New Heavens And New Earth

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

New Heavens and New Earth

Early Pentecostal Soteriology as a

Foundation for Creation Care in the Present

Jeffrey S. Lamp*

Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma

jlamp@oru.edu

Abstract

The article examines references in several early pentecostal periodicals concerning the soteriological destiny of the other-than-human created order to demonstrate that the current focus among many current pentecostal advocates of creation care is a valid expression of pentecostal spirituality in continuity with the soteriological emphases of early pioneers in the movement. After examining impediments to creation care that relate primarily to a missional focus on evangelism in light of popular dispensational understandings of eschatology, I survey the occurrence of the phrasenew earthin early pentecostal periodical literature to show that many writers held views of eschatology and soteriology that held out hope for the redemption of all creation. Current pente- costal thought on creation care that challenges the noted impediments against this focus is not acquiescence to secular faddism, but is consonant with strands of thought early in the movement.

Keywords

creation care – new earth – soteriology – eschatology – pentecostal

Introduction

Some writers in early Pentecostalism highlighted the biblical imagery of the new heavens and new earth to argue that the scope of God’s salvation extended

* I would like to thank Dale Coulter, Amos Yong, and the blind peer reviewers for their helpful

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/15700747-03601004

1

new heavens and new earth

65

beyond the salvation of human souls to include the transformation of the present cosmos in glory. Drawing on such passages as Romans 8, 1Corinthians 15, and 2Peter 3, these writers demonstrate a breadth in soteriological vision that counters the common caricature of Pentecostals as those who are so totally other-worldly in their soteriology that such issues as the care for creation in the present find little currency in their mission in the world.

This article will examine several early pentecostal periodicals for the period between 1906 and 1916 to show that the soteriological vision of several early pentecostal thinkers forms a trajectory with the creation care1 emphases among several current Pentecostals. The goal of the discussion is to foster fur- ther work in creation care among Pentecostals by demonstrating that such concern is not an intrusion into the tradition, but is, rather, faithful to a soteri- ological vision that goes back to the roots of the tradition as it engaged certain strands of biblical teaching.

Impediments to a Pentecostal Response to the Ecological Crisis

Shane Clifton has cataloged several reasons why Pentecostals have been at odds with the modern environmental movement.2 He argues that adherence to a literal six-day creation story has led to theologies that reinforce a pre- millennial tendency to focus on salvation of the human soul. This results in a rejection of the interconnectedness of all the earth that is central to theolo-

comments on earlier drafts of this article. Chris Green also read an early draft of this article

and made several helpful comments. Their insights were invaluable in helping me nuance

and clarify several of the assertions made in the argument.

1 In many Christian circles, the term creation care is preferred when speaking of Christian

responses to environmental and ecological issues. The term asserts two foundational char-

acteristics that distinguish Christian responses from more secular and/or other religious

responses. First, the term creation places the arena of concern squarely in the creative activ-

ity and will of God. This interjects a dose of humility into assessments of the human role in

addressing problems and solutions to degradation of the natural world. The termcaredefines

the parameters of the divinely granted human vocation with respect to the natural world.

“Care” describes human activity in terms of a worshipful response to God’s gracious redemp-

tion of both human and other-than-human components of creation. Moreover, the label has

the practical effect of eliminating the emotive baggage that the terms environmentalism and

ecologyevoke in the minds of many Christians.

2 Shane Clifton, “Preaching the ‘Full Gospel’ in the Context of Global Environmental Crises,” in

The Spirit Renews the Face of the Earth: Pentecostal Forays in Science and Theology of Creation¸

ed. Amos Yong (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009), 121–125.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

2

66

lamp

gies and philosophies of the environmental movement. Moreover, Pentecostals have frequently been highly suspicious of scientific disciplines that are part of the identification of and solution to environmental problems. This has led to a sense of alienation felt by Pentecostals in those academic fellowships in which such discussion takes place. Theological tendencies to see the doctrine of Spirit baptism in terms of individual salvation or sanctification and to orient toward a view of the miraculous intervention of God over against more natu- ralistic interventions have contributed to disinterest in creation care as well. An emphasis on prosperity teaching among some Pentecostals has mixed with capitalistic and materialistic impulses in Western societies to engender a view toward wealth creation and affluence, goals that are often viewed at odds with environmental concerns. More mundane reasons for environmental disinter- est at the parish level include focus on local church growth and the busyness of church life.

