Pentecostal spirit baptism: An analysis of meaning and function

Transcription

1 Australian Catholic University ACU Research Bank Theses Document Types Pentecostal spirit baptism: An analysis of meaning and function David Perry Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Perry, D. (2014). Pentecostal spirit baptism: An analysis of meaning and function (Doctoral thesis, Australian Catholic University). Retrieved from This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Document Types at ACU Research Bank. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of ACU Research Bank. For more information, please contact

2 Pentecostal Spirit Baptism: An Analysis of Meaning and Function Submitted by David Perry, BMin, BTh (hons) A thesis submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Theology Faculty of Theology and Philosophy Australian Catholic University Submitted 8 th August

3 Statement of Sources This thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma. No other person s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text of the thesis. The thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution. Signed: Date: 6 th August

4 Acknowledgements While this would not have been possible without support from numerous people, there are three in particular who have walked with me every step of the way. To Professor Neil Ormerod your support and encouragement gave me the confidence to persevere, and your own exceptional work in theology inspired me just when I needed it. You also gave me an amazing gift you taught me how to think. To Associate Professor Shane Clifton as a supervisor, colleague and friend you have invested into my life in so many ways. Your capacity to think differently has challenged me to do the same and to become a better theologian. All of our conversations have been wonderfully stimulating and helpful in ways that extend far beyond this project. To my wife Lauren you certainly deserve the greatest praise of all. Through five long years you have believed in me, supported me and encouraged me even as this project denied you my time and attention. No doubt you will be overjoyed to see me finish, but have no doubt that this could never have happened without your amazing and unwavering confidence in me. 3

5 Contents Abstract... 7 Chapter 1: Purpose and Context Introduction: Towards a Working Definition of Spirit Baptism: Survey of Literature on Spirit Baptism: Exegetical Literature: Critique of Exegetical Literature: Theological Literature: The Need for Further Reflection: Chapter 2: Methodology Pentecostal Philosophy and Worldview: Experience: Overcoming the Subjective/Objective Divide: Experience as Pre-conceptual: Experience as a Source of Doctrine: The Interpreted Character of Experience: Summary: Bernard Lonergan s Method in Theology: Realms of Meaning: Functions of Meaning: Lonergan and Spirit Baptism Elsewhere: Concluding Remarks: Chapter 3: The Cognitive Function The Cognitive Function of Meaning Revisited: What has Commonly been Asserted about Pentecostal Spirit Baptism? Distinct From or Subsequent to Conversion: The Purpose of Spirit Baptism is Enduement with Power: Evidenced by Speaking in Tongues: Summary: Identifying the Core Assertions about Spirit Baptism: To Name is to give Meaning:

6 3.3.2 The Distinction between Judgement and Understanding: Spirit Baptism is an Experience of the Holy Spirit: Phenomenology: The Question of Authority and the Chosen Sources: Scripture: Understanding: A Trinitarian Construct of Spirit Baptism: Created Participations of the Divine Nature: Spirit Baptism and Confirmation: Spirit Baptism is a baptismal Experience: The Uniqueness of the Experience of Spirit Baptism: Concluding Remarks: Chapter 4: The Effective Function The Effective Function of Meaning Revisited: Spirit Baptism and Eschatology: Spirit Baptism as a Catalyst for Evangelism and Missions: Shifting Eschatology: Spirit Baptism and Social Action: Changes in Effective Meaning: The Effective Function of Spirit Baptism Today: Created Participation in Passive Spiration: An Outpouring of Divine Love: A Broader Concept of Empowerment: Concluding Remarks: Chapter 5: The Constitutive Function The Constitutive Function of Meaning Revisited: The Constitutive Function of Pentecostal Spirit Baptism: Historically: Presently: Concrete Ecclesiology and the Challenge of Constitutive Meaning: A Way Forward: Institution and Charisma: Operators and Integrators: The Capacity for Spirit Baptism to Function Constitutively:

7 5.5 Concluding Remarks: Chapter 6: The Communicative Function The Communicative Function of Meaning Revisited: Glossolalia as a Communication of Elemental Meaning: Theological Perspectives: Narrative Perspectives: The Communication of the Doctrine of Spirit Baptism: Case Study: Pentecostal Spirit Baptism in Ecumenical Discussion: Evangelical Dialogue: Catholic Dialogue: Reformed Dialogue: Critique of Ecumenical Communication: A Suggested Rewording of the Doctrine: Concluding Remarks: Appendix A - Testimonies of Pentecostal Spirit Baptism: Appendix B - AG US Conversions and Spirit Baptisms : Appendix C - AG US Water Baptisms and Spirit Baptisms : Appendix D - ACC Conversions and Spirit Baptisms : Appendix E - ACC Water Baptisms and Spirit Baptisms : Appendix F - National Church Life Survey : Appendix G - Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Christian Initiation, A Pentecostal Perspective: Bibliography

