The theological perspectives conveyed in Asian Voices Amplified offer profound and pastoral explorations into the Holy Spirit’s work in uniting us to Jesus Christ and his mission to every people in every culture. In a day in which the world, and the church, seem more polarized than ever, these essays remind us that the Spirit of Pentecost speaks the Gospel in all our native tongues. As this volume depicts, there is much hope for the whole church to find in the fresh wind of the Spirit blowing around the world through the Pentecostal tradition.

M. Craig Barnes, President Emeritus, Princeton Theological Seminary

Global Pentecostalism has high ambitions for itself. This volume, which brings together a worldwide presentation of major voices with the movement, shows that these ambitions are leading to theological action. The essays here do not hesitate to address many of the major questions that not just Pentecostalism, but the global church must address in our time, ranging from theology to psychology to spirituality to practice. The format is particularly helpful, with proposals being made and then being examined by respondents.

Stanley E. Porter Ph.D. , President and Dean, Professor of New Testament, McMaster Theological College, Ontario

“They were all together in one place” (Acts 2:1). This scriptural vision of Pentecost captures the richly diverse perspectives found within Asian Voices Amplified. The articles in this volume are not merely descriptive of important theological issues within the Pentecostal movement but are multidisciplinary and dialogical expressions of the ongoing work of theological reflection—a movement of the Spirit between scripture, theological scholarship, church traditions, and the global and digital contexts of 21st C. Pentecostal Christianity. This volume fills a much-needed space in contemporary theological discourse on global Christianity both in the depth of its content and through the interactions of its authors within the academy and the local church.

Frank Yamada PhD, Executive Director, The Association of Theological Schools and The Commission on Accrediting, Pittsburgh

Asian Voices Amplified provides clear evidence that quality theological reflection is thriving in the Global South. These Pentecostals voices are thorough in their scholarship and deeply rooted in cultures where strong minds and passionate hearts are required to represent Christ’s Kingdom with care and confidence. The larger family of faith traditions within Global Christianity will be strengthened by the theological insights provided in Asian Voices Amplified.

Bob Doll, Chair, Board of Directors, The Lausanne Movement

Series Preface

Regnum Studies in Mission are born from the lived experience of Christians and Christian communities in mission, especially but not solely in the fast growing churches among the poor of the world. These churches have more to tell than stories of growth. They are making significant impacts on their cultures in the cause of Christ. They are producing ‘cultural products’ which express the reality of Christian faith, hope and love in their societies.

Regnum Studies in Mission are the fruit often of rigorous research to the highest international standards and always of authentic Christian engagement in the transformation of people and societies. And these are for the world. The formation of Christian theology, missiology and practice in the twenty-first century will depend to a great extent on the active participation of growing churches contributing biblical and culturally appropriate expressions of Christian practice to inform World Christianity.

Series Editors

Marina Behera | Research Tutor, Oxford Centre for Mission Studies
Paul Bendor-Samuel | Director, Oxford Centre for Mission Studies
Michael Biehl | Retired, former Executive Secretary for Mission Studies
Bill Dyrness | Former Dean of the School of theology, Fuller Seminary
Tony Gray | Director, Words by Design
Paul Woods | Asia Graduate School of Theology – Alliance

Copyright © Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus and Douglas Petersen 2026

First published 2026 by Regnum Books International

Regnum is an imprint of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies
St. Philip and St. James Church
Woodstock Road
Oxford, OX2 6HR, UK
www.regnumbooks.net

The rights of Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus and Douglas Petersen to be identified as the editors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher or a license permitting restricted copying. In the UK such licenses are issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN (paperback): 978-1-917059-82-4
ISBN (eBook): 978-1-917059-83-1

Typeset by Words by Design

Contents

Editors’ Introduction

Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen

Session 1

Appointed Messiah and Lord: Towards a Pentecostal Spirit Christology

Frank Macchia

Presence, Power, and Pentecost: A Spirit-Christological Response to Frank D. Macchia

Pravinkumar Israel

Session 2

Harmonising the Many Tongues Within: A Pentecost Exploration of Internal Family Systems

Aizaiah Yong and Amos Yong

Learning from and Engaging with Yong and Yong on the Post-Pentecost Exploration of Internal Family Systems (IFS)

Wonsuk Ma

Session 3

Pentecostals and the Mystical Threefold Path in Historic Christian Spirituality: Strengthening the Inner Being with Power through the Spirit

Roger Heuser

A Classical Pentecostal Reading of the Mystical Framework of Purgation, Illumination, and Union

Sun Ho

Session 4

Paul Taught Mutual Submission

Craig Keener

Response to Craig Keener’s “Paul Taught Mutual Submission”

Bobby Chaw

Session 5

Many Tongues, Many Professions: Towards a Pentecost Theology of Vocation

Amos Yong

Response to Amos Yong: Pentecost, Testimony, Profession, and Vocation in Asian Contexts

Jun Kim

Session 6

Election: A Pentecostal Reflection

Frank Macchia

Response to “Election: A Pentecostal Reflection” by Frank Macchia

Chiong Xiao Ting

Session 7

Lessons from Letters to Churches in the Digital Age: Why Pentecostalism Needs a Digital Theology

Heidi Campbell

Response to Heidi Campbell’s “Lessons from Letters to Churches in the Digital Age: Why Pentecostalism Needs a Digital Theology”

Wayne Choong

Session 8

“Empowering the Empty-Handed”: Spirit-Power and the Church-in-Mission

Ivan Satyavrata

A Response to Ivan Satyavrata’s “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’: Spirit-Power and the Church-in-Mission”

Joel Tejedo

Session 9

The Liturgy and the Already-Not-Yet Problematic: Towards A Holistic Pentecostal Spirituality

Simon Chan

Pentecostal Formation as Mindful Liturgical Practice: A Response to Simon Cha

Jacob Cherian

Session 10

Youth as Pneumatological Agents: Towards a Pentecostal Theology of Youth

Joy Qualls and Wayne Choong

Response to Joy Qualls’ and Wayne Choong’s “Youth as Pneumatological Agents: Towards a Pentecostal Theology of Youth”

Kelvin Tan

Session 11

Theological Tasks for Spirit-Empowered Mission in Asia

Wonsuk Ma and Julie Ma

Theological and Missiological Challenges Facing the Spirit-Empowered Church in Asia

Ivan Satyavrata

Session 12

Paul Supported the Ministry of Women

Craig Keener

Response to Dr. Craig Keener’s “Paul Supported the Ministry of Women”

Daniel Lim

Session 13

Simultaneous Glossolalia: A Theological Survey

Kong Hee

Contributors

Editors’ Introduction

(Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen)

It was thirty years ago that the progenitor event, which birthed what we now know as Global Pentecostal Voices, was held in San José, Costa Rica. The proceedings of that event were published by Regnum Books and entitled The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel.¹ That volume was recognised by the International Bulletin of Missionary Research as one of the top ten books on mission published in 1999. The Globalization of Pentecostalism demonstrated that not only could Pentecostal scholars speak with articulate clarity about their own faith tradition, but there were Pentecostal scholars from around the world who understood the implications of the growing influence of Pentecostalism globally. One of the interlocutors present at the Costa Rica event was noted Harvard theologian Harvey Cox. His interest in Pentecostalism as a global phenomenon had been chronicled in his volume Fire from Heaven. His research had surmised that Christianity in the twenty-first century would decidedly reflect Pentecostal-Charismatic spirituality, and that vibrant Christianity would most likely thrive in what we now call the Global South.² That event held in Costa Rica thirty years ago was a significant moment as we considered the global influence of Pentecostalism that was growing worldwide. However, we never could have dreamed that the first two decades of the twenty-first century would actualise, in such dramatic fashion, what Harvey Cox had ‘prophetically’ surmised.

Using the biblical imagery found in 1 Kings 18:44, it is now evident that the event in Costa Rica was the proverbial “cloud on the horizon the size of a man’s fist.” The emergence of the Global Pentecostal Voices initiative personifies what was foreshadowed decades ago in that small Central American nation: a cadre of global Pentecostal scholars now bringing their spiritual giftedness to bear on the strengthening of vibrant, Spirit-empowered churches globally. Centred in the spiritual vitality of City Harvest Church in Singapore, this initiative reflects those discerning observations made by Cox. Most poignant of his observations was a simple phrase he used that became the subtitle of the Globalization volume: Pentecostalism was a “Religion Made to Travel.”³

The “globalisation” dimension of that event in 1996 was additionally enhanced by the presence of noted Latin American theologian, Josẽ Miguez-Bonino. Miguez-Bonino was forthright in his observation that the scholarship presented at this event revealed a clear intent by the presenters to develop theology in an open yet critical relation to contemporary theological, philosophical, and social thought. In admiration for the scholarship presented at the event, he admitted that being surprised at its level of sophistication was an indictment on himself and other non-Pentecostal scholars who would do well to see the work presented at the Costa Rica event as a useful guide for overcoming their provinciality towards Pentecostal scholars.⁴

Also present at the 1996 event was one of the founding leaders of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, noted Indian Anglican theologian Vinay Samuel. His observations saw Pentecostalism as a global culture. He observed that there was in Pentecostalism an innate capacity to understand the particularities of culture and context and that this capacity was aiding their growth globally. He also noted that, globally, Pentecostals were demonstrating a heightened capacity for spiritual vitality due to their commitment to biblical authority, the wholeness and fullness of the gospel, and the leadership of the Holy Spirit in mission and evangelisation.⁵

Our nostalgic view of that event thirty years ago also includes the recognition that one of our initial group is no longer with us. Our colleague, Murray Dempster, was a Pentecostal scholar par excellence. While we feel his absence, the initial work he was a part of decades ago continues, and the new member of our troika, Kong Hee, exemplifies and has catalysed the next chapter of what began decades ago with the emergence of Global Pentecostal Voices. We can imagine Kong and Murray praying in the Spirit together, hands raised to heaven, and their brilliant minds considering previously unimagined possibilities that only the Spirit could author.⁶

What was merely a dream thirty years ago has become a potent force in the second decade of the twenty-first century. This volume represents the proceedings of the third event hosted by City Harvest Church in Singapore and further reveals the ever-growing influence of the cadre of global Pentecostal scholars who demonstrate that sharp minds and passionate hearts belong together. The gift of technology is making increasing levels of accessibility to the content of these events through our partners, the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, and their publishing arm, Regnum Books (www.ocms.ac.uk and www.regnumbooks.net). Books are published in print and open access formats, allowing those living in the Majority World enhanced accessibility. In addition, all the presentations at the Global Pentecostal Voices events are videoed, and as the volumes become available through Regnum Books, the videos are released at www.GPVoices.org, allowing for these foundational Pentecostal theological resources to be easily accessible globally.

The constructive collaboration being created through the scholarship presented at Global Pentecostal Voices events is clearly visible in the responses to the presentations offered by Asians, many of whom are staff members at City Harvest Church. While young and emerging in the scholarly world, their keen awareness of context, along with their wise interaction and analysis of the presentations, is powerful indeed. The dynamic coming into view at our events is that the presentations and responses are increasingly viewed as a whole, as the interaction between the two participants (presenter and respondent) creates a more synergistic and engaging view of the theme being addressed.

Reviewers of this volume are duly noticing the result of these enhanced encounters. For example, Dr. Richard Topping, Reformed scholar and President of Vancouver School of Theology in Canada, notes,

This is no sectarian volume of retreat to insular existence in the face of challenges. The whole of the volume offers rich appropriation of biblical, theological, experiential, and social scientific resources for the life of the church in the world. It is consistently articulate about context and cultures. It also recognizes points of tension between them and the embodiments of the gospel.⁷

Dr. Dirk Lange serves as the Assistant General Secretary of the World Lutheran Federation. Lange notes that this volume is a “… dynamic Spirit-filled process of theology in the making, rediscovering the local church with its experience and connecting the local with the broader movement of the Spirit throughout [the] church and in the world.”⁸

The renowned church historian from Duke Divinity School, Dr. Grant Wacker, observes that the authors speak to “… real-life concerns that arise in the local church rather than dry academic conferences. Most significant is the sweep of national and training institutions the writers represent. Pentecostal Voices Across Continents will energise the study of the modern global Pentecostal movement for years to come.”⁹

These observations by external voices provide corroborating affirmation to what we see developing through the Global Pentecostal Voices initiative. With each of these events, participants have been involved in a process by which the substance of each presentation and response dynamic results in a clear summary affirmation that provides guidance to global Pentecostals in specific areas of concern. This set of affirmations is focused on Asian Pentecostals but certainly provides guidance for Pentecostals worldwide.

We Asian Pentecostals Resolve To:

•Recognise a Spirit Christology that flows from the Cross to Pentecost, in which Christ, appointed as Lord and Messiah, is our Spirit Baptiser, reconciling humanity to God in communion. We believe that the same Spirit who worked in Jesus is working in us today.

•Develop a pneumatological anthropology that can be complemented by social science models (like Internal Family Systems) and undergirded with theologies that are holistic, embodied, and engaged.

•Recover the mystical traditions of historic Christian spirituality, embracing the Spirit’s purgative, illuminative, and unitive work. We believe that the Spirit will overflow through us as we are purified and transformed by God’s love.

•Model the restoration of God’s original creation harmony between man and woman before the Fall by affirming the Spirit’s call to unity and mutual submission in marriage.

•Recognise a Pentecostal theology of vocation in which the Spirit’s outpouring at Pentecost empowers believers to bear witness through a plurality of vocations, all of which are Spirit-filled expressions of divine calling.

•Embrace election as God’s gracious promise for all humanity – a gift of grace actualised by faith and fulfilled in Christ, who is both the Elector and Elect for our sake.

•Develop a Pentecostal digital theology that neither rejects nor idolises technology but discerns how digital tools may serve God’s purpose and reflect the Spirit’s presence in our mediated world.

•Embody the Spirit’s empowerment in mission in the self-giving, transforming power of the Cross, enabling the “empty-handed” to experience the fullness of life promised in Christ’s gospel of the Kingdom.

•Develop a Pentecostal spirituality in which liturgy mediates and enables the church to live out the eschatological tension of the “already” and “not yet,” shaping believers into a holistic Pentecost life.

•Develop a Pentecostal theology of youth that recognises and affirms young people as pneumatological agents – Spirit-empowered partners in God’s ongoing mission – committing ourselves to intergenerational discernment and discipleship that listens, empowers, and accompanies, so that the whole church may be renewed by the Spirit’s work through them.

•Actively disciple and pursue the dynamic integration of our missional mandate with our theological Pentecostal distinctive, which includes Spirit baptism, the prophethood of all believers, signs and wonders, Spirit-empowered engagement with other religions, and faithful witness amidst human suffering and poverty across Asia.

•Recognise and advance the Spirit’s empowerment of an egalitarian and inclusive pneumatological ecclesiology birthed at Pentecost – advocating the full participation of women, alongside men, in every level of ministry for the flourishing of the global church.

•Reclaim the practice of simultaneous glossolalia in our church’s corporate settings, recognising it as a distinctive gift of the Spirit to the Pentecostal Church – bringing deep renewal, divine encounters, and missionary zeal.

Asian Voices Amplified gives further visibility to the clarion voice of Pentecostal scholars from around the world. They are demonstrating the stewardship of their Spirit-given giftedness in service to the church. They are deeply committed to providing theological rootedness to the twenty-first-century move of God’s Spirit that is yielding transformative impact globally. The goodness of God to take a seed planted in Costa Rica thirty years ago, that is now flowering as the Global Pentecostal Voices initiative, reminds us of the ancient prophet Zechariah’s admonition to not despise the day of small beginnings (Zech 4:10)!

Bibliography

Cox, Harvey. Fire from Heaven. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1993.

Dempster, Murray W., Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen. The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel. Regnum Books, 1999.

Hee, Kong, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen. Asian Voices Amplified. Regnum Books, 2026.

Klaus, Byron D., and Douglas Petersen. “Reflection on a Forever Friend.” In Celebrating Life in Community: Reflections in Social Ethics and the Church, Essays in Honour of Murray W Dempster, edited by Kenneth Archer and Zachary Tackett. Regnum Books, 2023.

¹ Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel (Regnum Books, 1999).

² Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1993), xv-xviii and 299-321.

³ Cox, Fire from Heaven, 102.

⁴ Dempster et al., Globalization, 116-17.

⁵ Dempster et al., Globalization, 254.

⁶ Byron D. Klaus and Douglas Petersen, “Reflection on a Forever Friend,” in Celebrating Life in Community: Reflections in Social Ethics and the Church, Essays in Honour of Murray W. Dempster, ed. Kenneth Archer and Zachary Tackett (Regnum Books, 2023), xiii-xix.

⁷ Kong Hee et al., eds. Asian Voices Amplified (Regnum Books, 2026), i.

⁸ Hee et al., eds. Asian Voices Amplified, i.

⁹ Hee et al., eds. Asian Voices Amplified, ii.

Session 1

Appointed Messiah and Lord: Towards a Pentecostal Spirit Christology

Frank Macchia

Abstract

I propose a Pentecostal Spirit Christology that finds its point of departure in Christ’s bearing of the Spirit, all the way to the victory of the Cross and the Resurrection, where Christ is appointed Son of God (as well as Messiah and Lord) in a new way – namely, in power, or in glorified flesh for the purpose of imparting new life to all flesh. This fulfilment then involves not only resurrection but also Pentecost, where from his risen fullness Christ imparts the Spirit on all flesh. His full deity and humanity are thus revealed in his becoming for us all the wellspring of the Spirit, for humanity was made to be the vehicle of the Spirit, and only God can pour forth the Spirit on all flesh. Christ becomes Messiah (who bears the Spirit) and Lord (who pours forth the Spirit). The entire quest for the meaning of the historical Jesus and of our dogmatic claims surrounding him point us to the events of Christ’s resurrection and outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost.

Key Words: baptism of Jesus, Christological dogma, historical Jesus, Messiah, Pentecost, Spirit baptism

One thing I have learned from my Pentecostal heritage was that Pentecost is the event of the church calendar that requires far more attention than Evangelicals have granted it. With a focus on this event, Pentecostals preached about Jesus as the living Christ who encounters us as the Saviour, Spirit Baptiser, Healer, and Coming King. Of course, the living Christ acts in continuity with his life devotion to the kingdom of God that culminated in his ultimate victory over sin and death. And the victory of the Cross and of the Resurrection were indeed pivotal to their gospel. But the narrative arc of Christ’s messianic mission directed Pentecostals all the way to the throne where Christ reigns as Lord and from where he imparts the Spirit on behalf of the Father, uniting himself to us as his body and working among us and through us on the cutting edge of the church’s mission. I find this narrative arc in Luke-Acts, and I will always be grateful to the Pentecostals for pointing me there. My purpose here is to develop the broad outline of a Spirit Christology that uses Christ’s resurrection, exaltation, and outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost as its key focus.

Let us thus begin with Pentecost, with the key text of Acts 2:32-36:

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

“The Lord said to my Lord,

‘Sit at my right hand,

until I make your enemies your footstool.’”

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both

Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”¹

The above text, taken from Luke’s summary of Peter’s Pentecost sermon, starts with the Resurrection, which is simply described with the words, “this Jesus God raised up” (Ἰησοῦν ἀνέστησεν ὁ Θεός). Earlier, Peter spoke of the Crucifixion in a way that anticipates the Resurrection, locating the fulfilment of the following words in Jesus:

For you will not abandon my soul to Hades,

or let your Holy One see corruption.

You have made known to me the paths of life;

you will make me full of gladness with your presence (Acts 2:27-28).

Peter reminded us that these words were not fulfilled by David, for he died and saw corruption. Indeed, he fully partook of Adam’s curse: “you are dust, to the dust you will return” (Gen 3:19). But not Christ! He bore this curse but did not fall to it. He overturned the curse of Adam; he did not decay. He was raised!

But the narrative arc of Christology does not end there. The Resurrection is itself fulfilled for Luke in Christ’s exaltation to the throne to reign. It is there at the throne in his risen and exalted state that he is made Messiah and Lord. Luke’s summary of Peter’s Pentecost sermon highlights the fact that David did not fulfil the messianic promise precisely because he was not exalted to the throne. This may be said only of the Messiah, Jesus Christ:

“The Lord said to my Lord,

‘Sit at my right hand,

until I make your enemies your footstool’”

Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you

crucified, both Lord and Messiah” (Acts 2:34-36).

Key to his exaltation as Lord and Messiah was his impartation of the Spirit on behalf of the heavenly Father, which John the Baptist earlier foretold he would do (Luke 3:16). Christ received the Spirit as Messiah to pour forth the Spirit as the Lord. Christ’s pouring forth of the Spirit is not incidental to his resurrection and exaltation. Luke presents this Spirit-outpouring as the climactic moment of his exaltation. Christ tells the disciples at the conclusion of Luke’s Gospel that they are to go to Jerusalem (24:59), the location traditionally associated with the inauguration of God’s Kingdom, to receive the Spirit, which Christ identifies as the “promise of the Father.” The promise of the messianic reign is indeed also the promise of the Spirit that he bore and pours forth. Fittingly, Luke’s Acts begins with Jesus referring to their coming Spirit baptism (1:5). Peter’s Pentecost sermon features Christ’s pouring out the Spirit as the inaugural event of his exaltation and reign. Most of Peter’s sermon is taken up with a description of that Spirit impartation. Luke’s narrative arc when it comes to Christology comes to rest in Christ as Lord and Messiah, precisely as the one who bore the Spirit so as to pour forth the Spirit from his own victory and in witness to him. His Lordship is won in the Spirit precisely as a reign into which others are incorporated through the outpouring of the Spirit.

Intriguing is Luke’s implication that Christ is made Lord and Messiah at his resurrection and exaltation. Helpful in unpacking the meaning behind this point is a complementary text from Acts from Paul’s sermon in chapter 13:

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm,

“You are my Son,

today I have begotten you.”

And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption,

he has spoken in this way,

“I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.”

Therefore he says also in another psalm,

“You will not let your Holy One see corruption” (Acts 13:32-35).

Christ’s victory over death includes the victory over the condemnation and dominance of sin as well, as verses 38-39 imply: “Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.” As Paul wrote in Romans 8:3, “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.”

The above text from Paul’s sermon in Acts 13:32-33 is similar to the Acts 2:32-34 text quoted from Peter’s Pentecost sermon. First, both texts highlight the Crucifixion, but as that which leads to the victory of resurrection and exaltation. Deliverance from sin and death means overcoming the curse of corruption and decay: “to dust you shall return” (Gen 3:19) and the deliverance of one’s soul from “abandonment to Hades” (2:31). The Resurrection is God’s faithfulness to be with us even in Hades as a door of hope to the reception of the blessing of life. Jesus is the Spirit Baptiser! Second, in Acts 13 as well as Acts 2, Christ or Son of God is installed as Messiah at the Resurrection and exaltation. Third, as similarly noted in Acts 2, the “blessings of David” implied by the promise of the coming Messiah are not fulfilled by David. Only Christ is raised as Lord and Messiah or as the Lord who imparts the Spirit from his own fullness as the anointed Messiah.

The Acts 13 text does not explicitly involve the Spirit, though the witness to the risen Christ mentioned in this text assumes the Acts 2 kerygma of the Christ who is exalted under the anointing of the Spirit to pour forth the Spirit. It is within this narrative of the blessings of life in the Spirit, constantly sustaining and being received with renewed force among the churches, that our Acts 13 text finds its place. The Acts 13 text uniquely brings to the forefront Christ’s elevation as Son of God. In this text, Psalm 2:7 is quoted, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” One should recall here Romans 1:4 where Paul describes his gospel as involving Christ who “was appointed to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.”² Though the term “Son of God” could mean many things in the ancient world, the New Testament reveals a close connection between this term and the Messiah, involving in places also Christ’s essential role in the divine self-giving for the salvation of the world. Romans 1:3-4 along with Acts 13:33 were part of an early Jewish Christian apologetic for Christ’s messianic identity that focused on Psalm 2:7 as a description of Christ’s installation as Messiah and Son of God at the Resurrection.

I want to elaborate on this narrative arc of the risen and exalted Christ as bearer and imparter of the Spirit that links Acts 2:32-35; 13:32-33; and Romans 1:3-4. The idea that Christ is installed as Son of God or Messiah in power at his resurrection through the Spirit of holiness fits Luke-Acts well and provides the basis for a Pentecostal Christology. Though Luke describes the Resurrection as key to Christ’s installation as Son of God, he also assumes that Christ was the holy Son of God in power even at his Incarnation. Note Luke 1:31-35:

“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy – the Son of God.”

Luke 1:31-35 quoted above has the Resurrection and exaltation as the event of Christ’s messianic appointment in Romans 1:3-4 and both Acts 2:32-35 and 13:32-35 at its horizon. First, though John the Baptist is filled with the Spirit in his mother’s womb in Luke 1:15, only the Son of God and Messiah is conceived by the Spirit in the virgin’s womb in 1:31-35. The very flesh of the Son of God was uniquely set apart from John in the womb. The prophets like John are only filled by the Spirit. Only the flesh of the Son of God is conceived by the Spirit in power under the sign of a miraculous virgin conception. The miraculous conception of the flesh of the Son of God in holiness by the power of the Spirit (Luke 1:35) signals the miraculous deliverance from the corruption and alienation of flesh through the Resurrection depicted in Acts 2:27. The Son of God conceived in the virgin’s womb under the power of the Spirit implies eschatological transcendence, for in Luke 1:31-35 he will rise to reign and of his Kingdom there will be no end (v. 33).

Second, one should not overlook the emphasis of Luke 1 on the fact that the flesh of Christ is conceived by the power of the Spirit in holiness: “the child to be born will be called holy” (v. 35). The connection to Romans 1:4 in which Christ is appointed the Son of God in power at the Resurrection “according to the Spirit of holiness” is obvious. His triumph over the reign of sin and death in resurrection as the Son of God in the power according to the Spirit of holiness depicted in Romans 1:3-4 (and 8:3) is implicitly anticipated in Luke 1 at Christ’s conception as the holy Son of God in the power of the Spirit in the virgin’s womb. Christ’s sinless life is anchored in this conception in holiness. His triumph is anchored there in the power of the Spirit of holiness.

Third, all three texts from Romans 1 and Acts 2 and 13 contrast David and Christ. In Romans 1:3-4, Christ’s birth in the Davidic line “according to the flesh” (κατὰ σάρκα) is contrasted with Christ’s resurrection in power “according to the Spirit of holiness” (κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης). Also, in both Acts 2 and 13, the promise or blessings to which David bore witness was not fulfilled in him but rather in Christ as Messiah. The meaning is clear. The lineage of David according to the flesh was not the source of power when it came to God’s victory over sin and death. That power came from the Son of God in the power of the Spirit. Conceived of the Spirit in the virgin’s womb, the Son of God belongs both to this world and to the next, both to the lineage of flesh and to the miraculous power of God, especially of the Spirit, that will raise the dead and make all things new. Christ belongs to the resurrection and exaltation of flesh to glory. He will be the one to inaugurate it; in fact, it is being inaugurated in him already.

Fourth, the exaltation of Christ to the throne is also key to the final and decisive appointment of Christ to his messianic reign in Acts. The prophecy of David given in Acts 2:28 has Christ seeking to be “full of gladness” in his Father’s presence. David is said to have known that God would place one of his descendants on the throne (v. 30) which ends up being in the heavenlies at the Father’s right hand (vv. 33-34). This exaltation to sovereign authority is the implied horizon of Luke 1:35 where the Son of God conceived by the Spirit of the “Most High” will reign from the throne over the “house of Jacob.” The additional allusion to Isaiah 9:7 and Daniel 7:14 is found in the phrase, “of his kingdom there will be no end” (Acts 2:33). The reign of the Messiah will be eternal, part of the eschatological transcendence implied by the virgin conception. As in Acts, the everlasting reign of the Son of Man in Daniel 7:14 includes all nations and tongues. This flesh of the Son of God conceived by the Spirit is destined for fulfilment in Acts 2 to reach all peoples and nations so as to elevate them all to glory.

Fifth, Luke 1:35 implies that the Son conceived in Mary’s womb was always the Son into eternity past. Luke 1:33 claims that the Son conceived by the Spirit of the Most High will manifest in his flesh the sovereignty of the Most High by reigning over a divine Kingdom that will have no end. In light of Acts 2, we could ask how one can conquer sin and death, occupy the throne of God to reign over all, and from this throne pour forth the Spirit upon all flesh on behalf of the Father if he is not united to the Father in deity? As St. Augustine wrote in commentary on Acts 2:33, “How great a God is he who gives God!”³ Christ is indeed appointed in his flesh at the throne as “Lord and Messiah” (2:36) for it is there that the Messiah who bore the Spirit pours him forth as the Lord.

Luke tells us that after the Son of God’s conception as the holy Son of God under the power of the Spirit, he continued to give himself to the life of the Spirit. Christ “grew and became strong in the Spirit” according to Luke 1:80.⁴ By the end of Luke 2 (2:52), Jesus is said to grow in wisdom as well. Such childhood dedication to the path of the Spirit in holiness leads up to his pivotal experience at his baptism at the Jordan in Luke 3:21-22: “Now when all the people were baptised, and when Jesus also had been baptised and was praying, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.’” The one whose flesh was conceived as the holy Son of God under the power of the hovering Spirit is now filled by that same Spirit at the Jordan River. John the Baptist had just announced that the coming Messiah will baptise others in the Spirit (Luke 3:16). What seems clear from this promise is that the Messiah receives the Spirit to impart the Spirit to others. The one who is conceived as the holy Son of God in the Spirit only wills to be the Son by that same Spirit as the Lord and elder brother to many others.

Anchored in Israel’s crossing the Jordan into the Promised Land, Jesus descends into the water in solidarity with them, indeed, in solidarity with all who require repentance to place their hope in God. Israel was delivered from oppression and bondage in the Exodus as adopted to sonship. “Out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos 11:1), for, according to Romans 9:4, to them “belong the adoption,” as well as eschatological glory (e.g., Isa 60:1-2). But the more God called out to them, the further away from God they went (Hos 11:2), like the younger son in the parable of the prodigal son. Unlike the vindictive and self-righteous elder son in that parable, however, Jesus is the faithful elder Son who offers a path to reconciliation that is merciful to sinners. He goes out into the far country at the Cross to bring the lost back to the household of the Father. The Israel of the Exodus was never meant to have their sonship solely in themselves. They were meant to gain sonship in the promise and coming of their Messiah: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” (Ps 2:7). Fulfilled in the Messiah, Israel’s sonship will later be fulfilled by faith in him and in devotion to the messianic mission to the nations. The Son of the Father calls humanity to adoption as his brothers and sisters in the Spirit so that they may pray “Abba” to the heavenly Father in and with him in times of confession and need (Rom 8:15). Thus, Christ in the water of the Jordan turns in solidarity with sinners towards a new promise, the Holy Spirit and the kingdom of God to come, and he is the one who will open this hope for them. He is already doing so.

Though Christ’s Jordan event is anchored in the history of Israel, it is an apocalyptic event that looks to the future. Typical of an apocalyptic event, the heavens open and God speaks. Unlike Matthew, Luke has the Father speak directly to the Son: “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased” (3:22). One hears an echo of the direct address of Psalm 2:7: “You are my Son.” Though this Psalm 2:7 text is quoted in Acts 13:33 and lies behind Romans 1:3-4 in reference to the Resurrection, it applies to Christ’s Jordan experience as well, in anticipation of the Resurrection. The Spirit descends on Christ in the form of a dove, harking back perhaps to the dove in the story of Noah on the edge of a new world. The Father expresses love and delight in the Son as the Spirit is poured forth upon him (e.g., Isa 42:1), implying that the circle of love that involves the Father and the Son also involves the Spirit as its “ecstatic delight.” The Spirit’s descent on Christ not only empowers him for his mission but deepens his awareness of his sonship and of the holiness of his cause. He is after all the holy Son conceived under the power of the hovering Spirit for precisely this moment. The eschatological reach of this event is also shown in the symbolism of Christ’s baptism that occasioned the event of the Spirit’s descent. As the fourth-century church father Ephrem the Syrian noted, Christ went down into the water in solidarity with sinners and rose up from the water in the power and victory of the Spirit, just as he will descend into Sheol at the Cross in solidarity with sinners so as to rise and be exalted in the power of the Spirit.⁵ Christ’s baptism at the Jordan anticipates Easter. Christ is declared the Son in Luke 9:28-36 at the transfiguration event as well, where he glows with light, another foretaste of his coming resurrection and exaltation (v. 29).

Directly after the momentous event at the Jordan, Christ is led by the Spirit towards his time of trial. He goes to the desert to be tried of the devil. At every point Christ stays true to the holiness that belonged to him as the Son of God and Messiah. Though Christ had heard the Father declare him the beloved Son with whom he is pleased at the Jordan, Satan immediately calls that declaration into question: “If you are the Son of God …” (Luke 4:3), as though it were open to doubt. Satan attempts to lure Christ into proving his sonship by doing things that would in themselves result in betraying it. Christ fasted in the desert to focus on preparation for his mission and to illustrate the all-surpassing value of the will of his Father over the material sustenance of life. “Man shall not live by bread alone” is his response. Indeed, any effort to live by bread alone is a living death. Death by bread alone!

Next comes the offer of the material kingdoms of the world, if only Christ would worship Satan. Not even such an expanded offer of material wealth and power can cause Christ to abandon his devotion to the Father and his reign. His answer is fitting: “You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve” (Luke 4:8). So far, Christ is faithful to his prayer he will offer that the kingdom of God come to earth, the will of the Father being done on earth as it is in heaven (Matt 6:10). Christ will be the one who fulfils this.

Finally, Satan tries to get Christ to will something other than the Father and then to impose that will on him. “If you are the Son of God,” Satan asks again, this time as part of a challenge to put the Father’s loyalty to the test by throwing himself down from the pinnacle of the temple to see if the Father will spare him. There will come a time when Christ indeed will lay his life down to fulfil the Father’s cause of love in the world, but attempting to force the Father’s hand through a senseless test would be an act of unfaithfulness. “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test” is Christ’s response (Luke 4:12). Every one of these tests, if accepted, would not prove Christ’s sonship, only betray it. The path of devotion to the Father and yielding to the Spirit of holiness would cease. Christ would fundamentally lose his way. Such is, of course, unthinkable.

After his victory in the desert, Christ gives his messianic inaugural address in which he quotes mainly from Isaiah 61:1-2:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

because he has anointed me

to proclaim good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives

and recovering of sight to the blind,

to set at liberty those who are oppressed,

to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

The start of the address cuts right to the heart of his sonship: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,” as the Spirit rested upon him in the womb and at the Jordan. The Spirit deepened the Son’s awareness of his sonship and empowered him to give himself completely towards the accomplishment of God’s cause of a just and merciful love in the world. He proclaims good news to the poor. The category of the poor is holistic, involving those who are for any number of reasons relegated to positions outside the boundaries of the justice and mercy of the kingdom of God. They are the outcasts and the marginalised when it comes to the religious establishment. The healing of the blind and the liberty to the oppressed undoubtedly have the same holistic thrust, pointing to Jesus’s healing and liberating ministry. Christ mercifully broke through legal and political barriers to bring the liberating and reconciling grace of God to all those who had been excluded, isolated, and laden with burdens of guilt and suffering. As we noted above, he went to the far country of them all, even of the self-righteous who excluded them, to win them back to the Father.

Towards this end, the one who was baptised in the Spirit also took on the baptism in fire, the baptism of his death: “I have a baptism to be baptised with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!” (Luke 12:50). He descends into death, but Hades could not hold him: “God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it” (Acts 2:24). His body did not return to dust; neither was his soul abandoned to Hades (v. 31). He is not eternally abandoned; he does not sink into the pit of Hades never to return; the fire of his death does not consume him. His trial only serves to confirm and deepen his holy sonship, which belonged to him from his conception. The Son conquered sin and death in his flesh for all flesh to extend that holiness and its favour with God to us, a point that Peter needed to grasp in relation to Cornelius and his household: “God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith” (Acts 10:8-9). Christ’s impartation of the Spirit of holiness extended his victory to all flesh in all its diversity, empowering all flesh to bear witness to him to the ends of the earth. He was raised and exalted to the throne to reign and to become the Spirit Baptiser, willing only to be the Son in filial relation to others. His faithful journey as the Son of God and Messiah to that place of exaltation is called the path of life rather than death. His destiny was his installation as Son in the presence of the Father at his right hand: “You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence” (Acts 2:27). “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand’” (v. 34).

There is in all of this a Spirit Christology that allows us to proceed not only from above to below, or from the uniting of the eternal Son with human flesh, but also from below to above, or to his ascent as Lord and Messiah to the place of his appointment as such in power, or in his flesh for the sake of all flesh. This is an atonement in the Spirit that is profoundly inclusive of others, that reconciles us with God in the victory that Christ won in the Spirit and was actualised in his flesh for the sake of all flesh. This victory incorporates us in a divine communion that also unites us to one another in an ever more expansive and diversified communion of saints. In short, I am profoundly grateful for the direction of thought suggested to me by my Pentecostal heritage. Though I have been influenced by other streams, including the Reformed tradition, my Pentecostal heritage holds for me pride of place.

Bibliography

St. Augustine. “De Trinitate 15.26.” New Advent. Accessed January 15, 2026. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130115.htm.

McDonnell, Kilian. The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan: Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation. Liturgical, 1996.

¹ Unless otherwise noted, I will quote from the ESV translation.

² I follow the ESV here except for the term “declared,” which I have changed to “appointed.”

³ St. Augustine, “De Trinitate 15.26,” New Advent, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130115.htm, no. 46.

⁴ I part here from the lower case for “spirit” used in the ESV. The context of Luke 1 highlights the role of the Holy Spirit in Christ’s life (e.g., 1:31-35).

⁵ See Kilian McDonnell’s discussion of Ephrem in Kilian McDonnell, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan: Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (Liturgical, 1996), 168-69.

Presence, Power, and Pentecost: A Spirit-Christological Response to Frank D. Macchia

Pravinkumar Israel

Christians across traditions increasingly recognise that any fresh engagement with Christology must place the Holy Spirit at the centre.¹ Frank D. Macchia’s chapter, “Appointed Messiah and Lord: Towards a Pentecostal Spirit Christology,” offers a compelling Pentecostal reading of Luke-Acts. Macchia argues that Jesus’s resurrection, exaltation, and Spirit-outpouring form a single redemptive arc. Building on his proposal, this response appraises Macchia’s contribution to Spirit Christology from an Asian Pentecostal perspective to clarify the contours of Spirit Christology and its implications for Christian theology and explore how a pneumatological focus reshapes contemporary inter-religious engagement in a religiously pluralistic context in Asia.

Spirit Christology in Context

Spirit Christology represents a theological approach to understanding the person and work of Jesus Christ that emphasises the role and agency of the Holy Spirit throughout Jesus’s life, ministry, death, resurrection, and ongoing mission. Spirit Christology asks how Jesus’s identity and saving work are disclosed in and through the Holy Spirit rather than apart from the Spirit’s agency. Whereas classical Logos Christology stresses eternal generation and metaphysical union of the Son with the Father and the Spirit, Spirit Christology explains how God is present and active in Jesus by using the biblical symbol of God as Spirit, providing an essential pneumatological dimension to Christological reflection that complements traditional Logos Christology.

Historical Development of Spirit Christology

While the Early Church used Spirit Christology to explain how Jesus was uniquely anointed by the Holy Spirit in his life and messianic ministry, the Eastern Church continued to maintain this understanding through the centuries.

Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century developed a robust understanding of the Holy Spirit’s work, declaring that “the knowledge of the Son of God is through the Holy Spirit”² and that “The Lord, receiving this as a gift from His Father, does Himself also confer it upon those who are partakers of Himself, sending the Holy Spirit upon all the earth.”³

Basil of Caesarea, in his defence of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, emphasised the Spirit’s inseparable work with the Son: “Whether you wish to examine the Old Testament – the blessings of the patriarchs, the help given through the law, the types, the prophecies, the victories in battle, the miracles performed through righteous men – or everything that happened since the Lord’s coming in the flesh, it all comes to pass through the Spirit.”⁴ Basil further affirmed that “the Lord was anointed with the Holy Spirit, who would henceforth be inseparably united to His very flesh.”⁵ As the church grew, it contextualised Christology to Greco-Roman philosophical categories and theologies as well as responded to the many different Christological controversies.

The twin errors of Modalism and Adoptionism began to impede the church, both with an emphasis of the oneness of God or Monarchianism as one in being to defend God’s supremacy. Adoptionism taught that God adopted Jesus as God’s Son at his baptism, while Modalism taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit referred to ways, modes of acting, or names and not distinct persons. In offering a suitable response to such tendencies, trinitarians such as Tertullian and Athanasius used categories of Logos Christology to maintain God’s oneness and Christ’s divinity. They began to use the Johannine conception of the Logos leading also to the development of Logos Christology, which became the official doctrine of the church following the Nicaean and Chalcedonian councils in the fourth and fifth centuries.⁶

Spirit Christology was marginalised in later theological development as the focus shifted predominantly to Logos Christology. The emphasis on the Incarnation in Jesus’s conception in the womb meant that the “anointing with the Spirit” was moved from his baptism to his conception, and the Spirit’s influence on Jesus became “merely accidental in comparison to that of the Logos.”⁷ The working of the Spirit was conceived as indistinctly the work of the Trinity and only appropriated to the Spirit. This marginalisation led to a neglect of the Spirit’s essential role in Jesus’s identity and mission.

Spirit Christology Highlights

Spirit Christology asks how Jesus’s identity and saving work are disclosed in and through the Holy Spirit rather than apart from the Spirit’s agency. The renewed interest in Spirit Christology among theologians of all sections of Christian traditions – Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, and Reformed – rightly responds to longstanding complaints of the neglect of the Spirit in the Western theological tradition.

The late twentieth century witnessed a resurgence of Spirit Christology through theologians such as Geoffrey Lampe,⁸ Karl Rahner,⁹ Jürgen Moltmann,¹⁰ Clark Pinnock,¹¹ Roger Haight,¹² Ralph Del Colle,¹³ and Amos Yong.¹⁴ These scholars sought to recover the pneumatological dimension that had been eclipsed by the dominance of Logos Christology in Western theology.

Spirit Christology essentially highlights the following motifs in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ:

•the Spirit’s creative role from conception to resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth;

•Jesus’s anointing and empowerment for mission; and

•the Spirit’s role in the growing messianic self-awareness leading to Jesus’s death and resurrection.

The present approach is not to supplant the Chalcedonian Christology with an alternative Spirit Christology but rather to provide a reworking and enriching of Logos Christology with a vital Spirit Christology that asserts that the anointing with the Spirit was essential for Jesus to realise his messianic work.

In this context, Macchia’s chapter, “Appointed Messiah and Lord: Towards a Pentecostal Spirit Christology,” offers a compelling Pentecostal reading of Luke-Acts in which Jesus’s resurrection, exaltation, and Spirit-outpouring form a single redemptive arc and serve as the climactic event that incorporates “all flesh” into the divine life. This response seeks to (1) appraise Macchia’s contribution, and (2) explore how a pneumatological focus reshapes contemporary inter-religious engagement.

Reading Macchia’s Chapter through the Pneumatological Lens

Following on from Wolfhart Pannenberg’s proposal of a “Christology from below,”¹⁵ Macchia goes beyond the Resurrection to Pentecost as the key starting point for the Spirit Christology. He argues that Luke’s narrative arc of the messianic fulfilment does not end at the Resurrection but with the risen and exalted Christ, where he is declared to be the Messiah and Lord. From this exalted position, Christ imparts the Spirit on behalf of the Father (Acts 2:32-36).

Key strengths of the chapter include:

1.Pentecost as Christological summit: By reserving the titles Lord and Messiah for the exalted, Spirit bearing, and Spirit pouring Jesus, Macchia rehabilitates Acts 2 as the climactic event of the Messiah’s salvation history.

2.Biblical coherence: The chapter is solidly based on Luke-Acts and Pauline texts that portray Jesus’s life beginning with his conception; proceeding to his ministry as the Spirit anointed; and culminating in his death, resurrection, and exaltation all as Spirit-driven.

3.A holistic soteriology: Deliverance of all creation from its bondage to decay (Gk., phthora) and forgiveness of sins coalesces in the Spirit’s life-giving power.

4.The unique Spirit: The Christological criteria for the Spirit’s work that sets apart the work of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ which stands apart from the spirits of the world.

5.Missional dynamism: The same Spirit who empowered Jesus to cross boundaries empowers the church for witness. The outpoured Spirit signals a border-crossing reign that embraces Gentile households (Acts 10) and resonates with Asian visions of a plural human family under God.

6.Openness to plurality: A pneumatological horizon legitimates respectful engagement with “the Spirit’s seeds” in other faiths.

The following few critical observations provide leads to further potential for the Pentecostal Spirit Christology:

1.While Macchia resists Adoptionism by affirming pre-existent sonship, his language of Jesus being “made Lord and Messiah” needs tighter integration with the Nicene homoousias to avoid misunderstanding.

2.Macchia foregrounds prophetic empowerment but says less about the Spirit’s sanctifying work; a fuller account would connect Pentecost to ethical transformation.

3.The interfaith engagement potential is implicit yet underdeveloped: if the exalted Christ now works by the Spirit, how does this inform and shape Christian encounters with non-Christian believers of the Spirit?

Current Debates and Developments

Pentecostal scholars like Amos Yong¹⁶ and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinnen¹⁷ have proposed a “pneumatological theology of religions” in which the Spirit’s universal activity opens space for mutual learning. While critics warn that bracketing Christological particularity risks relativism, recent retrievals of classical voices such as Edward Irwing, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, etc. show that Spirit Christology can enrich orthodoxy without discarding Chalcedon.

It has been claimed by those who promote a theology of the third article that this, in some way, could be a more fruitful theological basis for reflection and engagement with the pluralistic world. Amos Yong, for example, writes, “Spirit Christology is a fully biblical but marginalised theological perspective that can speak to, and needs to be reappropriated for, our time.”¹⁸ Similarly, Roman Catholic theologian Philip Rosato writes that Spirit Christology “might well allow Christian theologians to present Jesus Christ in a way more understandable to contemporary secular culture and also more appropriate to the current spiritual and pastoral needs in the Christian community.”¹⁹

Spirit Christology and Interfaith Engagement

The Vatican’s Dialogue and Proclamation sees dialogue as “collaboration with the Spirit of the Risen Lord who is universally present and active.”²⁰ Similarly, Asian ecumenical documents speak of cultivating a “culture of dialogue that is open and inclusive through the Spirit.”²¹

Roman Catholic theologian Peter Phan suggests four key stages that can be mapped progressively, while integrating Spirit-led discernment.²² Phan suggests that the divine Spirit serves as the foundation for a theology of religions, discernible in various religio-cultural traditions, providing a basis for interfaith connection “from below,” through shared human and spiritual experiences.

Indian theologians Stanley J. Samartha²³ and M. M. Thomas²⁴ link the Spirit’s universal outreach to concrete dialogue with neighbours of other faiths and ideologies. Samartha, although he has not attempted a fuller view of the work of the Spirit in other religions, appeals for a more expanded understanding of the Spirit beyond the life of the individual believer and the Christian community.²⁵ He cites that liberation theologians have been willing to recognise the presence of the Spirit in secular movements and societies and questions why such reluctance exists to identify the presence of the Holy Spirit in non-Christian religious societies.²⁶ M. M. Thomas draws attention to “the need to consider afresh the question of the presence and work of the Spirit of God outside the church.”²⁷

Challenges and Safeguards

While the Pentecostal Spirit Christology encourages positive missional engagement, we need to raise certain cautions in terms of its implications for doctrinal integrity:

1.Risk of Functional Unitarianism: Over-emphasis on Spirit presence can empty proclamation of the specific scandal of the Incarnation and the Cross.

2.Trinitarian Integrity: Any appeal to the Spirit in other religions must remain tethered to the triune economy so that pneumatology does not eclipse Christology.

3.Criteria for Discernment: Yong highlights the need for communal, cross-bearing tests that differentiate the Spirit of Christ from conflicting “spirits.”²⁸

Opportunities for Practice

1.Liturgical Formation: Integrating Pentecost themes throughout the year cultivates awareness that mission and dialogue are Spirit-dependent.

2.Interfaith Spiritualities: Joint fasting, silence, and lament allow participants to sense the Spirit’s gentle movements beyond doctrinal debate.

3.Prophetic Solidarity: Shared advocacy on climate justice, migration, and poverty becomes a site where the Spirit manifests relational communion across faith lines.

Conclusion

Frank D. Macchia’s chapter persuasively re-centres Pentecost within Christology, showing that Jesus’s identity as Lord and Messiah is inseparable from his role as Spirit Baptiser. His approach to a Pentecostal Spirit Christology not only deepens biblical coherence but also furnishes a theological grammar for inter-religious engagement in a religiously plural world. When Christians meet neighbours of other faiths, they can do so with confidence that the same Spirit who raised Jesus animates all genuine quests for truth, while still confessing that the crucified and risen Christ is the definitive giver of that Spirit. Holding together Pentecostal vitality with classical dogma and dialogical openness remains the unfinished – but Spirit-empowered – task before the global church today.

Bibliography

Basil of Caesarea. On the Holy Spirit 16.38. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series. Vol. 8, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Hendrickson, Repr. 1994.

Bobrinskoy, Boris. “The Holy Spirit – in the Bible and the Church.” The Ecumenical Review 41, no. 3 (1989): 357-62.

Bobrinskoy, Boris. “The Indwelling of the Spirit in Christ: ‘Pneumatic Christology’ in the Cappadocian Fathers.” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28, no. 1 (1984): 49-65.

Evdokimov, Paul. L’Esprit Saint Dans La Tradition Orthodoxe. 1969. Reprint, Cerf, 1977.

Haight, Roger. “The Case for Spirit Christology.” Theological Studies 53, no. 2 (1992): 257-87.

Irenaeus of Lyons. Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 7. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/demonstr.preaching_the_demonstration_of_the_apostolic_preaching.html#fna_preaching_the_demonstration_of_the_apostolic_preachingp7.4

Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 17, Section 2. https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.xviii.html.

Lampe, Geoffrey William Hugo. God as Spirit. Clarendon Press, 1977.

Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976.

Manohar, Christina. “Spirit Christology: An Indian Christian Perspective.” PhD diss., University of Gloucestershire, 2007.

Mühlen, Heribert. A Charismatic Theology: Initiation in the Spirit. Burns & Oates, 1978.

Nel, Marius. “Spirit Christology: A Pentecostal Contribution to the Trinitarian Discourse.” Scriptura 119, no. 1 (2020): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.7833/119-1-1808.

Nēsiōtēs, Nikos A. Theology as Doxology and Dialogue: The Essential Writings of Nikos Nissiotis. Bloomsbury Academic, 2019.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus: God and Man. Westminster Press, 1968. Peppiatt, Lucy. “Spirit Christology and Mission.” PhD diss., University of Otago, 2010.

Phan, Peter C. Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue. Orbis Books, 2008. http://archive.org/details/beingreligiousin0000phan.

Pinnock, Clark H. Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. InterVarsity Press, 2022.

Rosato, Philip. “Spirit Christology: Ambiguity and Promise.” Theological Studies 38 (1977) 423-49.

Samartha, Stanley J. “The Holy Spirit and People of Various Faiths, Cultures, and Ideologies” and “Courage for Dialogue: An Interpretation of the Nairobi Debate.” In Courage for Dialogue: Ecumenical Issues in Inter-Religious Relationships. WCC, 1981.

Samartha, Stanley J. “The Holy Spirit and People of Other Faiths.” The Ecumenical Review 42, nos. 3-4 (July-October 1990): 250-63.

Thomas, M. M. The Church’s Mission and Post-Modern Humanism: A Collection of Essays and Talks, 1992-1996. Christava Sahitya Samithi and Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1996.

Thomas, M. M. “The Holy Spirit and the Spirituality for Political Struggles.” The Ecumenical Review 42, nos. 3-4 (July-October 1990): 216-24.

Yong, Amos. “The Holy Spirit and the World Religions: On the Christian Discernment of Spirit(s) ‘After’ Buddhism.” Buddhist–Christian Studies 24 (2004): 191-207.

Yong, Amos. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology. Baker Academic, 2005.

¹ Renewed interest in pneumatology across the denominational lines has called for fresh engagement. To name just a few of the Spirit theologians: Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Heribert Mühlen, and Ralph Del Colle (Roman Catholic theologians), Clark H. Pinnock and Jürgen Moltmann (Reformed and Lutheran theologians); and Vladimir Lossky, Nikos Nissiotis, Boris Bobrinskoy, Paul Evdokimov, and John D. Zizioulas (Orthodox theologians).

² St. Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 7. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/demonstr.preaching_the_demonstration_of_the_apostolic_preaching.html#fna_preaching_the_demonstration_of_the_apostolic_preaching-p7.4.

³ St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 17, Section 2. https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_iii/anf01.ix.iv.xviii.html.

⁴ Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit 16.39, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 8, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Hendrickson, repr. 1994), 24-25.

⁵ Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit, 24-25.

⁶ Veli-Matti Kärkkäinnen, The Doctrine of God: A Global Introduction, 2nd ed. (Baker Academic, 2017), 4, 38; Marius Nel, “Spirit Christology: A Pentecostal Contribution to the Trinitarian Discourse,” Scriptura 119, no. 1 (2020), 1-19, https://doi.org/10.7833/119-1-1808.

⁷ Nel, “Spirit Christology,” 6.

⁸ Geoffrey William Hugo Lampe, God as Spirit (Clarendon Press, 1977).

⁹ Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity (Seabury Press, 1978); Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations (Helicon Press, 1971).

¹⁰ Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation (Fortress Press, 2001).

¹¹ Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (InterVarsity Press, 2022).

¹² Roger Haight, “The Case for Spirit Christology,” Theological Studies 53, no. 2 (1992): 257-87.

¹³ Ralph Del Colle, Christ and the Spirit: Spirit-Christology in Trinitarian Perspective (Oxford University Press, 1994).

¹⁴ Amos Yong, Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religion (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

¹⁵ Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man (Westminster Press, 1968), 108, 140-49.

¹⁶ Yong, Beyond the Impasse; Amos Yong, “The Holy Spirit and the World Religions: On the Christian Discernment of Spirit(s) ‘After’ Buddhism,” Buddhist–Christian Studies 24 (2004): 191-207.

¹⁷ Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen and Amos Yong, Toward a Pneumatological Theology: Pentecostal and Ecumenical Perspectives on Ecclesiology, Soteriology, and Theology of Mission (University Press of America, 2002).

¹⁸ Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Baker Academic, 2005), 86.

¹⁹ Philip Rosato, “Spirit Christology: Ambiguity and Promise,” Theological Studies 38 (1977): 423-49.

²⁰ Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, “Reflection and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” Vatican, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_19051991_dialogue-and-proclamatio_en.html.

²¹ William LaRousse, “Asian Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Nostra Aetate, Bishops’ Institute for Religious Affairs (BIRA VI) Dialogue with Religions in Asia and Interreligious Marriage,” FABC Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (OEIA) Redemptorist Center, Pattaya, Thailand, November 17-19, 2015, https://fabc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/FABC-Papers-153.pdf.

²² Peter C. Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue (Orbis Books, 2008). The four stages, namely, the Preparation Stage, Dialogue of Life Stage, Dialogue of Action Stage, and Dialogue of Experience Stage, where the participants build relationships through shared life and invoke the Holy Spirit’s presence, seeking genuine encounter in mutual respect and discernment and ultimately leading to refined engagement in Christology and interfaith witness.

²³ See Stanley J. Samartha, “The Holy Spirit and People of Various Faiths, Cultures, and Ideologies” and “Courage for Dialogue: An Interpretation of the Nairobi Debate,” in Courage for Dialogue: Ecumenical Issues in Inter-Religious Relationships (WCC, 1981), 75-88.

²⁴ M. M. Thomas, The Church’s Mission and Post-Modern Humanism: A Collection of Essays and Talks, 1992-1996 (Jointly published by Christava Sahitya Samithi and Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1996).

²⁵ Samartha, “Holy Spirit,” 1981.

²⁶ Stanley J. Samartha, “The Holy Spirit and People of Other Faiths,” The Ecumenical Review 42, nos. 3-4 (July-October 1990): 250-63.

²⁷ M. M. Thomas, “The Holy Spirit and the Spirituality for Political Struggles,” The Ecumenical Review 42, nos. 3-4 (July-October 1990): 216-24.

²⁸ Amos Yong, Discerning the Spirits: A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions (Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).

Session 2

Harmonising the Many Tongues Within: A Pentecost Exploration of Internal Family Systems

Aizaiah Yong and Amos Yong

Abstract

Internal Family Systems (IFS) is a therapeutic approach to the human psyche that recognises a multiplicity of sub-personal “parts” in response to life’s ebbs and flows, resulting often with the obfuscation of the core personal Self. This article brings IFS into dialogue with theological anthropology by situating the IFS understanding of the parts-and-the-Self against the backdrop of dominant theological and psychological models of the human person and by an initial engagement with pentecostal spirituality, in particular, recent developments that foreground the Day of Pentecost narrative as a foundational theological resource. We suggest both that IFS can inform the nascent and embryonic exploration of a pneumatological anthropology on the one hand, and that spiritually oriented practitioners of IFS can be further undergirded with theologies that are holistic, embodied, and engaged on the other hand.

Keywords: Acts 2; Internal Family Systems; Pentecost; pneumatological anthropology; theology and psychology

Introduction

Internal Family Systems (IFS) is a therapeutic and psychospiritual model of transformation that approaches the human psyche, including an authentic Self understood as the seat of human consciousness, through an awareness of multiplicity (as sub-personal “parts”) and creativity as core to life. IFS therapy is practised in response to a person’s traumas that have resulted in an internalised experiential polarisation and the obfuscation of the Self. This article brings IFS into dialogue with theological anthropology by situating the IFS understanding of the parts-and-the-Self against the backdrop of dominant theological and psychological models of the human person and by an initial engagement with pentecostal spirituality,¹ in particular, recent developments in the pentecostal academy that foreground the Day of Pentecost and Spirit-outpouring narrative as a foundational theological resource.²

We elucidate this exploratory dialogue in five steps: first, briefly sketching extant theological and psychological models of personal multiplicity, and second, introducing the basics of the IFS framework. Third, we present the Pentecost narrative in Acts 2, including suggesting the interpretive amenability of this passage to modelling theologically and pneumatologically the nurturance of authentic Selfhood that in turn allows, fourth, comment on various characteristics from the IFS model that resonate with themes present in the Day of Pentecost account as it empowered the Early Church to become witnesses and agents of healing in multiple languages. As our thesis is that the Pentecost narrative of the outpouring of the Spirit can be reimagined also as a process of personal Self manifestation, we conclude, finally, with suggestions for how these efforts can inform the embryonic exploration of pentecostal perspectives on theological anthropology and initial possibilities for IFS practitioners who desire to integrate pentecostal (in particular) and theological (in general) resources in their work and, by so doing, reclaim and renew Spirit-led praxis that has the potential not only for personal healing but also communal shalom and social transformation.

One final word about our subject positionalities is needed, given this is an initial (to our knowledge) exploratory conversation between pentecostal theology and psychotherapy, in particular IFS. Although situated within and informed by the pentecostal church and tradition – one of us (the elder) remains a credentialed minister within a pentecostal denomination while the other (the younger) considers himself a pentecostal minister within the Disciples Church – we use “pentecostal” and “after Pentecost” synonymously, recognising that all Christian faith and theologising proceeds from both Incarnation and Pentecost events, while also realising that some are more formally affiliated with those churches deriving from or related to the Azusa Street revival and self-identify as “pentecostal” in ways that other Christ-followers do not.³ Further, and perhaps more importantly for this essay, recognising that, as will be charted momentarily, psychotherapeutic models have developed out of a long history of seeking scientific respectability even as they have shied away from engaging specifically with religious and even theologically informed perspectives, we are well aware that psychotherapists (at least of the non-religious sort that have dominated these ranks until more recently) may well be suspicious (at worst) or wary (at best) about the possibility of deriving any valuable insight from our efforts, even if one of us (Aizaiah) is a Level-2-trained IFS pyschospiritual practitioner and recognised as an inaugural Internal Family Systems Leadership Fellow with the Foundation for Self-Leadership. And yet our own theological explanations function at levels distinct from that of the psychological domain; on the one hand respecting what is said psychologically and therapeutically by those researchers and practitioners, even while on the other hand carefully pursuing tentative correlations between and translations back and forth across that sphere and the domain of theological explanation.⁴ Most importantly in terms of our positionality caveats, we are not suggesting in what follows that IFS is either superior to other therapies or should be exclusively deployed, but only attempting to initiate dialogue, particularly among those open to or desirous of theological perspectives for therapeutic practice and vice versa. Our primary goal is to bring pentecostal theology and scholarship into dialogue with the pluralistic foundations of IFS specifically, and with psychotherapeutic approaches to human wholeness more generally, even as we hope that what we might have to offer will also resonate with IFS practitioners who are spiritually interested or curious (from across and beyond Christian spiritualities), if not also with other therapists open to religiously and theologically informed models.

Dominant Theological and Psychological Models of Self-Multiplicity

The multiplicity-within-the-Self approach central to IFS is not without precedence in both theological and psychological domains. Within the former arena, theologians across the centuries have grappled at least in part with the implications of the Pauline reference in the farewell segment of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians: “May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:23, italics added).⁵ The debate has revolved partly around whether the spirit and soul are understood as synonymous, thus, when combined with the self-evident body, resulting in a dichotomist or dual perspective regarding human nature, or if the spiritual and the soulish or psychical (or psychological) are also distinct, which, when added to the body, concludes towards a trichotomist or triadic view instead. Yet since even the dichotomist notion admits that spirit-soul are akin to two sides of one reality – e.g., the latter “facing” inward and the former opening outward, even towards the horizon of transcendence – this and the trichotomist views grant there are various facets to the human psyche, or that such is at least not fundamentally reducible to any one feature. As Jesus himself granted, “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt 26:41; Mark 14:38). Whereas modern theological anthropologies have been more dualistic (in one or other more dichotomistic trajectories),⁶ more recent approaches (to which we gravitate) have tended to place emphasis either on more holistic models on the one hand or more relational approaches on the other.⁷ The latter have been not only resourced by robustly trinitarian and incarnational theological models – thus non-monadic human creatures are created in the image of a triune deity, for instance – but are also more amenable to reconsiderations of self-multiplicity that we are inviting.

Arguably, the field of psychology has been navigating self-multiplicity since its modern inception. If the founding father of modern psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud himself, posited that the personal self or soul was constituted by the id, ego, and superego, these have been developed and expanded even as its multiple construction has been either complemented or supplemented, even paralleled, by alternative construals. Whereas Canadian psychiatrist Eric Berne (1910-1970) has advanced the Freudian scheme via his Child-Adult-Parent ego-states proposal (mapping upon Freud’s triad), the formulation also of various historic theories of psychological multiplicity – e.g., Carl Jung’s complexes (unconscious clusters of personal emotions, memories, wishes, etc.), Abraham Maslow’s syndromes (differentiated and yet integrated personal complexes), and Gordon Allport’s traits (dynamic and habituated dispositions) – means we now have many models to help us think about personal and self-plurality.⁸ In fact, over the last generation, additional theoretical frames and practical cartographies have been proposed to consider and perform self-multiplicity in terms of adaptability to life situations, identity conflicts and development, intermittent (albeit persistent over time, episodes of) altered states of consciousness, and ongoing adaptation to social and other roles.⁹ Further comments on these developments in two diverging directions would be beneficial for our purposes.

On the one hand, theories of self-multiplicity have been long considered in relation to certain psychological and psychiatric disorders. Dissociative identity disorder (DID), for instance, is understood as a fragmented condition involving the expression of multiple personalities (known as alters) in a single individual almost, even if not always, sequentially, that has lent itself to such theorisation. Historically, the challenges experienced on this front have been mapped by researchers as shared between the individual and his or her significant (familial, employment, and relational) others, not only generating a personal sense of psychotic confusion and even of oppressive dysfunctionality but also inhibiting social interactions.¹⁰ In the individualistic context of the modern West, multiple identity expressions have thus been experienced as problematic when personal integrity is undependable in social contexts, moral responsibility is not taken or easily assignable, and legal liability needs to be assessed, among other issues.¹¹ In non-Western, including Asian, contexts, there are the additional challenges that DID expressions have been understood as the manifestations of unwelcome (often spiritual) presences and personalities alien to the self. Unsurprisingly, then, psychologists not only have sought to rethink personal multiplicity away from the purely negative terms that have predominated among psychiatrists who treat dissociative identity disorders (DID) – formerly, towards the end of the prior century, pathologised as multiple personality disorders – but have also reconsidered such manifestations as existing across a full spectrum of selves: from alternate states of consciousness through amnesia, mood fluctuations, daydreaming or sleepwalking, déjà vu experiences to depersonalisation tendencies and partial DID, and, on the more problematic end, extending to possession experiences and also complex and poly-fragmented DID.¹² In short, whereas a generation ago the multiplicity of DID was considered mostly in pathological terms, today there is greater awareness of both the fluidity of these states and how these overlap with expressions of multiple selves across the broad scope of human experience.¹³

On the other hand, not as pathologically focused but also consistent with longstanding reactions to the so-called iron cage of rationalist modernity that has sought to streamline, routinise, and mechanise human sociality,¹⁴ since the last quarter of the previous century there have been growing numbers of explorations of human selves less as singular individuals and more as differentiated pluralities.¹⁵ Foregrounded here is that our sense of cohesiveness is much more fuzzy than clear. In some circles, notions of subpersonalities and subselves derived from the archetypal unconscious, internal conflicts, and fantasy roles, among other (early-) life experiences, have persisted,¹⁶ with the latter (subselves) understood as the “relatively autonomous and organized set of psychological processes in the mind (such as thoughts, emotions and desires) that co-exists with other similar sets.”¹⁷ The language of subpersonalities or subselves, however, often begs questions regarding higher levels of personal and psychological integratedness, leading others to emphasise instead notions of multiple co-conscious webs of mental conditions. In this latter scheme, the earlier articulation of co-consciousness, while lengthy, is helpfully illuminative for our purposes:

The existence within a single human organism of more than one consciously experiencing psychological entity, each with some sense of its own identity or selfhood relatively separate and discrete from other similar entities, and with separate conscious experiences occurring simultaneously with one another within this human organism … We are not just a cohesive self, but also a composite of many aspects, facets, or parts which have their own personalities and ongoing experience simultaneous with one another and with the overall self. Likening the whole mind to a group of individual people, each part has its own conscious experience but may know that of other individuals only indirectly, by its effects. Relative to one individual, the others could be considered “unconscious.”¹⁸

In principle there is an unlimited number of such parts of the multiple self, effectively (as one philosophical account puts it): “two or more distinct co-active apperceptive centers … autobiographically … discontinuous from one another.”¹⁹

How is not such multiplicity chaotic for self-understanding and interpersonal relations? The response that this happens generally as we show up “being in the right mind at the right time,”²⁰ as might be proverbially understood, may not be sufficiently convincing. Some might still be concerned that the discontinuity between alters could be problematic, which is what therapists deal with, while others would wonder if self-multiplicity is inherent to each person in the way so characterised or only when the plurality of “selves” are inadequately cohesive. To be sure, clinical and other research will continue to debate these matters. Our posture is to see if there are theological resources that might contribute to the ongoing discussion, especially since there is widespread experiential recognition, if not explicit theorisation, of internal multiplicity. At the least, we proceed with awareness that human creativity and adaptability persist in and through however our multiple selves sometimes (or more regularly) show up, not always necessarily requiring a unitary centre of consciousness but demanding ongoing relational harmonisation.²¹

Internal Family Systems

Our own shift beyond understandings of selfhood and the human person that reify individualism or what we might call monopsychism has been helped by a model of psychospirituality created by Richard Schwartz, Internal Family Systems (IFS), which has now gone through various cultural adaptations and evolutions.²² Its basic assumptions can be summarised thus.²³ First, each of us contains various capacities for relational awareness and this interior multiplicity inherent to each person is referred to as “parts,” which describes the diverse subpersonalities, subselves, inner entities, or ego-states of each person. Second, there is also within each person (and according to some theorists, each “part”) a core “Self” that is an altruistic, wise, and empowering reservoir of life-affirming guidance which somehow is present through each person but is not reducible to an individual. Third, IFS promotes a radically non-pathologising view of the parts that innately contribute noble and good intentions to each (although often they are misguided and, through mono-sightedness, cause harm to us or others). We unpack these briefly, focusing in this section mostly on explicating the IFS perspective, saving our own theological comments before transitioning.

The first assumption describes how each person has an inherent internal “family” system that informs our actions or behaviours in any given situation. IFS categorises these parts, innate within the family system and numbering up to thirty distinct subpersonalities/selves (even “inner people”),²⁴ broadly into three groups: “managers” who work preemptively on our behalf, “firefighters” who work reactively in response to perceived and felt threats, and “exiles” who retreat into the background, driven by fear, hurt, or shame from earlier experiences (also known as burdens). The former two are also known as “protector” parts that throughout the day influence a person to actions intended to shield the latter (such as being driven, a caretaker, or an internal critic) or which can be characterised also by more extreme and erratic behaviours such as addictive compulsions (e.g., binge eating or watching TV). Each part waxes and wanes, sometimes manifesting, other times lying dormant (until activated, or triggered). In short, managers and firefighters “protect” the underlying suffering – the latter through instinctive flight, fight, or freeze mechanisms, and the former often through more deliberate and longer-term resolutions – which an exiled part of us carries that has yet to meet with compassion and love. Exiled parts – for instance, the playful child within, or the imaginative youngster – often derive from wounds experienced in childhood when the young person did not have ability to handle a traumatically difficult situation and, thus burdened, becomes exiled in order to remain out of consciousness until it is safe to be dealt with and heard. Rather than regulating, medicating, or re-behaviourising therapeutic approaches, IFS seeks to alleviate inherited burdens which relate to the particular lives, families, cultures, and societies into which we have been born.

The person whose parts are unburdened will no longer be dominated by their protective or excessive behaviours but act harmoniously to guide the person in creative, loving expression, which IFS assumes is “Self-leadership.” The core Self does not dispense with the internal parts but, in some ways as their depth dimension or as the so-called “human seat of consciousness,”²⁵ allows for their collective harmonisation and the resulting thriving of the person and greater field of life. Within the IFS framework, however, the core Self is presumed as being inherently endowed with the “resources of the Self-led” and Self-energised person,²⁶ generally elaborated upon in terms of eight capacities: curiosity, calmness, confidence, compassion, creativity, clarity, courage, and connection. We will say more about these resources or capacities later, but for now, the idea in IFS is for each person to get more in touch with the Self personally, as the way towards wholeness and well-being, and move away from being “parts-dominated”:

When Self-leadership is absent or diminished at any given level of a system, the triadic structure of exiles, managers, and firefighters develops. When managers lead, firefighters rebel. When firefighters lead, managers panic. When managers and firefighters vie for leadership, polarizations abound and trauma regenerates itself in [our] development balance, harmony, and leadership.²⁷

Healing is possible because for IFS, “The Self cannot be damaged and does not need to develop [except perhaps in cases with those with severe brain damage] … Similar to a good, attuned parent, the Self seems to know what each part needs.”²⁸ The Self can do much when trusted and consulted, since the Self “sees the big picture and, in addition to patience, persistence, and the eight C-words [qualities], it practices playfulness and nonattachment.”²⁹ In these senses, Self-leadership is the primary goal of IFS. When a person is Self-led, that person is compassionately connected to their internal world and accompanied by the wisdom of their parts.

The third and final assumption is that our internal world is inherently good, and that each part is valuable to a person. People are often at war because of their internal conflicts and thus perceive their parts as evil or as the problem. Instead, IFS proposes that all parts mean well and simply need to be reintegrated into harmony through the Self to capture the wisdom they possess. The radical non-pathologising way of IFS creates a compassionate and open curiosity within a person to relate to their inner world with care and kindness.³⁰ This could also be described as a radical hospitality that rejects no movement but rather seeks to understand and connect to it. Of course, if a part is acting extreme or overwhelming to the inner system, it is helpful to have another being nurturing or boosting Self-energy, to restabilise and to ask the part to communicate differently so it can be better understood. Through the guidance of the Self, there is now the possibility of cultivating internal harmony through two primary ways: through “unblending” and “unburdening.” Unblending happens when the Self comes into connection with a part that has become controlling, extreme, or impulsive. Through curiosity and compassion, the part relaxes, is heard and understood, and often transformed from being less agenda-led to more open and spontaneous. When the person’s parts have been tended to through the Self, they naturally find harmony within the greater system and become (re)integrated (with the other parts) as an important facet of wisdom within the person. Unburdening is a restorative capacity of the Self that happens when the Self tends to the unresolved suffering and/or pain that an exiled part may be carrying. The Self has innate wisdom to relate to the part in a way where the latter can share what the deep needs or longings are and then to respond with love. When this happens, the part is unburdened and the person (the overall internal system) is now free to live creatively and more fully.

The IFS community is less concerned about theorising the Self-and-parts and more motivated with the therapeutic praxis of bringing greater harmonisation to the family system. In this respect, IFS practitioners see other psychological theories of multiple selves as supporting their basic notion,³¹ even if there are important differences related to therapeutic practice. Yet, and this needs to be stated, if the above account seems a bit too anthropologically or psychologically optimistic about the nature of human persons, IFS practitioners do their work precisely because they realise that sometimes (if not oftentimes), parts-led agency is problematic for those persons and others around them. Then, if there remain concerns that Self-leadership is too humanistic, that is where our own theological commitments might register the work of the divine Spirit – so that the Self is filled with the Spirit and allows for “I to no longer live but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20), for instance – even if we still on this register are wary about conceptualising this interface too interventionistically. In other words, while we are intrigued by the possibility of foregrounding personal Selfhood as constituted by parts in a theological manner, there is no need to think that the parts, even if created good (as the Genesis narrative clearly indicates), cannot be malformed or harmful, even if their redemption (to use theological language) might be reconstitutive rather than eliminative of such multiplicity. In what follows, we seek to theologise IFS from our after-Pentecost perspective, and then, act practically in light of how IFS considers the resources nurturing the core Self.

