Is Evangelical theology, Pauline theology?

Robert Menzies in his book Spirit and Power, co-authored with his father William Menzies, discusses an issue in hermeneutics - the role of narrative in forming theology. Typically, in the past narrative has been mostly viewed as historical and not theological - that instead narrative provides the historical basis for theological formulations. However, in time biblical scholars have come to see what most of the rest of us probably already knew, that narrative is often both historical and theological, history but with a purpose. Interestingly, many have been okay with this in regards to the Old Testament narratives, but when it comes to the book of Acts they break the rules and insist that it is only a historical account of the early church. They contradict themselves.

Anyways all that to highlight an interesting point he makes when interacting with a claim Gordon Fee makes in his book, How to Read the Bible for all its Worth where he states: "unless the Scriptures explicitly tell us we must do something, what is narrated or described can never function in a normative way." (this is footnoted from pg 97 of the 1981 edition - I have no idea if this was changed in response to Menzies or not). So Menzies goes on to respond with a barrage of questions,

"Today, for many, it is difficult to imagine how such a restrictive approach came to be axiomatic for Evangelical interpretation. After all, doesn't this principle sound very much like a canon within a canon? Doesn't much of the theology of the Old Testament come to us in the form of narrative? Didn't Jesus himself often teach by relating stories or parables? Doesn't such a theory tend to reduce the Gospels and Acts (as well as other narrative portions of Scripture) to a mere appendage to didactic portions of Scripture, particularly Paul's letters? (Perhaps this explains the overwhelmingly Pauline character of much of Evangelical theology. When all is said and done, has not Evangelical theology tended to be Pauline theology?) In any event, even the most casual reader cannot help feeling the tension with 2 Timothy 3:16. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness" (pg. 38-39).

So the question becomes, is Evangelical theology indeed, Pauline theology? What do you make of this quote?

J.I. Packer on Pentecostalism

In the Easter edition of Today's Pentecostal Evangel, and weekly publication of the Assemblies of God there is a conversation with J.I. Packer eminent theologian and professor emeritus at Regent College. I post a portion of the conversation below:

tpe: Why is Pentecostalism growing around the world?

PACKER: The Pentecostal emphasis on life in the Spirit, which became a big thing at the turn of the 20th century, was absolutely right. It was an emphasis that hadn't been fully grasped by other evangelicals for a long time. The up-front quest for fellowship with God that grabbed the whole of the heart and therefore had emotional overtones and the openness to a recurrence of some of the signs of the Kingdom was right. In the early 20th century evangelicals didn't accept Pentecostals, and Pentecostals found themselves tempted to say, "We're the only fully fashioned Christians in the world today." Only during the last 50 years has real partnership and mutual respect become reality.

It's simply a marvelous work of God that when the Pentecostal version of the gospel has been preached all around the world for the past half-century there has been a tremendous harvest. It's a wonderful work in our time, which we can set against the decline of Christianity in North America and Western Europe. Most notably in Africa and Asia, Christianity has been roaring ahead through the Pentecostal version of the Christian message and life in the Spirit. I celebrate it and thank God for it. There have been older evangelicals who have set themselves against distinctive Pentecostal emphases as if there's something wrong with it. I have not lined up with those folk and indeed have argued that their attitude is mistaken.

Thanks for the plug, Dr. Packer!

Spirit Baptism vs Fruit of the Spirit

This is a comment I put up on a Christian forum in a discussion regarding the gift of tongues.

just in case it needs clarification - it was not necessary for Jesus to speak in tongues and besides, nobody did before Pentecost (at least not in the sense we see it in Acts 2. Of course there was prophetic/spirit inspired speech in Judaism and acts of esoteric speech in other religions prior to Pentecost, but something new happened at the Pentecost event) - at Pentecost a new age of the Spirit was begun and as Jesus said at the end of Mark - with the coming of the Spirit, people will speak in new tongues, cast out demons (notice no one could but Jesus prior to Pentecost) lay hands on the sick and see healing, etc. When Jesus said the disciples would do greater works than he did, it was a reference to Pentecost and that "greater" meant not more miraculous but greater in extent, or in terms of geography since Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost in Israel. We, the people of God are to do greater works than Jesus in seeing God's salvation to the ends of the earth.