8 Abstract This thesis engages with the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism and seeks to contribute to the discussion through the application of a new methodology. The premise is that the experience itself is meaningful and important to the Pentecostal community, but the meaning inherent in the experience has not always been adequately understood. To address this, this thesis utilizes the functions of meaning, a set of categories proposed by Bernard Lonergan, as a framework to explicate the Pentecostal experience in terms of its cognitive, effective, constitutive and communicative dimensions. Concerning the cognitive function, I argue that the key assertion Pentecostals make about their experience of Spirit baptism is that it is an experience of the Holy Spirit. This assertion is then demonstrated as reasonable through phenomenological analysis, and explained in theological and Trinitarian terms as the procession of love, the Holy Spirit, poured into our hearts from the Father and the Son. Concerning the effective function of meaning, I suggest that this divine love poured into our hearts through Spirit baptism can function as a motivating force for evangelism and missions. Concerning the constitutive function, I recognize that Spirit baptism constituted the Pentecostal community for many years, but the value of the experience as an integrator within the contemporary Pentecostal context has yet to be determined. More work is needed in this area. Finally, concerning the communicative function, I propose that the relationship between Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues may be understood theologically as the communication of elemental meaning. The doctrine of Spirit baptism, however, needs to be revised in order to capture the essence and richness of the experience itself. The end result of this thesis, then, is a suggested restatement of the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism that incorporates the cognitive, effective, constitutive and communicative meanings discussed throughout. 7

9 Chapter 1: Purpose and Context 1.1 Introduction: Anyone wishing to understand the heightened interest in Pentecostalism over the last few decades need only consider that the movement, including its Charismatic counterparts, has grown from zero to almost 500 million constituents in less than a century. 1 In fact, recent statistics suggest that the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements represent approximately a quarter of all Christians in the world, 2 and closer to two-thirds of all Christians in the Majority World. 3 Such staggering growth and the resulting global presence inevitably creates curiosity from without, and should encourage ecumenical engagement and responsibility from within. While these drives have compelled both Pentecostals and non-pentecostals to engage historically, sociologically, and theologically with the movement and its varied doctrinal distinctives, the final word has not yet been said. There is still a pressing need for Pentecostal scholars to critically reflect upon their unique doctrines so that Pentecostals can mature in their own self-understanding and contribute meaningfully to broader discussions. Recent theological offerings from various scholars are a great contribution to this cause, but there is still more work to be done. After claiming that Pentecostalism is currently at a crossroads, Walter J. Hollenweger identifies a challenge, arising from within the ranks, for a critical historiography, for social and political analysis, for a more differentiated treatment of the work of the Spirit, for a spirituality which does not blend out critical thinking... for ecumenical openness and dialogue. 4 It is with this challenge in mind that we revisit afresh one of the most distinctive Pentecostal experiences and doctrines: Spirit baptism. Spirit baptism as an experience and as a doctrine has been, for many years, crucial to the constitution and self-identity of the Pentecostal community. Indeed, it has been aptly described as the crown jewel of Pentecostal theology, 5 and millions of Pentecostals worldwide can identify with the experience of Spirit baptism. Despite this place of prominence, it is still a doctrine in need of attention. There has been a recent trend, evident in both Pentecostal scholarship and Pentecostal praxis, towards the displacement of Spirit baptism as the central Pentecostal distinctive and a lessening of 1 Walter J. Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 1. 2 Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 1. 3 Henry I. Lederle, Theology with Spirit, The Future of the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements in the 21st Century (Tulsa: Word & Spirit Press, 2010), Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide, 1. 5 Frank D. Macchia, "The Kingdom and the Power: Spirit Baptism in Ecumenical and Pentecostal Perspective," in The Work of the Spirit, ed. Michael Welker (Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006),

10 the emphasis given to this experience. 6 At a scholarly level, several writers have attempted to find an alternative to Spirit baptism as the unifying center of Pentecostalism using themes like eschatology 7 and encounter 8. While these will be discussed in more detail at a later stage, it is enough for now to note that such a trend exists. At a practical level, Keith Warrington has noted a decrease in the number of Pentecostals who claim to have experienced Spirit baptism, especially in the West, and asserts that the experience itself is only encouraged to a limited extent by Pentecostal leaders. 9 Speaking of the Assemblies of God in Australia, 10 the country s largest Pentecostal denomination, Shane Clifton highlights similar trends towards a deemphasizing of the importance of Spirit baptism. 11 The reasons for this shift are no doubt many and varied, academic and practical as well as conscious and unconscious. Whatever the reason, Clifton believes that changes to the focus on Spirit baptism have often occurred for pragmatic reasons without the requisite theological reflection and debate. 12 Furthermore, with Pentecostal identity at a crossroads, there is a very real possibility that Spirit baptism will be marginalized to the point that it becomes practically insignificant. If this were to happen the Pentecostal movement would lose something that, historically at least, has been central to its identity. 13 The time is right for a reexamination of Spirit baptism with a view to critically reflecting on the meaning of the experience and its relevance to Pentecostalism today. For this to happen, as Steven Land rightly observes, more is needed than an apologetic for Spirit baptism. 14 Indeed, the majority of publications on Spirit baptism from the last few decades have been concerned with a biblical assessment or apologetic of particular Pentecostal claims like subsequence 15 and initial evidence 16 rather than theological reflection on the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism. The classical Pentecostal construct of Spirit baptism as an experience subsequent to conversion and evidenced by speaking in tongues has traditionally been criticized or defended based on various interpretations of biblical texts, particularly from Luke-Acts. But after decades of debate we seem no closer to a consensus on the issue, and it has become increasingly apparent that 6, Baptized in the Spirit (Michigan: Zondervan, 2006), See, for example, Steven Land, Pentecostal Spirituality, JPTS (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), Also, D. William Faupel, The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). 8 Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology (London: T & T Clark, 2008), Ibid., Recently incorporated into the ACC (Australian Christian Churches). 11 Shane Clifton, "An Analysis of the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia" (Australian Catholic University, 2005), Ibid., Ibid., Land, Pentecostal Spirituality, The idea that Spirit baptism is an event subsequent to conversion. 16 The idea that Spirit baptism is always accompanied by the initial evidence of glossolalia (tongues). 9