Dialogue with Theology after Pentecost

Pentecostal theology is not monolithic, even as some of us who are pentecostal theologians advocate for doing theology after Pentecost instead, in part because that is consistent with the commitment of pentecostal spirituality to bear witness to the living Christ, and in part because pentecostal theologising otherwise multiplies vigorously in too many directions vis-à-vis the many churches in their global expressions for any claims regarding theological cohesiveness to be (easily) defensible.³² Our own after-Pentecost perspective, then, prompts a fresh consideration of IFS in light of the Lukan account.³³ Such an exploratory psychological re-reading of Acts 2 could proceed along the following three interrelated lines.³⁴

First, whereas pentecostal theologies have rightly emphasised the speaking in other languages as central to the Day of Pentecost narrative, we call attention initially to the phenomenology of the disciples’ experience. They were together, even as individuals: “… all together in one place” (Acts 2:1),³⁵ Luke records, individuated and yet in community, or communally related. They were sensing sounds and feeling winds, and then perceiving and interpreting such, “like the rush of a violent wind” on the one hand, and “tongues, as of fire” on the other (vv. 2-3), with the added italics denoting the interpretive inferences drawn from the tactile sensations. And when “filled with the Holy Spirit [they] began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability” (v. 4), somehow receiving and then responding in speech, perhaps not that of their mother tongues, so to speak. Reframed thus, the narrative is open to a psychological reconsideration: what was experienced bodily, sensorially, and kinaesthetically, and how was such understood psychically, cognitively, and linguistically?³⁶ Or, to put it in the terms eventually posited, “‘What does this mean?’” (v. 12b).

The second layer extends from the first: that the conundrum of Pentecost lies precisely in the experience of the many tongues spoken and/or heard (Acts 2:8, 11) in the native languages of those gathered “from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem” on that day (v. 5). Whether or not the individual disciples were speaking or hearing in their mother tongues or in other languages may be irresolvable, but the Lukan message emphasises that the gospel extends “to the ends of the earth” (1:8b), thereby incorporating “all flesh” (2:17a), across all cultural, ethnic, and linguistic groups of human societies. One Spirit, many cultures, languages, witnesses. Our own psychological- and IFS-inflected reading, then, suggests the multiplicity of many cultural-linguistic tongues of human communities is anticipated by the multiplicity of many internal parts of human persons, precisely since the personal is interwoven with the social, and vice versa, as the narrative so far has unfolded. In other words, social-cultural-linguistic multiplicity both overlays/supervenes on and is constituted by personal multiplicity at the level of individuals.

This leads, third, to a reconsideration of the many tongues of the Spirit as both personal and social, constituted by many parts within the personal system that parallel the many cultural-ethnic languages of human social systems. Just as the agency and witness of each people group is empowered in and through their distinctive languages, so also is the agency and witness of each disciple, enabled through their speaking in other tongues and languages. The latter are not problematic features of the human condition that need resolution but are effectively primordial to human experience and to be fully redeemed in all their plurality, even if also harmonised as a unity but not uniformity.³⁷ In IFS terms, our core Self bears witness in and through our differentiated parts, and even more effectively and clearly to the gospel having received of and from the divine breath.³⁸ Exiles do so out of being unburdened, managers from their persistence, firefighters through their reactivity.

More recently, there has been a growing theological engagement with IFS. One attempt retrieves the Pauline struggle between doing what is undesirable and not doing what is desirable (Rom 7:14-20) to observe that there is a multiplicity of bodily members (6:13) that can be harnessed by grace for divine purposes (12:3-8).³⁹ In this case, the goal to address the challenges of dissociative identity disorder, surely noble, unintentionally perpetuates the presumption that self-multiplicity is problematic and pathological. Yet we should be clear: “Multiplicity … is not the same thing as fragmentation but remains a reality with tension. Often, naming and working with a [person]’s many different parts and self-states has the paradoxical effect of strengthening the sense of self-cohesion.”⁴⁰ In fact, an alternative Pauline image, one derived from the Corinthian correspondence that locates the multiplicity of bodily parts in the pneumatic movements of the divine Spirit, would provide important theological resources to reconsider cohesiveness in terms of the plurality of charismatic gifts and expressions. We see the building up of the ecclesial body at least potentially as parallel to the ongoing emergent and non-linear path of IFS therapy.

On the one hand, working theologically, the Pentecost pneumatology might be called upon to provide some integrative function. Long before Schwartz, and even anticipating the mainstreaming of the multiple-selfhood model, theologian and therapist Elizabeth O’Connor put it this way:

The Spirit which is the Spirit of Truth will guide us into our truth, if we will ask. That Spirit will create unity within us so that all the selves are under the one Self which is grounded in the one God. When the unifying work of the Spirit goes on, more and more of the unconscious is restored to consciousness, and we move toward the fulfillment of the command to love God with the whole of us.⁴¹

This coming to consciousness involves the bearing of witness, perhaps initially through sighs and groans but gradually to full articulation in tongues otherwise silenced (exiled), taken for granted (managers), or even detested (firefighters).

On the other hand, working psychologically, the core Self also provides integrative functionality. Within the psychological guild, even those exploring more decentred and open models of the self have suggested that such

… does not necessitate abandoning a more “vertical” structural model; that, in fact, one achieves a fuller complexity of understanding by retaining and integrating both the horizontal and the vertical dimensions of psychic structure; and that it is the vertical dimension that … conveys the qualities of unity, cohesion, authenticity, self-regulation, and well-being that lie at the core of the self-psychological view of the self.⁴²

However all of this might be both practised and theorised/theologised, for the purposes of this exploratory dialogue, our view, extending Schwartz, is that the outpouring of the Spirit empowers the core Self precisely in and through the loosing of the many other languages both within persons and across their (multicultural and even multireligious) communities. To be sure, our core Selves functionally are experienced as isolated, disoriented, and even traumatised, which is why Pentecost is needed (and its antecedent incarnational moments). As practitioners and therapists work to assist the harmonisation of parts and core Selves in clients, so also we as theologians consider the work of the divine Spirit to restore and renew languages, cultures, and selves. Wholeness, health, and healing come through the many tongues within and without, drawing deeply – or retrieved by the Spirit – from our core, extending externally (horizontally) through our communities, and reconciling (vertically) us with the divine.

As should be clear, our own reading of the Pentecost account vis-à-vis IFS is more exploratory than exegetical. This is an important point since, among the various models of theology–psychology interaction, there is a “biblical counselling” option that claims to be scripturally motivated.⁴³ Ours is surely scripturally informed, but less from the perspective that privileges our capacity to access the intentions of authors of texts, and more from a two-horizons framework that recognises how we engage with Scripture from various assumptions, including theological ones, derived from complexly formed interpretive traditions.⁴⁴ In a sense, ours is a pentecostal hermeneutic, although we read Acts 2 more theologically as animated by what we have long called a “pneumatology of quest”⁴⁵ than in terms familiar to that of the movement we both inhabit and navigate. And if our considerations in this section might be more recognisable to pentecostal scholars (especially those more familiar with the theological development of the pentecostal academy in the last two decades), how then might we further mine the second chapter of Acts for IFS purposes, especially for IFS and other therapeutic practitioners, in such an exploratory manner?

Spirit-led Psychospiritual Praxis

Whereas the preceding paints in broad brush strokes to bring IFS and theology into conversation, here we delve a bit deeper by describing what a Pentecost-enhanced IFS practice could look like for those who want spirituality to be a resource for them in their commitments to healing and social change in diverse contexts.⁴⁶ While none of the below recommendations are intended in the clinical sense, we wish to spark imagination for spiritual leaders and companions to reconnect and transform their own spiritual heritage, especially through their healing efforts. To do this, we reimagine various resources or characteristics of the core Self in relation to the Pentecost narrative. Whereas in previous work one of us has reflected on how IFS can be engaged as a tool for spiritual leaders and educators seeking to embrace holistic transformation and pursue “inter-justice,”⁴⁷ here we extend such efforts in dialogue with St. Luke. Earlier, we introduced the eight Cs – capacities or qualities – of the Self and suggested that they are means through which our parts are unblended and unburdened and insisted that their renewal and revitalisation are essential for the flourishing person. Our hypothesis here is that the individual’s experience of the divine breath unblends and unburdens the wounds that parts carry and, with that, renews the many parts within so that a person can be Self-/Spirit-led. Since there is “no sequential order” to the so-called eight Cs,⁴⁸ we move, again, with the flow of the Lukan account, albeit in each case further elaborating on how these might inform our understanding of the parts in relationship to the Self and enrich especially IFS therapeutic practice.

We begin with Courage, which is about opening one’s heart to life’s uncertainty and the risk that is necessary if we are to be fully engaged. Courage is needed because our parts can be mired in fear and, when they are, they act to protect us from perceived and actual threats in ways that are closed off from the whole, our Selves. While we know that risk will vary person to person based on several factors, this quality highlights that we deal with things as they are, including looking at systems and cycles of oppression with acuity, and through divine wisdom our Selves can speak truth to power and stand in solidarity with those who are oppressed. Courage is not found in the absence of fear but in not allowing fear to have the final determination of how we live. This has serious ramifications for those who are already minoritised and engaging resistance to evil because it grounds us in the sense that all life is precious and we should be willing to stand against any ways of being that diminish or harm life. Courage also inspires certain parts of us to “stand up,” even as protectors, on behalf of our other parts and for the most vulnerable in our midst. The disciples’ openness to receiving the Spirit in ways that bear witness amidst the public square of the streets of Jerusalem in the time of imperial Rome can be understood as a manifestation of and an invitation (to us and others) to courageousness. Any one member could be fearful of the forces of empire (see John 2:19), but the promise of the invitation urges and extends courage.

Second is Connection, which is about acting in accordance with our full capacities of knowing including, but not limited to, our intuitions, thoughts, senses, or longings. Whereas our burdened parts often act out of their isolation, connection enables what was previously rejected within the internal family to be felt, held, and tended. Connection moves us beyond being closed or fixated on particulars, including particular outcomes that revolve around or are generated from self-interest, but instead moves us towards inclusion of (diverse) others and makes room for others to share and take lead. Schwartz writes that “when you experience Self, you naturally feel … less isolated and lonely … [and] more connected to humanity in general, and also to something larger and more encompassing.”⁴⁹ The disciples’ connectedness grew, spilling out from where they were gathered into the streets of Jerusalem, drawn together with others as “each one heard them speaking in the native language of each” (Acts 2:6b). While recoiling is always the instinctive response to dissonance, those who are Self-/Spirit-led persist in seeking out and attending to even the strangers in their midst.

Compassion can be seen to follow, which is not felt only for those we deem good and deserving (of our sentiments) but includes those opposed to us (or even towards the aspects of ourselves that we loathe or feel ashamed about), albeit with discernment and clarity about rejecting any forms of oppression. The Self-led compassionate person attends to, respects, and nurtures the exiled parts, even as the Self-led spiritual leader inspires us to overcome an us/them binary and sees all life as interwoven and interdependent.⁵⁰ To the degree that each of these energies or characteristics can catalyse others, so also do the disciples’ connectedness generate compassionate sensibilities, capacities to feel strange others in relationship to themselves: even though “[a]mazed and astonished,” the gathered crowd wondered: “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language?” (Acts 2:7-8). This is not only suggestive of Galilean alienness now resonating as familiar, rather than remaining otherised, but also a compassionate openness to comprehending the foreign accents of these minoritised others.

Next is Creativity, which speaks to the infinite novelty and spontaneous potentiality that beings are endowed with. Creativity is intertwined with the law of divine freedom and comes with an ability to think outside the box, including inspiring Selves to participate in subversive social action that turns dominant ideologies upside down and disarms their power. In contrast, burdened parts are habituated and locked into survival strategies and are less capable of envisioning liberative responses. A creative spiritual companion will find alternative paths and solutions to issues where there is no “victory over another” (part) but rather is collaborative, cooperative, and constructive. This is not to say that pre-planning is to be avoided, but the invitation is to be open to the unexpected and unknown. Creativity is nurtured by (the embrace of) difference, seen in the disciples and the gathered crowd interacting across ethnicities and cultures – involving, e.g., citizens from foreign regions like “Parthians, Medes, Elamites” on the one hand, and also, sojourners, which Luke calls “residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene” on the other hand (Acts 2:9- 10a, emphasis added). How to recognise, be with, and be informed and shaped by the differences and multiplicities within and without, so creativity can ensue, is part of the question.

Calmness, which might be one of the initial therapeutic steps – calming down – has less to do with inactivity, tone of voice, or kinesthetic relaxation but is rather about nonreactivity, beginning in relationship to the parts but then, especially, in the presence of violence. A sense of calm has to do with a sense of grounded presence and engaged restfulness, almost like Jesus asleep on the boat in the middle of a storm. Whereas our various parts can easily be reactive, calmness makes it possible for non-anxiousness to arise in any circumstance, even amidst perceived and actual violence. Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan share how one of the greatest responses to violence is the nonanswer, as modelled by Jesus used when being questioned by Pilate.⁵¹ The nonanswer to violence is a refusal to submit to the adversary’s rules and resisting the evil of creating enemies and perpetuating oppositionality. Although it would be inaccurate to portray the developments of the Day of Pentecost as awash with violence, there were included, among those connected with, and for whom compassion had already been felt, “visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs” (Acts 2:10b-11a) – in each case, those “othered” because of the exertion of oppressive political power (Romans), due to negative ethnic stereotyping (Cretans, subject to prejudicial ridicule, e.g., in Titus 1:12), or longstanding adversity between the lineages of Sarah and Hagar (represented by Arabs)⁵² – to which Calmness enables ongoing interaction.

Another quality of Self is Clarity, which is about seeing the situation as it is rather than with a sense of denial, escape, or avoidance, or defending those who do wrong. Even as our parts are motivated to act on behalf of those aspects of our selves they are designed to preserve, clarity allows for the arising of a more encompassing sense, one that is about meeting life with assurance, decisiveness, and acuity so that things, including the parts of the Self, can be tended to accurately and with skill. Further, our parts sometimes feel like they must achieve certain outcomes, when clarity enables recognition of healthy limits to one’s responsibilities. Frank Rogers demonstrates how clarity is expressed in a person’s setting firm boundaries in their pursuit of flourishing and justice.⁵³ Of course, Self-Clarity impacts the Self’s broader environment, evidenced through responding to moments of kindness with joy and a sense of affirmation and which also opens up to work dismantling multiple systems of oppression. Other examples of clarity can include intersectional and intercultural partnerships where each group is embraced according both to their uniqueness but also a shared sense of cooperation and resistance against injustice. On the Day of Pentecost, clarity is manifest amidst the cacophony and dissonance in the realisation that “in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power” (Acts 2:11b): parts speaking through their multiplicity and yet heralding the divine presence and activity. Clarity allows the distinctiveness of each voice (part/member) to be registered.

Second to last (in our account) is Curiosity, which is not simply an exercise for those who are ignorant or youthful but which assumes that each person is a learner and can be improved through continuous development. Curiosity understands that each part and each person does not know everything, and there is something we can learn from our parts and from others if we are open to it. Curiosity requires we suspend initial judgement (on our parts and of others) and become receptive to a deeper truth that may be difficult to access initially. Curiosity also affirms that we can be open to transformation if the situation (and the desire to grow into a deeper embodiment of love) demands such. Being in the position to honestly inquire, “‘What does this mean?” (Acts 2:12b), reflects the disciples’ sparked, Spirit-baptised curiosity. Genuine questions will open up to the rest of the unpredictable community story (journey of parts-and-Selves).

Finally, we come to Confidence, which is unwavering trust and persistence in the process of healing that enables us to claim the agency available in each situation. Confidence is vital, for the renewed parts and also for Self-leadership, because it helps prevent things like compassion-fatigue (including giving up in the face of adversity) and invites persons to actions of self-care (read: parts-care!) and reflection so they do not compromise their spiritual well-being while engaging in the challenges of life, not least the pursuit of justice. It is through an awareness of agency, which is also a divine gift granted as our freedom to be all we are, that can then discern what action is right for each person in diverse situations and/or moments that lead towards life’s renewal. Spirit-empowered agency allows Peter to stand up and begin to address the crowd at Jerusalem, now living confidently into his call to bear witness to the living Christ (Acts 1:8; 2:14). As the wounded parts of the disciples are touched divinely, so their Selves can bear witness to the good news (as we see in the rest of the Acts narrative), and so also is the apostolic community commissioned by the Spirit for their journey to the ends of the earth.

We hope it is clear how the various characteristics described above both renew the way we understand the gifts present in the Day of Pentecost but also open us to the reality that the Spirit is granted both to the complexity of who we are as multiple-selfed creatures and also offered to others around us, even those we have otherised for this or that reason. Schwartz’s reminder, though, is important: “even accessing one of these C qualities often leads to the appearance and activity of others,” so that the “critical mass of Self”⁵⁴ means the unburdening and empowering of the many parts to contribute to the fuller life of witness.

Conclusion

How then might the Pentecost outpouring of the Spirit take on new meaning through the lens of IFS? In IFS, practitioners recognise at least three dimensions that are vital to healing and ongoing transformation: the gift we receive, the surprise of “others,” and the flow of Self- leadership inherent to all life. What are possible theological correlates of such after Pentecost?

First, the Spirit comes “suddenly from heaven” (Acts 2:2a). While we receive this divine wind as if from without, it achieves a nurturing of energies from within, so that we speak in other tongues by the same Spirit. The gift of the Spirit is thereby also a renewal of our (multiple) selves, a gift reorienting these parts in relationship to the core Self, which is also a reality within all of life. Healing is not something we perform but allow to flow from within us through the power of the Spirit. Precisely for this reason, we see that Pentecost outpouring of the Spirit is about our reconciliation, first of our parts and then of us in relationship to others, personally and systemically. Therein is also the gift of empowerment and enrichment, especially to love that which was previously demonised, both within and without, which is part of the ongoing transformation of our lives, deepening love and regard.⁵⁵ We are now more able to relate to ourselves and the world with affirmation, truth, and openness that is restorative and redemptive.

Practitioners within IFS also often discuss how the process is not a linear, step-by-step journey; nor can it be premeditated because not only does each session and healing encounter differ, but because our multiple parts are forged in differentiated social, communal, and relational webs. The harmonisation of any part requires a stance open to spontaneity and a willingness to spend as much time as necessary with what is arising. We see a connection to the verse saying the disciples were “all together in one place” (Acts 2:1) and waiting upon the divine. Because IFS is a trauma-informed model, it always relies on the guidance of consent – of the various parts, first and foremost – as related to the pacing and the “how-to” of approach. It is this sense of coming to be in “one place” with others where the healing can emerge spontaneously and naturally. Practitioners are encouraged only to go at the speed of trust and to always nurture the client’s sense of being safe, give them options, and invite agency in moving to vulnerable places. The healing of the many parts within opens us up to being curious about, having compassion for, being connected to, etc., the many others without. Freshly harmonised and revitalised parts transform us and allow reconciliation with, and witness to, others.⁵⁶ If the outpouring of the Spirit transforms individuals in the Pentecost account for the sake of the world, this happens in unpredictable ways so that the witness of God’s Self-/Spirit-led people can extend to the ends of the earth.

Last, openness to the unknown is not just a cognitive stance but a practical posture. As in the Early Church, where the overflow of the Spirit’s outpouring was an impulse towards witness and sharing the gifts received with others, this also takes place within many IFS circles (as is witnessed through its increasing popularity) with those who have experienced transformation. The unknown is in many ways the very foundation of creativity. The goal of IFS is not ultimately about persuading others to become part of the IFS community but cultivating the more subtle and embodied Self-presence, sensibilities that are full of vitality, engagement, and presence and are compassionate to and naturally curious towards others. And this is not primarily about effort (although it takes active participation) but actually flows from within the person now that the parts which were previously suffering have let go of their “burdens.” If the Spirit’s descent opens up a new way of relating to the unknowns of life (including aspects of oneself and the diversity of others) with care and wisdom, then now we have something of value not only to those who identify as Christians but to all of life.⁵⁷ And that truly is a Spirit poured out on all flesh, available to any open to a fresh revelation of the divine.⁵⁸

Bibliography

Beahrs, John O. Unity and Multiplicity: Multilevel Consciousness of Self in Hypnosis, Psychiatric Disorder and Mental Health. Brunner/Mazel, 1982.

Borg, Marcus J., and John Dominic Crossan. The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach about Jesus’s Final Days in Jerusalem. HarperCollins Publishers, 2007.

Braude, Stephen E. First Person Plural: Multiple Personality and the Philosophy of Mind. Routledge, 1991.

Carter, Rita. Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self. Little, Brown, 2008.

Churchouse, Matthew. The Spiritual Soul: New Pentecostal Insights on the Human Being. Wipf and Stock, 2024.

Coe, John H., and Todd W. Hall. Psychology in the Spirit: Contours of a Transformational Psychology. IVP Academic, 2010.

Cooper-White, Pamela. Many Voices: Pastoral Psychotherapy in Relational and Theological Perspective. Fortress, 2011.

Cornelius, Jennifer. “One Body, Multiple Personalities: A Pauline Approach to Dissociative Identity Disorder.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 56, no. 1 (2023): 91-97.

Elster, Jon, ed. The Multiple Self. Cambridge University Press, 1985. Fadiman, James, and Jordan Gruber. Your Symphony of Selves: Discover and Understand More of Who We Are. Park Street, 2020.

French, Haley R. “Counselling in the Spirit: The Outworking of a Pneumatological Hermeneutic in the Praxis of Pentecostal Therapists.” Practical Theology 10, no. 3 (2017): 263-76.

Gilbert, Marvin G., and Raymond T. Brock, eds. The Holy Spirit and Counseling. 2 Vols. Hendrickson, 1985-1988.

Grenz, Stanley J. The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei. Westminster John Knox, 2001.

Johnson, Eric L., ed. Christianity and Psychology: Five Views, 2nd ed. IVP Academic, 2010.

Kopald, Seth. Self-Led: Living a Connected Life with Yourself and with Others. Exploration, 2023.

Lester, David. A Multiple Self Theory of Personality. Nova Science, 2010.

O’Connor, Elizabeth. Our Many Selves: A Handbook for Self-Discovery. Harper & Row, 1971.

Parker, Stephen. “Psychological Formation: A Pentecostal Pneumatology and Implications for Therapy.” In The Holy Spirit and Christian Formation, edited by Diane J. Chandler. CHARIS: Christianity and Renewal – Interdisciplinary Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

Radden, Jennifer. Divided Minds and Successive Selves: Ethical Issues in Disorders of Identity and Personality. Philosophical Psychopathology: Disorders in Mind. MIT, 1996.

Riemersma, Jenna, ed. Altogether Us: Integrating the IFS Model with Key Modalities, Communities, and Trends. Pivotal, 2023.

Rogers, Frank, Jr. “Warriors of Compassion: Coordinates on the Compass of Compassion-Based Activism.” In Taking It to the Streets: Public Theologies of Activism and Resistance, edited by Jennifer Baldwin. Lexington, 2019.

Rowan, John. Subpersonalities: The People Inside Us. Routledge, 1990.

Rowan, John, and Mick Cooper. “Introduction: Self-Plurality – The One and the Many.” In The Plural Self: Multiplicity in Everyday Life, edited by John Rowan and Mick Cooper. Sage, 1999.

Schonfeld, Irvin Sam, and Chu-Hsiang Chang. Occupational Health Psychology. Springer, 2017.

Schwartz, Richard C. No Bad Parts: Healing Trauma & Restoring Wholeness with the Internal Family Systems Model. Sounds True, 2021.

Schwartz, Richard C. “Releasing the Soul: Psychotherapy as a Spiritual Practice.” In Spiritual Resources in Family Therapy, edited by Froma Walsh. Guilford, 1999.

Schwartz, Richard C., and Martha Sweezy. Internal Family Systems Therapy. 2nd ed. Guilford, 2020.

Schwartz, Richard C., and Robert R. Falconer. Many Minds, One Self: Evidence for a Radical Shift in Paradigm. Trailhead, 2017.

Steege, Mary. The Spirit-Led Life: Christianity and the Internal Family. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2010.

Stern, Steven. “The Self as a Relational Structure: A Dialogue with Multiple Self Theory.” Psychoanalytic Dialogues 12, no. 5 (2002): 693-724.

Strawn, Brad D., and Warren S. Brown. The Physical Nature of Christian Life: Neuroscience, Psychology, and the Church. Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Sutton, Geoffrey W. Counseling and Psychotherapy with Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians. 2 Vols. Sunflower, 2020.

Tan, Siang-Yang. Counseling and Psychotherapy: A Christian Perspective, 2nd ed. Baker Academic, 2022.

Turner, Léon. Theology, Psychology, and the Plural Self. Ashgate, 2008.

Vining, John Kie. Spirit-Centered Counseling: A Pneumascriptive Approach. Cummings & Hathaway, 1995.

Vining, John Kie, ed. The Spirit of the Lord Is Upon Me: Essential Papers on Spirit-Filled Caregiving –Theological Foundations. Cummings & Hathaway, 1997.

Vining, John Kie, and Edward E. Decker, Jr., eds. Soul Care: A Pentecostal-Charismatic Approach. Cummings & Hathaway, 1996.

Yong, Aizaiah G. “All Mixed Up: Multi/Racial Liberation and Compassion-Based Activism.” Religions 11, no. 8 (August 6, 2020): 402 (14 pgs). https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11080402.

Yong, Aizaiah G. “Critical Race Theory Meets Internal Family Systems: Toward a Compassion Spirituality for a Multireligious and Multiracial World.” Buddhist–Christian Studies 40, no. 1 (2020): 439-47. https://doi.org/10.1353/bcs.2020.0024.

Yong, Amos. 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.

Yong, Amos. The Hermeneutical Spirit: Theological Interpretation and the Scriptural Imagination for the 21st Century. Cascade, 2017.

Yong, Amos. The Heteroglossic Spirit: Unruly Tongues and Translations after Pentecost. Edited by Ekaputra Tupamahu. Cascade, 2026.

Yong, Amos. “Many Tongues, Many Biocultural Niches: A Pentecostal Missiological Response to Language Endangerment and Environmental Degradation.” In Pentecostal Missiology and Environmental Degradation, edited by Eugene Baron and Amos Yong. Langham Global, 2025.

Yong, Amos. “Many Tongues, Many Senses: Pentecost, the Body Politic, and the Redemption of Dis/Ability.” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 31, no. 2 (2009): 167-88.

Yong, Amos. “Many Tongues, Many Translations: Ecosemiotics and the Gift of Interpretation of Tongues in the Age of the Anthropocene.” In Voice of Creation: Pentecostals Engaging Scripture for Ecological Renewal, edited by John Griffiths, Jacqui Grey, and Dani Rizzo. CHARIS: Christianity and Renewal – Interdisciplinary Studies. Palgrave/Springer, forthcoming.

Yong, Amos. Mission after Pentecost: The Witness of the Spirit from Genesis to Revelation. Mission in Global Community. Baker Academic, 2019.

Yong, Amos. Renewing the Church by the Spirit: Theological Education after Pentecost. Theological Education between the Times. Eerdmans, 2020.

Yong, Amos. “Sin, Science, and the Spirit: A Pentecostal Reading of Luke-Acts.” In Reading St. Luke’s Text and Theology: Pentecostal Voices – Essays in Honor of Roger Stronstad, edited by Riku P. Tuppurainen. Wipf and Stock, 2019.

Yong, Amos. The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal-Charismatic Imagination. Pentecostal Manifestos 4. Eerdmans, 2011.

Yong, Amos. Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace. Baylor University Press, 2012.

Yong, Amos. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology. Baker Academic, 2005.

Yong, Amos. Who is the Holy Spirit? A Walk with the Apostles. Paraclete, 2011.

Youngs, Samuel J. “‘Ask, Wish, and Believe through Another’: Dissociative Identity Disorder and a Renewed Doctrine of Fides Aliena.” In Disability Theology and Eschatology: Hope, Justice, and Flourishing, edited by Preston McDaniel Hill and Aaron Brian Davis. Lexington, 2025.

¹ Unless part of a proper noun, pentecostal is not capitalised as we use such adjectivally. We are aware that pentecostal counsellors (so-called formerly) therapists, and, more recently, scholars have been working on articulating approaches to their efforts more intentionally rooted in the spirituality and theology of the movement, going back now almost a generation, e.g., incipiently, Marvin G. Gilbert and Raymond T. Brock, eds., The Holy Spirit and Counseling, 2 vols. (Hendrickson, 1985-1988), and the extensive work of John Kie Vining, e.g., Vining and Edward E. Decker, Jr., eds., Soul Care: A Pentecostal-Charismatic Approach (Cummings & Hathaway, 1996), and Vining, ed., The Spirit of the Lord Is Upon Me: Essential Papers on Spirit-Filled Caregiving–Theological Foundations (Cummings & Hathaway, 1997); to more recently, Stephen Parker, “Psychological Formation: A Pentecostal Pneumatology and Implications for Therapy,” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Formation, ed. Diane J. Chandler, CHARIS: Christianity and Renewal–Interdisciplinary Studies (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 48-67, and Geoffrey W. Sutton, Counseling and Psychotherapy with Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians, 2 vols. (Sunflower, 2020); not to mention also the emergence of the pentecostal journal Salubritas: An International Journal of Spirit-Empowered Counseling in 2021. Our work in this paper is not oblivious to these achievements but presumes a more expansive and exploratory pneumatological starting point, one we hope our colleagues in the pentecostal space will find at least provocative, if not also helpful.

² It is important to note that the literature on the Holy Spirit and counselling/therapy has also been growing over the last generation, not only by pentecostal practitioners/scholars from (earlier) John Kie Vining, Spirit-Centered Counseling: A Pneumascriptive Approach (Cummings & Hathaway, 1995); to (more recently) Haley R. French, “Counselling in the Spirit: The Outworking of a Pneumatological Hermeneutic in the Praxis of Pentecostal Therapists,” Practical Theology 10, no. 3 (2017): 263-76; but also among those more broadly evangelically (not to mention also ecumenically) oriented, including John H. Coe and Todd W. Hall, Psychology in the Spirit: Contours of a Transformational Psychology (IVP Academic, 2010); and Siang-Yang Tan, Counseling and Psychotherapy: A Christian Perspective, 2nd ed. (Baker Academic, 2022), ch. 16. Our pneumatological efforts, as should be clear, are, for this exercise, strictly delimited to engaging the Pentecost narrative via a theological hermeneutic.

³ For more on our pentecostal but also after-Pentecost theological construction, see, e.g., Amos Yong, Renewing the Church by the Spirit: Theological Education after Pentecost, Theological Education between the Times (Eerdmans, 2020) and Mission after Pentecost: The Witness of the Spirit from Genesis to Revelation, Mission in Global Community (Baker Academic, 2019), esp. ch. 1.

⁴ This is a theology-and-science model worked out by Amos Yong in The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal-Charismatic Imagination, Pentecostal Manifestos 4 (Eerdmans, 2011), esp. ch. 2.

⁵ Unless noted otherwise, all scriptural references will be to the New Revised Standard Version.

⁶ Including contemporary pentecostally inspired accounts for a holistic dualism like that of Matthew Churchouse in The Spiritual Soul: New Pentecostal Insights on the Human Being (Wipf and Stock, 2024).

⁷ E.g., Stanley J. Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei (Westminster John Knox, 2001), representing the latter, and Brad D. Strawn and Warren S. Brown, The Physical Nature of Christian Life: Neuroscience, Psychology, and the Church (Cambridge University Press, 2012), along the former avenue.

⁸ Ch. 1 of David Lester, A Multiple Self Theory of Personality (Nova Science, 2010), provides an excellent synopsis of these and other theories of self-multiplicity.

⁹ Beginning with Jon Elster, ed., The Multiple Self (Cambridge University Press, 1985).

¹⁰ See John O. Beahrs, MD, Unity and Multiplicity: Multilevel Consciousness of Self in Hypnosis, Psychiatric Disorder and Mental Health (Brunner/Mazel, 1982), esp. chs. 5-7.

¹¹ See Jennifer Radden, Divided Minds and Successive Selves: Ethical Issues in Disorders of Identity and Personality, Philosophical Psychopathology: Disorders in Mind (MIT, 1996).

¹² E.g., Rita Carter, Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self (Little, Brown, 2008), ch. 6, and James Fadiman and Jordan Gruber, Your Symphony of Selves: Discover and Understand More of Who We Are (Park Street, 2020), ch. 12. One theologian has begun to re-theorise and re-theologise DID in relation to self-multiplicity models, including IFS: e.g., Samuel J. Youngs, “‘Ask, Wish, and Believe Through Another’: Dissociative Identity Disorder and a Renewed Doctrine of Fides Aliena,” in Disability Theology and Eschatology: Hope, Justice, and Flourishing, ed. Preston McDaniel Hill and Aaron Brian Davis (Lexington, 2025), ch. 7.

¹³ Clinically speaking, the jury is still out about application of IFS to those on the more delusional end of the DID spectrum; more research needs to be done in this direction.

¹⁴ As Weber analysed it, the asceticism of Puritanism was at risk of being bureaucratised in modern capitalism to produce automatons fitted into the organisational machine. Psychologists have analysed such in terms of the formalised and routinised “iron cages” of the worker/labourer; see Irvin Sam Schonfeld and Chu-Hsiang Chang, Occupational Health Psychology (Springer, 2017), 5-7.

¹⁵ The range of these more “postmodern” approaches have been summarised in the editors’ “Introduction: Self-Plurality—The One and the Many,” to The Plural Self: Multiplicity in Everyday Life, ed. John Rowan and Mick Cooper (Sage, 1999), 1-9, esp. 2-3.

¹⁶ See John Rowan, Subpersonalities: The People Inside Us (Routledge, 1990), esp. ch. 8.

¹⁷ Lester, A Multiple Self Theory of Personality, xi.

¹⁸ Beahrs, Unity and Multiplicity, 182.

¹⁹ Stephen E. Braude, First Person Plural: Multiple Personality and the Philosophy of Mind (Routledge, 1991), 90.

²⁰ Fadiman and Gruber, Your Symphony of Selves, ch. 3.

²¹ Léon Turner, Theology, Psychology, and the Plural Self (Ashgate, 2008), 179.

²² An excellent summary of the variations and contestations to the model is found in Jenna Riemersma, ed., Altogether Us: Integrating the IFS Model with Key Modalities, Communities, and Trends (Pivotal, 2023).

²³ We rely here on Richard C. Schwartz and Martha Sweezy, Internal Family Systems Therapy, 2nd ed. (Guilford, 2020).

²⁴ Richard C. Schwartz, No Bad Parts: Healing Trauma & Restoring Wholeness with the Internal Family Systems Model (Sounds True, 2021), 30-40.

²⁵ See Schwartz and Sweezy, Internal Family Systems Therapy, ch. 3.

²⁶ Schwartz and Sweezy, Internal Family Systems Therapy, 49.

²⁷ Schwartz and Sweezy, Internal Family Systems Therapy, 252.

²⁸ Schwartz and Sweezy, Internal Family Systems Therapy, 272, 277.

²⁹ Schwartz and Sweezy, Internal Family Systems Therapy, 279.

³⁰ Richard C. Schwartz and Robert R. Falconer, Many Minds, One Self: Evidence for a Radical Shift in Paradigm (Trailhead, 2017), chs. 7-8, apply IFS also to multiple and dissociative identity disorders, seeking to depathologise these diagnoses via a constructive dialogical approach to these inner voices, experiences, and parts.

³¹ E.g., Schwartz and Sweezy, Internal Family Systems Therapy, ch. 2, and Schwartz and Falconer, Many Minds, One Self, ch. 6, both identify how IFS draws on but also diverges from many of the multiplicity models we discussed, and many others we did not include, in the previous section of this essay.

³² Two decades ago, Amos could publish a book with a more grandiose understanding of a global pentecostal Christianity, e.g., The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Baker Academic, 2005), which usefully charts a moment in the emergence of pentecostal (academic) theologising when we could still speak of such in the singular.

³³ Our turn to the Book of Acts specifically is further elaborated on in Amos Yong, Who is the Holy Spirit? A Walk with the Apostles (Paraclete, 2011).

³⁴ Until now, the closest either of us have come to what might be considered psychological exegesis is in Amos’s prior thinking about what he then called “The Social-Psychology of Sin: A Pentecostal Perspective,” Faith & Science Conference plenary lecture, Evangel University, Springfield, Missouri, September 23, 2016, the published version of which was “Sin, Science, and the Spirit: A Pentecostal Reading of Luke-Acts,” in Reading St. Luke’s Text and Theology: Pentecostal Voices—Essays in Honor of Roger Stronstad, ed. Riku P. Tuppurainen (Wipf and Stock, 2019), 159-72, reprinted in Yong, The Hermeneutical Spirit: Theological Interpretation and the Scriptural Imagination for the 21st Century (Cascade, 2017), ch. 7.

³⁵ Unless otherwise noted, all biblical quotations will be from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

³⁶ Initially formulated in Amos Yong, “Many Tongues, Many Senses: Pentecost, the Body Politic, and the Redemption of Dis/Ability,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 31, no. 2 (2009): 167-88, reprinted in Yong, The Hermeneutical Spirit: Theological Interpretation and the Scriptural Imagination for the 21st Century (Cascade Books, 2017), ch. 4.

³⁷ For the argument about linguistic multiplicity as primordial to humanness, see Amos Yong, “Many Tongues, Many Biocultural Niches: A Pentecostal Missiological Response to Language Endangerment and Environmental Degradation,” in Pentecostal Missiology and Environmental Degradation, ed. Eugene Baron and Amos Yong (Langham Global, 2025), 81-105.

³⁸ See also Mary Steege, The Spirit-Led Life: Christianity and the Internal Family (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2010).

³⁹ See Jennifer Cornelius, “One Body, Multiple Personalities: A Pauline Approach to Dissociative Identity Disorder,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 56, no. 1 (2023): 91-97.

⁴⁰ Pamela Cooper-White, Many Voices: Pastoral Psychotherapy in Relational and Theological Perspective (Fortress, 2011), 206.

⁴¹ Elizabeth O’Connor, Our Many Selves: A Handbook for Self-Discovery (Harper & Row, 1971), 27.

⁴² Steven Stern, “The Self as a Relational Structure: A Dialogue with Multiple Self Theory,” Psychoanalytic Dialogues 12, no. 5 (2002): 693-724, at 694-95.

⁴³ Nicely described in Eric L. Johnson, ed., Christianity and Psychology: Five Views, 2nd ed. (IVP Academic, 2010).

⁴⁴ For elements of our pneumatological interpretation of Scripture approach, see Yong, Hermeneutical Spirit.

⁴⁵ Going back to Amos Yong’s first book, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 20 (Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 32.

⁴⁶ Ours is a more specific Pentecost-elaboration of what we can find in the chapter on “Self-Led Spirituality” in Seth Kopald, Self-Led: Living a Connected Life with Yourself and with Others (Exploration, 2023), 101-15.

⁴⁷ We understand inter-justice as involving: “a (re)claiming of personal agency and dignity amidst the experiences of oppression and also taking time intentionally to seek out, build relationships with, listen, and take actions of solidarity with those who are experiencing different forms of systemic oppression (that is not evident to oneself because of systems of power and privilege), all the while holding the space to overcome the innate temptation to demonise and view oneself as superior to others; see Aizaiah G. Yong, “All Mixed up: Multi/Racial Liberation and Compassion-Based Activism,” Religions 11, no. 8 (August 6, 2020): 402 (14 pgs.), https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11080402.

⁴⁸ Schwartz, No Bad Parts, 98.

⁴⁹ Schwartz, No Bad Parts, 99.

⁵⁰ See also Aizaiah G. Yong, “Critical Race Theory Meets Internal Family Systems: Toward a Compassion Spirituality for a Multireligious and Multiracial World,” Buddhist–Christian Studies 40, no. 1 (2020): 439-47, https://doi.org/10.1353/bcs.2020.0024.

⁵¹ See Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan, The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach about Jesus’s Final Days in Jerusalem (HarperCollins Publishers, 2007).

⁵² For more on Cretans, see §6.10 of Yong, Mission after Pentecost, 222-25.

⁵³ See Frank Rogers Jr., “Warriors of Compassion: Coordinates on the Compass of Compassion-Based Activism,” in Taking It to the Streets: Public Theologies of Activism and Resistance, ed. Jennifer Baldwin (Lexington, 2019), 25-42.

⁵⁴ Schwartz, No Bad Parts, 99.

⁵⁵ For more on the gift of the Spirit and the Spirit’s gift/s, see Amos Yong, Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace (Baylor University Press, 2012).

⁵⁶ Intriguingly, Schwartz has himself understood his model of the self as a witness, first and foremost a compassionate witness, with and to the many parts within; see Schwartz, “Releasing the Soul: Psychotherapy as a Spiritual Practice,” in Spiritual Resources in Family Therapy, ed. Froma Walsh (Guilford, 1999), 223-39, esp. 229-30 and 232-33.

⁵⁷ Including other animals and biological life; see Amos Yong, “Many Tongues, Many Translations: Ecosemiotics and the Gift of Interpretation of Tongues in the Age of the Anthropocene,” in Voice of Creation: Pentecostals Engaging Scripture for Ecological Renewal, ed. John Griffiths, Jacqui Grey, and Dani Rizzo, CHARIS: Christianity and Renewal—Interdisciplinary Studies (Palgrave/Springer, forthcoming); see also Yong, The Heteroglossic Spirit: Unruly Tongues and Translations after Pentecost, ed. Ekaputra Tupamahu (Cascade, 2026), ch. 12.

⁵⁸ Thanks to Siang Yang Tan, Haley French, and Jie Yun Wong for feedback on the penultimate draft of this paper; they are not to be held responsible for any errors of fact or interpretation that remain our own.

Learning from and Engaging with Yong and Yong on the Post-Pentecost Exploration of Internal Family Systems (IFS)

Wonsuk Ma

This is another “boundary-pushing” exploration of Amos Yong, now ably co-authored with his son, Aizaiah Yong, a trained IFS psychospiritual practitioner. The Internal Family Systems, although broadly practised in the psychotherapy world, is a new area for me to learn. My brief conversation with my son, who is studying professional counselling, was also useful. Therefore, reading the Yong–Yong presentation was, first, a learning experience. To an Asian Pentecostal who has researched the Old Testament, particularly the Spirit of God, this study afforded several parallel contact points. This conversation may enhance the exploratory journey between Pentecostal theology and psychology, both on the theoretical and practical levels.

The Yong duo sets human wellness and harmony as the ultimate goal of Pentecostal theology and the IFS practice. This shared destiny makes the conversation between the two spheres plausible or even promising. The “many tongues” in Acts 2 provide a useful imagery for the multiplicity of a person assumed by IFS. The presentation finds that the traditional Christian understanding of a person, either tri- or dichotomist, resonates with the IFS understanding. The Scripture indicates the multiplicity of a person and the disharmony or dissonance between the good “Self” and a “part.” For example, the psalmist in distress admonishes his soul, “Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God. My soul is downcast within me; therefore I will remember you from the land of the Jordan, the heights of Hermon – from Mount Mizar” (Ps 42:5-6).¹

Similarly, Paul cries out his inner struggle between two tendencies, which can be easily viewed as a dissonance between the Self and a part: “For in my inner being I [Self] delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me [a part], waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?” (Rom 7:22-24).

In addition to the multiplicity of a person, the authors extend the concept to the “body” of Christ (the church). Then Christ, the head, is in parallel with the Self of IFS and “members” of the body with the “parts.” This is perhaps father-Yong’s theological creativity.

My personal learning was focused on the first two parts, “Dominant Theological and Psychological Models of Self-Multiplicity” and “Internal Family Systems.” The key feature of the IFS is the multiplicity of a person, comprising the Self and numerous sub-personal “parts.” The assumption of the Self’s inherent goodness aligns with the Confucian view of Mencius (c. 372 BC, 孟子), asserting the fundamental and innate goodness of a person (性善說). With an equally convincing counterpart (性惡說), first advocated by Xunzi (c. 313 BC, 荀子), these two opposing theories well recognise the propensity of humans towards the other direction. Understandably, each proposes remedies to bring a person towards goodness, either by keeping the “nature” (of goodness for the Mencius school) or by “nurture” (towards goodness for the Xunzi school).

The Confucian thought, including both theories of human nature, strives to achieve harmony. It is well expressed in the “Great Learning” (大學):² “Cultivating oneself, regulating the family, governing the state, and bringing peace to the world” (修身齊家治國平天下). Universal harmony begins with the cultivation of virtues on a personal level, expanding to the family and the nation. I cannot help but observe IFS’s resonance with Oriental philosophy.

Theologically speaking, the assumption of the Self’s goodness will need to resolve the consequences of the Fall, strongly present in both Testaments. The swing among psychologists between the negative (e.g., dissociative identity disorders – DID) and constructive views of personal multiplicity indicates the complexity of a person. The Confucian schools long ago recognised the limitation of a binary understanding of human nature.

This reflection from the Asian cultural milieu exemplifies a fruitful application of the IFS concept in diverse cultural contexts. Building on the IFS’s engagement with the Asian thought world, the leadership of the Self resonates well within the Asian cultural framework, where the father’s leadership role within a family is paramount. Another Confucian teaching is on the moral rules of the five relationships (五倫), claimed to have originated from Mencius. Three of the five relationships are familial: an affectionate parent–child relationship, the distinct roles of husband and wife, and a hierarchical elder–younger relationship.³ The harmony of a family is achieved through the healthy three relationships, and at the apex is the father–son relationship. Therefore, the wellness of the family is predicated on the firm yet benevolent leadership of the father, shaped through a disciplined cultivation of virtues. This able leadership holds the family together in harmony with each member (often of the extended family) caring for one another. Maintaining and enhancing honour to the family is an external aspiration. The honour-suicide tradition in Japan, heavily influenced by Confucian values, is an extreme example of the crucial role of the family.

Now, how do Pentecostals understand and contribute to the IFS as a psychological theory and practice? Or how do Pentecostals factor the Holy Spirit in this conversation with IFS? First, the eight characteristics/values/virtues (8 Cs), presumably proposed by Richard Schwartz and Martha Sweezy,⁴ evoke the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). For example, “compassion” in the 8 Cs parallels with love, kindness, and goodness of the Spirit’s fruit; calmness with self-control; confidence with patience. Spirit-filled therapists can benefit from comparing these two value sets.

Second, is there a place for spiritual gifts in the development of IFS theories and practices? Since the goal of IFS practitioners is human wholeness and wellness through emotional healing, the prayerful exercise of spiritual gifts, such as healing, words of wisdom and knowledge, and discernment, would directly strengthen Spirit-filled (IFS) therapists’ practices.

Third, IFS’s goal for life’s flourishing calls for the life-giving work of the Spirit, which has been traditionally sidestepped by Pentecostal scholarship. The coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2) is in fact the “recovery” of the “breath/image/Spirit” originally endowed to humans (Gen 1:26; 2:5). As elaborated elsewhere, the Creator graciously endowed into humans, the apex of God’s creation, the “unidentified extension of his personality” (or the “God-matter”). Its presence afforded humans a privileged status among creatures, allowing rare “relatability” with God, each other, and God’s creation, and a royal-priestly mission to “rule” the creation with God-given authority (1:26-28). I contend that sin dramatically “corrupted” this God-matter in us, and God’s plan for the restoration of his creation set a priority in restoring this “extension” of his in humans.⁵ Thus, the ultimate interest of God in creation and re-creation is the fullness and wellness of life, in harmony, peace (shalom), quietness and security (Isa 32:15-18). It is encouraging to see a growing number of studies in psychology taking the life-giving work of the Holy Spirit in counselling.

Fourth, how is the “empowering” work of the Holy Spirit applied to IFS thinking and practice? Yes, the therapist can pray for the Spirit’s empowerment over him or herself. Would then a Spirit-filled IFS counsellor invite the Holy Spirit to empower the “Self” to bring harmony by exercising its benevolent authority over the constituent “members”? Would it be possible to “heal” a “burdened,” “managing,” “firefighting,” or “exiled” member by the power of the Holy Spirit?

Last, the preceding question leads to the need for boundary-setting. Any sound interdisciplinary dialogue and engagement take place with an awareness of each discipline’s boundaries. For the theological side, the Scripture becomes its foundation for identifying limits. The recent Pentecostal interface with psychology occurred in the rise of the Third Wave movement. In its inner healing teaching and practice, Third Wave advocates proposed the concept of “inner child” (as a concept borrowed from psychology – I was told). When I participated in a “lab” session after a “Power Encounter” class, the professor led an inner healing session. In the process, two inner children of the person being healed were called, one eleven years old and the other five years old. For the healing of the five-year-old inner child, the healer (professor) asked the eleven-year-old inner child to lead the five-year-old one to Jesus. If the concept serves as an imagery to enhance the therapy process and the patient’s understanding, it is fine. However, when the inner child assumes personality, my theological mind flagged immediately.⁶ I must confess that I am not fully versed in how the psychology world understands this concept. This illustrates (Pentecostal) theology’s boundary/limit in interdisciplinary conversations.

Reading and engaging with this boundary-pushing study was my delight. It initially challenged my limited psychology knowledge, and this may be a purpose of the study. It encourages both disciplines – (Pentecostal) theology and psychology – to take a vulnerable step towards the less familiar territory. It requires an open and charitable heart. Christian charity involves both offering our gifts and gratefully receiving the other’s gifts. For this reason, reading this study was a spiritual experience as well.

Bibliography

Confucius. “The Great Learning.” The Internet Classics Archive. 500 B.C.E. https://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/learning.html.

Legge, James, trans. The Four Books and Three Classics. Hong Kong University Press, 1960.

Ma, Wonsuk. “A ‘First Waver’ Looks at the ‘Third Wave’: A Pentecostal Reflection on Charles Kraft’s Power Encounter Terminology.” Pneuma 19, no. 2 (1997): 191-92.

Ma, Wonsuk. “The Spirit and Leadership: Where It All Began…” Malaysian Pentecostal Journal 2 (2024): 26-32.

Schwartz, Richard C., and Martha Sweezy. Internal Family Systems Therapy. 2nd ed. Guilford, 2020.

¹ All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the New International Version.

² A collection of Confucius’ teachings. Confucius, “The Great Learning,” The Internet Classics Archive, 500 BCE, https://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/learning.html.

³ The teaching of the “Three Bonds and Five Cardinal Virtues” (三綱五倫) runs through the Four Books and Three Classics (四書五經), collected and edited from the eleventh to the third century BC. The Four Books are Great Learning, Doctrine of the Mean, Analects, and Mencius. The Five Classics are Classic of Poetry, Book of Documents, Book of Rites, I Ching (Book of Changes), and Spring and Autum Annals. James Legge, trans., The Four Books and Three Classics (Hong Kong University Press, 1960).

⁴ Richard C. Schwartz and Martha Sweezy, Internal Family Systems Therapy, 2nd ed. (Guilford, 2020).

⁵ For example, Wonsuk Ma, “The Spirit and Leadership: Where It All Began…,” Malaysian Pentecostal Journal 2 (2024): 26-32.

⁶ Wonsuk Ma, “A ‘First Waver’ Looks at the ‘Third Wave’: A Pentecostal Reflection on Charles Kraft’s Power Encounter Terminology,” Pneuma 19, no. 2 (1997): 191-92.

Session 3

Pentecostals and the Mystical Threefold Path in Historic Christian Spirituality: Strengthening the Inner Being with Power through the Spirit

Roger Heuser

Abstract

Increasingly, scholars have framed Pentecostals’ theological identity and spirituality flowing in multiple streams of Christianity, including the historic, mystical stream. What can we learn from the mystical forbearers of Christian faith? What does mystical theology have to offer a Spirit-empowered global Christianity? Could the mystics’ theological understanding of the soul’s journey towards intimate union with God inform Pentecostal understandings of sanctification and spiritual formation? My aim in this paper is to explore the theological-metaphorical frameworks used by Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross who, among others in mystical theology, described the soul’s journey in what has come to be known as the Threefold Path – the Way of Purgation (Purification), the Way of Illumination, and the Way of Union. I will also summarise potential lessons for Pentecostals to consider in accentuating the Spirit-abiding presence of the soul’s journey towards Christlikeness.

Key Words: John of the Cross, mystical experiences, mystical union with Christ, Pentecostal spirituality, Threefold Mystical Path, Teresa of Avila

Introduction

The early Pentecostals believed that the inner life of the Spirit, bearing witness to their deep, spiritual hunger, was indispensably related to divine experiences of outward manifestations of the Spirit. Describing the spiritual desires of participants at the Azusa Street Mission, Cecil Robeck recounts how those present were challenged to “wrestle with God” and know “beyond a shadow of a doubt that God stands ready to pour out His Spirit in fresh ways once again, if only our souls, like the deer that pants after streams of water, would pant with the same level of passion after God (Ps 42:1). Something new, something wonderful had happened before their eyes. They had encountered God in all God’s fullness!”¹

Over a century after the Azusa Street revival, the experiential spirituality of Pentecostalism continues to be the wellspring that energises its rapid, far-reaching expansion into developing nations. Marius Nel describes an African Pentecostal spirituality that he believes is best understood in the mystical stream of Christianity. The interactive worship experiences of believers reveal their deeply felt emotions expressed in dance, laughter, weeping in joy or sadness, and waiting in stillness.² Nimi Wariboko explains that “For some believers, the pleasures come from the excitement of the body and its senses; and for others, they are from pure contemplation of the divine”³ (emphasis added). Amos Yong points out that this “… pietist-Pentecostal border-and-boundary-crossing missionary movement that has shaped large swaths of contemporary world Christianity … [its] palpable heart-devotion and religiosity are now manifest in many regions, cultures, and languages around the world.”⁴ The energising message of Pentecostalism promotes the normalcy of persons being vessels of the Holy Spirit, who are not only engaged in expressive worship but also embrace an inspired agency that empowers innovative leadership and expressions of sacrificial service. The multiple forms of Pentecostalism and respective spiritualities are expressed in different cultural contexts that include different phases within revival movements and different stages of institutionalisation.⁵

The origins of Pentecostalism and its ensuing renewal movements have continued to flow through porous boundaries – to and from multiple traditions in Christian faith. Perhaps surprising to some, scholars are increasingly framing the theological identity and spirituality of Pentecostalism among the mystical streams of Christianity.⁶ Along with Pentecostal renewal movements, there continues to be a growing interest in spirituality that has resulted in an ecumenical fountainhead of writings from Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant backgrounds, which has crossed the denominational boundaries of readers as well. Contemporary writers have probed and expanded the lessons learned from mystical writers in historic Christian spirituality, whose main focus was on the believer’s inner dynamics of being transformed into intimate union with Christ.

Pentecostal spirituality accentuates the expressive, often dramatic experiences of the Spirit rather than the contemplative, often hidden, interior life of the Spirit. Embracing the contemplative and expressive dimensions of Christian spirituality, Frank Macchia highlights the beauty of humanity’s transcendent experiences, explaining that

Our inner self lives from and yearns for God. It seems there is no other way of fully explaining the persistent and widespread reach of humanity for transcendence apart from our existence as souls. The theological correlate of this insight is that we were made for a divine presence that indwells us deep within so as to bring the life of the soul to fulfilment. … In the Spirit, we are driven toward ecstasy, to find ourselves beyond ourselves in God and (after Christ’s image) for others. We are led to transcend ourselves in worship (ecstatic delight and celebration), in communion (mutual participation in life), and in witness (declaring the wonders of God). Yet we maintain our unique centres in God.⁷

One’s intimate experience of God that accentuates divine attributes of power, light, goodness, beauty, or joy has been described by James Thomas Dubay as a “mystical touch” – a divine union when God gives someone the unspeakable experiences of himself in contemplative immersion.⁸

Pentecostals are well acquainted with biblical texts that accentuate the more dramatic, mystical encounters with God, such as Elijah’s encounter with nature’s disruptions, but thereafter concluding that God was in the “sound of sheer silence” (1 Kgs 19:11-13).⁹ Luke records the hallmark passage for Pentecostals that included the phenomena of “a sound like the rush of a violent wind … divided tongues of fire resting on each of them … [and those who were all] filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them the ability” (Acts 2:1-4). Pentecostals do not question the authenticity of Peter’s vision of unclean animals in a sheet lowered from heaven with a voice that told him to kill and eat them against his deeply held convictions according to Hebrew dietary laws (10:9-16). Paul reports in 2 Corinthians that he knew someone “who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven – whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows” (12:2). Paul then goes on to report a “thorn in the flesh” that was given to him (a messenger of Satan) to torment and keep him from being “too elated” (v. 7b). After appealing three times in prayer, the Lord says to Paul, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” (v. 9a). Paul concludes, “So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me” (v. 9b).

The mystical experiences portrayed in Scripture are often used as analogous arguments for contemporary experiences of the supernatural within Pentecostal movements. But these accounts of mystical experiences also point to an interior transformation that effects the participant’s reframing of reality. Paul’s statements that Christ’s “power is made perfect in weakness” is a polarity (interdependent opposites leading to “both/and” thinking) that most find difficult to understand, except for the mystics whose lives were changed.¹⁰

Though the term “mysticism” is seldom used among Pentecostals (and most Protestants), the adjective mystikos (“hidden”) was widely used among Christians beginning in the second century CE. Patristic theological roots (roughly 200-600 CE) eventually evolved into what became known as “mystical theology” (beginning in 500-600 CE), which continued to flourish in subsequent centuries in both Eastern and Western traditions until rationalism’s predominance during the Enlightenment period (1650-1900 CE). However, since the late nineteenth century, there has been a growing academic interest in mysticism¹¹ with particular attention on Christian mysticism that represents a recovery of patristic and medieval sources along with contemporary writings in Christian spirituality.

Of particular interest is that which Bernard McGinn points out in his lifelong study of mysticism: Christian mystical writers emphasised that one’s inner transformation towards mystical union with God was more important than the phenomenon itself. The distinction of inner transformation is important in defining Christian mysticism as a “… knowing and loving based on states of awareness in which God becomes present in our inner acts, not as an object to be grasped, but as the direct and transforming center of life.”¹² Mystical phenomena were seen as part of one’s spiritual “journeying” – a biblical metaphor used, for example, to describe the people of God in the Hebrew Scriptures over several centuries as well as the life of Jesus, the missionary trips of Paul, and multiple times as spiritual pilgrims thereafter.¹³

Relevant to one’s inner life transformation journey is the continuing interest in sixteenth-century Spanish authors Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, whose writings continue to function as exemplars in mystical theology. A common spiritual framework, used since Pseudo-Dionysius¹⁴ in the late fifteenth century, was the Threefold Mystical Path – the Way of Purgation (Purification), the Way of Illumination, and the Way of Union. The mystical writers did not use the current language of “sanctification” or “Spirit baptism” that have stimulated important theological convictions and differences among Pentecostals.¹⁵ Nevertheless, I hope that the following reflections on the Threefold Path will be considered by those in the praxis of ministry, who desire what Paul describes as “a strengthening of the inner being with power through the Spirit” (Eph 3:16) while engaged in Spirit-empowered ministry.

The Three Ways – Purgation, Illumination, and Union

As previously stated, the Threefold Mystical Path of spiritual development – Purgation, Illumination, and Union – has become known as a classical framework in Christian mystical theology for describing the soul’s journey towards union with God.¹⁶ Evelyn Underhill and others have inserted the “Awakening” stage that preceded purgation.¹⁷

The language of the “soul” was used in Christian mystical writings as a biblically grounded term that made it possible for humanity to experience a divine encounter with God. John of the Cross was trained in the scholastic anthropology that viewed the soul as an “embodied” self whose ultimate purpose was union with God. The “lower” part of the soul referred to the sensory aspects of human experience (sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell), emotions, and internal senses (imagination, sensory memory). The soul’s “higher” part related to the spiritual aspect that – in addition to the sensory aspect – engaged the intellect, will, and memory. For Teresa, the soul was like an “interior” castle (or a beautiful crystal/diamond) of God’s dwelling that was made up of seven “mansions” or “dwelling places.” Within each mansion there were many rooms where one may live for a while before moving to another room or to another mansion. She was convinced that few people knew much about their soul with its unique, intricate magnificence and mystical depths. For Teresa, prayer was the door to explore one’s inner life of the castle. Prayer enables the soul to explore the many rooms and dwelling places on its journey to the centre where “His Majesty” dwells. Christians ever since have used Teresa’s metaphorical language to theologically understand their own spiritual growth. Explaining the soul’s sanctifying journey towards union with Christ, Dallas Willard writes:

We are meant to occupy every room or “dwelling place” [mansion] with God, and thereby to become the radiant beings which he intends … Dwelling places Five through Seven proved to be, for me, the finest treatments of union with Christ and with God that I have found in spiritual literature … for the phenomenology, the descriptive analysis of the details of what it is really like, nothing has ever surpassed Teresa’s Castle. Union with Christ – in regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification – is of all themes the one in most need of recovery today. And Teresa’s entire treatment of redemption in the spiritual life with Christ is unsurpassed and unlikely to be surpassed in the future.¹⁸

Teresa did not specifically frame her seven mansions within the Threefold Mystical Path. However, spiritual writers since have situated her first three mansions within the Purgative Way.

Purgation

Persons on the Purgative Way experience a growing awareness of God’s holiness that sheds light on one’s deep-rooted habits of the heart. The story of Zaccheaus illustrates that, when the divine invitation meets human desire, there is potentially a metanoia experience that results in a dramatic shift within the human heart that impacts radically changed behaviours. Regardless of the dramatic shifts in one’s “conversion,” Teresa believed that there often remains a continuing struggle to navigate one’s internal resistances and the lure of external enticements to stay on the narrow path.¹⁹

Teresa’s First Three Mansions

In the first mansion of the soul’s interior castle, Teresa describes the journey to the Bridegroom’s dwelling place in the castle’s centre. On the way, young believers are distracted with specific enticements described by Teresa as “possessions, honour, or business affairs” that dim the inner chamber’s light. Spiritual desires may be occasionally expressed, but this pattern can be more transactional. Teresa believed that the real need was to know the soul’s inner beauty of a maturing love.

In the second mansion, believers are drawn into a deeper study of Scripture and into the community’s fellowship. At the same time, evil’s compelling forces can persist with more intensity. As a result, some turn back to the “broad” road outside the gate. Like the rich young ruler, any threat to one’s wealth, status, and worldly pleasures can reveal one’s attachment to them. However, those who have persevered in prayer enter the third dwelling mansion. Teresa writes that those who enter the third mansion through prayer guard themselves “against venial [minor] sin, are fond of ascetical practices and periods of recollection, seek to use their time well, practice charity towards their neighbour, and maintain a balance in the use of speech and dress and in the management of their household. They are good Christians.”²⁰

The characteristics described by Teresa are certainly desirable in today’s congregations. However, both Teresa and John of the Cross argued that believers who were active in ministry could become “spiritually feeble,” primarily because they did not see their need to continue the path of purification amidst their active ministries. Perhaps our own experiences of vibrant worship and fruitfulness in ministries depict a spiritual atmosphere that begs the questions, “Who needs a dark night experience?” and “What exactly needs to be purged?”²¹ But Paul’s letters to the rapidly growing Early Church communities revealed a spiritual enthusiasm that co-existed with ruptured relationships, sexual misconduct, and the human capacity to rationalise one’s transgressions. Could it be that the “miracle workers” whom Jesus addressed in no uncertain terms believed that they were ministering to others in good conscience (Matt 7:21-23)? Any view of sanctification primarily concerned with external actions does not go deeply enough into the human psyche. Jesus offended the Pharisees, who wanted to keep things that defile in behavioural terms, when he taught that “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles” (15:11-20).

John’s Understanding of Attachments and “Dark Night”

John of the Cross called deeply engrained habits “inordinate attachments,” which he believed became “idols” whenever the soul over-identified with them and ended up with an “enslaved heart.”²² The progression of inordinate attachments is a familiar pattern. We become convinced that idols will satisfy our appetites, and perhaps they do, initially, but we never sufficiently reach a satisfying threshold. The more satisfaction we want from the addiction, the more it demands of us, while delivering less. In this state, John contends that the person is “unfree” to cultivate an intimate relationship with God, with oneself, or with others. As a result, the believer learns to rationalise and compartmentalise the God who is worshipped on Sunday from the “gods” who demand more of one’s soul during the week. The idols which individuals had hoped to satisfy their needs have become the masters they serve.

According to John of the Cross, human effort alone is woefully insufficient in freeing one’s enslaved heart from addictions. Instead, God transforms one’s inordinate attachments through the soul’s spiritual journey of “passive” surrender during a journey of the “dark night.” A common misunderstanding of dark night experiences assumes they are negative and better to be avoided. But the Spanish word for “dark” that John used is oscura, meaning “obscure.” Thus, the Spirit’s transforming work is often “hidden” in one’s experience of the “apophatic” dark night. This may be excruciatingly difficult, to be sure. But for John the dark night is, necessarily, spiritually powerful and purposeful. Psychiatrist Gerald May explains:

We cannot liberate ourselves; our defenses and resistances will not permit it … To guide us toward the love that we most desire, we must be taken where we could not and would not go on our own. … Deep in the darkness, way beneath our senses, God is instilling “another, better love” and “deeper, more urgent longings” that empower our willingness for all the necessary relinquishments along the way.²³

May substantiates the earlier claims of John of the Cross that the work of the Spirit, interiorly, was seen, not primarily as behavioural modification, but rather as a divine work of love that transforms the soul (psyche) into intimate union with Christ.

John’s Dark Night of the Senses – Purgative Transition into the Illuminative Way

John contended that, when involved in dedicated, fruitful ministry, God continues to nourish the soul through spiritual consolations, like a mother who caresses and nurses her child with nourishment. As time goes by, and the child grows older, the mother weans the child and teaches it to walk on its own. By analogy, the grace of God brings satisfaction to beginners through the spiritual nourishment of worship, fellowship, and prayer. As stated earlier, these consolations can become a false sense of security when beginners seek consolations from the spiritual experiences themselves.²⁴ John agreed with Teresa that the gratified soul could be more spiritually “feeble.”

To make his point, John examined the subtle ways in which the seven capital vices as a framework – pride, avarice, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth – are not manifested as they normally did before conversion. Now, the vices are “hidden” under the believer’s public display of enthusiasm and ministry.²⁵ To grow beyond this spiritual vulnerability, God “weans” the beginner like a loving mother. The maturing process of “weaning” from dependence on spiritual pleasures – “loving God for self’s sake” – includes a season of “spiritual dryness,”²⁶ which John believed was important for two reasons: first, the soul becomes aware of its dependence on spiritual pleasures that was previously unknown; and second, spiritual dryness eventually reveals the soul’s need for more of Spirit’s purification.²⁷ This purgative journey of spiritually maturing love is what John called the “Dark Night of the Senses.”²⁸ The soul learns to love God, implicitly, in the absence of spiritual delights while continually abandoning oneself to “loving God for God’s sake.” In apophatic dryness and darkness, the soul begins to embrace a spiritual humility that “purges” pride and all the capital sins (pride, greed, envy, anger, lust, gluttony, and sloth). John explains:

They will no longer become impatiently angry with themselves and their faults or with their neighbor’s faults. Neither are they displeased or disrespectfully querulous with God of not making them perfect quickly … Finally, insofar as individuals are purged of their sensory affections and appetites, they obtain liberty of spirit in which they acquire the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit. They are also wondrously liberated from the hands of their enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil.²⁹

Importantly, then, purgation is a process of the Spirit’s revealing the heart’s interior movements, exposing the wounded dimensions of the human personality that need healing. This is the purpose of the Purgative Way.

Illumination

The Illumination Stage – sometimes called the way of light – is marked by one’s deepening awareness of the divine’s indwelling presence that is manifested in intimacy, solitude, and soul’s rest (Matt 11:28-30; John 14:15-17; 15). While believers are encouraged to maintain and expand their normal spiritual practices, they may also notice how their motives are changing. There is less compulsion, and more interior freedom.

Teresa’s Mansions – 4, 5, and Part of 6

Persons in the fourth mansion experience the Spirit’s illuminating presence in longer periods of attentiveness to God’s presence even when the mind “continues to move about.”³⁰ For Teresa, the important thing is to “do that which best stirs you to love.”³¹ Illustrating the soul’s experiences in the fifth mansion, Teresa used an analogy of the silkworm that is likened to the “dying of one’s self” and “being raised to new life in Christ” (Col 3:1-5). God is like a “cocoon” in which a person “dies” to self. While submitting to God’s divine love, the believer’s life is “hidden with Christ in God” (v. 3) but then revealed as a new creation, like the “metamorphosis” of a silkworm in a liminal space becoming a beautiful butterfly.³²

The longest section of Teresa’s Interior Castle is the sixth mansion.³³ Here, Teresa describes her spiritual experiences that depict theophanies, visions, and extraordinary experiences, not unlike those experiences described in Scriptures. What Teresa and other mystics described was likened to the “spiritual betrothal” of the Bride’s engagement to His Majesty, the period just before one’s ultimate homecoming to God. Her scriptural basis was Paul’s description of spiritual marriage as “Christ who loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy … so as to present the church to himself in splendour, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind – yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish” (Eph 5: 25-27). Bernard of Clairvaux portrays the delicate love of Bridegroom and Bride, writing that

… the Bridegroom who is love – asks only the exchange of love and trust. … The stream of love does not flow equally …. Will the Bride’s vow perish, then, because of this? Will the desire of her heart, her burning love, her affirmation of confidence, fail in their purpose because she has not the strength to keep pace with a giant, or rival honey in sweetness, the lamb in gentleness, or the lily in whiteness? No. Although the creature loves less, being a lesser being, yet if it loves with its whole heart nothing is lacking … Such love … is marriage, for a soul cannot love like this and not be beloved.³⁴

Mystical writers during this period expanded Paul’s writings of the church as the “bride of Christ” – using creative, imaginative metaphors that accentuated relational intimacy.

John’s Dark Night of the Spirit – The Illuminative Transition into Union

John described “proficients” (or progressives) in the Illuminative Way as those who “go about the things of God with much greater freedom and satisfaction … no longer bound by … anxiety of spirit, since it now very readily finds in its spirit the most serene and loving contemplation and spiritual sweetness.”³⁵ Nonetheless, there remained ingrained habits of imperfections hidden in the “quiet deep in the soul.” The soul’s purgation during the first dark night may have cut away the branches, but the deeper roots remain for the purging that is yet to come in the “dark night of the spirit.”³⁶ The most difficult struggle in the second night’s purgation happens when God “enkindles the soul in the flame of his transforming love.”³⁷ John used several passages from the Apostle Paul’s writing to introduce his commentary on the second night – the purgation of the spirit (intellect, will, and memory). Paul writes:

Put to death, therefore, whatever in you is earthly; fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed (which is idolatry) … These are the ways you also once followed, when you were living that life. But now you must get rid of all such things – anger wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have stripped off the old self with its practices and have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator (Col 3:5-10).

Any “disordered” attachments that are “rooted” in one’s subconscious are now being transformed by the Spirit through one’s immersion into the flame of divine love. Consequently, the believer’s “healthy” attachment (union) with Christ begins to reflect one’s imago Dei in Christ. The second night – the Dark Night of the Spirit – is the soul’s journeying from the Illuminative Way into the Unitive Way.

Union

Teresa’s Mansions – Remaining 6 and 7

The “Third Way” of the spiritual journey is ultimately Union with God. As seen in the first part of Teresa’s mansion six, the metaphor of “betrothal” expresses a divine intimacy, but Teresa claimed there were more intense trials of the soul’s final preparation before its intimate union with the Bridegroom. Teresa explains: “Just as there was a tempest and tumult that came from heaven when Saint Paul was hurled to the ground, here in this interior world there is a great stirring.”³⁸

Dwelling in the seventh and final mansion of the soul, Teresa reported that when reading the words of Jesus (John 14:17b, 20), she began to enjoy the habitual company of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in an “intellectual” vision, taking place as a union of marriage between the Bride and His Majesty:

When the soul is brought into that dwelling place [mansion], the Most Blessed Trinity, all three Persons … First there comes an enkindling in the spirit in the manner of a cloud of magnificent splendor [that] these Persons are distinct … [and] as a most profound truth that all three Persons are one substance and one power and one knowledge and one God alone. It knows in such a way that what we hold by faith, it understands, we can say, through sight – although the sight is not with the bodily eyes nor the eyes of the soul, because we are not dealing with an imaginative vision. Here all three Persons communicate themselves to [the soul], speak to it, and explain those words of the Lord in the Gospel: that He and the Father and the Holy Spirit will come to dwell with the soul that loves Him and keeps His commandments.³⁹

Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez sum up Teresa’s description of the soul’s union with God:

… the butterfly dies with the greatest joy because its new life is Christ. In Paul’s words, “He that is joined or united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him” [1 Cor 6:17]. The ultimate goal, then, of Teresa’s journey, the spiritual marriage, is a union with Jesus incarnate … risen and connotated by the attributes of His earthly adventure, especially those of His resurrection. With the passing of time, the soul understands more clearly that its life is Christ. … the purpose of all these splendid favors is that one might live like Christ and that the fruit of the spiritual marriage must be good works.⁴⁰

But good works are not the soul’s purposeful end. Near to the end of her final words, Teresa writes that “we shouldn’t build castles in the air. The Lord doesn’t look so much at the greatness of our works as at the love with which they are done.”⁴¹

John’s Description of Divine Union

Of the many descriptions of the divine union with God, John’s Christological path was most poignant in describing one’s spiritual abandonment as central to the potential spiritual marriage of union with Christ. When the disciples asked for places to sit on his right and left, Jesus offered them the chalice he was about to drink. Choosing the chalice meant that the disciples must also choose the narrow road of self-denial, carrying their own cross, which signified that they were detached from everything, save ultimate obedience and union with Christ. John writes:

If one fails in this exercise (of taking up one’s cross), the root and sum total of all the virtues, the other methods would amount to no more than going about in circles without any progress … A person makes progress only by imitating Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one goes to the Father but through Him … St. John [14:6]. Elsewhere he says: I am the door, anyone who enters by Me shall be saved [John 10:9]. I would not consider any spirituality worthwhile that wants to walk in sweetness and ease and run from the imitation of Christ.⁴²

To explain the mystical union with God, John applied his anthropological understanding of the soul to the life of Christ, explaining that Christ died to the “sensory” aspect during his own life – since he had no place to lay his head (Matt 8:20), and at his death, even less. John expressed his own theological understanding of the moment of Christ’s death:

Christ experienced the annihilation of His soul, without any consolation or relief, since the Father had left Him that way in innermost aridity … He was compelled to cry out: My God, My God, why have You forsaken me? (Mt 27:46). This was the most extreme abandonment, sensitively, that He had suffered in His life. And by it He accomplished the most marvelous work of His whole life surpassing all the works and deeds and miracles that He had ever performed on earth or in heaven. That is, He brought about the reconciliation and union of the human race with God through grace … [that] those who are truly spiritual might understand the mystery of the door and way (which is Christ) leading to union with God, and that they might realize that their union with God and the greatness of the work they accomplish will be measured by their annihilation of themselves for God in the sensory and spiritual parts of their souls. When they are brought to nothing, the highest degree of humility, the spiritual union between their souls and God will be effected.⁴³

Expressing the poetic imagery of the “spiritual marriage” that was inspired by the Song of Songs, John writes,

The bride has entered

The sweet garden of her desires,

And she rests in delight,

Laying her neck

On the gentle arms of her Beloved.