Perhaps the most influential factor in this regard is the perception that Pen- tecostals are singularly focused on the evangelization of the world in light of eschatological urgency. Many Pentecostal authors have identified this as the driving force of pentecostal mission from the earliest stages of the movement.3 Frank Macchia connects pentecostal focus on evangelism and eschatology by arguing that early pentecostal expectation of the imminent arrival of the king- dom of God from above and beyond effectively limited the missionary focus of the church to evangelism. This view has endured with many Pentecostals at a popular level today.4 A more colloquial way of expressing this is to say that since God, in the end, is only going to destroy the world in judgment, the most important work of the church in the world is to save the souls of sinners. In this view, works aimed at such things as creation care are viewed as less important than evangelism, though they may be profitably employed as door openers for evangelism.5 Moreover, the political and theological conservatism of some seg- ments within Pentecostalism has given rise to doubt that there is any kind of saving role of the Spirit apart from the proclamation of the gospel in evange-

3 D. William Faupel,The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development

of Pentecostal Thought(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen,

“Pentecostal Pneumatology of Religions: The Contribution of Pentecostals to Our Under-

standing of the Word of God’s Spirit in the World,” in The Spirit in the World: Emerging Pen-

tecostal Theologies in Global Contexts, ed. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen (Grand Rapids, MI, MI: Wm.

B. Eerdmans, 2009), 155–180.

4 Frank D. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 2006), 272–275.

5 Ibid., 277; Kärkkäinen, “Pentecostal Pneumatology of Religions,” 168.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

3

new heavens and new earth

67

lism.6 As will become apparent below, the work of the Spirit in the salvation of the other-than-human world is a significant component of the thought of both early and contemporary pentecostal thinkers.

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen points out another impediment to the engagement of Pentecostals with matters of creation care.7 He notes that non-Western pentecostal Christians are more likely than their counterparts in the West to engage questions of political, social, environmental, and scientific issues as valid expressions of the church’s mission in the world. In their recent volumes addressing pentecostal theologies in their global contexts, Kärkkäinen, Amos Yong, and Samuel Solivan highlight numerous non-Western pentecostal exam- ples of mission beyond simple evangelism from African, Asian, and Latin Amer- ican contexts.8 Part of this phenomenon is attributable to simple demograph- ics. Whereas Pentecostalism has come to enjoy a more mainstream acceptance in the United States with the concomitant increase of socioeconomic standing among large numbers of its adherents, Pentecostals in non-Western contexts are truly a churchof the “poor,” not simply forthe “poor,” living in situations in which poverty, sickness, and oppression are a daily part of their existence.9 It is probably no accident that the focus on evangelism in light of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God is the preoccupation of Western, predominantly North American, pentecostal Christians, for whom issues such as environmen- tal degradation are largely absent from the radars of their daily experience. Believers of similar stripe in non-Western settings see such issues as constitu- tive, in large part, of their mission.

End-time theology and the related emphasis on evangelism are in truth symptoms of a more fundamental impediment to widespread acceptance of creation care as a valid expression of the mission of pentecostal Christians. As hinted above, it is truly a matter of the Christian doctrine of salvation. Simply put, is salvation only a matter of saving the souls of human beings so that they

6 Kärkkäinen, “Pentecostal Pneumatology of Religions,” 170.

7 Ibid., 168.

8 Cf., Douglas Peterson, “A Moral Imagination: Pentecostals and Social Concern in Latin Amer-

ica,” in Kärkkäinen, ed., The Spirit in the World, 53–66; Koo Dong Yun, “Pentecostalism from

Below: Minjung Liberation and Asian Pentecostal Theology,” in Kärkkäinen, ed., The Spirit

in the World, 89–114; Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the

Possibility of Global Theology(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), chap. 1; Samuel Soli-

van,The Spirit, Pathos, and Liberation: Towards a Hispanic Pentecostal Theology(Sheffield, UK:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).

9 Wonsuk Ma, “‘When the Poor Are Fired Up’: The Role of Pneumatology in Pentecostal/Charis-

matic Mission,” in Kärkkäinen, ed.,The Spirit in the World, 41–42.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

4

68

lamp

might enjoy an eternity of bliss in heaven with God? Or is there a broader understanding of salvation that encompasses the entirety of God’s creation as a recipient of God’s eternal blessing of new life? The next section of this discussion will examine the thinking of a selection of early pentecostal writers who demonstrated in their thought a broader view of salvation that provides a foundational rationale for current Pentecostals who advocate creation care as a vital aspect of pentecostal spirituality.