11 an understanding of Spirit baptism that relies solely on an exegetical defense of subsequence and initial evidence is far too narrow. Frank D. Macchia suggests that such a discussion has exhausted its usefulness, and urges that the boundaries of the discussion on Spirit baptism be expanded. 17 Similar efforts can also be observed in the work of Amos Yong, 18 Simon Chan, 19 and Shane Clifton, 20 among others. While these authors have, to some extent, anticipated the thrust of this present work, this thesis will propose that there is a trajectory that is yet to be comprehensively explored. Notwithstanding the considerable attention given to exegetical analysis of Spirit baptism, there has been relatively little theological reflection on the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism and its significance for the Pentecostal community. Furthermore, the theological reflection that has taken place has rarely been guided by a clearly defined system or methodology and is, consequently, somewhat disjointed. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to undertake a critical analysis of Pentecostal Spirit baptism based on a methodology that will allow us to focus particularly on the meaning embodied in the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism. More specifically, we will explore how Spirit baptism functions cognitively, effectively, constitutively, and communicatively within Pentecostalism. The overall aim is to gain a clearer understanding of the function of Spirit baptism within the Pentecostal community and to suggest ways in which Spirit baptism may still have value for Pentecostal identity. Starting from the premise that Spirit baptism still has an important role to play at the heart of Pentecostalism, it is my hope that some contribution may be made to a more coherent Pentecostal doctrine so that confidence in Spirit baptism as a vital experience may be restored before it disappears altogether. 1.2 Towards a Working Definition of Spirit Baptism: Given that baptism in the Holy Spirit is a biblical category 21 which is at least accepted by most Christian traditions, it is to be expected that anyone approaching this topic inevitably brings a range of preexisting views and suppositions. Notwithstanding the diverse interpretations from biblical times to 17 Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured out on All Flesh (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005). 19 Simon Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition, JPTS (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000). 20 Shane Clifton, "The Spirit and Doctrinal Development: A Functional Analysis of the Traditional Pentecostal Doctrine of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.," Pneuma 29, no. 1 (2007). 21 John 1:33; Acts 1:5. 10

12 the present, 22 even within Pentecostalism there exists what Donald R. Wheelock has called different theological colorations in relation to the doctrine. 23 This diversity of views means that one s definition of Spirit baptism will usually be drawn from their own ecclesiological and theological context. 24 Koo Dong Yun, for example, has categorized the various constructs of Spirit baptism as Classical Pentecostal, Charismatic, or Dispensational, 25 while Henry I. Lederle has classified them as integrative, neo-pentecostal, or sacramental. 26 The very fact that these writers feel the need to invent systems to classify these constructs is a testimony to the diversity and complexity of the category. Although a comprehensive definition at this point would be somewhat premature, we must begin with a preliminary explanation of Spirit baptism for the sake of clarity as we move forward in this paper. To justify this working definition some brief comments are warranted. Firstly, it is important to note that this paper is primarily concerned with Spirit baptism as it has been experienced, described, explained, and doctrinalized by the Pentecostal movement. While at times reference may be made to other denominational constructs of Spirit baptism, unless otherwise indicated by context the reader should assume a Pentecostal setting. Secondly, a classical Pentecostal definition of Spirit baptism would usually contain reference to an event that is distinct from and subsequent to conversion, with tongues or glossolalia providing the initial evidence that this baptism has been received. 27 But modern Pentecostal scholars have called into question such classical definitions, particularly their references to subsequence and initial evidence, and I will do the same in chapter 3. Gordon Fee argues that there is very little biblical support for a subsequent Spirit baptism, although he does concede that this lack of biblical support should not render the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism invalid. 28 Other scholars have sought to downplay the importance of subsequence to Pentecostals in general, suggesting that the focus for early Pentecostals was a logical subsequence rather than a chronological subsequence. In other words, as J. Rodman Williams explains, Pentecostals simply viewed salvation as a prerequisite for Spirit baptism, so that even if salvation and Spirit baptism are at the same moment, salvation precedes 22 For early interpretations of Spirit baptism refer to Kilian McDonnell and George T. Montague, Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1991). For nineteenth century precursors to the Pentecostal understanding of Spirit baptism refer to Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Hendrickson, 1987), Donald R. Wheelock, "Spirit Baptism in American Pentecostal Thought" (Emory University, 1983), Koo Dong Yun, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Maryland: University Press of America, 2003), Ibid. 26 Lederle, Theology with Spirit. 27 Yun, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Gordon Fee, Gospel and Spirit (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991),

