Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 289
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
S SP
Review Essay
Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology: Implications of the
Theology of Amos Yong
Wolfgang Vondey
Amos Yong’s latest book is entitled The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology.1 The author offers a comprehensive systematic theology that emerges from re flection upon global Pentecostal experiences and practices and from dialogue with the classical and diverse contemporary theological and philosophical tradi- tions. A first look at the book reveals the daring thesis that Christian the- ology in general, and Pentecostal theology in particular, can continue to speak in the new global context of late modernity. This is a bold claim if one considers the inherent skepticism of the recent debates in so-called postmodern theology; it is an even bolder claim in light of the apparent struggle within the Pentecostal Movement itself to define its exact theo- logical method and focus. In fact, Yong is convinced that the challenges and opportunities of Christian theology as a whole can be explored through the lens of the emerging Pentecostal theological tradition. In other words, inherent in Pentecostal theology, if seen in world perspective, is the pos- sibility of global theology. A concise way to describe Yong’s endeavor, therefore, would be to speak of this book as an effort to develop a global Pentecostal theology emerging from a pneumatological imagination.
The book locates the possibility of a “world theology” along three main trajectories: the ecumenical, the interreligious, and the relationship between religion and science. Along these lines, Yong endeavors to lay out a distinctive Pentecostal theology that is biblically grounded (informed explicitly by Luke-Acts), Christologically focused, pneumatologically
1
Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005).
© 2006 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden pp. 289–312
1
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 290
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
oriented, and experientially based. At the same time, if you think that this description captures the book, you have not yet moved beyond its intro- duction. To say the least, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh is a complex and captivating work.
The heart of the book consists of seven chapters that can be summarized as follows. Chapter 1 introduces Pentecostalism and reflects on the world- wide experiences of the Holy Spirit and the resulting practices in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. The next two chapters reflect on this survey and the inherent consequences for global theology based on the Pentecostal experience of the Holy Spirit. Chapter 2 develops a pneumatological sote- riology that forms the theological foundation for the rest of the book. Chapter 3 offers a pneumatological ecclesiology that responds to this sote- riological vision and examines the marks of the church through the lens of pneumatology. Chapter 4 explores the ecumenical implications of this pneumatological soteriology and ecclesiology that overcomes not only denominational boundaries but also social, ethnic, racial, linguistic, gen- der, and religious divisions. The next chapters engage the conclusions reached thus far in dialogue with Oneness Pentecostalism (chapter 5) and a Christian theology of religions (chapter 6). Finally, chapter 7 offers a programmatic outline for a pneumatological theology of creation.
To look for a conclusion to this work would be to misunderstand Yong’s intentions. At the end of the book, he offers us merely “a resting place” in the attempt to develop a more comprehensive Pentecostal theology from a pneumatological perspective. The book represents not a finale but a starting point that calls Pentecostals to critical reflection and discern- ment in a common endeavor to reformulate Christian theology in the late modern world. As such, Yong’s latest work cannot be ignored, whether the reader agrees or disagrees with particular formulations and insights.
At the same time, Yong’s programmatic endeavor raises a number of methodological questions. Assuming that the author intended his work as an invitation to dialogue among Pentecostals worldwide, I here wish to address Yong’s choices of procedure in order further to illuminate the pos- sibility of a global Pentecostal theology. I propose that Yong’s endeavor should be read within a methodological framework that is informed by an unambiguously trinitarian imagination, motivated by the prospect of ecumenical transformation, and articulated by an explicitly Pentecostal story. I will begin by reminding the reader of a discussion about the promise and the problem of Pentecostal theology carried out on the pages of this journal a few years ago. This will allow me to place Yong’s work in the context of the theological debate among Pentecostals today. I will
290
2
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 291
Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology: Implications of the Theology of Amos Yong
then highlight the consequences of Yong’s methodological choices for the continuing discussion among Pentecostals and offer a number of criteria for the development of global Pentecostal theology today.
The Problem and the Promise of Pentecostal Theology Today
In 2001, D. Lyle Dabney offered an extensive review of two well- received volumes by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen on the theology implicit in the international Roman Catholic–Pentecostal dialogue.2 Convinced that the issues that surfaced in these texts are vitally important for all of Christian theology, Dabney embarked on a tour de force that sought to capture the theological significance of Pentecostalism in the twenty-first century. His thesis was articulated in an analogy to David’s encounter with Goliath, in which David first had to remove himself from the cum- bersome armor that Saul had given him before he could defeat the giant. According to Dabney, Pentecostal theologians are clothed in a similar armor that immobilizes them and renders them helpless in the face of the giant theological task before them. In the course of this investiga- tion, Dabney consequently exposed some of the weaknesses inherent in the emerging Pentecostal tradition. The exchange between Dabney and Kärkkäinen was certainly stimulating and instructive. At the same time, Pentecostals found Dabney’s opinion not only interesting but also provoca- tive. Cecil M. Robeck, for example, emphasized that Dabney’s exposure of problems serves primarily those who seek to undermine ecumenical dialogue with and among Pentecostals.3 I will therefore refrain from sum- marizing the problems mentioned in Dabney’s essay and instead offer a constructive outline of the main trajectories that structure his theological argument. We can then situate Yong’s work within these trajectories.
The first trajectory that informs Dabney’s thesis is that Pentecostals live in a world post-Christendom. The promise of Pentecostal theology lies in the realization of its own theological witness that can serve the worldwide theological task as Christianity struggles to express itself mean- ingfully and coherently in a world that is no longer dominated by the structures of Christendom.4 The attentive reader may be surprised at this
2
D. Lyle Dabney, “Saul’s Armor: The Problem and the Promise of Pentecostal Theology Today,” Pentecostal Theology 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 115–46.
3
See Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge,” Pentecostal Theology 26, no. 2 (Fall 2004): 333–35.
4
Cf. Dabney, “Saul’s Armor,” 131.
291
3
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 292
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
statement and note that this kind of terminology does not seem to appear in the published essay. Instead, the text speaks of the emergence of Pen- tecostal theology in a “post-Christian world.”5 The use of “Christian” instead of the intended “Christendom” greatly distracts from the theo- logical foundation that informs Dabney’s thought.6 The distinction between these two terms is also necessary for a proper integration of Yong’s work in the theological landscape among Pentecostals.
The term “Christianity” refers in a broad sense to the faith commu- nity that emerged from the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.7 At the heart of this community stands the proclamation of the gospel in various cultural and linguistic forms and confessions through- out a rich history of two thousand years. The Pentecostal Movement is the latest addition to the variety of voices that proclaim the Christian faith to an ever-changing world.
