http://jpt.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Pentecostal Theology can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://jpt.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Dale M. Coulter*
Lee University, School of Religion, Cleveland, TN 37311, USA
email: dcoulter@leeuniversity.edu
ABSTRACT
*
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
/
charismatic will evince the same rituals, and thus the same worldview,
as any Pentecostal. But surely Yong would agree that there are serious
’evangelical’ and a Roman Catholic come to be found as both representing ’the same
stream’?
24. Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), p. 165.
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.
the divine attributes. 31 It also implies that Pentecostals develop not simply
an appreciation for a particular theological tradition but an understanding
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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