Early Pentecostals and the Destiny of Creation

It is with some trepidation that a scholar looks to the writings of early Pen- tecostals to argue for any level of obligation for present-day Pentecostals. At one level, there is a philosophical divide as to what authoritative status should be granted to these writings, with some arguing that they may be instructive though not necessarily authoritative,10 while others suggest a more normative role for these writings.11 Resolution of this debate is not germane to the aims of this discussion. A more practical reason for the difficulty of the appeal to early Pentecostals as a rationale for current belief and practice is the nature of the writtensourcesfromthis period ofpentecostalhistory.These early Pentecostals did not set out to write systematic theologies or rigorous biblical commen- taries to articulate their theological positions. Rather, much of their biblical and theological exposition took place in a wide array of popular periodicals that cir- culated through churches for the edification of pentecostal believers. The first decade of the movement saw such periodicals as The Bridegroom’s Messenger, The Latter Rain Evangel, and Confidence, to name a few, give expression to the experiences of this fledgling group and attempt to provide biblical and theolog- ical foundations for their experiences. Given the nature of these sources, it is no surprise that there is a wide variety of opinion, some of it quite contradictory with others, expressed in these pages.

This raises another more practical difficulty. Many of these sources have not been rendered into digital format. Moreover, the voluminous amount that has been rendered is in simple text format, not in a standardized tagged format, so searching topics, terms, scriptural citations, and so forth, is difficult. So what follows in this discussion is a rather limited sampling of pentecostal periodical

10 Yong, In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political Theology(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.

B. Eerdmans, 2010), 95–96.

11 Ken Archer, “A Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology: Method and Manner,”International

Journal of Systematic Theology9 (2007): 301–314.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

5

new heavens and new earth

69

literature from the period between 1906 and 1916.12 The sample derives from a search of the Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center (FPHC) database of this lit- erature for a simple search term, “new earth.” The choice of this term focuses on one particular aspect of creation care that serves as a foundation for much of what current pentecostal scholars are addressing in terms of a pentecostal approach to creation care, namely, the destiny of the created order in God’s plan of salvation. This focus is particularly crucial. If the destiny of the created order is ultimately annihilation at the end of the age, there is a greatly reduced impetus in the minds of many for caring for creation in the present, particu- larly if this involves sacrifice of any kind. If, however, the destiny of creation is restoration and renewal in the age to come, then the other-than-human cre- ation is, like human beings, an object of God’s ultimate salvation and is worthy of an analogous reception of benevolence and care from God and, by extension, God’s people, in the present.

At the outset, it should be noted that early Pentecostals did not share a sin- gle perspective on the “new earth.” In fact, the majority of references located in the FPHC database simply used the label alongside several others as a synec- doche for the blessed eternal state of the righteous without direct comment concerning the fate of the present earth. Moreover, some used the phrase to speak precisely of the destruction of the present earth and its replacement with a new earth. One B.S. Moore used the term to speak of the complete dissolu- tion of the current earth in rather colorful terms: “There won’t be any adders and rattlesnakes sticking their heads out of their holes. When He melts up this old world He is going to burn every old rattle-snake up with it.”13 The remainder

12 The importance of this period for pentecostal identity is encapsulated in Walter Hollen-

weger’s characterization of these earliest days of the pentecostal movement as the “heart”

rather than merely the birth of Pentecostalism (“Pentecostals and the Charismatic Move-

ment,” in The Study of Spirituality, ed. Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, and Edward

Yarnold [London: SPCK, 1986], 551). In the spirit of Hollenweger’s characterization of this

period in the movement’s history, a spate of works by Pentecostals draws on this material

to address current pentecostal approaches to various topics. See Steven J. Land, Pente-

costal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom, JPTSup 1 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1993); Kimberly Ervin Alexander, Pentecostal Healing: Models in Theology and Prac-

tice(Blandford Forum, UK: Deo, 2006); Daniel Castelo, Revisioning Pentecostal Ethics: The

Epicletic Community (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2012); Chris E.W. Green, Toward a Pente-

costal Theology of the Lord’s Supper: Foretasting the Kingdom (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press,

2012); and Larry R. McQueen,Toward a Pentecostal Eschatology: Discerning a Way Forward

(Blandford Forum, UK: Deo, 2012).

13 B.S. Moore, “‘In the Days of His Preparation’—A New Heaven and a New Earth,”LatterRain

Evangel 6 (1914): 5–9.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

6

70

lamp

of this discussion, however, will examine examples in which the phrase is used to speak of the renewal of the present order.