On the other hand, the term Christendommeans literally “the Christian world.” It designates in a strict sense only that period of the history of Christianity when the church could enforce through its hierarchical struc- ture and cultural influence submission to its authority both in faith and in practice. The dissolution of this authority was initiated by the rise of sec- ularization, nationalism, rationalism, religious pluralism, and scientific discovery.8 The medieval ideal of Christendom—one church, one state, one emperor—found its end with the Protestant Reformation.9 As Philip Jenkins has shown recently, the Pentecostal Movement and its global
5
See the use of this phrase in Dabney, “Saul’s Armor,” 131, 132, 133, 134, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, and 145.
6
We may assume that the change occurred somewhere in the editorial process. Those familiar with Dabney’s work will agree that the phrase “post-Christendom” is a genuine expression in his terminology. See, e.g., D. Lyle Dabney, “(Re)Turning to the Spirit: Christian Theology in a World Post-Christendom,” Quarterly Review (Summer 2001): 7–20; idem, “Why Should the Last Be First? The Priority of Pneumatology in Recent Theological Discussion,” in Advents of the Spirit: An Introduction to the Current Study of Pneumatology, ed. Bradford E. Hinze and D. Lyle Dabney (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001), 240–61. I am thankful to Lyle Dabney for a copy of the original manuscript.
7
For an overview of the terminology see Adriaan Hendrik Bredero, Christendom and Christianity in the Middle Ages: The Relations between Religion, Church, and Society, trans. Reinder Bruinsma (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994); and Alan Kreider, The Origins of Christendom in the West (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2001).
8
See Pablo Richard, Death of Christendoms, Birth of the Church, trans. Phillip Berryman (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1987).
9
For a synopsis of this development see Wolfgang Vondey, Heribert Mühlen: His Theology and Praxis. A New Profile of the Church (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2004), 179–88.
292
4
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 293
Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology: Implications of the Theology of Amos Yong
emergence in the twentieth century is historically, geographically, and the- ologically detached from this Christendom.10
Dabney’s argument that Pentecostals live in a world post-Christendom therefore highlights the collapse not of the faith community that proclaims the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ but of the political struc- tures that supported a Christian empire (imperium christianum), of so- cial structures that integrated church authority in the Western world (res publica christiana) and of customs, beliefs, and concepts that promoted and sustained a Christian culture (cultura Christiana). The collapse of Christendom refers to Christianity’s loss of social, political, and cultural relevance; a loss of self-determination in a world that has become increas- ingly self-determined. Christianity without Christendom has become face- less and anonymous.
Yong’s latest work responds to this challenge. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh is not an attempt to reformulate the gospel (the challenge of a post-Christian world) but an effort to come to grips with what it means to be Christian and how to express this theological identity in a world that has lost the social, political, and cultural structures of Christendom. For Yong, this is the world of late modernity, characterized by a theology that is posthierarchical, post-Cartesian, post-Western and post-European, postcolonial, postfoundationalist and postmodern, in other words, Pente- costal.11 Yong’s theology seeks to give expression to the Pentecostal wit- ness in the context of God’s mission in a world post-Christendom and thereby confirms Dabney’s claim that Pentecostalism is a tradition that poses the fundamental theological questions in an entirely new way.
A second trajectory that informs Dabney’s position is that the Pentecostal Movement represents not merely a theological reformulation of theolog- ical doctrines but an entirely “new confession.”12 This claim is a logical consequence of the first trajectory. Since Pentecostalism emerged apart from, or perhaps in response to, the structures of Christendom, its theo- logical vision should be cast in neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant forms. These confessions of Christendom represent a theological “armor” that would eventually immobilize Pentecostal theology. Instead, Pentecostal theology should be confessionally located in relationship to but nonetheless
10
Cf. Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 8–16. Despite the clear distinction in the title, Jenkins uses the terms interchangeably in the text.
11
See Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 20.
12
Dabney, “Saul’s Armor,” 121–23.
293
5
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 294
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
apart from the matrix of the dominant theological powers of Catholic and Protestant mainstream.
In his projection of the Pentecostal relationship to the two dominant theological traditions, Dabney characterizes medieval Scholasticism as a theology of the first article of the creed: an expression of the Christian story from the perspective of the Father. In the same way, he portrays Protestant thought as a theology of the second article: an expression of the Christian witness from the perspective of the Son. Pentecostalism, on the other hand, cannot be located within the context of a theology of the first or the second article but, instead, “renders its trinitarian witness to God in Christ from the perspective of the confession of the Holy Spirit.”13
Yong is aware of Dabney’s emphasis on a theology of the third arti- cle and explicitly seeks to locate Pentecostal theology confessionally “in the sense of emerging from the matrix of the Pentecostal experience of the Spirit of God.”14 However, Yong remarks that if we wish to develop Pentecostal theology from a global perspective, creedal formulations are not helpful in order to delineate its confessional location. This means, for Yong, that Pentecostal theology is not merely abstract and speculative but also deeply practical. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh responds to Dabney’s second trajectory by not only speaking from the core-orienting motif of pneumatology but also challenging the dominant creedal for- mulations of Western theology and presenting the realities of Pentecostal practice, worship, and life in the Holy Spirit.
A third trajectory that informs Dabney’s position is the logical conse- quence of the first two: Pentecostal theology is immersed in a theologi- cal witness of the Holy Spirit and should therefore be characterized by a consistent pneumatology.15 For Dabney, this is a theological concern of its own, independent of the creedal confessions of the Catholic and Protestant traditions and yet serving Christianity as a whole by helping it move beyond the collapse of Christendom. In this sense, Pentecostal theology “has to do with the Spirit of God who takes creation into the very relation of the Son with the Father in an act of re-creation.”16 In light of this pneumatological focus, the formulation of a Pentecostal theology must give voice to the global need to hear and witness anew the gospel of God in the world in which we now live.
13
Ibid., 129.
14
Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh,” 29. See the reference to Dabney’s work in ibid., 28, note 28; 101, note 53; 111–12.
15
Dabney, “Saul’s Armor,” 131.
16
Ibid., 131–32.
294
6
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 295
Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology: Implications of the Theology of Amos Yong
Yong’s work responds to this challenge by offering a collection of pro- grammatic essays toward a world Pentecostal theology that rethink tra- ditional theological loci from the foundational perspective of pneumatology. More precisely, Yong endeavors to answer implicitly Dabney’s quest for a pneumatological theology of creation by offering a pneumatological ori- entation and dynamic that includes not only the traditional theological loci but also a public theology that engages culture, science, and religion. This pneumatological imagination forms the heart of Yong’s endeavor and not only sustains contemporary efforts to develop a Pentecostal theology but also advances the discussion to a broader level.
