle implies that Pentecostals do possess an idea of doctrinal development
but only as a restoration of doctrine not in the sense that Roman Catholics do
(’Theological Dialogue on the "Full Gospel"’, 145). As should be clear, however, I
would contend otherwise. I believe this is an insight from the Oneness movement that
Pentecostals should not ignore.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

54

Spirit.35 As part of the theological core of Pentecostalism, a dynamic view

of revelation establishes a distinct marker over against the Reforrned-
Baptistic heritage and even the Wesleyan-Holiness heritage from which the
movement emerged. While Pentecostals share a deep reverence for Scrip-
ture and its divine inspiration with ’evangelicals’, their dynamic view of
revelation informs their different handling of Scripture.
The second suggestion for Pentecostalism’s theological core would be its
attempt to construe sanctification as being causally linked to salvation to
such an extent that it impacts the justification of the individual believer.
While Pentecostals affirmed justification by faith alone as inherited from
the Protestant Reformers, in light of their implicit Arminianism the clear
separation from sanctification was altered. The line of demarcation between
the saving faith of j ustification and the faith working itself out through love
of sanctification became blurred. In light of my approach to determining an
aspect of the theological core of Pentecostalism, despite the inevitable
oversimplification, we need to investigate briefly the Arminian influence on
Pentecostalism and how it impacted upon justification.
Arminian theology developed on two parallel tracks that eventually
merged: Oberlin Perfectionism and Wesleyan Methodism. Charles Finney
and Asa Mahan both made the shift to an Arminian view of freedom and
sanctification with the help of the Scottish realist philosopher, Thomas
Reid.36 The impact of this shift on justification is quite clear in Finney. He
states that some

seem to regard faith not as a natural, but merely as a mystical condition of

justification; as bringing us into a covenant and mystical relation to Christ,
in consequence of which His righteousness or personal obedience is
imputed to us. It should never be forgotten that the faith that is the condi-
tion of justification, is the faith that works by love. It is the faith through
and by which Christ sanctifies the soul. 37

35. Cf. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality, p. 118; Archer, ’Pentecostal Hermeneutics’,

p. 80. Both make the point that God speaks beyond Scripture but neither seem to see
the implications of this position for early Pentecostals.
36. Mahan’s and Finney’s influence on the Keswick movement connects Oberlin
Perfectionism with the Reformed-Baptistic wing of Pentecostalism, although Mahan
appears to be the more influential force between the two. See Donald Dayton, ’Asa
Mahan and the Development of American Holiness Theology’, WThJ
9.1 (1974), pp.
60-69; Melvin E. Dieter, ’The Development of Nineteenth Century Holiness
Theology’, WThJ
20.1 (1985), pp. 61-77; idem, The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth
Century (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1980), pp. 156-203.
37. Charles Finney, Lectures on Systematic Theology (ed. J.H. Fairchild; South
Gate, CA: Colporter Kemp, 1944), p. 390.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 55

Inlight of this, Finney rejects forensic justification, opting instead for a

position that sees sanctification as a condition of ultimate justification. 38
Likewise, John Wesley’s Arminianism shifted the relationship between
justification and sanctification to make sanctification directly pertain to
one’s final justification before God. The fusing of these two streams of
Arminian theology led to a view of justification as entailing a reckoning
righteous through pardon, not simply followed by sanctification, nor hav-
ing its formal cause in sanctification, but depending upon the transforma-
tion of and perseverance in the sanctified life.
This shift in the relationship between justification and sanctification
places Pentecostalism firmly within a theological stream extending from
Wesley to Thomas Aquinas with Arminius’ own theology serving as the
bridge on the one hand, and extending from Keswick to Oberlin Perfec-
tionism on the other hand. Frank Macchia reflects the most recent devel-
opment of this stream in his argument for a Pentecostal perspective on
justification. He states, ’I do not wish to deny that justification brings a
word of pardon and forgiveness of sins... But this word of pardon in
justification is transformative, giving us a foretaste of God’s final right-
eousness achieved in new creation’.39 Macchia concludes that ‘sanctifi-
cation is the means by which the Spirit achieves justification in Christ and
then through Christ in all of creation’.4° The Arminian perspective
Pentecostalism inherited leads to a synergistic understanding of salvation
where sanctification becomes the means by which one realizes final
justification.