I disagree with the notion that tongues makes one more spiritual than another who may not yet speak/pray in tongues. Evidence of one's spiritual maturity is not tongues (or the lack thereof) but rather evidence of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23).

Also, there is no direct correlation between spiritual ministries (or gifts) and the fruit of the Spirit, per se. Certainly the fruit may be affected by one's reception of Spirit Baptism (as in possibly somewhat accelerating their development, with the right heart and attitude of humility and repentance before God) but not the other way around. Spirit Baptism is charismatic empowerment for witness to Jesus in he world in both word and deed. The fruit of the Spirit indicate one's spiritual maturity in Christ and takes time and effort (continual submission to the Spirit) to develop in the heart and life of the believer.

This is why I believe we often see so much disconnect between those folks who may have the Baptism of the Spirit (as seen in Acts 2:4ff) yet display little evidence of the fruit of the Spirit (spiritual maturity) and those who have great spiritual maturity (fruit of the Spirit) and yet may not have the Baptism of the Spirit (Acts 2:4ff).

Again, tongues are not an indicator of spiritual maturity but rather the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23).

I do agree with Ezra [username on the forum], love is key. This is why the "love" chapter (13) is put in between 12 and 14. Without love, the gifts most likely won't be used and applied properly in a congregational setting. Love is to be at the heart of functioning in Spiritual ministries (or gifts). I use the term "ministries" because they are to empower and build up others, not exalt the self, which tends to happen when we use the term "gifts", it puts the focus on the individual instead of the congregation.

Hope this helps.

Feel free to comment, I am still in process with all this in terms of trying to explain it in a way that is true to the Bible.

The Holy Spirit

Bryan L has a post in which he argues for the tendency of those prescribing to calvinism to have a low view of the Holy Spirit in relation to their doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints (P in the TULIP acronym, which describes the salvation process in calvinist theology).

I think he is right in many cases (there are some charismatic calvinists). He is arguing that the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints seems to not "really take into account the experience of the Holy Spirit in the believers’ lives as evidence of their salvation."

I would like to take it a step further if I may (at some risk), I think the same can generally be said of Evangelicalism at large - here it is dangerous to generalize because once you do - someone breaks the generalization.  I think Evangelicalism tends to downplay the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. Why do I think this? Well, there are several reasons.  

1. First off, open just about any Evangelical Systematic Theology book (with the exception of Grudem and maybe Grenz) and you find only short sections on the person and work of the Holy Spirit - Millard Erickson's Christian Theology has only 36 pages on the person and work of the Holy Spirit as compared to 181 pages related to Christ and 298 pages on Knowing God.  Though this is only one example, I think it is fair to say that the Holy Spirit often gets the short end of the stick in much Evangelical theology.
2. Evangelicals have a problem with the role of "experience" in faith life and practice.  The is probably largely due to the excesses of the Pentecostal/Charismatic/Third Wave/Apostolic movements - though I say more toward the excesses of Charismaticsand Third Wavers than the Pentecostals per se.  For many evangelicals use of the "e" word (as I call it) is not valid in most conversations regarding receiving the Holy Spirit (otherwise they say that for Charismatics experience trumps scripture).  Rightly so, many believe a new believer receives the Holy Spirit at salvation, but wrongly so, they insist that experience has little if any factor in the receiving of the Holy Spirit - so it is by faith and not by sight.  Part of this lies in a cessationist point of view that what happened on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4ff) was a transitional event and meant only for starting the church and ending with the last of the Apostles.  In my opinion, I see no basis for this claim whatsoever, though Cessationist base this on their interpretation of "when perfection comes" in 1 Cor 13:10 (they see it as the Cannon of Scripture, I and others see it as related to the Parousia).   This is pretty much a never ending debate.  
3. Other Evangelicals may not be completely cessationist yet will want to know where the tongues of fire and the wind are if the event in Acts 2:1-4 is still normal or normative.  
4. There is also the worry of being too over focused on emotionalism (media video footage never helps in this case) which is confused with experience.  Emotionalism and experience are not synonyms.  I think the claim to emotionalism is more rhetoric than fairness - how one responds to experience is going to be different for each person and is to be guided by Scripture.  
5. Many evangelicals (and calvinists) will insist that the primary purpose of the Holy Spirit is to give witness to Christ - so a truly Spirit-filled person and assembly will be a Christ-centered - Christ exalting person/assembly.  I agree with this completely.  At the same time I believe the role of the Spirit in the life of the believer and the church is multi-faceted.  He will teach us all things and remind us of Jesus' teachings (Jn 14:26);  He will guide us into all truth (Jn 16:13); He will make Christ known to us (Jn 16: 14-15); he will tell us what to say when we are under pressure or when we are persecuted (Mk 13:11). Even so, there is also the issue of charismatic empowerment.  The individual believer will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on him or her - power for what?  Power for witness to Jesus (in both word and deed) - this is the essence of Spirit Baptism (cf. Acts 1:8 realized in Acts 2:4ff).   With this empowerment, I believe, comes the gifts of the Holy Spirit as seen in Romans 12:4-8, 1 Corinthians 12:8-11, and Ephesians 4:11 (these are offices but still gifts - "he gave some to be...").  