These brief observations show that Yong’s work can be situated clearly in the recent debate about the emergence of a distinctively Pentecostal theology. Conversant with a wide array of theological sources, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh articulates a theological vision that emerges at the end of the era of Christendom and is confronted with the world of late modernity that no longer holds the social, cultural, and political struc- tures of the Christian world. Yong’s essays are indicative of the further articulation of a new confession that speaks with new vigor to the church catholic and the Pentecostal churches. This new confession embraces the Spirit of God as the all-inclusive matrix for an understanding of life, God, and the future. For Yong, as for others, Pentecostal theology is indeed pneumatological theology. In this sense, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh will certainly prove to be an invaluable resource for Pentecostals and all those who wish to understand and engage Pentecostalism.
On the remaining pages of this essay, however, I wish to examine whether Yong’s methodological presuppositions are also programmatic for Pentecostal theology. In other words, the question is not only what Yong proposes but also how he reaches his conclusions. In light of my positive review of Yong’s work thus far, I wish to raise a number of con- cerns that require further attention. I suggest that Yong’s text reveals methodological choices that are symptomatic for Pentecostal theology at the beginning of its life as a theological tradition. The discernment of these choices bears implications not only for an appreciation of Yong’s work but of Pentecostal theology as a whole. If we agree with Yong that Pentecostalism offers an unparalleled opportunity for global theology, then we now possess the unique opportunity to consider the conditions and guidelines within which this theology should develop.
On the following pages I would like to outline what I believe are some of the main trajectories of Yong’s theology in The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh that will continue to shape the discussion of a comprehensive
295
7
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 296
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
Pentecostal theology. This discussion will include the questions (1) whether the pneumatological imagination among Pentecostals remains within a trinitarian framework, (2) what kind of ecumenical theology shapes this Pentecostal theology, (3) what hermeneutical tools this theological method presupposes, and (4) how this theology relates to the global context of the religions.
Pneumatology and the Trinitarian Imagination
At the heart of Yong’s work stands the thesis that is expressed in the title: Pentecostalism is a consequence of God’s Spirit poured out upon all flesh. In turn, Pentecostal theology emerges from this encounter with God as a reflection on the operation of the Holy Spirit in the world: Pentecostal theology is pneumatology. This said, Yong outlines the problem and promise of Pentecostal theology on the basis of a pneumatological imag- ination in dialogue with the Christian trinitarian tradition. This becomes most apparent in his dialogue with Oneness Pentecostalism, an essay that stands out as arguably one of the most vibrant chapters of the book. The Oneness-trinitarian debate not only encourages reconciliation among the Pentecostal community, it also helps formulate Pentecostal theology as christologically focused (confessionally Jesus-centered) and pneumato- logically oriented (experientially Spirit-oriented). As Yong acknowledges, however, this perspective has led to a certain eclipse of the Father from the trinitarian landscape.17
Despite Yong’s acknowledgment, the pneumatology developed on the pages of this book can essentially exist without a reference to the Father. Yong’s overall theological perspective is undoubtedly trinitarian, yet the pneumatological soteriology of chapter 2 is constructed within a Spirit- Christology that describes salvation as “human participation in the sav- ing work of God through Christ by the Holy Spirit.”18 The specific work of the Father, however, and the Pentecostal experience of the Father’s work of salvation, remain unclear. Similarly, the pneumatological eccle- siology of chapter 3 is established on a global level through the “experi- ences of Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit”19 without any explicit
17
Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 232. In turn, others have also noted a certain eclipse of classical trinitarian theology overall; cf. Stanley J. Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 6–32.
18
Ibid., 120.
19
Ibid., 145.
296
8
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 297
Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology: Implications of the Theology of Amos Yong
operation of the Father. The ecumenical potential of Pentecostalism in chapter 4 is presented in “reflection of the unity between the Father and the Son.”20 However, this ecumenical reflection is then based on the Augustinian analogy for the Holy Spirit as the mutual love between the Father and the Son. As a consequence, the ecumenical potential of Pen- tecostalism emerges from a reflection on the operation of the Spirit as love that makes little use of the Father as the lover and the Son as the beloved. In turn, the engagement of Oneness Pentecostalism happens pri- marily through an emphasis on the monotheistic character of the Christian faith and the person and work of Jesus as this is experienced in the out- pouring of the Holy Spirit. This kind of pneumatological theology is still largely constructed in the framework of Christology at the expense of the work of the Father.
The consequences of Yong’s methodological choices may become clearer when we consider Yong’s paraphrase of Acts 2:17 as the title for the book, “The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh.” Peter’s words in Acts 2:17–18 as well as its Old Testament origin in Joel 2:28–29 place par- ticular emphasis on the personal pronoun that is markedly absent from Yong’s discussion: From God’s perspective, it is not the Spirit who is poured out but my Spirit. In turn, the pneumatology Yong describes asks primarily what it means that the Spirit is poured out; it does not ask the question who pours out the Spirit. I suggest that this form of teleological (goal-oriented) pneumatology is symptomatic for much of Pentecostal the- ology in its first century. Instead, I wonder if an archeological (origin- oriented) pneumatology that considers both the source and the recipient of the Spirit’s outpouring would not better serve Pentecostal theology in its internal and ecumenical dialogue.
In Joel 2:28, “my Spirit” refers unmistakably to the God of Israel (YHWH elohim). This God is interpreted by Peter on the day of Pentecost as the Father of Jesus Christ, who raised his Son from the dead, exalted him, “and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear” (Acts 2:33). In other words, Luke’s report of Peter’s speech is cast in decidedly trinitarian terms. It is part of the experience of Pentecost that the Spirit poured out on all flesh is the promise of the Father made possible by the Son. A Pentecostal theology that finds its roots in this witness of Pentecost must take care to preserve the integrity of the operation of the Father and the Son, respectively, in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In other words,
20
Ibid., 173.
297
9
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 298
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
the possibility of global theology from the perspective of pneumatology must portray the Holy Spirit as always the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.