Identity and Resemblance

In this section I have suggested that the question of resemblance presup-
poses an answer to the question of identity. Any attempt of Pentecostals to
discover where they might belong within Christian tradition must corre-
spond to an investigation of their theological identity. That is, they must
begin by asking what comprises the confessional or theological core of

38. Finney notes that it is a condition of justification in two ways: (1) the
consecration of one’s life to God is a condition of one’s present pardon of past sin and
one’s present acceptance to God; (2) the soul remains justified only insofar as it
perseveres in its consecration to God (Lectures on Systematic Theology, p. 392).
39. Frank Macchia, ’2000 Presidential Address: Justification and the Spirit: A
Pentecostal Reflection on the Doctrine by which the Church Stands or Falls’, Pneuma
22.1 (2000), p. 13.
40. Macchia, ’Justification and the Spirit’, pp. 14-15.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

56

Pentecostalism. In addressing this question I have hinted that what

distinguishes the theological core of Pentecostalism from the theological
core of Roman Catholicism or Methodism is not any individual doctrine

per se but the entirety of those doctrines and their interaction with one
another. I have further suggested that this creates similarities between
Pentecostals and diverse groups such as Roman Catholics, Wesleyan
Methodists and ’evangelicals’. These claims raise the issue of theological
content and method for a Pentecostal theology to which the discussion
now turns.

Changing the Loci? The Impact of Experience,

Spirit and Text on Theology
As I have indicated above, one of the areas where Pentecostals are
discovering their differences lies in the intersection of their perspectives
on Scripture, revelation and their experience of the Spirit. This intersection

has led some to disavow the fundamentalist, and by extension ’evangeli-

cal’, view of Scripture as being antithetical to the ’heart’ of a Pentecostal
approach to Scripture.41 In particular, the modernist presuppositions upon
which fundamentalist and ’evangelical’ commitments to inerrancy and
cessationism hinge seem poisonous to a Pentecostal doctrine of Scripture.
A deeper exploration of this doctrine can shed light on how a Pentecostal
theology might impact one of the theological loci as well as the way
Pentecostals interpret Scripture.
In a response to several Pentecostal authors, the Latin American theo-
logian Jos6 Miguez Bonino makes some interesting suggestions regarding
a Pentecostal view of Scripture.&dquo; He initially notes that although Pente-

costals would be willing to defend the Bible in ways similar to fundamen-

41. See Timothy B. Cargal, ’Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy:

Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age’, Pneuma 15.2 (1993), pp. 1 63-
87 ; Donald Dayton, ’The Limits of Evangelicalism: The Pentecostal Tradition’, in The
Variety of American Evangelicalism, pp. 48-51; Scott A. Ellington,’Pentecostalism
and the Authority of Scripture’, JPT
9 (1996), pp. 16-38; D. William Faupel, ’Whither
Pentecostalism? Twenty-Second Presidential Address to the Society for Pentecostal
Studies’, Pneuma 15.1 (1993), pp. 18-27; James K.A. Smith, ’The Closing of the
Book: Pentecostals, Evangelicals and the Sacred Writings’. JPT 11 (1997) pp. 49-71.
42. José Miguez Bonino, ’Changing Paradigms: A Response’, in Murray W.
Dempster, Byron D. Klaus and Douglas Peterson (eds.), The Globalization of Pente-
costalism : A Religion Made to Travel (Oxford: Regnum Books International, 1999),
pp. 117-19.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 57

talists, they would do so for different reasons. Scripture’s inspiration gains

importance because it becomes the place where God encounters the
Pentecostal, or where the experience of the Spirit occurs. This implies that
Scripture is not read in a simple literalist framework for Pentecostals-or
even a historical framework-in the same way that it is read by fundamen-

talists. The literalism with which Pentecostals approach Scripture relates

to the reception of guidance from the Spirit rather than the mere construc-
tion of doctrine as for fundamentalists and evangelicals’ .43
This insight could be expanded by considering the dynamic view of
revelation implicit within Pentecostalism. I have already suggested that
embracing ongoing revelation leads to a certain construal of doctrinal
development, but I should add that it also promotes a different spirituality
contingent upon the believer being taken up into the narrative of the text
through a powerful spiritual experience. Insight into the text does not
depend solely upon historical exegesis of the original meaning and
authorial intention, but the meaning consigned to the text as it is experi-
enced through the Holy Spirit. For example, David’s adultery (2 Sam. 11-
12) can be understood on a number of different levels not all of which deal
with the historical event. The historical event can become a symbol for the
spiritual life in which the individual gains knowledge of self. As the Spirit
reveals how the text symbolizes the person’s life at a particular stage, new
insights and direction result.
However, this leads to the question of what grounds the interpretation of
a given text, for which Bonino’s second suggestion provides additional