An early expression of this belief occurs in an unsigned article, “John Wes- ley’s Teaching,” in The Bridegroom’s Messenger in 1910. This article is simply a list of several beliefs that John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, expounded in the eighteenth century. Wesley’s theological and spiritual influence greatly affected early Pentecostalism, and among those beliefs listed in this article were “that the curse shall be removed from the earth, and the animal creation restored to pristine innocence” and “that there shall be a transfiguration of the planet into a New Earth, with a New Heaven, and a New Climate.”14 This affirmation is poignant for two reasons. First, of all the areas of commonality between Wesley and Pentecostals, these two statements received special atten- tion. Clearly for this contributor, the destiny of creation is a topic of special concern and interest. Second, the state of creation is described in very ter- restrial terms, an earth that has had the curse removed such that it will host animalsrestoredtotheiroriginalconditioninaclimatesuitedforsuchanearth. This writer does not envision an eternity devoid of a material creation in favor of spiritual existence in heaven. A later unsigned article in the same publica- tion, titled “Jesus Is Coming Soon,” provides a commentary on the teaching of the book of Revelation concerning the return of Jesus Christ. The return of Jesus will include the “restoration of the animal kingdom” and the “restoration of the earth and plant life.”15

D. Wesley Myland, in a sermon about the end-times, speaks vividly from 2Peter 3 of the analogous destinies of both human and other-than-human creation:

“But the heavens, the earth, which are now by the same word kept in store” so that it shall not be destroyed by water any more, but why? Because now it is reserved and kept in store for its second baptism, that of fire. Just as truly as the human soul must have two baptisms, one in water and the other in fire, so the earth will have two baptisms; just as truly as every human heart to be a child of God must be regenerated, so this earth must be regenerated.16

Later in the same sermon, he states:

14 “John Wesley’s Teaching,”The Bridegroom’s Messenger 3 (1910): 4.

15 “Jesus Is Coming Soon,”The Bridegroom’s Messenger 6 (1913): 4.

16 D. Wesley Myland, “Where Is the Promise of His Parousia? Divine Kleptomania,” Latter

Rain Evangel2 (1910): 17.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

7

new heavens and new earth

71

He [Peter] says, “Nevertheless we, according to the promise look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” A renewed heaven and a renewed earth; not the old heaven and the old earth taken away entirely. God gave you a new heart but you are still Mrs. Smith. So this earth is going to be regenerated just like men. It is going to have a new heart and a new face, purified by fire as the old was purified by water.17

This sermon is significant for two reasons. First, it presented an analogous pic- ture of the redemption awaiting both human and other-than-human creation. It also drew on the metaphor of fire not as something that will destroy the cur- rent heavens and earth in favor of all new versions of each, but as something that will purify the present orders of their current corruption and decay. The new heavens and earth are not replacements for the current versions; rather, they are in continuity with and recognizable forms of the current versions. In a later article, Myland cites the leaves from the trees of life as the means by which everything “right down here on earth” will be put in perfect order.18

In the fourth entry of a series of “Resurrection Papers,” Elisabeth Sisson comments on the wordthenin 1Corinthians 15:24: “Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power.” In a poignant quotation, Sisson shows a remarkable awareness of the astronomy of her day and an openness to learn from the physical sciences as she builds toward her point:

When God comes forth and talks about “the whole creation” how much do we know of what He is saying, save by such hints as He gives us in His Word? We are told that the earth is one of the smallest of God’s creations, a tiny planet in one solar system. How many of these systems there are, centering each around its own sun, our finite research cannot tell us. Has God no intellectual, moral or spiritual purpose in creation save what we find in this tiny earth-ball? These countless systems that fill the heavens, “the work of His fingers,” are they just innumerable piles of matter, setting forth His wondrous skill, as the mechanics of His hands, without however any inner meaning, intelligence or response to His heart or His Spirit? Deep suggestions to the contrary are given us in this little adverb “then” of I. Cor. 15.24.19

17 Ibid., 19.

18 Myland, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ—The Consummation of All Things,”Latter Rain

Evangel4 (1912): 17.

19 Elisabeth Sisson, “Resurrection Papers No. IV: Resurrection Order—Third Epoch,”Latter

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

8

72

lamp

So what is the point toward which this quotation builds? She concludes that thisadverbthen,whichspeaksoftheend-timeswhenChristdefeatshisremain- ing enemies and turns the kingdom back over to God, is precisely “‘the whole creation’ released into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”20 In the fol- lowing entry in this series, Sisson characterizes this as the time when Christ will exercise “His redemptive work in His universe to a thousand generations.”21

