Brief reflections in address to Pentecostals. Comments appreciated.
INTRODUCTION
Pentecostalism has become a major movement within Christianity in the past century. Its historical roots can be traced back to the Azusa Street Revival and even the Wesleyan Holiness Movement. In the span of a hundred years, Pentecostalism has grown in size and reach, crossing even cultural borders. Today there are Charismatic denominations in most countries with Asia and Africa reporting the highest growth of Pentecostal Charismatic churches. While Pentecostal theology has been scrutinized and eschewed often in the past, an increasing number of mainline denominations and independent churches are embracing Pentecostalism or are becoming Charismatic. Nevertheless there remain plenty of challenges before Pentecostalism is fully integrated into mainstream evangelical systematic theology and subsequently the churches. This is due in part to the many cases of Charismatic frenzy often resulting in unbiblical or extra-biblical nuances reported within the Pentecostal Charismatic ranks. It is not surprising that Pentecostalism is still viewed by many evangelical denominations with suspicion. The onus lies upon Pentecostal theologians and pastors to moderate between Charismatic frenzy and fanaticism and the ecumenical challenge of Pentecostalism.
This paper consists of two parts. The first section highlights the Pentecostal distinctive – Baptism of the Holy Spirit, as well as the theological issues the surround it. The second section details several reflections on current Pentecostal issues such as the Pentecostal ecumenical challenge and the difficulties of a distinctive Pentecostal systematic theology.
SECTION A
Pentecostalism has indeed come a long way since the days of Azusa Street. Since then, efforts at harmonizing Pentecostal theology with mainstream evangelical theology has seen a gradual shift in terms of what Pentecostals themselves view as a uniquely Pentecostal theology. Frank Macchia observes the broadening of theological focus among recent Pentecostal theologians from the doctrine of subsequence and tongues as initial evidence to a more pneumatological system of theology as a whole, due in part to the rising ecumenical challenges Pentecostals face in the presence of mainline evangelicalism. Increasing efforts have been made to harmonize Pentecostalism with the global evangelical theology instead of carving out a distinctive separate from the ecumenical agenda. An exclusively Pentecostal systematic theology would definitely be constructive towards Pentecostalism as a whole yet as Veli-Matti Karkkainen admits, is not to be expected soon from a theological system that has been sustained through mainly oral forms till recent years.
Whilst efforts are certainly being made in this area, what comes to mind in most believers (either in Pentecostal or Evangelical denominations) with regards to Pentecostalism remains its central distinctive, that which gave rise to the movement itself – the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Here Pentecostals possess a truly unique theology and its according praxis, that should Pentecostals ever desire to contribute to global Christianity as a whole, this would be its distinguishing factor. There is still much work to be done in the increasingly neglected doctrine of Spirit baptism as Macchia agrees.
In order to extend the focus of ongoing Spirit Baptism discourse within differing camps, Macchia offers an interesting context of discussion – Spirit Baptism with regards to the inauguration and fulfilment of the kingdom of God. It may prove more useful in this aspect than in past labours in assimilating Spirit Baptism within the ordus salutis. Nevertheless, this section will review the doctrine of Spirit Baptism and its accompanying tongues as initial evidence.
The historical evangelical concept of Spirit Baptism has always been coupled with regeneration such that Spirit Baptism is coincidental with regeneration. It has never been distinguished on its own apart from conversion and is often held in conjunction with repentance and faith as proclaimed in the gospel (1 Cor. 12:13). Implicit within this is the gravity of the supernatural workings of the Spirit inherent at regeneration and it is not difficult to see the problems Pentecostals have in asserting a “second blessing” distinct from regeneration. It calls into question the sufficiency of Christ in salvation and progressive sanctification as a whole. The uncertainty remains as to the place of Spirit Baptism according to Pentecostals within the ordus salutis; one that upholds the sufficiency of the salvific atonement of Christ should Spirit Baptism be stressed distinct from regeneration.
Notwithstanding this, Macchia’s inauguration and fulfilment of the kingdom context could prove a useful groundwork in discussing Spirit Baptism. It is often defined through Acts 1:5, 8 as an empowerment for witness, i.e. ministry. Faith as traditionally defined along the boundaries of justification or sanctification still lacks one important dimension – vocation. Where the primacy of the Word of God and faith in the gospel is accented with water baptism as the sign and seal of one’s conversion, Spirit Baptism could then be the conferral of a vocational identity that need not be directly at odds with salvation.