insight. 44 Bonino hopes that Pentecostals will develop a ’multilevel herme-

neutic’ in order to accommodate their approach to Scripture. To inves-
tigate the possibilities of this kind of hermeneutic further, he calls for an
exploration of the fourfold sense of Scripture found among medieval
interpreters. Through dialogue with the medieval understanding of this
fourfold sense, a way to ground interpretation may be discovered as well
as how a multilevel hermeneutic could function.

It is informative to note that many Pentecostals implicitly operate with

this kind of hermeneutic. As Cargal indicates, there is a ’traditional Pente-
costal emphasis upon the multiple dimensions of meaning of the biblical
text; the Holy Spirit may &dquo;illumine&dquo; the words of the text so as to &dquo;make

43. Bonino, ’Changing Paradigms’, p. 118. Pentecostal scholars make a similar

point. Cf. Ellington, ’Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture’, pp. 16-20; Johns,
’Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview’, p. 90.
44. Bonino, ’Changing Paradigms’, p. 118.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 58

them speak&dquo; to any number of situations unforeseen by the human author

of the text’.45 One can see this approach at work in the first edition of The
Evening Light and Church of God Evangel where T.L. McLain testifies to
his experience of Spirit baptism by referencing Zech. 10.1 and Deut.
11.14. He states,
I thank God for letting me live to see the latter rain. ’Ask ye of the Lord
rain in the time of the latter rain’. Zech. 10.1. ’That I will give you the rain
of your land in His due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou
mayest gather in thy com, and thy wine, and thine oil’. Deut. 11.14. Which
means Justification, Sanctification, and the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.
The com represents justification, the wine represents sanctification, the oil
represents baptism with the Holy Ghost.46
In the same issue, Marion T. Whidden explains Spirit baptism in reference
to the transfiguration of Jesus.4’ The two witnesses with Jesus, Moses and
Elijah, represent justification by faith (Moses) and sanctification (Elijah).
The voice in the cloud tells those present to hear the beloved Son, which
Whidden interprets as listening to the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.
Moses and Elijah witness to Jesus analogously to the way justification and
sanctification witness to Spirit baptism. Both McLain and Whidden dis-
cover meaning on two different levels in these texts.
The early issues of The Apostolic Faith also evince a multilevel herme-
neutic. In two separate issues one discovers articles contrasting the outer
court, holy place and most holy place in the tabernacle with the three
stages of salvation .4’ Both articles contain roughly the same content,
although the later one offers further clarification. The brazen altar in the
outer court represents justification, the golden altar in the holy place
represents sanctification and the most holy place along with the ark
represent Spirit baptism. Both articles exhort the reader to build one’s life

45. Cargal, ’Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy’, p. 175. He goes

on the develop this insight in light of postmodern developments in hermeneutics. Ken
Archer finds it ironic that the rigid literalism of early Pentecostals blinded them to the
historical distance between themselves and the text thus resulting in multiple
dimensions of meaning. See his ’Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect’,
JPT 8 (1996), pp. 63-81 (67-68).
46. T.L. McLain, The Evening Light and Church of God Evangel, 1.1 (March 1,
1910), p. 5.
47. M.T. Whidden, The Evening Light, p. 3.
48. Anonymous, ’The Baptism with the Holy Ghost Foreshadowed’, The Apostolic
Faith 1.4 (1906), p. 2; Anonymous, ’Salvation According to the True Tabernacle’, The
Apostolic Faith 1.10 (1907), p. 3.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 59