Here is the final exchange between the soul and the Bridegroom:

Now I occupy my soul

And all my energy in His service;

I no longer tend the herd,

nor have I any other work

now that my every act is love.⁴⁴

As a result of the Spirit’s inner transformation, “tending the herd” (serving God) or any other work comes not from one’s own appetite, obligation, or pleasure.⁴⁵ All we do is a result of our ultimate union with Christ, as proclaimed by Paul, “It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20).⁴⁶ While poetic imagery of one’s inner life in mystical union with God is not as common today as it was in mystical theology, the ultimate desire and fulfilment of one’s personal relationship with God has been part of the human story since the beginning of creation.

Summary: Lessons from Historic Christian Spirituality

Scholars have begun to chart new territory when likening Pentecostalism to the mystical, contemplative streams of historic Christianity. Daniel Castelo expresses his own insights about the “family resemblance” between Pentecostalism and Christian mysticism, including the Threefold Path of Purgation (sanctification), Illumination (maturation), and Union (transformation). Castelo nuances a distinction that Pentecostals do not generally think about “going deeper within” but rather are encouraged to “get more of God.” But there is no dichotomy here. Both mystical writers and Protestant reformers believed that encountering God necessarily implies an encounter of oneself. Summarising his claims, Castelo writes that “Pentecostals implicitly operate out of mystical sensibilities in the ethos they sustain regarding worship and how it in turn reflects their belief that God engages and encounters those who thirst after God. The ultimate goal is a sense of the divine that is, in short, transformative.”⁴⁷ However dramatic the external experiences, most important is one’s surrender to the inner abiding presence of the Spirit, whether a divine presence or inner change is felt or not.

Other scholars have observed the commonality of Pentecostal spiritual encounters with “mystic” forerunners several centuries earlier. Harvey Cox in his study of Pentecostalism concludes that those who experienced Spirit baptism saw it as a mystical encounter, and that their testimonies “sometimes sounded like Saint Teresa of Avila or Saint John of the Cross, although they probably never heard of either one.”⁴⁸ Simon Chan in his analysis of contemplative prayer observes that Spirit baptism as described by Pentecostals has linguistic similarities with Teresa’s “prayer of quiet.”⁴⁹ Though Pentecostals might feel dismayed when compared with earlier mystics, Chan argues that there is a strong affinity between Spirit baptism and contemplative prayer, claiming that “Glossolalia is a form of nondiscursive, passive prayer, arising from one’s yielding fully to the Spirit.”⁵⁰ Chan suggests that a fruitful discussion for Pentecostals to consider is Teresa’s explanation of “spiritual consolations” that come from one’s participation in discursive, ascetical prayer with the “spiritual delights” that come from the “infused” prayer of the quiet that is not dependent on human effort.

In recent years Pentecostals, among Evangelicals and other Protestants, have intentionally begun exploring the contemplative, inner life of the Spirit through their participation in silence and solitude retreats, their enrolment in academic programmes that require the study of Christian mystical writings, their participation and training in spiritual direction, and their exposure to an upsurge of publications that embrace the mystical, contemplative expressions of Christian spirituality. Authors from various academic backgrounds are exploring integrative links among biblical frameworks of spiritual formation, spiritual practices described in mystical writings, and insights from psychology and neuroscience. Christians are learning a new, integrative vocabulary that enables them to recognise the ego’s self-justification and defensiveness as a necessary release to the work of the Spirit and sufficiency of Christ in one’s sanctifying journey. Chris Green explains:

In contemplation, the Holy Spirit broods sweetly over my spirit, slowly and secretly freeing me from “slavery to cravings and fantasies,” making me permeable to Christ so that his character begins to alter mine, filling me with the goodness of his own Spirit – joy and peace, gentleness and self-control. In contemplation, in other words, we open ourselves up to the sanctifying work of God, a work that takes time and happens almost entirely below the level of our conscious awareness.⁵¹

The illuminating light of the Spirit continues to shine into the darker corridors of the soul’s castle that need to experience the “cruciform” fellowship of love in Christ. It is the darkest corners where Christ desires intimate fellowship of vulnerable confessions and the heart’s expressed longings. In this intimate space, we learn to abandon ourselves into mystical union with Christ because he is the righteous one who has experienced ultimate abandonment for the sake of the world. The splendid ruins of the soul’s castle now will continually be transformed into a radiant beauty that depicts a Bride without spot or wrinkle in mystical union with His Majesty.

Paul’s prayer for the believers at Ephesus is an important cornerstone for mystical writers, praying that the Father may grant that they “be strengthened in the inner being with power (dýnamis) through his Spirit, and that Christ may dwell in [their] hearts through faith” (Eph 3:16b-17). Spirit and power are closely related throughout Paul’s writings, and the same word for power is also used by Luke in the last words of Jesus spoken to his disciples before he ascended: “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you shall be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8). There is a price to pay, however, when Spirit’s empowerment to witness neglects the Spirit’s power to strengthen one’s inner being.

A hallmark of Pentecostalism is human engagement with Spirit’s empowerment that has changed the global religious landscape and which rightfully continues to be its ongoing legacy. This kind of engagement with power, however, can also operate in the “pride” of those in whom Thomas Merton calls an “illusory” false self. This takes place, according to Merton, when

… the clean peace of a will united with God becomes the complacency of a will that loves its own excellence. The pleasure that is in his heart when he does difficult things and succeeds in doing them well, tells him secretly, “I am a saint.” Then he realizes other people admire him. The pleasure burns into a sweet, devouring fire. The warmth of that fire feels very much like the love of God. It is fed by the same virtues that nourished the flame. He burns with self-admiration and thinks: “It is the fire of the love of God.” He thinks his own pride is the Holy Ghost.⁵²

The mystics recognised that continuing spiritual discernment of the Spirit’s inner life is needed for the soul’s transformational journey with God. As Merton expresses above, at times the conflicting forces between Spirit and “flesh” can subconsciously be rationalised or denied because of the human capacity to compartmentalise. If so, we are not truly “at home” with ourselves. The radical assumption of Christian spirituality is that God desires to make God’s home in us. This is possible because of Christ whose “whole mission was that kind of indwelling – “so that the love with which [the Father has] loved me may be in them, and I in them” (John 17:26). With Christ, the whole Trinity comes to dwell in each individual and in the people as a whole” (14:23; 17:22-23).⁵³ Or, as the mystics would say, “a spiritual marriage of mystical union in Christ.”

Beyond the scope of this paper, there remain important lessons to learn from Christian spirituality about the inner life of transformation that will be explored in a second paper to be delivered at The Asia Pentecostal Summit in Singapore, July 2026.

Bibliography

Albrecht, Daniel E. Rites in the Spirit: A Ritual Approach to Pentecostal/Charismatic Spirituality. Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 1999.

Benner, David. The Gift of Being Yourself: The Sacred Call to Self-Discovery. IVP Books, 2004.

Bernard of Clairvaux, “The Bridegroom Loves First and More Strongly, the Bride Must Love with her Whole Being.” In On Loving God. Christian Classic Ethereal Library/The Fig Classic Series, 2012. https://ccel.org/ccel/bernard/loving_god/loving_god.

Bernard of Clairvaux, “Of the Four Degrees of Love, and of the Blessed State of the Heavenly Fatherland.” In On Loving God. Christian Classic Ethereal Library/The Fig Classic Series, 2012. https://ccel.org/ccel/bernard/loving_god/loving_god.

Castelo, Daniel. Pentecostalism as a Christian Mystical Tradition. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017.

Chan, Simon. “Contemplative Prayer in the Evangelical and Pentecostal Traditions.” In Embracing Contemplation, Reclaiming Christian Spiritual Practice, edited by John H. Coe and Kyle C. Strobel. IVP Academic, 2019. Kindle.

Chan, Simon. Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition. Wipf and Stock, 2000.

Cox, Harvey. Fire from Heaven. Addison-Wesley, 1995.

Dubay, Thomas. Fire Within: St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and the Gospel – On Prayer. Ignatian Press, 1989.

Green, Chris E. W. Surprised by God: How and Why We Think about the Divine Matters. Cascade Books, 2018. Kindle.

Hart, Kevin. Contemplation: The Movements of the Soul. Columbia Press, 2024.

James, Williams. The Varieties of Religious Experience. Collier Books, 1961.

Johnston, William, trans. The Cloud of Unknowing: And the Book of Privy Counseling. Rev. ed. Image, 1979.

Kavanaugh, Kieran, and Ernest E. Larkin, trans. John of the Cross: Selected Writings. Paulist Press, 1987.

Kavanaugh, Kieran and Otilio Rodriguez, trans. Teresa of Avila: The Interior Castle. Paulist Press, 1979.

Land, Steven Jack. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom. CPT Press, 1993.

Macchia, Frank D. “Spirit Baptism and Spiritual Formation: A Pentecostal Proposal.” The Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care 13, no. 1 (2020): 44-61.

Macchia, Frank D. Tongues of Fire: A Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Cascade Books, 2023.

McGinn, Bernard. “Introduction.” In The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism, edited by Bernard McGinn. Modern Library, an imprint of The Random House Publishing Group, 2006.

May, Gerald G. The Dark Night of the Soul: A Psychiatrist Explores the Connection between Darkness and Spiritual Growth. HarperCollins e-books, 2004.

Merton, Thomas. New Seeds of Contemplation. Rev. ed. A New Directions Book, 2007.

Nel, Marius. “African Pentecostal Spirituality as a Mystical Tradition: How Regaining Its Roots Could Benefit Pentecostals.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 76, no. 4 (June 2020): 1-10. DOI:10.4102/hts.v76i4.5904.

Peers, E. Allison, ed., Dark Night of the Soul. Dover Publications, 2003. Kindle.

Poloma, Margaret M., and John C. Green. The Assemblies of God: Godly Love and the Revitalization of American Pentecostalism. NYU Press, 2010.

Pseudo-Dionysius. “The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite.” Accessed January 16, 2026. https://ccel.org/ccel/dionysius/works/works.i.html.

Robeck, Jr, Cecil M. The Azusa Street Mission & Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal Movement. Thomas Nelson, 2006.

Rolheiser, Ronald. “Introduction.” In Mysticism and Contemporary Life: Essays in Honor of Bernard McGinn, edited by John Markey and J. August Higgins. A Herder & Herder Book, 2019.

Teresa of Avila. “The Book of Her Life.” In St. Teresa of Avila, The Book of Her Life, translated by Allison Peers. Image Books/Doubleday, 1960.

Tyson, John R. ed., Invitation to Christian Spirituality: An Ecumenical Anthology. Oxford University Press, 1999.

Underhill, Evelyn. Mysticism: A Study in the Nature and Development of Man’s Spiritual Consciousness. A Meridian Book, 1955, 1974.

Volf, Miroslav, and Ryan McAnnally-Linz. The Home of God (Theology for the Life of the World): A Brief Story of Everything. Brazos Press, 2022. Kindle.

Wariboko, Nimi. “West African Pentecostalism: A Survey of Everyday Theology.” In Global Renewal Christianity: Spirit-Empowered Movements: Past, Present, and Future, edited by Vinson Synan, Amos Yong, and J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu. Charisma House, 2016. Kindle.

Welch, John. When Gods Die: An Introduction to John of the Cross. Paulist Press, 1990.

Willard, Dallas. “Dallas Willard on Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle.” Dallas Willard Ministries. Accessed January 16, 2026. https://dwillard.org/resources/articles/introduction-teresa-of-avila-selections-from-the-interior-castle.

Yong, Amos. “Many Tongues, Many Formational Practices: Christian Spirituality/Formation across Global Christian Contexts.” Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality 22, no. 1 (2022): 59-70. DOI:10.1353/scs.2022.0005.

¹ Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., The Azusa Street Mission & Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal Movement (Thomas Nelson, 2006), 3.

² Marius Nel, “African Pentecostal Spirituality as a Mystical Tradition: How Regaining Its Roots Could Benefit Pentecostals,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 76, no. 4 (June 2020): 4, DOI:10.4102/hts.v76i4.5904.

³ Nimi Wariboko, “West African Pentecostalism: A Survey of Everyday Theology,” in Global Renewal Christianity: Spirit-Empowered Movements: Past, Present, and Future, ed. Vinson Synan et al. (Charisma House, 2016), chap. 1, loc. 695 of 8374, Kindle.

⁴ Amos Yong, “Many Tongues, Many Formational Practices: Christian Spirituality/Formation across Global Christian Contexts,” Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality 22, no. 1 (2022): 59-60, 10.1353/scs.2022.0005.

⁵ Sociological theorists have outlined the core stages of institutionalisation, including Emergence of charismatic origin, Formalisation, Routinisation, Legitimation, and Sedimentation (resistance to change). See Margaret M. Poloma and John C. Green, The Assemblies of God: Godly Love and the Revitalization of American Pentecostalism (NYU Press, 2010), 120.

⁶ Steven Land describes the flow of Pentecostalism as a “paradoxical continuity and discontinuity with other streams of Christianity … it is more Eastern than Western in its understanding of spirituality as perfection and participation in the divine life (theosis). In this regard it has much to learn from persons like Gregory of Nyssa, Macarius the Egyptian, and St Symeon, the New Theologian. It is both ascetic and mystical. … [thus,] more Catholic than Protestant in emphasizing sanctification-transformation more than forensic justification …” Steven Jack Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom (CPT Press, 1993), 18. Daniel Castelo has made a strong argument that “Pentecostalism is best framed as a modern instantiation of the mystical stream of Christianity recognizable throughout its history.” See Daniel Castelo, Pentecostalism as a Christian Mystical Tradition (Eerdmans, 2017), xv-xvi; and Daniel E. Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit: A Ritual Approach to Pentecostal/Charismatic Spirituality (T&T Clark, 1999).

⁷ Frank D. Macchia, Tongues of Fire: A Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Cascade Books, 2023), 268.

⁸ Thoms Dubay, Fire Within: St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and the Gospel—On Prayer (Ignatian Press, 1989), 45, 47.

⁹ All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the NRSV Version.

¹⁰ Philosopher/psychologist William James argues that mystical experiences are authoritatively self-authenticating even though they may not be verified by science or rational thought. But people may connect a mystical experience to a theological framework that “authenticates” their experiences (Scripture, image of God, church history/tradition, testimony of others). Hence, James believes that there are “objective” and “subjective” parts to mystical experiences. For example, a person may experience a rainbow with memories and feelings that surface from one’s subconsciousness. Another person thinks about the scientific explanation of the nature’s phenomenon. Yet another remembers the story of Noah and the flood and questions how all the animals were in the ark. James illustrates an experience of a “devout man [who] tells you that in the solitude of his room or of the fields he still feels the divine presence, that inflowings of help come in reply to his prayers, and that sacrifices to this unseen reality fill him with security and peace.” See William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (Collier Books, 1961), 386.

¹¹ James, Varieties of Religious Experience.

¹² Bernard McGinn, “Introduction,” in The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism, ed. Bernard McGinn (Modern Library, an imprint of The Random House Publishing Group, 2006), xvi.

¹³ Early Christians in the Book of Acts were called “the Way.” Later, Paul writes, “Not that I have already obtained this [resurrection from the dead] or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own … forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil 3:12a, 13b-14).

¹⁴ See Pseudo-Dionysius, “The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, accessed January 16, 2026, https://ccel.org/ccel/dionysius/works/works.i.html.

¹⁵ For a rich historical-theological understanding of Pentecostal views and tensions concerning sanctification and Spirit baptism, see Frank Macchia, Tongues of Fire, 299-317 and Frank D. Macchia, “Spirit Baptism and Spiritual Formation: A Pentecostal Proposal,” The Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care 13, no. 1 (2020): 49.

¹⁶ Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) described the soul in four degrees of maturing love: He writes: “And we must bear the image of the earthly first, before we can bear the image of the heavenly. At first, a man loves himself for his own sake … Next, he perceives that he cannot exist by himself, and so begins by faith to seek after God, and to love Him as something necessary to his own welfare. That is the second degree, to love God, not for God’s sake, but selfishly. But when he has learned to worship God and to seek him aright, meditating on God, reading God’s Word, praying and obeying His commandments, he comes gradually to know what God is, and finds Him altogether lovely. So … he advances to the third degree, when he loves God, not merely as his benefactor but as God. Surely he must remain long in this state; and I know not whether it would be possible to make further progress in this life to the fourth degree and perfect condition wherein man loves solely for God’s sake.” See Bernard of Clairvaux, “Of the Four Degrees of Love, and of the Blessed State of the Heavenly Fatherland,” On Loving God (Christian Classic Ethereal Library/The Fig Classic Series, 2012), chap. XV, https://ccel.org/ccel/bernard/loving_god/loving_god.

¹⁷ Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism: A Study in the Nature and Development of Man’s Spiritual Consciousness (A Meridian Book, 1955, 1974), 169-70.

¹⁸ Dallas Willard, “Dallas Willard on Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle,” Dallas Willard Ministries, accessed January 16, 2026, https://dwillard.org/resources/articles/introduction-teresa-of-avila-selections-from-the-interior-castle.

¹⁹ Jesus alerted his followers, “Enter the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life; and there are few who find it” (Matt 7:1-14).

²⁰ Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez, trans., Teresa of Avila: The Interior Castle (Paulist Press, 1979), 22.

²¹ Simon Chan argues that the dark night of the soul’s mystical journey would contribute something vital to Pentecostals, but they “have no place in their schema for the dark night. More often, they are likely to dismiss such an experience as due to lack of faith or an attack from the devil.” See Simon Chan, Pentecostal Theology and The Christian Spiritual Tradition (Wipf and Stock, 2000), 75-76.

²² John Welch, When Gods Die: An Introduction to John of the Cross (Paulist Press, 1990), 73.

²³ Gerald G. May, The Dark Night of the Soul: A Psychiatrist Explores the Connection between Darkness and Spiritual Growth (HarperCollins, 2004), 71, eBook.

²⁴ Bernard’s second degree of love, “Loving God for the sake of oneself.”

²⁵ For example, a secret pride can grow in the beginners’ lives in which they downplay (or are unaware of) their own faults while criticising others who do not have the same level of devotion as they have. John observed that believers can become angry when they do not receive satisfaction from spiritual practices, or they may express anger in their judgement of others while setting up themselves as righteous. See Kieran Kavanaugh and Ernest E. Larkin, trans., John of the Cross: Selected Writings (Paulist Press, 1987), 164-78.

²⁶ John identified three signs that determine if one is in the dark night of the senses. The first sign is when the soul experiences little or no spiritual satisfaction from the things of God or any creatures (worldly delights)—nothing seems to bring back one’s spiritual delights. The second sign is that persons believe that their experience of “dryness” means that they are not serving God, or that they are turning their backs on God. The third sign is the feeling of powerlessness in the face of one’s spiritual desires and efforts. See Kavanaugh and Larkin, trans., John of the Cross, 181-84.

²⁷ Kavanaugh and Larkin, John of the Cross, 189.

²⁸ The sensory aspects of human experience (sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell), emotions, and internal senses (imagination, sensory memory), according to John, are accentuated during spiritual delights, but they no longer deliver the spiritual consolation they once provided during the Dark Night of the Senses.

²⁹ Kavanaugh and Larkin, John of the Cross, 195.

³⁰ Teresa explained that these distractions of the mind are part of the human condition and cannot be avoided any more than eating and sleeping.

³¹ Kavanaugh and Rodriguez, Teresa of Avila, 24.

³² Kavanaugh and Rodriguez, Teresa of Avila, 25.

³³ Willard contends that the sixth dwelling place is “the best treatment ever written of what it is like for God to speak to his children.” See Willard, “Dallas Willard on Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle.”

³⁴ Bernard of Clairvaux, “The Bridegroom Loves First and More Strongly, the Bride Must Love with her Whole Being,” On Loving God (Christian Classic Ethereal Library/The Fig Classic Series, 2012), https://ccel.org/ccel/bernard/loving_god/loving_god.

35%E. Allison Peers, ed., Dark Night of the Soul (Dover Publications, 203), loc. 912 of 2415, Kindle.

³⁶ Peers, Dark Night of the Soul, loc. 942 of 2415, Kindle.

³⁷ In the second dark night, God purifies the soul’s spiritual aspect (e.g., intellect, will, and memory). John explains that God “divests the faculties, affections, and senses, both spiritual and sensory, interior and exterior. He leaves the intellect in darkness, the will in aridity, the memory in emptiness, and the affections in supreme affliction, bitterness, and anguish, by depriving the soul of the feeling and satisfaction it previously obtained from spiritual blessings.” Kavanaugh and Larkin, John of the Cross, 195, 198-99.

³⁸ Kavanaugh and Rodriguez, Teresa of Avila, 58-59.

³⁹ Kavanaugh and Rodriguez, Teresa of Avila, 175.

⁴⁰ Kavanaugh and Rodriguez, Teresa of Avila, 29.

⁴¹ Kavanaugh and Rodriguez, Teresa of Avila, 194.

⁴² Kavanaugh and Larkin, John of the Cross, 96-97.

⁴³ Kavanaugh and Larkin, John of the Cross, 97.

⁴⁴ Welch, When Gods Die, 193.

⁴⁵ John writes, “Let those men [and women] who are singularly active, who think they can win the world with their preaching and exterior works, observe here that they would profit the church and please God much more, not to mention the good example they would give, were they to spend at least half of this time with God in prayer, even though they may not have reached a prayer as sublime as this. They would certainly accomplish more, and with less labor, by one work than they otherwise would by a thousand … Without prayer, they would do a great deal of hammering but accomplish little, and sometimes nothing, and even at times cause harm.” See Welch, When Gods Die, 195.

⁴⁶ John of the Cross carried the Bible with him constantly; he believed it was the main source of his teaching. For him the Bible was inexhaustible in its wisdom and knowledge of God and the divine activity that John hoped to apply to the spiritual life. See Kavanaugh and Larkin, John of the Cross, 22. John also believed that individuals who increase their love of God will increase their prayer and labour for others in all kinds of work. He spent time in spiritual direction for university professors and for the uneducated. Both sinners and saints searched him out to be with him. When giving spiritual direction to nuns in their communities, he would also spend free time laying bricks and working in their garden.

⁴⁷ Castelo, Pentecostalism as a Christian Mystical Tradition, 76-82.

⁴⁸ Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven (Addison-Wesley, 1995), 70.

⁴⁹ Simon Chan, “Contemplative Prayer in the Evangelical and Pentecostal Traditions,” in Embracing Contemplation, Reclaiming Christian Spiritual Practice, ed. John H. Coe and Kyle C. Strobel (IVP Academic, 2019), chap. 12, loc. 252 of 293, Kindle.

⁵⁰ Chan, “Contemplative Prayer,” chap. 12, loc. 254 of 293, Kindle.

⁵¹ Chris E. W. Green, Surprised by God: How and Why What We Think about the Divine Matters (Cascade Books, 2018), loc. 94, Kindle.

⁵² Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation, rev. ed. (A New Directions Book, 2007), 24.

⁵³ Miroslav Volf and Ryan McAnnally-Linz, The Home of God (Theology for the Life of the World): A Brief Story of Everything (Brazos Press, 2022), 8, Kindle.

A Classical Pentecostal Reading of the Mystical Framework of Purgation, Illumination, and Union

Sun Ho

Introduction

Professor Roger Heuser from his research observes that African Pentecostal spirituality can be “best understood within the mystical stream of Christianity.”¹ This insight may also apply to much of Asian Pentecostalism. Yet, out of fear of offending fundamentalist critics – who often feel uneasy or even dismissive towards Catholic, Orthodox, or other non-scholastic expressions within the historic church – some Pentecostals have tended to avoid association with mystical theology, fearing that it might lead to doctrinal compromise or syncretism with what they perceive as superstition.²

I feel encouraged by Heuser’s observation that more scholars are now exploring “the lessons learned from the mystical writers of historic Christian spirituality, who focused on the believer’s inner dynamics of divine love in transforming one into union with Christ.”³ For Pentecostals passionate about wrestling with God, such reflection is timely and needed. It assures them that their longing and lived experience of a deeper, transforming union with God are not misplaced but rooted in the heart of Christian spiritual tradition.

Pentecostalism has always been a movement of both passion and power. The early believers at Azusa Street understood the inner transformation of the Holy Spirit and his outward manifestations as inseparable realities. Their testimonies revealed a deep hunger for more of the Spirit and a desire to do more for Jesus – embodying a spirituality that united contemplation and mission.⁴ Yet as the movement matured, outward manifestations sometimes eclipsed inward formation. This imbalance has been evident in the moral failures of prominent televangelists and megachurch pastors, and in the burnout of congregants who were once “on fire” for God. Many revivals, while intense, have also tended to be short-lived, often followed by exhaustion and disillusionment.

Consequently, a growing number of Pentecostals today are turning afresh to the spiritual classics – especially Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross – as conversation partners who can deepen Spirit-empowered sanctification and communion with God. When read through a Pentecostal theology of love and Spirit baptism, the Threefold Path of purgation, illumination, and union emerges as a fruitful metaphor for the Spirit’s ongoing work in believers.⁵

Discerning Mystical Theology

Unlike fundamentalist critics who reject mysticism as unbiblical, Pentecostals uphold the primacy of Scripture while recognising that the Spirit still speaks and renews believers experientially. The New Testament itself overflows with theophanies and charismatic manifestations (Acts 2, 10; 1 Cor 12–14), which Pentecostals regard as normative possibilities for believers. Yet discernment remains central: all experience must be tested by Scripture.

Where mystical writers speak of “infused contemplation” or “intellectual visions,” Pentecostals might respond, “This is beautiful language, but does Scripture promise these exact states to all believers?” They read Teresa and John not as prescriptive manuals but as narratives that stir hunger for God, deeper prayer, and greater love – while leaving room for the Spirit to lead differently in each life. Pentecostals thus ensure that mystical theology does not become an extrabiblical map of the spiritual journey that supplants the Spirit’s sovereign leading.

For some, William James’s claim that mystical experiences are “authoritatively self-authenticating”⁶ will be problematic. Yet Pentecostals acknowledge that there are “deep things of God” (1 Cor 2:10) that transcend human comprehension – so long as such insights do not contradict Scripture but draw believers into deeper love, holiness, and intimacy with Christ.

A Suprabiblical Invitation

Walter Hollenweger observed that Pentecostals, in defending themselves against charges of anti-intellectualism, often uncritically absorbed the scholastic patterns of fundamentalist and evangelical theology.⁷ Within that framework, union with Christ is treated as complete at conversion; hence, “mystical union”⁸ is viewed as unnecessary. Medieval mysticism is therefore dismissed as speculative or works-oriented, and Teresa’s Interior Castle is often misunderstood as an unbiblical ladder of spiritual achievement.⁹

Most Pentecostals agree that while such cautions preserve biblical authority, they risk reducing the dynamic life of the Spirit to doctrine alone. What Catholics and Orthodox describe as “mystical,” Pentecostals might call “encounter” or “being touched by the Holy Spirit.” In this paradigm, much of mystical theology is not unbiblical or extrabiblical – contradicting Scripture – but suprabiblical: moving beyond the explicit descriptions of Scripture to explore, in experiential language, the depths of divine love and communion that Scripture itself invites but does not exhaustively define. A good example of this is 2 Corinthians 12:1-4, where Paul recounts being “caught up to the third heaven” and hearing “inexpressible things.” This profound experience is left unexplained – What did he see? How did he know it was the “third” heaven? What were the “inexpressible” words? Pentecostals read this as an invitation to recognise that divine encounters can transcend language and rational categories, pointing to a communion with God that can only be experienced, not fully articulated.

Similarly, in Revelation 1 and 4, John writes, “On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit,” and he is taken into a heavenly throne room filled with indescribable glory. The mechanics of this “in the Spirit” state are never clarified – was he dreaming, in a trance, or physically transported? This deliberate ambiguity reveals that the Spirit may communicate divine realities through means that surpass human comprehension. Suprabiblical reflection explores such depths through symbolic language without departing from the Word.

Thus, while Scripture commands believers to love God with all their heart, soul, and mind (Matt 22:37), it does not map out how that love matures inwardly. Teresa’s description of the soul’s “interior castles” is therefore suprabiblical – a poetic attempt to express how divine love progressively transforms the heart. Pentecostals could view this as compatible with Paul’s exhortation to be “transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2).

Visions and Contemplation

Fundamentalist critics often insist that the visions of mystical writers are non-normative, since revelation was completed with the close of the biblical canon (Heb 1:1-2). Pentecostals, however, do not reject all visions as “private revelations” because Scripture itself records that the Holy Spirit continues to grant visions, dreams, and glimpses of divine reality (Acts 2:17-18). The key is discernment within the believing community and the subordination of every experience to Scripture. Pentecostals readily affirm that no revelation may add to or alter the biblical canon. The descriptions of divine encounter by John¹⁰ are suprabiblical – a heightened awareness of what Scripture already teaches: the indwelling of the Father, Son, and Spirit in the believer (John 14:23). Such experiences deepen, rather than replace, the biblical truth of communion with God.

The “Dark Night” of Transformation

Scripture speaks of trials purifying faith “like gold … refined by fire” (1 Pet 1:6-7), but it does not describe in detail the inner processes involved. John’s notion of the “dark night of the soul,” though beyond biblical language, resonates deeply with scriptural themes of testing, hiddenness in Christ, and faith purified through suffering. Pentecostals again view this as a suprabiblical metaphor for seasons when the Spirit deepens faith by removing emotional supports. While fundamentalist critics insist that transformation occurs only through the Word and Spirit rather than within a medieval mystical framework, John’s insights remain spiritually diagnostic. He warns of “inordinate attachments”¹¹ that enslave the soul to created things – idols formed whenever the heart over-identifies with them. This speaks directly to the Pentecostal temptation to confuse empowerment with pride or spiritual triumphalism. Increasingly, Pentecostals understand Spirit baptism not merely as power for ministry but as God’s invitation into Jesus’s self-giving love, transforming believers from self-centredness to Christ-centredness. In this light, the mystical “dark night” can be understood as the Spirit’s sanctifying work in the whole person – mind, body, and emotions – transfiguring human nature into Christlike love.

Likewise, rather than dismissing Teresa’s image of the silkworm and cocoon as foreign, Pentecostals note that Paul himself employs similar metaphors of transformation: “You have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Col 3:3). When Teresa writes of the silkworm spinning its cocoon and dying to itself so as to emerge a butterfly,¹² she is giving poetic expression to the paschal rhythm of death and resurrection that lies at the heart of Pentecostal spirituality.

Intimate Union with Christ

Fundamentalist critics argue that Ephesians 5 presents marriage as a metaphor for Christ’s relationship with the corporate church, not for an individual’s “spiritual betrothal”¹³ to him. Their concern is that such language risks introducing an eroticised or romanticised spirituality foreign to the New Testament. Yet the mystical extension of personal intimacy with Christ is again suprabiblical – drawing out the relational implications of divine love without contradicting biblical revelation.

The static view that “union with Christ” refers only to a once-for-all legal status conferred at conversion must be re-examined. Theologian Frank Macchia argues that union with Christ is both a present possession and a dynamic participation: “The entire Christian life is one large journey into deeper union with Christ,”¹⁴ he writes. “It is a dynamic communion that encourages an ever deeper journey into its depths that will culminate when we are ‘swallowed up’ in life at the resurrection (2 Cor. 5:4).”¹⁵

The Apostolic Faith, the Azusa Street newsletter published in October 1906, vividly expressed this intimacy: “We are baptized with the Holy Ghost. This covenant is a marriage covenant. We are married, not for one day or year or life, but eternally married … Hallelujah! Jesus and I are united. He baptized me with love.”¹⁶ Clearly, the Pentecostal understanding of Spirit baptism aligns more closely with mystical theology’s emphasis on transformative participation in divine love than with the static categories of Reformed scholasticism.

Passive Surrender

Pentecostals have long practised both fervent prayer and quietly waiting on God. The “prayer of the quiet”¹⁷ is, in many ways, analogous to Pentecostal tarrying meetings or glossolalic prayer, when human speech yields to the Spirit’s intercession with “groans too deep for words” (Rom 8:26).

Fundamentalist critics argue that prayer should only follow explicit biblical models such as the Lord’s Prayer or the Psalms, not the monastic devotions of monks and hermits like Charles de Foucauld. They also argue that assurance rests solely on faith in Christ’s finished work – not on inner feelings of delight or “the soul’s rest.”¹⁸ Sanctification, they maintain, proceeds only through active repentance and faith, not through quietism or “unknowing” contemplation.

Again, to Pentecostals, these emphases are suprabiblical: insights that flow from Scripture while remaining faithful to its spirit. Jesus himself withdrew to solitary places to pray (Luke 5:16) and often spent whole nights in communion with the Father (6:12). The apostles likewise followed this rhythm of contemplation and power – waiting upon God in prayer (Acts 1:14) before acting in mission (Acts 2). Thus, contemplative prayer and the Spirit’s inner work of love are not foreign imports but a natural expression of the biblical spirituality.

Paul speaks of the peace of God that “surpasses understanding” (Phil 4:7) and of divine mysteries revealed “through the Spirit” (1 Cor 2:9-10). The mystical idea of “unknowing” – encountering God beyond mental concepts – extends this scriptural insight. It is not unbiblical, but suprabiblical. Mystical writers simply give us the language to describe what happens when we encounter God in ways too deep for our intellect to fully grasp.

Active Practice

A recurring concern is that mystical theology can overemphasise withdrawal, silence, solitude, and interiority, risking an inward-looking piety that neglects the Great Commission. However, Pentecostal spirituality, in its original essence, has always sought a rhythm of contemplation and action – passive surrender and active ministry. Devotion and action. Retreat to the wilderness in order to return in the power of the Spirit (Luke 4:1, 14). In Acts 2, the apostles move from the upper room of Acts 1:13 into the streets, demonstrating that genuine spiritual encounter must overflow into witness. The interior stillness Teresa describes can be fully embraced, but always as a springboard for outward obedience, prophetic witness, and loving service – never as an end in itself. In this way, Pentecostal spirituality can draw deeply from the riches of the mystical tradition without losing its missionary edge.

Catholic Sources in Pentecostal Perspective

Because of their heritage of protesting against the Catholic Church, fundamentalists generally are uneasy about engaging Catholic spirituality. However, others like John Wesley¹⁹ had no such misgivings. He admired the works of Catholic writers such as Lorenzo Scupoli, Thomas à Kempis,²⁰ and Madame Guyon.²¹ Like Wesley, Pentecostals increasingly recognise that the mystical tradition offers valuable resources for deepening life in the Spirit. Writers such as Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Thomas Merton are not treated as authorities equal to Scripture, but as conversation partners whose insights can illuminate the Spirit’s transforming work in love and holiness.

Since the Holy Spirit was poured out on all flesh at Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18), it follows that he has been at work throughout the history of the church – even in traditions from which Pentecostals may diverge. Historically, Pentecostalism has never been insular but ecumenical. The believers at Azusa Street sang Wesleyan hymns, read Holiness literature, and prayed alongside Catholic immigrants. Recovering this generous posture allows Asian Pentecostals to engage the wider Christian mystical tradition with discernment and confidence. For this reason, scholars such as Heuser play a vital role in Pentecostalising historic Christian spirituality, articulating it with academic rigour. This enables Asian Pentecostals to respond thoughtfully to critics while integrating the contemplative depth of mystical tradition with a robust Pentecostal theology of the Spirit.

A Positive Framework: Spirit-Baptised Love and the Threefold Path

The Threefold Path presented by Heuser is not a rigid ladder but a spiritual guide. Purgation is the Spirit’s ongoing work of cleansing and freeing believers for holiness. Illumination deepens understanding and affection, nurturing prayer, discernment, and witness. Union is not an elite mystical state but a fuller participation in Christ’s love and mission – a foretaste of the church’s final communion with God. Yet within this inheritance, the Spirit invites believers into ever-deepening participation – sometimes through sweetness, sometimes through dryness, but always towards love. This is the essence of Pentecostalism – for “the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom 5:5).

Bibliography

Author Unknown. “United to Jesus.” The Apostolic Faith 1, no. 2 (October 1906): 3.

Author Unknown. “To the Baptised Saints.” The Apostolic Faith 1, no. 9 (June-September 1907): 2.

Hollenweger, Walter. Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide. Baker Academic, 2005.

Kim, Kirsteen. “Korean Pentecostalism and Shamanism: Developing Theological Self-Understanding in a Land of Many Spirits.” PentecoStudies. Accessed January 19, 2026. https://journal.equinoxpub.com/PENT/article/view/14018.

Macchia, Frank D. The Spirit-Baptized Church: A Dogmatic Inquiry. T&T Clark Systematic Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology. T&T Clark, 2021.

Storms, Sam. “History of the Pentecostal-Charismatic Movements.” Sam Storms. March 4, 2009. https://www.samstorms.org/all-articles/post/history-of-the-pentecostal-charismatic-movements.

Wesley, John. The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 1. Journals, Oct. 14, 1735–Nov. 29, 1745. Books for the Ages. The Ages Digital Library Collected Works. Ages Software, 1997. https://media.sabda.org/alkitab-11/V6F-Z/WES_WW01.PDF, 404.

¹ Roger Heuser, “Pentecostals and the Mystical Threefold Path in Historic Christian Spirituality: Strengthening the Inner Being with Power through the Spirit,” in Asian Voices Amplified, ed. Kong Hee et al. (Regnum, 2026), 57.

² David Yonggi Cho, founding pastor of Yoido Full Gospel Church, embodied a profoundly experiential spirituality rooted in prayer, the Word, and the power of the Holy Spirit. In the 1980s, some theologians, including Harvey Cox, described elements of Cho’s worship practices (such as fervent singing, dancing, shouting, and extended corporate prayer) as resembling shamanic ritual forms, suggesting a supposed syncretism between “shamanism” and Christianity. See Kirsteen Kim, “Korean Pentecostalism and Shamanism: Developing Theological Self-Understanding in a Land of Many Spirits,” PentecoStudies, accessed January 19, 2026, https://journal.equinoxpub.com/PENT/article/view/14018, 60. Such criticism, however, is deeply unfair. Cho’s life, teachings, and ministry were never a departure from historic Christian spirituality. Yet, within a fundamentalist framework, any non-rational experience not explicitly mentioned in Scripture must often be rejected.

³ Heuser, “Pentecostals and the Mystical Threefold Path,” 57.

⁴ The Apostolic Faith, Volume 1, Issue 9 (June to September 1907), 2.

⁵ Heuser, “Pentecostals and the Mystical Threefold Path,” 57.

⁶ Heuser, “Pentecostals and the Mystical Threefold Path,” 60.

⁷ Walter Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide (Baker Academic, 2005), 303.

⁸ Heuser, “Pentecostals and the Mystical Threefold Path,” 60.

⁹ Heuser, “Pentecostals and the Mystical Threefold Path,” 63.

¹⁰ Heuser, “Pentecostals and the Mystical Threefold Path,” 61.

¹¹ Heuser, “Pentecostals and the Mystical Threefold Path,” 64.

¹² Heuser, “Pentecostals and the Mystical Threefold Path,” 66.

¹³ Heuser, “Pentecostals and the Mystical Threefold Path,” 66.

¹⁴ Frank D. Macchia, The Spirit-Baptized Church: A Dogmatic Inquiry, T&T Clark Systematic Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology (T&T Clark, 2021), 23.

¹⁵ Macchia, Spirit-Baptized Church, 18.

¹⁶ Author Unknown, “United to Jesus,” The Apostolic Faith 1, no. 2 (October 1906): 3.

¹⁷ Heuser, “Pentecostals and the Mystical Threefold Path,” 71.

¹⁸ Heuser, “Pentecostals and the Mystical Threefold Path,” 66.

¹⁹ Vinson Synan considered John Wesley as the “spiritual father” of the Pentecostal movement; Vinson Synan, cited in Sam Storms, “History of the Pentecostal-Charismatic Movements,” Sam Storms, March 4, 2009, https://www.samstorms.org/all-articles/post/history-of-the-pentecostal-charismatic-movements.

²⁰ Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 146.

²¹ John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 1. Journals, Oct. 14, 1735–Nov. 29, 1745, Books for the Ages, The Ages Digital Library Collected Works (Ages Software, 1997), 404, https://media.sabda.org/alkitab-11/V6F-Z/WES_WW01.PDF.

Session 4

Paul Taught Mutual Submission¹

Craig Keener

Abstract

The longest passage that some use to support wives’ submission is Ephesians 5:22-33, but it belongs to a wider passage addressing submission, 5:21–6:9. This passage uses the ancient literary form of household codes. Although Paul contextualises submission for his audience in the Roman Empire, he qualifies the code in a specifically Christian way, explicitly framing the code with the call to mutual submission, both regarding marriage (5:21) and slavery (6:9). His invitation to wifely submission is grammatically inseparable from his invitation for mutual submission. This fits Jesus’s teaching that calls all Jesus’s followers to serve one another. Similarly, when Peter urges submission to every human institution (1 Pet 2:13), he gives examples within his culture of kings, slaveholders, and husbands (2:13–3:6), without expecting all cultures to continue monarchy, slavery, or patriarchal marriage.

Key Words: biblical marriage, mutual submission, Paul and women, wives in the Bible

Paul framed the Ephesian codes with mutual submission – in a world where literal mutual submission was virtually unheard of. In most cultures today, Christians take into account the culture-specific biblical teachings about head coverings, which expressed sexual modesty, and holy kisses, which represented familial greetings. Just as the principles of sexual modesty and familial greetings need not be expressed in the same way in all cultures, neither does the principle of submission to authority require us to maintain in all cultures the same authority structures particular to first-century contexts.

Scholars often note that some New Testament letters, most extensively Ephesians 5:22–6:9, adapt the contemporary literary form of household codes, following even the overall structure in place since Aristotle.² What is striking is not Paul’s use of familiar forms but his adaptations. Such adaptations include addressing not only the male householder but also the wife, children, and slaves; instructing the husband to love; and the grammatically clear linkage of submission with not only wives but all believers in Eph 5:21. Paul also relativises the slaveholder’s authority in 6:5-9.

Most significantly, Paul frames the household codes with mutual submission in Eph 5:21 and 6:9. He adapts the form in light of Christian teaching (stemming from Jesus) on servanthood. Although some ancient writers were more interested in mutuality than were others, I know of no other ancient household codes that frame their discussion with mutual submission. Similar adaptations appear in Colossians and 1 Peter, suggesting a dynamic in early Christianity that differs from most of its contemporaries. So why did they use household-codes frameworks to begin with? They ministered in a world that generally mistrusted religious movements that undermined their cultures’ family structures.

The Wider Ancient Mediterranean Setting

A few other ancient women-friendly thinkers taught some sort of mutuality. Four or five centuries before Paul, Xenophon argues in Oeconomicus for partnership (koinōnia) between spouses (7.18, 30).³ The husband has more courage (7.25), but both are equals in memory and self-control (7.26-27). The first-century Stoic thinker Musonius Rufus viewed women as equal to men in nature and virtues.⁴ Although he distinguished their roles,⁵ he also often disagreed with the restrictive roles to which his society had limited women.

While many philosophers affirmed women’s equality in principle, though, apparently only Epicureans achieved this ideal in practice.⁶ Socrates claimed that a woman’s nature was not inferior to a man’s, except in strength – and intellect!⁷ One Cynic writer more generally denied that women are worse by nature than men.⁸ Yet neither they nor other writers thought to frame household codes with explicit mutual submission in practice.

Much more common was the model originally promulgated by Aristotle himself, which simply instructed the male householder how to rule his household. Aristotle affirmed that the male was by nature superior to and should rule over the female.⁹

Despite women’s considerable progress in Roman society, older Greek ideologies continued to influence some elite thinking and writing. In one view, women exist only to make men miserable;¹⁰ a misogynist might wish that women did not exist, apart from bearing children.¹¹ One example of tactlessness is a guest denouncing women when invited to speak at a wedding.¹² Juvenal longs for the old days of cave women, before adultery had been invented.¹³

Because of their supposed immaturity, women were often linked with minors, slaves, and the like.¹⁴ This appears particularly conspicuous in a saying that celebrated fortune not making the speaker a woman, beast, or barbarian,¹⁵ a saying eventually adapted into a Jewish benediction as well.¹⁶ I will not even repeat some of the harsher views about women’s character here.

While the Stoic Musonius held friendlier views towards women, not all Stoics agreed. His predecessor, Seneca, a Roman contemporary of Paul, often portrayed women as unstable and irrational,¹⁷ and a later Stoic emperor could regard a man’s soul as different from a woman’s.¹⁸ Although Stoics were more egalitarian than Aristotle, they accepted the hierarchical roles already existing in society.¹⁹ Thus “Roman Stoics were egalitarian in theory but Aristotelian in practice.”²⁰

While later rabbis were more diverse and nuanced in their views, some first-century Jewish writers in Greek mirrored classical Athenian prejudices more directly: Philo always portrays male as superior to female;²¹ he contends that masculinity is closer to divinity than femininity is.²² When he praises the empress Livia, he claims that her training made her virtually male in her intellect.²³ Josephus claims that courts should not accept the testimony of women because of women’s instability.²⁴ Josephus believes that men who heed the folly of women merit judgement,²⁵ and he cites approvingly the Essene suspicion of women’s infidelity.²⁶

Aside from such ideology, some men were simply brutal: for example, to obey the priests and not be defiled, Sulla divorced his sick and dying wife and had her carried away while she lived.²⁷ Plutarch reports that when Alcibiades’s good wife asked for a divorce, in response to his behaviour with courtesans, he dragged her home forcibly; she died soon after, while he was away.²⁸ This was not cruel, Plutarch explains, because the law requires the wife to go to court precisely so that if the husband wants her he may take her.²⁹ Abuse was sometimes sanctioned,³⁰ especially in earlier times.³¹ Another man ordered his freedman to beat his eight-months-pregnant wife; she died in childbirth, but he was not considered guilty because he grieved and was not seeking her death.³² Even antiquity, though, had its limits.³³

Paul Reworks the Household Codes (Eph 5:21–6:9)

Both regarding marriage and regarding slavery, Paul’s treatment of roles differs from that of his culture. After urging slaves to obey their masters (Eph 6:5), Paul urges masters to “do the same things to them” (v. 9). Perhaps few first-century hearers would have taken Paul literally, but what he actually says expressed one of the most radically antislavery sentiments of his day. He was not talking about violently overthrowing the institution of slavery; even the failed slave revolts of his era had never attempted that. But he advocated ethics that went beyond mere theory. Some early Stoic philosophers had advocated human equality, but Stoics had backed away from this and Stoics who could afford it held slaves. Paul and Stoics concurred in principle: Paul affirmed that slaves and slaveholders share the same master in heaven (v. 9). But Paul’s instruction, “Do the same things to them” (6:9), goes beyond theory to practice.

This is not an accident, a slip of Paul’s tongue or his scribe’s pen. Paul frames his entire section of household codes with mutual submission. In his work on governance, the earlier Greek thinker Aristotle had a large section on family roles, what scholars call household codes. In it, Aristotle instructed the male head of the household how to rule his wife, children, and slaves. Subsequent thinkers adopted the same schema, often in the same sequence. Because Rome was suspicious that minority religious groups undermined these traditional values, such groups often laboured to reaffirm their belief in such values.

Paul presents a series of household codes in the same sequence as Aristotle: the relation of the male head of the household (as it was envisioned in his day) to wives, children, and slaves. Paul thus writes like the member of a minority religious group seeking tolerance – after all, he writes from Roman custody, probably in Rome itself (Eph 3:1; 4:1; 6:20).

Yet Paul changes the standard formula. Instead of addressing only slaveholding men, he also addresses the wives, children, and slaves, who probably comprised a majority of the church. (In Paul’s urban congregations, the slaves would have been household slaves, who had more freedom and frequently opportunities for manumission than other slaves.) Moreover, he never instructs the male householder to rule; instead, the householder must love his wife, serving her by offering his life for her (Eph 5:25). He must also avoid provoking his children (6:4) and must treat slaves as fellow servants of God (v. 9).

Most importantly, Paul frames his entire set of instructions (Eph 5:21–6:9) by enjoining mutual submission: submitting to one another (5:21) and doing the same things to them (6:9). This sets submission in a new context: the example and teaching of our Lord, who invited us all to serve one another (Mark 10:42-45; cf. John 13:14-17, 34-35; Gal 5:13-14).

Some controlling husbands today quote Ephesians 5:22 (“Wives, submit to your husbands”) out of context, much the way earlier US slaveholders quoted Ephesians 6:5. But in Greek, there is no verb in 5:22; it simply says, “Wives, to your husbands …” Of course, Paul is not saying, “Wives, do to your husbands just whatever you want.” Greek grammar presumes that we carry over the verb from the preceding verse, and that verb is “submit.” But because the verb is carried over from 5:21, it cannot mean something different in 5:22 than it meant in 5:21. The wife’s submission is, explicitly, merely an example of mutual submission; so is the husband sacrificing his life for his wife.

Some object, “But Paul makes submission explicit only for the wife!” Yes, but the command to love is explicit only for the husband (Eph 5:25), yet we understand that all Christians should love each another (v. 2), just as all Christians should submit to one another (v. 21). Although Paul is not trying to cover every circumstance, he offers a general principle for how we should live: looking out for one another’s interests, listening to one another, loving others more than ourselves. Such advice is in keeping with his explicit teaching elsewhere (e.g., Rom 12:10; 13:8-10; 15:2-3; 1 Cor 13:4-7; Gal 5:14; 6:2), including in the preceding context (Eph 4:32).

New Creation in Galatians 3:28

Galatians 3:28 declares that unity in Christ has obliterated ethnic and gender barriers. If Galatians 3:28 is the universal principle, how is that lived out in the tension between the already/not yet in a fallen world?

Investigating the passage’s allusion to Genesis may shed some light. In the first two examples in Galatians 3:28, Paul says, “neither … nor”: “neither Jew nor Greek” and “neither slave nor free.” But for the third pair, male and female, Paul says, “neither … and,” although some translations obscure this difference. Moreover, avoiding his usual Greek terms for “male” and “female,” Paul borrows the entire phrase from Genesis 1:27, where God created humanity in his image, “male and female.”³⁴ The exact phrase Paul uses appears in the Greek translation of the OT only in Genesis, and applies there to people only in Genesis 1:27 and 5:2, which declare that God created humans, male and female, in his image and likeness. The phrase appears elsewhere in the NT only when Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 (Matt 19:4; Mark 10:6).

In keeping with Jewish expectations of a restoration that echoes the beginning,³⁵ Paul evokes a sort of return to God’s original purpose for humanity, where man and woman together reflect God’s image and rule over creation. It is only afterward, as a result of the Fall, that husbands rule their wives; Genesis 3:16 thus predicts and describes the historic prevalence of men subordinating women. But representatives of God’s Kingdom are not called to promote the effects of the Fall, such as pain in childbirth or men sweating (Gen 3:19).

Joel 2:28-29 reveals the promised restoration of God’s original plan: God pours out his Spirit on male and female, young and old, slave and free, and ultimately all flesh, including Jew and Gentile. Galatians 3:28 may echo Joel 2 (cf. Acts 2:17-18; Rom 5:5), depicting the present, eschatological prophetic empowerment on both genders, all ages, and all flesh.

One in Christ’s Body

Citing Genesis, Jesus argued that God originally created humans as male and female (Gen 1:27), and by marriage he joins male and female back together (Gen 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). Although the New Testament allows some exceptions (cf. Matt 5:32; 19:9; 1 Cor 7:15),³⁶ ideally, Jesus argues, people should not separate what God joined together.

In Ephesians 5:31, Paul likewise quotes Genesis 2:24, using Jesus’s verse about God putting male and female back together in marriage. In Ephesians 5, Paul appeals to this principle for his underlying point about marriage: male and female can become one flesh, as in their original creation. Paul applies the principle not only to the one-flesh union of husband and wife, but to the one-body union of Christ and his church (Eph 5:32). This same picture of one body in Christ stands behind Paul’s exhortation for ethnic unity earlier in Ephesians (2:14-16).

Paul speaks explicitly of Christ as the new Adam in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 45. He also addresses the new creation in the new Adam in Ephesians and Colossians. Just as Genesis speaks of humanity created in God’s image, Colossians 3:10 speaks of believers as new persons created in God’s image. Likewise, Ephesians 4:24 speaks of this newly created self. In Greek, Ephesians 4:24 speaks of a “new person,” or “new humanity” (ton kainon anthrōpon).

Ephesians 2:14-16 explains that Jesus shattered the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile by nullifying in his own flesh the barrier of ethnic-exclusive rules. He reconciled both groups the same way by his one body on the Cross, so making the two into one new person, one new humanity (v. 15) in the body of Christ (v. 16).

In this one new humanity, in Christ’s body, we remain individuals, distinct from one another and from Christ, the body’s head (Eph 4:16). But we belong together just like the parts of an ideally whole body belong together (vv. 12, 16). Regarding both ethnicity and gender, Paul’s emphasis is unity.

Paul’s reasons for using household codes may be culture-specific – that is why different biblical passages depict gender roles quite differently (contrast e.g., Prov 31:16, 24 with 1 Tim 5:14). His wider principle, however, is our unity in the new humanity. Remember that Galatians 3:28 addresses not just ethnicity but also slavery and gender. Like Galatians 3:28, the promised restoration in Joel 2:28-29 crosses barriers, there including slavery, gender, and age, and (with “all flesh”) the ethnic barrier as well. The fundamental, transcultural message of Ephesians modifies household codes by putting them in context.

As Paul is addressing marriage in Ephesians 5, he elaborates at special length on how husbands should love their wives (5:25-31), well over twice as long as he addresses wives. He instructs husbands to love their wives as their own bodies, just as Christ loves his own body, the church (5:25, 29). This is when he specifically quotes Genesis 2:24, about a man becoming one flesh with his wife (v. 31), and remarks that he speaks especially about Christ and the church (v. 32; cf. 1 Cor 6:15-19). He invokes the husband’s headship when he invites the wife to submit but admonishes the husband instead with self-sacrifice.

By applying Genesis 2:24 to both marriage and to the body of Christ, Paul shows that he is still thinking of the one new humanity in Christ. He is still thinking of the restoration of the way God meant things to be in the beginning. His emphasis is not on what the culture emphasised: husbands, rule your wives. His emphasis, justified from Scripture, is on unity in Christ, in marriage as in the wider body of Christ.

Thus, in Ephesians, Paul’s essential principle in Galatians 3:28 holds. In the new creation, we are a new humanity, one body in Christ. Just as slaves are their slaveholders’ equals in the new creation, and just as Jewish and Gentile believers share the same Lord, so male and female are equal members in Christ’s body. Paul lacked the worldly status and power to transform all the social structures of his day, but the body of Christ is an alternative community, where slaves became elders, Gentiles became evangelists, and Junia became an apostle. As a foretaste of the coming world, we must model for the world around us what the restoration of Eden looks like.

Household Codes in Colossians

Although Paul elaborates only in Ephesians, other NT household codes also differ from the wider culture. Like Ephesians 5:22–6:9, Colossians 3:18– 4:1 also follows the traditional Aristotelian outline, addressing wives, children, and slaves, yet again emphasises mutual responsibilities of both.³⁷

The more concise passage in Colossians begins more abruptly than its parallel unit in Ephesians. Whereas Ephesians 5:21’s functional imperative is really a subordinate participle dependent on the imperative, “Be filled with the Spirit” in 5:18, Colossians 3:18 has a genuine imperative, the connection of which to the invitations in 3:16-17 is less grammatically explicit: “Wives, submit to your husbands.” Each of the admonitions in 3:18-21 is stated concisely, like simple parenesis. They address in immediate succession wives, then husbands; and children, then fathers. The difference in admonitions to wives in 3:18 and to children and slaves in 3:20, 22 is nevertheless evident in the different choice of verbs: whereas wives submit (hupotassō), children and slaves obey (hupokouō).

Only the slave section is expanded beyond brief comment, which in turn allows fuller observation of Paul’s intention. As in Ephesians, slaves are called to obey masters not with the masters themselves in mind, but for Christ’s sake (Col 3:22-25). More stark is the command to masters in Colossians 4:1, which, as in Ephesians 6:9, suggests mutual submission. Most translations say something like, “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly” (NRSV). But that is because many scholars suppose that Paul’s instructions here, if taken literally, sound too radical for a first-century setting. Literally, Paul says, grant them justice (dikaion) and equality (isotēta). Isotēs normally means “equality,” especially in slavery contexts where it typically contrasts with slavery.³⁸ That is, Paul’s admonition to slaveholders is among the most radical ideas of ancient thinkers on the subject.

Household Codes in 1 Peter

In the context, in 1 Peter 2:13, Peter explicitly addresses human institutions, such as kingship, slavery, and patriarchal marriage structures. Thus 1 Peter 2:13-14 states: “For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right” (NRSV).

Peter then addresses slaves in 2:18: “Household slaves, submit to masters with all respect.” So also, wives of unbelieving husbands in 1 Peter 3:1, which he introduces with the Greek term ὁμοίως (homoios), “Likewise,” “in the same way.” And consider 5:5: “Likewise, you who are younger, submit to the elders.” Indeed, 5:5 follows an admonition to the elders not to lord it over the flock but be examples to them (v. 3), treating their overseeing role as a role for service (v. 2).

While supporting submission to governing authorities, Peter does not fix for all cultures what such institutions must be or look like. This observation is implicitly recognised by all interpreters today who do not mandate monarchical government (1 Pet 2:13), slavery (v. 18), or calling one’s husband, “lord” (3:6).

Given cultural expectations, it is not surprising that Peter does not summon believing husbands to submission by reusing the term used for those socially subordinate (1 Pet 2:13, 18; 3:1); but he does again use ὁμοίως, “in the same way” (v. 7). He urges showing the wife honour, just as believers must show to rulers – and to everyone else (2:17). The husband must thus respect his wife,³⁹ who shares with him the same standing before God as an heir of resurrection life. Otherwise, his prayers will be hindered (3:7) – implying that he would be unrighteous (v. 12).

I believe that by “weaker vessel” (1 Pet 3:7) he refers to showing considerateness for the person in the socially weaker position. (Keep in mind that Greek husbands were often more than a decade their wives’ senior.) The socially weaker member was in greater need of mercy or attention (cf. 1 Cor 12:22). “Weakness” sometimes entailed vulnerability that might merit protection or invite sympathy.⁴⁰ The point seems to be that the husband should be sensitive to his wife and seek to protect her (cf. Eph 5:25).

Conclusion

That Colossians and 1 Peter also qualify typical household codes suggests that Christians, while working within the societal structures of their day, recognised that these structures fell short of the creation and Kingdom ideal.⁴¹

More explicitly, Paul framed the Ephesian codes with mutual submission – in a world where applying mutual submission literally was virtually unheard of. That it was rarely attempted, however, does not make it any less significant. Even today, husbands and wives and people in other kinds of relationships often seek our own interests more than those of others (cf. Phil 2:4, 21). What would happen if we took Paul at his word? What would happen if we actually began to put mutual submission into practice?⁴² Let’s try it and find out.

Bibliography

Ancient Sources

Aelius Aristides. Translated by C. A. Behr. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1973.

Apollodorus. Bibliotheca. Library; Epitome. Translated by Sir James George Frazer. 2 Vols. LCL. Harvard University Press; Heinemann, 1921.

Augustine. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Aristotle. Politics. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard; Heinemann, 1932.

The Babylonian Talmud. Edited by Isidore Epstein. 35 Vols. Soncino, 1935-1952.

Cicero. Works. 28 Vols. Translated by Harry Caplan et al. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1913-2024.

Clement of Rome. First Letter to the Corinthians. Grapevine Inidia, 2024.

Cornutus. Theologiae graecae compendium. Edited by Carl Lang. Teubner, 1881.

Diodorus of Sicily [Diodorus Siculus]. The Library of History. Translated by C. H. Oldfather et al. 12 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press; Heinemann, 1933-1967.

Diogenes Laertius. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R. D. Hicks. 2 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1925.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The Roman Antiquities. Translated by Earnest Cary, following Edward Spelman. 7 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1937-1945.

Euripides. Translated by David Kovacs, Christopher Collard, and Martin Cropp. 8 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1994-2008.

Euripides. Orestes (Vol. 2). Translated by A. S. Way. 4 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1912.

4 Ezra. Translated by Bruce M. Metzger. 1:516-59 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 Vols. Doubleday, 1983-1985.

The Gospel of Thomas. Translated by T. O. Lambdin. Introduction by Helmut Koester. NHL 117-30.

Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1926-65.

Justinian. Institutes. Translated by Peter Birks and Grant McLeod, with the Latin text of Paul Krueger. Cornell University Press, 1987.

Juvenal. Satires. In Juvenal and Perseus. Translated by G. G. Ramsay. Rev. ed. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1940.

Livy. Ab urbe condita. Translated by B. O. Foster et al. 14 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1919–1959.

Marcus Aurelius. The Communings with Himself. Edited and translated by C. R. Haines. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1916.

The Mishnah. Edited and translated by Philip Blackman. 7 Vols. 2nd ed. New York: Judaica, 1963.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. Oxford University Press, 1933.

Musonius Rufus. Fragments and Discourses. “Musonius Rufus: The Roman Socrates.” Translated by Cora E. Lutz. Yale Classical Studies 10 (1947): 3-147.

Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and R. Marcus. 12 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1929–1962.

Philostratus, Flavius, and Eunapius. The Lives of the Sophists. Translated by Wilmer Cave Wright. Loeb Classical Library. G. P. Putnam’s Sons; Heinemann, 1922.

Plutarch. Lives. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin et al. 11 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1914-1926.

Plutarch. Moralia. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt et al. 17 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. G. P. Putnam’s Sons; Harvard University Press; Heinemann, 1927-2004.

Porphyry. Porphyry the Philosopher to Marcella. Edited and translated by Kathleen O’Brien Wicker. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 28. Graeco-Roman Religion Series 10. Scholars Press, 1987.

Pseudo-Crates. “The Epistles of Crates,” translated by Ronald F. Hock. In The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition. Edited by Abraham J. Malherbe. Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study 12. Scholars Press, 1977.

Pseudo-Lucian. “Affairs of the Heart (Amores).” Translated by M. D. Macleod. In Lucian, Works. 8 Vols. Translated by A. M. Harmon, K. Kilburn, and M. D. Macleod. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1913–1967.

Pseudo-Quintilian. [Quintilian] The Lesser Declamations. 2 Vols. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 2006.

Quintus Curtius. History of Alexander. Translated by John C. Rolfe. 2 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press; Heinemann, 1946.

Seneca. Moral Essays. 3 Vols. Translated by John W. Basore. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard, 1928–1935.

Sifra: An Analytical Translation. Translated by Jacob Neusner. 3 Vols. Brown Judaic Studies 138-40. Scholars Press, 1988.

Sifré to Numbers: An American Translation and Explanation. Translated by Jacob Neusner. 2 Vols. Brown Judaic Studies 118-19. Scholars Press, 1986.

Tacitus. The Annals of Imperial Rome. Rev. ed. Translated by Michael Grant. Penguin, 1959.

Theophrastus. Characters. Translated by J. M. Edmonds. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1929.

The Tosefta. Translated by Jacob Neusner et al. 6 Vols. KTAV, 1977-1986.

Valerius Maximus. Memorable Deeds and Sayings, Book 1. Edited and translated by D. Wardle. Clarendon, 1998.

Xenophon. Memorabilia; Oeconomicus. Translated by E. C. Marchant. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1923.

Xenophon. Symposium; Apology. Translated by O. J. Todd. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1922.

Modern Sources

Baer, Richard A., Jr. Paul’s Use of the Categories Male and Female. Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 3. Brill, 1970.

Balch, David L. “Household Codes.” In Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament, edited by David E. Aune. Scholars Press, 1988.

Balch, David L. Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter. SBL Monograph Series 26. Scholars Press, 1981.

Conway, Colleen. “Gender and Divine Relativity in Philo of Alexandria.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 34, no. 4 (2003): 471-91.

Erskine, Andrew. The Hellenistic Stoa: Political Thought and Action. Cornell University Press, 1990.

Grant, Michael. A Social History of Greece and Rome. Scribner’s, 1992.

Keener, Craig S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. 4 Vols. Baker Academic, 2012.

Keener, Craig S. …And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament. Baker Academic, 1991.

Keener, Craig S. “Mutual Submission Frames the Household Codes.” Priscilla Papers 35, no. 3 (Spring 2021): 10-14.

Keener, Craig S. Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage & Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Baker Academic, 2004.

Keener, Craig S. 1 Peter: A Commentary. Baker Academic, 2021.

Keener, Craig S. “Together in the New Humanity.” Priscilla Papers 37, no. 2 (Spring 2023): 4-7.

Keener, Craig S. “Woman and Man.” In Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments, edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Lavery, Gerard B. “Never Seen in Public: Seneca and the Limits of Cosmopolitanism.” Latomus 56, no. 1 (1997): 3-13.

Longenecker, Richard N. New Testament Social Ethics for Today. Eerdmans, 1984.

Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 33A. Doubleday, 1997.

Mattila, Sharon Lea. “Wisdom, Sense Perception, Nature, and Philo’s Gender Gradient.” Harvard Theological Review 89, no. 2 (1996): 103-29.

Meeks, Wayne A. “The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity.” History of Religions 13, no. 3 (1974): 165-208.

Meeks, Wayne A. The Moral World of the First Christians. Library of Early Christianity 6. Westminster Press, 1986.

Moo, Douglas J. Galatians. Baker Academic, 2013.

Schaefer, Kurt C. Husband, Wife, Father, Child, Master, Slave: Peter through Roman Eyes. Wipf and Stock, 2018.

Vasser, Donald Murray. “Grant Slaves Equality: Re-Examining the Translation of Colossians 4:1.” Tyndale Bulletin 68, no. 1 (2017): 59-71.

Vasser, Donald Murray. “Slaves in the Christian Household: The Colossian and Ephesian Haustafeln in Context.” PhD diss., Asbury Theological Seminary, 2021.

Wegner, Judith Romney. Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in the Mishnah. Oxford University Press, 1992.

¹ This essay condenses material from my “Mutual Submission Frames the Household Codes,” Priscilla Papers 35, no. 3 (Summer 2021): 10-14; and “Together in the New Humanity,” Priscilla Papers 37, no. 2 (Spring 2023): 4-7, used with permission. I draw also on Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage & Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Baker Academic, 2004); Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 4 vols. (Baker Academic, 2012), 1:597-638.

² See Aristotle, Pol. 1.2.1, 1253b; David L. Balch, “Household Codes,” in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament, ed. David E. Aune (Scholars, 1988), 27. For Greek-speaking Jewish circles, see Josephus, Apion 2.201-17; see esp. Balch, “Household Codes,” 28-29.

³ Still, Xenophon does not envision partnership in all respects; he contends that nature has suited wives’ bodies better for indoor work and husbands’ bodies for work outdoors (Oec. 7.22-23, 30).

⁴ On virtues being the same for both, see, e.g., the translation of Musonius Rufus, frg.: “Musonius Rufus: The Roman Socrates,” trans. Cora E. Lutz, Yale Classical Studies 10 (1947): 3-147, 4, p. 44.10–35; 4, p. 46.31–37; p. 48.1–26; see also Antisthenes, quoted in Diogenes Laertius Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 6.1.12; Pseudo-Crates, Ep. 28; Seneca, Dial. 6.17.1.

⁵ For role distinctions in expressing virtue, see, e.g., Musonius Rufus, frg., 3, p. 40.25-28; cf. Seneca, Dial. 6.7.3.

⁶ Wayne A. Meeks, “The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity,” HR 13 (Feb 3, 1974): 170-73 (esp. 170).

⁷ Xenophon, Symp. 2.9, reporting Socrates’s view (if, as is likely, gnōmē here involves intellect).

⁸ Pseudo-Crates, Ep. 28. Diogenes, though, treats women’s nature as inferior, in some sense in the tradition in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 6.2.65.

⁹ Aristotle, Pol. 1.2.12, 1254b; cf. 2.2.15, 1264b. Virtues differed by gender (Aristotle, Pol. 3.2.10, 1277b).

¹⁰ Euripedes, Or. 605-6.

¹¹ Ps-Luc., Am. 38.

¹² Theophr., Char. 12.6.

¹³ Juv., Sat. 6.7-8.

¹⁴ E.g., Cicero, Off. 2.16.55-57; Aelius Aristides, Def. Orat. 130, §41D; with barbarians and uneducated persons in Seneca, Dial. 6.7.3; cf. Jewish laws in m. Suk. 2:8; Hag. 1:1; cf. especially Sipre Num. 39.6.1 (where women, proselytes and slaves do not belong to Israel proper).

¹⁵ Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 1.33. See Richard N. Longenecker, New Testament Social Ethics for Today (Eerdmans, 1984), 70.

¹⁶ E.g., t. Ber. 6:18; b. Men. 43b-44a, bar. “Gentile” naturally replaced “barbarian.”

¹⁷ See Gerard B. Lavery, “Never Seen in Public: Seneca and the Limits of Cosmopolitanism,” Latomus 56, no. 1 (1997): 3-13; Sen., Dial. 6.7.3.

¹⁸ Marcus Aurelius, Med. 5.11. In the mid-second century BCE, Stoics had begun moving away from their earlier political egalitarianism (Andrew Erskine, The Hellenistic Stoa: Political Thought and Action [Cornell University Press, 1990], 181).

¹⁹ Wayne A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians (LEC 6; Westminster, 1986), 60-61.

²⁰ Balch, “Household Codes,” 31; see further David L. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (SBLMS 26; SBL, 1981), 143-49.

²¹ Sharon Lea Mattila, “Wisdom, Sense Perception, Nature, and Philo’s Gender Gradient,” HTR 89, no. 2 (1996): 103-29. Male is more complete than and superior to female (Richard A. Baer Jr., Paul’s Use of the Categories Male and Female [ALGHJ 3; Brill, 1970], 41, citing Spec. Laws 1.200-1); female is “an imperfect male” (Baer, Categories, 41, citing QE 1:7; QG 1:25); and nature places men before women (Philo, Spec. Laws 2.124).

²² Cf. Colleen Conway, “Gender and Divine Relativity in Philo of Alexandria,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 34, no. 4 (2003): 471-91; Baer, Categories, 55-64.

²³ Philo, Embassy 319-20; on females becoming more male, see Baer, Categories, 45-49, 69 (esp. 45). Similarly, Seneca praises his mother for her manliness (Michael Grant, A Social History of Greece and Rome [Scribner’s, 1992] 34, citing Seneca, Consol. 16), and Porphyry encourages his wife that she can be virtually male (Porphyry, Marc. 33.511-16). It is this line of thought, rather than a Galilean Jesus, that is echoed in G. Thom. 114.

²⁴ Josephus, Ant. 4.219; in later rabbis, see Sipra VDDeho. pq. 7.45.1.1; Judith Romney Wegner, Chattel or Person?: The Status of Women in the Mishnah (Oxford University Press, 1992), 120-23 (esp. 122). Elsewhere in antiquity, see Justinian, Inst. 2.10.6.

²⁵ E.g., Josephus, Ant. 18.252-55.

²⁶ Josephus, War 2.121.

²⁷ Plutarch, Sulla 35.2; likewise, in 33.3, he ordered Pompey to divorce his wife and then gave him his daughter, already pregnant by another husband; she died in childbirth.

²⁸ Plutarch, Alc. 8.3-4.

²⁹ Plutarch, Alc. 8.5.

³⁰ In myth, Apollodorus, Bib. 2.7.1; envisioned in Alexander’s day, Quintus Curtius Rufus, History of Alexander 8.8.3. Augustine’s mother Monica told wives to endure such beatings with servility (Augustine, Conf. 9.9).

³¹ E.g., Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta, 6.3.9 (where a man cudgelled his wife to death for drinking wine). A tyrant like Periander (who allegedly killed his pregnant wife in anger, then slew his concubines for goading him on; Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 1.94) is exceptional, however. They also knew of the Indian custom of widow burning (Diodorus Siculus, Diod. Sic. 17.91.3; Cicero, Tusc. 5.27.78).

³² Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.1.555-56.

³³ See Apollodorus, Bib. 3.15.1; esp. Tacitus, Ann. 4.22.

³⁴ With e.g., J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33A (Doubleday, 1997) 376, 380; Douglas J. Moo, Galatians (Baker Academic, 2013) 254.

³⁵ See e.g., 4 Ezra 8:52-54; Sipra Behuq. 1.261.1.6.

³⁶ Cf. the argument in Craig Keener, …And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament (Baker Academic, 1991).

³⁷ Indeed, 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 also emphasises mutual, and in that case the same, responsibilities of both husbands and wives.

³⁸ Donald Murray Vasser, “Grant Slaves Equality: Re-Examining the Translation of Colossians 4:1,” Tyndale Bulletin 68, no. 1 (2017): 59-71; idem, “Slaves in the Christian Household: The Colossian and Ephesian Haustafeln in Context” (PhD diss., Asbury Theological Seminary, 2021).

³⁹ Here mutuality goes beyond even Ephesians 5:33. Kurt C. Schaefer, Husband, Wife, Father, Child, Master, Slave: Peter through Roman Eyes (Wipf and Stock, 2018), 125, views this instruction as reversing the expectations of Aristotelian codes. See also Craig S. Keener, 1 Peter: A Commentary (Baker Academic, 2021), 208-51.

⁴⁰ E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 8.24.4–5; Livy, Ab urbe cond., 34.7.14; Plutarch, Rom. Q. 108, Mor. 289E; Ps.-Quintilian, Decl. 272.3–5, 9; 338.8. In Greek mythology, cf. Cornutus, Greek Theology 32, §66.12-15.

⁴¹ Indeed, even as late as the letter of Clement of Rome to the Christians of Corinth (written towards the end of the first century), more than usual mutuality appears (see Craig Keener, “Woman and Man,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments [ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids; InterVarsity, 1997], 1205-15).