13 Spirit baptism. 29 Similarly, Wheelock argues that subsequence is a practical recognition and not an ontologized soteriological specification. 30 Finally, Russell P. Spittler has called subsequence a nonissue, suggesting that Pentecostals did not intend to frame a new ordo salutis, rather they wanted to emphasize that it s possible for tired Christians to be renewed. 31 Therefore, while Pentecostal scholars may still affirm that Spirit baptism can be an experience subsequent to conversion, it seems that the general trend is to minimize the doctrinal necessity of subsequence. The same could also be said of the doctrine of initial evidence. Some argue that the verifiability of Spirit baptism through evidential tongues is the most distinctive feature of the Pentecostal movement. 32 While this may have been true in the early days of the movement, one may be hard pressed to demonstrate that this is still the case. Clifton draws attention to the move away from a link between Spirit baptism and glossolalia in Australian Pentecostalism, a move which has occurred for the most part without debate or discussion. 33 As a result of his research, Hollenweger concludes that many Pentecostal churches have a great proportion of members (and sometimes even some pastors) who have never spoken in tongues. 34 There have also been those who have been critical of the initial evidence concept itself. Macchia, for example, is concerned with the scientific connotations associated with the word evidence arising from a modernistic preoccupation with empirical proof. 35 He prefers to view tongues as a sacramental sign of the presence of the Spirit. Larry Hurtado observes that the question of what constitutes the initial evidence of Spirit baptism is a question not raised anywhere in the New Testament. 36 Such practical trends and theological arguments suggest that initial evidence may no longer be entirely necessary for a doctrine of Spirit baptism that resonates with contemporary Pentecostalism. We will take up this issue in more detail at a later stage, but for now will affirm Spittler s observation that the belief [initial evidence] that 29 J. Rodman Williams, "Baptism in the Holy Spirit," in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), Wheelock, "Spirit Baptism in American Pentecostal Thought", Russell P. Spittler, "Suggested Areas for Further Research in Pentecostal Studies," Pneuma 5 (1983): Yun, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Clifton, "Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia", 265. In fact, the section entitled Our Beliefs on the website of Hillsong church, almost certainly the most influential Pentecostal church in Australia, now reads: We believe that in order to live the holy and fruitful lives that God intends for us, we need to be baptized in water and be filled with the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit enables us to use spiritual gifts, including speaking in tongues ( Accessed 18/04/2014). This is surely a long way from the classical Pentecostal doctrine of initial evidence. 34 Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide, Frank D. Macchia, "Groans Too Deep for Words: Towards a Theology of Tongues as Initial Evidence," Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 1 (1998). 36 Larry Hurtado, ""Initial Evidence" and the New Testament," in Initial Evidence, ed. Gary B. McGee (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1991),

14 distinguishes the movement can only wrongly be thought of as describing the essence of Pentecostalism. 37 With these doctrinal developments in mind we come to a more recent definition of Spirit baptism from Frank D. Macchia. He writes: Whatever else it is, Spirit baptism is a powerful experience received with or at a moment distinct from Christian initiation. 38 Because of its simplicity, the emphasis on the experiential nature of Spirit baptism, and Macchia s downplaying of the issue of subsequence which, as we have already suggested, is for many Pentecostals a non-issue, we will adopt this as our working definition of Spirit baptism. Although it does raise the obvious question an experience of what?, there is also an implicit recognition that Spirit baptism cannot and should not be reduced to this definition alone. While this is certainly not a firm and final statement on Spirit baptism, it does furnish us with a starting point from which we can launch our more thorough analysis. Having laid this foundation, it is now possible to proceed to an analysis of existing literature on Spirit baptism. 1.3 Survey of Literature on Spirit Baptism: Whether attempting to refute, defend, or enrich the Pentecostal position, most approaches to Spirit baptism can be loosely categorized as exegetical or theological. For the purpose of this survey, exegetical approaches are those that use the Bible as their primary reference or starting point for an evaluation of the Pentecostal doctrine and experience. Notable exponents of this approach include James Dunn, Frederick Dale Bruner, Robert P. Menzies, and Roger Stronstad. The theological approaches are those that use the Pentecostal doctrine or experience as a starting point for theological reflection (which may include exegetical elements). This theological reflection on Spirit baptism, more prominent in recent years, focuses on the significance of Spirit baptism as a theological theme within the Pentecostal tradition, and often seeks to reinterpret or revise this theme for apologetic, ecumenical, or ecclesiological reasons. Theologians who have employed this approach include Simon Chan, Frank D. Macchia, Shane Clifton, and Amos Yong, to name just a few. Because of the sheer volume it is neither possible nor necessary to review all of the literature on Spirit baptism, much of which would not be considered scholarly. For the purpose of this brief overview we will focus primarily on the more sustained exegetical or theological treatments. 37 Russell P. Spittler, "Glossolalia," in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit,