according to the divine plan as it is expressed in the tabernacle. Salvation

is itself a journey through the various rooms in the tabernacle to the most
holy place where the shekinah dwells. Among these early Pentecostals a
multilevel hermeneutic is in operation similar to the fourfold sense used by
the medieval writers.49
As has been noted by others, Don Dayton refers to this approach as a
‘subjectivizing hermeneutic’ where the individual’s subjective experience
is read into the text. Tracing this approach also to the ’higher life’ move-
ment, he states, ’The exodus from Egypt, the wilderness wanderings, and
crossing the Jordan River into the Promised Land all became stages in the
normative pattern of the spiritual pilgrimage from conversion into the
&dquo;second blessing&dquo; (&dquo;Beulah Land&dquo;)’ .’° Although early Pentecostals used a
typological approach common to fundamentalist hermeneutics, the typolo-
gies Pentecostals found were not simply Christological but reflective of
the whole spiritual life. William Seymour’s article on Rebecca as a type of
the bride of Christ is a good example. The story of Rebecca’s marriage to
Isaac becomes the story of the sanctified soul’s marriage to Christ. Each
passage in Genesis 24 unveils a step in the journey of salvation.51 French
Arrington further describes this hermeneutic in terms of a dialogical rela-
tionship between a personal experience of revelation and Scripture where
’experience informs the process of interpretation, and the fruit of interpre-
tation informs experience’.52 Not only does a ’subjectivizing hermeneutic’

49. The classic interpretation of what has been called the Latter Rain motif is given
by D. Wesley Myland. It is not surprising that Myland uses a multilevel hermeneutic to
bring out the full meaning of what the latter rain symbolizes. See D. Wesley Myland,
The Latter Rain Covenant and Pentecostal Power (Chicago: Evangel Publishing House,
1910). See also D. William Faupel, The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Escha-
tology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought (JPTSup; 10; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996), pp. 30-36. There are also additional articles in The Apostolic
Faith that operate with a similar hermeneutic. See Ophelia Wiley, The Apostolic Faith
1.2 (1906), p. 2; Anna Hall, ’The Polishing Process’, The Apostolic Faith 1.2 (1906),
p. 3; Anonymous, ’The Banqueting House’, The Apostolic Faith 1.3 (1906).
50. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, pp. 23-24 (my emphasis).
51. William J. Seymour, ’Rebecca: Type of the Bride of Christ’, The Apostolic
Faith 1.6 (1907), p. 2.
52. French Arrington, ’Hermeneutics, Historical Perspectives on Pentecostal and
Charismatic’, in Stanley M. Burgess, Gary B. McGee and P.H. Alexander (eds), in
Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
1988), p. 384. Steve Land also highlights this dialogical relationship in Pentecostal
Spirituality, pp. 74-75.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

60

mean that the narrative of the text typifies or symbolizes the Pentecostal
journey but it indicates to the Pentecostal what choices should be made in
the journey.
Medieval interpretation functioned in a similar manner, specifying four
levels of meaning that could be found within a particular passage. The first
level was the historical meaning determined by reference to the historical
context, inasmuch as it could be determined. This level in part served to
ground additional levels of meaning by establishing their boundaries.
Events of a prophetic or historical narrative could not be broken apart as
though they did not matter. The additional levels of meaning all came to
be expressed as the spiritual interpretation of a passage, that is, the
interpretation given by the Spirit. These levels examined a passage for its
symbolic meaning either with a view to moral edification, doctrinal insight
or eschatological insight.53 Interpretation functioned on a number of

different levels so that the text not only had historical meaning but sym-
bolic meaning.
The exegesis of Richard of St. Victor (died 1173), a twelfth-century
canon regular, serves as a good example of medieval interpretation at

work. 54 Richard wrote commentaries with a literal/historical approach to a

text in which he sought to understand the historical context and authorial
intent behind a passage by reference to sources like Josephus, contemporary
Jewish exegetes, Jerome, and so on. However, he also wrote commentaries
featuring a moral interpretation of a text. Old Testament narratives such as
the 12 Patriarchs, the crossing over the Jordan and the building of the ark of
the covenant all become symbols for the soul’s ascent toward heaven.5s
Each narrative informs the soul of what must be done if the ascent is going