I recognize I am not complete and may be inaccurate in my assessment but I think I am on the right track - both Reformed and Evangelical Theology, in general, tend to play down the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer and the community of faith.  

In Reformed Theology it is the Sovereignty of God.  In Evangelical Theology it is the Supremacy of Christ.  In Pentecostalism it is the Power of the Holy Spirit.  I think each have their pluses and each have their own excesses.  Instead of pitting them against each other I think there is plenty of room for blending all three in to a solid Biblical Theology of our Triune God.

However, the blending has yet to take place and is presenting many problems for Pentecostals because Evangelicalism has infused the movement and is causing much doubt and uncertainty in exactly who the Holy Spirit is and how he works in a person's life.

Please don't get me wrong, there many good and excellent aspects of Evangelical Theology - they are just weak on the person and work of the Holy Spirit and I think to a fault.

articles on the Holy Spirit

If anyone is interested the Assemblies of God has a magazine called the Enrichment Journal (both in print and online). In the online version they have a series of articles archived on the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit that may be of interest to you.

If you read any of them, let me know what you think - I think they should be helpful for the most part.

Pentecostalism explained...

The Future AG blog put up a link of an NBC Nightly News interview with Pastor Eugene Rivers of the Azuza Christian Community (Church) in Boston. It is a really well done presentation and while there may be some points of disagreement I think he hits on the core issue of what the Pentecostal movement is really about (and has been about since the Azuza Street Revival in 1906) - reaching the poor. Please understand too when he uses the terms poverty and prosperity he is most likely not referring to the "prosperity gospel" of WOF wing of the charismatic movement. More likely it was an alliteration and he is referring to what Donald McGavran coined, "redemption and lift." When people are filled with the Holy Spirit - the Holy Spirit empowers and enables them to overcome seeming destitute situations and rise up out of it in the power of the Spirit. A simple fact of the matter is, is that a kind of "redemption lift" does accompany salvation and the filling of the Spirit. This may be why too Pentecostalism is exploding in the Southern Hemisphere (it is dying in Northern Hemisphere).

Let me know what y'all think.

What's the difference? part 2

In my last post I discussed the technical difference between Pentecostals and Charismatics in terms of history with the dividing line being 1960.

Now I want to attempt to address the theological difference. I need to clarify here that things can get kind of messy at this point and there can be a lot of detail - but for the sake of keeping things simple, I am going to stick to the basic difference - if you want to discuss things in a little more detail perhaps we can go into all that in the comments. Also, I want to say as well that there may be different understandings of the difference I am going to discuss - so how I lay it out, is as I understand it. I do not claim to be an expert in pentecostal or charismatic theology (even though I went to a pentecostal seminary) so I am willing to learn from others and am willing to make adjustments to my understanding of this topic.

What is the basic theological difference?

The basic theological difference lies in the interpretation and understanding of what is meant by the term "Baptism with the Holy Spirit" and the supposed "evidences" that such has happened in the life of a believer.