Several points are noteworthy here. First, in terms of the content of these statements, she comes to similar conclusions as the sources noted above. The whole cosmos will share in the redemption that is promised human beings. Moreover, the verse under discussion, 1Corinthians 15:24, speaks of Christ sub- duing his enemies, an activity that occurs in the present in anticipation of the end when he hands over the kingdom to God. Had Sisson written in an age in which ecological crises were present, she might have drawn the conclusion that some current Pentecostals have drawn, namely, that the work of Christ in subduing his present enemies might refer to caring for creation in antici- pation of that redemption, just as one would care for human beings awaiting redemption. A final point concerns the means through which Sisson frames her argument. She draws unapologetically on the findings of natural science in the development of her theological argument. Such reference surely models for current Pentecostals that natural sciences are fruitful conversation partners in articulating a theology of creation care, just as they assisted Sisson in arguing that the resurrection of Jesus Christ prefigures the time when all creation will be raised into the newness of life.

One final example merits consideration. In an article addressing the prac- tice of the Lord’s Day for those living under the new covenant, Elizabeth Sexton refers to the destiny of the created order when she states, “This final making new of all things is the end of the whole plan of the new covenant worked out.”22 Particularly significant is the mention of the “new covenant.” Among the writers of the New Testament, this is language that refers to the covenant God established through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. It is that toward which God had been moving from the time of the covenant God made with Abraham (Genesis 12:1–3). What Sexton is intimating is that God’s plan of salvation in

Rain Evangel3 (1911): 18.

20 Ibid., 19. Cf. Rom 8:22.

21 Sisson, “Resurrection Papers No. V: Life of the First Resurrectionists,”Latter Rain Evangel3

(1911): 16.

22 Elizabeth Sexton, “Sunday, the Lord’s Day, under the New Covenant,” The Bridegroom’s

Messenger 3 (1910): 1.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

9

new heavens and new earth

73

Jesus Christ involves making the entire created order new. This is not a periph- eral interest for those so ethically inclined; this is part and parcel of the plan of God manifest in Jesus Christ. God’s salvation is not restricted to human beings.

This brief survey is admittedly narrow in its focus and scope. It does not claim to encompass all that this corpus has to say about the destiny of the cre- ated order. The delimiting of the search for sources containing references to “new earth” is artificially restrictive, chosen tendentiously with an eye toward serving as a basis upon which one might argue for current creation care empha- ses among Pentecostals. It has not sought to present an exhaustive overview of the question of the fate of creation among early Pentecostals. What is striking about this survey, however, is that the search term new earth led to discus- sions that reflected primarily on matters of end-time eschatology, but did not preclude participation of the other-than-human aspects of creation in God’s soteriological program.23 While attribution of an ecological motivation for the positions surveyed here would surely be anachronistic, nevertheless this dis- cussion has illustrated that a focus on eschatology need not lead to a position that sees the destruction of the other-than-human created order in the end. Among some early Pentecostals, the whole creation is viewed as an object of God’s salvation. The focus on the salvation of the entire created order is one rationale currently cited by Pentecostals to urge care for creation in the present. The next section of this discussion will address what Pentecostals are currently saying about creation care, noting the similarities with the early forerunners of the movement.

Creation Care and Pentecostals Today

Many current Pentecostals have put a significant focus on creation care, joining together two themes as a paradigm for doing so. As with the early Pentecostals surveyed above, some scholars focus on the destiny of creation, doing so by speaking in terms of the work of the Spirit in creation attaining this destiny. Several examples are worthy of note. Macchia redefines the traditional pen- tecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism, reconfiguring it such that it is no longer simply descriptive of an individual’s encounter with the Spirit. Additionally,

23 For additional examples beyond those already noted, see Pastor Jeffrey, “Are We Possessed

by the Lord?” Confidence 3 (1910): 77–83; A.A. Boddy, “The New Creation, or, a Wonderful

Salvation—For Body, Soul and Spirit,” Confidence 3 (1910): 84–86; and “A Chart of the

World’s Ages and the Coming of the Lord,”Confidence7 (1914): 70–71.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

10

74

lamp

it describes the impartation of the Spirit into all of creation to “liberate cre- ation from within history toward new possibilities for free, eschatological exis- tence,”24 with the goal of the Spirit filling all of creation in preparation for its final transformation into the dwelling place of God. Note the twin emphases: the destiny of creation is described in terms of free, eschatological existence characterized as the dwelling place of God, and this is achieved through the activity of the Spirit within history.