⁴² I am not referring to submitting voluntarily to spousal abuse. Also, Paul urges less mutual submission in the instruction to fathers (Eph 6:4): children do need guidance.

Response to Craig Keener’s “Paul Taught Mutual Submission”

Bobby Chaw

Thank you, Dr. Craig Keener, for the opportunity to engage with your excellent presentation. Your paper provides a clear and strong argument on Paul’s vision of mutual submission, a vision that radically redefines the first-century household codes and reflects the transformative life of those made new in Christ. Your meticulous work on the biblical texts, shaped by insights from the ancient Mediterranean social and cultural world, helps us see more clearly Paul’s countercultural vision. This contribution is especially valuable in Asia, where pervasive hierarchical social norms often challenge Christians to uphold their Spirit-shaped ethos of mutual submission. In engaging this paper, I offer three interrelated observations.

This Paper Resonates with Realities That Asian Christians Face

Despite modernisation and globalisation, hierarchical control and gender inequality remain deeply entrenched across Asia. In 2025, researchers conducted an extensive study of families across twenty-two Asian and North African countries and ranked them according to the “Patriarchal Index” (PI).¹ Indonesia, China, Myanmar, Cambodia, and India had high PI scores, which indicate that “patriarchal control remains organised around extended kinship and residential arrangements.”² The study reveals, “In these regions, the rudimentary patriarchal system continues to dominate … [and is] perpetuated through familial arrangements, modes of production, state-regulated laws and policies, control of sexuality, and monopolies in religion and culture.”³ Eva Wong also notes that the patriarchal culture in Asia is “deeply entrenched and ingrained” and is prevalent even in Christian organisations, churches, and ministries – Pentecostal and charismatic alike.⁴

Against this backdrop, evangelical complementarianism has increasingly gained prominence in Asia over the past few decades. Complementarianism holds that men and women are “equal in value and dignity” yet have “different roles” as part of the created order, and this essentially privileges male authority and restricts female leadership.⁵ From the 1940s, indigenous church leaders in China advocated the mutual submission model.⁶ Mary Ma notes that “before the 2000s, female leadership was the norm.”⁷ However, several scholars have noted how American complementarianism has shaped contemporary Chinese theology in the years that followed.⁸ Churches started “elevating male headship, teaching the complementarian relationship between two genders, and discouraging females from leading the church.”⁹ Mary Chung argues that “Conservative evangelical theology of the West that emphasises male-headship and female-subordination … inevitably predominates in Chinese churches. This serves to reinforce the traditional Chinese view of male-superiority and female-inferiority.”¹⁰ In the book Discovering Biblical Equality, psychologist Kylie Pidgeon argues that complementarianism “creates not only systemic discrimination but implicit and explicit biases that disadvantage women.”¹¹ Similarly, Frank Macchia observes that it “arguably essentialises gender roles in ways that are inherently oppressive to women.”¹²

What this means is that the alignment of evangelical complementarian ideals with the entrenched patriarchal cultural norms has continued to marginalise women in Asia. As such, there is a pressing need for the Asian church, especially Pentecostals, to recover Paul’s radical vision of mutual submission that is pneumatic, Christocentric, embodying the life of the coming Kingdom in the here and now. This leads me to my second observation.

Paul’s Vision of Mutual Submission is Theologically Robust

Keener observes, “Some controlling husbands today quote Ephesians 5:22 (‘Wives, submit to your husbands’) out of context, much the way earlier US slaveholders quoted Ephesians 6:5 (‘Slaves, obey your masters’).”¹³ Proponents of complementarianism have also misapplied some of these texts. Macchia notes that “Complementarians … take several culturally embedded texts from the Bible to universalise as timeless subordinate roles for women in the home and the church.”¹⁴ He adds that such misapplication “is simply poor hermeneutics, out of touch with the ‘general sense’ and direction of the biblical gospel and uninformed about the contextual nature of texts and of theological reflection.”¹⁵ In this regard, Keener’s critical work on ancient Mediterranean settings and the theological reflections in this paper prove invaluable.

Paul’s vision of mutual submission unfolds in three interrelated dimensions. It is pneumatic, Christocentric, and it embodies an eschatological vision.

Mutual Submission is Pneumatic

First, mutual submission is pneumatic. Keener argues that Paul’s household codes in Ephesians were adapted from the prevailing Aristotelian model, which held that “the male was by nature superior to and should rule over the female.”¹⁶ However, Paul redefined these relationships with mutual submission, with a command to all believers in 5:21──“submit to one another,” and this command flows from being “filled with the Spirit” in 5:18. In other words, mutual submission is the expected fruit of being filled with the Spirit. Rather than yielding to cultural pressures and conforming to the dominant norms of male headship or becoming like the Roman Stoics (egalitarian in theory but Aristotelian in practice), Paul is commanding all believers, both men and women, “Now that you are filled with the Spirit, walk in mutual submission.” Wives submit to husbands, and husbands do the same to wives. This may go against the grain of a patriarchal society; however, as Amos Yong writes, “The baptism of the Spirit is also a baptism of love that not only sanctifies and perfects individual hearts but also produces a counter-cultural way of life.”¹⁷ Mutual submission is a defining expression of Pentecostal ethos.

Mutual Submission is Christocentric

Second, Keener notes that when Paul instructs, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v. 25), he redefines the husband’s headship, subverting it from a position of dominance into a cruciform expression of self-sacrificial love that gives up all privilege for his wife. By doing so, the husband gives back to the wife the honour that she and the larger society give to him.¹⁸ Christ’s model of headship is not about defining household roles or authority, as complementarians propose; rather, it is about love – a love that gives up one’s privilege and bestows that privilege on others in service and honour. The more we embody mutual submission, the more we are transformed into the image of Christ.

Mutual Submission Embodies an Eschatological Vision

Last, Keener notes that Paul’s use of Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians, both in reference to marriage and to the church, reflects his broader vision of ethnic and gender unity in the “one new humanity” in Christ and his anticipation of God’s restoration to the original design in the beginning. Yet Paul remains conscious of the eschatological tension between the “already” and the “not yet.” Rather than advocating the violent overthrow of the social structures of his day, he calls the body of Christ to radically model to the world a foretaste of the coming Kingdom – “by treating one another as equals and serving one another (starting) in their homes.”¹⁹ This brings me to my third and final observation.

Practising Mutual Submission in Asia amidst Pervasive Cultural Pressures Has Its Challenges

Practising mutual submission in Asia amidst pervasive cultural pressures demands courage and cross-bearing. Daniel Sandeep and his wife, Grace, are pastors in Punjab, India, where family and society are structured around a patriarchal hierarchy that reinforces male dominance.²⁰ Husbands typically control finances and social decisions, physical violence is often normalised, and wives are expected to endure it. When the husband exhibits moral failings, apologies are rarely expected. Women who confide in their community often receive reinforcement of these norms, with neighbours consoling them by saying, “He is your husband; you must submit and obey.”²¹ Since their marriage, Daniel has intentionally practised the countercultural model of mutual submission. He consults Grace on all financial and social decisions, making choices collaboratively, and has developed the discipline to apologise when he is wrong. This approach has attracted criticism from their community, with some mocking, “He always listens to his wife.” In an honour–shame culture, where pride and ego are fiercely defended, Daniel had to “bear his cross” daily.

During a recent visit to their home, while Grace served the guests first, I noticed Daniel deliberately gave her a spoonful before he began eating. When I enquired further, he explained that this was a practice he learned from Grace’s parents, and it serves as a reminder – to themselves and others – that in a male-dominated society, where women are expected to serve and men to be served, they seek to uphold equality and mutual respect. Over the course of the past twenty years, Daniel has observed that this practice has influenced other family members and church congregants, who have begun to adopt similar patterns of mutual respect and love. While these gestures may seem small, they represent a significant step for Pastor Daniel and his family in practising mutual submission within a male-dominated Indian culture. Transforming the broader social and cultural norms may be challenging, but we can start with our family and our local community to have a foretaste of what Eden is like.

Conclusion

Paul’s vision of mutual submission aligns with the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit upon “all flesh” (Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-18), which transcends distinctions of race, gender, age, marital status, and social class. This vision is hermeneutically sound, theologically robust, and practically viable, offering the Asian church a way of life for faithful witness to the gospel of freedom and equality. Nevertheless, a common concern within pragmatic Asian societies is that the egalitarian model of mutual submission – gender equality – lacks clear and distinct structures or roles within household relationships. Could this potentially lead to a slide towards liberalism, the erosion of authority structures, or even a blurring of gender distinctions? These critiques merit further theological engagement with both biblical fidelity and cultural sensitivity.

Bibliography

BBC News. “What is India’s Caste System?” June 19, 2019. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35650616.

Chung, Mary Keng Mun. Chinese Women in Christian Ministry: An Intercultural Study. Peter Lang, 2015.

Evans, Jonathan, Neha Sahgal, Ariana Monique Salazar, Kelsey Jo Starr, and Manolo Corichi. “How Indians View Gender Roles in Families and Society.” Pew Research Centre. March 2, 2022. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/03/02/how-indians-view-gender-roles-in-families-and-society/.

Kaur, Manvinder, and Ameer Sultana. “Patriarchy in Punjab: Documenting the Narratives of Women from Three Generations of Jat Sikh Families of Punjab.” Samyukta: A Journal of Gender and Culture 6, no. 1 (January 31, 2006). https://samyuktajournal.in/patriarchy-in-punjabdocumenting-the-narratives-of-women-from-three-generations-of-jat-sikh-families-of-punjab/.

Keener, Craig S. Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Baker Publishing Group, 1992. Kindle.

Ma, Mary Li. “Power Structures in the Church.” Do Justice. April 19, 2019. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.crcna.org/DoJustice/article/power-structures-church.

Macchia, Frank D. “Pneumatological Feminist/Womanist Theologies: The Importance of Discernment.” Pneuma 35, no. 1 (2013): 61-73.

Macchia, Frank D. The Spirit-Baptized Church: A Dogmatic Inquiry. T&T Clark, 2021. Kindle.

Macchia, Frank D. Tongues of Fire: A Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Cascade Books, 2023. Kindle.

Pidgeon, Kylie. “Complementarianism and Domestic Abuse: A Social-Scientific Perspective on Whether ‘Equal but Different’ Is Really Equal at All.” In Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblical, Theological, Cultural, and Practical Perspectives. 1st ed., edited by Ronald W. Pierce, Cynthia Long Westfall, and Christa L. McKirland. InterVarsity Press, 2021.

Pierce, Ronald W., Cynthia Long Westfall, and Christa L. McKirland. Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblical, Theological, Cultural, and Practical Perspectives, 1st ed. InterVarsity Press, 2021.

Stasson, Anneke H. “Mutual Submission, Not Complementarianism: Reviving the Chinese Marital Theology of Watchmen Nee and Wang Mingdao.” Missiology: An International Review 53, no. 2 (2025): 131-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/00918296241260415.

Szoltysek, Mikolaj, Bartosz Ogórek, Mateusz Grzyb, and Siegfried Gruber. “The Patriarchy Index for Asia: A Pragmatic Tool for Cross-Cultural Analysis of Gender Inequalities.” August 2025. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/m8f7bv1.

Witt, William G. Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination. Baylor University Press, 2020. Kindle.

Wong Suk Kyun, Eva. “Toward Biblical Equality in Pentecostal Leadership in the Twenty-First Century.” Malaysian Pentecostal Journal 2 (2024): 155-60. https://bcm.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Malaysian-Pentecostal-Journal-Volume-2-2024WebVersion.pdf.

Yong, Amos. Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace. Baylor University Press, 2012. Kindle.

¹ Mikolaj Szoltysek, et al., “The Patriarchy Index for Asia: A Pragmatic Tool for Cross-Cultural Analysis of Gender Inequalities,” August 2025, https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/m8f7b_v1.

² Szoltysek, et al., “Patriarchy Index.”

³ Szoltysek, et al., “Patriarchy Index.”

⁴ Eva Wong Suk Kyun, “Toward Biblical Equality in Pentecostal Leadership in the Twenty-first Century,” Malaysian Pentecostal Journal 2 (2024): 160, https://bcm.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Malaysian-Pentecostal-Journal-Volume-2-2024WebVersion.pdf.

⁵ William G. Witt, Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination (Baylor University Press, 2020), 43, Kindle.

⁶ Anneke H. Stasson, “Mutual Submission, Not Complementarianism: Reviving the Chinese Marital Theology of Watchmen Nee and Wang Mingdao,” Missiology: An International Review 53, no. 2 (2025): 141, https://doi.org/10.1177/00918296241260415.

⁷ Stasson, “Mutual Submission,” 132.

⁸ Stasson, “Mutual Submission,” 132.

⁹ Mary Li Ma, “Power Structures in the Church,” Do Justice, April 19, 2019, accessed October 20, 2025, https://www.crcna.org/DoJustice/article/power-structures-church, as quoted in Stasson, “Mutual Submission,” 132.

¹⁰ Mary Keng Mun Chung, Chinese Women in Christian Ministry: An Intercultural Study (Peter Lang, 2015), 133, as quoted in Stasson, “Mutual Submission,” 132.

¹¹ Kylie Pidgeon, “Complementarianism and Domestic Abuse: A Social-Scientific Perspective on Whether ‘Equal but Different’ Is Really Equal at All,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblical, Theological, Cultural, and Practical Perspectives, 1st ed., ed. Ronald W. Pierce et al. (InterVarsity Press, 2021), 487.

¹² Frank D. Macchia, “Pneumatological Feminist/Womanist Theologies: The Importance of Discernment,” Pneuma 35, no. 1 (2013): 65.

¹³ Craig S. Keener, “Paul Taught Mutual Submission,” in Asian Voices Amplified, ed. Kong Hee et al. (Regnum, 2026), 89.

¹⁴ Macchia, “Pneumatological Feminist/Womanist Theologies,” 65.

¹⁵ Macchia, “Pneumatological Feminist/Womanist Theologies,” 66.

¹⁶ Keener, “Paul Taught Mutual Submission,” 87.

¹⁷ Amos Yong, Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace (Baylor University Press, 2012), loc. 1623, Kindle.

¹⁸ Frank D. Macchia, Tongues of Fire: A Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Cascade Books, 2023), 584, Kindle.

¹⁹ Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Baker Publishing Group, 1992), 279, Kindle.

²⁰ Manvinder Kaur and Ameer Sultana, “Patriarchy in Punjab: Documenting the Narratives of Women from Three Generations of Jat Sikh Families of Punjab,” Samyukta: A Journal of Gender and Culture 6, no. 1 (January 31, 2006), https://samyuktajournal.in/patriarchy-in-punjabdocumenting-the-narratives-of-women-from-three-generations-of-jat-sikh-families-of-punjab/. This reports states that in Punjabi society, “A man is equated with the sun, while women are mere satellites who derive their luminescence from him,” illustrating the deeply entrenched patriarchy in the region.

²¹ These societal norms in Punjab, India were given by Daniel Sandeep, during my personal conversation with him, October 24, 2025.

Session 5

Many Tongues, Many Professions: Towards a Pentecost Theology of Vocation

Amos Yong

Abstract

Pentecostal theologians have begun work in theology of vocation even as developments beyond initial sketches remain to be taken up. Beginning with the explorations about how the many tongues of Pentecost foreground the plurality of witnessing activities invites, for us, articulation of a theology of testimony, and this opens up to, next, a theology of profession understood not only in terms of public declaration but also of occupational skilfulness. Elaboration of many tongues as many testifyings and many professings leads to the final section’s theology of vocational pluralism. Rooting this trajectory of witness/testimony-profession-vocation in the Pentecost account foregrounds both its pneumatic substance and its trinitarian character.

Keywords: Acts 2, Pentecost, profession, testimony, theology of work, vocation

Pentecostal theologians have begun work in theology of vocation even as developments are still in the initial stages.¹ As my own endeavours over the last decade have returned repeatedly to the Pentecost narrative, in particular retrieving the multiplicity of tongues referred to in the Acts of the Apostles for their various (and many) theological implications and applications,² so also in this essay, we spring from the book’s second chapter. Beginning with the explorations about how the many tongues of Pentecost foreground the plurality of witnessing activities invites, for us, articulation of a theology of testimony, and this opens up to, next, a theology of profession understood not only in terms of public declaration but also of occupational skilfulness, here also intersecting with contemporary discussions in theology of work. Elaboration of many tongues as many testifyings and many professings leads to the final section’s theology of vocational pluralism. Rooting this trajectory of witness/testimony-profession-vocation in the Pentecost account foregrounds both its pneumatic substance and its trinitarian character.

Pentecost and Testimony

St. Luke tells us, in one of the first scenes in the sequel to his first volume (the Gospel of Luke) that:

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability (Acts 2:1-4).³

Without minimising the collective character of this event – these were, after all, “all together in one place” (2:1) – our focus in what follows is on the individuality of the Spirit’s infilling. Yes, the result was a cumulative speaking all together, although that does not eliminate their differentiated experiences of the Spirit’s expression: “Divided tongues” (2:3a) not only manifested through but also alighted on each one, we are told.

There is little dispute (scholarly or otherwise) about the initially and immediately resulting phenomenon of those gathered together speaking in many languages. Our author reiterates, first, descriptively, the crowd’s own realisation that, “each one heard them [the disciples] speaking in the native language of each” (2:6b); second, the crowd’s own wondering, “how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language?” (2:7b); and, finally, again, the crowd’s own words, “in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power” (2:11b). More precisely, given that there are sixteen delineations of regional provenances or ethnic derivations from around the known (Mediterranean) world – five people groups, “Parthians, Medes, Elamites” mentioned at the beginning and “Cretans and Arabs” at the end, and a reference to “residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome” in the middle (2:9-11) – the point is that the Pentecost deluge not only preserves but even prioritises the multiplicity of known languages as the conduit for heralding the divine power.⁴

Such announcement of divine power begins to fulfil Jesus’s own promise to his followers, also recorded by Luke in the opening scene of the Book of Acts, that each of them would “receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (1:8). This entire second Lukan volume is about the disciples witnessing to Jesus, starting (in Acts chapter 2) in Jerusalem and extending to the ends of the earth (Acts chapter 28). We will return variously to reflect on what this witness to Jesus entails, but for the moment, what is important is that such witness is given in many languages. More to the point, such witnesses are given, on the one hand, “in the native language of each,” and also heard, on the other hand, “in our own native [ἐγεννήθημεν] language,” here (in contrast to the Greek lingua franca of the first-century Mediterranean context) referring explicitly to the languages of birth, the mother tongues in which these listeners were most fluent.⁵

One way to comprehend linguistic fluency is in terms of individual articulative capacities to translate experiences into words. Luke’s two volumes can be read in ways that highlight this correlation as one element of what it means to bear witness effectively, to tell of what we have been affected by, what we have seen, heard, and felt. If in the Jesus narrative the reporting about experiential witness is descriptive of what Jesus tells John’s inquiring followers to report back to him about – to his question about Jesus’s messianic identity, they are urged, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard” (Luke 7:22a) – in Acts, not only do the apostles say of their own witness, “We cannot keep from speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20), but also the exemplary apostolic witness of the second half of this book is prophetically commissioned to fulfil his missional task in relationship to his personal experience: “You will be his witness to all the world of what you have seen and heard” (22:15).⁶ In other words, apostolic witness, as Luke recounts such, emerges from out of apostolic experience: Jesus’s followers bear witness to what they have seen, heard, and perceived, and do so in part via remembering and repeating – verbally or via other actions – these experiences.⁷

I would add that not only is apostolic witness no mere cerebral rhetoric but that such – then (in the first century) and now (in our twenty-first) – gushes forth from out of the depths of our lived experience, in that respect flowing most naturally, even if not only, out of our mother tongues. No wonder that modern pentecostal Christians over the last century have often lifted up the testimony as the preferred form of bearing witness. Everyone (unless verbally or otherwise impaired to the point of impeding speech) can share out of his or her mother tongue about their encounter with and experience of God in their lives. Within pentecostal contexts, more often than not, the testimony is of the personal experience of salvation, of healing, of encounter of (or “baptism with,” as is common in pentecostal circles) the Holy Spirit, including as followed by speaking in tongues, prophesying, or other charismatic manifestations, and of divinely providential moments of life.⁸ These are the palpably, tactilely, and kinaesthetically experienced forms of divine intervention, equally as often in times of distress or crisis. The testimony is a recounting of such experiences and of their impactful and transformative nature.

Not surprisingly, pentecostal testimony thus flourishes especially, even if not only, in oral cultural contexts, where there is the possibility of a spontaneous articulation in any relational encounter with individuals speaking not out of theoretical abstraction but out of personal experience.⁹ Even if not personally experienced, the testimony is nevertheless born out of relationships with family members or close friends and thereby directly witnessed and effective. The testimony speaks not via hearsay but of what oneself sees and knows precisely because such occurred to, or in the presence of, the testifier. The testimony speaks not in the third person, maintaining objective distance, but in the first person, self-narrating the affective impact of the divine manifestation. In these respects, it is not that the pentecostal testimony cannot be given effectively in secondary acquired languages or, for those who are bilingual or multilingual, in these other tongues. The Lukan reference of the Spirit’s infilling generating speech “in the native language of each” and “in our own native language” surely elevates the role of the mother tongue in Christian witness but also, as importantly, highlights their testimonial character, emerging in a sense from that which is most intrinsic to the people group or their ethnic cultural reality on the one hand, and from what is most viscerally encountered, deeply felt, and interiorly accessed on the other.

To recapitulate at this juncture: the Pentecost outpouring of the Spirit enables speaking and hearing in other and many languages, including, especially, mother tongues. Such Spirit-inspired speech and hearing bears witness to the wondrous works of God, which in pentecostal spirituality is often, if not only, testimonial in character. The testimony is borne through the singularity of the individual voice, narrative, and language, authorised by no external power except the potency of the experienced reality.¹⁰ And just as the promise of the Spirit is to all – male and female, young and old, slave and free (see Acts 2:17-18) – so also is the testimony bearable by all: no special education or training or preparation is needed, just the language of one’s birth and encounter with the Spirit of the living God’s wondrous deeds.

Pentecost and Profession/s

The preceding discussion of many tongues and many witnesses invites extension of many testimonies to many professions, particularly in light of how Christian witness is intimately intertwined with publicly delivered proclamations or otherwise-accessible declarations. Despite comprehending the many witnesses of and testimonies to the potency of divine deeds (Acts 2:11), perplexity and bewilderment about what was transpiring led the multitude to query, “What does this mean?” (v. 12b). Apostolic profession – the interpretation and translation of the many tongues and testimonies, so to speak – was further needed: “Peter, standing with the eleven, raised his voice and addressed them …” (v. 14). Luke’s account of Peter’s profession extends to almost the rest of Acts 2 (vv. 14-40).

The Book of Acts includes numeroussuch professions given by leaders of the apostolic band, including Stephen (ch. 7) and Paul (multiple times in the second half of Acts). There are others, however, who profess not only with their words but also their actions. Barnabas, we are told, “sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet” (4:37), and via this deed came to be known as “son of encouragement” (v. 36b) and added to the apostolic leadership ranks (11:22-25, 12:25, 13:1-2, passim). Luke also records that, “in Joppa there was a disciple whose name was Tabitha, which in Greek is Dorcas [who] was devoted to good works and acts of charity” (9:36). Further, there is Lydia, a Thyatira-to-Philippi immigrant businesswoman who opens up her home to Paul and his companions to host times of prayer and other apostolic gatherings (16:13-15).¹¹ In each of these cases, the profession of faith correlated with the professor’s (testifier’s) life (and vocational) narrative: as a (at least one-time) property-owner, as a seamstress (as Tabitha was described in 9:39b), or a “dealer in purple cloth” (said of Lydia in 16:14b).

In contemporary parlance, one’s profession is considered less in terms of one’s testimonial witness in the religious sense than referring to the competencies and skills one exhibits in one’s employment or in one’s efforts to “earn a living,” so to speak. Profession in today’s idiom, thus, opens up to theology of work, or how what we do for our jobs manifests our expertise, proficiencies, and even professionalism. Yet even from this perspective, we can see that the Pentecost approach to witness and testimony we have been developing is able to account also for such professions. Tabitha, as we have seen, was not only well known for her “good works and acts of charity,” but was recognised and remembered specifically for her “tunics and other clothing that [she] had made while she was with them” (9:39b). In other words, Tabitha professed in word and also in the deeds of her daily undertaking. She did so perhaps in part bilingually and in part professionally through her dressmaking work: that she appears to have been known by both Aramaic and Greek names is suggestive, even if not conclusively so,¹² of at least the reception of her occupational activities in both linguistic communities if not also of her communicative fluency in both Aramaic (the local Judean language) and Greek.

Almost a generation ago (by the time of this writing), pentecostal (then) theologian Miroslav Volf developed a pneumatological theology of work, one grounded in the reception and outworking of the distribution of the Spirit’s charisms enabling edification of the recipients of our various professions in anticipation of the new creation.¹³ The many tongues of Pentecost in my account here correlate with the many spiritual or charismatic gifts in Volf’s understanding of Spirit-ed work. I want to urge, however, an even deeper connectivity. Tongues as witness and profession, viewed after Pentecost, is not only one of the Spirit’s gifts but is also both spoken and performed. In other words, we are invited to consider tongues not only linguistically but also in terms of discursive practice. If language helps us name life experiences, so also life’s navigation generates language. Viewed professionally or in terms of professions, then, the many skills and competencies of work in life are also discursively catalytic.¹⁴ Tabitha may have picked up her dressmaking skills as an apprentice from a community mentor. As a skilled seamstress she would have been able to provide accounts (testimonies!) of dressmaking that us non-dressmakers would not have easily grasped, even as her capacities to witness from out of her life’s experiences as a renowned seamstress grew in part through the reception of her dresses and the impression they made in the wider community. Regardless, witness is born out of the depths of her own lifelong experiences as a seamstress.

Similarly, as I have argued in other places, in the twenty-first century, our training, especially in tertiary programmes of study organised either professionally (e.g., doctors, lawyers, engineers) or disciplinarily (e.g., in the human, social, or natural sciences), involves formation in distinctive realms of discursive practices.¹⁵ We learn new concepts and vocabularies pertinent to different domains of study and enquiry, in each case in order to pursue knowledge and to contribute occupationally, socially, and in other ways. In these professions, we inevitably are translators of the specialised knowledge in our fields to wider audiences and recipients of such knowledge, even as we bring the questions and concerns of others back to our disciplines and guilds to further refine thinking and practice. Volf’s charismatic theology of work invites consideration of how the many tongues of Pentecost converge with and map onto the many gifts that nurture and propel the many professions, both verbal and practical, both sacred and secular, both spiritual and mundane, vis-à-vis our daily jobs. On the one hand, we may have been led to our professions and employment because of Pentecost encounters; on the other hand, the former also invites Spirited response, what pentecostal theologian Jean-Daniel Plüss calls “responseability,” which follows from and generates new forms of (occupational) testimony.¹⁶ Whether blue-collar (more service oriented) or white-collar (presuming higher educational achievements) professions today, witness cultivated from out of life experience and testimony is articulated in and through the distinctiveness of the linguistic and experiential resources of the professor (here, not just those in classrooms).

Even more recent efforts in pneumatological theology brought forth by Lutheran theologian Cheryl Peterson, from out of her extensive participation in the Pentecostal–Roman Catholic bilateral dialogues, resituates our consideration of work and its callings within the Pentecost rubric of Spirit-empowered mission.¹⁷ This perspective foregrounds the various callings of the Spirit that, following the reformer Martin Luther, sees each of our stations of life – whether by role, as in parents and spouses, or by our “day-jobs” as civil servants, service providers, etc. – as conduits for living out Christian faith and the priesthood of each baptised believer on behalf of others: “Each person should do the work dictated by his profession or station in life, not in order to obtain righteousness but to keep his body under control and to be an example to those who need to exercise a similar discipline over themselves.”¹⁸ Peterson’s prompts urge our pivot back to the Pentecost narrative to reintroduce also what we might call the bi-vocational character of Christian mission and ministry operating alongside work amidst the various stations of life, to use Luther’s phraseology.

Paul, Priscilla, and Aquila were by trade tentmakers, Luke tells us (Acts 18:3),¹⁹ meaning, on our account, they bore witness by (verbal and occupational) profession. In their cases, the narrative emphasis is on tentmaking as a trade undergirding the apostolic mission and ministry, less on the trade itself as an expression of the gifts (and tongues) of the Spirit. Nevertheless, to the degree that the apostolic mission and ministry were sustained (materially and otherwise) by tentmaking activity, to that same degree one might argue there is a missional and ministerial aspect – even an indirect one – to the tentmaking profession, at least for these apostolic leaders.²⁰ Pentecostal biblical scholar Martin Mittelstadt’s insistence that a pentecostal theology of call “must address the significance of calling beyond the workplace”²¹ can hence be taken in two mutually interrelated directions. On the one hand, his most immediate reference is that the call needs to extend beyond the role of the trade, particularly as lived out professionally in specific jobs; on the other hand, to the degree that the employment itself is an expression of our faithful witness and then to the further degree that, in bi- or multi-vocational contexts, the job supports mission and ministry endeavours, to those extents our trades are initial professions (professionalisations) that make possible missional witness.

Where we have arrived is that the many tongues of Pentecost empower not only many testimonies but also many professions, with the latter involving both word and deed, both missional/ministerial verbalisation and occupational practice. Regardless, the witness born is given from out of the specificity of our mono-, bi-, or multi-linguality and, more importantly, out of the interiority of our experience, formation, apprenticeships, mentorships, courses of study, and even suffering.²² We live out and speak of the wondrous works of God in our daily lives, our occupational employment, and our cultural-linguistic context.

Pentecost and Vocation/s

Theological discussions of work often are accompanied by or set within considerations of vocation. Terry Cross’s “pentecostal reflection” is situated within his university, which is affiliated with the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee, a classical pentecostal denomination, and which serves students from pentecostal churches but also from evangelical constituencies that may be a tad less interested in the pentecostal specificity of what such an institution of higher education might offer than in its more broadly, if also robustly, Christian commitments and formational efforts.²³ In that light, Cross’s pentecostal approach foregrounds the notion of vocation as related to and derived from the Spirit’s calling, which applies to all Jesus followers and disciples, then and today. Vocation is thus pneumatologically rooted in our calling in the Spirit, and in that respect, so is our work and also our overall life trajectory. As Cross puts it, “Calling is a gift from God that primarily offers humans salvation and a relationship with God and secondarily offers humans a way of life that responds to the grace and gifts received.”²⁴ And while the section (however brief) on the call in the Spirit in pentecostal contexts provides some connection for the specifically pentecostal student readers of the book,²⁵ the rest of his volume operates in the more general evangelical terms pervasive across the network of Christian higher educational institutions of which Lee University is a part.

Our own many tongues-testimonies-and-professions approach invites consideration of vocation also in similarly multidimensional terms. Theologically speaking, we might say that calling or vocation is in the Spirit (Cross) to bear witness to the living Christ (Acts 1:8) and resound the wondrous works of God (2:11b). Vocations and callings are hereby invitations to bear witness in our own languages to the resurrected Jesus in anticipation of the coming divine reign. Diverse contexts thus prompt both more Christocentric or theocentric forms of witness, whether Peter’s specifying Jesus in the Pentecost homily (vv. 22-36) within the full message in vv. 14-40 or Paul’s talking more generally about the divine in Lystra (14:15-17), or the combination of theocentric generality with moments of Christocentric particularity at the Areopagus in Athens (17:22-31). The vocational call to bear witness is in this sense triadic and trinitarian, on occasion in one or other direction, albeit overall tending towards the new creation, as Volf orients us to.

Volf’s charismatic theology of work is also pneumatologically robust in its dynamic orientation, not only in heralding the coming reign of God but also in being open to a multiplicity of expressions on this side of the eschaton. This dynamicity is reflected variously in Volf’s account but, for our purposes, his foregrounding both the diachronic and synchronic plurality of jobs or employment positions is relevant to our consideration of the diversity of vocation. The latter synchronicity refers for Volf to both how “every Christian can have more than one charisma at any given time” so that “there can be a plurality of employments or jobs without any one of them being regarded theologically as inferior, a mere ‘job on the side’.”²⁶ The bi-vocationality of Paul and his companions already referred to above is an apostolic example of such synchronic vocational pluralism: then and today, we can potentially have multiple and simultaneous jobs, or callings, each professing our testimonies according to the relevant charisms – e.g., experiences, skills, graces – manifest in those contexts.

Volf’s diachronic occupational pluralism, on the other hand, while also operating charismatically, unfolds over time. Here are sequential expressions of the Spirit’s giftings, most obviously experienced in modern industrial societies in the fluidity of jobs any one of us might transiently experience. If in the ancient and medieval worlds achieving competence in certain trades might have situated us in vocational stations for a lifetime,²⁷ with the industrial revolution earlier and the dawn of the contemporary information age now, peoples’ “occupational decisions need not be irrevocable commitments but can be repeatedly made in a continuous dialogue between their preferences and talents on the one hand, and the existing job opportunities on the other.”²⁸ Put in pneumatological terms, albeit contemporised, the Spirit is continually doing new things in ushering the divine reign, so why would that not apply also to our professions and occupations?²⁹

In the Pentecost account we are developing, however, the diachronic arc tracks along two parallel if not interwoven registers, that of the human individual and that of the Spirit’s call. The latter is, as already mapped, Christological, theological, and eschatological, anticipating the divine rule. The former, also already intimated, is forged over a lifetime, initially nested in the home, nurtured in the family, and brought to initial expression in the mother tongue, and then cultivated in training, apprenticeship, or mentorship relationships, expanded in courses of secondary, tertiary, or postgraduate study in successive seasons of life, and developed over decades of relationships, jobs, and even careers. My own example of multiple careers is that of having worked for almost a decade in the public service sector in two distinct employment positions (for the State of Washington as a financial services officer, providing material support to its population, and then as a child support enforcement/collections agent providing financial support to families) before transitioning to academia, where I have had three (so far) different higher educational institutional employers and multiple faculty and administrative roles and jobs.³⁰ Diachronicity might involve more than less distinctive work and vocational engagements, e.g., the vast differences between public service and higher educational sectors lift up the operational need of divergent charisms. And yet the Pentecost and trinitarian theology of vocations also invite working more theologically towards the common good in the public service context even as it allows for more Christocentrically evident expressions in the higher educational sphere, particularly when professed in explicitly Christian university contexts (as I have experienced).

If our theological vocation can be understood non-homogeneously and even as triadically diversified in the trinitarian sense sketched above, then our vocational careers can also be understood pluralistically in light of our participation in the call of the Spirit towards the new creation. Vocational pluralism, however, has to be neither chaotic nor dissociated or disordered, to resort to diagnostic tropes in the psychopathological or medical domains.³¹ Instead, the theological imagination formed by multi- and pluri-linguality helps us anticipate how the many tongues unleashed on the Day of Pentecost foreshadow now not only many jobs but also multiple careers which continually illuminate, paradoxically complicate, and marvellously enrich the witness that is professed in our individual lives. Trades, occupations, and vocations thus are fluid rather than static, less reified nouns and more dynamic verbs, even.³² Our own Pentecost account sees each transition as both continuous with and discontinuous from the preceding. Our life narratives manifest disjunctures, even fractures, albeit there is carryover, transformation, and also redemption, which now requires re-integration and re-narration (rather than sublimation) of that past Pentecost-ally! The testimony that is woven, then, neither avoids nor brackets those prior episodes (jobs, even careers) but reinterprets, renews, and revitalises such as part of the linguistic and contextual specificities of that biographical recounting. The call of some theologians of vocation to move us “beyond occupationalism” is right, not in the sense of leaving our prior jobs or trades behind, but in the sense that the vocational narrative is incomplete without giving testimonial honour to each career and its distinctive spectrum of contributions in the specificity of their own “tongues.”³³

All of this is in part a hermeneutical task, albeit one that both empowers each one to tell his or her own story and enables others to receive also from their own perspective. Herein is the ongoing (not only intellectual but also affective, moral, and vocational) conversion of speakers and listeners, mutually affecting one another, in welcoming the translational work of the Pentecost Spirit.³⁴ Considered across the arcs of where our lives converge with that of redemptive history, we achieve glimpses of personal wholeness in relationship to professional integrity, where faith, work, and community are integrated for our vocational and common flourishing.³⁵

Transitions

Two interconnected thrusts have driven the preceding reflections. On the one hand, I have sketched a pneumatological theology of witness, testimony, profession, and vocation in close dialogue with the Pentecost account in the Book of Acts, and this has invited trinitarian consideration and framing: in the Spirit, of the living Christ, anticipating the coming reign of God.³⁶ Testimonies, professions, and vocations along this register are charismatically charged, enabling service of others, including those in the wider commons and the public spheres.³⁷

On the other hand, the Pentecost approach accentuates the particularity of the lived cultural and contextual milieu amidst and through which such testimonies, professions, and vocations are forged, and the many tongues of Pentecost thus insist on the specificity of linguistic, experiential, and interiorised dimensions of the witnesser being brought by the Spirit to articulation. My concerns here have been to think through the implications for the outpouring of the Spirit “upon all flesh” (Acts 2:17a) – men and women, boys and girls, those with and without means, whatever the class, status, role, or location in life – for our witness, testimonially, professionally, and vocationally. There remains other work to be done on pneumatological and Pentecost theologies of testimony, not to mention of work and of vocation.³⁸ However, to the extent that the foregoing encourages such reflections within and beyond the pentecostal ecclesial (and academic) community, to that same extent we might all be ready to pray, “Come Holy Spirit, breathe upon us a fresh Pentecost!”³⁹

Bibliography

Akínyemí, Akintúndé. African Creative Expressions: Mother Tongue and Other Tongues. Tielmann & Breitinger, 2011.

Barrett, C. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Volume 1: 1:1-14. T&T Clark, 1994.

Bonfiglio, Thomas Paul. Mother Tongues and Nations: The Invention of the Native Speaker. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 226. De Gruyter Mouton, 2010.

Budiselić, Ervin. Uniqueness of the Concept of Witness in Lukan Writings within the Biblical Canon. Langham Academic, 2024.

Cartledge, Mark J. Testimony in the Spirit: Rescripting Ordinary Pentecostal Theology. Ashgate, 2010.

Coulter, Dale M. “Christ, the Spirit, and Vocation: Initial Reflections on a Pentecostal Ecclesiology.” Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology 19, no. 3 (2010): 318-39.

Coulter, Dale, and Amos Yong. The Holy Spirit and Higher Education: Renewing the Christian University. Baylor University Press, 2023.

Cross, Terry L. Answering the Call in the Spirit: Pentecostal Reflections on a Theology of Vocation, Work and Life. Lee University, 2007.

Forbes, Greg W., and Scott D. Harrower. Raised from Obscurity: A Narratival and Theological Study of the Characterization of Women in Luke-Acts. James Clarke, 2015.

Johnson, C. Neal. Business as Mission: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice. IVP Academic, 2009.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. “Transformed, Freed, Empowered: The Spirit’s Work in the Gifting and Vocation of All Believers.” In “We Believe in the Holy Spirit”: Global Perspectives on Lutheran Identities, edited by Chad M. Rimmer and Cheryl M. Peterson. Lutheran World Federation Documentation 63. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2021.

Keener, Craig. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 1: Introduction and 1:1–2:47. Baker Academic, 2012.

Keener, Craig. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 2: 3:1–14:28. Baker Academic, 2013.

Kleinhans, Kathryn. “The Work of a Christian: Vocation in Lutheran Perspective.” Word & World 25, no. 4 (2005): 394-402.

Kolden, Marc. “Luther on Vocation.” Word & World 3, no. 4 (1983): 382-90.

Lai, Patrick. “Tentmaking Uncovered.” In Business as Mission: From Impoverished to Empowered, edited by Tom Steffen and Mike Barnett. Evangelical Missiological Society Series 14. William Carey, 2006.

Larive, Armand. After Sunday: A Theology of Work. Continuum, 2004.

Lovell, Cara F. “Surprise, Hope and Gift: A Pneumatological Account of the Unexpected Nature of Vocation.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 26, no. 1 (2024): 91-110.

Loy, David W. “Luther, Vocation, and the Search for Significance.” Lutheran Quarterly 35 (2021): 50-72.

Luther, Martin. The Freedom of the Christian: Luther Study Edition, translated by Mark D. Tranvik. Fortress, 2008.

Mauck, John W. Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense of Christianity. T. Nelson, 2001.

Mittelstadt, Martin W. “Called: A Pentecostal Theology of Vocation.” Spiritus 9, no. 2 (2024): 293-315. https://doi.org/10.31380/2573-6345.1373.

Mittelstadt, Martin William. The Spirit and Suffering in Luke-Acts: Implications for a Pentecostal Pneumatology. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 26. T&T Clark, 2004.

Peterson, Cheryl M. The Holy Spirit in the Christian Life: The Spirit’s Work for, in, and through Us. Baker Academic, 2024.

Plüss, Jean-Daniel. Therapeutic and Prophetic Narratives in Worship: A Hermeneutic Study of Testimonies and Visions – Their Potential Significance for Christian Worship and Secular Society. Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity 54. Peter Lang, 1988.

Preece, Gordon R. The Viability of the Vocation Tradition in Trinitarian, Credal and Reformed Perspective. Edwin Mellen, 1998.

Richie, Tony. Speaking by the Spirit: A Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Dialogue. World Christian Revitalization Movements in Pentecostal/Charismatic Studies 6. Emeth, 2011.

Samushonga, Hartness M. “A European Theological Pentecostal Perspective to Bivocational Ministry.” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 40, no. 2 (2020): 144-59.

Self, Charlie. Flourishing Churches and Communities: A Pentecostal Primer on Faith, Work, and Economics for Spirit-Empowered Discipleship. Christian Library Classics, 2013.

Tomlin, Graham. “Life in the Spirit: Identity, Vocation and the Cross of Christ.” In The Holy Spirit in the World Today, edited by Jane Williams. Alpha International, 2011.

Volf, Miroslav. Work in the Spirit: Toward a Theology of Work. Reprint, Wipf and Stock, 2001.

Yong, Aizaiah G., and Amos Yong. “Harmonising the Many Tongues Within: A Pentecost Exploration of Internal Family Systems.” In Asian Voices Amplified, edited by Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen. Regnum, forthcoming.

Yong, Amos. The Heteroglossic Spirit: Unruly Tongues and Translations after Pentecost, edited by Ekaputra Tupamahu. Cascade, 2026.

Yong, Amos. “Lydia amid the Jewish Diaspora: Apostolic Migration and Belonging – Then and Now.” In Pathways to Belonging, edited by Dustin D. Benac, Erin Weber-Johnson and Glen Bell. Wipf and Stock, 2025.

Yong, Amos. “Many Tongues, Many Biocultural Niches: A Pentecostal Missiological Response to Language Endangerment and Environmental Degradation.” In Pentecostal Missiology and Environmental Degradation, edited by Eugene Baron and Amos Yong. Langham Global, 2025.

Yong, Amos. The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal-Charismatic Imagination. Pentecostal Manifestos 4. Eerdmans, 2011.

Yong, Amos. “The Spirit, Vocation, and the Life of the Mind: A Pentecostal Testimony.” In Pentecostals in the Academy: Testimonies of Call, edited by Steven M. Fettke and Robby Waddell. CPT Press, 2012.

Yong, Amos. “Translation as Social and Ecological Justice (A Review Essay): Notes toward a Theology of Interpretation of Tongues in the Age of the Anthropocene.” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 47, no. 1 (2025): 109-28.

Yong, Amos. Witness: Converting Worlds. Spirituality for the World. Cascade, 2026.

¹ The first major effort was that of Terry L. Cross, Answering the Call in the Spirit: Pentecostal Reflections on a Theology of Vocation, Work and Life (Lee University, 2007); I will comment more about Cross’s considerations later.

² With many articles and book chapters beginning with or including within their title, “Many Tongues …,” including a number of these reprinted in my recent book, The Heteroglossic Spirit: Unruly Tongues and Translations after Pentecost, ed. Ekaputra Tupamahu (Cascade, 2026).

³ Unless otherwise indicated, all scriptural quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

⁴ For more on the geographic spread and renewal of multilingualism in the Pentecost outpouring, see the second section of my “Many Tongues, Many Biocultural Niches: A Pentecostal Missiological Response to Language Endangerment and Environmental Degradation,” in Pentecostal Missiology and Environmental Degradation, ed. Eugene Baron and Amos Yong (Langham Global, 2025), 81-105.

⁵ See Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 1: Introduction and 1:1– 2:47 (Baker Academic, 2012), 822.

⁶ See John W. Mauck, Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense of Christianity (T. Nelson, 2001), ch. 9, for a discussion of the experiential authority undergirding the apostolic witness, initially specified (by Mauck) in what is identified as the first Sanhedrin trial (culminating in the testimonial claim in 4:20), albeit also as consistent with and authorising the Pauline witness later (which I have highlighted was exemplified in Luke’s first account of Paul’s apologetic in 22:15). This is reiterated otherwise also in the Johannine understanding of witness, e.g., “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” (1 John 1:1-3a).

⁷ See Ervin Budiselić, Uniqueness of the Concept of Witness in Lukan Writings within the Biblical Canon (Langham Academic, 2024), esp. ch. 10.

⁸ Chs. 4-7 of Mark J. Cartledge, Testimony in the Spirit: Rescripting Ordinary Pentecostal Theology (Ashgate, 2010), each include a section on pentecostal testimonies on each of these experiences, respectively.

⁹ For more on the orally traditioned character of pentecostal testimony, see Tony Richie, Speaking by the Spirit: A Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Dialogue, World Christian Revitalization Movements in Pentecostal/Charismatic Studies 6 (Emeth, 2011), 137-38; see also, Akintúndé Akínyemí, African Creative Expressions: Mother Tongue and Other Tongues (Thielmann & Breitinger, 2011), ch. 4.

¹⁰ Note that in the present time, there is a much greater sensitivity to how imperially propped racial, ethnic, and gendered ideological agendas marginalise and also subordinate “mother tongues” in relationship to majority (usually European/colonial) languages—e.g., Thomas Paul Bonfiglio, Mother Tongues and Nations: The Invention of the Native Speaker, Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 226 (De Gruyter Mouton, 2010)—even as, we are here noting, Luke’s usage of such construct is subversive of the dominant Greek language in the Pax Romana of the first century.

¹¹ See my essay, “Lydia Amid the Jewish Diaspora: Apostolic Migration and Belonging—Then and Now,” in Pathways to Belonging, ed. Dustin D. Benac et al. (Wipf and Stock, 2025), 51-60.

¹² On this point, see Greg W. Forbes and Scott D. Harrower, Raised from Obscurity: A Narratival and Theological Study of the Characterization of Women in Luke-Acts (James Clarke, 2015), 172-73; even if Luke is providing a translation of the Aramaic for Greek readers because, as Craig Keener in Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 2: 3:1–14:28 (Baker Academic, 2013), 1715, urges, “the common Greek name ‘Dorcas’ was the Greek equivalent of the much rarer Aramaic name ‘Tabitha’,” he grants it is also “plausible that she might have used the Greek name in some settings,” which is not only quite normal in the bilingual and “mixed society of Joppa” (1715n106, here citing C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Volume 1: 1:1-14 [T&T Clark, 1994], 483), but also hints at her servicing these communities.

¹³ Miroslav Volf, Work in the Spirit: Toward a Theology of Work (Oxford University Press, 1991; repr., Wipf and Stock, 2001), 111-17; Volf was raised in part in a pentecostal church but has become an Anglican in more recent years.

¹⁴ I appreciate Armand Larive’s discussion of what we may call the Spirit’s in-skilling (and providing rapport) in his After Sunday: A Theology of Work (Continuum, 2004), ch. 6.

¹⁵ I made this argument first in my The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal-Charismatic Imagination, Pentecostal Manifestos 4 (Eerdmans, 2011), ch. 2, and in various other locales since.

¹⁶ I get this from one of the earliest scholarly analyses of testimony among pentecostal theologians: Jean-Daniel Plüss, Therapeutic and Prophetic Narratives in Worship: A Hermeneutic Study of Testimonies and Visions—Their Potential Significance for Christian Worship and Secular Society, Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity 54 (Peter Lang, 1988), 198-201.

¹⁷ See Cheryl M. Peterson, The Holy Spirit in the Christian Life: The Spirit’s Work for, in, and through Us (Baker Academic, 2024), ch. 6, esp. 120-21.

¹⁸ Martin Luther, The Freedom of the Christian: Luther Study Edition, trans. Mark D. Tranvik (Fortress, 2008), 86.

¹⁹ See Patrick Lai, “Tentmaking Uncovered,” in Business as Mission: From Impoverished to Empowered, ed. Tom Steffen and Mike Barnett, Evangelical Missiological Society Series 14 (William Carey, 2006), 79-100; cf. C. Neal Johnson, Business as Mission: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice (IVP Academic, 2009), ch. 6.

²⁰ Hartness M. Samushonga, “A European Theological Pentecostal Perspective to Bivocational Ministry,” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 40, no. 2 (2020): 144-59.

²¹ Martin W. Mittelstadt, “Called: A Pentecostal Theology of Vocation,” Spiritus 9, no. 2 (2024): 293-315, at 297; https://doi.org/10.31380/2573-6345.1373.

²² Which is tightly connected in the Acts narrative where the Greek word for “witnesses”, μάρτυρες, also can be translated as “martyrs”; see also Martin William Mittelstadt, The Spirit and Suffering in Luke-Acts: Implications for a Pentecostal Pneumatology, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 26 (T&T Clark, 2004); cf. Graham Tomlin, “Life in the Spirit: Identity, Vocation and the Cross of Christ,” in Jane Williams, ed., The Holy Spirit in the World Today (Alpha International, 2011), 72-85, esp. 82-95.

²³ Which I understand, and attempt, with my co-author, Dale Coulter, to address in our The Holy Spirit and Higher Education: Renewing the Christian University (Baylor University Press, 2023).

²⁴ Cross, Answering the Call in the Spirit, 55.

²⁵ Cross, Answering the Call in the Spirit, 45-47.

²⁶ Volf, Work in the Spirit, 117.

²⁷ David W. Loy, “Luther, Vocation, and the Search for Significance,” Lutheran Quarterly 35 (2021): 50-72, esp. 37-71, situates Luther’s notion of calling vis-à-vis the breakdown of medieval social order.

²⁸ Volf, Work in the Spirit, 116.

²⁹ Cara F. Lovell, “Surprise, Hope and Gift: A Pneumatological Account of the Unexpected Nature of Vocation,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 26, no. 1 (2024): 91-110.

³⁰ An earlier account written after the first decade of my work in the theological academy is found in my “The Spirit, Vocation, and the Life of the Mind: A Pentecostal Testimony,” in Pentecostals in the Academy: Testimonies of Call, ed. Steven M. Fettke and Robby Waddell (CPT Press, 2012), 203-20.

³¹ On a non-pathological but no less pneumatological and theological interpretation of multiple (sub)personalities, see also my essay with Aizaiah G. Yong, “Harmonising the Many Tongues Within: A Pentecost Exploration of Internal Family Systems,” in this volume, 29.

³² Mittelstadt, “Called: A Pentecostal Theology of Vocation,” 313.

³³ This is my after-Pentecost restatement of Marc Kolden, “Luther on Vocation,” Word & World 3, no. 4 (1983): 382-90, esp. 385-86.

³⁴ For thoughts moving us towards a theology of translation, see my article, “Translation as Social and Ecological Justice (A Review Essay): Notes toward a Theology of Interpretation of Tongues in the Age of the Anthropocene,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 47, no. 1 (2025): 109-28; I also discuss the various dimensions of conversion in my forthcoming book, Witness: Converting Worlds (Cascade).

³⁵ See Charlie Self, Flourishing Churches and Communities: A Pentecostal Primer on Faith, Work, and Economics for Spirit-Empowered Discipleship (Christian Library Classics, 2013), chs. 4-5; cf. also the ecclesial dimensions in Dale M. Coulter, “Christ, the Spirit, and Vocation: Initial Reflections on a Pentecostal Ecclesiology,” Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology 19, no. 3 (2010): 318-39.

³⁶ Another robustly trinitarian theological consideration that links together creation, redemption, and eschaton is Gordon R. Preece, The Viability of the Vocation Tradition in Trinitarian, Credal and Reformed Perspective (Edwin Mellen, 1998).

³⁷ Luthercostal theologian (with credentials from both within both Lutheran and pentecostal churches) Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen talks about this as embodying a “charismatic diaconal” mindset of the believing community; see his “Transformed, Freed, Empowered: The Spirit’s Work in the Gifting and Vocation of All Believers,” in “We Believe in the Holy Spirit”: Global Perspectives on Lutheran Identities, ed. Chad M. Rimmer and Cheryl M. Peterson, Lutheran World Federation Documentation 63 (Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2021), 193-206, esp. 202-5.

³⁸ Kathryn Kleinhans, for instance, names workaholism and divinisation of work as issues requiring vigilance; see her “The Work of a Christian: Vocation in Lutheran Perspective,” Word & World 25, no. 4 (2005): 394-402, at 297.

³⁹ Thanks to my PhD advisees’ group for their feedback.

Response to Amos Yong: Pentecost, Testimony, Profession, and Vocation in Asian Contexts

Jun Kim

Introduction

Amos Yong’s essay, “Many Tongues, Many Professions: Towards a Pentecost Theology of Vocation,” offers a compelling Pentecostal reimagining of Christian witness by integrating testimony, profession, and vocation within a pneumatological framework. Yong persuasively argues that Pentecost is not merely an ecclesial or charismatic event limited to worship or spiritual experience but a paradigmatic moment in which the Holy Spirit reshapes the whole of human life – speech, labour, and calling – for participation in God’s redemptive mission.

For Asian Pentecostals, Yong’s vision is both deeply resonant and contextually demanding. It resonates because many Asian worldviews already assume the spiritual permeability of everyday life, resisting rigid sacred/secular distinctions. At the same time, it raises significant questions within contexts shaped by religious pluralism, economic inequality, vocational constraint, and strong communal expectations. This response engages Yong’s framework appreciatively while offering constructive expansions from Asian Pentecostal realities, focusing on three interrelated dimensions of Pentecost: testimony, profession, and vocation.

Pentecost and Testimony

Yong rightly emphasises that Pentecost generates a plurality of testimonies. The disciples’ speaking in many tongues is not an arbitrary manifestation of spiritual power but a theological declaration that divine witness is always mediated through particular cultural and linguistic forms. Testimony arises from lived experience – what believers have “seen and heard” – yet it is never merely private. At Pentecost, testimony becomes intelligible and transformative precisely because it is heard within the linguistic and cultural worlds of diverse audiences. In this way, Yong foregrounds experience as a primary locus of Pentecostal theology and witness.

Pentecostal testimony, therefore, is not abstract doctrine but narrated encounter. It is the Spirit-enabled capacity of ordinary believers to articulate experiences of salvation, healing, deliverance, and empowerment in the language most intimate to them, often their mother tongue. This renders testimony a profoundly democratic form of witness, accessible regardless of formal education or social status. Especially within oral cultures, testimony functions as a natural and relational mode of theological expression, grounded in concrete encounters with God’s saving acts rather than in systematic theological reflection alone.

From an Asian Pentecostal perspective, Yong’s emphasis on testimony invites further contextual reflection. In many Asian societies, Christian claims are not entirely unfamiliar, yet faith is often evaluated through its embodied credibility rather than its propositional clarity. While evangelistic campaigns and public preaching have played significant historical roles, they do not always address the deeper existential, relational, and cultural concerns that shape daily life. Testimony, by contrast, communicates faith as lived reality rather than abstract assertion.

Moreover, testimony resonates deeply with Asia’s narrative sensibilities. Buddhist stories of compassion, Hindu traditions of bhakti devotion, and Islamic narratives of disciplined piety all cultivate attentiveness to lived transformation. Within such contexts, Pentecostal testimony functions as a bridge – engaging shared experiential frameworks while bearing distinctive witness to the risen Christ. Testimony thus becomes dialogical rather than confrontational, inviting recognition before demanding assent.

At the same time, Asian Pentecostals are invited to broaden their understanding of testimony beyond individual conversion accounts. Communal and social testimonies – stories of families restored, communities reconciled, and villages renewed – are equally vital. Such narratives address Asia’s evangelistic challenges not by multiplying messages but by deepening embodied witness. In this respect, Yong’s emphasis resonates with Andrew Walls’s translation principle, whereby the gospel inhabits diverse cultures without surrendering its transcendent claim.¹

Pentecost and Professions

Building on testimony, Yong argues that Pentecost also reconfigures the meaning of professions. Professions function both as public confessions of faith and as concrete practices through which believers serve society. The New Testament witness – from apostolic preaching to acts of generosity, hospitality, and charity – demonstrates that faith is professed not only verbally but through vocational practices. Professions thus become embodied testimonies that integrate belief and action within everyday life.

Drawing implicitly on Miroslav Volf’s Work in the Spirit,² Yong situates professional life within a pneumatological horizon. The same Spirit who bestows tongues also distributes charisms that animate labour, creativity, and service. Pentecost therefore expands the scope of Christian witness, affirming that professional competence, ethical integrity, and social contribution are arenas in which faith becomes visible and transformative.

From an Asian perspective, however, this insight invites further nuance. Unlike Western contexts that historically struggled to reconcile sacred and secular domains, many Asian worldviews already assume that all of life is spiritually charged. Workplaces are rarely perceived as neutral spaces. Factories, markets, and fields may be animated by competing spiritual forces – greed, exploitation, fear, or alternatively, compassion and solidarity. Consequently, the theological task for Asian Pentecostals is not merely to affirm the Spirit’s presence in work but to cultivate discernment between the Spirit of God and rival spirits that deform economic and social life.

This discernment naturally leads to questions of Pentecostal vocational ethics. If the Spirit empowers work, how should Spirit-filled believers labour within systems marked by corruption, bribery, and exploitation? What does faithfulness look like in economies sustained by unjust labour practices? Here Pentecostal theology can engage constructively with liberationist perspectives in Asia that emphasise structural sin and systemic injustice. Spirit-empowerment, in such contexts, must generate alternative practices of justice, compassion, and resistance rather than merely personal success or career advancement.

Pentecost and Vocations

Yong further develops a Pentecost theology of vocation by framing calling as fundamentally Spirit-initiated and Spirit-sustained. Drawing on Terry Cross,³ he understands vocation as encompassing both salvation and a Spirit-shaped way of life. Engaging Volf,⁴ Yong highlights vocational pluralism – both synchronic, where believers hold multiple callings simultaneously, and diachronic, where callings shift across a lifetime. Pentecost thus affirms vocation as dynamic, relational, and open to continual renewal.

Asian realities both affirm and complicate this vision. On the one hand, vocational pluralism resonates strongly with widespread bi-vocational ministry. Many pastors and church leaders across Asia sustain their ministries through teaching, business, or manual labour. What Yong articulates theologically is, for many, already an economic and pastoral reality shaped by necessity rather than choice.

On the other hand, Asian Pentecostal cultures often esteem vocational singularity, particularly full-time pastoral ministry marked by sacrificial faithfulness. Leaders who persist in ministry despite poverty are honoured as exemplars of devotion and perseverance. A robust Asian Pentecostal theology of vocation must therefore hold together both plural callings and singular dedication as authentic expressions of the Spirit’s leading rather than privileging one at the expense of the other.

A further dimension is widespread joblessness. In contexts of chronic unemployment, vocational choice is often absent. For many, the Spirit’s promised newness is experienced not as vocational diversity but as hope, endurance, and daily sustenance. Here Pentecostal theology may learn from ecumenical traditions that emphasise solidarity with the poor and the unemployed. Engaging insights from liberation theology, one may argue that the Spirit calls the church to a preferential solidarity with the marginalised, ensuring that vocation remains a theology of hope rather than exclusion.

Conclusion

Yong concludes with the prayer, “Come, Holy Spirit, breathe upon us a fresh Pentecost.” From an Asian Pentecostal perspective, this is more than a plea for renewal; it is an invitation to discernment, justice, and hope. A fresh Pentecost in Asia will not be measured by numerical growth alone but by testimonies that resonate within cultural narratives, professions that embody ethical resistance, and vocations that honour both pluralism and singularity while speaking hope into joblessness.

In this way, Yong’s proposals open not only a path for Pentecostal theology but also a conversation with broader currents in world Christianity. Asian Pentecostals, by engaging these dialogues, can contribute distinctive insights shaped by pluralism, poverty, and perseverance. The Spirit poured out at Pentecost still speaks in many tongues and works through many professions. Our calling is to listen with care, discern with faithfulness, and testify with courage in a continent longing for a new Pentecost.

Bibliography

Cross, Terry L. Serving the People of God’s Presence: A Theology of Ministry. Zondervan, 2000.

Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Eerdmans, 1998.

Volf, Miroslav. Work in the Spirit: Toward a Theology of Work. Wipf and Stock, 2001.

Walls, Andrew F. The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith. Orbis Books, 1996.

¹ Andrew F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith (Orbis Books, 1996), 26-27.

² Miroslav Volf, Work in the Spirit: Toward a Theology of Work (Wipf and Stock, 2001), 9-37.

³ Terry L. Cross, Serving the People of God’s Presence: A Theology of Ministry (Zondervan, 2000), 45-63.

⁴ Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Eerdmans, 1998), 239-44.

Session 6

Election: A Pentecostal Reflection

Frank Macchia

Abstract

Calvin’s idea that election is a divine decree from eternity that determines who will be damned and who will be glorified contains no gospel for a large swath of humanity and leaves unanswered on what basis we in the church can be certain of our own salvation. Since Pentecostalism is committed to bringing the gospel to all flesh (to the ends of the earth), Calvinism undercuts our movement. Karl Barth offers us a valuable alternative, since for him Christ is God’s “decree” of election for all of humanity, for the ends of the earth (Ps 2:7-8). Rather than humanity being divided eternally between the damned and the glorified, Christ as the elect one is damned and glorified for all of humanity, for the ends of the earth. One need look no further than the Incarnation, the Cross, the Resurrection, and Pentecost to understand the gospel of God’s election of Christ and of our election (by the Spirit and by faith) in him and for him.

Key Words: Barth, Calvinism, Christology, election, Israel, Pentecostalism, predestination

Election is the doctrine of the divine choosing of humanity in Christ to be recipients of grace. It is anchored in eternity but also revealed in time, particularly in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. It is closely connected to predestination (or the divine foreordination) and divine calling to be received in faith, for election is both a promise and a gift. In short, those chosen (elect) are part of a foreordained plan (predestined) and incorporated by faith into Christ the elect one as well as the covenant of the elect people through divine calling.

In this chapter, I wish to discuss election largely in dialogue with Karl Barth. Of course, my goal will be attentiveness to Scripture. I choose Barth as a dialogue partner because I have found him helpful in my reading of Scripture on this issue. Barth is by far the dominant voice of twentieth-century theology. He wrote from within the Swiss Calvinist tradition but famously took issue with John Calvin’s theology of election and, in so doing, brought the entire issue beyond the older Calvinist/Arminian debate. Interestingly, Barth spent most of his professional career teaching in Basel, Switzerland, where Calvin wrote the first draft of his magnum opus, The Institutes of the Christian Religion. I had the privilege of doing my doctorate in theology at the university there under two professors who had studied under Barth. At Basel, I read both Calvin and Barth and was struck by the alternatives they both presented me with. I was most taken with Barth’s argument, and that impression never left me. Writing this chapter thus plays a small role in bringing my own theology of election to expression. Such is needed. The problem is that many Pentecostal students flirt with Calvin’s doctrine of election without realising how his view of the matter undercuts their Christocentric, missional, and pneumatological priorities.

Many among my readers are accustomed to thinking of election as settled in eternity and fixed for all time. Both sides of the classic Calvinist/Arminian debate assume this. The only difference between the two has been that Calvin based eternal election on the mysterious divine good pleasure, while Arminius based it on God’s foreknowledge of what we will do. Barth transcended that entire debate by basing election on Jesus Christ, who he viewed as elect in eternity as well as in time (as the incarnate, crucified, and risen one), so as to share his election with us all. In the pages that follow, I explore this alternative way of thinking.

The Key Point

I start by getting right to the core of Barth’s criticism of Calvin’s view of election. Calvin viewed election as a double decree made by God in eternity past in which God determined who would be saved and who would be damned. Calvin put it this way in Book 3, chapter 21, section 5 of his Institutes: “all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others.”¹ In other words, for Calvin, some are created for damnation and some for glory. Barth took issue with Calvin’s view of election by shifting the focus of the doctrine to Jesus Christ. Rather than election determining who will be damned and who will be glorified, Barth viewed election as residing in Christ, who overcame damnation so as to be glorified for the sake of all. Election for Barth is indeed about damnation and glory but also about the damned and the glorified Jesus Christ! Christ is the favoured Son elected as such in eternity past as the one in whom all others will find their election as favoured brothers and sisters. They will find their election in him because he revealed his election and offered it to humanity in time by taking on flesh to overcome our damnation and rise to glory on our behalf. In taking on flesh, he bound himself to all humanity. In overcoming our condemnation and sorrows at the Cross, he bound himself to us in suffering. In rising again, he bound himself to us in glory. As the first-born Son of “all of creation” (Col 1:15),² Christ binds himself to all of humanity to inaugurate a new humanity in him. This is how he opens his election as the favoured Son to us in time, through his incarnation, death, and resurrection (and his outpouring of the Spirit on all flesh). He binds himself to us as the elect Son for all time so that in him we may be elect brothers and sisters.

If we say to him, “but I’ve rejected God,” then he will reply, “but I’ve overcome that rejection and its condemnation so that you can join me as favoured sons and daughters, destined for glory!” In Volume II, Part 2 of his famous Church Dogmatics, Barth wrote, “In Jesus Christ God in His free grace determines Himself for sinful man and sinful man for Himself. He therefore takes upon Himself the rejection of man, with all its consequences, and elects man to participation in His own glory.”³ Barth writes more elaborately,

If the teachers of predestination were right when they spoke always of a duality, of election and reprobation, of predestination to salvation or perdition, to life or death, then we may say already that in the election of Jesus Christ which is the eternal will of God, God has ascribed to man the former (election, salvation and life); and to Himself He has ascribed the latter (reprobation, perdition and death).⁴

The crucified and risen Christ as God’s election of humanity for all time means that rejection is not what God wills for humanity, for he takes this rejection and its condemnation upon himself and carries it away in Christ so as to elect humanity to glory in Christ’s resurrection. The key here is that Barth does not reduce the divine action at the Cross as merely one divine action alongside another (condemning or passing over those not meant to be included in grace). No, for Barth the Cross reveals God at his very essence. The suffering God of the Cross who carries away the condemnation of all of humanity is for Barth the only God there is. This assumption is at the core of Barth’s theological revolution, which came to powerful expression later in theologians like Kazoh Kitamori and Jürgen Moltmann.

So, election in eternity past is for Barth nothing other than God’s reconciling the world to himself, not counting their sins against them in Christ (2 Cor 5:19). There is no election except this because there is no other God but this. Indeed, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek 33:11). God “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4), not willing for any to perish (2 Pet 3:9). “For he does not willingly bring affliction or grief to anyone” (Lam 3:33). God so loved the world that he gave them his Son so that in him they will not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). Human rejection of God does indeed thrust one into alienation from the election located eternally and both revealed and established in time in Christ, placing one under the shadow of the divine displeasure (and grieving!). Election involves this alienation from life as its “shadow side” (Barth), but Christ bore this shadow side and overcame it for the sake of our inclusion in life. In my view, this shift from an eternal “double decree” to Christ in time when it comes to election makes the most sense of what Athanasius called the “scope” of the biblical message. And it shows why election comes to us as a gospel – one meant for all.

Election and the Gospel: The Crisis of Uncertainty

Barth insists that election is Jesus Christ; he is the elect one who opens his election to others. Election at its core thus has a single and not a dual purpose in relation to humanity, not to condemn some and show mercy to others but only to overcome the condemnation so as to show mercy to all. As such, election tells us something fundamental and profound about the nature of God. Election and predestination are not just God’s will for humanity but also, even more basically, God’s eternal self-willing, self-determination concerning who he is eternally as God; namely, the God who wills to be God only as humanity’s covenant partner in Christ. As Barth writes, “God’s election of man is a predestination not merely of man but of Himself.”⁵ Thus, the crucial question that Barth’s understanding of election opens up is not why some get saved and others do not, but rather, who is this God who elects? What does his electing tell us about him? Does the God of election will darkness for some and light for others?

In Calvin’s view, a large swath of humanity is eternally delivered over to condemnation with no divine intention that they should be saved. Such is the case, even if a Calvinist prefers to speak of the hopelessly condemned as simply “passed over” to somehow serve the mission to the elect. I do not see how the “passing over” language essentially changes Calvin’s assumed double decree of condemnation for some and salvation for others. God is the final judge. God will still end up decreeing condemnation for all those he has passed over. So, what’s the difference from Calvin’s double decree if God’s passing over the non-elect still results in God’s condemning them? In the end, are not large swaths of humanity still excluded from grace as a result of this divine passing over, with no other path meant for them (thus, possible for them) except damnation? Is not God’s love for sinners in this case significantly limited? It surely is. If in eternity past God only loved a select group of humans and willed to save only them, then the love of God is limited in scope and intention. Divine sovereignty is affirmed in a way that eclipses divine love. The results are devastating according to Barth.

Even if mercy for those elected to glory is God’s primary motive, according to Calvin’s doctrine of election, it is not God’s only motive. God has a dark side for Calvin. How can we then say that “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5) and that the Word of the Father who reveals him is “the true light that gives light to everyone” (John 1:9) under Calvin’s view of election? God must only be light for Barth because God’s self-giving on the Cross is all defining for revealing who God is at his essence and in the ultimate depths of his being! There is no other side to God than this one. A leading Barth scholar, Bruce McCormack, thus summarises Barth’s theology of election in contrast to Calvin’s by pointing to the divine “ontology” or essence as determined by the mercy of the Cross extended to all:

Calvin’s mistake was not simply that he understood predestination to entail a pre-temporal division of the human race into two camps. That is only his most conspicuous error. But the root of the difference between Calvin and Barth lies at a much deeper level – at the level of divine ontology. The electing God, Barth argues, is not an unknown “x”. He is a God whose very being – already in eternity – is determined, defined, by what he reveals himself to be in Jesus Christ; viz. a God of love and mercy towards the whole human race.⁶

Let us recall here T. F. Torrance’s famous remark: “There is no God behind the back of Jesus Christ.”⁷ Barth would have agreed with that comment when it came to election. Calvin does indeed involve Christ in election but not as Barth does, not in a way that makes him the locus of election.⁸ Bear in mind this difference between Calvin and Barth, for it will be crucial to what follows.

The issue at stake in Calvin’s doctrine of election is not only who God is but who we are. If God eternally wills grace for some and damnation for others, on which side of this dualism do I stand? Are the “signs” of my election found in my experience of faith adequate to secure my hope that I stand on the gracious side of God’s eternal will? There are many who genuinely struggle over this question, even to the point of despairing. There would certainly be no salvific grace willed for those eternally damned (or “passed over”). No gospel, no realistic hope exists for them. Am I decreed to reside among the hopeless? Is my faith genuine? How do I know? Faith must rest on a certainty beyond itself, and that something must be meant for all for me to know for sure it is meant for me. In other words, even if my faith is weak, I know that I am saved if I cling to the promise of God’s love for all sinners in Christ. The Cross is my only refuge, and I know this because of the promise that its mercy is intended for all. If election is revealed and even extended at the Cross and the Resurrection, I have a secure foundation for my faith.

I know I am included in this promise because of this “all,” but if there is no such promise to which all can cling, then I am left seeking to hear an “inner witness” in the deepest recesses of my soul in order to find security. I do not wish to downplay the importance of this witness, but is this not meant to point me to the Cross and the Resurrection, where Christ gave his life to save all of humanity? What is that inner witness without this objective and universally valid truth, this gospel, upon which it rests? And if those eternally damned or otherwise excluded from grace happen to find their way into a Christian church, there is nothing of any consequence that the elect (whoever they are) would have to say to them, not because these visitors choose not to believe (which can arguably change), but because God has excluded them, which cannot change. We would have no gospel for them, no gospel meant by God for them! Election has in this case lost its gospel, at least in relation to a large portion of the human race. And who would with certainty have the right to speak this gospel, since no one could know for sure if they have been included in the promise? As Karl Barth rightly exclaims, “What an abyss of uncertainty is opened up!”⁹ For Barth, only if the Word of the Father becomes flesh and is crucified out of mercy for sinners – defining God at his very essence – is our hope secured. If the grace won for sinners at the Cross defines God at his very essence, then there is no room for another divine intention that wills condemnation rather than grace for humanity. And a gospel that is only meant for some is no gospel at all. These insights are key to Barth’s theology of election.

The Christological Centre

More must be said about the Christological centre of election. Barth’s Christological method in his theology of election starts with the universal nature of those texts that reveal God’s claim on humanity in Christ incarnate, crucified, and risen and then reads back from there to God’s elect will in the eternal past. What is willed in eternity concerning Christ and election anticipates what happens in time, and what happens in time grants us the only clear lens for discerning the divine will in the eternal past. For example, if in time, God sends his Son into flesh that none should perish because “he so loved the world” (John 3:16), then we are disallowed from assuming that there is a divine decree in eternity past that divides the world between those God wills to perish and those God wills to have life.

Other texts assume a universal atonement as well. The crucified Christ is first-born from the dead of the entire creation (Col 1:15-18). “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Christ “tasted death for everyone” (Heb 2:9). He “gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Tim 2:6). God was “reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them” (2 Cor 5:19).¹⁰ Barth assumes with good reason that the eternal Son self-determined in eternity to extend grace to all at the Cross and the empty tomb. There simply is no other elect Son than this one. No other election than the one revealed at the Incarnation and the Cross, where God carries away the sin and death of humanity. It is the eternal Word of the Father from eternity past who becomes flesh in time to reveal the Father and the Father’s will; indeed, to reveal himself as the Father’s will for all time (John 1:1-5, 14-18). The crucified and risen Son fulfils the words of the prophets by being the exact image of God’s very being, radiating his glory from a cross that atones for sinners (Heb 1:1-3).