The neglect of the Father in Yong’s portrayal of Pentecostal thought should urge Pentecostals to evaluate the parameters for constructing a pneumatological theology.21 Is Yong correct when he states without any reference to the Father that “the ties that bind Pentecostals together around the world are their experience of Jesus in the power of the Spirit”?22 Can Pentecostal theology express its pneumatological perspective with a ref- erence to the Son (as Spirit-Christology) and include a reference to the Father only as implied in this sonship or in the generic term God?23 Put positively, the pneumatological imagination that Yong proposes as a matrix for Pentecostal theology is implicitly trinitarian. If, however, the possi- bility of global theology from the perspective of the third article of the creed (the Holy Spirit) embraces the understanding of a theology of the first article (the Father) and of the second article (the Son), then Pentecostal theology must from the beginning be constructed as an explicitly trini- tarian pneumatology.24 This perspective should first make us question if Pentecostals, before they reject the creedal formulations, indeed accept the separation of the creed into autonomous articles (based on personal categories of trinitarian theology). A pneumatological perspective that sees the Holy Spirit not (only) as a distinct person in the Trinity invites us to conceive the work of the Spirit in the world also in terms of spiritual fatherhood and sonship in which the baptism of the Spirit also brings to expression the experience of adoption as children of the Father and initiation
21
See Peter Widdencombe, The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius rev. ed., Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000); Benedikt Bauer, Geistliche Vaterschaft—Konturen einer Konzeption geistlicher Begleitung, Bonner Dog- matische Studien (Würzburg, Germany: Echter, 1999); Tomas A. Smail, The Forgotten Father (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1980).
22
Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 145.
23
In some places, Yong uses the term God implicitly with reference to the Father. This use of the term was exemplified by Karl Rahner, “Theos in the New Testament,” in Theological Investigations, Vol. 1, trans. Cornelius Ernst (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1961), 135–37, 143–44. In this essay, Rahner attempted to demonstrate that the term God refers primarily to the Father and is not used for the Son or the Spirit or the single divine nature. Pentecostal theology should discern if this use of the term is constitutive of the Pentecostal experience.
24
Such an endeavor must also include the question of whether “monotheism” is indeed an adequate description for the Christian confession of God. A reading of Gregory of Nyssa’s Great Catechism, for example, would suggest that the confession of “one God in three persons” is neither monotheistic (one god who is one person) nor polytheistic (many gods who are many persons).
298
10
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 299
Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology: Implications of the Theology of Amos Yong
into the church as brothers and sisters of Christ. The Oneness-trinitarian debate may then focus less on the lack of trinitarian doctrine than on the presence of a trinitarian experience of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit among Oneness Pentecostals.25 In turn, the dialogue with other religions cannot be constructed exclusively from a pneumatological perspective but should also consider that the Spirit as Holy Spirit is always the Spirit of the Son and the Spirit of the Father.
Pentecostalism and Ecumenical Transformation
Yong’s proposal of worldwide Pentecostal theology can only emerge in dialogue with those traditions who have embraced a theology of the first article (Catholicism) and of the second article (Protestantism). The concern of Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., and others that Pentecostals might develop their theology in ecumenical anonymity and apart from a formative expe- rience with the larger Christian world has to be taken seriously. Needless to say, Yong is greatly concerned about the convergence of Pentecostal and ecumenical reflection and proposes a pneumatological theology that is multiperspectival, dialogical, and self-critical not only in its intra- Christian but also in its multifaith ecumenical implications. Against this backdrop, the question is not whether Yong’s theological project is ecu- menical but what kind of ecumenical theology it proposes.
Yong’s explicit “goal is to bring together the need for further Pentecostal reflection on its own identity with the task of developing a world Pentecostal theology and to do so by ecumenical engagement with the historical and dogmatic traditions of the church.”26 At least in his essay on a pneuma- tological ecclesiology, this goal was consistently applied. In much of the remaining parts of the book, however, the reader gets the impression that the task of Pentecostal theology is that of a reintegration of an indepen- dently developed pneumatological perspective into the existing theolog- ical traditions instead of a retrieving from, reconstructing with, and reappropriating of the theological heritage.
The fascinating survey of worldwide Pentecostalism in the first chap- ter sets the tone for Yong’s ecumenical methodology. This chapter alone makes reading the book worthwhile. However, the exercise is, by Yong’s own admission, primarily a phenomenology of world Pentecostalism in
25
This was also suggested by David A. Reed, “Oneness Pentecostalism: Problems and Possibilities for Pentecostal Theology,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 11 (1997): 91.
26
Ibid., 134–35.
299
11
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 300
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
Latin America, Asia, and Africa.27 The emphasis is here placed not only on the phenomenological qualities of the chapter but also on the fact that this exercise is conducted of already existing Pentecostal communities and denominations with little reference to their origin and development. Pentecostalism is presented as it exists in contradistinction to but not as originating from or developing out of people’s struggle with existing Christian confessions or native religions. Thus, in Latin America, Yong speaks of Pentecostalism as an emotional, experiential, dualistic, and non- ritualistic alternative to Roman Catholicism but neglects to show that this choice can only be perceived as an alternative if Catholicism remains inherently connected with the emerging Pentecostal tradition. Similarly, in the Philippines, Yong mentions the influence of the Catholic Church at the beginning of the twentieth century and yet proceeds immediately to speak of the steady growth of classical Pentecostal denominations since the arrival of Pentecostal missionaries without any reference to a lasting theological influence of Catholic thought on the formation of Pentecostal theology. In the East Asian context, he can speak of the fertile ground created for Pentecostal adaptation of conservative Protestant biblicism but neglects to show how this influence is formative for Pentecostal theology in East Asia. Overall, Pentecostal theology, worship, and liturgies are pre- sented over against rather than within the religious and ecumenical land- scape. I suggest that this form of phenomenological (typological-descriptive) ecumenism is symptomatic for much of Pentecostal theology in its first century. Instead, I wonder if an archeological ecumenism would not bet- ter serve the formulation of a global Pentecostal theology that considers not only the present state of visible separation from other churches but also the origin of Pentecostal thought and experience in those churches as well as the continuing influence of interaction with those communities on Pentecostalism.
This thesis can be clarified further by showing an exception in Yong’s text. When presenting the emergence of Pentecostalism in South Korea, Yong notes the correlations between Pentecostal cosmology and the indige- nous Korean view of the spirit world. He concludes that Korean shaman- ism has remained influential to Korean Pentecostalism by enabling “Koreans to accept the Christian God and the spiritual world.”28 In other words, this interaction with shamanism at a fundamental level of encountering the Pentecostal worldview remains formative for Pentecostal theology in this
27
Ibid., 32.
28
See Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 51.