15 1.3.1 Exegetical Literature: Before we proceed, it is necessary to highlight the way in which early Pentecostals used Scripture to describe their experience of Spirit baptism. Stronstad has suggested that early Pentecostals brought a valid experiential presupposition to their reading and interpretation of Acts. 39 This resulted in a pragmatic hermeneutic which looked to Scripture as a pattern for contemporary experience. 40 Kenneth Archer calls this the Bible Reading Method as a label for this pre-critical, commonsense method of reading Scripture. 41 Pentecostals found biblical parallels with their life experiences and would incorporate these into their testimonies. This reinforced the Pentecostal story. Hence, Pentecostals did not see a difference between how God worked in biblical times and how God worked in the present Thus, they saw their experiences as similar to those of Bible times. This outlook reiterated the easy accessibility and immediacy of the meaning of Scripture for their Pentecostal community. 42 Thus early Pentecostal interpretation of Scripture was not usually supported by careful exegesis or consideration of historical context, nor could that be expected from a fledgling revivalist movement. Rather, the use of Scripture as a descriptor was highly literalistic as early Pentecostals saw in their experiences a continuation of the experiences of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. However, as this descriptive use of Scripture developed over time into doctrinal statements justified through Scripture, exegetical critiques of the Pentecostal interpretation of Spirit baptism appeared. It is at this point that we pick up our summary of exegetical literature. To identify the exegetical criticisms of the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism one need look no further than the work of Frederick Dale Bruner 43 and James Dunn 44. While various other authors have also attempted to explain Spirit baptism in purely biblical terms, Wheelock recognizes that these men represent more than simply their own ideas, but rather embody both the perspective and some of the specific criticisms that numerous others have leveled at Pentecostal theology. 45 In other words, 39 Roger Stronstad, Spirit, Scripture & Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective (Baguio City: Asia Pacific Theological Seminary Press, 1995), Ibid., Kenneth Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic (Cleveland: CPT Press, 2005), Ibid., Frederick Dale Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1970). 44 James D.G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM Press, 1970). 45 Wheelock, "Spirit Baptism in American Pentecostal Thought",

16 these two authors can provide a useful overview of the main exegetical critiques of Pentecostal Spirit baptism. Firstly, James Dunn threw down the gauntlet to Pentecostal scholars and exegetes in 1970 with his publication of Baptism in the Holy Spirit, beginning a serious debate that would last decades. 46 Even 40 years on, it is difficult to find a credible history of the doctrine of Spirit baptism that doesn t reference his book. Moreover, to celebrate the 40 th anniversary of the original publication, a recent edition of the Journal of Pentecostal Theology contained four critiques of his book and a response from Dunn. 47 Suffice to say this work has had a significant impact on the study of Pentecostal Spirit baptism. After highlighting the need for a close study of the distinctive Pentecostal doctrines, 48 Dunn s approach is to carefully examine Spirit baptism as it is expounded by Luke, Paul and John respectively. Few would question the thoroughness of Dunn s exegesis, despite disagreements with the content, and he has recently been applauded for his scope, depth and energy. 49 His basic question is: does the New Testament mean by baptism in the Holy Spirit what the Pentecostals understand the phrase to mean? 50 In particular, he calls into question the Pentecostal assertion that baptism in the Holy Spirit is an event separate to Christian initiation. To summarize his detailed and complex argument, Dunn concludes from a study of the biblical texts that, while the Pentecostal attempt to restore the New Testament emphasis on the experience of the Spirit is to be praised, the separation of Spirit baptism from the event of conversion is, in his mind, quite contrary to the New Testament. 51 He also accuses Pentecostalism of a strong Lukan bias, so that on the doctrine of Spirit baptism Paul need not have written anything. 52 Spirit baptism s primary function, in his view, is to initiate the individual into the 46 To avoid the accusation that their doctrines were based purely on a subjective experience, Pentecostal Christians sought biblical justification for their doctrines from a very early stage. Until recently, however, these biblical arguments have usually lacked a sound hermeneutical foundation and therefore have failed to convince most evangelicals. See, for example, L. Thomas Holdcroft, "Spirit Baptism: Its Nature and Chronology," Paraclete 1, no. 1 (1967) or Frank B. Rice, Jr., "Terms Describing the Baptism in the Holy Spirit," Paraclete 3, no. 1 (1969). 47 Journal of Pentecostal Theology 19, no. 1 (2010). 48 Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Max Turner, "James Dunn's Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Appreciation and Response," Journal of Pentecostal Theology 19, no. 1 (2010): Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Ibid., Ibid.,