Barth assumes for good reason that the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection imply far-reaching claims concerning God’s eternal will to reclaim humanity in Christ. Note Colossians 1:15-18 where Christ is the “first-born” (from the dead) of the “whole creation.” Take note of this text:

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

The first-born Son of all creation is also the first-born from the dead. Most translations rightly translate the preposition as “of” rather than “over” all creation, capturing the sense of the text that Christ as the first-born from the dead actually inaugurates (and does not just reign over) the new creation. He takes on flesh so as to be in himself essential to the new creation, “of it” and not just “over it.” At his resurrection he is installed as the elect Son in whom all of creation is elected to glory (Rom 1:3-4; Acts 13:32-34). All of creation! There goes Calvin’s idea that many are created for damnation. There is just no way of making all of creation anything less than all of humanity.

Israel was called God’s “first-born son” at the Exodus (Exod 4:22), but they were this implicitly in and for their coming Messiah and for the sake of all peoples. Paul tells us that the “seed of Abraham” meant to fulfil election actually ends up being Christ: “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ” (Gal 3:16). Christ said, “before Abraham was, I am!” And Abraham rejoiced to see his day (John 8:56-58).

Abraham moved the heart of God in Genesis 22 by offering up his child of promise to be sacrificed, and Paul later said that Abraham’s faith believed in the resurrection of the dead (Rom 4:17). Abraham’s election functions as a parable of the election of the Son of God who was offered up (sacrificed) by the heavenly Father and raised up by him to save all of humanity. The Messiah as the “first-born son” extends grace to all of humanity, which was God’s intention from the beginning (“and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed,” Gen 22:18). The target is not just select individuals from among all peoples. As all of Israel was called to sonship at the Exodus (Hos 11:1), so is all of humanity called to sonship in the exodus of the first-born Son of God from death to life in resurrection as the first-born of all creation! The Messiah thus universalises an election that seemed at first to be limited to some. What God is thought to will in eternity must be discerned from what Christ reveals in time.

This strategy of going from some to all others is typical of places in history where God appears to choose some over others. At some point we learn in the biblical narrative that the “some” were elected for the sake of the others! The Messiah’s redemptive work universalises the boundary of election in time. In fact, he will be the last Adam who inaugurates the new creation that will bear his glorious image (1 Cor 15:44-48). Even when God is selecting some for the sake of others, he is working behind the scenes already to call these others to himself. Notice what Paul reveals of God’s work among the nations over the history of their existence through planned kairos moments (opportune moments fraught with spiritual meaning) that were meant to turn all people towards God, to seek after him, and perhaps find him, for they were all created from Adam to be God’s offspring in ways that exceed their existence as natural creatures of God (Acts 17:26-28).

The lesson of history is that the success of election rests exclusively on Christ, the last Adam of the human race. Both Israel and the nations fail at fulfilling it. Israel as a nation was elected to bear witness to the nations of the glory of God: “… and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed” (Gen 22:18), but they failed to answer the call to do this: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me” (Hos 11:1-2). They distressed their God and grieved the Spirit during their Exodus and its aftermath (Isa 63:9-10), but the promise of their election stood firm because it rested in their Messiah and was sure to be fulfilled through and in him. He is the one who will be given the “ends of the earth” (all nations) as his “possession” or his elect brothers and sisters; so expansive and universal is his work. Note what Psalm 2:7-8 says about the Lord’s elect decree for all time and for all people: “I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have become your father. Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession’.” This text is clearly messianic. It is also an election text. Notice that the “decree” behind election is a specific event in time (“today I have become your Father”) and the moment is implied as the enthronement of the crucified and risen Messiah, whose reign will reach the ends of the earth, making the ends of the earth (all nations) his “possession.” This is election language, for Israel was called God’s “possession” in Deuteronomy 7:6. Now the nations become God’s possession in the risen Messiah! In resurrection, the Messiah opens his election beyond Israel to the pagan nations! And this is part of the promise of election given to Israel! Israel is indeed elect in their Messiah to bless the nations (Gen 22:18). Even though Israel will fail at this, their crucified and risen Messiah will accomplish it for all!

This insight lies behind the New Testament conviction that the Messiah is appointed the favoured Son for all at his resurrection and exaltation. Note the quotation from Psalm 2:7 in Acts 13:32-35, which quotes this text as fulfilled at Christ’s resurrection:

We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said, “I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.” So it is also stated elsewhere: “You will not let your holy one see decay.”

See also Romans 1:3-4, where Christ is “appointed” the Son of God in power at his resurrection according to the Spirit of holiness: “… and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.” Notice that in the above text from Acts 13, Christ not only fulfils Israel’s promise of election but that of Adam’s seed among all others. The Messiah’s flesh does not see decay (v. 35)! The curse of Adam in Genesis 3:19 is that he will return to the dust as a sign of his alienation from the source of life. Christ’s flesh, however, does not decay and return to the dust; he rises to glory for all of Adam’s seed! Election occurs in history in the elect Jesus Christ, who proves to be the last Adam in whom the human race is summed up beyond Adam’s natural image to bear the “heavenly” or immortal image of the exalted Son of God (1 Cor 15:44-48). Christ bears the Spirit already as the “chosen one” at the Jordan (John 1:33-34) (is conceived by the Spirit as the holy Son of God in the womb, Luke 1:35!). But it is when he is appointed the Son in power at the Resurrection “according to the Spirit of holiness” (Rom 1:4) that his election is actualised in him. When he pours forth the Spirit upon all flesh to bless the nations, the universal reach of election attains its fulfilment. He is in time the elect God-Man in order, as God, to open his election to all others. He is the elect man and electing God in the same person. This is where election is actualised for all time; this is where it succeeds and is based – not simply in an eternal decree but in time, in the union of the divine Son to flesh so as to open election to all flesh in him. As the famous T. F. Torrance writes, “Election is identical with the life and existence and work of Jesus Christ, and what he does is election going into action.”¹¹ Christ as the eternal Word of the Father is not the mere instrument of election but is election itself. There is no divine choice or decree that is not included in this Word (Christ) and revealed in him.

Israel’s elected mission to bless the nations is indeed to be fulfilled by Christ, their Messiah. Signs of favouritism or limitation in the expanse of God’s calling is over the breadth of the biblical narrative overtaken by the universal thrust of Christ’s work and shown to be a strategic move in God’s plan to show grace to all. “Jacob I loved; Esau I hated” (Rom 9:13)? Later we see that God favoured Jacob (who stood for Israel) for the sake of the disfavoured nations, including Esau and his lineage among the Edomites! Paul concludes his entire discourse on election from Romans chapters 9-11: “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all” (Rom 11:32). This is what we learn from the Messiah who bore human flesh and bore the Spirit to win election for all at the Cross and the Resurrection and then pour forth the Spirit on all to incorporate all into himself. The Edomites will suffer for their disobedience (as Israel did!), but God will use this to teach grace. The key idea here is that in Romans 11:32 God is not predestining disobedience for some and mercy for others! He is not handing over some to condemnation and others to mercy! He hands all over to condemnation so that he may show mercy on them all. And he shows mercy on them all by bearing and overcoming their condemnation on their behalf on the Cross so as to be appointed as the elect one for all time for their sakes. For example, in Romans 1:24, God hands the Gentiles over to their rebellious ways, but this condemnation is not the final word, fixed for all time. In Romans 4:25, God hands his elect Son over to a cross for their transgressions and then raises him for their justification.

By the way, any first-century Jew would have understood Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:13 to be symbolic of nations, Jacob as Israel and Esau standing for the Edomites. So it was from the beginning: “two nations are in your womb,” God says to their mother before they were born (Gen 25:23). The favour shown to Jacob before his birth as stated by Paul in Romans 9:11-13 refers to Israel’s election as well as to Jacob’s election as occurring before he was born in God’s prior promise made to Abraham in Genesis 22, rather than as a timeless decree, unknown to the Old Testament. The universal reach of favour shown to Israel, which was for the sake of all people, is fully revealed when the Son is decreed in resurrection to be the favoured Son for the sake of all (in fulfilment of Ps 2:7, followed by 2:8, which depicts the enthroned Messiah as gaining the nations as his possession). He will extend his election to include all peoples, to the ends of the earth according to Ps 2:8 and Acts 1:8, for he is the first-born from the dead of the entire creation (Col 1:15-18). In the Acts narrative, the mission of the Spirit becomes this expanding boundary of the Son’s election beyond Israel (see Acts 1:8). What this means is the favour shown to Jacob while disfavour rested on Esau was not the final word of history! In the context of the larger biblical narrative, Jacob is favoured for the sake of Esau’s lineage, for the sake of all nations! Forget not the conclusion of Paul’s discourse on election: “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all” (Rom 11:32). Jacob and Esau!

The lesson of history taught by the story of election? “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all” (Rom 11:32). In him, both Israel and the nations become God’s elect “possession” (Deut 7:6; Ps 2:7-8; Acts 1:8; 17:26-28), to the Jew first and then to the Gentile (Rom 1:16). The Gentiles are included because as Adam’s seed they too are predetermined to be God’s “offspring” (Acts 17:26-28), even more, brothers and sisters of the elect first-born Son of the entire creation (Col 1:15-18).

But the nations strayed from God. They are indeed like the outcast younger son in the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15 who went to the far country to disown their Creator and deny their election as sons and daughters of God, orphaning themselves in the process. Israel was elect as their “elder brother,” so to speak, to love God where they had failed to do so (Deut 6:4-5) and to go to the far country to bring them home. But Israel as a whole only ends up joining them in their sin!

It will be the elect Messiah of Israel (the last Adam) who will become the faithful Jew, the faithful elder brother of the human race, the faithful elect man (who is also the electing God), who extends his election to all others. He goes on the Cross to the far country of humanity’s denial of their God-intended election, the promise and the call of it. He overcomes their damnation to attain glory for them, for them all. Their God-intended election in him remains valid for all time, for it is enacted and decreed for all time in his resurrection from the dead. “I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have become your father’” (Ps 2:7). Will we hear that decree given to us in time, given to us in the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ? Will we embrace it in faith? Only then can our election become “concretely actual and visible,” to use Barth’s words.¹² As Christ actualised his eternal election in time by bearing flesh and dying and rising again, so must we, except we do so by faith and being adopted into his election, dying and rising in him!

In fact, the elect Messiah and Son of God is treasured in eternity by his Father. The utter delight that the Father has in his Son is spoken over him after the Son takes on flesh to fulfil the Father’s mission of mercy and love on behalf of the human race (Luke 3:22). He bears the Spirit at the Jordan as the elect Son according to John 1:33-34, which also notes that the Spirit “remains” with him for a future fulfilment, the resurrection from the dead, his appointment to elect sonship. He will as the Christ of Pentecost pour forth the Spirit on all flesh to open his election actualised in resurrection to all others. As the ancient prophecy of Isaiah notes: “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations” (Isa 42:1). Notice in this messianic prophecy that Christ is the elect of the Father, the one in whom the Father delights.

Notice also that the elect Son bears the Spirit given to him out of his Father’s love and delight in him. This is of course an eternal reality, for the Father loved the Son before the foundation of the world (John 17:24). But notice also that Isaiah 42:1 refers to a fulfilment in time. The elect one will in the power of this Spirit open the benefits of his election (“justice” or right relation with the Father) to all nations! Cornelius’s Gentile household is accepted of God and cleansed as those who received the Spirit due to what Christ had done (Acts 15:8-9). The Spirit is the Spirit of adoption into Christ’s elect sonship (Rom 8:15). As Christ’s elect sonship is fully actualised in his humanity at his resurrection, so is ours (v. 23). Election conforms us to Christ’s image (v. 29).

Election as realised in time in Jesus Christ is key to Barth’s theological revolution. When Calvin taught that God elected us based on God’s good pleasure, he failed to see that God elected us rather based exclusively on his delight in his Son. When Arminius taught that God elected us based on divine foreknowledge of our faith, he failed to see that God elected us rather based exclusively on the faithfulness of Christ! The faithful Christ is the elect man for all time, for all of humanity. We are only elect in and from him! This “Christ alone” aspect of election in the Son as taught by Barth is the needed correction of Calvinism and Arminianism! In Barth’s view, human faithfulness does actualise eternal election in time, but the human faithfulness of Jesus Christ is alone its realisation and fulfilment! Yes, our election derives from Christ’s. How else can it be by grace alone?

Many who read this might be surprised to learn that election occurs in time as well as eternity. This is because it’s based on Christ. In fact, election as willed by God in eternity past anticipates its fulfilment in time! Time is the arena of election! Do not be so surprised by this! The fact is that election occurring in the eternal past is completely absent from the Old Testament. It is unknown to Israel’s Scriptures, which was the Bible of both Jesus and Paul! Yes, there are divine promises made and fulfilled, but within the realm of history. One receives the impression from the Old Testament that there is a divine plan being worked out, but that is still a far cry from Calvin’s eternal decree. The reality of election as established and extended to people in time is clearly the only understanding of election given in the Old Testament. Kurt Koch notes, for example, that election in the Old Testament is “a concrete historical act on God’s part that forms the starting point and basis of the salvation history of God and his people.”¹³ More significantly, in a highly important book-length discussion of this issue, Sigurd Grindheim shows as well that in the Old Testament, “election is never explicitly associated with a time before or at creation. Election is a historical event located in the time frame of the patriarchs (Isa. 41:8; 51:1-3; Ps. 105:6; 135:4; Neh. 9:7) or the Exodus/wilderness wanderings (Deut. 4:37; 7:6-7; 10:15; Ezek. 20:5; Hos. 11:1; 13:4-5).”¹⁴ Pannenberg builds on the nature of election as a historical event in the Old Testament to maintain that election also occurs in time in the New Testament, where Christ is more explicitly the focus of God’s act of election, which he extends to others. It is Christ united to flesh, anointed, crucified, risen, and exalted, who is appointed the elect and favoured Son in time in fulfilment of God’s eternal self-determination to be the God revealed in a salvation history centred on Christ. Election indeed becomes in the New Testament a decision, made in the eternal past not only because God is eternal, but most particularly because the centre of election is the eternal Son. Because election has the Son as its centre, what he does in time to actualise that election in his flesh for all flesh becomes key to its eternal fulfilment.

Divine Intention and Human Response

Election is a person, Jesus Christ. He is the elect Son incarnate and the electing God in one. Election as an event between God and humanity is fulfilled in him. Election is thus an objective promise that calls others to faith, to find their election in Jesus also. This is why we speak of election as something to be received and actualised by faith as our own. It was always God’s will that we do this, since God chose Christ for our sakes (and Christ opens his election to us in time). God intends in eternity as well as in time that all of humanity actualise election by adoption into Christ’s sonship by faith and by way of the Spirit. Though God intends in electing Christ a universal outcome among humanity, Scripture indicates that this will sadly not be the case. The difference between the universal divine intention behind election and the more limited outcome is revealed especially in Romans 9:1-6:

I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. But it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who are of Israel are Israel (emphasis mine).

I want to highlight the fact that in the above text, election is intended for all of Israel. Paul uses the term “Israel” throughout Romans 9 to 11 to mean those descended from Abraham, so that term is being applied by Paul to the unbelievers mentioned above. There is no way of evading the fact that the unbelievers mentioned above still belong to “Israel” and thus to God’s elect purpose, even though they betrayed it. Even adoption to sonship and the divine glory (9:4), key to election’s fulfilment in the Messiah, was intended for them, all of them! But not all end up actualising that election by faith.

First, the reference point of this text is natural Israel (“those of my own race,” “the human ancestry of the Messiah”). These are the people willed by God to be elect, not a select number within Israel but Israel, descended from Abraham and meant to bless the nations through their witness. The people mentioned above are unbelieving Israel, but they are still targeted by God for an elect purpose, as all Israelites were. If this were not the case, then Paul’s grieving over their unbelief would be inexplicable. Paul grieves throughout this passage because they had not claimed the blessings of election by faith that belonged to them as children of the promise given to Abraham (“I have great sorrow and anguish in my heart,” 9:2). Paul explains their source of exclusion at the end of the passage (v. 6): not all who belong to natural Israel are “true” Israel by faith, but it’s not the word of promise that failed; they failed to receive it in faith.

At the end of the chapter, Paul elaborates on the reason for their exclusion from that which was meant for them, and it is not the divine decision that is the cause. In fact, at the beginning of the chapter Paul reflects the heart of Christ in grieving over their loss! The reason for their stumbling was that they sought after righteousness by the law rather than faith. “What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal” (Rom 9:30-31). What was their goal? Answering the call of election that came to them in the Exodus and its aftermath! “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me” (Hos 11:1-2). Paul later says that only a faithful remnant within Israel “the elect among them” did claim these blessings because they did so by faith (Rom 11:7, 20) rather than by the law, which was disqualifying (9:30-32). They did not realise the election meant for them, but that does not mean that the promise of election was not meant for them and that they did not have a real opportunity to claim it for themselves.

The idea that the unbelieving Jews of Romans 9:1-5 were never intended by God to belong to election because they were never true Israelites selected in eternity to convert will not work as an interpretive strategy. The wording in the above passage contradicts this interpretation. The blessings of election in the Messiah “belonged” to them all (Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, 9:4), not in the sense that they were entitled to it but because God willed in eternity to save them, along with the rest of humanity. Why else would Paul grieve so deeply over their disbelief if this were not so? Moreover, they still are Israelites by way of their lineage from Abraham, which, though not of decisive significance, still matters. God planned for Israel born of Abraham’s lineage to bless the nations with their witness. As James Dunn rightly notes, “Paul’s anguish arises precisely from the fact that his people are Israelites.”¹⁵ The term “Israel” was not a title of honour that belonged only to faithful Israel in the ancient world but was regularly and commonly part of Jewish self-understanding. Dunn writes again: “If any name characterised Jewish self-understanding it was ‘Israel’,” adding, “Whatever is made of Paul’s talk of ‘Israel’ in v 6, it should not be forgotten that he prefaces the whole discussion with the firm statement ‘the Jews are Israelites’.”¹⁶ More specifically, descended from Abraham, they are children of the “promise of election” from and in their Messiah, but they never responded to that promise by faith, and so they became spiritually excluded from it. They lost the spiritual essence of who they are as Israelites, but that does not mean that as Israelites descended from Abraham, they were not intended by God to have this essence. They needed to attain it (be adopted into it) by faith, Abraham’s faith, faith in the Messiah whose day Abraham rejoiced to see. Paul was saying something like, “These are people of Israel but who have not proved true to the name.” Since Israel was elect as the people of the promise, people of the word of prophecy that called them, straying from this word caused them in a real sense to lose who they are. “It is not as though God’s word had failed” (Rom 9:6). The faithful remnant, “the elect among them,” actualised their election by faith (11:7). Yet, as Israel descended from Abraham, the blessings of election in their Messiah are still meant by God to belong to them, even though they had not actualised these blessings by faith.

Second, strikingly, the blessings of election that “belonged” to unbelieving Israel included the “adoption to sonship.” The attempt to apply an alternate (pre-Christian or non-salvific) meaning to this term “adoption to sonship” as used in Romans 9:4 to evade the implication that election was meant for unbelieving Israel simply will not work. No such alternate meaning for the term exists in the Bible. As Dunn notes, “adoption to sonship” is nowhere used of Israel in the Old Testament, and it “occurs nowhere in the LXX or in other Jewish writings of the period.”¹⁷ Paul was obviously expanding a Christian term to include what God intended for unbelieving Israel! Paul’s deep grieving over these fellow Israelites who had rejected their Messiah and the adoption to sonship in him that was meant for them reveals the gravity of the situation and deep sense of loss that Paul felt. Paul grieved so deeply over unbelieving Israel that he was willing to be condemned himself if it meant they would be saved as a result. Paul understood well the heart of the God of election, the suffering God of the Cross, who, in predetermining his Son to crucifixion and resurrection, willed adoption to sonship for all of humanity, including rebellious Israel. Does this mean they will all be saved? God also required faith for entry into Christ’s elect sonship. Adoption into Christ in the Spirit requires faith.

Third, the divine glory is also said in 9:4 to “belong” to unbelieving Israel! It won’t do to attempt to limit this “glory” to Israel’s experience of God on Mount Sinai, thereby detaching it as well from anything applicable to election in Christ. Eschatological glory, such as we would associate with the risen Messiah, is indeed promised to Israel in the Old Testament (Isa 35:2; 40:5; 59:19; 60:1-3; 66:18-19). The glory of the new creation will manifest the glory of the exalted Christ, and Paul says in Romans 9:4 that this too belonged to unbelieving Israel! The eschatological glory promised to the nation of Israel (and connected to their Messiah) is a promise given through their witness to all peoples! For example, one text referenced in the parentheses above that promises eschatological glory to Israel is Isaiah 60:1-3. Take note of this text: “Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD rises upon you. See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the Lord rises upon you and his glory appears over you. Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn.” One finds an obvious connection between this text and the “glory” and “light” of God shining through the Lamb, who will light up the heavenly city and the new creation (Rev 21:24). The following verse (21:25) says, “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it.” To say that this glory of God promised to Israel belongs to unbelieving Israel is astounding. Obviously, God intended election for them even though they receive it by faith, and most of them never will. This implication of Romans 9:1-5 undercuts Calvin’s theology of election.

Significantly, Romans 9:1-6 appears right after the climactic passage of the previous chapter, Romans 8:29-30, which mentions both the adoption to sonship and the glory as predestined of Christians in Christ the elect one! It is instructive to read Romans 8:29-30 facing the horizon on 9:1-6. “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” The major elements of finding one’s election in Christ are in these texts: foreknowing (or foreloving), predestining (or foreordaining), calling, conformity to Christ’s image, adoption into Christ’s sonship, justification, and glory. First, what strikes me as I look at 8:29-30 in the light of 9:1-6 is that the elements of election listed in 8:29-30 (foreloving, predestining, adoption to sonship, calling, justification, glorification) in the light of 9:1-5 are not a causal chain of events guaranteed to unfold in a life predetermined by God. That interpretation of 8:29-30 makes 9:1-6 completely inexplicable. In the light of 9:1-6, these events listed in 8:29-30 are elements of one’s personal conformity to Christ by faith, intended and enabled by God for everyone. The lack of faith explains the fact that adoption to sonship and divine (eschatological) glory that “belonged” to unbelieving Israel were nevertheless unattained by them because they sought it by works of the law rather than faith (Rom 9:30-32; 11:7).

Second, it is also important to point out that the elements of election listed in Romans 8:29-30 are actualised in time by Christ the elect one who elects us in opening election to us. They are elements actualised by him for our sakes before they ever become ours by faith and they become ours in our imaging of him (8:29). He is the one who is foreknown (or foreloved) of his Father; he is predetermined by God to take on flesh for our salvation, thereby actualising his election in time for us; he is called and anointed at the Jordan, vindicated (justified) as the favoured Son at the Resurrection, as well as glorified and exalted to the throne in that event. After all, recalling 8:29-30, he is the “first-born Son from the dead” unto eschatological glory so that we can be reborn unto his glory, adopted into his sonship, by faith (Col 1:15-18)!

Here is where Romans 9:1-5 is different from Romans 8:29-30. The former deals with unbelieving Israel while the latter with those who love God (8:28) and are united to Christ in faith. It is one thing for Christ to lay claim to all flesh in incarnation; it is another for him to attain union with all flesh via the Spirit and by faith. It is one thing for Christ to bind himself to those who suffer at the Cross; it is another to receive his suffering as a gift and to suffer with him and for him by faith. It is one thing for Christ to claim sinners for glory in resurrection, it is another for us to experience and hope in this glory by faith. It is one thing for us to “belong” to adoption to sonship and eschatological glory in terms of the divine intention in electing the Son on our behalf; it is another to actualise this adoption in the Spirit by faith and to await resurrection, at which time our adoption will be finalised in glory (vv. 15, 23). There is belonging in terms of the divine intention, and there is belonging by faith! The belonging of Romans 9:1-5 is by implication limited to the divine intention involved in Christ’s self-giving in time. The belonging depicted in Romans 8:29-30 involves our intent too by faith, for the recipients of this text are those who love God (v. 28).

The “those” of Rom 8:29-30 (“for those God foreknew …,” v. 29) has its point of reference beyond Christ among those who love God (v. 28). They are the ones being comforted with the assurance that God has always loved them in the beloved Son and has determined to bring them through their suffering to glory (cf. vv. 18-23). The text is forward looking, anchoring divine love in the past to grant the assurance needed to face the future. It is all about the glory and the way it fills the entirety of our journey through this world with meaning, overcoming the threat of futility and meaninglessness (vv. 18-20). So, Paul says in effect, those he foreloves he brings through suffering to glory. Those he foreloves he does not forsake. The “those” here is used as an open-ended term, like “all those,” since being foreloved by God is obviously not limited to those who will respond by loving him. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whosoever believes would not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). This insight is required by the larger context of 8:29-30 that includes 9:1-5, where Paul weeps with the heart of God for those who have spurned God’s love, many for the rest of their lives. Notice in Romans 11:11 that God uses unbelieving Israel’s transgression of rejecting their Messiah (especially by handing him over to the Romans to be put to death) to offer grace to the Gentiles, in part to make unbelieving Israel “jealous.” God is not above using something analogous to familial jealousy to lure unbelieving Israel back home. Such love God has for those who reject grace!

The divine intention to choose all of humanity in Christ is granted clear treatment in Ephesians 1. Take note of 1:4-8:

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will – to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding.

The first verse of the above passage (v. 4) makes the astounding statement not very typical of Scripture that the Father “chose us in him before the creation of the world.” Barth stresses regarding this text what it does not say. It does not say that God chose us “with Christ” but rather “in him” implying complete dependence on his election for our own. Christ is pictured here as the one in whom we find our election. Barth writes, “In that He (as God) wills himself (as man) he also wills them. And so they are elect ‘in Him’ in and with his own election.”¹⁸ In other words, in the election of Jesus Christ, all of us are elected. The eternal Son weds himself to humanity by incarnating in Jesus (self-determined to do so in eternity) so that in this human life, in incarnation, death, and resurrection, he could open his eternal election to all of humanity. As human, the eternal Son is the elect man, but as divine he is also the electing God because he opens his election to us in time. The point here is that, though the text speaks of us as chosen, it also does so in a way that makes our election dependent on his, even derived from his. This insight should not be hard to understand. In the very next verse, Paul writes that we are within this election “predestined to adoption to sonship” (v. 5). Paul’s notion of adoption is entirely dependent on Christ’s sonship. He is the beloved and favoured Son by nature and we by adoption as his brothers and sisters. Our status as siblings of Christ depends entirely on what Christ has done to incorporate us into himself and into his relationship with the Father. If we are “chosen in him,” which is further described as being “predestined to adoption to sonship,” then the entire trend of thought means that we have no status apart from Christ and gain everything in and from him.

Notice also the uninterrupted transition from eternity to time in these two verses (Eph 1:4-5). The election “in him” (meaning “in Christ”) becomes in the following verse a predestination “through Jesus Christ.” The following verses depict blessings of election received in time (adoption, grace lavishly imparted, redemption, wisdom). Then comes the telos or goal of it all in verse 10: “to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.” This unity tells us how Paul envisions the goal of election, namely, the creating of a new humanity united in Christ their head and elder brother. Adam, who bound us to mortality and condemnation, is now replaced by the last Adam, who destines us to a new family united in him and bound for glory (cf. 1 Cor 15:44-48). That eschatological unity is brought up again by Paul in the very next chapter where Christ himself is the “peace” uniting Jew and Gentile into one body: “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace” (Eph 2:14-15).

Returning to Ephesians 1, one can notice the movement of Paul’s thought from Jew to Gentile. Directly after the climactic verse of 1:10, Paul elaborates on the united humanity of the last Adam as consisting of Jew and Gentile. Speaking of the Jews first, he writes:

In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit (1:11-13).

Paul refers to the sealing with the Spirit again in Ephesians 4:30, adding the warning not to grieve the Spirit. This warning seems to hark back to Isaiah 63:10 where Israel was said to grieve the Spirit during the Exodus and its aftermath. Likewise, the new humanity in its journey towards eschatological unity in its head is to follow the leading of the Spirit!

The emphasis on the uniting of Jew and Gentile in Ephesians 1 and 2 implies for me that the election and predestination referred to in 1:4-5 hovers at the level of a corporate reality rather than an individual one such as you have in Romans 8:29-30. The predestined plan was to choose not only Israel but the Gentiles also in Christ to be his brothers and sisters by way of adoption. Even in chapter 2, where Paul talks about the uniting of Jew and Gentile in Christ (he himself in his very person as the elect of God being their peace!), one gets the feel that he is still talking about a corporate plan concerning a new humanity effecting the life, shape, and mission of the church. Granted, individual Jews and Gentiles all find a place in this predestined plan to unite Jew and Gentile in Christ. And I have no problem saying that all of humanity is predestined in the election of the predestined Jesus Christ (God predestines us in predestining him!). In a very important study on the ancient Greek term προορίζω, meaning to predestine, Robert Sloan points out that the use of the word in the ancient world outside of the New Testament did not refer to eternity past and merely meant to foreordain something. What is meant more specifically in the use of the word, including in the New Testament, depended entirely on the context.¹⁹ In my view, we are all foreordained to election in Christ’s foreordination. Can God foreordain people to election in Christ, and they end up not realising it by faith? Just read Romans 9:1-5! But is not what God foreordains guaranteed to be fulfilled? Yes, and it has been, in Christ! And it will be also in the new humanity adopted and glorified in him. But there will still be losses. One of the major problems I have with Calvinism is its assumption that all that God intends will occur in time. There are plenty of Scriptures to show that this is sadly not the case. Read again Romans 9:1-5 and then weep with Paul over so many destinies willed by God that are not fulfilled in time.

Calvinists tend to read an eternal decree into some texts that do not require it. For example, Acts 13:48 states of the Gentiles who attended one of Paul’s meetings, “When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honoured the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.” The text seems to celebrate the fact that all of the Gentiles present believed. Would the Calvinist have us believe that all of the Gentiles present just happened to have been selected in eternity to be among those chosen for salvation? There is nothing in the context that would lead us to believe that the “appointment” is an eternal decree. The fact is that Acts puts its weight elsewhere. People are led in Acts to certain key moments in their journeys with God that God arranges and that often yield positive results. One calls to mind the Ethiopian eunuch’s not-so coincidental crossing of paths with Philip in Acts 8, the meeting between Peter and Cornelius’s household arranged by God in Acts 10 (where all in that household were also saved), or the “appointed times” (kairos moments) that lead many among the nations to seek God and find him in Acts 17:26-28. So also, God arranged a divine “appointment” unto salvation for these Gentiles who were led in their search for God to Paul in Acts 13. However, the word “appointed” in Acts 13:48 can also mean “destined.” Joseph Fitzmyer thus translates the key phrase of the verse this way: “All who believed were destined to eternal life.”²⁰ In either case, turning this text into an eternal decree is entirely unnecessary. Take also for example John 6:39 and 44, where Christ refers with gratitude to all those the Father has “given him” or “drawn to him.” It is thought that this is done by an eternal decree or predestination, though there is not a word in the context to justify such a far-flung conclusion. In fact, John 1:9 refers to the Word of the Father as the light that is meant for “everyone.” Why could not Jesus simply be referring to those from Israel (the faithful remnant) who emerged from Old Testament faith with hearts that were open to the lead of the Father through the Spirit towards Jesus as the light of God intended for all?

Last, some texts do have an eternal point of reference. We can refer for example to the “Lamb’s book of life” (Rev 21:27) “written from the foundation of the world” (17:8). First, it seems that this book is symbolic of God’s recognition that his Lamb bears his name for the sake of others, as the Lamb given for the salvation of the world. If God pre-loved and chose humanity in the eternal Son as the one who is eternally self-identified as the Lamb that is slain and raised out of mercy towards sinners, the point is confirmed that election occurs most decisively on the Cross and the Resurrection, where God overcomes our condemnation in order to elect us to glory. Revelation 17:8 and 13:8 mean that Barth was right, and Calvin was wrong. Indeed, it’s not our book but the Lamb’s. It’s his name in its title and not ours. Our names are included only under his and are there because he has willed from a cross to share his election with us all.

Second, it is “written” from the foundation of the world, parallel with the Lamb himself being slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8).²¹ The eternal Son’s self-identification with the crucified Christ reflects God’s eternal will for life rather than death. Third, there is thus no death list in this book, only an intention of life. Fourth, why not suppose that all names are initially included? Revelation 3:5 says of those who overcome and remain faithful unto the end: “I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life.” Notice how not being blotted out of the book is conditioned by enduring in one’s choice of life until the end. This must mean that names can be blotted out if they don’t endure or never come to accept life eternal. This point is telling. It means that there are names in this book that God knows will not endure in their choice of life or who in their lives do not come to choose life. The “book” ends up being “edited” in the eschaton so that only those who end up choosing life remain in the final version. One is reminded also of the people of God depicted in Romans 11 as a tree that gives life to its branches. Those who forsake life are cut off (v. 20). The difference with the book-of-life metaphor is that there is no mention of names being added as people are added in the treeof-life metaphor. The “book” must have started out with everyone included! Again, Christ’s death is in numerous places of the New Testament depicted as intended for all. As I said above, which bears repeating here, the idea that the Lamb or Son was crucified and raised to save the entire world is well attested in Scripture. He is first-born from the dead of the entire creation (Col 1:15-18). For God so loved the world that he gave his Son to give them life (John 3:16). “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Christ “tasted death for everyone” (Heb 2:9). He “gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Tim 2:6). God was “reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them” (2 Cor 5:19).²² The Lamb’s book of life would have to be meant for all if it is true to its subject matter.

The entire issue of divine predestination is thorny. God’s predestining something would indeed be guaranteed in its fulfilment if the context has to do with the Christ-event or biblical prophecy, but does this apply to all the events of history? God uses all things towards his foreordained ends, but does this mean that all things are foreordained? I don’t think so, for that would make God the origin of evil, an unthinkable thought for a God who is only light and in whom there is not darkness (1 John 1:5). For example, God predestines adoption to sonship for the new humanity united eschatologically in Christ in Ephesians 1:5-10. This is guaranteed to happen, but the context implies that the guarantee applies fundamentally to Christ and only to us “in him.” We are speaking here of a foreordained plan that will not include all for whom it is meant. There are losses, even for God. When it comes to the meaning of the term “predestination,” context is everything. I only have space to offer a few remarks here.

First, there is no question to my mind that God knows in eternity all that will happen in time. “His understanding knows no limit” (Ps 147:5). But foreknowledge (not meaning here foreloving) in and of itself is not causation or predetermination. So, how do we understand divine providence in relation to the vicissitudes of history? I cannot go so far as to agree with Martin Buber’s famous remark that history is a conversation between God and humanity that is far from settled.²³ In a sense, this conversation has been settled in the union between God and humanity that took place in the Incarnation and life of the divine Word of the Father in human flesh (John 1:14). Christ as a man spent his entire life saying “yes” to his heavenly Father and the leading of the Spirit (and to his own self-determination as the eternal Word of the Father). This was all done in response to the Father’s “yes” to him, and, for his sake, to us! The whole purpose of election is to conform all of humanity to that “yes”! God works in history, even using our disobedience to fulfil his plan (read Rom 9-11), so that there is no way humanity can end up thwarting God’s foreordained purposes (“no purpose of yours can be thwarted,” Job 42:2). He works in our lives to use all things (even the terribly negative things) to conform us to his Son’s image and to bring us as part of the new humanity to glory (Rom 8:28). The same can be said of history.

God permits rebellion but also opposes it, which is what God shows us concerning himself in the story of Jesus. God permits suffering but also joins us in it, bearing up under it on our behalf, and offering both the victory and the grace to endure until all is made right in the new creation. In history, God provides signs of that coming new creation through miracles. But we are not yet at the new creation! We are still travelling there through the desert. We as elect Israel fulfilled are involved in a grand exodus behind the elect Son towards the Promised Land. His glory will be ours one day, but not yet.

Rather than say God causes all things to happen, I prefer to say that God works in all things to accomplish his purposes, the chief of which is conformity to Christ’s glorious image. So rather than assume that everything that happens is foreordained of God, the challenge becomes to discern in all things that happen what God’s foreordained purpose is in it. We are chosen in Christ to be “holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph 1:4) (presumably in the eschaton). Election has conformity to Christ’s image in the new humanity as its goal. When the glory of this fulfilment comes, the suffering of this age will not be worth mentioning (Rom 8:18). This is not to say that there are not salvation historical events that are planned and foretold. There are! But affirming this does not necessitate saying that God micromanages and determines all that happens in history. The sovereign God guides, superintends, and acts in time in ways that exceed all that we can ask or think (Eph 3:20).

Through it all, humanity is granted space to act, not as puppets on strings, but as persons granted the dignity of choice. Yes, we are bound by sin to the point where we cannot of our own strength rise to God’s standard of holiness or the glory of new creation. We must be born into it by faith. Faith is a choice enabled by grace – a choice God will not make for us. We are not to receive this grace in vain without cooperating with it towards its God-intended end (cooperating with grace from within grace) (2 Cor 6:1). The Calvinist idea that we are simply awakened by the divine determination to the born-again life from spiritual death, understood as a total lack of capacity for God, is not scriptural. First, spiritual death is alienation from communion with God and not necessarily a total lack of spiritual consciousness. How are we to understand God’s leading the nations through kairos moments to seek him (Acts 17:26-28)? Moreover, a capacity to cooperate with grace as enabled (not forced) by grace is not salvation by works. There is no merit to be attributed to us if the initial and thorough enablement comes from God and is based ultimately on the merits of Christ for our worthiness.

Hardening and Divine Forbearance

Our final topic is this: what about those who are hardened in Scripture? Hardening happens in Romans to both Gentile and Jew – to all who have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23) and refuse to repent. Even unbelieving Israel, to whom belonged the adoption to sonship and the glory, were hardened (cf. 9:4, 30-32; 11:7). When one is handed over to grace, only those who yield experience positive results. The same fire that softens butter hardens bricks. But God does not abandon those being hardened; he will rather use their hardship to soften their resolve to resist. Paul starts Romans by noting that God handed the Gentiles over to a depraved mind (1:24-28). Yet God does not abandon them in doing so, for he handed his own Son over to a cross so they may yet be justified and glorified in him (4:25). God does not abandon hardened Israel either. Paul speaks of God’s patience with stubborn Israel as well, hoping for their repentance (2:4). Indeed, what is hardening other than God handing us over to grace to either be softened or hardened? If the latter, God hands us over as well to our stubborn ways to the point where we genuinely suffer under it: “So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices” (Ps 81:12). This state is not meant to be permanent but rather to bring us through the suffering of our own decisions as a means of leading us to repentance. God handed Israel over to spiritual deafness or blindness, “otherwise they may turn and be healed” (Isa 6:10). No easy and quick conversions are willed by God, for though such may have temporary results, like some plants in the parable of the sower that end up not taking adequate root, these results may not endure. God wants to lead them through a path of suffering, bearing with them with the result of producing a lasting repentance. So, when Isaiah asks God how long Israel will be hardened or suffer spiritual blindness and deafness, God answers, “Until the cities lie ruined” (Isa 6:11; see 6:9-11). Clearly the hardening was not meant to be permanent. In Isaiah 1:8-7 (written after chapter 6 just quoted), God implores them now to repent because they’ve suffered enough: “Why should you be beaten anymore? Why do you persist in rebellion? … Your country is desolate, your cities burned with fire” (Isa 1:5-7)!

As noted above, God handed the Gentiles over to their rejection in Romans 1:24-28 but then handed Christ over to a cross to save them (4:25). The same may be said of Israel. As noted above, Paul grieved over unbelieving Israel in Romans 9:1-5. Though they belonged to the adoption to sonship and the glory, they had not attained it, for they sought to do so by the law rather than by faith (vv. 30-31). They ended up “stumbling over the stumbling stone” (v. 32). In Romans 11:7, Paul says unbelieving Israel was hardened. Paul then proceeds to quote a most irritated David concerning Israel’s hardening: “May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever” (v. 10). Are these hardened Jews meant to remain excluded forever? Not so! The Paul who lamented so grievously over unbelieving Israel in Romans 9:1-5 was not willing to give up on them. Paul ends up correcting David in the very next verse: “Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!” (vv. 11-12). The reference to stumbling here harks back to unbelieving Israel in 9:30-31 and 9:1-5. Note what Paul is saying here! Israel as a nation transgressed by handing their Messiah over to the Romans to be crucified, but God always planned to use this transgression to bring salvation to the Gentiles and to reveal the divine glory on the earth! In other words, God planned to use Israel’s disobedience to fulfil Israel’s mission to bring salvation to the Gentiles! Israel will fulfil their mission through their Messiah who used their disobedience to do it! But God did not abandon unbelieving Israel in the process. His mercy to the Gentiles was always meant to make Israel “jealous” or to make them long to rediscover their adoption in their Messiah as his younger brothers and sisters, along with their newfound Gentile siblings. And notice how unbelieving Israel (most of whom will remain such for life) is pictured as an unfaithful spouse whom God wishes to make jealous by turning with grace to the Gentiles! Does this not imply that God foreloved and destined (foreordained) even those who will not come to believe? In that light, Romans 9:1-5 gives us quite a theological lens through which to read 8:29-30!

Only in this light is one meant to understand what Paul says two chapters earlier in Romans 9 about the pottery being prepared for “common use” (the end of which is destruction) and “special use” (the end of which is glory) (Rom 9:21). Paul adds there that God showed patience with the pottery headed for destruction to show glory to others:

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory – even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (9:22-24).

Some have read this text as though God may preserve those eternally damned and without any possibility of hope in the world to show mercy to those eternally elect for glory, but there is not a word in Romans to justify this interpretation. In fact, this is clearly not Paul’s meaning. Look again at what Paul says in Romans 11:11-12. God bore with hardened Israel even though they strayed to the point of handing their Messiah over to the Romans to be crucified. The reason was to use these Israelite vessels being prepared for destruction (due to their sin, not God’s election!) to bring “riches to the world” or to show mercy to vessels being prepared in advance for glory (mainly Gentiles). But these Israelites are not eternally damned or destined to end in destruction! Paul is clear on this point. Hardened Israel was meant to be made “jealous” so that they may one day return! Earlier in Romans, Paul tells the Jews not to despise God’s forbearance, for it is meant to lead them to repentance (2:4). In the end, all vessels are of common use headed for destruction, but God wishes that they all become vessels meant for glory (11:32).

The same could be said of Pharoah as well, for he was hardened too according to Romans 9:17-18. Note Barth’s statement about the genuinely gracious forbearance shown Pharoah by God. Barth starts by quoting God’s words to Pharoah in Exodus 9:15f, the text that Paul had before him when writing about Pharoah’s hardening in Romans 9:17-18, and then Barth adds his own comments (in parentheses):

I could by now have stretched forth my hand and smitten you and your people with pestilence; and you would have been cut off from the earth; but for this cause have I upheld you (Paul read in his Greek text – have I ‘raised you up’) that you might know my power (LXX and Paul: ‘that I might show my power in you’) and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth (Ex. 9:15f). God lets one warning miracle after another to take place before his eyes. Pharaoh does not fail to acknowledge on occasion his sin and guilt (Ex. 9:27 and 10:16). Neither does he fail to appeal to Moses to intercede on his behalf (8:8, 28; 9:28; 10:17). And Moses does in fact repeatedly pray for him (8:12, 30; 9:33; 10:18); repeatedly his punishment is, in fact, stopped before it gets to the length of his annihilation.²⁴

Pharoah is granted a real chance to repent. God was not merely using him as a pawn and nothing more. Grace is held out to those who are hardened. Such is true concerning hardened Israel, as well as hardened “pagans” like Pharoah. Indeed, in Romans 9-11, Paul concludes his lengthy discourse on election from Romans 9 to 11 by noting that God has relegated all to disobedience – Pharoah and Israel, Esau and Jacob, Gentile and Jew, those in the mainstream of God’s salvific activity and those who resisted or happened to exist on its boundaries – that he may have mercy on all (Rom 11:32). For all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, being justified by grace through faith (3:23-24). ALL! All have sinned and all may be justified, but only by grace through faith.

Pentecostal Postscript

All of this makes the Spirit, through the church as the environment of Christ, the “expanding boundary” of election as a promise proclaimed in the world, leading up to its eternal fulfilment in the new creation. It is in the witness of the Spirit to Christ that the promise of election in Christ the favoured Son goes forth and can be “obtained” by grace through faith. It was under the anointing of the Spirit that the eternal Son became flesh (Luke 1:35) and was in flesh the chosen Son, for after witnessing the Spirit descend on Christ at the Jordan, John the Baptist says, “I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One” (John 1:34; cf. Luke 3:22). Additionally, it is under the anointing of the Spirit that we receive election and its benefits in union with Christ, for we are “sealed” (incorporated and confirmed) as God’s “possession” (election language, 1 Pet 2:9) in Christ by the reception of the down payment of the Spirit by faith (Eph 1:12-13). We actualise our election by faith and in the Spirit. I speak of the Spirit of adoption by which we join Christ under God’s eternal favour (Rom 8:15). In Christ and in the Spirit, the gospel of this election confronts us with pure grace and light. This election contains no rejection and no darkness, except that which is laid on Christ so that election may confront the human race as pure gospel and nothing more. The overflowing of the Spirit is the expanding and ever more diverse boundary of election in the world of which the Spirit-empowered church bears witness. One day, all nations will walk by the light and glory of the Lamb of God (Rev 21:22-26). The self-electing God will be God forever in covenant relation and communion with humanity, for such was God’s willed election from eternity.

Bibliography

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of God. Vol. II. Part 2, translated by G. W. Bromiley et al. T&T Clark, 1957.

Buber, Martin. “Prophecy, Apocalyptic, and Historical Hour.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review (March 1, 1957): 9-21.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 2, edited by John T. McNeill. Westminster John Knox, 2006.

Dunn, James. Romans 9–16. Word Biblical Commentary 38A. Thomas Nelson Inc., 1988.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries. Yale University Press, 1998.

Grindheim, Sigurd. The Crux of Election. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 202; Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

Koch, Kurt. “Zur Geschichte der Erwälungsvorstellung in Israel.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 67 (1955): 205-26.

McCormack, Bruce. “Grace and Being: The Role of God’s Gracious Election in Karl Barth’s Theological Ontology.” In The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, edited by John Webster. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Mounce, Robert. Revelation. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Eerdmans, 1998.

Muller, Richard A. Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins. Baker, 2008.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Vol. 3. Eerdmans, 1998.

Sloan, Robert. “To Predestine (προορίζω): The Use of a Pauline Term in Extrabiblical Tradition.” In Good News in History: Essays in Honor of Bo Reiche, edited by I. Miller. Scholars, 1993.

Torrance, T. F. Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ. IVP Academic, 2014.

Torrance, T. F. The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons. T&T Clark, 2001.

¹ John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill (Westminster John Knox, 2006), Book 3, ch. 21, sec. 5.

² All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the New International Version.

³ Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of God, vol. II, part 2, trans. G. W. Bromiley et al. (T&T Clark, 1 957), 94.

⁴ The parentheses were added for clarity. Barth, Church Dogmatics, 162-63.

⁵ Barth, Church Dogmatics, 3.

⁶ Bruce McCormack, “Grace and Being: The Role of God’s Gracious Election in Karl Barth’s Theological Ontology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. John Webster (Cambridge University Press, 2000), 97-98.

⁷ T. F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons (T&T Clark, 2001), 243-44.

⁸ It is not quite accurate to say that with his election doctrine Calvin makes God an unknowable “x” behind the back of Christ. For Calvin, Christ (with the Father) is behind the election decree. See Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Baker, 2008), 35. And Barth does concede that Calvin called Christ the “mirror of election” in his classic Institutes, 3.24.5. None of this comes close, however, to the place Barth grants Christ when it comes to election. Barth rightly faults Calvin for not following through on his mirror analogy. Calvin clearly does not make Christ the elected for all time who opens his election to others.

⁹ Barth, Church Dogmatics, 65.

¹⁰ Such texts do not mean that at the Cross the entire world was reconciled to God. The Cross is God’s action towards us in mercy, removing the barriers between us. God’s reconciling move towards us now requires a response from us.

¹¹ T. F. Torrance, Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ (IVP Academic, 2014), 183. Torrance is a leading theologian and proponent of Barth’s theology.

¹² Barth, Church Dogmatics, 326.

¹³ Kurt Koch, “Zur Geschichte der Erwälungsvorstellung in Israel,” ZAW 67 (1955): 212 (205-26); quoted in Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Eerdmans, 1998), 442.

¹⁴ Sigurd Grindheim, The Crux of Election (WUNT 2. Reihe 202; Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 8.

¹⁵ James Dunn, Romans, Word Biblical Commentary 38B (Eerdmans, 1988), 526.

¹⁶ Dunn, Romans, 526.

¹⁷ Dunn, Romans, 526.

¹⁸ Barth, Church Dogmatics, 116-17.

¹⁹ Robert Sloan, “To Predestine (προορίζω): The Use of a Pauline Term in Extrabiblical Tradition,” in Good News in History: Essays in Honor of Bo Reiche, ed. I. Miller (Scholars, 1993), 127-36.

²⁰ Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries (Yale University Press, 1998), 522.

²¹ Robert Mounce in his commentary on Revelation for the New International Commentary on the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1998), 252, rightly notes concerning 13:8 that the most natural reading in the Greek refers “from the creation of the world” to the slain Lamb rather than his book of life. He observes that some translations refer the creation of the world to the book of life because of 17:8, which does do this. But, as Mounce also points out, the author of Revelation can use the phrase “from the creation of the world” to refer to more than one point of reference!

²² See my qualification of these texts given in footnote 10.

²³ Martin Buber, “Prophecy, Apocalyptic, and Historical Hour,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review (March 1, 1957): 14.

²⁴ Barth, Church Dogmatics, 220.

Response to “Election: A Pentecostal Reflection” by Frank Macchia

Chiong Xiao Ting

Introduction

Historically, the doctrine of election and predestination are not topics in which Pentecostals typically engage. Pentecostal revivals since Azusa Street are often characterised by outward signs, wonders, intense encounters with the Holy Spirit, and a strong focus on mission. Unfortunately, the emphasis on “experience” and “mission” has resulted in an anti-intellectualist attitude among Pentecostals, especially in the earlier decades of the twentieth century. Hence, many Pentecostals have chosen to shun the theological discussion on election and simply left it to the Calvinist theologians.

The theory of predestination has traditionally revolved around the argument of God’s sovereignty versus human free will. This debate surfaced in the seventeenth century between the followers of John Calvin and Jacob Arminius and persisted till the time of John Wesley in the eighteenth century. Wesley stood strongly against Calvinism and further developed the doctrine of Arminianism.¹ The Holiness Movement in Methodism was a precursor to the Pentecostal revival in the 1900s; thus, it was not surprising that Pentecostals naturally adopted the Wesleyan–Arminian stance when it came to the doctrine of election.²

The Resurgence of Calvinism

In 2006, journalist Collin Hansen wrote an article in Christianity Today titled “Young, Restless, Reformed,” remarking, “Calvinism is making a comeback – and shaking up the church.”³ He observed a renaissance of Calvinist theology, especially among youth in university campuses. In a 2009 article, Time ranked the New Calvinism movement as top three on the list of “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now.”⁴ According to renowned Calvinist pastor John Piper, one of the characteristics of this New Calvinism movement is a “significant number of charismatics,” likely including Pentecostals as well.⁵ The pertinent question here is: how important is the doctrine of election to Pentecostals? Does it matter if we are Calvinists, Arminians, both, or neither? In his paper, Frank Macchia is emphatically saying yes, it matters, and we must not be content with merely accepting the theories of others; instead, a Pentecostal doctrine of election is essential and needful.

In his introduction, Macchia makes a provocative statement: “The problem is that many Pentecostal students flirt with Calvin’s doctrine of election without realising how his view of the matter undercuts their Christocentric, missional, and pneumatological priorities.”⁶ Using this statement as a framework, I hope to address the risks that Calvinism may pose to our Christological, pneumatological, and missional beliefs as Pentecostals.

Calvinism’s Negative Impact on our Christology

At first glance, Calvin’s doctrine of election is ostensibly Christocentric. After all, he affirms that “we were chosen in Christ” (Eph 1:4) and can only be “adopted unto the heavenly inheritance” in Christ because we are incapable of this ourselves.⁷ He maintains that Christ is not just the Mediator of our salvation but also the “author” and “foundation” of our “calling and election.”⁸ However, Chris Green rightly notes that the Bezan–Calvinist supralapsarianism undermines the centrality of Christ, when some are already elected for salvation even before the election of Christ as Saviour according to an eternal hidden decree – it “effectively removes Christ from the foundation of election.”⁹ Inevitably, Christ will be relegated to merely an “instrument” of election.¹⁰ Drawing from Karl Barth, Macchia says it aptly: “There is no divine choice or decree that is not included in this Word (Christ) and revealed in Him!”¹¹

Second, Calvin claims that all who are adopted by God are elected only in Christ, and not in themselves. The elect can only be loved in Christ, and not apart from Christ.¹² Moreover, Calvin also maintains that there are those “whom [God] is pleased to embrace in love” and those with whom “he is pleased to display his wrath.”¹³ This poses the greatest challenge to Pentecostal Christology, because Pentecostals believe that Jesus came precisely to reveal the triune God as the God of love (cf. Matt 3:17; John 3:16; 1 John 4:8). As Macchia correctly emphasises, “this election contains no rejection and no darkness, except that which is laid on Christ so that election may confront the human race as pure gospel, and nothing more.”¹⁴ This gospel is a gospel of pure love, and God has not chosen to love some and not others. Paul describes this clearly in Romans 5:8, noting that Christ died for us even “while we were still sinners,” demonstrating God’s love for all humankind. Above all else, this is our greatest point of contention with Calvinism, which is why Pentecostals simply cannot accept its election doctrine. Thus, Calvinism negatively impacts our Christology by relegating Christ and redefining his loving mission.

Calvinism’s Negative Impact on our Pneumatology

For Pentecostals, the Day of Pentecost is a pivotal event because, on that day, the Holy Spirit was poured out on all flesh (Acts 2:17). The implication for us is that the Spirit is present and working everywhere, not just in the lives of the “elect” as Calvin defines it. For Calvin, when the Word is preached, God only allows the Spirit to work in the lives of the elect, bringing about “illumination.”¹⁵ However, for the reprobate, God “withholds from them the effectual agency of His Spirit.”¹⁶ This is an extremely constricted view of the work of the Spirit, which runs counter to our core convictions as Pentecostals. We believe that the Spirit is active in the church, outside the church, in creation, in society, even moving among other religions, as Amos Yong and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen suggest.¹⁷ Macchia asserts that, from Pentecost, the Spirit now overflows; instead of restricting himself to a select few, he is ever expanding and diversifying the boundary of election in the world.¹⁸ On the contrary, Calvinism places a limit on our pneumatology and the work of the Spirit in this world.

Calvinism’s Negative Impact on Mission

Calvin’s doctrine of predestination has often been criticised as the reason behind lethargy in missions and evangelism. However, Calvin does advocate for the preaching of the Word as he believes that, for the elect, the Spirit will allow the preached Word to “take deep root in their hearts.”¹⁹ Nevertheless, hyper-Calvinists deny the “free offer of the gospel” and they reject the fact that those who hear the gospel have a duty to repent, hence undermining the importance of preaching and giving invitations for people to respond to Christ.²⁰

This was challenged by moderate Calvinist preachers and theologians, like Andrew Fuller and William Carey, and their shift from hyper-Calvinism resulted in the birth of the modern missionary movement in the late eighteenth century.²¹ Consequently, Calvinists disagree that their election theory discourages evangelism and missions.

Nonetheless, it is undeniable that following their logic of limited atonement, preaching the gospel still seems redundant since God has already predestined some to salvation and others to damnation. However, Fuller maintains that it is the duty of every minister to preach the gospel and the responsibility of the listeners to respond to it.²² The question, then, is how can the theory of limited atonement square with the universal call to preach the gospel?

Piper offers an intriguing take on missions and evangelism. In his book Let the Nations be Glad!: The Supremacy of God in Missions, he writes, “The task of missions may not be merely to win as many individuals as possible from the most responsive people groups of the world but rather to win individuals from all the people groups of the world.”²³ He goes on to suggest that “God’s call for missions in Scripture cannot be defined in terms of crossing cultures to maximise the total number of individuals saved”; instead, God’s will is for every people group to be reached and the elect to be called out for Christ.²⁴ This is how he defines the missionary task of the church.

Pentecostals agree with Piper only to the extent that God wants to win every people group. At City Harvest, this conviction moves our mission teams to the remotest parts of Indonesia, the Philippines, and India, so that the gospel can be shared with as many Unreached People Groups (UPGs) as possible. However, for us, reaching people groups and reaching individuals are not mutually exclusive. We preach the gospel to UPGs and individuals alike – through acts of compassion, friendship evangelism, healing ministries, and outreach campaigns – seeking to win every soul possible. We believe the gospel is for the whole world, and that all by faith are included in Christ’s election. Accordingly, for the sake of Pentecostal mission, we must reject the election theory of Calvinism, which limits the scope of salvation and the universality of the Spirit’s work.

Conclusion

Considering all the above, it is evident that Pentecostals cannot be Calvinists. In fact, “flirting” with Calvinism can undermine our Christological, pneumatological, and missional objectives. However, by situating the topic of election in Barth’s theory, Macchia has gone beyond the traditional Calvinist–Arminian debate, arguing that election is a promise – given to us through grace, fulfilled in Christ, and only actualised by faith. This is truly the election story of the Scriptures, not merely one that concerns God’s sovereignty and human free will. In doing so, Macchia has insightfully developed a doctrine of election for us Pentecostals.

On the other hand, as much as we disagree with Calvinism’s theory of election, we have much to learn from our Reformed brothers and sisters – especially in their passion for scholastic theology. The Christianity Today article, mentioned earlier, observes a rising trend of young people embracing Calvinism. The reason for this is the hunger for deeper and more rigorous theological conversations. Evidently, Calvinists are meeting a need in the church, especially among the next generation. This is why what we are doing here at the Asia Pentecostal Summit is so important. Although Pentecostals love experiences and encounters with the Holy Spirit, there is a similar cry for theological depth and sound biblical doctrines. Without setting ourselves against Calvinists, I propose that Pentecostals, too, can meet this need in the church. I am grateful to the many professors and scholars here who have pioneered the development of Pentecostal theology. I believe what we are witnessing now is but the first trickle of a mighty river – a coming revival of Pentecostal theology in our generation that will impact all of Asia and beyond.

Bibliography

The Assemblies of God. “A Response to Reformed Theology.” Accessed October 25, 2025. https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers/Reformed-Theology.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. MobileReference.com, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Daniel, C. D. “Hyper-Calvinism.” In New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic, 2nd ed., edited by Martin Davie, John McDowell, and T. A. Noble. InterVarsity Press, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Fanning, Don. “Calvinism and Missions.” Themes of Theology That Impacts Mission 7 (2009): 1-34. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgm_theo/7.

Green, Chris. “Let It Be: Predestination, Salvation, and Divine/Human Agency.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 23, no. 2 (2014): 171-90.

Hansen, Collin. “Young, Restless, Reformed.” Christianity Today. September 2006. https://www.christianitytoday.com/2006/09/young-restless-reformed/.

Haykin, Michael A. G. “Why Andrew Fuller Matters.” Evangelical Quarterly 91, no. 2 (2020): 163-172. https://doi.org/10.1163/27725472-09102005.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. “Dr. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, ‘Pentecostals & the Struggle of Discerning the Holy Spirit among Religions.’” Global Pentecostal Voices YouTube Channel. 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQct0rnvBd0.

Piper, John. Let the Nations Be Glad!: The Supremacy of God in Missions. Baker Academic, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Piper, John. “What’s New about ‘New Calvinism’?” April 14, 2014. Accessed October 25, 2025. https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/whats-new-about-new-calvinism.

Van Biema, David. “The New Calvinism.” Time. March 12, 2009. https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884760,00.html.

Wesley Center Online. “The Life of John Wesley by John Telford – Chapter 9.” Accessed October 25, 2025. https://wesley.nnu.edu/?id=91.

Yong, Amos. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology. Baker Publishing Group, 2005. Kindle.

¹ Wesley Center Online, “The Life of John Wesley by John Telford—Chapter 9,” accessed October 25, 2025, https://wesley.nnu.edu/?id=91.

² The Assemblies of God, “A Response to Reformed Theology,” accessed October 25, 2025, https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers/Reformed-Theology.

³ Collin Hansen, “Young, Restless, Reformed,” Christianity Today, September 2006, https://www.christianitytoday.com/2006/09/young-restless-reformed/.

⁴ David Van Biema, “The New Calvinism,” Time, March 12, 2009, https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884760,00.html.

⁵ John Piper, “What’s New about ‘New Calvinism’?” April 14, 2014, accessed October 25, 2025, https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/whats-new-about-new-calvinism.

⁶ Frank Macchia, “Election: A Pentecostal Reflection,” in Asian Voices Amplified, ed. Kong Hee et al. (Regnum, 2026), 130.

⁷ John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (MobileReference.com, 2009), 1431, ProQuest Ebook Central.

⁸ Calvin, Institutes, 1476.

⁹ Chris Green, “Let It Be: Predestination, Salvation, and Divine/Human Agency,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 23 (2014): 178.

¹⁰ Green, “Let It Be,” 178.

¹¹ Macchia, “Election,” 137.

¹² Calvin, Institutes, 1485.

¹³ Calvin, Institutes, 1504.

¹⁴ Macchia, “Election,” 154.

¹⁵ Calvin, Institutes, 1490.

¹⁶ Calvin, Institutes, 1481.

¹⁷ This subject was addressed by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen in the Europe–Asia Pentecostal Summit 2025 held at City Harvest Church Singapore. See Dr. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Pentecostals & the Struggle of Discerning the Holy Spirit among Religions,” Global Pentecostal Voices YouTube Channel, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQct0rnvBd0; Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Baker Publishing Group, 2005), 235, Kindle.

¹⁸ Macchia, “Election,” 138, 152.

¹⁹ Calvin, Institutes, 1490.

²⁰ C. D. Daniel, “Hyper-Calvinism,” in New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic, 2nd ed., ed. Martin Davie et al. (InterVarsity Press, 2016), 810-12, ProQuest Ebook Central.

²¹ Don Fanning, “Calvinism and Missions,” Themes of Theology that Impacts Mission 7 (2009): 7, https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgm_theo/7.

²² Michael A. G. Haykin, “Why Andrew Fuller Matters,” Evangelical Quarterly 91, no. 2 (2020): 167, https://doi.org/10.1163/27725472-09102005.

²³ John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad!: The Supremacy of God in Missions (Baker Academic, 2010), 178, ProQuest Ebook Central.

²⁴ Piper, Let the Nations be Glad!, 178.

Session 7

Lessons from Letters to Churches in the Digital Age: Why Pentecostalism Needs a Digital Theology

Heidi Campbell

Abstract

This article introduces digital theology as a necessary and distinct field of theological reflection for Pentecostal churches navigating an increasingly technologised world. Differentiating digital theology from digital religion studies, it argues that faith communities must move beyond descriptive analyses of religious practices online towards sustained, reflexive, and theologically grounded engagement with digital media, artificial intelligence, and emerging technocultures. Drawing on Scripture, contemporary scholarship, and Pentecostal theological commitments, the article explores how digital mediation reshapes worship, authority, community, and spiritual formation, particularly in post-pandemic contexts. Through a creative theological thought experiment modelled on Revelation 1–3, the article presents three symbolic church responses to technology – Luddite-ocia, Technopolis, and Middle-Tech – each illustrating distinct postures of resistance, uncritical adoption, and discerning engagement. The article concludes by calling Pentecostal leaders and congregations to develop a robust digital theology rooted in pneumatology, ethical discernment, and biblical wisdom, asserting that thoughtful engagement with technology is not optional but essential for faithful witness and Spirit-led ministry in the digital age.

Key Words: artificial intelligence and faith, COVID-19, digital age, digital ecclesiology, digital media, digital religion, digital theology, post-pandemic worship, Pentecostal theology, technology and the church, theological discernment

What is Digital Theology?

Digital theology is an emerging area of theological studies that draws on the fields of contextual theology and the study of science and theology, considering practical, ethical, and theological responses to the growing technological society in which we live. According to Peter Phillips et al., digital theology is “the intentional, sustained, and reflexive theologically-resourced engagement with digitality/digital culture.”¹ In other words, it is about taking seriously the need for deep and focused theological reflection on how digital media tools and platforms are shaping our world and the nature of the church in contemporary studies.

Digital theology differs from other scholarly areas of conversation around religion and technology, such as the field of digital religion studies, an area of scholarship I have helped pioneer and develop over the past three decades. As I define it, digital religion is the study of how religious practices and beliefs are performed, shaped, and influenced in and through digital media and culture.² Scholars generally take an interdisciplinary and comparative approach in their work. This means that the study of digital religion is not just about analysing the strengths and weaknesses of online worship or the strategies of religious websites – it seeks to identify broader trends in how current understandings of religious identity, authority, and community are negotiated and shaped within digital contexts.

Digital theology, on the other hand, focuses on how faith communities understand how emerging technology shapes the world we live in and respond to the opportunities and challenges offered by digital media when integrated into congregational life. As Phillips et al. suggest, digital theology requires focused, reflexive, and engaged theological evaluation of the digital and AI eras.³ This means digital theology is not incidental or passive theological reflection. It requires sustained and ongoing learning and engagement with the emerging technoculture around us, as well as critical responsiveness to the theological trajectories that technology use creates for faith communities. It means thoughtful and careful assessment, not just of digital texts and trends but of the tools of technology themselves.

This chapter draws attention to the sphere of digital theology, which calls all church leaders and members to scripturally interrogate and biblically evaluate the culture and implications of digital life, before simply embracing digital and AI tools. Pentecostalism must consider what fruits and wisdom their theological tradition and thinking have to offer their community and the world. As stewards of a tradition that treasures the immediacy of the Spirit, the power of testimony, and the transformative presence of God, believers have much to offer an age that lives somewhere between the embodied world and the dynamic realm of the Spirit’s life. However, in this digital age, our lives and the Spirit’s movement are increasingly mediated through screens, algorithms, and platforms. That is why engaging with digital theology is not optional – it is essential.

Theological Issues Current Technology Raises for Pentecostal Leaders and Churches

The digital age raises many important theological questions for Pentecostal churches around the world. For example, Pentecostal worship has historically been an inherently embodied, spontaneous, and communal practice. However, with the rise of the global COVID-19 pandemic, many churches were compelled to experiment with and adopt new hybrid and digital forms of worship.⁴ Online church became the norm, and while the pandemic is now long over, the religious landscape of the post-pandemic world is increasingly filled with digitally mediated worship opportunities. As many ministries continue to develop new forms of religious gathering and spiritual involvement, this raises important questions about how digital mediation alters not just our worship experience, but also our ecclesiology. In my work on Religious Digital Creatives, I have argued that digital platforms create networked religious publics where authority, presence, and participation are redefined in ways that create new opportunities and freedoms for individual worshippers but can have a profound impact on the church’s understanding of what it means to be a faith community and the church.⁵

Another issue raised is how technological culture has come to shape younger generations’ understanding of theological concepts and imagination. Research has shown that post-pandemic individuals are increasingly invested in multiple churches and faith communities simultaneously. They no longer rely on a single church or a set of religious leaders for their religious teachings or spiritual guidance. A study conducted by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research found online worship and pandemic experiences have reshaped church engagement, including increased participation in multiple congregations.⁶ The study also suggests a more fluid, personalised approach to spiritual engagement that draws on multiple sources of knowledge and authority. As theologian Pete Ward noted in his book Liquid Church (2013),⁷ contemporary media can foster and encourage more fluid, consumer-driven expressions of faith. Without theological reflection, churches risk adopting digital norms uncritically, thereby diluting Pentecostal distinctives such as prophecy, healing, and spiritual warfare.

Additionally, in an era of rapid growth in artificial intelligence, we are witnessing an increased complexity in the spiritual and moral dilemmas posed by our technological landscape. Lately, I have been speaking with numerous international news outlets about the rise of religious chatbots being developed to help Christians study Scriptures, offer faith-based counselling, and even serve as mentors in discerning one’s spiritual vocation. Pentecostal theology, with its emphasis on spiritual discernment and gifts, is uniquely equipped to address these questions – but only if leaders engage them. As Calvin Mercer and Tracy Trothen argue, faith communities must speak into tech ethics, engage with technology designers, and offer thoughtful and theologically grounded responses to these AI innovations, rather than merely condemning them; otherwise, they risk being sidelined as out-of-date technophobes.⁸

Many other theological challenges could be highlighted. However, I would like to turn our attention to considering how churches have responded and should continue to respond to emerging technologies. Often, our natural inclination is to see a binary distinction: (1) technology is good and should be embraced by the church, or (2) technology is bad and must be resisted by the church at all costs. However, technology, like many things in our contemporary world, is neither entirely good nor entirely bad. Technologies, instead, are imprinted with the potential and affordances of their creators. Their users’ practices and intentions can also shape them. This means that the use of technology and decision making requires careful evaluation and spiritual discernment.

To the Churches in the Digital Age

Imagine with me that you are reading the Book of Revelation, chapters 1 through 3. This is a well-known passage where John the Apostle, from his imprisonment on the island of Patmos, writes about the future situation of seven churches in ancient Asia, the challenges they face, their strengths, and their sins. However, what if this passage of Revelation were written today, directed towards churches living in our digital age? What might the Apostle John, inspired by the Holy Spirit and guided by prophetic insight, say to churches about their use of and views of technology?

To the churches in the Digital Age, which are in Asia:

Grace be unto you, and peace, from the one who is, and was, and is to come;

and from the spirits which are before his throne;

For those who have ears, let them hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches.

I suggest that John might see three types of churches, each one representing a distinct understanding of the role and impact of contemporary technology in society.

In this section, I introduce the churches of Luddite-ocia, Technopolis, and Middle-Tech. Each symbolically depicts different ways contemporary churches in Asia and beyond negotiate their relationship and ministry with digital media. This is not an attempt to rewrite the Book of Revelation. Instead, I offer this as a theologically inspired thought experiment on how God might see and react to different churches’ technological choices. So, before passing judgement or assuming your church aligns with one of these churches, listen carefully and reflect on what this reframing of the text has to teach us about being the church in a world saturated with media.

To the Angel of the Church in Luddite-ocia Write

These are the words of him who is the Alpha and the Omega, who speaks truth in every age and whose voice is not silenced by the noise of the world: I know your works, your vigilance, and your longing to remain unstained by the world. You have resisted the seductive pull of the digital age and have not bowed to the idols of convenience and spectacle.

You have held fast to the ancient paths, and your desire to be led by My Spirit, and not by algorithms, which is commendable. You have discerned rightly that technology can shape hearts and habits, and you have warned your children and neighbours of its power to distract and distort. You have spoken boldly of My truth in a world drowning in information, and you have not been ashamed of the gospel.

However, I hold this against you: your fear of digital media and artificial intelligence has become your master. In your zeal to resist the influence of technology, you have made it into a false god – declaring it too powerful, too corrupt, beyond redemption. You have preached its banishment, not its transformation.

Have you forgotten that all things were made through Me, and without Me nothing was made that has been made? Technology, though shaped by human hands, bears the imprint of My creativity. It is a tool, not a tyrant. It can be wielded for good, to proclaim My Kingdom and connect My people.

Repent, therefore, of your fear. Do not let suspicion close your eyes to opportunity. Return to Me with open hands, and I will show you how even the tools of this age can serve My purposes. To the one who overcomes, I will give the wisdom to speak truth in the digital world, and a voice that echoes in both sacred and secular spaces online and offline.

For those who have ears, let them hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches …

The name of the church of Luddite-ocia refers to the Luddites of nineteenth-century-England textile workers and weavers who protested the shift from hand-woven garments to those produced on automated looms.⁹ They believed this new technology threatened their jobs and livelihoods. Today, the term “Luddite” is often used to describe someone who actively resists or is sceptical of modern technology, mainly digital innovations.

The church in Luddite-ocia symbolises a community that has chosen to resist the influence of digital technology in its spiritual life and ministry. Their resistance is rooted in a sincere desire to remain faithful to the gospel and to avoid the distractions and distortions that often accompany technological immersion. In many ways, this church has rightly discerned the power of digital tools to shape human behaviour, values, and relationships. It has warned others of the dangers of algorithmic influence, the addictive nature of screens, and the erosion of sacred rhythms in a hyper-connected world.

However, the church’s posture has shifted from discernment to fear. In its effort to remain pure, it has come to view technology not merely as a challenge but as an enemy – something inherently corrupt and irredeemable. This absolutist stance risks turning technology into a false god, ironically giving it more power than it deserves. By preaching its banishment rather than its transformation, the church has closed itself off from meaningful and mission-driven opportunities to engage with the world.

A contemporary example of this mindset can be seen in communities that seek to avoid social media or discourage digital engagement among congregants. While such caution may stem from a desire to preserve holiness, it can also isolate the church from the very people it is called to reach. The challenge for Luddite-ocia is not to abandon its convictions but to temper them with grace and openness. It must learn to see technology as a tool that, when wielded wisely, can amplify the gospel and foster community.

The verse, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made,” comes from the prologue to the Gospel of John (1:3), which introduces the reader to Jesus as the divine Logos – the Word through whom all creation came into being. It affirms that everything, including human inventions and technologies, ultimately originates from God’s creative power. This challenges the notion that any part of creation is beyond redemption. Instead, it invites believers to see the fingerprints of divine creativity even in the tools and systems shaped by human hands.

For the church in Luddite-ocia, John 1:3 serves as both a rebuke and an invitation. It rebukes the tendency to view technology as irredeemable, reminding the church that nothing exists outside the scope of Christ’s creative and redemptive work. It also invites the church to repent of its fear and to reimagine technology as a tool that can be used for God’s purposes. Rather than preaching its banishment, the church is called to preach its transformation – to see digital tools as potential vessels for truth, connection, and compassion.

This verse affirms that the digital age is not outside God’s sovereignty. It encourages the church to move from suspicion to discernment, from rejection to engagement. By embracing a theology of redemption, Luddite-ocia can begin to speak truth in the digital wilderness and cultivate a voice that echoes in both sacred and virtual spaces. In doing so, it will fulfil its calling to be a light in the world, even in the pixelated places where many now dwell.