In short, a Pentecostal Spirit Baptism would best serve its purpose in emphasizing, as in the Book of Acts, that the Spirit Baptism ushers bold proclamation and empowerment for ministry. Suffice to say it has more to do with being a Christian (in terms of ministry) and less to do with becoming a Christian (in terms of conversion and regeneration). Granted problems still remain in light of such a simplistic view of the Pentecostal distinctive, current Pentecostal hermeneutics has not yet matured (as will be discussed later) in that attempts at a distinctively Pentecostal hermeneutics has been unsuccessful thus far. While Roger Stronstad and Robert Menzies’ well-known dialectic exegesis of both Paul and Luke’s differing individual treatment of Spirit Baptism has been useful, the solution might only be found when the New Heavens and New Earth is unveiled.
Another matter concerning Pentecostal Spirit Baptism that poses problems in any ecumenical effort is that of tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism. To begin with, the argument for tongues being the initial evidence is drawn from four conversion accounts in Acts. They begin with Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5, 8), which was fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:2-4). This is the first account of tongues accompanying the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The second account is in Acts 10:44-46, the story at Cornelius house. The Holy Spirit was poured out even on gentiles and they were heard speaking in tongues and extolling God. These two accounts are presented in Stanley Horton’s primer on the Holy Spirit. Third, Acts 19:6 records Paul in Ephesus with some disciples of John the Baptist who have never heard of the Holy Spirit and were subsequently baptized with accompanying tongues. Acts 8 also records a conversion account that does not explicitly state tongue speaking but textual language suggests a similar pattern as in the Cornelius account. The argument is thus laid out. Since the baptism in the Holy Spirit happened this way in 4 accounts with accompanying tongues it should be taken as normative.
In addition to both exegetical and pastoral difficulties, the Pentecostal tendency to subject Scripture to experience is in itself frustrating to outside observers. First of all, there are nine other conversion accounts but no mention of a process involving tongues being the initial evidence (8:39; 9:17-19; 13:12, 48; 14:1; 16:14; 17:4, 34). Moreover, Paul in 1 Cor. 12:30 says that not all speak in tongues and he was referring to general tongue speaking, not a special prophetic gift of tongues.
Pastorally this doctrine provides an awkward situation when carried to its logical conclusion, implying that all non-tongue speakers are living without being baptized in the Spirit. Horton however downplays the implications of tongues as the initial evidence in his emphasis on 1 Cor. 12, “with all the variety in the Body there is still only one Spirit and one Body.” In any case, no compromise can be seen in the near future and this doctrine along with the Pentecostal Spirit Baptism distinctive will continue to be disputed.
SECTION B
Karkkainen’s monumental work Toward a Pneumatological Theology drew attention to much of the challenges that still face Pentecostalism today. While he wrote with mainly Pentecostal and Catholic traditions in mind, his insights are particularly helpful in bringing Pentecostalism closer to an Evangelical unity.
Interestingly what started as an ecumenical movement that sought to rejuvenate existing churches failed to accomplish its original intention and has to confront the challenge of establishing a legitimate sectarian identity. Pentecostalism now faces the dilemma of realizing its original vision in light of the ever-widening gap of Pentecostal “sectarianism.” There is an impending call for Pentecostalism to either integrate itself into mainline evangelicalism or carve out its own confessional identity. It is with regards to the latter that is the focus of this section.
As of today, there is a notable lack of a Pentecostal systematic theology and one wonders whether Pentecostalism merely represents a single topic – understood by the Luken Pneumatology, within the general borders of Christianity. While many have attempted a biblical theology system of the Holy Spirit, such as Horton’s What the Bible Says About the Holy Spirit, there remains a lack of a broader framework in which to integrate the unique Pentecostal distinctive.