53. See Henri de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, I (trans.
Mark Sebanc; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 261-67.
54. For a good summary of Richard’s life and works see J. Châtillon, ’Richard de
Saint-Victor’, in Marcel Viller (ed.), Dictionnaire de spiritualité, XIII (Paris, 1988),
col. 593-654. For further information on St Victor and the canons regular see
J. Châtillon, Le mouvement canonial au Moyen Age: Réforme de L ’Eglise, spiritualité
et culture ascétique et mystique. Etudes réunies par Patrice Sicard (ed). Bibliotheca
Victorina III (Turnhout: Brepols, 1992).
55. For an example of Richard’s hermeneutics at work see Richard de Saint-Victor,
Les douze patriarches (Benjamin minor): Text critique et traduction par Jean
Châtillon et Monique Duchet-Suchaux: Introduction, notes et index par Jean Longère
(Paris: Cerf, 1997). An English translation is provided in Richard of St. Victor: The
Twelve Patriarchs, the Mystical Ark and Book Three of the Trinity, (trans. Grover
Zinn; New York: Paulist Press, 1979).

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 61

to be successful. The exact interpretation of a narrative occurs when the

reason is astonished through a divine showing (revelatio) as a result of the
individual meditating on the passage (lectio divina). For Richard, this
activity required leisure (otium) in which the canon regular suspended
manual labor to make himself available for a divine encounter. Therefore,
although interpretive methods are at work, the ultimate determination of
meaning stems from the revelatio given as text and interpreter intersect in
spiritual experience.’6
For both Pentecostals and medieval interpreters Scripture possesses
different levels of meaning that can be unlocked by an experience of the
Spirit. Scripture supplies truths not only by reference to its historical
context but also by understanding how it symbolically reflects the truth
encountered through an experience. The Spirit’s ongoing revelation occurs
in the midst of an intertwining of an individual’s spiritual experience and
the narrative of the text. As Bonino asserts, the Bible becomes the locus
for a powerful experience, and it is there that insights into doctrine,
morality or eschatology can occur. In this way, the dynamic view of reve-
lation shared by Pentecostals and medievals forces a multilevel interpreta-
tion of a text and changes the way Scripture functions for both groups.
All of this is said not to suggest that Pentecostals should necessarily
return to the fourfold meaning of Scripture found among medieval inter-
preters. Rather, the fourfold meaning provides a way of examining how
Scripture functions for Pentecostals and one possible avenue for develop-
ing a Scripture principle. If, as Alvin Plantinga contends, one assumes that
God is the principal author of Scripture, then two further claims result: (1)
the meaning of a given text cannot always be determined in reference to
the human author because the Lord may intend to teach more than what
the human author intended; (2) what the Lord intends to teach through a
passage may not be the same for everyone or every group. 57 These claims

56. In an interpretation of the dream of Abraham (Gen. 15.12-21), Richard

addresses the hermeneutical gap between his context and the original context by sug-
gesting : ’Perhaps you who listen to this are surprised because you presently experience
nothing like it in yourself (my emphasis)’. See De differentia sacrificii Abrahae a
sacrificio beatae Mariae virginis, in J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia cursus completus
Series prima [latina] (221 vols.; Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844-65), Vol. 196, 1050B-C.
57. Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief
(Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000), p. 385. Plantinga further specifies the second claim by stating that ’perhaps
what [the Lord] intends to teach me or my relevant sociological group is not the same
as what he intended to teach a fifth-century Christian’ (p. 385 n. 12).

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

62

support a multilevel interpretation as flowing out from the historical

meaning of a text into other meanings via a personal or corporate revela-
tion. In light of this, one could further claim that the historical context
serves as one marker as to what is and is not a legitimate interpretation.
This seems to be Mark Cartledge’s point when he suggests that forms of
secondary revelation be measured by their consistency to the biblical
revelation.58 The fourfold sense of scripture helps to discern how historical
meaning to a text grounds other levels of meaning and forms a lens which
expresses but does not fully contain the divine intention.
But is this enough? We might ask Cartledge how consistency should be
determined, or who determines consistency? James K.A. Smith offers one
possible response when he declares, ’The canon...I would propose, is the
Holy Spirit, not a collection of writings. The Spirit of Christ is the norm or
standard for faith and that Spirit stands in authority over both Scripture
and prophecy’ .59 Again, we might ask, to whom does the Spirit spealc, or
with whom is the Spirit’s voice to be identified? Smith’s answer seems to
be twofold: present and past community (tradition and the living comrnu-
nity of believers).Io If this is the case then our interpretive method could
function within a nexus of authority with tradition, confessions as they
embody that tradition, the present community and its authoritative figures
being added to the historical context to forge the borders beyond which the
interpreter could not venture (think of Acts 15.28-’It seemed good to the
Spirit and to US,).61 Moving in this direction takes Pentecostals closer to
the Orthodox conception of authority. John Meyendorff makes a statement
about authority that may resonate with Pentecostals:

[A]n ’internal’ knowledge of the Truth, independent of’external’ criteria

and authorities...implies the theory of the ’spiritual senses’, i.e., an utterly
personal experience of the Living God, made accessible through the
sacramental, communal life in the Body of Christ. This gnosiology does not
suppress ’authorities’ and ’criteria’, but it conceives them as clearly
internal to the Christian experience. They furnish an authentication which

58. Mark Cartledge, ’Empirical Theology: Towards an Evangelical-Charismatic

Hermeneutic’, JPT 9 (1996), pp. 115-26 (125).
59. Smith, ’The Closing of the Book’, p. 68 (his emphasis).
60. Smith, ’The Closing of the Book’, pp. 68-70.
61. My understanding of a nexus of authority is somewhat akin to John Christopher
Thomas’ view of how authority functions in hermeneutics. See his ’Women, Pentecos-
5(1994), pp. 41-
tals and the Bible: An Experiment in Pentecostal Hermeneutics’, JPT
56 (54-56).

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

 63

is incomprehensible to anyone who has not first personally accepted the

validity and tasted to the reality of the experience.
The experience is that of Truth itself, not simply of a means for attaining
the Truth. It involves the ’uncreated’ and divine presence of God in man
through the Holy Spirit. It is the Truth therefore that authenticates authority
and not vice versa. 62

The Pentecostal distinctive of dynamic revelation impacts the doctrine

of Scripture in such a way that it alters this theological locus. It not only
leads to a multilevel interpretation of a text but also fosters continual
doctrinal development in the life of the community. Historical context and
historical methods remain important to Pentecostals as one way of pro-
viding the boundaries for interpretation, but paying attention to the way
texts symbolize various dimensions of the Christian life allows for an
interaction between the text as revelation and the ongoing revelation the
Spirit supplies to the interpreter.
Finally, the interaction between experience, Spirit and revelation changes
theological method for Pentecostals to include the idea of an experience of
the Spirit. Cross and Yong are correct in their assertion that Pentecostals
cannot approach theological inquiry apart from their own encounters with
the living presence of the Spirit. If these encounters form a language of
their own, and if this language is revelatory in some way, then for Pente-
costals theology may not merely be a second-order activity because it is not
merely reflection upon the primary narrative of Scripture; rather it is a
continuation of that narrative in the life of the believer and of the church.
Further exploration of a Pentecostal view of dynamic revelation will help
flesh out more precisely what it means to say that the narrative continues
or, according to the Johannine declaration, that the Spirit guides into all
truth (Jn 16.13).

Conclusion
The question of a Pentecostal theology and its possibility forms part of the
ongoing theological enterprise for Pentecostals. Answering this question
requires further reflection on what constitutes the theological core of
Pentecostalism beyond what is offered in this paper. While in the future I

62. John Meyendorff, Living Tradition: Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary

World (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978), p. 77. I would suggest
that a fruitful line of exploration for a Pentecostal view of revelation, tradition and
Scripture might begin with an examination of the Orthodox position.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009

64

hope to expand my ideas on this matter, I have attempted to give some

preliminary thoughts as to how one may proceed. If Pentecostalism is
reducible to a spiritual experience as the only element giving rise to that
theological core, then it may be fair to say that Pentecostals have nothing
more to offer to the theological enterprise except what is expressed in the

theological metaphor, baptism in the Holy Spirit. In contradistinction, I

would contend that finding the theological core of Pentecostalism must
involve more than the examination of an experience of the Spirit. It rnust
embrace the richness of the Pentecostal tradition and the complex
interplay between already-existing doctrines within that tradition. It is the
complex interplay between experience, revelation and an inherited evan-
gelical’ doctrine of Scripture that provides a distinctive insight into the
Scripture principle and how it should function. Likewise, the interaction
between sanctification, Arminian views on freedom and the will and

experience of the Spirit’s presence and power lead to a modified view of

justification. These are theological distinctions and they may be offered
by Pentecostals as providing insight into the truth underlying doctrinal
assertions.

Downloaded from http://jpt.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on February 7, 2009