To the Angel of the Church in Technopolis Write

These are the words of him who walks among the lampstands, and whose glory is not diminished by the glow of digital pixels or computer screens. I see your heart and your passion to reach those far from Me. You have embraced the tools of this age with creativity and love. You have built bridges through online networks and turned social media spaces into doors of hope. You have used media to teach, to gather, and to make My presence known in new ways. Your innovation has brought many to Me, and your desire to make My name known in every corner of the digital world is pleasing in My sight. You have not hidden your light under a bushel but have let it shine through fiber optics and Wi-Fi signals.

However, I hold this against you: in your embrace of technology, you have sometimes lost sight of Me. You have let the glow of the screen dim the light of my presence. The tools you use have come to shape your worship, rather than serve it. You have allowed the medium to become the message, and in this, my message to be diluted.

Ask yourself: do you serve Me, or the systems you have built? Has the Spirit led your ministry, or are you driven by metrics such as likes, rankings, and shares? Do you seek transformation, or multi-media engagement? Return to your first love. Let technology be your servant, not your master. Use it wisely, and let My Spirit guide your innovation. To the one who overcomes, I will grant the ability to create digital spaces where My truth is not only heard, but My words touch the deep places of humans and their brokenness. I desire that the digital media you use does not simply reflect my presence, but makes it manifest in hearts and minds.

For those who have ears, let them hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches …

The church in Technopolis takes its name from the book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (1993), written by media scholar and critic Neil Postman; he argues that our infatuation with technology has insidiously eroded our culture.¹⁰ While technology offers us new opportunities, it also comes with a high price, as Postman describes it as the “submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology.”¹¹

The church in Technopolis represents a community that has enthusiastically embraced digital technology as a means of expanding its ministry and outreach. This church has used livestreams, social media, apps, and other digital platforms to share the gospel, build community, and engage with seekers in innovative ways. Its creativity and missional zeal are commendable, and its efforts have brought many into contact with the message of Christ. In a world increasingly shaped by digital interaction, Technopolis has refused to hide its light and instead has let it shine through fiber optics and wireless signals.

However, the church’s embrace of technology has come with spiritual risks. In its pursuit of relevance and reach, Technopolis has sometimes allowed the “medium” to shape “the message.” Worship services may begin to resemble performances, and discipleship can be reduced to content consumption. The metrics of success – likes, shares, views, and engagement – can subtly replace spiritual fruit as the measure of ministry effectiveness. The glow of the screen can dim the light of Christ’s presence, and the pursuit of innovation can eclipse the call to intimacy with God.

A contemporary example of this dynamic is the rise of influencer pastors and digital ministries that prioritise branding and visibility over spiritual depth and substance. While these platforms may reach millions, they can also foster a culture of celebrity and consumerism. Technopolis is thus called to re-evaluate its motivations and methods. The church is invited to return to its first love – to centre its mission on Christ rather than on systems – and to let technology serve the gospel rather than shape it.

The following passage from 1 John offers a deeply relevant warning to the church in Technopolis: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life – comes not from the Father but from the world” (2:15-16). This passage speaks directly to the spiritual dangers of becoming overly attached to worldly systems and values – especially those that appeal to vanity, pride, and superficiality. In the context of the digital age, these verses resonate with urgency. The “lust of the eyes” and “pride of life” are not abstract concepts; they manifest daily in the metrics-driven culture of social media, influencer branding, and digital engagement. Likes, shares, followers, and views can become idols, subtly shaping identity and ministry goals in ways that drift from the Spirit’s leading.

This passage distinguishes between the created world, which God made and called good, and “the world” as a system of values opposed to God. The latter includes anything that tempts believers to prioritise self over service, appearance over substance, and popularity over truth. In digital ministry, this temptation is amplified by the constant pressure to be visible, relevant, and engaging. Churches may begin to measure success by analytics rather than by spiritual fruit, and worship may be designed to attract rather than to transform.

For Technopolis, this passage serves as both a mirror and a compass. It reflects the church’s vulnerability to digital idolatry and offers a path back to spiritual integrity. The letter to Technopolis praises the church’s creativity and outreach but warns that its embrace of technology has sometimes led to spiritual compromise. The glow of the screen has dimmed the light of Christ’s presence. First John 2:15-16 calls Technopolis to re-evaluate its motivations and methods. It urges the church to ask whether its ministry is led by the Spirit or by systems, whether it seeks transformation or mere visibility. The verse reinforces the letter’s call to return to its first love – to centre its mission on Christ and allow the Spirit to guide its innovation. When used wisely and prayerfully, digital tools can amplify the gospel. However, when they become ends in themselves, they risk leading the church away from its true purpose.

This reflection can be further deepened by noting a connection to Revelation 2:4-5, which echoes the call to the church at Ephesus to return to its foundational love. Just as the church in Ephesus was urged to rekindle its passion for Christ, the church at Technopolis is invited to re-centre its ministry on spiritual intimacy rather than digital influence.

To the Angel of the Church in Middle-Tech Write

These are the words of him who is the Word made flesh, who dwells among His people in every age and medium: I know how you wrestle with technology, seek my wisdom in this, and pursue humility and holiness in a digital age. You have neither rejected technology nor worshipped it. You have walked the narrow path, seeing both its dangers and its possibilities. You understand that technology is not neutral, that it reflects the desires of its makers. However, you also know that I redeem all things and have sought to redeem these tools for My glory. You have cultivated digital spaces with care and used them to foster connection, community, and compassion.

You have taught others how to reflect and discern the best ways to implement and leverage emerging media. You have not rushed into innovation but have tested every spirit. You have demonstrated that technology can be harnessed and shaped in ways that can reflect my character when used with wisdom. Continue in these good works. Do not grow weary in the continual process of discerning the spirits behind technology. Let prayer be your compass and My Word your foundation.

Remember always that technology should serve the house of God, not rule it. Let your ministry be shaped by My Spirit, not by tech trends and gadgets. To the one who overcomes, I will grant the ability to speak truth in every medium, and to build communities that reflect My Kingdom – online and in person, in code and in compassion.

For those who have ears, let them hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches …

The church of Middle-Tech embodies a thoughtful and spiritually mature approach to technology. Unlike Luddite-ocia, which rejects digital tools out of fear, and Technopolis, which risks letting the technology form their liturgy, Middle-Tech seeks a balanced path. This church recognises that technology is not neutral – it carries the values and intentions of its creators – but it also affirms that God can redeem all things. Rather than fleeing from innovation or rushing into it, Middle-Tech seeks discernment, prayer, and theological reflection before embracing innovations, thoughtfully using them.

It takes its name from the idea of the “middle way,” an approach to spirituality that seeks to combine biblical wisdom, embodied spiritual experience, and contemplative prayer in its pursuit of holiness.¹² The middle way creates balance between action and stillness, between doing and being. It links to the concept of the “third space,” a sociological term that refers to a neutral public space, situated between home and work, where people gather to build relationships and find meaning.¹³ It is what the church, in essence, is called to be: a place that offers a sense of belonging and hope and helps make sense of how to live in a world wrapped in media.

Middle-Tech is a church that regularly seeks wise counsel on how to cultivate digital spaces that foster genuine community and spiritual depth. It uses technology not to entertain or impress, but to connect, teach, and serve. It encourages its members to reflect before posting on social media, to pray before streaming new content, and to consider the impact before adopting new platforms. In doing so, Middle-Tech models a posture of wisdom and humility – one that acknowledges both the potential and the limitations of digital media.

An example of this approach would be a congregation that utilises online platforms to host prayer groups, provide pastoral care, and share thought-provoking theological content, while also fostering strong in-person relationships and maintaining a rhythm of spiritual formation. This church does not chase trends or metrics; instead, it seeks to be led by the Spirit in every medium. It understands that technology must serve the mission of God, not define it.

Middle-Tech’s commitment to testing every spirit and grounding its ministry in Scripture and prayer is a powerful witness in a time when many are overwhelmed by digital noise. Its example shows that technology can be tamed and used to reflect God’s character – when wielded with wisdom, humility, and love. This church is a model for others seeking to navigate the digital age faithfully, demonstrating that it is possible to be both innovative and rooted, both connected and contemplative.

Romans 12:2 offers a theological foundation for the church in Middle-Tech’s approach to technology: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing, and perfect will.” This verse is a call to spiritual discernment and transformation, urging believers not to be shaped by the world’s values and systems but to undergo a renewal of their minds. In the context of the digital age, this renewal is especially critical. Technology is not neutral – it reflects the priorities, desires, and ideologies of its creators and users. Therefore, engaging with it requires intentional reflection and spiritual maturity.

The verse’s opening phrase speaks to the subtle and pervasive influence of cultural norms, including those embedded in digital platforms. Algorithms often reward speed, spectacle, and superficiality, encouraging users to chase trends, seek validation through metrics, and prioritise visibility over depth and substance. For churches, this can translate into ministries shaped more by engagement statistics than by spiritual fruit. Romans 12:2 challenges this conformity, calling believers to resist the pull of worldly systems and instead pursue transformation.

The transformation Paul describes is not merely behavioural – it is cognitive and spiritual in nature. It involves the “renewing of your mind,” a process that aligns one’s thinking with God’s truth. This renewal enables believers to “test and approve what God’s will is,” equipping them to make wise, Spirit-led decisions in every area of life – including their use of technology. For Middle-Tech, this verse affirms the importance of discernment, reflection, and prayerful engagement. The church’s commitment to testing every spirit and grounding its digital practices in Scripture is a direct embodiment of this call to renewal.

For Middle-Tech, Romans 12:2 serves as both affirmation and encouragement. The church is praised for its balanced and discerning approach to technology – neither rejecting it out of fear nor idolising it out of enthusiasm. Instead, it seeks to use digital tools wisely and prayerfully, cultivating spaces that reflect God’s character. This verse reinforces the church’s posture, reminding it to remain vigilant and rooted in the Spirit. Ultimately, Middle-Tech is called to walk a narrow path; let prayer be its compass and God’s Word its foundation. In doing so, it becomes a model of faithful engagement in the digital age, demonstrating that transformation, not conformity, is the hallmark of true discipleship.

Concluding Thoughts

The purpose of this chapter is to suggest that Pentecostal churches should not only develop a digital ministry strategy, but also a well-grounded digital theology that informs and guides their use and, at times, non-use of established and emerging technologies. Pentecostal churches and leaders are called to engage technology with discernment, grounding their decisions in Scripture, pneumatology, and ethical responsibility. By doing so, they can lead their communities into a digital future where the Spirit continues to speak, heal, and transform.

It is essential to remember that the digital world is not a separate space, but rather an integral and connected part of our world and lived reality as humans in the twenty-first century. Digital platforms and spaces should not be viewed as a threat but as an opportunity and a mission field. However, like any field, it requires preparation, discernment, and theological engagement. Global Pentecostalism is called to be a witness and proclaim the gospel in all corners of the world, including digitally mediated and technologically hybridised spaces. Pentecostal churches and their members are exhorted to carefully consider their corporate and personal engagement with technology to determine to what extent their tech use enables them to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. Doing digital theology is essential for the church in the digital age, as it will provide it with the necessary clarity and wisdom to live as those who understand the times in which we live and spiritual attunement to listen to the still, small voice to know how we should respond to our technological world. Let us not outsource our theology to technologists and ethicists. May the church lead and model a technology-balanced life that brings healing to our broken world.

Bibliography

Campbell, Heidi A. Digital Creatives and the Rethinking of Religious Authority. Media, Religion and Culture. Routledge, 2020.

Campbell, Heidi A. Digital Religion: Understanding Religion in New Media Worlds. Routledge, 2013.

Campbell, Heidi A., and Ruth Tsuria, eds. Digital Religion: Understanding Religious Practice in Digital Media. Routledge, 2021.

Campbell, Heidi A., and Sophia Osteen. When Pastors Put on the “Tech Hat”: How Churches Digitized during Covid-19. Report 1 from Tech in Churches during COVID-19 Research Project. Network for New Media, Religion & Digital Culture Studies. OAKTrust Digital Repository, 2021. https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/194959.

Dearborn, Kerry. “The Crucified Christ as the Motherly God: The Theology of Julian of Norwich.” Scottish Journal of Theology 55, no. 3 (2022): 283-302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930602000327.

Jordan, Kathy, and Jennifer Elsden-Clifton. “Through the Lens of Third Space Theory.” CSEDU 2014: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education 1 (April 2014): 220-24. https://doi.org/10.5220/0004792402200224.

Mercer, Calvin, and Tracy J. Trothen. “Religion 2.0 and the Enhanced Technological Future.” In Religion and the Technological Future: An Introduction to Biohacking, Artificial Intelligence, and Transhumanism. Springer International Publishing, 2021.

Phillips, Peter, Kyle Schiefelbein-Guerrero, and Jonas Kurlberg. “Defining Digital Theology: Digital Humanities, Digital Religion and the Particular Work of the CODEC Research Centre and Network.” Open Theology 5, no. 1 (2019): 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2019-0003.

Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Vintage Books, 1993.

Sale, Kirkpatrick. “The Achievements of ‘General Ludd’: A Brief History of the Luddites.” The Ecologist 29, no. 5 (1999): 310-14. https://www.accordingtophillips.com/uploads/8/1/8/3/81833274/the_achievements_of_general_ludd_2.pdf.

Thumma, Scott. “Attender Survey Report: Exploring the Pandemic Impact on Congregations. Exploring the Pandemic Impact on Congregations Study (EPIC).” Hartford Institute for Religion Research, Hartford International University for Religion and Peace, 2025. https://www.covidreligionresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Press-Release-Attender-Survey-Report.pdf.

Ward, Pete. Liquid Church. Wipf and Stock, 2013.

¹ Peter Phillips et al., “Defining Digital Theology: Digital Humanities, Digital Religion and the Particular Work of the CODEC Research Centre and Network,” Open Theology 5, no. 1 (2019): 39, https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2019-0003.

² Heidi Campbell, Digital Religion: Understanding Religion in New Media Worlds (Routledge, 2013).

³ Phillips et al., “Defining Digital Theology.”

⁴ Heidi A. Campbell and Sophia Osteen, When Pastors Put on the “Tech Hat”: How Churches Digitized during Covid-19, Report 1 from Tech in Churches during COVID-19 Research Project, Network for New Media, Religion & Digital Culture Studies, OAKTrust Digital Repository, 2021, https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/194959.

⁵ Heidi A. Campbell, Digital Creatives and the Rethinking of Religious Authority, Media, Religion and Culture (Routledge, 2020).

⁶ Scott Thumma, “Attender Survey Report: Exploring the Pandemic Impact on Congregations Study (EPIC),” Hartford Institute for Religion Research, Hartford International University for Religion and Peace, 2025, https://www.covidreligionresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Press-Release-Attender-Survey-Report.pdf.

⁷ Pete Ward, Liquid Church (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2013).

⁸ Calvin Mercer and Tracy J. Trothen, “Religion 2.0 and the Enhanced Technological Future,” in Religion and the Technological Future: An Introduction to Biohacking, Artificial Intelligence, and Transhumanism (Springer International Publishing, 2021).

⁹ Kirkpatrick Sale, “The Achievements of ‘General Ludd’: A Brief History of the Luddites,” The Ecologist 29, no. 5 (1999): 310, https://www.accordingtophillips.com/uploads/8/1/8/3/81833274/the_achievements_of_general_ludd_2.pdf.

¹⁰ Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (Vintage Books, 1993).

¹¹ Postman, Technopoly, 48.

¹² Kerry Dearborn, “The Crucified Christ as the Motherly God: The Theology of Julian of Norwich,” Scottish Journal of Theology 55, no. 3 (2022): 283-302, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930602000327.

¹³ Kathy Jordan and Jennifer Elsden-Clifton, “Through the Lens of Third Space Theory,” CSEDU 2014: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education 1 (April 2014): 220-24, https://doi.org/10.5220/0004792402200224.

Response to Heidi Campbell’s “Lessons from Letters to Churches in the Digital Age: Why Pentecostalism Needs a Digital Theology”

Wayne Choong

Heidi Campbell’s work has long helped the church read the signs of the times. Like the sons of Issachar, her scholarship equips faith communities to discern the cultural moment in which they are called to be faithful. Yet today, the “signs of the times” no longer arrive primarily through geopolitical shifts or cultural movements alone. They increasingly come mediated through algorithms, influencers, metrics, artificial intelligence, and platform logics that quietly shape attention, desire, and belonging.

At the heart of Campbell’s paper – and indeed the wider body of her work – is a question that confronts nearly every contemporary faith community: how can spiritual depth be sustained when worship, formation, and community are increasingly filtered through screens, managed by algorithms, and mediated by artificial intelligence?

Her diagnosis of our digital condition is marked by both analytical clarity and pastoral attentiveness. This is a gift to Pentecostal scholars and practitioners in Asia and beyond, particularly as we discern what it means to be the church in a world shaped not only by globalisation and secularisation, but by digitalisation. The digital is no longer an optional extension of ministry; it has become the thick cultural atmosphere in which we now live, move, and have our being.

One of Campbell’s most important reminders is that the central challenge before us is not merely how to use technology, but how to theologise it. For Pentecostals especially, this requires discerning the spiritual, ethical, and ecclesial implications of digital life. Discernment, after all, is not foreign to Pentecostal spirituality but one of its native languages.

What follows is not simply a summary of Campbell’s argument but a dialogical response: an affirmation of her key contributions, followed by three gentle provocations offered in the spirit of communal theological discernment.

Digital Strategy, Digital Religion, and Digital Theology

At the theological core of Campbell’s argument is a vital distinction between digital strategy, digital religion studies, and digital theology (see below).

Many churches today operate with a digital strategy. Livestreams, social media outreach, and online engagement initiatives are common, all driven by a pragmatic question: how can we use technology for ministry? Digital religion studies, a field Campbell herself helped pioneer, asks a different question: how are religious beliefs and practices performed and shaped within digital culture? This approach is descriptive and analytical, mapping how faith, identity, authority, and community are reconfigured online. Digital theology, however, presses further. It asks: how should theology, faith, and ecclesial life respond to and engage digital culture? It moves beyond deployment and description towards theological discernment and formation.

As Sherry Turkle has famously observed, technology is not merely a set of tools that do things for us; it increasingly does things to us – shaping our imaginations of self, God, and community.¹ Put simply: digital strategy deploys, digital religion deliberates, and digital theology discerns. This distinction matters deeply. Many Pentecostal churches, eager to innovate, move too quickly into strategy while bypassing sustained study and theological reflection. We learned how to broadcast online before asking what kind of spirituality such practices were forming in us. Production was optimised before formation was examined. Campbell’s work insists, rightly, that theology and spiritual discernment must sit at the centre of digital engagement rather than at its periphery. This emphasis resonates profoundly with Pentecostal sensibilities.

Her threefold typology – Luddite-ocia (the fearful resister), Technopolis (the uncritical adopter), and Middle-Tech (the balanced discerner) – functions as a contemporary reimagining of the “letters to the churches” in Revelation. These are not merely practical stances towards technology; they are spiritual postures. Together, they call the church to reject both technophobia and technophilia in favour of a discerning middle way. It is from within this affirmation that my first provocation emerges.

Provocation One: The Risk of Domesticated Balance

The Middle-Tech posture is arguably the healthiest of the three responses Campbell identifies, yet I wonder whether its emphasis on balance might risk what could be called a domesticated balance. Balance often sounds safe. Pentecostal spirituality, however, has rarely been safe. It has historically been ecstatic, disruptive, boundary-crossing, and at times unruly. A domesticated balance may inadvertently tame the wild creativity of the Spirit, transforming prophetic imagination into managerial prudence. The Spirit does not merely discern; the Spirit disrupts.

In a digital world where algorithms discipline attention and normalise desire, the church may be called not only to balance technological engagement but to practice holy subversion. As Walter Brueggemann argues, prophetic communities are those that “evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the dominant culture.”² This raises a question for Pentecostal digital theology: what might a theology of Spirit-led disruption look like in digital contexts? One that does not simply manage technology wisely, but prophetically reimagines its use, limits, and possibilities.

Provocation Two: From Discernment to Design

Campbell’s emphasis on discernment is indispensable, yet Pentecostals may be called not only to be users and critics of technology, but also to become its designers. Discernment is reactive; design is generative. In technologically advanced societies such as Singapore, digital systems are not abstract forces but concrete infrastructures built daily by engineers, coders, and designers. Yet theological reflection rarely extends to the design process itself. What might it mean to view technological creativity as participation in the Spirit’s ongoing work of renewal?

A Pentecostal digital theology of the future may need to imagine Spirit-led design – a pneumatological vision in which the Spirit inspires not only sermons and worship, but also software and systems. This could involve cultivating technologies that nurture silence rather than noise, empathy rather than outrage, reflection rather than distraction.

Campbell rightly centres the redemption of users, calling believers towards wisdom and repentance in their digital practices. Yet if digital theology stops there, it risks leaving the architectures of technology untouched. A fuller vision might also pursue the redemption of technologies themselves; engaging platform ethics, supporting alternative systems, and bringing prophetic critique into the design of digital infrastructures.

Provocation Three: From Technologies to Ideologies

A final challenge concerns the assumption, sometimes implicit in digital theology, that the church can stand at some critical, objective distance from digital culture. From many Asian contexts, this distance is increasingly illusory.

In hyper-digital, technocratic cities, digitalisation functions not merely as a tool, but as an ideology. It is bound up with national narratives of progress, efficiency, and respectability. To be digital is to be modern, productive, even responsible. Productivity becomes a virtue; performance becomes a form of piety.

The church is often baptised into this same ideological imagination, where innovation is equated with good stewardship and excellence with faithfulness. Campbell’s “letters to the churches” rightly call for repentance, yet the deeper redemption required may not be of users and from technology alone, but from a technocratic “gospel” of optimisation that quietly shapes Christian imagination.

From this perspective, digital theology must be both theological and sociological – discerning not only technologies, but the ideologies and spirits that animate them. True digital redemption involves not only sanctifying users or redeeming tools but also confronting the cultural logics that precede belief and practice.

Conclusion and Benediction

I offer these provocations not simply as critiques, but as invitations: to move from balance towards holy disruption, from discernment towards Spirit-led design, and from a concern just for technologies towards its ideologies. In that spirit, and in the spirit of Campbell’s letters to the churches, I conclude with a brief benediction for the Spirit-led church in a digital world.

A Benediction for Spirit and Screen

May you walk into your digital worlds,

not to chase relevance, but to cultivate presence.

Turn off what numbs;

tune in to what nurtures.

Choose substance over appearance

and formation over performance.

Redeem the user – become people who can log off and pray.

Reconstruct the tools – design spaces that make room for encounter.

Renew the imagination – resist the gospel of efficiency; embrace the pace of grace.

Just as the Spirit hovered over the deep,

the Spirit still hovers over the digital –

to redeem, redesign, and renew.

May we go in that same Spirit –

wise in discernment,

bold in design,

and prophetic in imagination.

Amen.

Bibliography

Brueggemann, Walter. The Prophetic Imagination. 2nd ed. Fortress Press, 2001.

Turkle, Sherry. “The Tethered Self: Technology Reinvents Intimacy and Solitude.” Continuing Higher Education Review 75 (2011): 28-31. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967807.pdf.

¹ Sherry Turkle, “The Tethered Self: Technology Reinvents Intimacy and Solitude,” Continuing Higher Education Review 75 (2011): 28, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967807.pdf.

² Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination, 2nd ed. (Fortress Press, 2001), 3.

Session 8

“Empowering the Empty-Handed”: Spirit-Power and the Church-in-Mission

Ivan Satyavrata

Abstract

Pentecostalism has traditionally emphasised spiritual “power” as a defining feature of its identity and practice, but often with a somewhat narrow understanding of what Spirit-power entails. This chapter offers a theological and missional re-reading of Spirit-power through the lens of Jesus’s Nazareth Manifesto (Luke 4:18-19), situating Pentecostal empowerment within God’s Jubilee mission to the poor and marginalised. Drawing on biblical theology, social analysis of poverty, and Pentecostal scholarship, the chapter argues that true Spirit-power is not coercive or self-serving but redemptive, relational, and cruciform. Poverty is understood not merely as economic deprivation but as a multidimensional condition sustained by social, cultural, and spiritual systems of disempowerment. The Incarnation, servanthood, and the Cross are decisive moments when the true nature of Spirit-power is revealed. Pentecostal mission, rightly understood, embodies this kenotic power through practices of healing, justice, liberation, and self-giving love among the “empty-handed.”

Key Words: church-in-mission; Cross; empowerment; empty-handed; Holy Spirit; Jubilee; kenosis; marginalisation; mission; Nazareth Manifesto; Pentecostalism; poverty; power and power abuse; servanthood; social transformation; Spirit-power

Introduction

Pentecostals love to talk about power – it is an essential part of our DNA. The “power” motif is a prominent feature of Pentecostal-Charismatic faith, occupying centre stage in the worship and practice of Spirit-filled churches. Pentecostals are thus moved by “powerful” preaching, services, and prayer meetings and excited at the prospect of “power” encounters. This is as it should be – to be Pentecostal means to be baptised, filled, and enthused by the Holy Spirit and to celebrate life in the Spirit.

But what does the biblical notion of “Spirit-power” really mean? How does one distinguish between the “power of the Holy Spirit” and “Spirit-power” in general? What is at the heart of the church’s experience and appropriation of true “Spirit-power”?

The Nazareth Manifesto

Jesus made the most elaborate statement of his mission at the launch of his ministry from the synagogue in Nazareth when he announced, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19).¹ Jesus’s reading of this passage from Isaiah 61 was an unmistakable reference to the Year of Jubilee (Lev 25) – a year of celebration, rest, and freedom when no crops were planted, all debts cancelled, all property returned to its original owner, all slaves set free. For Jews in Jesus’s time, the Year of Jubilee meant much more, which is why as he finished the reading and sat down, all eyes in the synagogue were fixed on him. There was a holy hush as he then announced: “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21).

Jesus’s announcement, commonly referred to as the Nazareth Manifesto, marked an earth-shaking event: the Messiah has arrived and will fix all that’s wrong with our world – he will bring in the kingdom of God and usher in an ideal era of peace and prosperity, righteousness, and justice. It finds resonance in Acts 1:8, where empowerment precedes mission: the same Spirit who anoints Jesus in Luke 4 descends upon the church at Pentecost in Acts 2 and continues to empower the church for mission. The Nazareth Manifesto is thus both Christological and ecclesiological, defining the Spirit-shaped mission of Jesus as well as extending it to the vocation of the Spirit-empowered church. It has special significance for Pentecostals who prioritise the lived experience of the Spirit, calling Spirit-filled Christ-followers to proclaim good news to the poor, heal the sick, and deliver the oppressed in anticipation of the final consummation of God’s Kingdom purpose.

Poverty Decoded

Luke’s Gospel consistently highlights God’s preferential concern for the poor (Luke 6:20; 14:13, 21); his use of the term ptōchoi encompasses the economically destitute and socially marginalised. Reference to “spiritually” poor might be a secondary application, but the primary reference is the simplest OT meaning: the orphan, widow, oppressed, and exploited. Thus, the term poor denotes not just economically poor but also those who are powerless on the margins of society – what Indian thinker and development practitioner Jayakumar Christian vividly portrays as the “empty-handed.”²

The poor are vulnerable, lacking support mechanisms and the capacity or resources to defend themselves against outside threats from people, nature, or systems. They are voiceless, without access to decision-making processes or to justice. Their voices are either not heard or prevented from being heard. The poor are also marginalised – “outcastes” from mainstream society, largely due to prejudice based on race, caste, social status, or ethnicity and with little or no access to health care, education, social contacts, and employment. Consequently, they end up being powerless, rarely able to help themselves or change their lives due to factors out of their control.

Poverty is a complex, multifaceted social reality involving a range of interconnected physical, mental, social, and spiritual causes. Bryant Myers makes two key assertions regarding poverty: first, that the nature of poverty is fundamentally relational – it is the result of sin’s effect on all human relationships: with self, within community, with the outside world/environment, with God; relationships do not work when they are unjust and not aligned with God’s intent of fullness of life for all people (shalom).³ Second, Myers notes that the cause of poverty is essentially spiritual. Why is there so much injustice in our world today? Why are people unable to love our neighbours as we should? In biblical terms, it is sin that distorts human relationships and the root cause of the oppression and injustice in our world.⁴

Myers’ conclusions are derived significantly from Christian’s study. Christian’s analysis led him to conclude that the sin at the root of the problem of poverty is manifested in a “web of lies,” by which the poor find themselves trapped within a complex framework of disempowering systems designed to reinforce their powerlessness.⁵ Building on Christian’s analysis, Myers explains how these interacting systems work to entrap the poor as follows.

a) Biophysical System – This refers to the inherent liabilities of the poor such as hunger and lack of access to basic necessities such as clean water, sanitation, and education. The potential consequences of malnourishment, disease, and illiteracy make the poor – weak in mind and body – easily susceptible to deception by the non-poor, deepening their experience of powerlessness.

b) Social-Economic System – Social structures and narratives tend to justify the privileged position of the non-poor so that they see themselves as superior, entitled to exercise power and to “play God” in the lives of the poor. Religious systems, the law, media, government, and political power tend to reinforce their privileged position. In many traditional cultures, the right of one race, caste, class, or gender to rule over the others is legitimised as necessary to maintain order and prevent social chaos. The poor accept passively the controlling narrative and thus become captive to “god-complexes”⁶ of the non-poor.

c) Cultural System – False/inadequate worldviews both legitimise “god-complexes” of the non-poor and deepen the powerlessness of the poor. For instance, the Hindu concept of karma causes the poor to believe that their current state is a consequence of how they have lived in a previous life. Caste, class, gender, status, and even physical disability are explained based on beliefs that undermine the possibility of a better life. The poor are resigned to their fate without any hope of real change in this life.

d) Spiritual System – There’s an even deeper spiritual dimension to the problem of poverty. Both poor and non-poor have been enslaved to the “basic principles of this world” (Gal 4:3). Furthermore, Christian points beyond the human sphere to the cosmic evil adversary, the one who controls the “principalities and powers,” spiritual forces of evil which work actively to create and sustain poverty (Eph 6:12) working against fullness of life for all people (John 10:10).

e) Personal System – All these systems (a–d) work together to crush the identity of the poor and strip them of any sense of worth. The poor lose self-awareness of their true identity as those created in the image of God. This is the deepest, most tragic expression of poverty – spiritual poverty of the worst kind – in which the poor accept their marred identity and act in ways that are sub-human.

All these disempowering systems come together, weaving a “web of lies” that distorts the identity of the poor, leaving them trapped and powerless. When the poor accept this state as normal and unalterable, their poverty is complete. However, the “web of lies” and systems that create poverty do not exist in abstractions; they are practised and perpetuated by people: “At the end of the day, people are the cause of poverty, and it is people who must change for things to change.”⁷

The only hope the poor have of breaking free from the disempowering “web of lies” is if they can recover their true identity as children of God, created in God’s image to be stewards of his creation. The non-poor likewise need to experience a radical change of mind and heart, to see ways in which they may be consciously or unwittingly helping to perpetuate systems that keep the poor trapped and powerless. Such transformation of both the poor and non-poor is only possible in and through the power of the good news of the Kingdom’s arrival in Christ.

Power Deconstructed

The concept of power is difficult to define. Max Weber and the postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault, both influential modern thinkers, define power in essentially sociological terms.⁸ Jeffrey Pfeffer’s definition is more relevant to our purpose: “The potential ability to influence behaviour, to change the course of events, to overcome resistance, and to get people to do things that they would not otherwise do.”⁹

In their widely influential typology of sources of power in leadership, social psychologists John French and Bertram Raven define six forms of “social power” (as noted in Henry Mintzberg),¹⁰ which I have compressed to the following four categories for the purpose of this study:

a) Coercive Power – the use of fear of punishment or threat to force someone to comply against their will, such as loss of employment or reduced wages, excommunication, psychological abuse, and fear of cultic power.

b) Reward Power – the use of incentives to induce compliance, such as salaries, bonuses, allocation of resources, access to the leader, public recognition for good performance, and expectation of divine favour/blessing.

c) Legitimate Power – based on the formal authority derived from a position or role a leader holds, followers are expected to comply with the leader’s will and expectations. Similar, yet distinct, is Referent Power, based not on formal authority as much as on the personal qualities of a leader that attract trust, commitment, and respect.

d) Expert Power – based on confidence in the specialised knowledge, skills, and ability of a person, and Informational Power – based on a person’s control over the sources and dissemination of information or powers of persuasion.

In an influential study based on twenty years of research, Dacher Keltner reframes the power construct, seeing it essentially as a positive and socially constructive force, the ability to do good for others, expressed in daily life.¹¹ This notion finds interesting resonance with Andy Crouch’s analysis of the Christian conception of power.¹² Crouch’s view is not explicitly framed along the lines of a biblical exposition, but his description is deeply rooted in and infused with biblical content.

Crouch sees power as a fundamental feature of life and makes a compelling case for power to be viewed as a gift, rooted in creation and intimately tied to the role human beings play as image bearers.¹³ Crouch is convinced that although the gift of power today is flawed as a result of the Fall, it can be redeemed to serve our Creator’s original intent. He thus concludes that “Power is a gift bestowed by God on human beings, his image bearers for the purpose of flourishing – an instrument for creating, empowering, adding value and meaning to all of life.”¹⁴

There is a dark side to power, of course, and in the wrong hands it can be extremely dangerous.¹⁵ Power is both intoxicating and addictive, and research shows that those possessing the power of wealth, education, or corporate position are more prone to misuse power.¹⁶ The painful truth is that the abuse of power can be observed within the church as well and, if we are honest, perhaps on occasion, within ourselves. While many abuses within the church and Christian organisations overlap with those which occur in the secular world, certain forms of abuse are unique to spiritual leadership.¹⁷

Pentecostal Power in God’s Jubilee Mission

Jesus’s announcement of Jubilee was a Pentecostal declaration. Jubilee is God’s movement for rescue and restoration, calling the world back to himself and to his original purpose in creation. It is God acting in power to set things right in our messed-up world, his Spirit-power unleashed against the forces of evil. This is why Jesus came: to launch God’s rescue mission, heaven’s great reversal against sin and its destructive impact upon the human heart and life. He accomplished this as he healed the sick, fed the hungry, loved the outcast, delivered the oppressed, died on the Cross, and rose again on the third day.

In seeking to live out their identity as a Spirit-empowered church-in-mission, Pentecostals have consistently affirmed that spiritual power is not an end in itself but a means of advancing God’s Kingdom. They see themselves as an unstoppable “Jubilee” movement of Spirit-empowered people called to carry out God’s mission of redemption, justice, and restoration in the world. According to Amos Yong, the Spirit’s empowerment is relational and missional, intended to “transform communities through the practices of healing, reconciliation, and justice.”¹⁸ Allan Anderson shows how Pentecostal teaching on spiritual warfare resonates deeply with prevailing worldviews in the Global South, allowing for healing and deliverance and offering holistic liberation to people bound by sickness or oppression.¹⁹ Walter Hollenweger argues that the gift of prophecy in Pentecostal practice functions as social critique by which spiritual power has served as a democratising force, empowering the marginalised to proclaim God’s Word.²⁰

Donald Miller’s and Tetsunao Yamamori’s landmark study documented a wide range of ways in which Pentecostals have sought to fulfil God’s mission to the poor and marginalised.²¹ Pentecostals today preach the good news of Jesus, heal the sick, deliver the demonised, plant new churches, and take the gospel to unreached people groups. They also engage with social issues: emergency relief in response to humanitarian crises; upliftment of the poor and powerless through medical work, education, economic upliftment, and community development; rehabilitation of AIDS patients and drug addicts; and rescue and restoration of victims of sex trafficking.

The Pentecostal message is thus very good news among the poor because it meets immediate felt needs and provides a powerful spiritual impetus and community support for a better life. The liberating empowerment it offers frees victims of injustice and abuse from captivity to the powers of evil and offers hope to those who feel powerless. Thus, sociologists like Paul Freston see the modern Pentecostal revival as essentially an upward movement of empowerment of the poor, a counter-establishment movement among the poor and marginalised – a movement of “globalization from below.”²²

This feature can be observed in Pentecostal movements in different contexts across the globe. For instance, church historian V. V. Thomas has drawn attention to the early Pentecostal social impact on the empowerment of Dalits – untouchable outcastes from the traditional social hierarchy in India.²³ Pentecostalism offered Dalits promise of equal access to spiritual empowerment, freeing them from millennia-long oppression and subjugation of caste Hindus as well as casteism prevalent within older Christian denominations.²⁴

While Pentecostals today are at the vanguard of God’s mission to the poor, serious weaknesses remain within the Pentecostal Spirit-power culture that must be humbly and honestly acknowledged. Pentecostal mission scholar Wonsuk Ma laments the widespread prevalence of moral failure in many of the Pentecostal-Charismatic leaders.²⁵ Reflecting from the African context, Nigerian theologian Alade Tayo Omokayode echoes Ma’s concern in speaking of the abuse of spiritual gifts among Pentecostals.²⁶

Pentecostal ministers used by God in supernatural gifts are sometimes guilty of abusive leadership and misuse spiritual authority to control and manipulate followers.²⁷ Giftedness, success, access to wealth, influence, and social recognition – coupled with a sense of infallibility, invincibility, and lack of accountability – often leads to “power intoxication” among leaders. “Cultic” power abuse by leaders in the form of sexual exploitation, financial corruption, and autocratic manipulation is also prevalent in some Pentecostal circles.²⁸ Such exploitative practices are abuses of Spirit-power and clearly at odds with Jesus’s mission to see the holistic flourishing and empowerment of the poor.

The Power of the Cross in the Spirit-Power of the Church

What, then, is the true nature of Spirit-power that accompanied Jesus’s Jubilee declaration and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost and on Spirit-filled believers since? There are three key moments that help us understand the true meaning of Spirit-power manifested in the Christ-event and bestowed on the church through the Holy Spirit. These must not be viewed in isolation but are significant, organically related moments that take us to the heart of true Spirit-power as it relates to God’s Kingdom.

The Incarnation

The context of this verse, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor 8:9), is Paul’s appeal to the Macedonian believers to be generous in their giving to the poor Christians in Jerusalem. He points to the example of Christ’s supreme act of gracious, self-sacrificial giving in the Incarnation as the motivation for giving sacrificially. Although Christ was “rich,” possessing divine glory, eternal attributes, and all the fullness of God, he became “poor” for our sake by taking on human nature with all its weaknesses, living humbly, and ultimately dying on the Cross. But although Christ’s “becoming poor” here is usually understood as referring to the exchange of his heavenly status for an earthly state, as one commentator notes, “It is possible that it reveals a literal renunciation of wealth on the part of Jesus – or at least highlights the low economic level endured in his earthly ministry.”²⁹

Christ’s great act of self-emptying (kenosis) is described in the first part of the Christological hymn (Carmen Christi) in Philippians 2:6-11. He who was in “very nature” God took on the “very nature” of a servant, suggesting that during his earthly ministry, Jesus did not simply “appear to be” or “acted like” a servant – he was a servant. Servanthood was essential to Christ’s taking on the status of humanity and his self-understanding of his role and mission was in direct fulfilment of the ‘Servant Songs’ in Isaiah’s prophecy.³⁰

The Incarnation was the supreme model of redemptive generosity and Jesus’s kenosis an expression of downward social mobility. By his birth into a marginal family, life under imperial occupation, and death as a condemned criminal, he identified closely with the economically and politically oppressed. Thus, Jesus does not merely serve the poor – he becomes poor (cf. 2 Cor 8:9). The poor are not just the objects of Christ’s compassion – they are where Christ is already present.

The Last Supper

John 13:1-14 stands alongside Philippians 2:6-11 as one of the New Testament’s clearest redefinitions of power. Jesus’s view of power is vividly portrayed in his acted-out parable during the Last Supper as a prelude to his Farewell Discourses (John 13-16). John presents Jesus’s act of footwashing as flowing out of his profound power-consciousness: “Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist” (John 13:3-4). All things are under his authority, and his supreme sovereignty is affirmed, categorically based on the fact that he has come from God and will be returning to God. Servanthood here flows from unshakeable identity, not insecurity: Jesus serves not because he lacks power but because he possesses it supremely.

Footwashing was the household task assigned to the lowest slaves, but this most lowly of servant actions was not just a symbolic gesture of humility. This was the means he chose to use to engrave the heart of his message on the hearts and minds of his disciples; a powerful embodied expression of covenantal love and a demonstration of true Spirit-power. For Jesus, power is not the capacity to control others but the freedom to love unselfishly and sacrificially. The one with “all things under his power,” who commands the universe, kneels before his followers and chooses a towel instead of a throne. For power in the kingdom of God is measured by how far it is willing to descend for the sake of love.

The Cross

The lowest point of Christ’s condescension is captured in Philippians 2:8 – “And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death – even death on a cross!” In 1 Corinthians 1:24, Paul refers to Christ crucified as “the power of God,” but how is the Cross of Christ a demonstration of spiritual power? The salvific power of the Cross was clearly demonstrated when Christ disarmed the demonic powers of darkness and evil authorities and put them to open shame, triumphing over them by his death on the Cross (Col 2:15). Thus, the moment Jesus appears most powerless is the precise moment when he exercises the greatest moral and redemptive power in history.

A vital key to understanding how Spirit-power is displayed in the life of a believer is found in one of Paul’s “hardship catalogues”³¹ in 2 Corinthians 4:7-12. Gordon Fee maintains that this passage is not just an account of Paul’s suffering and hardship for the sake of the gospel, but rather illustrates his experience of “empowering in the midst of weakness.”³² In contrast to his detractors, who boast about their “powerful” visions, revelations, and accomplishments, Paul rests his claim to apostleship on “God’s power” working through his weakness. Fee thus asserts that “Weakness/hardship and Spirit-empowering go together in Paul’s thinking.”³³

The expression “treasure in jars of clay” (2 Cor 4:7) contrasts the relative ordinariness of the receptacle with the inestimable value of the “all-surpassing power” (v. 7) of God within it. The four vivid antitheses that follow illustrate both the weakness of Paul and God’s preserving power: “hard pressed … but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted but not abandoned; struck down but not destroyed” (vv. 8-9). Paul then highlights the inherent paradox in how both the death and resurrection-life of Jesus were simultaneously evident in his experience (vv. 10-11). He then asserts the heart of the meaning of Spirit-power: “So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you” (v. 12). This is where any true biblical notion of Spirit-power finds both its starting point and ultimate destination – the Cross!³⁴

This truth is powerfully illustrated in sociologist Rodney Stark’s well-known study prompted by his curiosity about how an obscure, marginal Jesus Movement, opposed by the most powerful empire in history, took over the Western world in just a few hundred years. Stark concludes that a key factor that propelled the growth of the Movement was the exceptional display of courageous, self-sacrificial good works by Christians caring for their pagan neighbours. During terrible plagues, when unbelievers threw their diseased loved ones onto the streets, followers of Christ came forward to love and care for them. Such brave acts of self-giving love lent credibility to their witness and turned enemies into friends.³⁵ The significance of this is best captured in this statement from Will Durant’s classic work: “There is no greater drama in human record than the sight of a few Christians … fighting the sword with the word, brutality with hope, and at last defeating the strongest state that history has known. Caesar and Christ had met in the arena, and Christ had won.”³⁶ This was the impact of the power of the Cross in the early formative years of the Jesus Movement that set in motion an unstoppable Kingdom movement of personal, social, and global transformation.

Many illustrations of such Spirit-power in action exist in history – both within and outside the Pentecostal Movement. Mother Teresa’s remarkable model of unconditional sacrificial service to the poorest of the poor. Australian missionary Gladys Staines’ declaration, “I forgive him,” captured newspaper headlines the day after her husband and two sons were brutally murdered by fanatical Hindu militants, triggering a public response: “If that is Christianity, we need it in India!”³⁷ Bombay Teen Challenge (Project Rescue), a ministry devoted to the rescue and restoration of sex-trafficked victims, saw the impregnable walls in Mumbai’s red-light district crack open when their workers picked up corpses of AIDS victims thrown on the streets.

Conclusion

Jesus radically redefines Spirit-power in terms of redemptive action: as serving life rather than protecting status, as self-giving, not self-preserving, as the Creator God stooping to serve, changing hearts through love, and transforming the course of history non-coercively. Spirit-power that flows from the self-giving kenosis seen in the Incarnation, towel and basin, and the Cross of Christ is thus totally at odds with worldly notions of political power, psychological manipulation, and spiritual magic.

Pentecostals need never let go cherished distinctives of Spirit-power such as vibrant worship, energetic preaching, spiritual gifts, power-encounters, and evangelistic passion. But would that we would press in to embrace much more deeply the heart of the New Testament notion of Spirit-power. For in Christ’s upside-down Kingdom, true Spirit-power is the power of love and grace, power manifested in weakness, and self-giving servanthood; it is the power that transforms – the power of the Cross!

Bibliography

Anderson, Allan H. An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity. 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Beasley-Murray, Paul. Power for God’s Sake: Power and Abuse in the Local Church. Paternoster, 1998.

Bridges Johns, Cheryl. “Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture.” In The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel, edited by Murray Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen. Regnum, 1999.

Chan, Simon. Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition. Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Christian, Jayakumar. God of the Empty-Handed: Poverty, Power and the Kingdom of God. 2nd ed. MARC, 1999.

Crouch, Andy. Playing God: Redeeming the Gift of Power. IVP Books, 2013.

Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. Simon & Schuster, 1944.

Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Hendrickson, 1994.

Fitzgerald, John T. “Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence.” SBL Dissertation Series 99. Scholars Press, 1988.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. Vintage Books, 1979.

Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. Edited by Colin Gordon. Pantheon Books, 1980.

French, John R. P., Jr., and Bertram Raven. “The Bases of Social Power.” In Studies in Social Power, edited by Dorwin Cartwright. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1959.

Freston, Paul. “Evangelicalism and Globalization.” In A Global Faith: Essays on Evangelicalism and Globalization, edited by Mark Hutchinson and Ogbu Kalu. Centre for the Study of Australian Christianity, 1998.

Freston, Paul. Evangelicals and Politics in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Hollenweger, Walter J. Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide. Hendrickson, 1997.

Keltner, Dacher, “Don’t Let Power Corrupt You.” Harvard Business Review (October 2016). https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you.

Keltner, Dacher. The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence. Penguin Press, 2016.

Lambert, Steven. Charismatic Captivation: Authoritarian Abuse & Psychological Enslavement in Neo-Pentecostal Churches. SLM Publications, 2003.

Ma, Wonsuk. Mission in the Spirit: Towards a Pentecostal/Charismatic Missiology. Regnum Books, 2010.

Ma, Wonsuk. “Tragedy of Spirit-Empowered Heroes: A Close Look at Samson and Saul.” Spiritus 2, nos. 1-2 (2017): 23-38.

Miller, Donald E., and Tetsunao Yamamori. Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement. University of California Press, 2007.

Mintzberg, Henry. Power in and around Organizations. Prentice Hall, 1983.

Myers, Bryant L. Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development. Rev. ed. Orbis Books, 2011.

Omokayode, Alade Tayo. “Pentecostal Youth and the Abuse of Spiritual Gifts.” Light in a Once-Dark World 5 (January 2023): 194-216.

Omokayode, Olufemi. “The Abuse of Spiritual Power in African Pentecostalism.” In Pentecostalism and Ethics: A Global Perspective, edited by Lee Roy Martin. CPT Press, 2013.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. Power: Why Some People Have It – and Others Don’t. HarperBusiness, 2010.

Reuters Fact Check. “Fact Check: ‘Test a Man’s Character’ Quote Misattributed to Abraham Lincoln.” Reuters. August 3, 2021. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-abrahamlincoln-power-idUSL1N2PA1V7.

Schmidt, T. E. “Riches & Poverty.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by G. E. Hawthorne et al. IVP, 1993.

Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton University Press, 1996.

Thomas, V. V. Dalits and Pentecostalism in India. ISPCK, 2008.

Treasurer, Bill. “When Leadership Turns Dangerous.” Forbes. December 12, 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2018/12/12/when-leadership-turns-dangerous/?sh=67209aaa55f3.

Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. 1922. Reprint, University of California Press, 1978.

Wink, Walter. Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination. Fortress Press, 1992.

Yong, Amos. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology. Baker Academic, 2005.

¹ All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the New International Version.

² Jayakumar Christian, God of the Empty-Handed: Poverty, Power, and the Kingdom of God, 2nd ed. (Acorn Press, 2011).

³ Bryant Myers, Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development (Orbis Books, 2011), 86-87.

⁴ Myers, Walking with the Poor, 88.

⁵ Christian, God of the Empty-Handed, 168-69.

⁶ Christian’s expression in God of the Empty-Handed, 166-67.

⁷ Myers, Walking with the Poor, 83.

⁸ Max Weber defined power as “the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests” in Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (1922; repr., University of California Press, 1978), 53; Michel Foucault views power as producing reality and an ubiquitous means of social control, the interaction of influences present in any group or society in The History of Sexuality, trans. Robert Hurley (Pantheon Books, 1978), 93; cf. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (Vintage Books, 1979), 194.

⁹ Jeffrey Pfeffer, Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations (Harvard Business School Press, 1992), 30.

¹⁰ The French and Raven model remains a paradigm largely undisputed in studies of social power; see Henry Mintzberg, Power in and around Organizations (Prentice-Hall, 1983), 120.

¹¹ Dacher Keltner, The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence (Penguin Books, 2017).

¹² Andy Crouch, Playing God: Redeeming the Gift of Power (IVP, 2013).

¹³ Crouch, Playing God, 12. For him, the deepest truth about the world is that “The power to love, and in loving, to create together, is the true power that hums at the heart of the world.” Playing God, 45, 52.

¹⁴ Crouch, Playing God, 25.

¹⁵“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power”—a famous quote sometimes ascribed to Abraham Lincoln, but more likely the words of the nineteenth-century American politician Robert G. Ingersoll; see Reuters Fact Check, “Fact Check: ‘Test a Man’s Character’ Quote Misattributed to Abraham Lincoln.” Reuters, August 3, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-abrahamlincoln-power-idUSL1N2PA1V7.

¹⁶ Bill Treasurer, “When Leadership Turns Dangerous,” Forbes, December 12, 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2018/12/12/when-leadership-turns-dangerous/?sh=67209aaa55f3; cf. Dacher Keltner, “Don’t Let Power Corrupt You,” Harvard Business Review, October 2016, https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you.

¹⁷ See Paul Beasley-Murray, Power for God’s Sake: Power and Abuse in the Local Church (Paternoster, 1998), 5. The following section of this chapter looks at this aspect of power abuse a little more closely.

¹⁸ Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Baker Academic, 2005), 181.

¹⁹ Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 118.

²⁰ Walter J. Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide (Hendrickson, 1997), 355.

²¹ Donald E. Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori, Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement (University of California Press, 2007), 213.

²² Paul Freston, “Evangelicalism and Globalization,” in A Global Faith: Essays on Evangelicalism and Globalization, ed. Mark Hutchinson and Ogbu Kalu (Centre for the Study of Australian Christianity, 1998), 72-74.

²³ Dalit is a designation for a heterogenous group of people scattered across India, traditionally regarded as untouchable and who fall outside the traditional four-fold Hindu caste system; they are considered impure and unclean and are therefore physically excluded and socially isolated from the rest of society, V. V. Thomas, Dalit Pentecostalism, Spirituality of the Empowered Poor (Asian Trading Co., 2008), 1.

²⁴ Thomas, Dalit Pentecostalism, 152-53.

²⁵ Wonsuk Ma, “Tragedy of Spirit-Empowered Heroes: A Close Look at Samson and Saul,” Spiritus 2, nos. 1–2 (2017): 23-38; for a more scathing critique, see Steven Lambert, Charismatic Captivation: Authoritarian Abuse & Psychological Enslavement in Neo-Pentecostal Churches (SLM Publications, 2003).

²⁶“Beware when spiritual gifts are used as a means of manipulation, power, or control in personal and/or church relationships.” Alade Tayo Omokayode, “Pentecostal Youth and the Abuse of Spiritual Gifts,” Light in a Once-Dark World 5 (January 2023): 209.

²⁷ Cheryl Bridges Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture,” in The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel, ed. Murray Dempster et al. (Regnum, 1999), 79.

²⁸ Simon Chan warns against the tendency towards “commodification of the Spirit,” where spiritual power becomes instrumentalised for personal gain and equated with material blessing in Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition (Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 145.

²⁹ T. E. Schmidt, “Riches & Poverty,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. E. Hawthorne et al. (IVP, 1993), 826.

³⁰ Key messianic prophecies of Isaiah include 42:1-9; 49:1-13; 50:4-11; 52:13–53:12.

³¹ In Hellenistic philosophical literature, a “hardship catalogue” emphasises how the sage was self-sufficient in spite of the outside afflictions that he or she had to endure; some scholars see Paul as making use of this genre in this context in several places in his Corinthian epistles, where he lists the hardships he experienced in the service of the gospel. See John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence, SBL Dissertation Series 99 (Scholars Press, 1988), 209-33.

³² Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Hendrickson, 1994), 333.

³³ Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 333.

³⁴ In concluding his discussion on 2 Corinthians 4:7-12, Fee observes: “What is striking in all this is the inclusion of the powerful working of the Holy Spirit in the midst of a list that fully affirms weakness … the Spirit in Paul leads not to triumphalism, but to triumph in Christ … For Paul the power lies … not in deliverance from hardships, but in the powerful working of the Spirit that enables and empowers him for ministry even in the midst of such adversity.” God’s Empowering Presence, 335.

³⁵ Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton University Press, 1996), 73-75.

³⁶ Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization (Simon & Schuster, 1944), 652.

³⁷“Forgiveness Heals: Gladys,” Times of India, September 23, 2003, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/forgiveness-heals-gladys/articleshow/196423.cms.

A Response to Ivan Satyavrata’s “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’: Spirit-Power and the Church-in-Mission”

Joel Tejedo

Years ago, I received an invitation to present a paper at the Australian National University (ANU), where I recounted the serious issue of graft and corruption in the Philippines through telling them a story. For those present in Singapore last May for the Europe–Asia Pentecostal Summit,¹ you may recall my account regarding the four classifications of corruption among religious leaders in Asia. Do you still remember the story about “under the table, over the table, and taking the table, eating the table?” While sharing this narrative with religious scholars at ANU, an Australian professor approached me and mentioned that there exists an Indian version of this tale. He recounted that once, four religious leaders in India were engaged in a discussion about the corruption issues in their respective nations. A Filipino priest expressed, “I feel disheartened whenever Filipino contractors construct bridges in the Philippines: 40% of the funds are allocated to the project, while 60% is siphoned off by the contractor and politicians.” The Indonesian imam responded, “It is even worse in Indonesia. When Indonesian contractors build bridges, only 30% is directed to the project, and 70% is taken by the contractor and politicians.” The Nepalese monk, in a fit of anger, declared, “It is far worse in Nepal. When we construct bridges, a mere 10% is spent on the project, while 90% is appropriated by the contractor and politicians.” The three then turned to the Indian pujari and inquired, “What about the situation here in India?” The Indian pujari replied, “Do you see that river?” “Yes!” the three responded. “No bridge!” the Indian concluded.

In establishing the context of this chapter, it is likely that we all concur that the reasons behind the plight of people in Asia being “empty-handed” stem from graft and corruption. There is a profound connection between poverty and corruption. Those who are empty-handed are individuals with “empty pockets” and “empty stomachs” (in Tagalog: Walang laman ng bulsa at walang laman ng tiyan) as a result of excessive taxation and the misappropriation of public funds by a select few. The populace is enduring suffering and hardship due to rampant corruption in our nations. The central thesis of this chapter is to demonstrate that the idea of empowering the impoverished through the influence of the Spirit is not merely an aspect of Pentecostal identity, but rather the core of our discussions and actions as Pentecostal believers in furthering God’s mission on earth.

Initially, Ivan Satyavrata defines and links the notion of power to Spirit baptism, which he considers a significant experience for Christians to celebrate. His chapter explores this topic through three critical questions that unpack the biblical basis of Spirit-power, clarify certain distinctions regarding the power of the Holy Spirit and Spirit-power, and contend that Spirit-power is the primary focus of Pentecostals in uplifting the lives of the poor.²

The foundation for an empowered ministry to the poor, as articulated by Satyavrata, is based on the Nazareth Manifesto of Jesus found in Luke 4:18. This manifesto is rooted in the Spirit-prophetic tradition that seeks to liberate various forms of systemic oppression. For Satyavrata, the commencement of Jesus’s Spirit-empowered ministry signifies the onset of genuine liberation and the realisation of the Jubilee foretold in the Old Testament. The declaration of Jesus as a charismatic prophet marks the arrival of an anointed Messiah who brings forth good news, healing, wholeness, true peace, and prosperity to the entire world. According to Satyavrata, this Spirit-empowered ministry did not merely begin and end with Jesus’s own ministry; rather, he intended to pass on this Spirit-anointed ministry to his church to further his mission on earth. Consequently, Satyavrata posits that Spirit-empowerment is inherently both Christological and ecclesiological in nature.³

Satyavrata also contends that the Gospel of Luke reveals God’s preferential option for the poor (ptōchoi), who are frequently characterised as economically disadvantaged and socially marginalised, particularly in the cases of widows, orphans, and those exploited by others. This group of disenfranchised individuals, Satyavrata notes, represents the “empty-handed” people portrayed as vulnerable, voiceless, marginalised, and powerless.⁴ Drawing on Bryant Myers’ concept,⁵ Satyavrata emphasises that the root cause of poverty is primarily relational and secondarily spiritual. Poverty manifests as a social reality stemming from broken relationships that are dysfunctional, unjust, and misaligned with God, humanity, and nature. It is also spiritual in nature, as injustice arises from sin that distorts our relationships with both God and fellow humans. Building upon the ideas of Myers as well as Jayakumar Christian,⁶ Satyavrata describes the concept of “sin” as a “web of lies” that ensnares the poor within societal structures intentionally designed and ingrained in our communities.⁷ These societal structures are reflected in our biophysical, economic, political, cultural, spiritual, and even personal systems, all rooted in the “web of lies” that both disempower and distort the identities of the impoverished. Quoting Myers, Satyavrata asserts, “At the end of the day, people are the cause of poverty, and it is people who must change for things to change.”⁸

Struggling to articulate the concept of power, Satyavrata examines its application in both secular and religious contexts. Drawing on definitions from Max Weber, Michel Foucault, and Jeffrey Pfeffer, power is described as “a person or actor in a position” who “executes actions through their will, creating a reality via social control” and “shapes and alters events by compelling individuals to act in ways they otherwise would not.”⁹ Satyavrata’s exploration of power reveals its capacity to coerce, reward, legitimise, and elevate individuals to expertise.¹⁰

Advocating for a more refined definition, Satyavrata, in collaboration with Andy Crouch, posits that power is a divine gift, reflecting the image of God, intended for the empowerment and flourishing of life.¹¹ Despite its inherent dark sides stemming from our flawed world, power can be redeemed and restored. Nevertheless, when power is wielded by the wrong individuals, it can become “extremely dangerous, intoxicating, and addictive,” leading to misuse and abuse, particularly among those who pursue wealth, status, and prestige.¹² Satyavrata cautions religious leaders to be responsible stewards of power, emphasising that when secular and religious authorities misuse power for control, engage in inappropriate sexual conduct, mismanage finances, or intimidate through religious means, they risk fracturing the very organisations they are meant to serve.¹³

Focusing on the core purpose of his study, Satyavrata highlights Jesus’s proclamation of his anointed messianic ministry as the Jubilee, marking the beginning of his earthly mission to address the issues plaguing our world by unleashing his power to “set things right” in our sinful and ailing society.¹⁴ According to Satyavrata, the Spirit’s power active in our world today serves as proof that God is dismantling the forces of evil and inviting humanity to reconcile with him. This divine power is actively manifested through the preaching of the good news, healing the sick, liberating the oppressed, and providing for those in need, among other actions. Such divine intervention acts as a counter-offensive against the evil forces that have “unleashed the great reversal” against the sin that binds the world.¹⁵ Satyavrata poses a challenge to Pentecostals regarding how they should embody and assert this power to further God’s mission, thereby perpetuating this unstoppable Jubilee and missionary movement in our contemporary world. Drawing on insights from Evangelical/Pentecostal theologians such as Amos Yong, Donald Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori, Paul Freston, and V. V. Thomas, Satyavrata urges Pentecostals to embody this Spirit-empowerment for social transformation, fostering just communities by employing prophetic gifts to critique societal issues (Yong), responding to humanitarian crises and human needs (Miller and Yamamori), promoting the upward mobility of the impoverished (Freston), and advocating for liberation from all forms of oppression while mobilising the poor (Dalit) towards equitable access to spiritual empowerment (Thomas).¹⁶

While Satyavrata recognises the leading role of Pentecostals in promoting God’s mission worldwide, he concurs with Wonsuk Ma’s¹⁷ and Simon Chan’s¹⁸ insights regarding the negative aspects of how some Pentecostal leaders have politicised and commercialised the Spirit. This has involved power control, self-promotion, and the commodification of charismatic gifts, which have ultimately undermined the testimony and witness of the Pentecostal Movement.

Consequently, Satyavrata concludes his study by urging Pentecostals to model their lives after the “three significant moments” in Christ’s life, which serve as paradigms for a Spirit-empowered community of believers, positioning them at the forefront of Christian mission. First, he encourages Pentecostals to reflect the “incarnation of Jesus” as a model of generosity and selfless giving, which involves renouncing wealth and adopting a lower economic identity to connect with the poor.¹⁹ Second, he challenges them to embody the Lord’s Supper as a representation of servant leadership, contrasting it with the triumphalistic mindset often seen among Pentecostals.²⁰ Last, he invites Pentecostals to walk alongside the poor by emulating the Cross, which exemplifies the power of God that supports and sustains us during our times of suffering, hardship, and weakness.²¹

Until recently, individuals in Asian countries such as Indonesia, Nepal, and the Philippines have found it increasingly difficult to endure the hardship and suffering caused by the significant disparity and inequality between the wealthy and the impoverished, largely due to the rampant graft and corruption in their nations. We have witnessed both violent and non-violent expressions of people power, demonstrating that the populace in Asia is now motivated to challenge corrupt governance. For example, on September 21, 2025, various Christian denominations, including Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals, issued a national statement through written communication and social media, urging citizens to take to the streets and participate in the “Trillion Pesos March.”²² This united stance from churches in the Philippines raises several thought-provoking questions for Pentecostals in Asia. How should we thoughtfully engage with and reflect upon the political, social, and economic struggles faced by people in Asia? In what ways can Pentecostals analyse and contemplate the violent and non-violent protests occurring in the region? Are these protests viable alternatives for Pentecostal Christians? How can we connect the influence of the Holy Spirit as a foundation for cultivating and guiding moral leadership within our churches and society? One might question whether Pentecostals are leading the charge in moral leadership within both the religious and political arenas. Is it possible for Pentecostal churches to act as a power broker in holding corrupt political leaders accountable for their actions against the populace? Can the Pentecostal understanding of Spirit-empowerment serve as a mission to combat corrupt politics?

Bibliography

Chan, Simon. Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition. Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Christian, Jayakumar. God of the Empty-Handed: Poverty, Power and the Kingdom of God. 2nd ed. MARC, 1999.

Crouch, Andy. Playing God: Redeeming the Gift of Power. IVP Books, 2013.

Diola, Camile, and Jean Mangaluz. “Prayers and Protest: Massive ‘Trillion Peso March’ Crowd Turns up in White on EDSA.” Philstar Global, September 21, 2025. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2025/09/21/2474434/prayers-and-protest-massive-trillion-peso-march-crowd-turns-white-edsa.

“Europe-Asia Pentecostal Summit 2025.” Global Pentecostal Voices, May 13–18, 2025. https://www.gpvoices.org/europe/.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. Vintage Books, 1979.

Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. Edited by Colin Gordon. Pantheon Books, 1980.

Freston, Paul. “Evangelicalism and Globalization.” In A Global Faith: Essays on Evangelicalism and Globalization, edited by Mark Hutchinson and Ogbu Kalu. Centre for the Study of Australian Christianity, 1998.

Ma, Wonsuk. “Tragedy of Spirit-Empowered Heroes: A Close Look at Samson and Saul.” Spiritus 2, nos. 1-2 (2017): 23-38.

Miller, Donald E., and Tetsunao Yamamori. Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement. University of California Press, 2007.

Myers, Bryant L. Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development. Rev. ed. Orbis Books, 2011.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. Power: Why Some People Have It – and Others Don’t. HarperBusiness, 2010.

Satyavrata, Ivan. “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’: Spirit-Power and the Church-in-Mission.” In Asian Voices Amplified, edited by Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen. Regnum, forthcoming.

Tejedo, Joel. “Megachurches and Public Life: How Megachurch Congregants View Life and Faith.” Global Pentecostal Voices YouTube, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bav6ASxxuM.

Thomas, V. V. Dalits and Pentecostalism in India. ISPCK, 2008.

Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. 1922. Reprint, University of California Press, 1978.

Yong, Amos. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology. Baker Academic, 2005.

¹ See Joel Tejedo, “Megachurches and Public Life: How Megachurch Congregants View Life and Faith,” Global Pentecostal Voices YouTube, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bav6ASxxuM. See also “Europe-Asia Pentecostal Summit 2025,” Global Pentecostal Voices, May 13-18, 2025, https://www.gpvoices.org/europe/.

² Ivan Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’: Spirit-Power and the Church-in-Mission,” in Asian Voices Amplified, ed. Kong Hee et al. (Regnum, 2026), 183.

³ Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 184.

⁴ Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 185.

⁵ Bryant Myers, Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development (Orbis Books, 2011), 86-87.

⁶ Myers, Walking with the Poor, 86-87. See also, Jayakumar Christian, God of the Empty-Handed: Poverty, Power, and the Kingdom of God, 2nd ed. (Acorn Press, 2011), 168-69.

⁷ Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 185.

⁸ Myers, Walking with the Poor, 83, quoted in Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 186.

⁹ See Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (1922; repr., University of California Press, 1978); Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, trans. Robert Hurley (Pantheon Books, 1978); Jeffrey Pfeffer, Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations (Harvard Business School Press, 1992), as quoted in Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 186.

¹⁰ Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 183.

¹¹ Andy Crouch, Playing God: Redeeming the Gift of Power (IVP, 2013), as quoted in Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 187.

¹² Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 188.

¹³ Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 190.

¹⁴ Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 188.

¹⁵ Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 188.

¹⁶ Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Baker Academic, 2005); Donald E. Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori, Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement (University of California Press, 2007); Paul Freston, “Evangelicalism and Globalization,” in A Global Faith: Essays on Evangelicalism and Globalization, ed. Mark Hutchinson and Ogbu Kalu (Centre for the Study of Australian Christianity, 1998); and V. V. Thomas, Dalit Pentecostalism, Spirituality of the Empowered Poor (Asian Trading Co., 2008), as quoted in Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 188.

¹⁷ Wonsuk Ma, “Tragedy of Spirit-Empowered Heroes: A Close Look at Samson and Saul,” Spiritus 2, nos. 1-2 (2017): 23–38.

¹⁸ Simon Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition (Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).

¹⁹ Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 190.

²⁰ Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 191.

²¹ Satyavrata, “‘Empowering the Empty-Handed’,” 191.

²² Camile Diola and Jean Mangaluz, “Prayers and Protest: Massive ‘Trillion Peso March’ Crowd Turns up in White on EDSA,” Philstar Global, September 21, 2025, https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2025/09/21/2474434/prayers-and-protest-massive-trillion-peso-march-crowd-turns-white-edsa.

Session 9

The Liturgy and the Already-Not-Yet Problematic: Towards A Holistic Pentecostal Spirituality

Simon Chan

Abstract

Historically, Pentecostal-charismatics have not managed well the biblical tension between the “already” and “not yet” of the eschatological Kingdom. This chapter proposes that the liturgy can address this problem. Therefore, practising the liturgy will result in a holistic Pentecostal spirituality.

Key Words: eschatology, Eucharist, indwelling, lectionary, liturgical calendar, Maranatha

The Problem

Historically, one of the major problems plaguing Pentecostal faith and experience is the vacillation between the “already” and “not-yet” aspects of the kingdom of God. An over-emphasis on the “already” results in an over-realised eschatology, while an over-emphasis on the “not yet” leads to an under-realised eschatology. Early Pentecostals tended to entertain an under-realised eschatology. They were so focused on the future coming of Christ that they neglected present social issues. Their view of the future was shaped by a crisis eschatology; that is to say, the return of Christ is set in chronological history marked by the calendar rather than in salvation history. To see Christ’s coming in terms of salvation history is to set it within the history of God’s determining rather than ours. The imminence of Christ’s return, therefore, should not lead to a crisis mode of existence but to prayerfulness, since the “when” of Christ’s return is entirely in the Father’s hand (Mark 13:32). This crisis mode of existence, however, motivated early Pentecostals to preach the gospel to the far ends of the earth. If Jesus could come “any time,” then the only thing worth doing was to save as many people as possible in the shortest time possible. The imminence of Christ’s return created a sense of expectation and crisis, often leading to radical withdrawal from the world. Holiness came to be defined negatively, in terms of abstention from “worldly” things like smoking, drinking, the movie house, etc. To be sure, these specific expressions of holiness were largely a carryover from the Holiness Movement.

In contrast, modern Pentecostals tend to favour an over-realised eschatology. This is especially true of many Third Wave charismatics. The promises of God, particularly health and wealth, can be realised in the here and now. Whereas in the past, Pentecostal eschatology was largely dispensational and futuristic, today the future dimension of the Christian life has largely receded and been replaced by a “Kingdom Now” theology. Anything imaginable is achievable if one has sufficient faith. This emphasis on the glories of the Kingdom realisable in the here and now without an equal emphasis on the need to carry the Cross has resulted in a way of life that has brought shame to the name of Christ. The late Peter Hocken, a Catholic charismatic, while grateful for all the achievements of the Pentecostal-Charismatic renewal, has noted with deep sadness the harmful effects of a theology of glory without the Cross:

Should we be surprised at the shameful elements in Pentecostal-charismatic revival-renewal or even at their extent? Should we be surprised at the moral humiliation of famed preachers or at financial irregularities in major ministries? Should we be astonished at the break-up of charismatic communities previously admired as models? Or at the rivalries between charismatic celebrities? Does it amaze us to discover that big figures sometimes have big egos?¹

While there are exceptions, what I have pictured in broad strokes is generally true of the Pentecostal Movement.

Whether one’s eschatology is under- or over-realised, either does not promote wholesome Christian living. An under-realised eschatology, especially when undergirded by dispensational-futuristic theology, tends towards a spirituality of withdrawal. A song we used to sing in our church youth group says it all:

This world is not my home, I’m just a-passing through,

my treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue;

the angels beckon me from heaven’s open door

and I can’t feel at home in this world anymore.

If my treasures are somewhere beyond the blue, I’m likely to give the world no more than a passing glance. Consequently, I may not see its real evil – or its beauty. I cannot do much to alleviate the world’s evil; only Jesus can effectively overcome it when he returns to earth. And as for the world’s beauty, it’s only temporary anyway. I cannot be too captivated by it, lest it becomes an idol. After all, when Jesus returns, the present heaven and earth will be consumed by fire (2 Pet 3:7). Such is the spirituality of an under-realised eschatology.

By contrast, those who entertain an over-realised eschatology usually end up in cultural bondage. This is true whether it is conservative or liberal, secular or religious, Pentecostal or non-Pentecostal. Their eschatological vision is largely shaped by the culture of this world rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ. The religious version seeks to identify the good in culture, such as various liberation movements, as the work of the Spirit of God. But such hasty identification almost always turns out to be mistaken, as the chastened liberation theologians of the 1960s found out in Latin America. Secular eschatologies, whether Marxist or capitalist, are no less susceptible to cultural bondage. Currently, capitalist eschatology, epitomised in Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man, is still a controlling narrative in the West, even if it is no longer asserted with the same confidence as when the Berlin Wall collapsed. It promotes the secular hope of the triumph of “human rights,” “freedom,” and “democracy,” even though these are not the universal values they are touted to be but are in fact shaped by a particular narrative, as famously argued by Stanley Hauerwas and others.²

In summary, an under-realised eschatology blinds us to the world’s goodness while an over-realised eschatology blinds us to its evil. Both fail in discernment. Both fail to maintain the proper distance needed to see the world as it truly is.

To overcome these twin problems, I propose a Christian spirituality predicated on the eschatological tension between the already and not yet. Such a spirituality comes from practising the liturgy. The liturgy addresses these problems because (1) it is thoroughly eschatological and (2) it is deeply formative. But before I go any further, I need to clarify how the word “liturgy” is used in this paper. It is to be understood theologically rather than ritologically. From a ritual studies perspective, any form of worship can be called a liturgy – even Quaker worship. But from a theological perspective, the liturgy refers to a pattern of worship centring on the gospel of Jesus Christ and finding expression in word and sacrament. Although there are many local variations, the liturgy has always had an enduring structure (word and sacrament) and content (the gospel story) for much of the history of the church.³

The Eschatological Dimension of the Liturgy

If there is one thing that liturgical scholars are unanimously agreed on, it is that the liturgy from beginning to end is thoroughly eschatological.⁴ It envisions the church existing in the world marked by the paradox of the already and not-yet dimensions of the kingdom of God.

But how does the liturgy come to be shaped by this eschatological vision? The answer is the person of Jesus – the very embodiment of the Kingdom. His coming is the coming of the kingdom of God (cf. Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15). But the Kingdom revealed in the person of Jesus is enigmatic. The gospel accounts make it clear that before the Resurrection, the disciples did not understand, or misunderstood, many of the claims of Jesus, especially his suffering, death, and resurrection (Mark 9: 31-32; Luke 9:44- 45). Through their encounter with the risen Christ, though, the many enigmatic statements began to make sense. This is epitomised in the story of Thomas. When Jesus appeared to him, his spontaneous response was: “My Lord and my God!” Thomas’s confession is not merely a creedal confession but an act of worship. As Gordon Wakefield aptly puts it, “[Thomas] believes and adores … If Thomas’s doubt was not that of the intellectual sceptic, his faith is not that of intellectual conviction alone. It is believing, personal trust, total adoring worship.”⁵

It is in the context of the worshipful encounter with the risen Christ that the disciples’ understanding of Jesus was radically transformed: the risen Christ is the very embodiment of the kingdom of God, the one in whom God will carry out his mission to save the world. In the person of Jesus Christ, we encounter a unique Saviour-King who defies all Jewish expectations. He is the supreme paradox: God-in-the-flesh, the one from beyond time and history who entered our time and history. This is the mystery of the Incarnation (John 1), a mystery that was evident in Jesus’s words and actions: he saves not by brute force but by his sacrificial death; he is “exalted” on the Cross (John 12: 32-33). He is the Servant of the Isaiah prophecy (Isa 42) who is also the King the early Christians addressed in their worship as “Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. Phil 2:9-11).