17 new age and covenant and to equip the individual for service as part of that new age and covenant. 53 In other words, one cannot be identified as a Christian without having the Spirit. 54 Despite his contrary position on the issue of subsequence, Dunn is certainly not opposed to all that Pentecostalism represents. Rather, there are many points on which he applauds the Pentecostal position. He congratulates Pentecostal Christians for shifting the focus of attention to the experience of the Spirit, a shift which according to the New Testament evidence is wholly justified. 55 Furthermore, Dunn asserts that Pentecostal teaching on spiritual gifts, including glossolalia, although unbalanced, is much more soundly based on the New Testament than is generally recognized. Max Turner 56 claims that Dunn had at least one foot in the Pentecostal camp with his view of spiritual gifts as dynamically experiential rather than purely sacramental or confirmationist. In Dunn s own words: It is a sad commentary on the poverty of our own immediate experience of the Spirit that when we come across language in which the NT writers refer directly to the gift of the Spirit and to their experience of it, either we automatically refer it to the sacraments and can only give it meaning when we do so, or else we discount the experience described as too subjective and mystical in favour of a faith which is essentially an affirmation of biblical propositions, or else we in effect psychologise the Spirit out of existence. 57 Finally, though, he argues that the subsequent empowering of the Spirit, purportedly experienced by Pentecostals, should not be called baptism in the Spirit. 58 A similar position emerges from Frederick Dale Bruner s A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness. 59 Like Dunn, Bruner exhibits an appreciation for the refocusing of theology on the Holy Spirit as a result of the Pentecostal movement. Yet, he urges that anything calling itself Christian must still be tested against the truth, which is, first of all, the New Testament witness. 60 Bruner explains, firstly, that the roots of Pentecostalism all stressed a personal experience subsequent to justification or conversion. 61 It was this experience that came to be called 53 Ibid., Despite his Pentecostal background, Gordon Fee essentially agrees with this position: Gordon Fee, God's Empowering Presence (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), It should be noted that Fee s position is based exclusively on the Pauline literature, and he still makes room for ongoing appropriations of the Spirit s empowering after conversion. 55 Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Turner, "James Dunn's Baptism in the Holy Spirit," Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Ibid., Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit. 60 Ibid., Ibid.,

18 in the Pentecostal movement the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This doctrine is the distinctive doctrine of Pentecostal theology, and is concerned primarily with the critical experience, reception, or filling of the Spirit as described, especially, by Luke in Acts. 62 Focusing again on the issues of subsequence and glossolalia, Bruner moves from an analysis of the Pentecostal teaching and exegesis to his own examination of the New Testament texts. His hermeneutical approach focuses on historical-critical exegesis and the discovery of the proper text and of the meaning of the text in the setting in which it was written. 63 Ultimately, his conclusions are similar to Dunn s: that the reception of the Spirit occurs at conversion; that Spirit baptism and water baptism should not be separated; and when the Pentecostal definition therefore concludes, this wonderful experience [of the baptism in the Holy Spirit] is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth, we must attribute this conviction to an insufficient acquaintance with the content with which the New Testament invests its one baptism. 64 Although Bruner does spend significant time analyzing the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts, his pneumatology eventually takes on a distinctively Pauline flavour. His concluding section on The Way of the Holy Spirit According to the New Testament draws heavily from the Pauline epistles and secondarily from the Johannine literature. In fact, Bruner does not seem willing to concede even the possibility of Spirit baptism apart from conversion in any instance, and works very hard (perhaps too hard) hermeneutically to deny the existence of any such occurrence in the Acts narrative. He is less sympathetic towards Pentecostalism than Dunn, to the point that Turner calls his account hostile and distorting. 65 In the end, his critique of Pentecostalism concludes that, through their doctrine of Spirit baptism, Pentecostals are seeking the fullness of the Spirit in the wrong place. While various other evangelicals have also offered critiques of Pentecostal Spirit baptism from an exegetical standpoint, 66 Dunn and Bruner provide an adequate representation of such positions. Dunn s work, in particular, stimulated a burst of Pentecostal exegetical reflection and responsive criticism. These criticisms of Dunn usually come from one of two angles. Firstly, there are those who argue that Dunn stretches his exegetical conclusions too far in order to maintain his central thesis. Mark Lee, for example, is critical of Dunn for a contrived exegesis in his attempts to demonstrate that people who received the baptism in the Spirit in the book of Acts were not already Christians (e.g. 62 Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Turner, "James Dunn's Baptism in the Holy Spirit," See Merrill F. Unger, The Baptism & Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974); Allan Norling, Jesus: The Baptizer with the Holy Spirit (Australia: Alken Press, 1994); Victor Budgen, The Charismatics and the Word of God (England: Evangelical Press, 1989). 17