On the outset, a Pentecostal systematic theology faces a dilemma in that the Holy Spirit, viewed on its own within or apart from the Trinity, is a difficult starting point. Karkkainen rightly reminds that “Pneumatological theology is not, as is often assumed, a theology centered on the Spirit as such, nor is it a collection of scattered references to the Third person of the Trinity.” It is crucial to note that the Spirit’s role in the Trinity is always to glorify the Son and in turn, the Father. Therefore any constructive attempt at a Pneumatological theology in this sense has to embody the entirety of the Trinity in each system of theology. At the same time, this endeavor would somehow have to retain the central Pentecostal distinctive – the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
As mentioned earlier, there is a tendency within Pentecostalism to subject Scripture to experience as observed and detailed by John MacArthur in his controversial Charismatic Chaos. Karkkainen characterizes this tendency as due to Pentecostalism’s fundamental hermeneutics, as underneath an “experience versus Scripture” question lays a larger undergirding issue because
Simply put, Pentecostals have not properly defined and distinguished between the “inspiration” of the original text and the “illumination” of the read text, both by the same Spirit. While there is freedom within Pentecostalism in this regard, among conservative Protestants, this is the test of orthodoxy. There is no wonder then that there exists a tendency among Pentecostals of interpreting Scripture by their experience.
Essentially the issue is exegetical. Pentecostal theologians have asserted; based on their understanding of the importance of the Holy Spirit to the interpretative process, that Pentecostal hermeneutics and theology has to stand on the pillars: 1) pneumatic, 2) experiential and 3) historical narrative. Driven by various reasons, Pentecostals insist on introducing the experiential element into the interpretative process. Notwithstanding the legitimate concerns of subjectivism and a seemingly “Gnostic” impression of spiritual exegesis that often seeks the “deeper meaning” of the text beyond critical-historical study, Pentecostal hermeneutics has at least opened a new platform of theological discourse in the effort towards the Pentecostal ecumenical challenge. This Pentecostal hermeneutics is further implicated by the particular emphasis placed upon the laity within not just Pentecostalism but Free Churches as well.
The Reformation doctrine of “Priesthood of All Believers” led to a schism and denial of former Roman Catholic view on a special “priesthood” of ordained persons and the special status of clergy by virtue of ordination. Pentecostalism in particular has extrapolated the universal priesthood beyond its theological polemic and applied it to the Church and ministry, giving rise to a distinctive lay ministry. While older Churches typically draw their understanding of the ministry from the Pastoral Epistles, the Free Churches as well as Pentecostalism have opted for the Corinthian model where ministry within a church is charismatic focused. This has led to even women being ordained, or those with little to no education, basically providing members of the church in general the prospect of participating in the service of the church, standing in contrast to high orthodox view on church offices and ministry.
The ministry of both the laity and the ordained has little significant difference as ordination is often viewed as only a public confirmation of an already active ministerial call. This stems from a heavy Pauline emphasis (especially in 1 Corinthians) on charismas and the community thereof. The charismatic emphasis is founded on interdependence and mutuality of church members where there is diversity of but no fixed number of charisms. Ministry is not and should not be limited to a few by definition of the “body.”
This open attitude towards lay ministry is further complicated by the emphasis of Pentecostal and Charismatic groups on the continuation of the office of apostle, prophet etc. Oral theology and tradition is still a major part of how Pentecostal theology is done especially within the Two-Thirds world. The challenge of forming a distinctive pneumatological theology has to take into account the unique tension of experience – complicated in part by “lay theologians/prophets,” and traditional hermeneutics – complicated by Pentecostals’ insistence of the Spirit in the interpretive process.
The potential of pneumatology in the future lies in an eschatological and missiological direction. Moving away from traditional Trinitarian or soteriological loci, Pentecostals would have to contend with the role of the Spirit in creation and especially eschatology. Pentecostals will do well to develop their pneumatology past the interior life or the structure of the institutional Church where the relation of the Spirit to eschatology could then contribute to a systematic pneumatological reading of theology.
Karkkainen rightly suggests that the “focus on eschatology helps mission to gain the healthy tension between “already” and “not yet” that is so characteristic of biblical testimony.” The focus on a comprehensive pneumatology (in this case, specifically eschatology) would drive mission through two crucial aspects: a Spirit loci and an eschatological urgency. That Pentecostal mission has expanded far beyond its own borders is beyond doubt, the question remains how much Pentecostals can contribute to the ecumenical mission in the world.
CONCLUSION
Pentecostalism as a movement faces the task of theologizing their experience long after the experience itself. Historically, the early stages of Pentecostalism could be seen as its prime stage where after years of experiencing their Spirit Baptism distinctive, a Pentecostal theology today is still in its infancy stage. The fundamental difficult of a Pentecostal theology lies in their hermeneutics. Nevertheless a Pentecostal pneumatology that extends past ecclesiology into eschatology could perhaps be the best contributive factor of Pentecostalism.