To confess “Jesus Christ is Lord” (cf. 1 Cor 12: 3) is to confess a deep mystery: the Christ (Messiah) who died (unthinkable for the Jews) is raised from the dead and exalted to God’s right hand. The church incorporates this mystery in its eucharistic prayer when it affirms the “mystery of faith”: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” This confession sums up the main content of the liturgical celebration. To put it differently, the liturgy is simply a faithful expansion of the primitive church’s encounter with the risen Lord in which it confesses: “Jesus Christ who died, is risen, and will come again, is Lord.” This fact also explains why the liturgy is thoroughly saturated with paradoxes.

The eschatological dimension of the Christian life is seen throughout the liturgy. It begins with the processional, which enacts the journey of the pilgrim church towards the heavenly Kingdom. In ancient times, churches were built facing east, so that the processional is an eastward journey (ad orientem: towards the east). Thus, the church is proclaiming by its action that it is oriented towards the kingdom of God. This is seen in the Orthodox liturgy, which begins with “Blessed be the kingdom of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” With this benediction, the church is entering the kingdom of God. In the Orthodox understanding, at worship the church on earth participates with the saints in heaven: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering …” (Heb 12: 22). In the liturgy, the present and future aspects of the Kingdom coalesce. Moreover, this Kingdom is not only not of this world but stands in defiance of this world. In taking this stance, though, the church is not rejecting the world but doing it for the sake of the world. The church offers a message of hope for the world precisely by insisting that for the world to be saved, it must cease to be the world. To redeem the world, the church offers a different alternative: the kingdom of God.⁶

The liturgy enacts the eschatological Kingdom, which is neither purely future nor purely present. It sets forth salvation history, in which realities of the future are already experienced in the present, while the present anticipates the fullness that is not yet realised. It does so in two broad ways: first, in the way the liturgy is structured, and second, in the specific components of the liturgy.

The Structure of the Liturgy: The Juxtaposition of the Old and the New

Here, I would highlight two observations. First, Christian worship basically uses old Jewish sources and patterns and reinterprets them in light of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, the weekly Jewish Sabbath observance is replaced by the Sunday worship, the day of Christ’s resurrection; Jewish fast days on Mondays and Thursdays were later replaced by the Christian fast days on Wednesdays (traditionally the day of Jesus’s betrayal) and Fridays (his crucifixion); the Passover is understood as finding fulfilment in the death and resurrection of the Pascal Lamb who takes away the sin of the world; etc. In short, the church maintains continuity with the Old Testament and at the same time surpasses it by pointing to its fulfilment in Jesus Christ. This prophecy-fulfilment motif, deeply embedded in Christian worship, had a profound impact on the early Christian eschatological consciousness: the new has come, but it does not completely break with the old. There is continuity and discontinuity between the present age and the age to come. To put it differently, if the new age has come, but the old order is still present, then it has not yet fully come.

The juxtaposition of the old and the new is also seen, for example, in the way Sunday worship has been traditionally understood. Sunday is the First Day of the week, the first day of the old creation when light was created (Gen 1). But it is also the day of Christ’s resurrection: the day of the dawning of the light of the new creation. Thus, it is also called the Eighth Day; that is to say, the day that lies outside of the seven-day cycle. This going-beyond-the-present-age is made possible by the Resurrection. Christians, by their very act of gathering on Sunday, are proclaiming that the old world is not abandoned but transfigured into the new world of the age to come. The liturgy juxtaposes many such paradoxes.

The Structure of the Liturgy: The Liturgical Calendar

My second observation has to do with the way the liturgy progresses in the church or liturgical calendar. In the liturgical calendar, the full gospel story is told and retold in various ways. In this repeated telling, from the Incarnation to the return of Christ, we are reminded that the gospel is an unfinished story. The final episode is still to come. The yearly cycle of the liturgical calendar revolves around this story. The calendar begins with Advent, but Advent is not only preparation for Christmas (his first coming) but also his second coming, as seen in the many eschatological texts read during the Advent season. Further, while Advent focuses on the first (and second) coming of Christ, the last Sunday of the calendar celebrates the Feast of Christ the King, which focuses on the final triumph of the Kingdom. The liturgical calendar portrays Christ as both the king now as well as the coming king.

The gospel story is told through an arrangement of daily and weekly readings from Scripture known as the lectionary. Most liturgical churches in the English-speaking world use the Revised Common Lectionary. There are usually four sets of Scripture texts read or sung each Sunday: the first reading (mostly from the Old Testament), responsorial psalm (sung responsorially), second reading (from the epistles), and gospel. The arrangement of the readings reflects the particular season of the church year. For example, Advent is the season of preparation for the coming of Christ. It is a time of joyful and penitential preparation. In the third Sunday of Advent of Year C (December 15, 2024), known as Gaudete (“Rejoice”) Sunday, the first reading (Zeph 3:14-18a), psalm (Isa 12:2-3, 4, 5-6),⁷ and second reading (Phil 4:4-7) are on the theme of joy, but the gospel reading (Luke 3:10-18) focuses on John the Baptist’s call to repentance in view of the coming judgement by the Spirit Baptiser (v. 17). Although joy is the theme of the Third Sunday of Advent, that joy is tempered by the spirit of penitence. It is an important reminder that rejoicing and repentance, crown and cross, are intimately related and should never be separated.

Specific Components of the Liturgy

If we look at the specific components of the liturgy, we discover the eschatological tension suffusing its every part, especially in the Eucharist. This tension is communicated in various ways. Take for example the Lord’s Prayer, which in some traditions is prayed just before the Lord’s Supper. It includes a petition for daily bread. According to liturgical theologian Geoffrey Wainwright, many church fathers understand this part of the prayer as having an eschatological dimension because they believed that epiousios (daily) is derived from epienai (coming day; cf. epiousa: the next day, Acts 7:26; 16:11, etc.). Thus, in their understanding, it is a prayer not just for present sustenance but also in anticipation of what is to come: “Give us already now the bread of the future age.”⁸

Pentecost is another case in point. It refers to a decisive day when God sent the Holy Spirit to indwell the church. Yet in the Eucharist, the church repeatedly calls upon the Father to “pour out your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these your gifts of bread and wine, that the bread we break and the cup we bless may be the communion of the body and blood of Christ.”⁹ The epiclesis (“call upon”) is an inextricable part of ancient and modern eucharistic prayers in all liturgical traditions. In calling upon the Holy Spirit to be poured out afresh, the church recognises the need for a “perpetual Pentecost.” Thus, from a liturgical perspective, Pentecost is a one-time event (past), a continuing event (present) and a future event where the Spirit will transform the present creation into the new heavens and the new earth. The church anticipates this transformation at the invitation to the eucharistic feast: “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.” The communicants not only receive the spiritual food now but are also reminded that one day they will sit with the patriarchs at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (cf. Matt 8:11; Rev 19: 9).

Early Christian eucharistic prayers such as in the Didache (late first or early second century) include the “Maranatha” (Our Lord, come!).¹⁰ The word, which also occurs in 1 Corinthians 16:22, can be translated as either an indicative (“our Lord has come”) or an imperative (“our Lord, come”).¹¹ If the former, it is affirming that the Lord has already come; if the latter, it is an appeal for the Lord to come. The imperative is generally preferred since a similar phrase occurs in Revelation 22:20: “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” As many commentators have noted, the liturgical background of this phrase is unmistakable. According to G. K. Beale, while the phrase is an entreaty for Jesus’s final return in response to his promise: “Surely, I am coming soon” (22:20a), in its liturgical context it refers to Jesus’s many “preliminary comings” at the eucharistic celebration.¹² Wainwright draws a similar conclusion with respect to 1 Corinthians 16:22: “There is every likelihood that when this prayer was uttered in the liturgical assembly at Corinth it had a double reference: it prayed for both the final Parousia and also the Lord’s immediate coming to His people in the eucharist.”¹³

Many ancient writers saw in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 an intimate connection between the remembrance of Jesus (“Do this in remembrance of me”) and his future coming (“until he comes”). The remembrance, as Wainwright notes, is not about the various events in the life of Christ that happened previously, but a remembrance of Christ himself. It would be odd to remember a future event, namely, his coming again, but it would make perfect sense to remember Christ who will come again.¹⁴ The act of remembering Christ covers both past and future: already–not yet. Many more examples can be cited.¹⁵

The prayers in the liturgy, too, enact the eschatological tension. There are praises and adoration anticipating heavenly worship. E.g., the eucharistic prayer begins with the sursum corda: “Lift up your hearts/We lift them up to the Lord.” In this act, the church ascends with Christ to the heavenlies (“You have come to Mount Zion…”) where we join the heavenly hosts to sing the Sanctus:

Holy, holy, holy, Lord,

God of power and might

Heaven and earth are full of your glory

Hosannah in the highest!

Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord

Hosannah in the highest!

But we also confess our sins, plead for mercy, and pray for the needs of others. In these penitential and intercessory prayers, we acknowledge our present fallenness and the fallenness of our world. We realise that we have not yet arrived. We are far from perfect. Throughout the liturgy, we encounter many other similar paradoxes that are juxtaposed to one another.¹⁶

Liturgy as Spiritual Formation

What happens when we practise the liturgy regularly, with its pervasive portrayal of the eschatological Kingdom that is already inaugurated in the first coming of Christ and will be consummated in his second coming? To answer the question, we need to understand how the liturgy forms us. The liturgy is a practice involving word and deed, ritual actions, and explanations. It engages our cognitive and imaginative faculties. According to liturgical theologians, in practising the liturgy, we are practising a primary theology (theologia prima).¹⁷ We are not merely reflecting on the truth (at least, not consciously, for the most part) but subliminally assimilating the truth. As we practise it, we are being shaped by it; the truth is scripted into our very being.¹⁸ All forms of worship, in so far as they follow a regular pattern and are practised repeatedly, are spiritually formative, but they form us in different ways, depending on what is being practised at worship. A poor or incomplete form of worship can only result in malformation, but a wholesome liturgy leads to holistic spiritual formation.¹⁹

As already noted, the liturgy as we know it today takes a form and content going back to very early times. This is not surprising given the fact that the liturgy seeks faithfully to embody the unchanging truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In practising the liturgy, we are indwelling and imbibing the gospel story. It is in indwelling the whole gospel that we are being formed holistically. Christian formation is not primarily the result of applying abstract truths or principles; it is about indwelling and being shaped by the gospel narrative.

The concept of indwelling requires further elaboration since it is in this practice that effective formation continues to take place.²⁰ Indwelling happens whenever we are deeply immersed in, say, reading a novel, watching a play or movie, or participating as an actor in a play. A good story could so capture our attention that we become “lost” in the world of that story. While we are “in” it, we treat the story and its characters as real even if they are fictional. In literary circles, this is called “the willing suspension of disbelief.” It means that while we are reading the book, we leave our “real” world temporarily to dwell in the world created by the novelist as if it were a real world. It is not something we do consciously; rather, we are ineluctably drawn into the world of the story. We share that world’s thoughts and feel its emotions. Unconsciously, we are being shaped by the story. Even when we come to the end of the story and re-enter our ordinary world, we carry over something of its feelings, values, and ideas. That is how powerful stories can move us even if they are fictional. Now, in the liturgy, we are indwelling not fiction but the true Story, the gospel of Jesus Christ. Week after week the gospel story is told and enacted in word and sacrament. As we move through the year, we indwell a different “episode” in accordance with the liturgical calendar. The story begins with Advent, when we prepare for the coming of the kingdom of God, and culminates in the story of Christ the King, the last Sunday of the liturgical year. Indwelling this story week after week, year after year will have a profound effect on us. The truth of the gospel story will shape our lives, values, and worldview.²¹

For indwelling to be effective, though, we need to take an important factor into consideration: we need to be familiar with the liturgy. If I may use another analogy, indwelling the liturgy (and its gospel content) is like an actor indwelling a play. A good actor needs to know the script and its content so well that it becomes a part of him or her. In playing the character in that script, he or she conforms to that character in the story. In a similar way, to participate well in the liturgy, we need to be thoroughly familiar with it. This is why the ancient church had always insisted that before a person became a full member of the church, he or she needed to go through a rigorous process of training called the catechumenate. The truth of the gospel story is learned by heart as catechumens learned and memorised the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments. But the question persists: does not the repetition of the liturgy make it merely formal and ritualistic? Two things must be said in response. First, for many people, the liturgy becomes ritualistic because they lack understanding. Many Pentecostals have little or no understanding of the liturgy. Second, repetition itself is not the problem. Acquiring any skill requires repetitive reinforcement. The problem is not repetition but mindless repetition. We need to be attentive or participate actively in the liturgy.²² Understanding and active participation usually go together. When we understand why we do what we do, we are better able to participate meaningfully.

Conclusion

Historically, the church’s answer to maintaining the eschatological tension between the “already” and the “not yet” is by indwelling the gospel embodied in the liturgy. What the church still needs today is no different. I believe that the modern Pentecostal church can and ought to be both Pentecostal and liturgical.²³ If we do the liturgy well, we will, over time, develop a holistic Pentecostal spirituality.

Bibliography

Aune, David E. Revelation 17–22. Word Biblical Commentary 52C. Thomas Nelson, 1998.

Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Eerdmans, 1999.

Book of Common Worship. Second Presbyterian Church. Accessed June 21, 2025. http://www.secondpresabq.org/uploads/5/3/8/3/53833777/book-of-common-worship.pdf.

Chan, Simon. “Mutual Challenges of Pentecostal-Charismatic and Liturgical Worship.” In Pentecostal Theology and Ecumenical Theology, edited by Peter Hocken, Tony L. Richie, and Christopher A. Stephenson. Brill, 2019.

Didache. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Accessed January 23, 2026. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html.

Fagerberg, David W. Liturgical Dogmatics: How Catholic Beliefs Flow from Liturgical Prayer. Ignatius Press, 2021.

“General Instruction of the Roman Missal.” Vatican. Accessed June 21, 2025. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html.

Hauerwas, Stanley. The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics. University of Notre Dame Press, 1986.

Hauerwas, Stanley M., and Samuel M. B. Wells, eds. Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics. Blackwell, 2004.

Hocken, Peter. The Glory and the Shame: Reflections on the 20th-Century Outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Eagles, 1994.

Lathrop, Gordon W. Holy Things: A Liturgical Theology. Augsburg Fortress, 1998.

Mathewes, Charles T. A Theology of Public Life. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Polanyi, Michael. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Schmemann, Alexander. For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy. St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 1973.

Smith, James K. A. Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation. Baker Academic, 2009.

Wakefield, Gordon S. The Liturgy of St. John. Epworth Press, 1985.

Wainwright, Geoffrey. Eucharist and Eschatology. Oxford University Press, 1981.

White, James F. Introduction to Christian Worship, 3rd ed. Abingdon, 2000.

¹ Peter Hocken, The Glory and the Shame: Reflections on the 20th-Century Outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Eagles, 1994), 183-84.

² E.g. see Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (University of Notre Dame Press, 1986).

³ James F. White, Introduction to Christian Worship, 3rd ed. (Abingdon, 2000), 19-20.

⁴ See Geoffrey Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology (Oxford, 1981).

⁵ Gordon S. Wakefield, The Liturgy of St. John (Epworth Press, 1985), 90.

⁶ Cf. Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy (St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 1973).

⁷ Sometimes a “canticle” replaces a psalm.

⁸ Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology, 32-37.

⁹ Book of Common Worship, Second Presbyterian Church, accessed June 21, 2025, http://www.secondpresabq.org/uploads/5/3/8/3/53833777/book-of-common-worship.pdf.

¹⁰ Didache, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, accessed January 23, 2026, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html, 10. 6. Maranatha is the Greek transliteration of an Aramaic word. This phenomenon is common in liturgical usage. For example, Amen, Hallelujah, Abba, and Hosanna are transliterated rather than translated in the liturgy.

¹¹ David E. Aune, Revelation 17–22, Word Biblical Commentary 52C (Thomas Nelson, 1998), 1215.

¹² G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 1999), 1155.

¹³ Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology, 70.

¹⁴ Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology, 67.

¹⁵ For more examples, see Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology.

¹⁶ For more examples of paradoxes in the liturgy, I refer readers to Gordon W. Lathrop, Holy Things: A Liturgical Theology (Augsburg Fortress, 1998).

¹⁷ E.g. David Fagerberg, Liturgical Dogmatics: How Catholic Beliefs Flow from Liturgical Prayer (Ignatius Press, 2021).

¹⁸ For an account of how the liturgy works in spiritual formation, see James K. A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Baker Academic, 2009).

¹⁹ Holistic formation is more than personal spiritual formation. The liturgy forms us as a corporate body or a “public” with its distinctive social ethic. See Charles Mathewes, A Theology of Public Life (Cambridge University Press, 2007).

²⁰ For a fuller discussion of indwelling, see Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (University of Chicago Press, 1962), esp. 195-202.

²¹ For an extended discussion on the intimate connection between Christian ethics and the liturgy, see Stanley Hauerwas and Samuel Wells, eds, Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics (Blackwell, 2004).

²² On how to participate actively in the liturgy, see “General Instruction of the Roman Missal,” Vatican, accessed June 21, 2025, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html.

²³ Simon Chan, “Mutual Challenges of Pentecostal-Charismatic and Liturgical Worship,” in Pentecostal Theology and Ecumenical Theology, ed. Peter Hocken et al. (Brill, 2019), 261-82.

Pentecostal Formation as Mindful Liturgical Practice: A Response to Simon Chan

Jacob Cherian

“An unexamined life is not worth living,” said Socrates. Simon Chan’s chapter may be read as a theological paraphrase of that dictum: an unexamined liturgy is not worth offering to the glorious God we worship.

Chan, a doyen among Asian theologians, calls the Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement to a careful and sustained examination of the sacred structures that shape its worshipping life. Over several decades, his rigorous theological engagement with worship, pneumatology, and ecclesiology – articulated through influential books and articles – has deeply enriched the Asian church and wider global Christian community. This chapter arguably represents one of his most enduring contributions, for here he addresses a persistent weakness within Pentecostal spirituality: the failure to sustain the biblical tension between the “already” and the “not yet” of God’s Kingdom inaugurated in Messiah Jesus.

Chan’s diagnosis is compelling. Pentecostals and charismatics have frequently oscillated between two eschatological extremes, neither of which has fostered a genuinely holistic Christian spirituality. On the one hand, early Pentecostalism was often shaped by a crisis-oriented and under-realised eschatology. The “not yet” of Christ’s imminent return dominated imagination and practice, producing communities that saw themselves as merely “passing through” the present world. This orientation sometimes resulted in withdrawal from both the beauty and the suffering of creation. The logic was pragmatic and urgent: “Why rearrange the deck chairs on a sinking Titanic? Let us instead rescue as many drowning souls as possible.”

On the other hand, more recent Pentecostal and charismatic expressions have frequently embraced an over-realised eschatology – a form of “Kingdom Now” theology promising health, prosperity, and victory in the present age. This theology of glory, largely untethered from the Cross, has often produced disillusionment when expectations collapse, as well as a triumphalism that rings hollow before a suffering world. Chan rightly observes that both tendencies have failed to form mature disciples or to preserve the integrity of the gospel’s witness.

What, then, is the way forward? Chan argues persuasively that the Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement must recover a mindful and intentional practice of liturgy. By liturgy he does not mean rigid ritualism, but the patterns, rhythms, and structures that shape communal worship. Authentic gospel-centred worship, he insists, is grounded in Scripture and sacrament. Attentiveness to well-ordered liturgical rhythms enables the church to enact and inhabit the tension between what God has already accomplished in Christ and what awaits consummation in the age to come.

God’s people are thus formed to live faithfully within this paradoxical space – between the “already” and the “not yet.” Chan contends that regular participation in thoughtfully structured worship cultivates a holistic, Spirit-filled spirituality. He urges Pentecostals to look beyond the ecclesial fences they have erected and to rediscover the riches of the historic church. Practices such as the church calendar, the lectionary’s disciplined engagement with Scripture, and Sunday worship as an anticipation of the new creation all serve to reorient believers towards the fullness of God’s redemptive purposes.

Chan is convinced that such mindful attention to liturgy within the worshipping community forms disciples whose imaginations and identities, desires and values, callings and ministries are shaped by the Spirit. Liturgical formation grounds charismatic vitality in the Cross, tempers triumphalism with hope, and nurtures a mature and integrated Pentecostal faith.

As both a pastor and seminary teacher, I resonate deeply with Chan’s summons to fellow Pentecostals and charismatics to reflect critically on the sacred structures that shape believers into the likeness of Christ. In the remainder of this response, I briefly pursue three related tasks. First, I show that the language of the “already” and the “not yet” is not a recent theological fashion, even if it remains unfamiliar to many Pentecostals in the pews. Second, I seek to reclaim the term liturgy within Pentecostal discourse by attending to its New Testament usage. Third, drawing on the work of James K. A. Smith, I highlight how human lives are continually shaped by competing cultural liturgies.

The “Already” and the “Not Yet”

The language of the “already” and the “not yet” seldom features in the catechesis of many Pentecostal communities. Much emphasis falls instead on what one must believe and how one must behave in order eventually to reach heaven. While pastorally understandable, this framework often lacked a compelling account of how the kingdom of God impinges upon present life. Within academic theology, however, the “already-not yet” paradigm has become a widely accepted way of articulating the dynamic tension at the heart of Jesus’s proclamation of the Kingdom.

This perspective is evident in the work of Geerhardus Vos,¹ who spoke of an overlap between the present age and the age to come. Oscar Cullmann² and C. H. Dodd³ developed related insights into realised eschatology. The most explicit articulation of the “already” and the “not yet,” however, is associated with George Eldon Ladd, particularly in The Presence of the Future.⁴ Ladd’s formulation became the standard evangelical account of New Testament eschatology.

I first encountered this paradigm more than three decades ago while studying under Gordon Fee – one of the earliest Pentecostals to gain broad recognition as a New Testament scholar. What was once nearly an oxymoron, the phrase “Pentecostal scholar,” is now thankfully an established reality. Chan’s work stands firmly within this tradition, calling Pentecostals to embrace a biblically grounded eschatological tension that resists both escapism and triumphalism.

Reclaiming Liturgy in Pentecostal Discourse

Chan’s call to liturgical reflection meets significant resistance within Pentecostal-Charismatic contexts. The very word liturgy often provokes suspicion, conjuring images of dead ritual or spiritual constraint. As one colleague remarked to me, introducing the term might prompt congregants to ask whether they were being led “back to Babylon.” Such reactions reveal a widespread assumption that Pentecostal worship is purely spontaneous, guided moment by moment by the Spirit, and therefore fundamentally opposed to structured liturgical forms.

Yet this dichotomy between Spirit and structure is a false one. The New Testament itself employs several Greek terms from which the English word liturgy is derived. The verb leitourgeō (“to serve”) and its cognates – leitourgia (service or ministry), leitourgos (servant or minister), and leitourgikos (ministering) – occur fifteen times across six New Testament writings (e.g., Luke 1:23; Phil 2:30; Heb 1:14). These terms refer broadly to acts of service rendered to God and to others, often within a communal and sacred context.

Pentecostals readily employ other transliterated biblical terms such as Immanuel (“God with us”) or Maranatha (“Our Lord, come!”), each appearing only once in the New Testament. There is thus little justification for resisting the term liturgy when it is understood biblically – as the thoughtful, Spirit-empowered service of God, embodied in communal patterns of worship that form disciples of Christ.

Liturgy as Formation: Cultural and Christian

Chan’s insistence that “liturgy matters” finds strong resonance in the work of philosopher James K. A. Smith, who argues that liturgy is not merely expressive but formative: it shapes what we love, not only what we think. Human beings, he suggests, are best understood as “desiring creatures” (homo liturgicus), rather than primarily as rational agents. Our actions are driven more deeply by our loves and longings than by abstract beliefs alone.

From this perspective, liturgy concerns the re-education of desire. Worship is not simply the articulation of theological propositions; it is a habituating practice that directs the heart towards God’s Kingdom. Smith draws attention to the powerful influence of everyday “cultural liturgies” – shopping malls, sports arenas, educational systems, career trajectories, and leisure practices – that quietly but persistently shape our imaginations and loyalties.⁵

These secular liturgies often exert greater formative power than the few hours devoted weekly to church worship. As Augustine long ago observed, the direction of the heart’s loves ultimately determines the shape of one’s life: “Our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”⁶ If this is so, then the church’s liturgies must be intentionally ordered and examined, lest they be eclipsed by rival practices that deform Christian desire. Smith emphasises that formation occurs primarily through embodied practices rather than through intellectual assent alone. Christian worship trains the body through kneeling, singing, confessing, hearing Scripture, and participating in the Lord’s Supper. Pentecostal worship is already profoundly embodied – through dancing, clapping, weeping, the laying on of hands, and praying in tongues. Over time, such repeated practices cultivate virtue and orient believers towards love of God and neighbour.

Moreover, liturgy forms a vision of the good life by situating believers within the narrative of God’s Kingdom. Far from withdrawing Christians from the world, Christian liturgy forms citizens of the heavenly city who engage the earthly city with faithfulness and hope. In this sense, worship is inherently political, for it trains allegiance and shapes the Kingdom to which believers ultimately belong. Smith’s liturgical anthropology thus resonates deeply with Pentecostal convictions regarding worship as participatory and pneumatic – a Spirit-led reordering of the believer’s life.

Conclusion

Simon Chan’s chapter offers Pentecostals and charismatics a timely and theologically rich summons: to examine our often-unacknowledged liturgies and to recover the formative power of thoughtfully ordered worship. Such examination is not a retreat into ritualism but a retrieval of practices through which the Spirit forms God’s people into the image of Christ. By holding together the “already” and the “not yet,” grounding charismatic vitality in the Cross, and resisting both escapism and triumphalism, examined liturgies can nurture a mature, holistic Pentecostal faith. For this faithful witness and prophetic challenge, the Pentecostal-Charismatic community owes Chan a deep debt of gratitude. His work reminds us that the Spirit who animates our worship also shapes its structures – and through them, forms a people into the image of Christ.

Bibliography

Augustine. Confessions, 1, 1.5. Vatican. Accessed January 27, 2026. https://www.vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20020821_agostino_en.html.

Cullmann, Oscar. Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History. 3rd ed. 1946. Reprint, Wipf and Stock, 2018.

Dodd, C. H. The Parables of the Kingdom. 1935, Reprint, Scribner, 1961.

Ladd, George Eldon. The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism. Rev. ed. 1964. Reprint, Eerdmans, 1996.

Smith, James K. A. Awaiting the King: Reforming Public Theology. Cultural Liturgies Vol. 3. Baker Academic, 2017.

Smith, James K. A. Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation. Cultural Liturgies Vol. 1. Baker Academic, 2009.

Smith, James K. A. Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works. Cultural Liturgies Vol. 2. Baker Academic, 2013.

Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. 1930. Reprint, independently published, 2020.

¹ Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (1930, repr., independently published, 2020).

² Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, 3rd ed. (1946, repr., Wipf and Stock, 2018).

³ C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (1935, repr., Scribner, 1961).

⁴ George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism, rev. ed. (1964, repr. Eerdmans 1996).

⁵ James K. A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation, Cultural Liturgies vol. 1 (Baker Academic, 2009); Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works, Cultural Liturgies vol. 2 (Baker Academic, 2013); and Awaiting the King: Reforming Public Theology, Cultural Liturgies vol. 3 (Baker Academic, 2017).

⁶ Augustine, Confessions, 1, 1.5, Vatican, accessed January 27, 2026, https://www.vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20020821_agostino_en.html.

Session 10

Youth as Pneumatological Agents: Towards a Pentecostal Theology of Youth

Joy Qualls and Wayne Choong

Abstract

This chapter advances a youth-centred Pentecostal theology, framing young people as active pneumatological agents rather than passive recipients or future actors. Critiquing generational labels such as “Gen Z” and “Gen Alpha,” it underscores the diversity, agency, and theological discernment exercised by youth across cultural, ecclesial, and digital contexts. Drawing on Scripture, ethnography, and Pentecostal scholarship, the chapter shows how youth co-shape faith practices, leadership, and communal meaning-making. Situating youth agency within the cultural and digital turns, it highlights the dynamic interplay of social structures, technology, and Spirit-led innovation. The chapter serves as a call for a more robust Pentecostal theology of youth – one integrating theological reflection and praxis, empowering youth as co-discerners and co-creators in the global Pentecostal Movement today.

Key Words: digital religion, Pentecostal theology of youth, pneumatological agency, sociology of youth

Introduction

Young people are often positioned as the future of the church, with ministry and scholarship alike emphasising what they might become rather than who they are in the present. Within Christian contexts in Asia and the West, this tendency is reinforced by the widespread adoption of generational labels such as “Gen Z” or “Gen Alpha,” which describe cohorts by birth year and assumed characteristics. While these frameworks may offer convenient shorthand, they risk flattening the diversity, agency, and complexity of youth experience into simplistic stereotypes. Pentecostals, like many Protestant traditions, have historically embraced a modernist, systematic approach to theological engagement. Combined with generational frameworks, this has often resulted in the teaching of Pentecostal theology being imposed upon youth rather than explored collaboratively.

A more dialogical model recognises youth as interdependent partners, engaging Scripture, the Spirit, and the insights of older generations in a shared hermeneutical process.¹ Through this communal theological engagement, gaps that exist between generations can be narrowed, enabling the co-creation of meaning and allowing the Spirit’s guidance to shape the church collectively. In this framework, youth are present – as Spirit-empowered agents whose discernment, creativity, and insight contribute to the life of the community today, rather than merely future leaders waiting to be prepared.

This chapter advances a Pentecostal theology of youth that is youth-centred, recognising young people as active pneumatological agents whose engagement with faith, culture, and community is dynamic, significant, and Spirit-led. By framing youth as co-discerners in theological practice rather than as passive recipients, Pentecostal communities are challenged to rethink leadership, discipleship, and ecclesial structures. Acts 2:17 declares, “Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions,”² emphasising that the Spirit’s work in and through youth is not deferred but in the present. This scriptural grounding informs a theology that recognises youth as indispensable participants in God’s mission, capable of discernment, creativity, and leadership in both physical and digitally mediated spaces.

The significance of situating this paper within the cultural and digital turns lies in their explanatory power. The cultural turn in the social sciences, drawing on theorists such as Mary Douglas,³ Clifford Geertz,⁴ Michel Foucault,⁵ and Stuart Hall⁶ emphasises the role of culture in shaping identity and social norms. Within the sociology of youth, this turn highlights young people as active meaning-makers capable of negotiating and contesting cultural expectations.⁷ The digital turn⁸ further expands these dynamics, providing arenas for young people to exercise agency, create communities, and (re)interpret religious meaning and practice through digital media.⁹ By situating Pentecostal youths within these broader socio-cultural and technological frameworks, the chapter foregrounds the conditions under which agency is exercised and theological discernment takes place.

This framework is particularly important in the Asian context, where social, educational, and familial pressures intersect with religious engagement in ways that differ markedly from Western contexts. In Singapore, for example, Pentecostal youths navigate rigorous academic expectations, compulsory National Service, and multiethnic religious landscapes, producing highly differentiated experiences of discipleship. Similarly, in metropolitan contexts across Southeast Asia, young Pentecostals contend with a tension between inherited faith traditions and the culturally hybridised expressions of globalised youth culture.¹⁰ These cultural dynamics suggest that applying Western generational frameworks without contextual adaptation can obscure the diversity of youth experience and misrepresent their aspirations and agency.

This chapter advances three arguments. First, it critiques the pervasive reliance on generational labels as both sociological categories and pastoral heuristics, showing how they flatten youth identity and obscure young people’s agency. Second, it develops and extends Pentecostal theologies of youth, by conceptualising young people as pneumatological agents – co-discerners and innovators of faith practices – drawing on both Scripture and ethnographic research. Third, it situates this theological vision within the broader analytical frameworks of the cultural and digital turns, demonstrating how social theory illuminates the forms of agency and discernment practised by young Pentecostals across the globe. Taken together, these arguments move beyond treatments that either reduce youth to cultural consumers or romanticise youth agency, offering instead a grounded account of Spirit-empowered, socially embedded participation in the life of the church.

This endeavour contributes and responds to ongoing efforts to address critical gaps in both theology and the social sciences. In theology, scholars have repeatedly highlighted the limitations of treating youth as objects of formation rather than active co-labourers, demonstrating the need for a pneumatologically informed corrective. Amos Yong,¹¹ for example, has shown how the Pentecost narrative reconfigures family and intergenerational relations through the Spirit’s outpouring, envisioning sons, daughters, young, and old as equally empowered participants in God’s household. Yet while Yong develops a Pentecostal theology of the family, situating youth within a Spirit-filled family, less attention has been given to youth as theological agents in their own right. This chapter takes up that challenge, extending Yong’s trajectory by foregrounding young people as active co-discerners whose Spirit-empowered agency reshapes both ecclesial and cultural life. P. M. (Ronelle) Sonnenberg¹² emphasises the integration of empirical research into theological education to better understand youth agency in spiritual contexts. Sarah Holmes and Ed Drew¹³ critique traditional youth ministry models that overlook the active ways young people shape their faith experiences. Jeremy Myers¹⁴ advocates for liberating youth from assumptions of passivity, recognising them as co-creators with God in the present rather than “underdeveloped consumers.” Likewise, Martin Mittelstadt¹⁵ extends Pentecostal theology of vocation, emphasising that all believers – including youth – participate prophetically in God’s mission, echoing Acts 2:17’s vision of young people as active agents of the Spirit.

Opoku Onyinah et al. reinforce this perspective in The New Generation and the Holy Spirit, explicitly noting that they are “careful not to pretend that the present generation can shape the next one – the agent will ultimately have to be the Holy Spirit.”¹⁶ This statement underscores the ongoing tension between top-down, adult-centred formation and Spirit-empowered youth self-expression, affirming the need for a youth-centred theological perspective. Collectively, these works highlight a persistent theological and pastoral gap: the need to recognise, engage, and empower youth as co-discerners and contributors to faith formation.

In sum, this study positions youth as present, active participants, whose engagement is simultaneously shaped by and shaping cultural, digital, spiritual, and Pentecostal landscapes. By emphasising a youth-centred theological praxis, the chapter challenges ministers, theologians, and Pentecostal communities to reconceptualise youth not as a demographic category, a generational stereotype, or a future project, but as co-discerners and co-creators in the work of the Spirit today.

Theoretical and Contextual Framework

Recognising Pentecostal youths as active Spirit-empowered agents requires situating their experiences within broader cultural and socio-technical contexts. This chapter frames the theological and sociological dimensions of youth agency through the cultural turn and the digital turn, providing critical insight into how youth negotiate identity, meaning, and religious practice in contemporary contexts. It lays the foundation for a Pentecostal theology of youth that is contextually grounded, cross-culturally relevant, and youth-centred.

The Cultural Turn and Youth Agency

The cultural turn in the social sciences, emerging in the latter half of the twentieth century, emphasises the constitutive role of culture in shaping identity, social norms, and interpretive practices. Pioneering contributions by Douglas¹⁷ and Geertz¹⁸ framed culture not merely as background context, but as an active process of meaning-making. Foucault’s¹⁹ work on power, knowledge, and subjectivity further underscored that individuals, including young people, are not passive recipients of social norms but negotiate and contest them through everyday practices. Hall²⁰ elaborated on this perspective by emphasising that identity is constructed, performed, and fluid, a concept particularly applicable to youth navigating complex social and religious landscapes.

Within the sociology of youth, these insights have been elaborated to highlight the active, agentive roles of young people. James, Jenks, and Prout²¹ argue that youth should be understood as meaning-makers rather than merely as a transitional life stage. Similarly, Alan France²² emphasises that youth agency is both socially situated and relationally negotiated. This theoretical lens provides a corrective to models that treat youth primarily as objects of socialisation or as recipients of ecclesial ministry strategies. In Pentecostal contexts, this perspective challenges assumptions that leadership, theological insight, or spiritual maturity must accrue linearly with age, instead recognising the immediate and participatory role of youth in shaping faith communities.

Ethnographic observations among Pentecostal youths engaged in “theological tinkering” confirm how religious authority is negotiated and identity constructed.²³ Their reworking and wrestling with biblical teachings through digital culture, cross-cultural flows, and contemporary issues shows that youth are not simply adapting to inherited norms but actively co-constructing Pentecostal culture and theology – often in ways unanticipated by adult leaders.

To clarify what is at stake in youth agency, it is important to consider how meaning itself is constructed. Paul Ricoeur’s concept of emplotment describes the process by which individuals weave together disparate moments, events, and encounters into narratives that are both plausible and enduring.²⁴ The creation of these narratives is not incidental to what it means to be human and how people make sense of themselves, create communities, and inhabit social worlds. For Christians, these events are cosmically significant in their meaning. Within Pentecostal traditions, testimony and shared narratives have long functioned as central vehicles of theology, giving experiential shape to communal life. Youth, therefore, are not merely recipients of these stories but are capable of crafting and narrating them in ways that contribute to the shaping of their faith communities.

This connects with Karlyn Kohrs Campbell’s²⁵ definition of agency as the capacity to act, that is, to have the competence to speak and write in a way that will be recognised or heeded by others in one’s community. Agency is both communal and participatory. People derive their agency within community, depending on the interaction of capacity, competence, and recognition. Being a wholly realised person means being able to communicate and then register one’s priorities to others who are willing to listen. Such a vision reframes youth not as passive recipients of religious instruction but as co-creators of shared meaning. Agency, then, is not a potential quality that youth must one day acquire; it is already present in their narrative practices and social participation.

The Digital Turn and the Mediation of Faith

Complementing the cultural turn, the digital turn offers insight into how technological infrastructures, media platforms, and digital flows shape the contexts in which culture, identity, and meaning are negotiated.²⁶ At the intersection of digitalisation and religion, Campbell²⁷ conceptualises “digital religion” to emphasise that contemporary faith practice cannot be neatly divided into online and offline spheres.

Turkle²⁸ and Boyd²⁹ highlight how digital environments allow for relational experimentation, identity play, and community formation outside traditional institutional structures. For Christian youths, this can manifest in online Bible studies, TikTok devotional content, or virtual worship spaces that extend the reach and creativity of spiritual engagement. Importantly, these digital practices are not inherently secularising; rather, they constitute legitimate arenas in which the Spirit may be experienced and interpreted. Wayne Choong’s³⁰ observations of young Pentecostals illustrate youth-led initiatives such as Discord Bible study groups, evangelism on Instagram, and digitalised prayers, which exemplify Spirit-led innovation within digital ecosystems, reflecting both creativity and theological discernment.

The ubiquity of digital spaces also amplifies young people’s capacity for religious identity formation, particularly the construction of “storied religious identities,” where young believers weave together diverse religious and socio-cultural references into coherent, ongoing narrative projects of the self.³¹ This process reflects the cultural turn’s emphasis on youth as active meaning-makers, demonstrating how digital mediation and cultural negotiation function along a reinforcing continuum.

Together, these insights demonstrate that the digital turn, in continuity with the cultural turn, creates conditions for young Pentecostals to exercise theological discernment, engage in creative practices, and participate as active co-discerners. Digital religion thus not only mediates faith but amplifies youth agency, situating spiritual formation within socio-technical, cultural, and Spirit-led networks.

Integrating Cultural and Digital Turns: A Youth-Centred Theology

While the cultural and digital turns are analytically distinct, they are mutually reinforcing when applied to Pentecostal youths. Both frameworks emphasise agency, creativity, and reflexivity, highlighting that youth are active negotiators of meaning in multiple spheres.

Theologically, this continuum affirms and calls for a youth-centred Pentecostal theology that accounts for how young people discern and respond to the Spirit within these complex, interconnected cultural and digital ecosystems. Amos Yong’s³² proposal of a pneumatology that is dialogical, contextual, and open to the Spirit’s work beyond traditional boundaries aligns closely with the lived realities of Pentecostal youths, who frequently encounter and interpret the Spirit through digital spaces and peer-led theological conversations within platformed environments.

Steven Félix-Jäger³³ further emphasises that Spirit-led creativity and aesthetic experience constitute legitimate theological loci. For youth, this means that techno-mediated artistic expression, digital storytelling, and even meme-making become avenues for theological reflection and spiritual encounter. These practices are not peripheral; they are central to how young people embody, negotiate, and articulate faith. In this sense, youth are not only navigating culture and technology, they are also discerning the Spirit within them, through them, and around them.

Collectively, these perspectives call for not merely a youth-centred but a pneumatocentric theology of youth – one that expands its boundaries to include the participation, innovation, and scholarship of youth. Such a youth-centred pneumatology recognises that discernment is not the exclusive domain of clergy or elders but is distributed across the body of Christ, including its youngest members. As Wolfgang Vondey³⁴ argues, the Pentecostal Spirit is essentially playful, liberative, creatively unpredictable. Young people often exhibit these qualities, and a youth-centred pneumatology must acknowledge that the Spirit’s movement often emerges in unexpected spaces – on Discord servers, YouTube livestreams, gaming platforms, and TikTok – where youth gather, share, and seek God.

Youth as Pneumatological Agents

This section advances the argument that young people should be understood as pneumatological agents: Spirit-empowered participants in theological discernment and ecclesial life. It proceeds in three movements: first, by critiquing the limits of generational labels as dominant frameworks for understanding youth; second, by grounding youth agency theologically within Scripture and Pentecostal pneumatology; and third, by examining how such agency is expressed in contemporary cultural, ecclesial, and digital contexts. Together, these movements reframe youth not as passive recipients of formation but as active co-constructors of faith and practice.

Beyond Generational Labels

Generational categories such as “Gen Z” and “Gen Alpha” have become common in scholarship and ministry discourse. While a convenient shorthand, these labels risk flattening the complex socio-cultural, economic, and religious realities shaping youth experiences. In Singaporean Pentecostal contexts, youth trajectories diverge sharply along educational, familial, and socio-economic lines. One young believer may be a high-achieving junior college student from a well-resourced family, actively engaged in church leadership and mission work; another may be in vocational training, working part-time to support household needs, with church serving primarily as a space for emotional support and community. Both fall under “Gen Z,” yet their lived experiences of faith, engagement, and spiritual formation differ profoundly.

Familial religious socialisation further complicates the picture. National surveys indicate that approximately half of Singaporean Christians are raised in the faith.³⁵ If Pentecostal youths mirror this distribution, two overlapping pathways emerge: those nurtured in Christian households, for whom Pentecostalism continues inherited faith, and those coming to faith without such scaffolding, often experiencing disruptive conversions marked by Spirit-led encounters and communal belonging. These divergent pathways produce religious identities and participation that resist the reductive tendencies of Western age-based generational categories.³⁶

Cross-cultural comparison highlights this limitation. In Nepal, home to one of the fastest-growing Pentecostal populations globally,³⁷ youth experiences are stratified by caste, gender, urban–rural location, and socio-economic status.³⁸ While digital access has expanded, rural and female youth continue to face barriers, challenging the assumption that all members of “Gen Z” are technologically fluent or digitally active.³⁹ In China, youth within nominally identical age cohorts pursue divergent aspirations and exhibit varied religious orientations. While Western “Gen Alpha” youth may gravitate towards creative, digital vocations, Chinese youth often prioritise stable employment aligned with family expectations, and acquire religious knowledge through peers, community, or media rather than inherited family faith.⁴⁰

These examples highlight a central problem: generational labels compress diverse, context-dependent realities into homogenised categories that obscure rather than illuminate the religious lived realities of youth. The labels themselves find their genesis in Western terminology and definitional structure but even so, they fail to adequately address the complex experiences of young people in these contexts. Antipas Harris, for instance, offers a valuable perspective on the state of Christian youth globally;⁴¹ he also recognises Dimock’s⁴² caution regarding fuzzy generational boundaries. Yet, despite these qualifications, much of the discussion is framed around contrasting “Millennials” and “Gen Z.” Even with a careful acknowledgement of limitations, structuring arguments this way can risk overgeneralisation. First, it essentialises cohorts, treating “Gen Z” as if all members share traits (e.g., broadly “religiously disaffiliated” yet “spiritually hungry”), flattening internal diversity across ethnicity, class, and familial religiosity. Second, it over-emphasises discontinuity, exaggerating differences between generations while downplaying Dimock’s emphasis that variations within generations are often greater than variations between them.

A related institutional problem, common in many Western Pentecostal and Protestant contexts, is the generations-long tendency to organise congregational life along age-demographic lines. Children’s and youth programmes are frequently siloed from adult worship; young people rarely worship alongside parents and elders except on special occasions. This weakens cross-generational/cultural engagement and obstructs the co-discernment necessary for shared meaning. When youth cultivate communal life primarily within curated peer spheres, and adult leaders in youth ministries are tacitly treated as being in a “starter” ministry, in training for later “real” ministry, the wider church loses access to the distinctive wisdom, questions, and prophetic edge younger members bring. Segregation by age can institutionalise the notion that young people are not yet full participants in the body of Christ but merely “becomings,” rather than Spirit-filled beings through whom God speaks and to whom the church must listen in discerning God’s work.

Karl Mannheim’s⁴³ sociology of generations offers a corrective: generational identity arises not from chronological age alone but from shared historical and social experiences. Applied to Pentecostal youth, this perspective underscores that faith formation, spiritual innovation, and leadership are shaped by intersecting socio-cultural, familial, and digital contexts – not merely the generational cohort into which one is born. Recognising this complexity affirms youth as active, Spirit-filled, and Spirit-led participants – pneumatological agents within their communities, co-shaping theological understanding, communal practice, and ministry alongside older generations, rather than as passive members of a fixed generational bloc.

Theological Foundation for Pneumatological Agency

Scripture consistently affirms youth as central to divine activity. From Samuel hearing God’s voice while Eli remained spiritually inert (1 Sam. 3), to David being anointed king as the youngest of Jesse’s sons (1 Sam 16), to Josiah leading reforms at eight (2 Chron 34:1), to Mary’s radical obedience as a teenager (Luke 1:26-38), to Timothy being exhorted not to let anyone despise his youth (1 Tim 4:12), youth are repeatedly centred in God’s redemptive work. Jesus himself teaches in the temple at twelve (Luke 2:41-52), and his later admonition of adult-centred gatekeeping with the words, “Let the little children come to me … for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matt 19:14), exemplifies a Kingdom logic that re-centres the last, the least, and the youngest.

Pentecost crystallises this divine logic. Peter, interpreting the Spirit’s outpouring, quotes Joel: “Your sons and daughters will prophesy… your young men will see visions” (Acts 2:17). This is not mere inclusion, it is amplification. The Spirit does not reluctantly accommodate youth, but empowers them as prophets and visionaries. Duane Garrett notes the radical nature of Joel’s prophecy in his time, as in Peter’s (and even today): “in an era in which men (not women), the old (not the young), and the landowners (not slaves) ruled society, Joel explicitly rejected all such distinctions as criteria for receiving the Holy Spirit.”⁴⁴ Joel’s prophecy fulfilled at Pentecost lays a theological foundation for human equality without age distinction in being baptised in the Spirit and empowered for ministry. Wolfgang Vondey echoes this “scandalous” Pentecost, in which “the Spirit is poured out not on specific flesh but on all flesh … [which] signals that the church must resist any public pressures, social customs, cultural norms, religious regulations, and demonic powers that seek to suppress the redemption of all,” including youth.⁴⁵ Frank Macchia further emphasises that, “Christians at whatever level of spiritual maturity find their ministries enhanced with greater power and effectiveness through an experience of Spirit baptism”⁴⁶ [emphasis added].

Theological and ministry scholarship on youth ministry affirms this pneumatological perspective. Andrew Root⁴⁷ argues for a relational-incarnational approach where youth are not spiritual projects but persons encountering God in their lived realities. Similarly, Kenda Creasy Dean⁴⁸ insists that youth are not the church’s future but its present, capable of articulating and embodying faith. Amanda Hontz Drury⁴⁹ extends this by showing that testimony functions as a form of adolescent theological reflection. Félix-Jäger⁵⁰ further demonstrates that youth artistry, embodiment, and spiritual practices form authentic spaces of Spirit-led theology. Responding to Amos Yong’s⁵¹ call for a pneumatological imagination, this chapter argues that we must take seriously the person and work of the Holy Spirit in and through young people and properly reimagine them as pneumatological agents.

This affirmation is not merely theoretical; it is repeatedly evidenced in revival history and contemporary ministry. As Randy Clark, whose ministry was central to the 1994 Toronto Blessing revival, emphasises,⁵² the Spirit’s empowerment of young people is not confined to biblical times or isolated historical awakenings but remains a recurring feature of contemporary revivals. Ed Silvoso as a teenager himself mobilised teenage evangelistic teams that contributed to church growth in Latin America; Billy Graham, at nineteen, began preaching to thousands who would eventually number in the millions; and SoPhal Ung, in his twenties, founded churches and orphanages in Cambodia amidst intense persecution. Joseph Dimitrov provides historical evidence from East-European churches under totalitarian regimes, noting that, “local church revivals sprang out of their youth meetings … [where] baptisms in the Holy Spirit became the catalyst for witnessing manifestations of spiritual gifts.”⁵³ Such accounts resonate with Keener’s broader conclusion that “most revivals in modern history began … among youth not yet set in their ways,” with Spirit baptism empowering ordinary young believers, not just “official” leaders, to manifest charismatic gifts and revival.⁵⁴ As Clark, who himself was called to preach at eighteen, stresses, Spirit baptism has consistently functioned as the means of empowerment enabling these young “history-makers” to embody their divine calling.⁵⁵

These examples collectively affirm that youth are active pneumatological agents, capable of discernment, leadership, and innovation. Their participation is not ancillary but central to Pentecostal mission, theology, and community life. In Singapore, Kong Hee (age twenty-five) and Sun Ho (age seventeen), with a ragtag group of twenty teenagers, founded City Harvest Church (CHC) in 1989 with a vision “to raise up a generation of young people who will take Asia by storm.”⁵⁶ Today, CHC stands as one of Asia’s largest Pentecostal movements, with a growing global network of affiliated churches – a vivid testament to the enduring impact of Spirit-fuelled, youth-led revival movements.

Pneumatological Agency across Cultural, Ecclesial, and Digital Contexts

The pneumatological agency of youth is expressed and shaped within cultural, ecclesial, and digital contexts. Social structures, ecclesial cultures, and digital platform logics all interact to create opportunities for the discernment and negotiation of theological praxis. The following ethnographic case studies – one ecclesial, the other digital – illustrate how young people both obey the Spirit’s prompting and innovate new forms of faith practice, thereby leading the church into deeper theological reflection and broader ministerial imagination.

This conviction rests on the biblical foundation of Joel’s prophecy (Joel 2:28), fulfilled at Pentecost: “Your sons and daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams” (Acts 2:17). As Craig Keener argues, Luke’s intentional reversal of Joel’s sequence – placing “visions” of the young before the “dreams” of the old – signals a deliberate theological emphasis and appeal to the Spirit’s empowerment of youth (see also Acts 5:6, 10; 7:58; 20:9; 23:17-18, 22).⁵⁷ This scriptural foundation provides a theological warrant for attending to the lived practices of young people as loci of Spirit-inspired agency.

Case Study 1: Flagging in City Harvest Church

An instructive example comes from City Harvest Church. While banners and flags have long been used in Catholic and Anglican liturgical processions, the contemporary practice of free-form “flagging” as prophetic worship emerged within late twentieth-century charismatic and prophetic movements rather than high church settings. At CHC, its introduction did not originate from leadership planning but from the initiative of a youth who, discerning what she described as a prompting of the Spirit, began waving a flag during a main service. Field observations and qualitative interviews indicate that this act initially drew hesitation, as it appeared unfamiliar even within CHC’s Pentecostal-Charismatic worship style. (See Pictures 1a and 1b below.)

Over time, however, her persistence sparked curiosity and gradual acceptance. Other youth soon joined in, followed later by adult congregants. (See Pictures 2a and 2b.) This intergenerational uptake reflected not only communal recognition of the Spirit’s activity through young people but also a relational posture of humility among older congregants to affirm a practice first initiated by youth – an instance of Pentecostal openness to the Spirit’s leading across generational lines. The church eventually designated a dedicated ecclesial space within the sanctuary for flagging, partly for practical safety reasons when flags were waved in crowded aisles (see Picture 3), yet this pragmatic measure simultaneously carried theological weight, signalling institutional recognition of the practice as a legitimate mode of worship. The executive pastor, Rev. Bobby Chaw, later offered a theological articulation of flagging as an embodied form of prophetic worship consistent with Pentecostal pneumatology. This trajectory – from individual discernment to communal adoption and theological articulation – demonstrates the catalytic role of youth in ecclesial innovation. A lone young person, through Spirit-inspired initiative, opened space for an entire congregation to embrace a richer and more embodied theology of worship.

Pictures 1a and 1b. Photograph by Michelle Toh. Used with permission

Pictures 2a and 2b. Photograph by Michelle Toh. Used with permission

Case Study 2: Digital Christianity and Youth Innovation

A second case of youth agency emerges in the digital sphere, where young believers shift from mere consumers to active creators and circulators of Christian practice. One striking example is a short film project by Agnus (age sixteen) and Yong Jie (age twenty-two). Together with peers, they produced an evangelistic video that was uploaded to YouTube and eventually used by over two hundred youths in their community. While evangelism was the immediate goal, the project exemplified youth as “culture makers.”⁵⁸ Their digital storytelling was more than creative expression; it was theological praxis, a Spirit-led reimagining of how the church bears public witness in a digital age.

Such practices highlight how, online, youth are not simply passive recipients of institutional messaging but curators of meaning, shaping what circulates according to their convictions and communal needs. Theologically, this aligns with a pneumatological vision of the Spirit empowering all believers, including youth, to speak, create, and lead. Digital content on social media platforms thus becomes a site of pneumatological agency, where digital media is redeemed and mobilised for mission. (See Pictures 4a and 4b.)⁵⁹

Innovation also takes the form of everyday “e-vangelism.” On Instagram, youths like Krystal (age sixteen) use their personal accounts to share revelations, testimonies, and reflections on Scripture. These posts invite dialogue, while community-specific Christian-themed digital stickers created by the youth inscribe theological vision and communal identity. (See Pictures 5a and 5b.) Beyond public witness and expression, youth also build community through Telegram and WhatsApp groups (see Picture 6), which function as ritual markers of belonging and belief in decentralised ecclesial space.

This imagination extends further into digital pastoral care and prayer. Shi Ya (age fifteen), for instance, uses Instagram Stories and DMs to check in on peers, encourage them, and pray. In one case, she replied to a peer’s vulnerable post with Scripture and a voice-note prayer, sparking deeper spiritual conversation. Here, pastoral care emerges not from the pulpit but from the palm of her hand. Similarly, Grace (age twenty) describes how her cell group sustains intimacy through WhatsApp prayer chains – sharing prayer requests, sending voice prayers, and organising Zoom prayer meetings. Theologically, such micro-practices of intimacy embody a pneumatology of the Spirit’s presence in digitally mediated spaces, where prayer transcends physical distance and becomes communal intercession across screens.⁶⁰

Taken together, these practices form a youth-led ecology of care in which digital platforms are reconstructed and creatively hacked for ministry. The use of “Christian” emojis ( for prayer, for the Spirit), Christian-themed stickers, and the circulation of social media content exemplify what Campbell⁶¹ calls “networked religion” – a context where authority and meaning-making are diffused and youth experiment with hybrid forms of theological engagement. Far from trivial, such spiritually playful yet profound symbolic languages expand the scope of Pentecostal ritual life, integrating faith with the affordances of digital culture.⁶²

The Asbury Revival of 2023 illustrates another dimension of this dynamic. Though it began as an ordinary chapel service at Asbury University, it was youth who livestreamed, recorded, and circulated the event on TikTok and YouTube. Within days, the hashtag #asburyrevival had garnered over one hundred million views, while hundreds of thousands joined livestreams, leaving comments testifying to sensing God’s presence “through the screen.” Young people did not merely document revival; they mediated it, extending its affective and spiritual reach digitally across continents.⁶³

Collectively, these examples show that youth are not merely adapting to digitalisation; they are actively constructing digital Christianity – Christianity lived, expressed, and reimagined in our present digital age. Their innovations are both creative and theological, marked by relationality, contextual sensitivity, and Spirit-led agency. In doing so, they challenge the church to recognise digital spaces not as peripheral but as vital arenas of theological formation and ecclesial life.

Picture 4a: A young person’s digital prayer journal on X (formerly Twitter), illustrating how youth use digital platforms as spaces for theological praxis, expression, and reflection.

Picture 4b: A young person’s Instagram post on camp takeaways: part faith testimony, part digital ministry to peers in her networked publics.

Picture 5a: A youth-created digital sticker capturing a pastor’s message on love and “zero anger”, circulating faith visually in peer networks.

Picture 5b: Digital stickers by a youth community, co-constructing and circulating faith, values, and meaning online.

Picture 6: Two youth communities using Telegram groups as ritual markers of belonging while co-constructing community in decentralised digital ecclesial spaces.

Sceptics raise two primary objections to youth-led innovations in ecclesial and digital contexts. First, some argue that such practices require adult oversight to safeguard doctrinal fidelity and prevent excess. From this perspective, youthful enthusiasm must be tempered by ecclesial authority to ensure orthodoxy and avoid what Paul warns as “zeal without knowledge” (Rom 10:2). However, to reduce youth innovation to a problem in need of adult supervision risks neglecting Joel’s and Luke’s vision of the Spirit’s egalitarian outpouring.⁶⁴ Instead, such practices should be recognised as authentic pneumatological agency: subject to communal discernment, yes, but not restricted to adult initiation. Indeed, the very process of discernment can itself become intergenerational, where youth and adults together test and affirm the Spirit’s work (cf. 1 Cor 14:29).

Second, critics question whether digital engagement constitutes “authentic” theological practice. Douglas Estes⁶⁵ has suggested that online worship lacks sacramental depth, while Campbell and Tsuria⁶⁶ observe that institutional leaders often treat digital spaces as inauthentic or inferior to “real” religion. Yet Pentecostal theology locates authenticity not in institutional formality but in the Spirit’s presence and empowerment. Jun offers a robust theological framework to challenge this scepticism, establishing “digital pneumatology”⁶⁷ as the conviction that the Holy Spirit is present and active in digital spaces no less than in physical gatherings. J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu⁶⁸ corroborates this from an African perspective, noting that Pentecostals testify to tangible healing through digital participation. Evidence from City Harvest Church’s globally attended online prayer meetings reinforces this claim: participants from India (esp. Mumbai), Singapore, and Japan reported dramatic breakthroughs, including the healing of a man in ICU with internal bleeding, the recovery of a woman from a brain haemorrhage, and the disappearance of chronic knee pain.⁶⁹ These accounts illustrate how digitally mediated spaces can become arenas of Spirit-empowered encounter that transcend geography, with tangible effects on bodies and lives.

Across platforms like TikTok, Zoom, and Telegram, youth are not just broadcasting faith; they are actively shaping it. Short devotional videos, Zoom-based “Worship from Home” sessions, and digital prayer chains become sites of relational theological praxis, where affect, attention, and creativity intersect. Participants engage, comment, and respond, co-constructing meaning and embodying pneumatological agency in ways that ripple across local and global communities. The Spirit is experienced as immediate, tangible, and communal, flowing through Instagram Stories,⁷⁰ TikTok testimonies, digital faith-community stickers, and prayers circulating across screens. These practices show that digitally mediated spaces are not secondary to “real” worship but are legitimate arenas of theological formation, pastoral care, and ecclesial innovation.

Jean-Daniel Plüss, drawing on Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen,⁷¹ emphasises the need for “hospitable, dialogical, and witness-oriented communication.”⁷² Extending this principle inward to the life of the church, a hospitable dialogical posture towards youth innovation means welcoming diverse expressions of Spirit-led agency while discerning them in dialogue across generations. As Kärkkäinen envisions in his “world-embracing, multilayered”⁷³ pneumatology, the Spirit blows freely through unexpected voices, including the visions and creations of youth. In this light, both ecclesial and digital innovations by young people are not anomalies to be tolerated but prophetic signs of the Spirit’s ongoing renewal of the church. In a rapidly changing, digitally networked world, the church must learn to lean in.

Propositions from a Pentecostal Theology of Youth

A robust Pentecostal theology of youth that recognises young people as pneumatological agents carries significant implications. While a full treatment is beyond the scope of this chapter, we forward three key propositions across macro, mezzo, and micro levels, for: (1) ecclesial structures and leadership, (2) youth ministry and discipleship, and (3) the young person as pneumatological agent.

Ecclesial Structures and Communal Discernment

If Pentecost constitutes the church as a Spirit-birthed community where “your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams” (Acts 2:17), then ecclesial structures must be shaped for inclusive communal discernment. This requires deliberately amplifying voices that have historically been marginalised or culturally muted – in this case, the voices of the young.

To affirm youth as co-leaders and innovators is to refuse the reductionist rhetoric that casts them merely as the “leaders of tomorrow.” Pentecostal ecclesiology demands recognition of their agency in the present. Barriers to this recognition often take two forms. The first is protective paternalism: the assumption that youth must be shielded from the “realities” of the church or the wider social world. Yet, as Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt⁷⁴ argue in The Coddling of the American Mind, such overprotection leads not to resilience but fragility, producing generations ill-prepared to wrestle with complexity. Coddling, whether intellectual or spiritual, stunts rather than strengthens the young person’s capacity to discern God’s activity.

The second barrier is the assumption that youth lack sufficient intelligence, experience, or gifting to contribute meaningfully. A robust Pentecostal theology of youth, however, destabilises such hierarchies. As Amos Yong argues, the Day of Pentecost narrative must also be understood ecclesiologically, “where the church is constituted as a new set of social relationships … in which the elders and the youth of the community are joined together in leadership and common cause… all recipients of the Spirit’s gift and empowerment.”⁷⁵ To resist this is to resist the Spirit’s own redistribution of power.

To hold that young people are pneumatological agents requires that their agency be recognised in community. Youth today, especially through digital means, have extraordinary capacity to act, innovate, and engage, but this agency only bears fruit when it is also recognised and heeded by peers and elders alike. Following Kohrs Campbell,⁷⁶ agency involves not only the capacity to act but the competence to communicate and influence within one’s community. Through Spirit-empowered agency, young people become fully realised members of the ecclesial community: participants whose voices, actions, and discernment contribute meaningfully to the life of the church.

Of course, a youth-centred theology must avoid the twin dangers of romanticisation and reduction. To over-celebrate youth agency risks ignoring their immaturity; to reduce youth to passive products of culture and socialisation strips them of Spirit-given agency. Both extremes must be held in tension. Keener, commenting on Saul’s activity in his youth (Acts 7:58), highlights precisely this paradox: Saul’s “youth” was marked by precocity – “advanced and far ahead of his peers” (Gal 1:14) – and yet deeply misdirected.⁷⁷ Youth agency, then, is both potent and fallible, requiring the guiding discernment of the Spirit in ecclesial community.

Youth Ministry and the Turn to Discipleship

If ecclesial structures must embody inclusivity, then the practice of youth ministry must also be reimagined to be more relational. Here we propose, somewhat provocatively, that “youth ministry” should be less emphasised than “youth discipleship.” By this we mean a shift away from programmatic, pulpit/stage/event-driven, or mass-engagement-centred approaches towards relational accompaniment marked by attentiveness to the Spirit.

This shift requires stepping back from the structural, mass-educational frameworks that often define youth ministry and moving towards dialogical, vocationally shaped apprenticeship. Dallas Willard’s⁷⁸ preference for the term apprentice (disciple) and apprenticeship (discipleship) reminds us that the “Renovation of the Heart” and spiritual formation is not a classroom but an apprenticeship (discipleship) in which learners model themselves after Jesus through an ongoing relationship and being with him. The contrast is not unlike moving from standardised schooling to vocational training – an intimate, hands-on pedagogy of formation.

Yet such intimacy must not collapse into micromanagement. A Pentecostal model of youth apprenticeship/discipleship requires discernment, not control. Here the practice of spiritual direction is instructive. As Margaret Guenther,⁷⁹ David Benner,⁸⁰ and Larry Crabb⁸¹ argue, spiritual accompaniment is fundamentally about holy listening: attending both to the young person and to the prevenient grace of the Spirit already at work in and through them. The aim of discipleship then is less to impose pre-packaged content, and more to midwife the Spirit’s ongoing formation and direction in the young person’s life.

Youth as Visionaries of the Spirit

Finally, at the micro level, Pentecost affirms that youth themselves are called to “see visions” (Acts 2:17). The pneumatological imagination empowers them not only to receive tradition but to envision new realities that integrate digital, physical, ecclesial, and societal spheres.

Such imagination is not naïve idealism but Spirit-enabled re-visioning. It calls youth to boldness, to dream expansively, and to reimagine realities as the Spirit intends them. Yong underscores that Pentecost disrupts the assumption that age and “the sageliness that comes with that” are privileged mediums for revelatory insight; rather, “youth, or young men, are not inhibited from seeing visions, even in tandem with the elders of the community.”⁸² The young person’s call to vision is thus not a diminishment of elder wisdom but its complement, a Spirit-driven collaboration of generations.

For youth today, this means resisting the temptation to excuse, discount or diminish what the Spirit desires to do through them. It means embracing hybrid modes of spiritual imagination that are digitally fluent yet grounded in embodied community, prophetically creative yet theologically tethered. A Pentecostal theology of youth calls youth not only to dream big, but also to embody the Spirit’s visions in concrete practices of leadership, witness, and innovation.

Towards a Pentecostal Theology of Youth

This chapter has argued for a Pentecostal theology of youth that is unapologetically youth-centred, pneumatologically grounded, and attentive to the cultural and digital turns in academic and contemporary everyday life. Pentecostal young people are not passive recipients of faith, but are active agents of the Spirit, capable of theological insight, communal leadership, and innovative engagement across cultural, ecclesial, and digital spaces. Their voices, practices, and discernment are not merely future projections; they are present contributions to the life and mission of the church in ways that adults alone cannot replicate.

Yet this is not a conclusion. It is a clarion call – a dual invitation for Pentecostal theology and scholarship to more fully embrace youth, as both subjects and scholars.

First, scholars and practitioners must see youth as subjects, not objects. This perspective challenges adult-centred, programmatic models of formation and calls for relational, participatory, and Spirit-sensitive approaches to ministry and theological engagement. For scholarship, this necessitates ethnographic, participatory, and interpretive methods that attend to youth voices, digital practices, and spiritual experiences on their own terms. Surveys, quantitative metrics, or purely observational studies risk flattening the richness of lived faith, reducing youth to data points rather than recognising them as theological agents whose practices, reflections, and innovations carry weight in their own right.

Second, youth must be included as scholars and producers of knowledge. Their theological and pneumatological imagination, research capacity, and critical insight are indispensable to a Pentecostal theology of youth. Creating structural spaces, mentoring relationships, and platforms that elevate youth scholarship are not optional, they are essential. Empowering young theologians and junior researchers is precisely how Pentecostal communities can make theology and praxis converge, allowing youth to shape the church as fully as they inhabit it.

In lieu of a conclusion, then, this is both a summons and a responsibility: to honour youth as present agents of the Spirit, listen to their voices, and make space for their spiritual and scholarly contributions. Youth, as pneumatological agents, are not just the future of the church, they are the church today, and their contributions are indispensable to the ongoing work of God in the world.

Bibliography

Archer, Kenneth J. A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century: Spirit, Scripture, and Community. T&T Clark, 2004.

Asamoah-Gyadu, J. Kwabena. “Locked Down but Not Locked Out: An African Perspective on Pentecostalism and Media in a Pandemic Era.” In Ecclesiology for a Digital Church: Theological Reflections on a New Normal, edited by Heidi Campbell and J. Dyer. SCM Press, 2022.

Asbury University. “The Outpouring at Asbury University.” Asbury University, 2025. https://www.asbury.edu/about/revival-history/outpouring/.

Basnet, A., and A. Shrestha. “Nepal’s Digitalisation Journey: Experiences and Challenges in Digital Transformation and the Future Ahead.” Asia Competitiveness Institute and Nepal Institute for Policy Research, 2023. https://aciperspectives.com/2023/03/13/nepals-digitalisation-journey-experiences-and-challenges-in-digital-transformation-and-the-future-ahead/.

Benner, David G. Care of Souls: Revisioning Christian Nurture and Counsel. Baker Books, 1998.

Boyd, Danah. It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale University Press, 2014.

Campbell, Heidi A. Digital Creatives and the Rethinking of Religious Authority. 1st ed. Routledge, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003045625.

Campbell, Heidi A. Digital Religion: Understanding Religious Practice in New Media Worlds. Routledge, 2013.

Campbell, Heidi A. When Religion Meets New Media. Routledge, 2010.

Campbell, Heidi A., and R. Tsuria, eds. Digital Religion: Understanding Religious Practice in Digital Media. 2nd ed. Routledge, 2022.

Campbell, Heidi A., and Ruth Tsuria. “Introduction to the Study of Digital Religion.” In Digital Religion: Understanding Religious Practice in Digital Media. 2nd ed., edited by Heidi A. Campbell and Ruth Tsuria. Routledge, 2022.

Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society. Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Chen, L., S. Zeng, and Z. Tian. “Resonance or Alienation: An Empirical Study on the Influencing Factors of Religious Belief Choices among China’s Generation Z.” MDPI, September 11, 2023. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/14/9/1161.

Choong, Wayne. “An Ecosystemic Approach to Digital Christianity: How Faith and Identity Formation Evolve among Youth in Singapore.” Religion and Social Communication 23, no. 2 (2025): 317-45. https://doi.org/10.62461/WC040325.

Clark, Randy. “The Next Generation and the Holy Spirit: Keynote Address.” In The New Generation & the Holy Spirit: Building a Spirit-Empowered Future, edited by Wonsuk Ma, Opoku Onyinah, Barry L. Saylor, and Rebekah Bled. ORU Press, 2025.

Cornelio, Jayeel Serrano. Being Catholic in the Contemporary Philippines: Young People Reinterpreting Religion. Routledge, 2016.

Cornelio, Jayeel Serrano. “Youth and Religion in East and Southeast Asia.” In Handbook of Children and Youth Studies, edited by J. Wyn and H. Cahill. Springer, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4451-15-4_40.

Cornelio, Jayeel Serrano, ed. Rethinking Filipino Millennials: Alternative Perspectives on a Misunderstood Generation. UST Publishing House, 2020.

Crabb, Larry. Soul Talk: The Language God Longs for Us to Speak. Thomas Nelson, 2003.

Dean, Kenda Creasy. Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church. Oxford University Press, 2010.

Dimitrov, Joseph. “A Spirit-Driven Ecclesiological Tenacity: Tested and Proven Response to Hostility and Afflictions.” Paper presented at the Euro-Asia Pentecostal Summit, City Harvest Church, Singapore, May 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmQwh7z5odw.

Dimock, Michael. “Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins.” Pew Research Center. January 17, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/.

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966.

Drury, Amanda Hontz. Saying is Believing: The Necessity of Testimony in Adolescent Spiritual Development. InterVarsity Press, 2015.

Estes, Douglas. SimChurch: Being the Church in the Virtual World. Zondervan, 2015.

Félix-Jäger, Steven. “Inspiration and Discernment in Pentecostal Aesthetics.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 23, no. 1 (2014): 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1163/17455251-02301009.

Félix-Jäger, Steven. Pentecostal Aesthetics: Theological Reflections in a Pentecostal Philosophy of Art and Aesthetics. Vol. 16 of Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies. Brill, 2015.

Félix-Jäger, Steven. Spirit of the Arts: Towards a Pneumatological Aesthetics of Renewal. Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon Books, 1977.

France, Alan. Understanding Youth in Late Modernity. Open University Press, 2007.

Garrett, Duane A. Hosea, Joel. Vol. 19A of The New American Commentary, edited by E. R. Clendenen. Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1997.

Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Basic Books, 1973.

Gellner, D. N., S. L. Hausner, and C. Letizia, eds. Religion, Secularism, and Ethnicity in Contemporary Nepal. Oxford University Press, 2020.

Gibson, I. “Pentecostal Peacefulness: Virtue Ethics and the Reception of Theology in Nepal.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 23, no. 4 (2017): 765-82.

Gibson, I. Suffering and Hope: Christianity and Ethics among the Newars of Bhaktapur. Ekta Books, 2017.

Giddens Anthony. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford University Press, 1991.

Guenther, Margaret. Holy Listening: The Art of Spiritual Direction. Rowman & Littlefield, 1992.

Hall, Stuart. “Encoding/Decoding.” In Culture, Media, Language, edited by Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and Paul Willis. Hutchinson, 1980.

Harris, Antipas L. “Global Christianity and Gen Z: A Bird’s Eye Exploration of the Contemporary Situation of Faith in Search of Glimmers of Hope for the Future of Faith.” In Voices Loud & Clear, edited by Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus, and Doug Petersen. Regnum Publishers, 2024.

Holmes, Sarah, and Ed Drew. “What is the Point of Ministry among Children, Youth and Families? Examination of Aims and Activities from Different Perspectives.” British Journal of Religious Education (June 2025): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2025.2513546.

James, Allison, Chris Jenks, and Alan Prout. Theorizing Childhood. Polity Press, 1998.

Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press, 2006.

Jun, Guichun. “Digital Pneumatology: Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit in the Metaverse.” In Voices Loud & Clear, edited by Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen. Regnum Publishers, 2024.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. “Christian Church among Religions: Toward a Hospitable Encounter with the Other.” In Conviction in an Optional Society, edited by Marina Ngursangzeli Behera and Jean-Daniel Plüss. Regnum, 2020.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. “Does the Spirit Blow Where it Wills?: Pentecostals and the Struggle of Discerning the Holy Spirit among Religions.” Paper presented at the Euro-Asia Pentecostal Summit, City Harvest Church, Singapore, May 2025.

Keener, Craig S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Vol. 1: Introduction and 1:1–2:47. Baker Academic, 2012.

Keener, Craig S. Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World. Baker Academic, 2021.

Kohrs Campbell, Karlyn. “Agency: Promiscuous and Protean.” Communication and Critical Cultural Studies 1, no. 2 (2006): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1479142042000332134.