For both the Pentecostal and Charismatic believer - The Baptism with the Holy Spirit refers to the receiving of power Jesus mentioned to the disciples in Acts 1:8 which reads in the ESV: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

It is the belief of the Charismatic and Pentecostal believer that this power is something all believers can and should receive. We see this happen in Acts 2:4 and following. Also, Pentecostal and Charismatic believers understand Peter's statement in Acts 2:39, which reads, "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." With the promise referring back to the promise of the Father Jesus told the disciples to wait for back in Acts 1:4. C & P folk believe this promise is for every believer irrespective of race, class, or gender, or theological background. It is a promise for all who are disciples of Jesus.

Now where Pentecostal and Charismatic theology part ways is with regard to the "evidence" one has received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

For the Pentecostal, it is asserted that evidence of Spirit Baptism is speaking in tongues. Acts 2:4; 8:14-17 (tongues here assumed); 10:44-48; 19:4-7 being versed used to support the argument. What is important to mention here is theological method. Pentecostals believe the book of Acts is not just history but also theological discourse (Luke being the most prolific author of the NT with more verses in Luke-Acts than all of Paul combined, desrves the label "theologian" as much as "historian," and that folks would easily argue Luke is not just a history of Jesus but theology is at play - Pentecostals argue the same for Acts). So it is argued by Pentecostals that a major theme for the book of Acts is the Work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church and the individual believer.

It is the position of Pentecostal believers that (in the words of the Assemblies of God) "the initial physical evidence" of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues - such that to an extent many would say "no tongues - no baptism." There are some, who may differ on the definition of "initial." Most take it to mean "immediately." Yet, others prefer to see it as meaning "primary" worrying that "immediately" is too pushy and hurtful to many. Many Pentecostals would say Spirit Baptism is not tongues speaking - Spirit Baptism is charismatic empowerment to be effective witness to Jesus both in word and deed.

EDIT: Pentecostals see Luke and Paul in tandem and not at odds - whereas Paul emphasizes the salvific aspect of Spirit Baptism as initiation in to the Body of Christ sealing the believer for salvation, Luke argues for the charismatic empowerment aspect of Spirit Baptism that empowers the believer for effective witness to Jesus both in word and deed.

It is extremely important to know that for Pentecostals and Charismatics the issue of Spirit Baptism as charismatic empowerment is not an issue of salvation or evidence for salvation. Salvation comes by faith alone in Christ alone. There is a brand of Pentecostalism that does believe this but they are a cult! This group is the UPC or United Pentecostal Church, aka: Oneness Pentecostals or Jesus only - they also deny the Trinity and insist on water baptism (in Jesus' name only) and speaking in tongues for savlation. Thus, they are appropriately identified as a cult.

In Charismatic theology - they will not go that far. Instead Charismatic theology argues tongues is "an" evidence but not necessarily "the" evidence. they allow more flexibility on the matter. In this case Charismatic look to Paul and his comments in 1 Corinthians 12:29-31, which reads in the ESV, "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts." With the logical answer being "no" Charismatics here refrain from insisting that believers speak in tongues as evidence of having received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Charismatic theology would suggest that there are other evidences of Spirit baptism such as prophetic speech, effective witnessing, faith, healings, service, helps and the like.

This is the basic difference. Let me remind you I could get a lot more specific and detailed but I wanted to keep it simple and not take all day to type this out explaining the differences. Please know that within the Assemblies of God there is much debate about this issue and not all are in agreement - however the heart of Pentecostal theology is not tongues but rather empowerment by the Holy Spirit for witness to Jesus, both in word and deed. This is the heart of Pentecostal theology. While Pentecostals may argue that "physical evidence" is tongues speaking, true evidence of Spirit Baptism is one's ability to witness to the reality and power of Jesus in the life of the believer, both in word and deed (e.g. righteous living).

For further reading on these issues consider the following:
Gordon Fee's massive tome God's Empowering Presence, Hendrickson Publishers, 1994
Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, Hendrickson Publishers, 1984.
William W. and Robert P. Menzies, Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience, Zondervan, 2000.
Frank Macchia, Baptized in the Holy Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology, Zondervan, 2006.
Craig Keener, 3 Crucial Questions about the Holy Spirit, Baker Books, 1996. (I would probably advise that folks start with Keener.

I hope this helps some. I recognize this post may need editing in terms of content.