19 Acts 8:1-25). 67 Janet Everts, while conceding that Pentecostals are too often involved in strained exegesis that forces the Pauline texts to conform to Pentecostal doctrine, also observes that Dunn is determined to find conversion-initiation in every verse he examines. 68 One of the most comprehensive responses to Dunn along these lines comes from Pentecostal theologian Howard M. Ervin. 69 He addresses each section of Dunn s book in detail and is highly critical of Dunn s exegesis and theological assumptions. Because Ervin s approach is to respond to each point that Dunn raises in his exegesis, his argument often seems disjointed and is difficult to synthesize. Nevertheless, William Atkinson believes that Ervin s interesting points do cast some doubt on Dunn s arguments. 70 In particular, regarding the conversion of the Samaritans in Acts 8, Atkinson believes that Ervin s overall exegesis of this passage is more convincing than Dunn s. 71 Ervin follows most Pentecostal exegetes in distinguishing between an ontological role of the Spirit at conversion and a phenomenological role of the Spirit in empowerment for ministry. Indeed, his continuous criticism of Dunn is for conflating and confusing the two. He also suggests that Dunn s conversion-initiation paradigm serves as something of a procrustean bed, forcing his exegesis to conform to this paradigm. 72 At the very least, Ervin successfully demonstrates that Dunn s conversion-initiation paradigm, as a logical and theological construct, is not based on an unassailable exegetical position. 73 Furthermore, although most of his criticisms are directed specifically at Dunn s exegesis, Ervin is also critical of Dunn s implicit methodology. Discerning in Dunn s methodology metaphysical assumptions about the nature of spiritual reality, 74 Ervin argues that these assumptions compel Dunn to reject both the Pentecostal understanding of Spirit baptism and other sacramental understandings. 75 Moreover, because Dunn and Pentecostal advocates both appeal to Scripture and to logic, the real question at issue here is a methodological one... both make certain hermeneutical assumptions and employ theological and exegetical criteria within the context of those 67 Mark Lee, "An Evangelical Dialogue on Luke, Salvation, and Spirit Baptism," Pneuma 26, no. 1 (2004): Janet Meyer Everts, "The Pauline Letters in James D.G. Dunn's Baptism in the Holy Spirit," Journal of Pentecostal Theology 19, no. 1 (2010): Howard M. Ervin, Conversion-Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1984). 70 William Atkinson, "Pentecostal Responses to Dunn's Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Luke-Acts," Journal of Pentecostal Theology 6 (1995): Ibid. 72 Ervin, Conversion-Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Ibid., Ervin accuses Dunn of a Platonic dichotomy between Spirit and matter. While the validity of this accusation is questionable, it is helpful to recognize that underlying philosophical/theological a priori assumptions may play a more significant part in the debate than is generally realized. 75 Ervin, Conversion-Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, viii. 18

20 assumptions. 76 This recognition, that exegetical differences are not always simply exegetical, is an important point which will be developed later. The other area for which Dunn is often criticized is his apparent reading of Luke-Acts through the lens of Pauline pneumatology. 77 This leads to the accusation that Dunn in some way actually preferences Pauline pneumatology over Lukan pneumatology. 78 Consequently, he overlooks that Luke portrays Spirit-reception not as the receiving of new covenant life and forgiveness from sin, but as a powerful enabling. 79 Roger Stronstad in particular argues that Luke develops a uniquely charismatic pneumatology. He begins his book by drawing our attention to the methodological challenges surrounding the interpretation of the baptism in the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. 80 More specifically, the diverse literary genres of the New Testament raise fundamental methodological issues about how the Holy Spirit should be interpreted in the narrative or didactic passages. Pentecostals tend to interpret narrative passages in Luke-Acts as theologically significant and normative records of the Spirit s work. Despite significant criticism of this hermeneutical approach, 81 Stronstad proposes that rather than providing a flimsy foundation upon which to erect a doctrine of the Holy Spirit, as is commonly alleged, the historical accounts of the activity of the Spirit in Acts provide a firm foundation for erecting a doctrine of the Spirit which has normative implications for the mission and religious experience of the contemporary church. 82 Stronstad concludes that the activity of the Holy Spirit among the company of God s people is charismatic (at least from Luke s perspective), and does not describe what contemporary interpreters term to be initiation or incorporation. 83 In even stronger terms, and in obvious opposition to Dunn, Stronstad declares that the activity of the Spirit is always charismatic in both purpose and result, so that only those who resist the evidence can continue to interpret the gift of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts to be an initiation-conversion experience. 84 Such a strong stance, based on careful exegesis of Luke-Acts, has given other Pentecostal exegetes a foundation on which to build. 76 Ibid., Larry Hart, "Spirit Baptism: A Dimensional Charismatic Perspective," in Perspectives on Spirit Baptism, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2004), Atkinson, "Pentecostal Responses to Dunn's Baptism in the Holy Spirit," Ibid., 120. Atkinson s article is a useful summary of significant Pentecostal responses to Dunn s work. He focuses on Roger Stronstad, Howard M. Ervin, Robert P. Menzies, David Petts, and James Shelton. 80 Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1984), See John Stott, Baptism and Fullness (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1964). In this study of Spirit baptism, Stott deliberately ignores the narrative passages, claiming that truth should be based on didactic passages only. 82 Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, Ibid., Ibid.,