300
12
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 301
Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology: Implications of the Theology of Amos Yong
particular context. As Yong and others have pointed out, this interaction can be perceived as contextualization rather than syncretism.29 Such a conclusion would be of great significance to the ecumenical involvement of Pentecostalism. Unfortunately, the observation of Pentecostal roots is the exception rather than the norm in Yong’s work. This neglect has far- reaching ecumenical consequences.
Yong’s essays reflect the prominent exercise among Pentecostal schol- ars to locate their theological heritage in the movements and revivals that preceded and accompanied the emergence of classical Pentecostalism and from which Pentecostals gained their theological emphases, such as Methodism and the nineteenth-century Holiness revivals. Walter Hollen- weger’s thesis remains undisputed that Pentecostalism “started as an ecumenical revival movement within the traditional churches.”30 However, the subsequent establishment of Pentecostalism is often perceived as dis- tinct from the established theological and religious traditions from which it emerged: Pentecostalism is not Methodism. This distinction is drawn even more radically when it comes to the established mainline churches that rejected the Pentecostal experience: Pentecostalism is not Catholicism. Yet, this distinction can only be perceived if those participating in Pentecostal theology continue to be aware of Pentecostalism as an alternative to other confessions. In other words, we can only say that Pentecostalism is not Catholicism if we are aware of Catholic teaching and how Pentecostal thought has distinguished itself from it. Put differently, a more ecumenical way of expressing the theological difference would be to say that Pente- costals are no longer Catholic (or Methodist or Baptist or Buddhist or Hindu). Theologically, this expression would indicate that the Holy Spirit was not poured out on Pentecostals but on Catholics or Methodists or Hindus who then became Pentecostals because they are able to uphold the Pentecostal worldview as an alternative to their own origins and context.
As a consequence of Yong’s methodological choice to examine Pen- tecostalism as established in the global context rather than as a con- tinuing movement in and out of the various confessions and religions, Yong is forced to reintegrate his theology into the existing theological landscape instead of first attempting to retrieve that theology from the teachings of the various Christian traditions. An exception is again the
29
Cf. Allan Anderson, “The Contribution of Cho Yonggi to a Contextual Theology in Korea,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 12, no. 1 (2003): 85–105.
30
Walter J. Hollenweger, “The Pentecostal Movement and the World Council of Churches,” The Ecumenical Review 18 (July 1966): 313; idem, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 334–66.
301
13
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 302
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
chapter on Oneness Pentecostalism, in which Yong first retrieves and then reconstructs and reappropriates the tradition.31 This process allows him to see a shared reflection on the experience of the Holy Spirit in both Oneness and trinitarian Pentecostalism. Such an observation of the continuing mutual influence will undoubtedly prove to be of great benefit to the rec- onciliation of Pentecostals with one another. Should it not encourage Pentecostals to ask for a similar continuation of mutual influence also with other confessional traditions?
Yong’s work challenges Pentecostals to examine their ecumenical pre- suppositions. The success of a formulation of Pentecostal theology in a global perspective will largely depend on the choices Pentecostals make with regard to those whose worldview is not Pentecostal (or Christian). An ecumenical perspective of this relationship will not only have to state that Pentecostal theology is different from others but also examine to what extent Pentecostal theology is no longer the same. For example, accord- ing to John Calvin, the Protestant Reformation emerged from a protest against Roman Catholic doctrine, praxis, and government.32 This protest can only be perceived as long as Catholic doctrine remains part of the self-definition of the Reformation. At the point when Protestantism has completely isolated itself from Catholic thought, Protestantism will cease to exist. Yet as long as it exists, it also establishes itself as an alternative to its own origins in the Catholic tradition. Similarly, evangelicalism emerged as a consequence of pietism and the Great Awakening in North America and as a reaction to the Enlightenment. The reaction to the Enlightenment continues to be the initiatory and transformative force of evangelical theology and must be taken into consideration when we define evangelical thought.
This principle of continuing ecumenical influence is illustrated vividly in Paul’s letter to the Romans when the Apostle addresses the question of justification. Although he can say that the righteousness of God is revealed apart from the Law, the Law still remains a part of God’s right- eousness and witnesses to God’s righteousness (see Rom. 3:21). A per- son is justified by faith apart from the Law but this does not nullify the Law (v. 28). On the contrary, the newfound justification by faith upholds the Law (v. 31). Likewise, we can say that Pentecostalism is revealed apart from other confessions and yet these confessions still remain as part of the Pentecostal tradition. In fact, it is Pentecostalism that upholds and
31
Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 214–24.
32
John Calvin, “The Necessity of Reforming the Church,” in Calvin: Theological Treatises, ed. J.K.S. Reid (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), 185–86.
302
14
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 303
Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology: Implications of the Theology of Amos Yong
establishes these confessions as other. We may refer to this as the prin- ciple of ecumenical transformation.
In light of this perspective, an ecumenical Pentecostal theology must follow Yong’s invitation to engage in ecumenical reflection on what makes Pentecostal theology unique in a global context. At the same time, it should ask the question to what extent Pentecostal theology in the various con- texts remains indebted to and is transformed by Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Calvinist, evangelical, or other forms of thought. Ecumenically, Pentecostals not only find their theology reflected in other confessions but also find the theology of other confessions present in their own Pentecostal worldview. Can Pentecostals who were once Catholic ever leave behind their Catholic roots without jeopardizing the kind of Pen- tecostalism they chose? Can third-generation Classical Pentecostals in North America say that they have purged their theology completely from any Methodist thought? Is the form of traditioning that Pentecostals call for possible without any reference to the continuing influence of other Christian traditions on the emerging Pentecostal worldview? When Pen- tecostals begin to answer these questions, they will likely discover that being Pentecostal means also to acknowledge one’s Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, or other heritage that formed and continues to inform Pen- tecostalism as a dynamic, integrative, and transformative tradition. This ecumenical perspective is an essential part of the Pentecostal story.
The Pentecostal Story
Upon completion of the survey of world Pentecostalism, Yong pro- ceeds in chapter 2 by presenting what he sees as the initial “thematic locus of any world Pentecostal theology”—the doctrine of salvation.33 This thematic choice may be undisputable; yet what is more significant is the methodological choice suggested by this step. Yong indicates that his choice is a reflection of the biblical precedent established in Acts 2. For Yong, the words of Peter to the crowd in Jerusalem anticipate the central features of a world Pentecostal theology as thoroughly pneuma- tological. What is missing, however, is any justification for this biblical precedent as an exclusive basis for Pentecostal theology. In other words, Yong neglects to say why Pentecostals would see the scriptures as nor- mative for Pentecostal theology and how they would find the Pentecostal tradition reflected in the biblical narrative.