Other scholars similarly frame the activity of the Spirit in the world today as fitting creation for realizing its ultimate destiny. A.J. Swoboda coins the term eco-glossolalia as a label for the pneumatological metaphor of the Spirit- baptized creation as the framework for Pentecostals in developing a robust ecotheology.25 In a pair of articles, Steven Studebaker critiques the common distinctions between common and special grace, on the one hand, and the natural and supernatural orders, on the other, to argue for a unified concept of grace grounded in a pneumatological vision that is more conducive to cre- ation care. Drawing on the work of Karl Rahner and David Coffey, Studebaker develops the idea of the mutual love model of intra-trinitarian relationship and the entelechy of the Holy Spirit toward the Son as a paradigm for Pentecostals to view creation care as a participation in the Spirit’s movement of creation toward the goal of its participation in cosmic redemption in Christ.26 Clark Pin- nock focuses on the “cosmic operation of the Spirit” that sees the divine acts of creation and redemption as integral to the Spirit’s work, such that the “Spirit is the ecstasy of divine life, the overabundance of joy, that gives birth to the universe and ever works to bring about a fullness of unity.”27 Pinnock’s descrip- tion of the Spirit’s work expands from the present and future foci to include the Spirit’s past connection to the creation of the cosmos (cf. Genesis 1:2), sug- gesting that unity and joy are the effects and goals of the Spirit’s presence in creation from its beginning to its consummation. Yong draws on several pas- sages from the Old Testament that depict the Spirit’s connection with creation (Genesis 1:2–3; Psalm 104:29–30; Job 34:14–15) to argue that creation is the the- ater of the Spirit’s presence and activity, indicating that the whole of creation

24 Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 97.

25 A.J. Swoboda, “Eco-Glossolalia: Emerging Twenty-First Century Pentecostal and Charis-

matic Ecotheology,”Rural Theology9 (2011): 101–116.

26 Steven M. Studebaker, “The Spirit in Creation: A Unified Theology of Grace and Creation

Care,”Zygon43 (2008): 943–960; “Creation Care as ‘Keeping in Step with the Spirit,’” inThe

Liberating Spirit: Pentecostals and Social Action in North America, ed. Michael Wilkinson

and Steven M. Studebaker (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010), 248–263.

27 Clark Pinnock, Flame of Love(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 48, 49.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

11

new heavens and new earth

75

has value apart from human habitation and that it, along with human beings, will experience salvation when it is transformed into the new heavens and new earth.28 I similarly argue that such an “ecological pneumatology” is implicit within the argumentation of the epistle to the Hebrews.29

This brief survey has indicated that current Pentecostals reflect a similar concern to that of their early pentecostal forerunners in describing the des- tiny of creation but have advanced on this concern by describing the destiny of creation in terms of the pentecostal distinctive of the work of the Spirit. This work of the Spirit is described in terms of the presence of the Spirit in prepar- ing creation for attainment of its final destiny. How this translates into creation care is primarily by way of implication to this point. If human beings and other- than-humancreationarebothrecipientsof God’ssalvation,thenhumanbeings should show concern for this other-than-human creation that is analogous to the concern they would show for human beings. The remainder of this section of the discussion will identify some explicit examples of how current Pente- costals characterize their participation in the care of creation.

Matthew Tallman adopts a traditional paradigm from pentecostal circles that names Jesus as Savior, Spirit-baptizer, Healer, and Coming King, to describe a pentecostal approach to creation care.30 The label “Savior” indicates an ap- proach to creation care that sees creation as an object of God’s salvation in its own right. The label “Coming King” speaks to creation receiving this sal- vation at the end of the age, when Jesus brings transformation to human and other-than-human creation alike. These two emphases reflect early pentecostal reflection on the destiny of creation. The label “Spirit-baptizer” brings into focus the roleof the Spirit as the one who movesin history toeffect this redemp- tion. It is with the label “Healer” that the present activity of the Spirit intersects with the concerns of creation care. Pentecostal believers are to extend their belief in divine healing to include all of creation, performing works of compas- sion to bring wholeness to creation in anticipation of its final destiny.

Clifton affirms this dynamic, though without appeal to the paradigm. He suggests that Spirit-empowered pentecostal Christians must come to see the whole world as filled with the Spirit in order to overcome the sense of division that exists between human beings and other-than-human creation, thus paving

28 Yong,TheSpiritPouredoutonAllFlesh:PentecostalismandthePossibilityofGlobalTheology

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 281–282.

29 Jeffrey S. Lamp,The Greening of Hebrews? Ecological Readings in the Epistle to the Hebrews

(Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 51–68.