21 An example of this building can be seen in the work of William and Robert P. Menzies, who provide a detailed analysis of relevant biblical texts in their book Spirit and Power. Their motivation is to hand on to the next generation [of Pentecostals] a solid rationale for their beliefs and practice. 85 Central to these beliefs and practices is the Pentecostal concept of Spirit baptism which, as a dynamic experience, has given cohesion to the movement and... is rooted in the promise of power associated with the Pentecostal gift (Acts 1:8). 86 They commence their book with an analysis of recent hermeneutical developments, including I.H. Marshall s contribution to the recognition of narrative as a source of both historical and theological data. 87 This obviously has significant implications for their approach to the Luke-Acts narrative, from which Pentecostals derive the majority of their theology. This also calls into question Dunn s approach to the question of Spirit baptism, which in their view gives pride of place to the Pauline literature. These preliminary statements on hermeneutics pave the way for a discussion of Spirit baptism that engages with biblical narrative as a source of normative theology. In particular, the authors respond to James Dunn and Max Turner as proponents of a one-stage conversion-initiation paradigm. 88 As with Stronstad, their criticism of these authors is that they assume an integrated unity between Pauline and Lukan pneumatology, an assumption which leads to the neglect of Luke s distinctive pneumatology. On the contrary, Menzies and Menzies perceive differences between Luke s pneumatology and Paul s, in that Luke not only fails to refer to soteriological aspects of the Spirit s work, his narrative presupposes a pneumatology that does not include this dimension. 89 Furthermore, they see in the texts Luke s intent to teach a Spirit-baptism for empowering distinct from conversion. 90 They conclude with an analysis of the relationship between Spirit baptism and spiritual gifts, and Spirit baptism and fruit of the Spirit. One does wonder if their apologetic for a subsequent experience of Spirit baptism is an overstatement of their case. Even if Luke s pneumatology is distinct from Paul s and exclusively charismatic, can we state definitively that Luke advocates Spirit baptism as subsequent to conversion in the same sense as Pentecostalism today? 85 William W. Menzies and Robert P. Menzies, Spirit and Power (Michigan: Zondervan, 2000), Ibid., See I. Howard Marshall, Luke - Historian & Theologian (Great Britain: Paternoster Press, 1992). 88 Menzies and Menzies, Spirit and Power, Ibid., Ibid., 117. Without going into detail, other Pentecostal theologians who have explained Spirit baptism biblically in much the same way as Menzies and Menzies include: David Petts, "The Baptism in the Holy Spirit," in Pentecostal Perspectives, ed. Keith Warrington (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998); Stanley Horton, Systematic Theology (Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1994), ; Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van-Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angeles: Foursquare Media, 1983),

22 It is worth noting that not all responses to Dunn have been entirely negative. Frank D. Macchia is more generous, tentatively suggesting that Dunn s book may be more Pentecostal than he himself realized. 91 Although he comments that the issue of separability or subsequence relating to conversion and Spirit baptism is not exactly a burning issue among most Pentecostals scholars, he sees great potential for Pentecostal dialogue with Dunn around his assumption that that the New Testament reception of the Spirit is still a transformative and charismatic experience. 92 As a side point, several recent attempts at finding middle ground between the Pentecostal and evangelical views identified above have been less than convincing. In dialogue with the Reformed tradition, Robert P. Menzies proposes that the New Testament speaks of two baptisms in the Spirit, one soteriological (Paul) and one missiological (Luke). 93 This is obviously an attempt to concede the soteriological nature of Spirit baptism while still championing the Pentecostal construct. Menzies believes it is reasonable that Pentecostals appropriate Spirit baptism to describe their own experience because missiological Spirit baptism is a more prominent theme in Luke than soteriological Spirit baptism is in Paul. This understanding of Spirit baptism as an experience subsequent to conversion has given the modern Pentecostal movement its identity, its unifying experience, and its missiological focus. 94 Along similar lines, Larry Hart, a charismatic theologian, proposes that believers could claim to be baptized in the Holy Spirit when born again, in line with 1 Corinthians 12:13, or baptized in the Spirit when empowered for witness and ministry, in line with Acts, and both would be correct biblically and doctrinally. 95 This approach is also supported by Craig S. Keener, who attempts to reconcile the two sides of the debate by suggesting that both may be interpreting their favoured texts correctly. 96 This, he argues, is because different texts (and different biblical authors) employ the phrase baptism in the Spirit in different ways. While these suggestions are unlikely to ultimately satisfy either classical Pentecostals or evangelicals like Dunn and Bruner, they do point to the ambiguity of the biblical texts referring to Spirit baptism. This ambiguity may be part of the reason why there has not been a resolution to this debate the New Testament does not support Spirit baptism as strictly and always initiatory or Spirit baptism as strictly and always a subsequent 91 Frank D. Macchia, "Salvation and Spirit Baptism: Another Look at James Dunn's Classic," Pneuma 24, no. 1 (2002): Ibid., Robert P. Menzies, "Luke's Understanding of Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Pentecostal Dialogues with the Reformed Tradition," Journal of Pentecostal Theology 16 (2008): Ibid., Hart, "Spirit Baptism: A Dimensional Charismatic Perspective," Craig S. Keener, 3 Crucial Questions About the Holy Spirit (Michigan: Baker Books, 1996),