33
Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 81.
303
15
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 304
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
Yong’s methodological choice becomes apparent in light of the recent endeavor in Pentecostal theology to address what could be called the “ecclesial difference” between the biblical witness of the New Testament and the ecclesial community of today.34 This difference is already appar- ent in Peter’s explanation of the disciples’ experience of Pentecost and the question of the crowd what “they” had to do in response to this event. It is most obvious in the clear distinction between the original witness of the disciples and those who receive the witness of these disciples in 1 John 1:1–3:
We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us—we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellow- ship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
The strict distinction between the “we” of the disciples and the “you” of the audience emphasizes that the experience of the first witnesses is not a repeatable event. According to this text, only the original witnesses have seen and touched the revelation of God in Christ and have in this way fellowship with one another and with God. However, they invite others to join their fellowship. As a consequence, fellowship with the original witnesses is at the same time fellowship with God. In other words, in hearing the testimony of the first witnesses, the audience is included in their experience and thereby enters into fellowship with God. From an ecclesiological perspective, this means that the Church does not come repeatedly into new existence but exists in and emerges from the indis- tinguishable difference between Christianity today and the community of the New Testament witnesses. Any tradition subsequent to this original community is therefore compelled to establish fellowship with that orig- inal community. An ecumenical, Pentecostal theology must show how Christ can be experienced in the churches today without being a second- hand experience on the basis of the New Testament witness.
Pentecostals who acknowledge the ecclesial difference have suggested a distinctive methodology in order to bridge the distance between the Pentecostal community today and the biblical witness of the Pentecostal
34
Cf. Wolfgang Vondey, “A Generation X Concept of Ecclesial Difference,” paper presented at the Roman Catholic–Pentecostal Dialogue Session at the Thirty-first Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology, Lakeland, Florida, March 2002.
304
16
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 305
Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology: Implications of the Theology of Amos Yong
community in Jerusalem. This suggestion is marked by the decision not to seek a particular thematic locus for any world Pentecostal theology but rather to locate first a particular hermeneutical presupposition that sub- sequently allows Pentecostals to develop their own theological themes: the Pentecostal story.
Unfortunately, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh is devoid of any reference to the Pentecostal story as a hermeneutical tool for Pentecostal theology. This is particularly surprising in light of Yong’s active involve- ment in answering the question of a distinctively Pentecostal hermeneutic. I assume, therefore, in light of his endeavor to speak of “Pentecostalism and the possibility of global theology,” that Yong did not consider the ecclesial difference a significant stepping stone for the development of a global Pentecostal theology.
The recent emphasis on the Pentecostal story reflects the endeavor of a community that wishes not only to recover the faith, power, and prac- tice of the apostolic community but also to explain how this task can be accomplished theologically in today’s world post-Christendom. Major the- ological insight in this regard has been provided recently by a number of Pentecostal scholars.35 Their quest for a Pentecostal hermeneutic can be viewed as an attempt to locate the distinctively Pentecostal way of over- coming the ecclesial difference in the narrative of the Pentecostal expe- rience, in short, the Pentecostal story. The consensus of this quest at this time can be summarized as follows: What distinguishes the Pentecostal community from others is not a particular doctrine but “their distinctive narrative—a particular twist on the Christian story.”36 For some, the Pentecostal story “is the primary hermeneutical context for the produc- tion of theological meaning;”37 others see it as the underlying “strength of Pentecostal traditioning;”38 and others, again, suggest that it is in the
35
See, for e.g., Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-first Century: Spirit, Scripture and Community (London: T & T Clark, 2004); idem, “Pentecostal Story: The Hermeneutical Filter for the Making of Meaning,” Pentecostal Theology 26, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 36–59; Simon Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 17–39; Scott A. Ellington, “History, Story, and Testimony: Locating Truth in a Pentecostal Hermeneutic,” Pentecostal Theology 23, no. 2 (Fall 2001): 245–63; Roger Stronstad, “Pentecostal Experience and Hermeneutics,” Paraclete 26 (Winter 1992): 14–30; Wolfgang Vondey, “The Symbolic Turn: A Symbolic Conception of the Liturgy of Pentecostalism,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 36, no. 2 (Fall 2001): 223–47; Amos Yong, Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002), 221–74.
36
Archer, “Pentecostal Story,” 38.
37
Ibid., 42.
38
Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition, 20.
305
17
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 306
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
story that the power of the Holy Spirit lives “both within and all around the believer.”39 Put differently, the Pentecostal story can be seen as the means that first allow Pentecostals to articulate their thematic locus in a global theological context.
The fact that Yong fails to mention the Pentecostal story is sympto- matic of the pressure exerted on Pentecostal theologians first to explain their doctrinal positions. Dabney’s critique of Pentecostal involvement in the ecumenical dialogue has to be supplemented by a critique of the dia- logue process itself, which often forces the dialogue partners to explain their story without allowing them first to articulate it. Pentecostals, how- ever, have not yet explicated their stories with one voice in a global con- text but have focused, instead, on the theological, historical, or sociological themes distinctive to their movement.40 As a result, “for much of their history Pentecostals have been better at telling their story than explain- ing it.”41 A unifying and ordering principle of the Pentecostal theological narrative is still missing. I suggest that this form of choreographic (con- tent-descriptive) hermeneutics is symptomatic for much of Pentecostal theology in its first century. Instead, I wonder if an archeological hermeneu- tics would not better serve the formulation of a global Pentecostal theology that not only acknowledges the acts, objects, and contexts of interpreta- tion but also the origin of this task in the self-perception of the Pentecostal tradition out of and over against the revelation of God in the written gospel.
The possibility of global theology from a Pentecostal perspective will depend in the first place not on the doctrines formulated by Pentecostals but on the way these doctrines embody and articulate the Christian meta- narrative. Yong’s latest work can be embraced by Pentecostal scholarship because there exists a cohesive Pentecostal narrative tradition, even if that tradition is not yet formulated. To paraphrase Yong’s argument elsewhere, the interpretive “hardware” and “software” are compatible among Pen- tecostals.42 But what about the non-Pentecostal community? I assume that those who are not Pentecostals will first question the “program” that allows Pentecostals to process and articulate data in a peculiar way, that is, the processes that shape, challenge, and reshape the Pentecostal tradition
39
Steven J. Land, “A Passion for the Kingdom: Revisioning Pentecostal Spirituality,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 1 (1992): 23.
40
Cf. Wolfgang Vondey, “Christian Amnesia: Who in the World Are Pentecostals?” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Theology 4, no. 1 (January 2001): 21–39.