INTRODUCTION
Pentecostalism has become a major movement within Christianity in the past century. Its historical roots can be traced back to the Azusa Street Revival and even the Wesleyan Holiness Movement. In the span of a hundred years, Pentecostalism has grown in size and reach, crossing even cultural borders. Today there are Charismatic denominations in most countries with Asia and Africa reporting the highest growth of Pentecostal Charismatic churches. While Pentecostal theology has been scrutinized and eschewed often in the past, an increasing number of mainline denominations and independent churches are embracing Pentecostalism or are becoming Charismatic. Nevertheless there remain plenty of challenges before Pentecostalism is fully integrated into mainstream evangelical systematic theology and subsequently the churches. This is due in part to the many cases of Charismatic frenzy often resulting in unbiblical or extra-biblical nuances reported within the Pentecostal Charismatic ranks. It is not surprising that Pentecostalism is still viewed by many evangelical denominations with suspicion. The onus lies upon Pentecostal theologians and pastors to moderate between Charismatic frenzy and fanaticism and the ecumenical challenge of Pentecostalism.
This paper consists of two parts. The first section highlights the Pentecostal distinctive – Baptism of the Holy Spirit, as well as the theological issues the surround it. The second section details several reflections on current Pentecostal issues such as the Pentecostal ecumenical challenge and the difficulties of a distinctive Pentecostal systematic theology.
SECTION A
Pentecostalism has indeed come a long way since the days of Azusa Street. Since then, efforts at harmonizing Pentecostal theology with mainstream evangelical theology has seen a gradual shift in terms of what Pentecostals themselves view as a uniquely Pentecostal theology. Frank Macchia observes the broadening of theological focus among recent Pentecostal theologians from the doctrine of subsequence and tongues as initial evidence to a more pneumatological system of theology as a whole, due in part to the rising ecumenical challenges Pentecostals face in the presence of mainline evangelicalism. Increasing efforts have been made to harmonize Pentecostalism with the global evangelical theology instead of carving out a distinctive separate from the ecumenical agenda. An exclusively Pentecostal systematic theology would definitely be constructive towards Pentecostalism as a whole yet as Veli-Matti Karkkainen admits, is not to be expected soon from a theological system that has been sustained through mainly oral forms till recent years.
Whilst efforts are certainly being made in this area, what comes to mind in most believers (either in Pentecostal or Evangelical denominations) with regards to Pentecostalism remains its central distinctive, that which gave rise to the movement itself – the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Here Pentecostals possess a truly unique theology and its according praxis, that should Pentecostals ever desire to contribute to global Christianity as a whole, this would be its distinguishing factor. There is still much work to be done in the increasingly neglected doctrine of Spirit baptism as Macchia agrees.
In order to extend the focus of ongoing Spirit Baptism discourse within differing camps, Macchia offers an interesting context of discussion – Spirit Baptism with regards to the inauguration and fulfilment of the kingdom of God. It may prove more useful in this aspect than in past labours in assimilating Spirit Baptism within the ordus salutis. Nevertheless, this section will review the doctrine of Spirit Baptism and its accompanying tongues as initial evidence.
The historical evangelical concept of Spirit Baptism has always been coupled with regeneration such that Spirit Baptism is coincidental with regeneration. It has never been distinguished on its own apart from conversion and is often held in conjunction with repentance and faith as proclaimed in the gospel (1 Cor. 12:13). Implicit within this is the gravity of the supernatural workings of the Spirit inherent at regeneration and it is not difficult to see the problems Pentecostals have in asserting a “second blessing” distinct from regeneration. It calls into question the sufficiency of Christ in salvation and progressive sanctification as a whole. The uncertainty remains as to the place of Spirit Baptism according to Pentecostals within the ordus salutis; one that upholds the sufficiency of the salvific atonement of Christ should Spirit Baptism be stressed distinct from regeneration.
Notwithstanding this, Macchia’s inauguration and fulfilment of the kingdom context could prove a useful groundwork in discussing Spirit Baptism. It is often defined through Acts 1:5, 8 as an empowerment for witness, i.e. ministry. Faith as traditionally defined along the boundaries of justification or sanctification still lacks one important dimension – vocation. Where the primacy of the Word of God and faith in the gospel is accented with water baptism as the sign and seal of one’s conversion, Spirit Baptism could then be the conferral of a vocational identity that need not be directly at odds with salvation.