30 Matthew Tallman, “Pentecostal Ecology: A Theological Paradigm,” in Yong, ed., The Spirit

Renews the Face of the Earth, 135–154.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

12

76

lamp

the way for the development of an ecological ethos in the movement’s identity and culture.31 Studebaker draws on his formulation of theentelechyof the Holy Spirit in the redemption of the cosmos to argue that creation care in the present is an expression of Christian formation and sanctification in anticipation of the final redemption of creation in the future. Stated another way, creation care is a way of participating in the entelechy of the Spirit, or “keeping in step with the Spirit” (cf. Romans 8:26–27).32 One concrete example of this focus among pentecostal believers is the Association of African Earthkeeping Churches, which was established in Zimbabwe in 1991 to address issues of deforestation and desertification via tree planting campaigns, conservation of wildlife, and protection of water resources. This work is performed within the framework of their identity as pentecostal Christians.33 Another expression of creation care within a pentecostal framework is the work of John McConnell, Jr., in the establishment of the observance of Earth Day.34

This section of the discussion has demonstrated that current pentecostal interest in creation care forms a trajectory with some early pentecostal reflec- tion on the destiny of creation. Modern Pentecostals have extended this early reflection by introducing the pentecostal emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit into the calculus. The Spirit’s presence in creation to prepare it for its final redemption implies a current work of the Spirit through pentecostal Christians for ecological healing. In light of this continuity and subsequent development from seeds in the early movement, it is a wonder that the movement developed a resistance to the concerns of creation care. This resistance notwithstanding, it appears that current interest in creation care among Pentecostals is in keep- ing both with the theological convictions of the movement and with its early history.

Eschatology More Closely Considered

Before concluding this study, one further area of consideration is necessary. As noted earlier, it is fairly commonplace among pentecostal thinkers to attribute lack of concern for social, and specifically environmental, issues to a dispensa- tional eschatology that foresees the destruction of the cosmos in the end. This

31 Clifton, “Preaching the ‘Full Gospel,’” 131.

32 Studebaker, “The Spirit in Creation,” 953–956; “Creation Care,” 258–261.

33 Yong,The Spirit Poured out on All Flesh, 61–63.

34 Nicole Sparks and Darrin J. Rodgers, “John McConnell, Jr., and the Pentecostal Origins of

Earth Day,”Assemblies of God Heritage30 (2010): 16–25, 69.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

13

new heavens and new earth

77

has resulted in a focus on evangelization in the present mission of the church in the world. According to many of these thinkers, this traces back to the origins of Pentecostalism, when the founding figures of the movement espoused nothing more than slight modifications to a borrowed classical dispensational eschatol- ogy. The recent work of Larry McQueen has raised serious questions as to the validity of the historical analyses of pentecostal eschatology that have given rise to this caricature. McQueen, like Donald Dayton before him, argues that pentecostal eschatology developed in parallel alongside dispensational escha- tology and was not so monolithic in its expression as many have concluded.35 McQueen examines the early pentecostal periodical literature and arrives at a more nuanced description of the development of pentecostal eschatology than has been suggested by many historical analyses. He concludes that while the Finished Work stream of the movement exhibited a strong indebtedness to classical dispensational eschatology for its own eschatological formulations, the Wesleyan Holiness stream exhibited far more variety in its articulations of eschatology.36 Moreover, the Wesleyan Holiness stream was far more inclined toward integrating the dynamic spirituality and core beliefs and practices of Pentecostalism into eschatology, which resulted in eschatological formulations that were themselves dynamic and tended to move away from the classical dis- pensational position. McQueen argues that pentecostal eschatology was not singularly concerned with mapping a script for the future, but that at least in its Wesleyan Holiness and ethnically defined branches it was concerned with discerning “the Spirit of the future in our present life and witness.”37 It is from this perspective that McQueen develops his own formulation of a pentecostal eschatology that draws heavily on this early pentecostal methodological prac- tice of discernment to articulate an eschatology framed around the fivefold gospel.38

McQueen’s study is pertinent for the present study in a couple of significant ways. First, it draws into question the facile identification of Pentecostalism

35 McQueen, “Early Pentecostal Eschatology in the Light ofTheApostolicFaith, 1906–1908,” in

Perspectives in Pentecostal Eschatologies: World without End, ed. Peter Althouse and Robby

Waddell (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010), 139–154; idem, Toward a Pentecostal Eschatology.

McQueen cites approvingly Donald Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 146–147.

36 McQueen provides helpful summaries of his findings regarding the Finished Work and

Wesleyan Holiness positions in Toward a Pentecostal Eschatology, 141–143 and 198–199,

respectively.