41
Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition, 20.
42
For this vocabulary see Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 221–44; esp. 230.
306
18
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 307
Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology: Implications of the Theology of Amos Yong
as a theologically distinct community in the world post-Christendom. Practically, therefore, Yong’s discussion of a beginning thematiclocus of global Pentecostal theology will have to be preceded by an articulation of the Pentecostal story as the rationale for the existence and responsi- bility of the global Pentecostal community as it participates in the renewal of creation. This must include the phenomenological account Yong offers in chapter 1. At the same time, it must go beyond mere phenomenology and offer insights into the reflective, dialogical, and critical discernment structures that produce and sustain the Pentecostal worldview. Beginning with the content of Pentecostal theology suggests that there exists one universal story that allows the particular themes of Pentecostal thought to be expressed in global unison. On the other hand, to begin with the hermeneutic of the Pentecostal community worldwide would leave room for the possibility that there is more than one Pentecostal story and, as a consequence, more than one thematic locus that stands at the beginning of Pentecostal theology.
A Pentecostal Approach to a Theology of Religions
In light of Yong’s emphasis on a pneumatological soteriology as the starting point for worldwide Pentecostal theology, the author eventually ventures into territory that is likely the most controversial aspect of his program: a pneumatological approach to a Christian theology of religions. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh maintains Yong’s argument “that the religions are neither accidents of history nor encroachments on divine providence but are, in various ways, instruments of the Holy Spirit work- ing out the divine purposes in the world and that the unevangelized, if saved at all, are saved through the work of Christ by the Spirit.”43 An emerging Pentecostal theology cannot ignore Yong’s fundamental con- cerns in this regard: The possibility of global theology must include an understanding of the role of the religions in the providence of God. More precisely, global theology should address the Christian response to other religious faiths and express whether and how God’s salvation is accom- plished through the religions. Yong suggests that this kind of theology is possible only in a pneumatological approach to the religions.
43
Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 236. See Amos Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 20 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); and idem, Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003).
307
19
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 308
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
Yong takes seriously the biblical statement that the Spirit has been poured out on all flesh. For him, the consequence for global theology is a theological reflection that includes not only the Christian world but humankind as a whole. In other words, a Pentecostal theology of reli- gions that operates from a pneumatological perspective is also a theology of discernment of the presence and operation of God’s Spirit in the realm of “all flesh.” This emphasis on discernment is a salient feature in Yong’s theological endeavor and indeed programmatic for the future of Pentecostal theology.44 The possibility of global theology depends less on the claims Pentecostals make with regard to other religions than on the method of discernment that allows them to make such claims.
Yong suggests a number of abstract criteria for pneumatological dis- cernment in a case study of Christian-Muslim relations. His methodology is based on the pneumatological imagination resulting from the outpour- ing of the Holy Spirit on all flesh as laid out in the early chapters of the book:
First, are the fruits of the Spirit being manifest in the religious phenome- non in question? Second, are the works of the kingdom manifest in the life and ministry of Jesus—after all, the Spirit witnesses to Jesus—seen in the religious phenomenon? Third, is salvation, understood in its various dimen- sions, discernible in the religious phenomenon? Fourth, is conversion in the various human domains occurring in the lives of those in other faiths? Fifth, is the ecclesial mark of holiness, understood in its realized and eschato- logical senses, discernible, however dimly, in the religious phenomenon?45
This provisional heuristic apparatus will undoubtedly shape the discus- sion of the Pentecostal self-understanding in its epistemological and the- ological articulation in a world post-Christendom. On the other hand, these criteria are sure to raise concerns among many Pentecostals.
Yong elucidates his effort in a case study that tests the pneumatolog- ical questions of discernment in the Christian-Muslim encounter through an exegesis of relevant passages of the Qur’an. His most obvious obser- vations resulting from this examination are the convergence of the Qur’anic concept of “Spirit” with Christian pneumatology on the one hand, as, for
44
See also Amos Yong, “Spiritual Discernment: A Biblical-Theological Reconsideration,” in The Spirit and Spirituality: Essays in Honor of Russell P. Spittler, ed. Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 24 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2004), 83–104; idem, “‘The Spirit Hovers over the World’: Toward a Typology of ‘Spirit’ in the Religion and Science Dialogue,” The Digest: Trans- disciplinary Approaches to Foundational Questions—The Metanexus Online Journal 4, no. 12 (2004), available at http://metanexus.net/digest/2004_10_27.htm.
45
Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 256.
308
20
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 309
Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology: Implications of the Theology of Amos Yong
example, in the relationship of the Spirit to Jesus, and the divergence of the two realms on the other hand, as, for example, in the disagreement on the divinity of the Spirit. Whereas the theological discussion of the latter threatens to terminate the conversation, Yong sees the pneumato- logical imagination evident in the former as a way forward in develop- ing a global theology. I suggest that Pentecostals should not reject Yong’s sympathetic reading of other religious traditions from the outset but instead evaluate his propositions in light of the criteria presented in this essay: A pneumatological theology of religions, if possible at all, must remain within the trinitiarian framework of the Christian faith, encourage a mind- set that invites ecumenical transformation, and articulate the reflective, dialogical, and critical discernment structures inherent in the Pentecostal story.
The task of discernment of the Holy Spirit in the religions must be supplemented by a stronger trinitarian basis than is provided by Yong. The pneumatological exercise conducted in chapter 6 continues to be along the lines of a theology of the third article apart from the Father and the Son that characterizes most of the book. To be precise, Yong does not separate the operation of the Spirit from the Father or the Son; but neither does he make it explicit. At his own admission, he is “somewhat ambiva- lent” about the way forward and suggests the application of the Oneness Pentecostal witness that sees the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit of the Son as different expressions of the same Spirit.46 This ambivalence has the potential to hamper the possibility of constructing a global Pentecostal theology.
In his reference to a trinitarian framework Yong emphasizes the bib- lical witness that the Spirit “calls attention not to himself but to the Son and the Father.”47 This emphasis belongs to the level of what may be des- ignated as secondary trinitarian data.48 However, a global theology of reli- gions that is both Pentecostal and pneumatological will have to address primary trinitarian data, namely, the question of the definition and origin of the person of the Holy Spirit in both the immanent trinity and in the economic trinity.49 In other words, positive discernment of the presence and operation of the Holy Spirit in other religions requires not only that this Spirit calls attention to the Son and the Father in the economy of
46
Ibid., 264.
47
Ibid. Emphasis in the original.
48
For this distinction see David Coffey, Grace: The Gift of the Holy Spirit (Sydney: Catholic Institute of Sydney, 1979), 36.