In short, a Pentecostal Spirit Baptism would best serve its purpose in emphasizing, as in the Book of Acts, that the Spirit Baptism ushers bold proclamation and empowerment for ministry. Suffice to say it has more to do with being a Christian (in terms of ministry) and less to do with becoming a Christian (in terms of conversion and regeneration). Granted problems still remain in light of such a simplistic view of the Pentecostal distinctive, current Pentecostal hermeneutics has not yet matured (as will be discussed later) in that attempts at a distinctively Pentecostal hermeneutics has been unsuccessful thus far. While Roger Stronstad and Robert Menzies’ well-known dialectic exegesis of both Paul and Luke’s differing individual treatment of Spirit Baptism has been useful, the solution might only be found when the New Heavens and New Earth is unveiled.
Another matter concerning Pentecostal Spirit Baptism that poses problems in any ecumenical effort is that of tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism. To begin with, the argument for tongues being the initial evidence is drawn from four conversion accounts in Acts. They begin with Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5, 8), which was fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:2-4). This is the first account of tongues accompanying the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The second account is in Acts 10:44-46, the story at Cornelius house. The Holy Spirit was poured out even on gentiles and they were heard speaking in tongues and extolling God. These two accounts are presented in Stanley Horton’s primer on the Holy Spirit. Third, Acts 19:6 records Paul in Ephesus with some disciples of John the Baptist who have never heard of the Holy Spirit and were subsequently baptized with accompanying tongues. Acts 8 also records a conversion account that does not explicitly state tongue speaking but textual language suggests a similar pattern as in the Cornelius account. The argument is thus laid out. Since the baptism in the Holy Spirit happened this way in 4 accounts with accompanying tongues it should be taken as normative.
In addition to both exegetical and pastoral difficulties, the Pentecostal tendency to subject Scripture to experience is in itself frustrating to outside observers. First of all, there are nine other conversion accounts but no mention of a process involving tongues being the initial evidence (8:39; 9:17-19; 13:12, 48; 14:1; 16:14; 17:4, 34). Moreover, Paul in 1 Cor. 12:30 says that not all speak in tongues and he was referring to general tongue speaking, not a special prophetic gift of tongues.
Pastorally this doctrine provides an awkward situation when carried to its logical conclusion, implying that all non-tongue speakers are living without being baptized in the Spirit. Horton however downplays the implications of tongues as the initial evidence in his emphasis on 1 Cor. 12, “with all the variety in the Body there is still only one Spirit and one Body.” In any case, no compromise can be seen in the near future and this doctrine along with the Pentecostal Spirit Baptism distinctive will continue to be disputed.
SECTION B
Karkkainen’s monumental work Toward a Pneumatological Theology drew attention to much of the challenges that still face Pentecostalism today. While he wrote with mainly Pentecostal and Catholic traditions in mind, his insights are particularly helpful in bringing Pentecostalism closer to an Evangelical unity.
Interestingly what started as an ecumenical movement that sought to rejuvenate existing churches failed to accomplish its original intention and has to confront the challenge of establishing a legitimate sectarian identity. Pentecostalism now faces the dilemma of realizing its original vision in light of the ever-widening gap of Pentecostal “sectarianism.” There is an impending call for Pentecostalism to either integrate itself into mainline evangelicalism or carve out its own confessional identity. It is with regards to the latter that is the focus of this section.
As of today, there is a notable lack of a Pentecostal systematic theology and one wonders whether Pentecostalism merely represents a single topic – understood by the Luken Pneumatology, within the general borders of Christianity. While many have attempted a biblical theology system of the Holy Spirit, such as Horton’s What the Bible Says About the Holy Spirit, there remains a lack of a broader framework in which to integrate the unique Pentecostal distinctive.