37 McQueen,Toward a Pentecostal Eschatology, 296.

38 Ibid., chap. 5.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

14

78

lamp

with one particular expression of eschatology, one that is often connected with a particular attitude toward addressing environmental questions. Since even in the founding stages of the movement there existed multiple expressions of eschatology, there is nothing inherently unpentecostal about adherence to eschatological systems other than classical dispensationalism. The early sources cited in this study regarding the future destiny of the created order are themselves expressions of eschatology as well as soteriology. Although these eschatologically derived soteriological insights might not have originally manifested in intentional earthkeeping actions, the conceptual framework for developing eschatologically derived responses to environmental problems traces back to articulations of early pentecostal thought.

Secondly, McQueen’s study demonstrates that significant strands of Pente- costalism from its earliest days held views of eschatology that avoided direct appropriation of classical dispensationalism. As we have seen, contemporary Pentecostals who urge care for creation do so while sharing more than a com- mon view of the destiny of creation with some early Pentecostals. It is note- worthy that virtually all of the present-day Pentecostals who argue for creation care as a valid expression of life in the Spirit are also critical of the dispen- sational eschatology that is so closely aligned with lack of concern for envi- ronmental issues, whether among Pentecostals or non-Pentecostals. In this respect, these present-day Pentecostals are espousing views that are trace- able to some of the founding voices of Pentecostalism. The focus on the des- tiny of creation and the eschatological categories that allow for the discern- ing of the Spirit of the future in regard to the care of creation in the present are both features of early Pentecostalism that many Pentecostals today highlight in their advocacy of creation care. Robby Waddell’s insightful study of 2Peter 3 is an example of an interpretation of a passage that is central to many dispensational eschatological schemes in a way that opens up inter- pretive possibilities for a nondispensational reading, while also discussing the implications of such a reading for a pentecostal approach to creation care.39

While it may be true that many Pentecostals today marginalize concern for environmental issues due to a commitment to classical dispensational escha- tology, McQueen’s study has shown that such a commitment is not due to a monolithic understanding of eschatology among early Pentecostals. Rather, the diversity of opinion on eschatological matters among early Pentecostals sug-

39 Robby Waddell, “Apocalyptic Sustainability: The Future of Pentecostal Ecology,” in Per-

spectives in Pentecostal Eschatologies, 95–110.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

15

new heavens and new earth

79

gests that the diversity of opinion expressed today is quite in keeping with pen- tecostal tradition regarding these issues. So not only are current Pentecostals reflecting a segment of early Pentecostals with respect to thought regarding the destiny of creation; they are also demonstrating fidelity to a segment of early pentecostal eschatological reflection that, taken together with this early pentecostal focus on the destiny of creation in light of larger current envi- ronmental concerns, provides a fertile context for developing a robust pen- tecostal approach to creation care. In fact, the situation is not as simple as a distinction between dispensational and nondispensational eschatologies. Our brief survey revealed that advocates of both the Finished Work (Myland, Sis- son) and the Wesleyan (Sexton, articles from The Bridegroom’s Messenger) streams favored a view of the final redemption of the present created order. In the final analysis, perhaps it is misguided to distinguish which early pen- tecostal eschatology is better suited to a positive view of creation care in the present. Rather, it may prove that one way to assess the viability of a pente- costal eschatology is to examine how it translates into care for creation in the present.

Conclusion

This discussion had a rather modest aim. It sought to establish a trajectory in the pentecostal tradition that would urge Pentecostals to engage in the care of creation in the present in such a way as to reflect faithfully something in the origins of the movement. Pentecostal thinkers and activists are currently engaging in creation care, and in increasing numbers. The question among many other Pentecostals is this: Is such a concern central to the mission of Pentecostals in the world? Or is it perhaps a capitulation to faddism, to the concerns of the wider culture? Some wonder whether this focus on creation care reflects the influence of non-Christian religions or is perhaps a religion in itself. Current Pentecostals have argued cogently that care for creation is in keeping with the tenets of pentecostal theology. This article has shown that there is something in the early literary sources of the movement that demonstratesa connection betweenits origins andthis currentconcernamong many Pentecostals.

This is not merely a parochial concern among this segment of Christianity. For the past several decades, pentecostal Christianity has experienced explo- sive growth worldwide. Moreover, it has experienced much success in influenc- ing social movements in many parts of the world, including the United States. Were the movement to gain further momentum as a movement for the care of

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

16

80

lamp

creation, it would become a significant conversation partner in discussions of environmental sustainability. In this light, if the present discussion were to pro- vide a further rationale in support of the care of creation among current and future pentecostal Christians, then it will have proved successful.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 64–80

17