49
I have emphasized this in greater detail in Vondey, Heribert Mühlen, 49–98.
309
21
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 310
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
salvation but that the same Spirit is ontologically the personal reality who relates the Father and the Son to one another and, in this operation, relates them to the human person(s). Only in this sense does the religious phe- nomenon clearly witness to the affirmation that the Spirit is always “my” Spirit (of the Father and the Son, respectively) who is poured out on those who are consequently “my” men- and maidservants (see Acts 2:18). Any ambivalence in this regard will not serve a Pentecostal discernment of God’s Spirit. We may agree with Yong that pneumatological theology is open-ended in its eschatological orientation toward the future and there- fore allows us to follow after the Spirit. Yet, it must also be rooted in a firm starting point that allows us to return to the Holy Spirit when we discover that we have walked too far ahead. This foundation is the ori- gin of the person of the Holy Spirit in the fellowship of the Father and the Son.
Secondly, another important criterion for the discernment of the pres- ence and operation of the Holy Spirit in other religions is the ecumenicity of the religious phenomenon. As I indicated above, a pneumatological ecclesiology does not emerge apart from but only together with other churches. In turn, as Yong argues correctly, a pneumatological theology of religions can only be developed in dialogue with other religions. However, this statement counts for all dialogue partners. In other words, a pneumatological approach to the religions should contain in itself the Holy Spirit as the principle of unity that finds explicit articulation in the self-understanding and self-expression of all communities in which that Spirit is present and operative.
Pentecostals have expressed this understanding of unity frequently with reference to the prayer of Jesus for his disciples.50 They perceived the Pentecostal Movement as an explicit answer to Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17:21. In this text, Jesus emphasizes not only the most intimate fel- lowship of the Son with the Father (and vice versa) but also of the dis- ciples with God. Unity among the disciples is subsequently described in terms of the oneness of the Father and the Son (v. 22), and the perfec- tion of this unity is the result of the indwelling of the Father in the Son and of the Son in the disciples (v. 23). Theologically, the order implied in this text offers important insights into the trinitarian fellowship: the
50
See the synopsis of this argument in Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Taking Stock of Pentecostalism: The Personal Reflections of a Retiring Editor,” Pentecostal Theology 15, no. 1 (1993): 37; and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Ano- nymous Ecumenists? Pentecostals and the Struggle for Christian Identity,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 37, no. 1 (Winter 2000): 16.
310
22
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 311
Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology: Implications of the Theology of Amos Yong
Father is in the Son and the Son is in us. From the perspective of an ecu- menically oriented ecclesiology, this order can be reversed: the Son is in us and the Father is in the Son. A pneumatological approach to this ecu- menical reading is suggested already in Ephesians 2:18: We have access by the Spirit through the Son to the Father. In other words, Pentecostals can see the work of unity as initiated and sustained by the Holy Spirit. This understanding of unity includes the challenge that the Apostle Paul issues in Ephesians 4:3: “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”
Consequently, if ecumenical unity among the churches requires atten- tion to the ecclesial difference, then this difference is further accentuated in the encounter between the world religions. The New Testament points out that the Christian has fellowship with God through fellowship with the original witnesses. In other words, those who live in a world post- Christendom face the challenge of bridging the gap between them and the experience of the first Christians. A pneumatological approach to this challenge may propose that this ecclesial difference is overcome in the Pentecostal Movement by the presence and operation of the Holy Spirit. In turn, a pneumatological theology of religions must show how the same Spirit moves and forms other religious phenomena toward unity with God and the original witnesses. We may then be able to discern in other reli- gions the fruit of the Spirit, the works of the kingdom of God, the marks of holiness, conversion in the various human domains, and salvation to the extent that these also exhibit an unbroken desire to be one with the Christian community.
Finally, a third criterion for spiritual discernment is the Pentecostal story as a story of the human encounter with and experience of the Holy Spirit. We may look in vain for a common thematic locus among the Christian world and the faith expression of other religions. However, if we discover in the confession of other faiths an affirmation of the Holy Spirit, then there must also be evidence of this affirmation in the means to articulate this confession. In other words, Yong’s proposal of an engag- ing and challenging theology of religions on their own terms must focus not only on a reading of their sacred texts but also on a listening to their sacred story in order to discern if that story witnesses to the written pres- ence of the Spirit as a living and dynamic relationship of the Holy Spirit (as the promise) to the Father (as the one who gave the promise) and the Son (as the one who poured out the promise). In this sense, the pneuma- tological story of other religions can be seen as a Pentecostal story (even if their thematic locus is different). The Pentecostal story is then not only
311
23
Pneuma 28,2_f12_289-312II 9/26/06 4:43 PM Page 312
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
a linguistic-communicative expression of the Pentecostal experience of the Spirit of God, the story is that encounter with the Holy Spirit as the inheritance of God’s promise (see Joel 2:28) that bridges the gap between a world post-Christendom and the fulfillment of that promise on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:33) and as it continues to transform both the speaker and the audience in the act of telling the story today.
From the perspective of a theology of religions, the Pentecostal story is the hermeneutical filter that relates God’s people to God’s promise. In this sense, the promise can indeed extend outward to all flesh “for the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:39). Nonetheless, this promise is always in the first place the promise of God to Israel (see Acts 7:17; 13:23, 32; 26:6) that is then extended beyond Jerusalem “to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8) to include the nations (see Acts 10:45; Gal. 3:14; Eph. 3:6). All those who share the Pentecostal story must therefore, in their witness of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, return inward to those who partake of the promise, first to the original Christian witnesses and then to Israel, endeavoring to preserve (and often first establish) the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. The Pentecostal story therefore always strives to unite other faiths with the Christian world and with the people of Israel as the people of the one God whom the Spirit reveals as the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus Christ.
Conclusion
The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh will undoubtedly set the tone for the development of Pentecostal theology in a global context at the begin- ning of the twenty-first century. The present review is submitted for fur- ther discussion and as an extension of Yong’s work and should stimulate the reader to reflect once again on Yong’s insights and conclusions from a different perspective. If I have offered any new insights, then these should be contributed to the creative work that emerges from The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, a refreshing and rewarding book. As might be expected, several questions could not be addressed, some that were not asked by Yong and other that went beyond the scope of this review essay. One of the most pressing questions is certainly who is going to partici- pate in the further development of worldwide Pentecostal theology? Perhaps this question should have been asked at the beginning of this and any endeavor to engage Yong’s work in an appreciative and critical manner.
312
24