On the outset, a Pentecostal systematic theology faces a dilemma in that the Holy Spirit, viewed on its own within or apart from the Trinity, is a difficult starting point. Karkkainen rightly reminds that “Pneumatological theology is not, as is often assumed, a theology centered on the Spirit as such, nor is it a collection of scattered references to the Third person of the Trinity.” It is crucial to note that the Spirit’s role in the Trinity is always to glorify the Son and in turn, the Father. Therefore any constructive attempt at a Pneumatological theology in this sense has to embody the entirety of the Trinity in each system of theology. At the same time, this endeavor would somehow have to retain the central Pentecostal distinctive – the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
As mentioned earlier, there is a tendency within Pentecostalism to subject Scripture to experience as observed and detailed by John MacArthur in his controversial Charismatic Chaos. Karkkainen characterizes this tendency as due to Pentecostalism’s fundamental hermeneutics, as underneath an “experience versus Scripture” question lays a larger undergirding issue because
Simply put, Pentecostals have not properly defined and distinguished between the “inspiration” of the original text and the “illumination” of the read text, both by the same Spirit. While there is freedom within Pentecostalism in this regard, among conservative Protestants, this is the test of orthodoxy. There is no wonder then that there exists a tendency among Pentecostals of interpreting Scripture by their experience.
Essentially the issue is exegetical. Pentecostal theologians have asserted; based on their understanding of the importance of the Holy Spirit to the interpretative process, that Pentecostal hermeneutics and theology has to stand on the pillars: 1) pneumatic, 2) experiential and 3) historical narrative. Driven by various reasons, Pentecostals insist on introducing the experiential element into the interpretative process. Notwithstanding the legitimate concerns of subjectivism and a seemingly “Gnostic” impression of spiritual exegesis that often seeks the “deeper meaning” of the text beyond critical-historical study, Pentecostal hermeneutics has at least opened a new platform of theological discourse in the effort towards the Pentecostal ecumenical challenge. This Pentecostal hermeneutics is further implicated by the particular emphasis placed upon the laity within not just Pentecostalism but Free Churches as well.
The Reformation doctrine of “Priesthood of All Believers” led to a schism and denial of former Roman Catholic view on a special “priesthood” of ordained persons and the special status of clergy by virtue of ordination. Pentecostalism in particular has extrapolated the universal priesthood beyond its theological polemic and applied it to the Church and ministry, giving rise to a distinctive lay ministry. While older Churches typically draw their understanding of the ministry from the Pastoral Epistles, the Free Churches as well as Pentecostalism have opted for the Corinthian model where ministry within a church is charismatic focused. This has led to even women being ordained, or those with little to no education, basically providing members of the church in general the prospect of participating in the service of the church, standing in contrast to high orthodox view on church offices and ministry.
The ministry of both the laity and the ordained has little significant difference as ordination is often viewed as only a public confirmation of an already active ministerial call. This stems from a heavy Pauline emphasis (especially in 1 Corinthians) on charismas and the community thereof. The charismatic emphasis is founded on interdependence and mutuality of church members where there is diversity of but no fixed number of charisms. Ministry is not and should not be limited to a few by definition of the “body.”
This open attitude towards lay ministry is further complicated by the emphasis of Pentecostal and Charismatic groups on the continuation of the office of apostle, prophet etc. Oral theology and tradition is still a major part of how Pentecostal theology is done especially within the Two-Thirds world. The challenge of forming a distinctive pneumatological theology has to take into account the unique tension of experience – complicated in part by “lay theologians/prophets,” and traditional hermeneutics – complicated by Pentecostals’ insistence of the Spirit in the interpretive process.
The potential of pneumatology in the future lies in an eschatological and missiological direction. Moving away from traditional Trinitarian or soteriological loci, Pentecostals would have to contend with the role of the Spirit in creation and especially eschatology. Pentecostals will do well to develop their pneumatology past the interior life or the structure of the institutional Church where the relation of the Spirit to eschatology could then contribute to a systematic pneumatological reading of theology.
Karkkainen rightly suggests that the “focus on eschatology helps mission to gain the healthy tension between “already” and “not yet” that is so characteristic of biblical testimony.” The focus on a comprehensive pneumatology (in this case, specifically eschatology) would drive mission through two crucial aspects: a Spirit loci and an eschatological urgency. That Pentecostal mission has expanded far beyond its own borders is beyond doubt, the question remains how much Pentecostals can contribute to the ecumenical mission in the world.
CONCLUSION
Pentecostalism as a movement faces the task of theologizing their experience long after the experience itself. Historically, the early stages of Pentecostalism could be seen as its prime stage where after years of experiencing their Spirit Baptism distinctive, a Pentecostal theology today is still in its infancy stage. The fundamental difficult of a Pentecostal theology lies in their hermeneutics. Nevertheless a Pentecostal pneumatology that extends past ecclesiology into eschatology could perhaps be the best contributive factor of Pentecostalism.
imagine that.