Lawoti, M. “Cleavages, Conflicts, and Sociocultural Groups.” In Towards a Democratic Nepal: Inclusive Political Institutions for a Multicultural Society. SAGE Publications, 2005.

Lövheim, Mia. “Mediatization and Religion.” In Mediatization of Communication, edited by K. Lundby. De Gruyter Mouton, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110272215.547.

Lukianoff, Greg, and Jonathan Haidt. The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting up a Generation for Failure. Penguin UK, 2018.

Ma, Wonsuk, Opoku Onyinah, Barry L. Saylor, and Rebekah Bled, eds. The New Generation & the Holy Spirit: Building a Spirit-Empowered Future. ORU Press, 2025.

Macchia, Frank D. Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology. Zondervan Academic, 2006.

Mannheim, Karl. “The Problem of Generations.” Translated by K. W. Rawls. In Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, edited by P. Kecskemeti. 1923. Reprint, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952.

Martin, Stephanie A. Decoding the Digital Church: Evangelical Storytelling and the Election of Donald Trump. University of Alabama Press, 2021.

McCann Worldgroup. “The Truth about Gen Z.” 2021. https://www.creativebrief.com/user_files/26028/1685694599_TA%20Gen%20Z.pdf.

Ministry of Youth and Sports, Government of Nepal. “Youth Vision – 2025 and Ten-Year Strategic Plan.” August 19, 2025. https://moys.gov.np/sites/default/files/nitiheru/Youth%20Vision-2025_2.pdf.

Mittelstadt, Martin W. “Called: A Pentecostal Theology of Vocation.” Spiritus 9, no. 2 (2024): 293-315. https://doi.org/10.31380/2573-6345.1373.

Myers, Jeremy Paul. Liberating Youth from Adolescence. Fortress Press, 2018.

Opoku Onyinah, Wonsuk Ma, and Barry L. Saylor. “Introduction.” In The New Generation & the Holy Spirit: Building a Spirit-Empowered Future, edited by Wonsuk Ma, Opoku Onyinah, Barry L. Saylor, and Rebekah Bled. ORU Press, 2025.

Parker, Kim. “How Pew Research Center Will Report on Generations Moving Forward.” Pew Research Center. May 22, 2023. https://pewrsr.ch/3BLLK6b.

Plüss, Jean-Daniel. “Lessons Learned during 30 Years of Ecumenical Dialogue: What Future Challenges Can Be Expected?” Paper presented at the Euro-Asia Pentecostal Summit, City Harvest Church, Singapore, May 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm0b5vVopC4.

Ricoeur, Paul. Time and Narrative. Vol. 1. University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Root, Andrew. Revisiting Relational Youth Ministry: From a Strategy of Influence to a Theology of Incarnation. InterVarsity Press, 2007.

Seow, Dawn. “Kong Hee: ‘Every Day Is an Adventure with Jesus.’” City News. November 8, 2014. https://www.citynews.sg/2014/11/08/kong-hee-every-day-is-an-adventure-with-jesus/.

Seow, Dawn. “A God Who Answers Prayers: Testimonies from Prayer Meetings.” City News. August 26, 2022. https://www.citynews.sg/2022/08/26/a-god-who-answers-prayers-testimonies-from-prayer-meetings/.

Sonnenberg, P. M. (Ronelle). “Youth Ministry and the Empirical Turn.” In The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Theology and Qualitative Research, edited by Pete Ward and Knut Tveitereid. Wiley-Blackwell, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119756927.ch35.

Thapa, S. “Disparity in the Use of Mass Media among Youth Population in Nepal.” Nepal Public Policy Review 3, no. 2 (2023): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.59552/nppr.v3i2.65.

Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books, 2011.

United Nations Development Programme. “UNDP Nepal Youth Strategy 2018–2022.” 2018. https://un.org.np/resource/undp-nepal-youth-strategy-2018-2022.

Vondey, Wolfgang. Beyond Pentecostalism: The Crisis of Global Christianity and the Renewal of the Theological Agenda. Pentecostal Manifestos 3. Eerdmans, 2010.

Vondey, Wolfgang. “The Church as Scandal of Salvation: Pentecost and the Continuity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Paper presented at the Euro-Asia Pentecostal Summit, City Harvest Church, Singapore, May 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_S7MbViWCM.

Vondey, Wolfgang. “Religion as Play: Pentecostalism as a Theological Type.” Religions 9, no. 3 (2018): 1-16.

Wang, Yang. “From Precarity to Stability: Job Preferences among Chinese Youth in Today’s China.” MA thesis, University of Chicago, 2024. Knowledge@UChicago. https://doi.org/10.6082/uchicago.13219.

Willard, Dallas. Renovation of the Heart: Putting on the Character of Christ. NavPress, 2002.

Yong, Amos. “The Pneumatological Imagination.” In The Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal Theology, edited by Wolfgang Vondey. Routledge, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429507076-18.

Yong, Amos. “Sons and Daughters, Young and Old: Toward a Pentecostal Theology of the Family.” PentecoStudies 10, no. 2 (2011): 147-73. https://doi.org/10.1558/ptcs.v10i2.147.

Yong, Amos. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology. Baker Academic, 2005.

¹ Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century: Spirit, Scripture, and Community (T&T Clark, 2004).

² All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the New International Version.

³ Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966).

⁴ Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (Basic Books, 1973).

⁵ Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Pantheon Books, 1977).

⁶ Stuart Hall, “Encoding/Decoding,” in Culture, Media, Language, ed. Stuart Hall et al. (Hutchinson, 1980).

⁷ Allison James et al., Theorizing Childhood (Polity Press, 1998).

⁸ Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd ed. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009); Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (New York University Press, 2006); Sherry Turkle, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (Basic Books, 2011); Danah Boyd, It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens (Yale University Press, 2014).

⁹ Heidi A. Campbell, When Religion Meets New Media (Routledge, 2010); Heidi A. Campbell, Digital Religion: Understanding Religious Practice in New Media Worlds (Routledge, 2013); Heidi A. Campbell, Digital Creatives and the Rethinking of Religious Authority, 1st ed. (Routledge, 2020), https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003045625; Mia Lövheim, “Mediatization and Religion,” in Mediatization of Communication, ed. K. Lundby (De Gruyter Mouton, 2014), https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110272215.547.

¹⁰ Jayeel Serrano Cornelio, “Youth and Religion in East and Southeast Asia,” in Handbook of Children and Youth Studies, ed. J. Wyn and H. Cahill (Springer, 2015), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4451-15-4_40; Jayeel Serrano Cornelio, ed., Rethinking Filipino Millennials: Alternative Perspectives on a Misunderstood Generation (UST Publishing House, 2020).

¹¹ Amos Yong, “Sons and Daughters, Young and Old: Toward a Pentecostal Theology of the Family,” PentecoStudies 10, no. 2 (2011): 147-73, https://doi.org/10.1558/ptcs.v10i2.147.

¹² P. M. (Ronelle) Sonnenberg, “Youth Ministry and the Empirical Turn,” in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Theology and Qualitative Research, ed. Pete Ward and Knut Tveitereid (Wiley-Blackwell, 2022), https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119756927.ch35.

¹³ Sarah Holmes and Ed Drew, “What is the Point of Ministry among Children, Youth and Families? Examination of Aims and Activities from Different Perspectives,” British Journal of Religious Education (June 2025): 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2025.2513546.

¹⁴ Jeremy Paul Myers, Liberating Youth from Adolescence (Fortress Press, 2018).

¹⁵ Martin W. Mittelstadt, “Called: A Pentecostal Theology of Vocation,” Spiritus 9, no. 2 (2024): 293-315, https://doi.org/10.31380/2573-6345.1373.

¹⁶ Opoku Onyinah et al., “Introduction,” in The New Generation & the Holy Spirit: Building a Spirit-Empowered Future, ed. Wonsuk Ma et al. (ORU Press, 2025), 7.

¹⁷ Douglas, Purity and Danger.

¹⁸ Geertz, Interpretation of Cultures.

¹⁹ Foucault, Discipline and Punish.

²⁰ Hall, “Encoding/Decoding.”

²¹ James, Jenks, and Prout, Theorizing Childhood.

²² Alan France, Understanding Youth in Late Modernity (Open University Press, 2007).

²³ Wayne Choong, “An Ecosystemic Approach to Digital Christianity: How Faith and Identity Formation Evolve among Youth in Singapore,” Religion and Social Communication 23, no. 2 (2025), 317-45, https://doi.org/10.62461/WC040325.

²⁴ Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, vol. 1 (University of Chicago Press, 1990), 31-51, quoted in Stephanie A. Martin, Decoding the Digital Church: Evangelical Storytelling and the Election of Donald Trump (University of Alabama Press, 2021), 168.

²⁵ Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, “Agency: Promiscuous and Protean,” Communication and Critical Cultural Studies 1, no. 2 (2006), 1-19, https://doi.org/10.1080/1479142042000332134.

²⁶ Castells, The Rise of the Network Society; Jenkins, Convergence Culture; Boyd, It’s Complicated.

²⁷ Campbell, When Religion Meets New Media; Campbell, Digital Creatives.

²⁸ Turkle, Alone Together.

²⁹ Boyd, It’s Complicated.

³⁰ Choong, “An Ecosystemic Approach to Digital Christianity.”

³¹ Heidi A. Campbell and Ruth Tsuria, eds., Digital Religion: Understanding Religious Practice in Digital Media, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2022); Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Stanford University Press, 1991).

³² Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Baker Academic, 2005).

³³ Steven Félix-Jäger, “Inspiration and Discernment in Pentecostal Aesthetics,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 23, no. 1 (2014): 85-104, https://doi.org/10.1163/17455251-02301009; Pentecostal Aesthetics: Theological Reflections in a Pentecostal Philosophy of Art and Aesthetics, vol. 16 of Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies (Brill, 2015); and Spirit of the Arts: Towards a Pneumatological Aesthetics of Renewal (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017).

³⁴ Wolfgang Vondey, Beyond Pentecostalism: The Crisis of Global Christianity and the Renewal of the Theological Agenda, Pentecostal Manifestos 3 (Eerdmans, 2010); see also Wolfgang Vondey, “Religion as Play: Pentecostalism as a Theological Type,” Religions 9, no. 3 (2018): 1-16.

³⁵ Kim Parker, “How Pew Research Center Will Report on Generations Moving Forward,” Pew Research Center, May 22, 2023, https://pewrsr.ch/3BLLK6b.

³⁶ Michael Dimock, “Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins,” Pew Research Center, January 17, 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/; Parker, “How Pew Research Center Will Report on Generations Moving Forward.”

³⁷ I. Gibson, “Pentecostal Peacefulness: Virtue Ethics and the Reception of Theology in Nepal,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 23, no. 4 (2017): 765-82; see also I. Gibson, Suffering and Hope: Christianity and Ethics among the Newars of Bhaktapur (Ekta Books, 2017).

³⁸ D. N. Gellner, S. L. Hausner, and C. Letizia, eds., Religion, Secularism, and Ethnicity in Contemporary Nepal (Oxford University Press, 2020); M. Lawoti, “Cleavages, Conflicts, and Sociocultural Groups,” in Towards a Democratic Nepal: Inclusive Political Institutions for a Multicultural Society (SAGE Publications, 2005); Ministry of Youth and Sports, Government of Nepal, “Youth Vision—2025 and Ten-Year Strategic Plan,” August 19, 2025, https://moys.gov.np/sites/default/files/nitiheru/Youth%20Vision-2025_2.pdf; United Nations Development Programme, “UNDP Nepal Youth Strategy 2018-2022,” 2018, https://un.org.np/resource/undp-nepal-youth-strategy-2018-2022.

³⁹ A. Basnet and A. Shrestha, “Nepal’s Digitalisation Journey: Experiences and Challenges in Digital Transformation and the Future Ahead,” 2023, Asia Competitiveness Institute and Nepal Institute for Policy Research, https://aciperspectives.com/2023/03/13/nepals-digitalisation-journey-experiences-and-challenges-in-digital-transformation-and-the-future-ahead/; S. Thapa, “Disparity in the Use of Mass Media among Youth Population in Nepal,” Nepal Public Policy Review 3, no. 2 (2023), 1-17, https://doi.org/10.59552/nppr.v3i2.65.

⁴⁰ L. Chen, S. Zeng, and Z. Tian, “Resonance or Alienation: An Empirical Study on the Influencing Factors of Religious Belief Choices among China’s Generation Z,” MDPI, September 11, 2023, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/14/9/1161; Yang Wang, “From Precarity to Stability: Job Preferences among Chinese Youth in Today’s China,” MA Thesis, The University of Chicago, 2024, Knowledge@UChicago, https://doi.org/10.6082/uchicago.13219.

⁴¹ Antipas L. Harris, “Global Christianity and Gen Z: A Bird’s Eye Exploration of the Contemporary Situation of Faith in Search of Glimmers of Hope for the Future of Faith,” in Voices Loud & Clear, ed. Kong Hee et al. (Regnum Publishers, 2024), 303.

⁴² Dimock, “Defining Generations.”

⁴³ Karl Mannheim, “The Problem of Generations,” trans. K. W. Rawls, in Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, ed. P. Kecskemeti (1923, repr., Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952).

⁴⁴ Duane A. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, vol. 19A of The New American Commentary, ed. E. R. Clendenen (Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1997), 369.

⁴⁵ Wolfgang Vondey, “The Church as Scandal of Salvation: Pentecost and the Continuity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (paper presented at the Euro-Asia Pentecostal Summit, City Harvest Church, Singapore, May 2025), 12, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_S7MbViWCM.

⁴⁶ Frank D. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Zondervan Academic, 2006), 77.

⁴⁷ Andrew Root, Revisiting Relational Youth Ministry: From a Strategy of Influence to a Theology of Incarnation (InterVarsity Press, 2007).

⁴⁸ Kenda Creasy Dean, Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church (Oxford University Press, 2010).

⁴⁹ Amanda Hontz Drury, Saying is Believing: The Necessity of Testimony in Adolescent Spiritual Development (InterVarsity Press, 2015).

⁵⁰ Félix-Jäger, Spirit of the Arts.

⁵¹ Amos Yong, “The Pneumatological Imagination,” in The Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal Theology, ed. Wolfgang Vondey (Routledge, 2020), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429507076-18.

⁵² Randy Clark, “The Next Generation and the Holy Spirit: Keynote Address,” in The New Generation & the Holy Spirit: Building a Spirit-Empowered Future, ed. Wonsuk Ma et al. (ORU Press, 2025), 14.

⁵³ Joseph Dimitrov, “A Spirit-Driven Ecclesiological Tenacity: Tested and Proven Response to Hostility and Afflictions” (paper presented at the Euro-Asia Pentecostal Summit, City Harvest Church, Singapore, May 2025), 7, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmQwh7z5odw.

⁵⁴ Craig S. Keener, Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World (Baker Academic, 2021), chap. 36, “Humility,” EPUB.

⁵⁵ Clark, “Next Generation and the Holy Spirit,” 20.

⁵⁶ Dawn Seow, “Kong Hee: “Every Day Is an Adventure with Jesus,” City News, November 8, 2014, https://www.citynews.sg/2014/11/08/kong-hee-every-day-is-an-adventure-with-jesus/.

⁵⁷ Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Vol. 1: Introduction and 1:1–2:47 (Baker Academic, 2012), 876.

⁵⁸ McCann Worldgroup, “The Truth about Gen Z,” 2021, https://www.creativebrief.com/user_files/26028/1685694599_TA%20Gen%20Z.pdf.

⁵⁹ Identification in pictures used by permission.

⁶⁰ Guichun Jun, “Digital Pneumatology: Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit in the Metaverse,” in Voices Loud & Clear, ed. Kong Hee et al. (Regnum Publishers, 2024).

⁶¹ Heidi Campbell, “Understanding the Relationship between Religious Practice Online and Offline in a Networked Society,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 80, no. 1 (2012): 64-93.

⁶² Vondey, Beyond Pentecostalism; see also Vondey, “Religion as Play.”

⁶³ Asbury University, “The Outpouring at Asbury University,” Asbury University, 2025, https://www.asbury.edu/about/revival-history/outpouring/.

⁶⁴ Keener, Acts, 876.

⁶⁵ Douglas Estes, SimChurch: Being the Church in the Virtual World (Zondervan, 2015).

⁶⁶ Heidi A. Campbell and Ruth Tsuria, “Introduction to the Study of Digital Religion,” in Digital Religion: Understanding Religious Practice in Digital Media, 2nd ed., ed. Heidi A. Campbell and Ruth Tsuria (Routledge, 2022).

⁶⁷ Jun, “Digital Pneumatology,” 285.

⁶⁸ J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, “Locked Down but Not Locked Out: An African Perspective on Pentecostalism and Media in a Pandemic Era,” in Ecclesiology for a Digital Church: Theological Reflections on a New Normal, ed. Heidi Campbell and J. Dyer (SCM Press, 2022).

⁶⁹ Dawn Seow, “A God Who Answers Prayers: Testimonies from Prayer Meetings,” City News, August 26, 2022, https://www.citynews.sg/2022/08/26/a-god-who-answers-prayers-testimonies-from-prayer-meetings/.

⁷⁰ Instagram “Stories” are ephemeral and casual posts that disappear after 24 hours, often used for spontaneous or expressive updates.

⁷¹ Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Christian Church among Religions: Toward a Hospitable Encounter with the Other,” in Conviction in an Optional Society, ed. Marina Ngursangzeli Behera and Jean-Daniel Plüss (Regnum, 2020).

⁷² Jean Daniel Plüss, “Lessons Learned during 30 Years of Ecumenical Dialogue: What Future Challenges Can Be Expected?” (paper presented at the Euro-Asia Pentecostal Summit, City Harvest Church, Singapore, May 2025), 12, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm0b5vVopC4.

⁷³ Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Does the Spirit Blow Where it Wills?: Pentecostals and the Struggle of Discerning the Holy Spirit among Religions” (paper presented at the Euro-Asia Pentecostal Summit, City Harvest Church, Singapore, May 2025), 1.

⁷⁴ Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting up a Generation for Failure (Penguin UK, 2018).

⁷⁵75 Yong, “Sons and Daughters,” 157.

⁷⁶ Kohrs Campbell, “Agency,” 2.

⁷⁷ Keener, Acts, 1450.

⁷⁸ Dallas Willard, Renovation of the Heart: Putting on the Character of Christ (NavPress, 2002).

⁷⁹ Margaret Guenther, Holy Listening: The Art of Spiritual Direction (Rowman & Littlefield, 1992).

⁸⁰ David G. Benner, Care of Souls: Revisioning Christian Nurture and Counsel (Baker Books, 1998).

⁸¹ Larry Crabb, Soul Talk: The Language God Longs for Us to Speak (Thomas Nelson, 2003).

⁸² Yong, “Sons and Daughters,” 156.

Response to Joy Qualls’ and Wayne Choong’s “Youth as Pneumatological Agents: Towards a Pentecostal Theology of Youth”

Kelvin Tan

Introduction

Thank you, Dr. Joy Qualls and Dr. Wayne Choong, for your passionate research on a Pentecostal theology of youth. Your chapter engages with the lived realities of young people, portraying them not as passive recipients awaiting their turn, but as active pneumatological agents in God’s missio Dei.

Three aspects of Qualls’ and Choong’s chapter are especially significant. First, they rightly critique the use of generational labels such as “Gen Z” or “Gen Alpha.” I would add that stereotypes often attached to these labels – such as “fragile”¹ or “strawberry generation”² – distort our perception and breed condescending attitudes. Youth are not a generation to be typecast or dismissed but to be loved and empowered.

Second, by situating youth within the cultural and digital contexts of today, Qualls and Choong challenge the church to reimagine how we can creatively engage the spaces where young people dwell. Just as Jesus stepped into Simon Peter’s boat (Luke 5:3)³ before calling him to follow, the church must boldly enter the “world” of our youth. Both Pentecost (Acts 2:17) and John’s eschatological vision (Rev 5:9) reveal God’s desire to reach every language and people group. Nowhere lies beyond the Spirit’s reach, and the digital sphere is no exception – for it is also a space where God’s presence permeates.

Finally, Qualls and Choong affirm that youth are not leaders of tomorrow but Spirit-empowered co-creators today. Pentecost is indeed our great equaliser,⁴ welcoming all to the table of communion where there are no second-class citizens. As Frank Macchia reminds us, Spirit baptism is not merely an endowment of power but an immersion in divine love.⁵ Youth engagement, therefore, cannot be merely for leadership renewal or replacing our ageing pew; it must flow from a place of compassion rather than utility. Love is the starting point and centre of how we relate to the next generation. Together, these insights should further our Pentecostal theology of youth in meaningful ways.

Yet, I wonder: does this chapter fully capture the depth and distinctiveness of Pentecostalism? Or does it lean more towards a sociological observation of what drives youth agency, rather than a theological account of how the Spirit forms them into Christlikeness? It is in response to these questions that I seek to explore further.

Towards a Fuller Pneumatological Vision

Qualls and Choong offer a rich sociological portrait of how Spirit-empowered youth navigate their contexts. While the Spirit is frequently mentioned, their discussion remains largely descriptive and risks understating God’s transformative work. By contrast, a fuller Pentecostal vision sees the Spirit not only as actively present but also as the one who indwells and sanctifies believers,⁶ drawing them towards theosis – union with God,⁷ and thereby empowering them to live out that love.

For a more robust and formative theology of the Spirit, Steven Land’s triadic framework of orthodoxy (right beliefs), orthopathy (right affections), and orthopraxy (right practices) offers a valuable model for understanding Pentecostal spirituality for young people.⁸ Believers experience harmony with God and with themselves only when they integrate all three areas, and this remains vital because zeal alone cannot sustain genuine encounters. The elder brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) illustrates this well: outwardly, he actively performed every duty and observed every right practice, but his distorted understanding of his father’s love – and his place within that love – turned devotion into mere duty and affection into resentment.

The same pattern can be discerned in youth spirituality today, where zealous service in teenage years often fades into disillusionment and jadedness in adulthood. Without right beliefs and affections, even the most faithful service can lead to spiritual detachment. As Simon Chan cautions, “Pentecostal power and passion mean nothing if they do not issue from a life filled with the Spirit of holiness. There could be false affections and false Pentecostalisms!”⁹ In this light, perhaps Qualls’ and Choong’s call for youth agency can be strengthened by integrating Land’s framework, shaping youth through orthodoxy, orthopathy, and orthopraxy.

This approach is deeply biblical: Proverbs 22:6 underscores the importance of grounding our young in right beliefs, establishing a strong foundation from which they will not easily depart. Likewise, Paul exhorts Timothy to “continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed … how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:14-15, ESV).

Orthodoxy matures passion and informs practice, enabling the Spirit’s deep work to sanctify and transform youth into effective pneumatological agents in the world.

Example 1 – Flagging

Using Land’s framework, I turn to the two case studies in the paper. In the first, flagging begins as a Spirit-prompted act – a youth led by the Spirit to wave a flag in worship – and gains communal and ecclesial acceptance. Yet, a deeper theological reading reveals more: the Spirit not only initiates the act but also forms the worshipper through it. Flagging, hence, is not merely a creative or symbolic gesture. It is an outward manifestation of inward experiential spirituality.¹⁰ It is Acts 2:17 in motion; it is prophecy without words.

What begins as orthopathy – a heart moved by divine love – flows into orthopraxy, a visible expression of that love. With each wave, the flag and the flagger become a living doxology: an embodied act of praise, through which the Spirit forms the worshipper, uniting belief, affection, and practice in harmony.

Without an understanding of this inner formation, flagging risks becoming performance rather than genuine participation; expression without the depth of communion, where the act is separated from the transforming work of the Spirit.

Example 2 – Digital Engagement

In the second example, Qualls and Choong affirm digital engagement as a space for authentic faith encounters and witness. Yet, like flagging, affirmation must be tempered with discernment, for the digital realm is never neutral; it can either form faith or fracture it.

Applying Land’s framework, digital engagement reflects orthopraxy. However, without the integration of orthopathy and orthodoxy, it risks falling into performance. Even in the name of witness, the heart can subtly shift from glorifying God to seeking personal recognition. A Spirit-formed digital theology anchors youth in truth and love, fostering genuine communion rather than self-promotion or shallow connection.

Like Daniel in Babylon, discernment calls for creative yet courageous engagement: holding fast to biblical conviction while resisting every form of evil that is so pervasive in the digital space. Ultimately, the platform is secondary; whether online or offline, wherever the Spirit is poured out, he always leads us to Christ.

A Call to Fathering in Love

To form Christlikeness in our youth, Qualls and Choong rightly advocate for a collaborative discipleship that midwifes the Spirit’s work in them. I propose that we deepen this model by moving beyond co-discernment towards fathering (or mothering)¹¹ the next generation. This is neither a return to a top-down hierarchical control nor a reduction of youth to powerless recipients. Rather, it is a call to relational discipleship.

This relational emphasis lies at the heart of Scripture. God’s triune nature reminds us that the Spirit’s outpouring at Pentecost is never detached from familial relationships.¹² Acts 2:17, for example, did not occur in isolation: “your sons and daughters will prophesy” presupposes a relationship with fathers and mothers alongside them.

Therefore, a Pentecostal theology of youth must go beyond giving young people a seat at the table or affirming them as leaders of today; it roots their agency in identity, where spiritual parents create incubative spaces for transformation to godliness. Youth are therefore cherished as beloved sons and daughters in God’s family. As missiologist Charles Kraft aptly notes, “life can only be communicated through life rubbing against life to produce life.”¹³

What does this fathering look like? Paul offers a compelling model in 1 Corinthians 11:1, “Imitate me as I imitate Christ.” Fathering transcends impartation of knowledge and skills … it is an invitation to Christlike imitation.

It involves two dimensions: (1) What is caught: Youth observe our lived faith – how we pray, overcome temptation, navigate failure, and steward success. (2) What is imparted: We speak life, call forth their gifts, and walk with them through life’s victories and setbacks.

This relationship is not one-directional. Malachi 4:6 presents an eschatological vision of reconciliation: “He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers” (ESV).

The Spirit bridges both generations, calling the old to selfless love and the young to genuine honour. As we reject dismissive labels like “strawberry generation,” youth must likewise resist viewing us as irrelevant “boomers.” God’s family is a circle of love marked by mutual honour and reciprocal affection.

Paul captures the heart of his spiritual fathering in his letter to the Corinthians, “Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” (1 Cor 4:15, emphasis added).¹⁴ A teacher imparts knowledge; a mentor hones skills, but a father imparts life – often at great personal cost. Paul reinforces this selfless giving in Galatians: “My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you” (Gal 4:19). Perhaps one reason the Early Church flourished – even under persecution – was that the apostles saw themselves not merely as rabbis or teachers, but as loving fathers in the faith.

Spiritual fathering breaks the orphan spirit – a pervasive sense of disconnection from God, community, and self – that is so endemic in this generation. In this Spirit-initiated, transgenerational love, Land’s Pentecostal spirituality comes alive: youth are formed through right beliefs, right affections, and right living. Here, the Spirit is poured out afresh, reconciling generations and giving us a foretaste of the day when God will indeed be all in all (1 Cor 15:28).¹⁵

A Personal Note

On a personal note, my heart is full of gratitude as I bear witness to such fathering. In Chinese, there is a proverb that goes: 饮水思源, which can be loosely translated: when you drink of the water, remember its source. It was right here, in this church, that a twelve-year-old Kelvin Tan – a nobody – encountered love that broke the orphan spirit in him, love that healed him from brokenness to wholeness, and love that empowered and enlarged him beyond anything he could have become on his own. It was divine, transforming love that shaped me from a nobody to a beloved son. And just as I have received this love, I am compelled to pour it out – to father, to love, and to raise the next generation.

Conclusion

A Pentecostal theology of youth must not merely be about giving young people a seat at the table, affirming them as leaders of today, and allowing them to express their creativity in whatever they are passionate about. It must go beyond that.

A Pentecostal theology of youth should envision Spirit-baptised young people being formed into a community of divine love – where their identities, beliefs, affections, and actions are united by the Spirit who sanctifies, empowers, and sends them into the world.

Bibliography

Ang, Wei Yang. “Prophecy, Art and Inspiration: A Critical Evaluation of Prophetic Arts.” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 27, no. 1 (2024): 67-86.

Chan, Simon. Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition. Wipf and Stock, 2011.

Chew, Han Ei, and Vincent Chua. “Singapore Youth: In Defence of ‘Strawberries.’” Institute of Policy Studies. Accessed October 19, 2025. https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/publications/details/singapore-youth-in-defence-of-strawberries.

Christensen, Michael J., and Jeffery A. Wittung. Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification. Baker Academic, 2007.

Kraft, Charles H. Issues in Contextualization. Google eBook. William Carey Library, 2016.

Land, Steven Jack. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom. CPT Press, 2010.

Lyons, Sean. “Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z Labels: Necessary or Nonsense?” The Conversation. 2020. https://theconversation.com/baby-boomers-gen-x-millennials-and-gen-z-labels-necessary-or-nonsense-132161.

Macchia, Frank D. Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology. Zondervan, 2006.

Macchia, Frank D. Tongues of Fire: A Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Wipf and Stock, 2023.

Mittelstadt, Martin W. “Called: A Pentecostal Theology of Vocation.” Spiritus: ORU Journal of Theology 9, no. 2 (2024): 293-315. https://doi.org/10.31380/2573-6345.1373.

¹ Sean Lyons, “Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z Labels: Necessary or Nonsense?” The Conversation, 2020, https://theconversation.com/baby-boomers-gen-x-millennials-and-gen-z-labels-necessary-or-nonsense-132161.

² Han Ei Chew and Vincent Chua, “Singapore Youth: In Defence of ‘Strawberries’,” Institute of Policy Studies, accessed October 19, 2025, https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/publications/details/singapore-youth-in-defence-of-strawberries.

³ Unless otherwise stated, Scripture quotations are from the New Internation Version (NIV).

⁴ Martin W. Mittelstadt, “Called: A Pentecostal Theology of Vocation,” Spiritus: ORU Journal of Theology 9, no. 2 (2024): 299, https://doi.org/10.31380/2573-6345.1373.

⁵ Frank D. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Zondervan, 2006), 360.

⁶ Simon Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition (Wipf and Stock, 2011), 70.

⁷ Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung, Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification (Baker Academic, 2007), 205.

⁸ Steven Jack Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom (CPT Press, 2010), 38.

⁹ Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition, 70.

¹⁰ Wei Yang Ang, “Prophecy, Art and Inspiration: A Critical Evaluation of Prophetic Arts,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 27, no. 1 (2024): 73.

¹¹ I retain Paul’s language of “fathering” as in 1 Corinthians 4:15, though this principle applies to spiritual mothering as well.

¹² Frank D. Macchia, Tongues of Fire: A Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Wipf and Stock, 2023), 280.

¹³ Charles H. Kraft, Issues in Contextualization, Google eBook (William Carey Library, 2016), 18-19.

¹⁴ In the New King James Version (NKJV), the term “instructors” was used instead of “guardians.” This distinction highlights the contrast between fathers and teachers.

¹⁵ Macchia, Tongues of Fire, 242.

Session 11

Theological Tasks for Spirit-Empowered Mission in Asia

Wonsuk Ma and Julie Ma

Abstract

This chapter identifies five priority topics for Asian Pentecostal churches and believers to fulfil their theological and missional call for faithful witness of Christ’s good news. The first two are unique theological gifts: (1) Spirit baptism for Spirit-empowered life and witness, and (2) prophethood of all believers: theology of empowerment. The next three are contextual and missiological priorities: (3) signs and wonders, and healing in witnessing, (4) Spirit-empowered engagement with religions, and (5) Spirit-empowered witness amidst human suffering and poverty.

Key Words: Asian religions, Pentecostal theology, prophethood of all believers, social engagement, Spirit baptism, Spirit-empowered witness

Introduction

This chapter aims to identify key theological areas for Asian Pentecostals to develop and strengthen their Spirit-empowered witness to fellow Asians. This exploration assumes two specific objectives of Spirit-empowered scholarship: (1) to strengthen the movement and (2) to enhance Spirit-empowered witness in Asia. Today, Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity is so diverse that there is no consensus on its definition. This complexity has been accentuated as the movement has spread globally, actively interacting with local social and religious cultures. As a result, for example, a rural African-initiated church (AIC)¹ operates quite differently from a North American Pentecostal congregation, both in their beliefs and expectations. Todd Johnson and Gina Zurlo, leaders of the Center for Studies of Global Christianity, offer “family resemblance” to qualify their working definition; the resemblance consists of baptism of the Spirit, speaking in tongues, and gifts of the Spirit.² Identifying commonly held belief among various expressions of Spirit-empowered faith, therefore, remains essential for efforts to strengthen the movement.³

Communicating God’s good news is a mandate and raison d’être for every believer and believing community. It also comes with an urgency. According to Todd M. Johnson and Gina A. Zurlo’s statistics in their World Christian Encyclopedia, a mere 8.2 percent of the vast population of Asia (4.6 billion in 2020) were Christian; compared to the 32.3 percent of the world in 2020, Asia achieved approximately a quarter of the world’s evangelisation rate.⁴ For the 2050 projection, Christians are expected to increase to 10.9 percent of the Asian continent: an encouraging prospect.⁵

Why, then, should Pentecostals engage in the task of evangelisation? The most convincing reason is Pentecostalism’s growth record for the past century or so. For instance, Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity throughout the world grew annually by 6.30 percent in the twentieth century while, overall, Christianity grew by 1.28 percent. This Pentecostal growth rate is five times that of the latter.⁶ In East Asia and Southeast Asia, the Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement increased annually by 6.14 percent between 1970 and 2020, the highest among Christian traditions and all religions.⁷ The crux of this exponential growth involves distinct Pentecostal beliefs/theology. This chapter explores five of these beliefs, particularly in Asian socio-religio-cultural contexts, necessary for Asian Pentecostals to fulfil this global task of evangelisation.

In this chapter, “Spirit-empowered Christianity/movement” is used as an umbrella term for the full spectrum of charismatic Christianity, encompassing classical Pentecostal, charismatic, and neo-charismatic segments. Historically, various expressions have been used since the advent of the Charismatic Movement in the 1960s, including Pentecostal, Pentecostal-Charismatic, full gospel, apostolic, renewal, and Spirit-filled. With the addition of the third component, any hyphenated expressions are increasingly untenable. Since the centenary celebration of the Azusa Street Mission in 2006, “Spirit-empowered” has gained acceptance, especially through the activities of Empowered21.⁸

The scope of this study is East and Southeast Asia, for several reasons. First, in the vast diversity in culture, religion, and social conditions of Asia, this region shares reasonable commonalities, including, among others: Chinese cultural influence, Buddhist presence, colonial history, and a pervasive animistic mindset. Second, the presence and influence of Islam in this region differs from the rest of Asia (South, Central, and West Asia). Islam here tends to adopt local animistic religious practices, like in other religions, and is consequently less fundamentalistic and militant. Indeed, Islam has a minimal presence in East Asia. In this region, Christianity is larger than Islam, and the former grew more quickly than the latter. Third, Christianity in this religion is very missional; three of the world’s top ten missionary-sending nations are here: South Korea (ranked number 3 with 30,000 intercultural missionaries), the Philippines (number 4 with 25,000), and China (number 6 with 15,000).⁹ Fourth, the evangelism rate of the religion is more than triple (at 12.2 percent in 2020) of the rest of Asia (less than 4 percent), while they share about the same population size.¹⁰

This chapter takes five relevant topics necessary to strengthen the missional theological assets of Asian Pentecostalism and translates them into practice to continue fuelling its growth. We explore each topic in three aspects: the distinct Pentecostal theology, its contextual relevance to Asia, and theological and practical suggestions to enhance and strengthen the theological and practical distinctives to fuel the growth. The last discussion includes potential or realistic challenges and practical recommendations.

Spirit Baptism for Spirit-Empowered Life and Witness

The most prominent belief and practice in modern Spirit-empowered Christianity is baptism in the Holy Spirit, often accompanied by signs, particularly speaking in tongues. Almost all the classical Pentecostal denominations consider it to occur after regeneration as a distinct and separate experience.¹¹ This belief is also enshrined as “Jesus as the Baptiser” (referring to baptism in the Spirit) in the Pentecostal fourfold or fivefold “gospel.” Pentecostals argue that this promise was given to Jesus’s disciples, hence believers: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days, you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:4-5).¹² At the turn of the twentieth century, believers prayed for the restoration of this “apostolic” experience. When revivals broke out in various parts of the world, many who had radical spiritual encounters with God’s power identified their experiences with that of the Early Church. The first issue (September 1906) of The Apostolic Faith, the newspaper of the Azusa Street Mission, declared that “Pentecost Has Come,” and its subheading read, “Los Angeles Being Visited by a Revival of Bible Salvation and Pentecost as Recorded in the Book of Acts.”¹³ Throughout the history of what was later called the “Pentecostal Movement,” this belief and experience have remained its hallmark.¹⁴ With the advent of other “waves,” the movement witnessed changes in expression and emphasis, but its fundamental importance has remained constant.

The experience of Spirit baptism is radical in religious life. There is no reported case of “gradual” Spirit baptism; it is an event that one can remember with a definite time and location. It also accompanies tangible and supernatural signs – including healing, vision, hearing God’s voice, and overwhelming sensations – but the most common is speaking in tongues. This emphasis on an encounter with God’s reality with tangible experience has made Pentecostalism highly relevant to Asian religious minds. As much as the continent is crowded with religions, Asia’s worldview acknowledges a myriad of spiritual beings and their close interface with everyday life. Therefore, unlike Christianity in the secularising West, religious practices in Asia have existential relevance. The pervasive influence of animistic beliefs, found in every religion, has heightened the consciousness of the spiritual world, closely overlapping with almost every aspect of human life. In this rich and “thick” spiritual world, Pentecostalism has distinguished itself by emphasising encounters with God through religious experiences. Evan Liu contends that the Pentecostal teaching of immediacy of the divine aligns well with Daoism and folk religions in China.¹⁵ It has also offered (often supernatural) solutions to life’s challenges, while other Christian traditions engendered “split Christianity.”¹⁶ Pentecostalism thus emerged as a form of Christianity that offers answers both to the eternal (or higher) concerns (such as sin, forgiveness, and the afterlife), as well as the temporal (or lower) concerns (such as sickness, poverty, relational issues, etc.). In Asia, as in Africa and Latin America, people from lower social strata struggling for their daily survival consider Pentecostalism their most favourable religion. More importantly, the Pentecostal theology of divine encounter is a highly prized experience in Asia, for such is exclusively reserved for religious specialists, such as priests or clergy. One with a divine S/spirit is considered sacred.

Then how can Pentecostal churches in Asia strengthen this unique theological foundation? They can do so first by a concerted emphasis on Spirit baptism in teaching, preaching, and practices. Classical Pentecostals have the most intentional emphasis on this belief, enshrined in their doctrinal statements. As seen in the Alpha Course, originally designed and popularised by a British charismatic church, a typical session deals with fifteen questions of life. Three of them are on the Holy Spirit:

•Session 8: Who Is the Holy Spirit?

•Session 9: What Does the Holy Spirit Do?

•Session 10: How Can I Be Filled with the Holy Spirit?¹⁷

Thus, Pentecostal congregations must organise programmes to prepare parishioners for Spirit baptism, and leaders should invite those who desire Spirit baptism to come for prayer at every prayer time.

Pentecostal churches can strengthen this foundation, second, by fostering prayer in tongues. As tongue-speaking is generally considered the mark of Spirit-baptised believers, this would indirectly reinforce the critical importance of Spirit baptism. In a 2016 report, about one-third of Pentecostals in the United States spoke in tongues weekly or more often.¹⁸ However, a steadily declining trend in Spirit baptism is observed in the West, and this may spread globally.

The third step Pentecostal churches can take to strengthen their unique theological foundation is the development of robust discipleship programmes. One area of weakness among Pentecostals is discipleship, as researchers realised the scarcity of Pentecostal resources for disciple-making.¹⁹ What does discipleship have to do with Spirit baptism? While baptism in the Spirit is a distinctly time-specific, one-off experience, the state of “fullness of the Spirit” is a repeated, ongoing, and lifelong gradual process. Inadvertently, Pentecostals have developed an instantaneous-solution mentality and are consequently impatient about long-term matters. This requires intentional disciple-making programmes, wisely taking Asia Williamson’s and Joseph Handley’s suggestion to incorporate the experiential dimension into Pentecostal spiritual formation. They suggest a discipleship process to “ask how Pentecostals encounter reality, interpret it, and are transformed by it.”²⁰ Holiness-Pentecostal traditions can significantly contribute to this with “Christ the Sanctifier” in their belief.

The fourth step involves the reenactment of Spirit baptism through active testimony-sharing, a prominent part of Pentecostal worship that brilliantly demonstrates the grassroots theology-making process. This “storytelling” tradition extends to evangelism by sharing one’s spiritual experience, and the life-changing impact of Spirit baptism can be at the top of the list. It will, in turn, feed into the Pentecostal discipleship cycle, mentioned above.

Prophethood of All Believers: Theology of Empowerment

The rapid growth of Spirit-empowered Christianity primarily owes to the grassroots mobilisation of highly motivated lay evangelists. The link between Spirit baptism and being empowered for witness is based on Christ’s promise in Acts 1:8, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” This theological connection resulted in what is called the “prophethood of all believers,” one theological step forward from the traditional “priesthood of all believers.”²¹ It makes every believer baptised in the Spirit potentially a motivated evangelist. Empirically, the 2016 survey by the Pew Research Center observed that Pentecostals, who exhibited a higher intensity of belief, are more frequently evangelising than non-Pentecostal Christians.²² In the real-life setting, a Pentecostal believer has a personal encounter with God’s reality, often experiencing a profound, life-changing experience. Theologically, this is understood to be empowerment to share God’s good news. Telling one’s story is prevalent among Pentecostals, as seen in the testimony tradition.²³ At the same time, the empowerment is understood as more than telling stories; it includes believers mediating or performing God’s miraculous work.²⁴ These observations and beliefs all amount to powerful ingredients for unprecedented evangelism success, and the growth trajectory of the movement partly proves it. At the same time, whether each Pentecostal believer or each congregation fully live out their unique potential is another matter.

In Asia, this revolutionary belief has fuelled church growth as it manoeuvres through, around, and sometimes against its hierarchical culture. This belief is particularly relevant in two areas. The first is evangelism. Given the wide gap between the evangelisation rates of Asia and the world, the mobilisation of every believer – both women and men – for the spread of the gospel promises unique potential for this urgent task. At the evangelistic front, the well-known cell-group system of Yoido Full Gospel Church (Seoul, Korea), often with female leaders, vividly demonstrates this belief. In the Korean social context, this groundbreaking experimentation endowed the lay cell leaders with the “apostolic” function. Younghoon Lee, the church’s senior pastor, elaborates this characterisation by their work: (1) to nurture their members through biblical teachings, (2) to care for the members with love, (3) to pray for them, (4) to prepare the members for evangelism, and (5) to link the members to the church system for pastoral care.²⁵ This lay mobilisation has directly contributed to the exponential growth of Yoido Church. In a significant way, the cell-group system has challenged the clergy–laity divide by democratising ministries.

Similarly, many transnational Christian labourers are actively doing the work of ministry. Although it is impossible to verify, one Filipino Christian leader claimed that Christian converts through international workers in the Middle East may outnumber those who became Christian through missionaries.²⁶ Equally intriguing is the presence of African Pentecostal believers in China, although their direct and indirect impact on Chinese Christianity is difficult to assess.²⁷ Presenting a new model of Christian mission, although not exclusively Pentecostal, these cases demonstrate the “liberation of ministry” from traditional clergy dominance.

Also, the “prophethood” belief challenges Asian socio-cultural norms that privilege males. This gender inequality is deeply rooted in Asian traditions, especially in religions. For example, in China, women serve as pastors, evangelists, and missionaries in many Pentecostal churches, and this is in stark contrast to both other Christian traditions and to Chinese culture. The empowerment of women is considered a major factor in the growth of Pentecostalism in China, particularly in rural areas. This trend continues in new urban churches that minister to immigrants from rural provinces.²⁸

Despite the encouraging impact of the “prophethood” doctrine in Asia, there are challenges to its full realisation. A plain maxim applies to this: knowledge does not always change behaviour. Several probing questions can reveal the current state, such as, “What percentage of Pentecostal believers are aware of or believe in the ‘everyone’s a prophet’ doctrine?” “If they believe, are they actively evangelising people?” In the same vein, “Why are not all Spirit-empowered churches doing mission?” While the growth rate of Spirit-empowered Christianity is higher than other Christian traditions in Asia, most believers and local churches do not live up to this treasured belief. To translate knowing into doing, discipleship is the key, and the Spirit-empowered world is called to take it seriously.

When it comes to the social impact of the all-prophet doctrine, a worrying trend is observed in China. Among urban Pentecostal house churches, Liu argues, female leadership is almost marginalised, giving preference to male leadership. He attributes this to the institutionalisation and cerebral (or “text-based”) spirituality among better-educated urban believers.²⁹ This is in contrast with rural Pentecostal churches, where female leadership flourishes with the affective and experiential traits of these leaders.

Elsewhere, I (Wonsuk) also raised a question, “How real is the ‘prophethood of all believers’?”³⁰ This is based on glass ceilings that the laity (and women) experience in the church. For example, the Foursquare Church International, founded by a woman (Aimee Semple McPherson), has not had a woman to lead the denomination since.³¹ Only recently, the (US) Assemblies of God has had a woman, Donna Barrett, in the executive leadership circle. Asian Pentecostalism has much to do to catch up, while overcoming its male-dominant culture. It is time to circle back to the belief in the prophethood of all believers to assess the present state of Spirit-empowered churches and believers. Then the broader Spirit-empowered movement should plan a programme of spiritual formation and discipleship, intentionally incorporating the two unique Pentecostal beliefs, Spirit baptism and the “prophethood of all believers.”

Signs and Wonders and Healing in Witnessing

One’s theological viewpoint on spiritual gifts often leads an individual to connect the concept of baptism in the Holy Spirit with mission. Stanley M. Horton notes that “Pentecostals use the term ‘baptism in the Spirit’ to refer to the initial filling of the believer with the Spirit and take it to be the same empowering experience that was accompanied by the speaking in tongues on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4).”³²

Closely connected to Spirit baptism and its effect of empowerment is the Pentecostal belief in the manifestation of various spiritual gifts (charismata). What sets Pentecostals apart from the rest of Christianity is their conviction that supernatural gifts, such as prophecy, miracles, healing, speaking in tongues, and interpretation of tongues, are available today. This belief, anticipation, and experience of God’s supernatural work is closely connected with baptism in the Holy Spirit. With insistence on speaking in tongues as “the initial physical sign” by most classical Pentecostals,³³ Spirit baptism inducts believers into the world of supernatural experiences, which includes the reception of spiritual gifts. As Christ promises, the coming of the Spirit is for the empowerment of his followers for witness (Acts 1:8).³⁴

Frank Macchia, using Jürgen Moltmann’s analogy, presents a dual function of Spirit baptism: “… divine inhale that draws people together in communion and praise and the exhale of the divine Spirit that drives on vocationally and charismatically into the world.”³⁵ The Book of Acts illustrates well how Spirit-baptised disciples performed extraordinary works, while the new believing community grew in number and solidarity: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles” (Acts 2:42-43, emphasis added). Pentecostal evangelists and missionaries have attracted a crowd with physical, emotional, relational, and financial needs, and with the promise that Christ can heal and perform miracles. The growth of Pentecostalism, therefore, is attributed to this unique belief and claim of God’s miracle.

Naturally, Pentecostals emphasise the experiential dimension of religious life, particularly through miraculous encounters with God, such as healing, visions, and speaking in tongues. Keith Warrington observes that with claims of “hearing” from God, “touching” him, and “encountering God’s presence,” their theology centres on contact with God.³⁶ As a result, Pentecostals have formed a dynamic worldview, anticipating the active presence of both the Holy Spirit and demonic spirits in their environment. This worldview differs significantly from the traditional, rationalistic, and static Western Christian perspective. With such a strong awareness of the spiritual realm, Pentecostals consider the spiritual gifts not just as a nice extra, but as an essential qualification for living victoriously and witnessing convincingly. Like the believers of the Early Church, the modern-day “Apostolic” believers are now empowered with spiritual gifts by the Holy Spirit. In Pentecostal missions, “signs and wonders” have served as the primary evidence for the authenticity of the Christian message.³⁷

In Asian worldview and religiosity, followers of any religion expect the divine to “act” according to their devotion and petition. As discussed in more detail below, animism is the foundational layer of all religions, both organised and unorganised. The immediate goal of those who practice animism is to secure prosperity, safety, or good health through the help of spirits. Pentecostalism has provided an answer to Asian religious demands, both in spiritual and non-spiritual ways. For example, Liu highlights how rural Pentecostal churches in China preach and practise divine healing, which fuelled unprecedented growth in the 1970s and 80s after the Cultural Revolution. Chinese Pentecostal churches have also provided medical care, disaster relief, and educational services, where public services are limited in rural communities.³⁸

Asian Pentecostals should reflect on this highly impactful evangelistic gift of Spirit baptism in at least two areas. The first area involves going beyond experiencing God’s power. Many studies have explored the powerful evangelistic potential of the testimonies of God’s healing and miracles.³⁹ How do we prepare every believer to be agents of God’s power? In Asia, certain cultural and religious forces resist this empowered egalitarianism. Asian religious traditions set religious specialists, e.g., priests, monks, shamans, etc., at a great social distance from religious consumers. Pentecostal ministers often must convince the laity of God’s call, empowerment, and endowed gifts on them to be true to the belief in the prophethood of all believers.

Also, the hierarchical social order in Asia causes hesitation in the laity “encroaching” the religious specialists’ prerogatives. Even in the celebrated cell-group System of Yoido Full Gospel Church (in Seoul, Korea), a “glass ceiling” is detected in the role of female cell leaders. In the Asian context, social division could result from differences in position, seniority, or gender. The call of Pentecostal leaders is to equip every believer for God’s work: “So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers to equip his people for works of service” (Eph 4:11-12). This preparation includes healing, signs, and wonders to strengthen the church and proclaim the good news of God to the world.

Another issue is the stewardship of power, as Pentecostal theology claims Spirit-empowerment. Unfortunately, highly publicised moral failures of charismatically gifted leaders have been part of the modern Pentecostal history. Spiritual power also comes with recognition power, which can be a formidable tool for social transformation, if used properly. The same can also become a destructive force if one fails in godly stewardship. Stephen Fogarty warns of the dark side of charismatic leadership, when the leader places personal interests over the organisation’s.⁴⁰ It is also the leader’s role to radically expand the notion of empowerment beyond the dazzling display of miracles and healing. Frank Macchia reminds us that, through the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit, Jesus bore his cross (Heb 9:14).⁴¹ In this respect, a recent study from Cambodia is refreshing. In this majority-Buddhist country, most extraordinary healings are attributed to black magic. P. Vachna, a Christian pastor, lost his young daughter, and many in his community viewed his continuing faithfulness to the family and ministry as the highest form of his authentic faith and godly empowerment.⁴²Christ’s kenosis as described in Philippians 2 lays the foundation for the stewardship of power:

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death – even death on a cross! (Phil 2:3-8).

Having addressed (1) Spirit baptism for Spirit-empowered life and witness, (2) the prophethood of all believers: theology of empowerment, and (3) signs and wonders and healing in witnessing, the following section addresses the fourth priority topic for Asian Pentecostal churches in fulfilling their theological and missional call for faithful witness of Christ’s good news.

Spirit-Empowered Engagement with Religions

First, we would like to initiate a theological discussion regarding the title of this section. Diverse religions exist in Asian countries, which we address later. Animism is a prevalent belief system that has influenced other religions in Asia. The term Animism originated from the Latin word Anima, meaning spirit, breath, and soul.⁴³

The New Testament frequently references God’s power, primarily using the Greek word dunamis, which means inherent power, strength, or ability; this word is the root of the English words dynamite and dynamic. This power is manifested in three main areas: in Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and in the gospel message itself.

The Holy Spirit is the active agent distributing God’s power to believers for ministry, witnessing, and daily living. Acts 1:8 says, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (The promise of this text is dynamic for global mission.) Another passage, 1 Corinthians 2:4-5, notes that faith is meant to be grounded in God’s evident power, not in human rhetoric: “And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.”

The modern Pentecostal Movement did not originate in the context of religious pluralism. Even in the Mukti Mission of Pandita Ramabai, her immediate concern was the plight of orphans and widows, not the Hindu religion. In the Pyongyang Revival of Korea (1907), where Christianity was a small fraction (0.5 percent in 1900),⁴⁴ the single focus was repentance and renewal. Neither the Welsh Revival nor the Azusa Street Mission engaged with non-Christian faiths. This topic gained significance as the movement spread globally, and Western Pentecostal missionaries reached many places where various religions were practised. Only recently have religions attracted growing attention through migration studies.⁴⁵ Generally speaking, Pentecostals acknowledge the presence of different religions (religious plurality) but reject the other religions’ validity for salvation (religious pluralism). Pentecostals exhibit varying views of other religions, ranging from simple dismissal to openness to certain aspects and values within them.⁴⁶ Ivan Satyavrata, reflecting on his Hindu environment, proposes two key principles for engaging with religions: to promote peaceful living and to live missionally, bearing witness to Christ.⁴⁷

Asia is the most “religious” continent, where many of the world’s religions were born. Statistics from 2020 reveal that Christianity is the fifth-largest religion (at 8.2 percent), trailing behind Islam (27.4 percent), Hinduism (22.8 percent), Buddhism (11.6 percent), and Chinese Folk Religions (10.1 percent). A consultation may be found in the annual growth rate of Christianity at 1.52 percent (between 2000 and 2020), which is only next to Islam at 1.74 percent.⁴⁸ These convincing numbers indicate that Asian Christians, including Pentecostals, must engage with other religions. Religious plurality presents both formidable challenges and rare opportunities. The challenges are clear: that Asian Christians (Pentecostals included) cannot afford to stay away from engaging with people of different faiths. Indeed, Asia can help global Christians learn to live together in peace while bearing witness to Christ’s gift of salvation through authentic lives, words, and deeds. A blanket dismissal of the religions as evil does not help, as Spirit-filled people work with other religious people every day. Pentecostals in Asia, therefore, should recognise that many fellow believers live and witness in religiously challenging circumstances.⁴⁹ Learning creative approaches to engaging with dominant religious communities for Spirit-empowered evangelism is encouraging. Finding solidarity with them and ways to empower them is everyone’s call.

We would like to highlight one area where the Pentecostal mission has made significant progress in Asia. Animism is the mother of all religions in Asia due to its pervasive presence in the religious psyche and its heavy influence on organised religions. The crux of the Pentecostal success among animists, such as tribal groups, lies in the surprising similarities of the two worldviews. The animistic worldview is crowded with spirits, ancestors, and gods for healing, miracles, and warding off misfortunes. Most of these religious categories fully align with the Pentecostal worldview, thereby meeting people’s religious and existential needs. With an emphasis on deliverance, healing, and prophecy, Pentecostal spirituality establishes a close connection with such worldviews and offers a Christ-centred alternative.⁵⁰ Pentecostals have found this energised and crowded animistic worldview fertile ground for the Pentecostal message of empowerment through signs and wonders. Enthusiastic Pentecostal worship, testimonies, preaching, and prayers provide numerous opportunities for animists to experience God’s presence and work. This animistic religious layer is not limited to tribal groups. Simon Chan observes that highly urbanised and educated Singaporeans continued to practise their animistic beliefs and that Chinese Christian converts wrestle with issues such as illness and fear, as their (non-Pentecostal) churches do not address spiritual concerns related to their primary worldview.⁵¹

Another approach to religions, including animism, is “power encounter.” Although popularised by the Third Wave advocates, Pentecostals have challenged spiritual power, especially through exorcism. Asian Pentecostalism can learn from African experiences of dealing with witchcraft and demons.⁵² Often related to religious beliefs in Asia is the practice of ancestor veneration. The belief in ancestral spirits influencing the affairs of the living is a common theme in many religions, including animism, Shintoism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. Its issues range from supernatural power accorded to ancestor spirits to familial piety and ethical practice. Christianity has always struggled to provide an affirmative response to the fate of deceased ancestors who did not have a chance to believe. Noriyuki Miyake contends that the ancestor issue is the biggest challenge to Christian mission in Japan.⁵³ A healthy discussion on the subject requires pan-Christian efforts, and this will be another important contribution to global Christian theology.

Evangelisation in Asia will have to deal with religions, and Pentecostals are called to develop their theological and practical approach to people of other faiths. Also, religious categories constantly evolve to include “nones” (non-religious), New Age, occults, and new religions. Pentecostals also need to watch the slippery boundaries of certain “power encounter” assumptions and practices, such as territorial spirits, intergenerational curses, spirits attached to certain objects, inner healing involving inner child theory, etc.⁵⁴ As each faith is closely integrated into the ethnic identity and culture of adherents, Christian social scientists can also help.

Engaging with people of other faiths requires diligent learning, love for neighbours, commitment to peaceful coexistence, and a Christian call to witness to them through the power of the Holy Spirit. To achieve this goal, Satyavrata proposes four features of Pentecostal spirituality as “rules of Spirit-empowered engagement with religions” – a spirituality that “Connects Deeply with the Culture … Challenges the Powers of Evil … Meets the Real Needs of the Powerless … [and that is] Firmly Christocentric.”⁵⁵ By weaving these elements together, Satyavrata outlines a missiological framework that is both culturally sensitive and uncompromising in its theological convictions.

Spirit-Empowered Witness amidst Human Suffering and Poverty

Whether Pentecostal mission should include diakonia or compassion ministry is no longer a question, for several reasons. Even during the early years of the Azusa Street Mission (1906-1909), with prominent eschatological urgency, serving the destitute was an integral part of evangelism. Lillian Trasher (1887-1961), a single female missionary who began her care ministry in Egypt in 1910, is a fine example. Known for her passionate ministry among orphans and widows, her orphanage has cared for more than twenty-five thousand children. At her death, she earned the endearing title “Nile Mother.”⁵⁶ Despite the common notion that Pentecostal mission is singularly focused on evangelism, among frontline practitioners, proclamation and diakonia have been integral, thus maintaining a holistic view of mission.

Social scientists were quick to recognise the transformative potential of the Spirit-empowered faith. Donald Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori published their multi-year field research, Global Pentecostalism, concluding that “progressive Pentecostals” actively engaged with social issues without external assistance, while their churches and ministries were growing.⁵⁷ Called and Empowered, the groundbreaking book on the theological foundation of Pentecostal mission, firmly established the kingdom of God as the main motivation.⁵⁸ In bringing God’s Kingdom to individuals and into communities, believers are called to speak the good news and demonstrate Kingdom life through compassionate action.⁵⁹ The 2009 addition of “compassion” to the fundamental purposes of the US Assemblies of God, therefore, is a reflection of mission reality rather than a prescriptive.⁶⁰

As in other parts of the Global South, Asians live with varying socio-cultural challenges. Connie Au helpfully categorises Asian nations into two, despite the oversimplification: (1) relatively free with democracy and liberty, and economically advanced, and (2) less free countries, often with totalitarian regimes and a struggling economy.⁶¹ In this region, the human development index has steadily declined in all three areas: healthcare, education, and economy.⁶² With the lowest evangelism rate among the continents, Asian Christianity, especially Pentecostalism, has much work to do.⁶³ Existing research has indicated that Asian Pentecostals have a promising prospect to serve the suffering as Christ’s light to the world.⁶⁴

We would like to suggest a theological topic as a firm conceptual ground for Pentecostal social engagement and propose a conceptual lead for the ongoing debate on the primacy of Pentecostal mission between evangelism and diakonia. First, the theological topic. The life-giving work of God’s Spirit is prominent in the Old Testament, which also includes life-sustaining and life-rejuvenating functions.⁶⁵ Often overshadowed by the charismatic nature of the Spirit, especially in the New Testament, Isaiah 61 best affirms God’s unwavering plan to restore broken lives, e.g., “to proclaim good news to the poor … to proclaim freedom for the captives” (Isa 61:1). This return of God’s Jubilee is proclaimed and executed by the Spirit-empowered servant: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me” (Isa 61:1).⁶⁶ Therefore, it is not surprising that Jesus declared his earthly mission by identifying the Spirit-empowered servant and its task by reciting this passage (Luke 4:16-21). The Apostle Peter’s summary of Jesus’s work reflects this well: “[You know] how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him” (Acts 10:38).

Pentecostals need to explore deeper this life-giving work of the Spirit. For example, the Pentecostal theology of healing seldom involves the life-restoring work of the Spirit. Johannine pneumatology is full of life-strengthening and the sustaining work of the Holy Spirit, such as the paracletos teaching in John 14. The whole Gospel of John is framed in the “sentness” of Christ’s disciples with the Spirit’s presence and help (e.g., John 20:21-22). Pentecostals will build a solid biblical and theological ground for diakonia mission by bringing God’s commitment to restoration (exemplified in the Jubilee ordinance) and the life-flourishing work of the Spirit.

Second, on the primacy of Pentecostal mission, especially between proclamation and social service,⁶⁷ this debate is not new, as the Lausanne Movement has gone through the same debate. When the US Assemblies of God added social service to its Constitution and Bylaws, concerns were expressed as to whether evangelism would be sidestepped. This concern is valid with historical cases where well-meaning compassion ministries moved into “social gospel.” However, testimonies of Pentecostal mission reveal an integral holism between the two but with the ultimate goal of evangelisation. For example, the Bhojpuri Breakthrough teaches us that evangelism, diakonia, and even justice mission (such as crossing the caste divides) take place all at the same time.⁶⁸ It may be the academic circles where dualism is pronounced. Elsewhere, I (Wonsuk) propose the lordship of Christ as the telos of Pentecostal mission, with all the aspects of mission (such as justice mission, diakonia, and evangelism) contributing to the realisation of Christ’s lordship as Saviour. Then, the empowerment of the Spirit serves as the main impetus or energy (the “engine room”) of Pentecostal mission. This empowerment compels believers to evangelism, diakonia, and justice mission.⁶⁹

Conclusion

This chapter identified five critical areas for Asian Pentecostalism to pay close attention to and develop further in order to fulfil its urgent task of evangelisation, of empowering the whole of Christianity in this effort, and of positively engaging with contextual challenges. We selected the five subjects based on our long-time mission work in Asia and research in Asian Pentecostalism.

To ascertain the choices and to map the ground, we asked AI to identify ten priority tasks for Asian Pentecostals, and its response was illustrative: (1) contextualise the gospel, (2) empower Spirit-led leadership, (3) engage urban centres, (4) mobilise the laity, (5) address spiritual worldviews, (6) invest in theological education, (7) foster unity across denominations, (8) prioritise youth and next-gen ministries, (9) champion holistic mission, and (10) keep the Great Commission central.⁷⁰ We conclude that the chosen five topics reasonably address this expanded list. At the same time, the longer list suggests other areas where further research is needed, such as contextualisation, leadership, unity, next generation, etc. We were pleased to see that the AI response included the priority of the Great Commission. When we further probed the role of Pentecostalism, its summary statement was enlightening: “In short, the Great Commission isn’t just a task – it’s the theological and spiritual engine of Asian Pentecostalism. It shapes their identity, fuels their growth, and defines their global mandate.”⁷¹ May we put our hands to the plough for all these theological tasks for Spirit-empowered mission in Asia.

Bibliography

Akindolie, Akinwumi Ambrose. “Social Engagement of Pentecostal Churches: An International Comparative Survey.” The Journal of World Christianity 15, no. 2 (2025): 112-28.

Alpha. Alpha Guide: Is This It? Why Am I Here? Is There More to Life Than This? Alpha International, 2016. https://uploads.weconnect.com/mce/ff33a8f10515011cba0d191ae58f7f9a4dd7a3e1/Guest%20Week-by-Week%20Handbook.pdf.

Assemblies of God USA. “Statement of Fundamental Truths, 07.” Accessed August 6, 2025. https://ag.org/Beliefs/Statement-of-Fundamental-Truths.

Assemblies of God USA. “Statement of Fundamental Truths, 08: The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.” Accessed September 12, 2025. https://ag.org/Beliefs/Statement-of-Fundamental-Truths.

Au, Connie. “Globalization and Asian Pentecostalism in the Twenty-First Century.” Pneuma 42, no. 3-4 (2020): 502-503. https://brill.com/view/journals/pneu/42/3-4/article-p500_9.xml?language=en&srsltid=AfmBOop0lirHU0OX7M9ujFpj17OAdaM70QITvFT1z-G5C_3GCPd0Dund&ebody=full%20html-copy1.

Bulatao, Jaime C. Split-Level Christianity. Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1966.

Chan, Simon. Grassroots Asian Theology: Thinking the Faith from the Ground Up. IVP Academic, 2014.

Dempster, Murray W. “Evangelism, Social Concern, and the Kingdom of God.” In Called and Empowered: Global Mission in Pentecostal Perspective, edited by Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen. Hendrickson, 1991.

Fee, Gordon D. “The Kingdom of God and the Church’s Global Mission.” In Called and Empowered: Global Mission in Pentecostal Perspective, edited by Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen. Hendrickson, 1991.

Fogarty, Stephen G. “02 The Dark Side of Charismatic Leadership.” Australasian Pentecostal Studies 13 (December 2010). https://aps-journal.com/index.php/APS/article/view/104.

Haugen, Heidi Østbø. “African Pentecostal Migrants in China: Marginalization and the Alternative Geography of a Mission Theology.” African Studies Review 56, no. 1 (April 2013): 81-102.

Horton, Stanley M. “Holy Spirit, Doctrine of the.” In Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, edited by Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee. Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.

Ireland, Jerry M. The Missionary Spirit: Evangelism and Social Action in Pentecostal Missiology. Orbis, 2021.

John, Victor, and Dave Cole. Bhojpuri Breakthrough: A Movement That Keeps Multiplying. WIGTake Resources, 2019.

Johnson, Todd M. and Gina A. Zurlo. Introducing Spirit-Empowered Christianity: The Global Pentecostal & Charismatic Movement in the 21st Century. ORU Press, 2023.

Johnson, Todd M., and Gina A. Zurlo. World Christian Encyclopedia, 3rd ed. Edinburgh University Press, 2020.

Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, eds. Voices Loud and Clear. Regnum Books, 2024.

Lee, Younghoon. “Female Cell Leaders as Spirit-Empowered Ground-Level Evangelists: A Case Study of Yoido Full Gospel Church.” In Everyone Reaching EveryONE: Portraits of Spirit-Empowered Evangelists, edited by Wonsuk Ma, Opoku Onyinah, and Jaime L. Riddle. ORU Press, 2026.

Liu, Evan. “Impacts of Pentecostalism on Modern China’s Christianity.” Journal of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity 45, no. 1 (2025): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/27691616.2025.2536642.

Lyons, William L. “Anointing by the Spirit and Ministry to the Poor.” In Good News to the Poor: Spirit-Empowered Responses to Poverty, edited by Wonsuk Ma and Opoku Onyinah. ORU Press, 2022.

Ma, Julie C. When the Spirit Meets the Spirits: Pentecostal Ministry among the Kankana-Ey Tribe in the Philippines. 2nd Rev. ed. Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity. Peter Lang, 2001.

Ma, Julie C., and Wonsuk Ma. Mission in the Spirit: Towards a Pentecostal/Charismatic Missiology. Regnum Studies in Mission. Regnum Books, 2010.

Ma, Wonsuk. “Asian Pentecostalism as a Growth Engine for Global Christianity: Potentials and Challenges.” In The Holy Spirit, Spirituality and Leadership: Essays in Honour of Younghoon Lee, edited by Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies. Regnum Books, 2024.

Ma, Wonsuk. “East Asian Pentecostalism Engaging with the World: A Theological and Practical Inquiry.” A study presented at the East Asia Christianity Conference, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, April 2025.

Ma, Wonsuk. “A ‘First Waver’ Looks at the ‘Third Wave’: A Pentecostal Reflection on Charles Kraft’s Power Encounter Terminology.” Pneuma 19, no. 2 (1997): 189-206.

Ma, Wonsuk. Mission in the Spirit: Formation, Theology, and Praxis. Regnum Books, 2023.

Ma, Wonsuk. “Pentecostal Holistic Mission: Looking Back and Looking Forward.” In Missionary Statesman, Strategist, and Servant: A Festschrift for Tetsunao (Ted) Yamamori, edited by Sadri Joy Tira and Laurie Nichols. Langham Global Library, 2023.

Ma, Wonsuk. “Pentecostal Social Engagement: The Genesis Foundation.” In Pentecost, Pentecostalism, and the Making of World Christianity: Essays in Honor of Allan H. Anderson, edited by Tim Welch. E. J. Brill, forthcoming.

Ma, Wonsuk. “Pentecostal Theological Formation and Education for Tomorrow (Sec 1).” Pentecostal Education 7, no. 2 (Fall 2022): 269-73.

Ma, Wonsuk. Pentecostalism in Asia: Its Theology and Mandates. APTS Press, 2025.

Ma, Wonsuk. “Two Tales of Emerging Ecclesiology in Asia: An Inquiry into Theological Shaping.” In The Church from Every Tribe and Tongue: Ecclesiology in the Majority World, edited by Gene L. Green, Stephen Pardue, and K. K. Yeo. Majority World Theology Series. Vol. 5. Langham Literature, 2018.

Ma, Wonsuk, and Opoku Onyinah, eds. Among Other Religions: Spirit-Empowered Engagement for Authentic Living and Witness. ORU Press, forthcoming.

Macchia, Frank D. Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology. Zondervan, 2006.

Macchia, Frank D. Jesus the Spirit Baptizer: Christology in Light of Pentecost. Eerdmans, 2018.

Maggay, Melba. “Early Protestant Missionary Efforts in the Philippines.” In Asian Church and God’s Mission, edited by Wonsuk Ma and Julie C. Ma. OMF Lit., 2003.

Miller, Donald E. and Tetsunao Yamamori. Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement. University of California Press, 2007.

Miyake, Noriyuki. “Second Chance Theory in Japanese Mission.” Pentecostal Education 10, no. 2 (Fall 2025): 223-37.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation. Augsburg Fortress, 2001.

Oh, Robert, and P. Vachna. “Spirit-Empowered Living and Witnessing in the Buddhist Context of Cambodia.” A study presented at the Scholars Consultation of the Global Network of Spirit-Empowered Scholars, Jakarta, Indonesia, May 2024.

Onyinah, Opoku. “Spiritual Warfare: The Cosmic Conflict Between Good and Evil.” In The Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal Theology, edited by Wolfgang Vondey. Routledge, 2020, 321-31.

Østbø Haugen, Heidi. “African Pentecostal Migrants in China: Marginalization and the Alternative Geography of a Mission Theology.” African Studies Review 56, no. 1 (April 2013): 81-102.

Park, Myung Soo. “Korean Pentecostal Spirituality as Manifested in the Testimonies of Members of Yoido Full Gospel Church.” In David Yonggi Cho: A Close Look at His Theology and Ministry, edited by Wonsuk Ma, William W. Menzies, and Hyeon-sung Bae. APTS Press, 2004.

“Pentecost Has Come.” The Apostolic Faith 1, no. 1 (September 1906): 1. https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5e17afe412fc21ddcb6e961c/5e31ae7419d810ece991c296_Azusa-Paper-Original-01.pdf.

Pew Research Center. “Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals.” October 5, 2016. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2006/10/05/spirit-and-power/.

Rashid, Rebecca Paul. “Spirit-Empowered Women in Ministry in Pakistan: Grade and Hurdles.” Study presented at the Scholars Consultation of the Global Network of Spirit-Empowered Scholars, Jakarta, Indonesia, May 2024.

Satyavrata, Ivan. “The Voice of Truth in the Christian Encounter with World Religions.” In Voices Loud and Clear, edited by Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen. Regnum Books, 2024.

Satyavrata, Ivan. “What’s So Special About Jesus? Responding to the Challenge of Pluralism.” Influence. July 30, 2015. https://influencemagazine.com/theory/whats-so-special-about-jesus-responding-to-the-challenge-of-religious-pluralism.

Sharma, Karuna. “Role of Nepali Christian Women in Fulfilling the Great Commission in Nepali Context.” Study presented at the Scholars Consultation of the Global Network of Spirit-Empowered Scholars, Jakarta, Indonesia, May 2024.

Stronstad, Roger. The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology. Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Tylor, Edward Burnett. Primitive Culture: Research into the Development of Mythology. S. N. Book World, 2025.

United Nations Development Programme. “2024 Regional Human Development Report: Making Our Future: New Directions for Human Development in Asia and the Pacific.” UNDP, November 6, 2023. https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/publications/making-our-future-new-directions-human-development-asia-and-pacific.

Waite, Angelia. Diverse Leadership in The Foursquare Church: What Would Aimee Say? AWM Publishing, 2023.

Warrington, Keith. Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter. T&T Clark, 2008.

Williamson, Asia E., and Joseph W. Handley. “Deep Rivers: A Pentecostal Approach to Disciple-Making.” International Bulletin of Mission Research 48, no. 1 (January 1, 2024): 113-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/23969393231181893.

Wilson, William M. “The Task of Spirit-Empowered Scholarship in Reaching EveryONE for Christ.” In Everyone Reaching EveryONE: Portraits of Spirit-Empowered Evangelists, edited by Wonsuk Ma, Opoku Onyinah, and Jaime L. Riddle. ORU Press, 2026.

Wood, George O., with George Paul Wood. “Compassionate Christ, Compassionate Church.” Enrichment 17, no. 1 (Winter 2012): 26-31. https://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/Issues/2012/Winter-2012/Compassionate-Christ-Compassionate-Church.

Yang, Lucinda. “Nile Mother: The Story of Lillian Trasher.” Mutuality 27, no. 1 (Spring 2020). https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/story-lillian-trasher/.

¹ Note: AIC often covers the terms “African-initiated churches,” “African independent churches,” “African indigenous churches,” and “African-instituted churches.” See Philomena Njeri Mwaura (2005), “African Instituted Churches in East Africa,” Studies in World Christianity 10, no. 2 (2004): 160-84, doi:10.3366/swc.2004.10.2.160.

² Todd M. Johnson and Gina A. Zurlo, Introducing Spirit-Empowered Christianity: The Global Pentecostal & Charismatic Movement in the 21st Century (ORU Press, 2023), 18-32.

³ E.g., William M. Wilson, “The Task of Spirit-Empowered Scholarship in Reaching EveryONE for Christ,” in Everyone Reaching EveryONE: Portraits of Spirit-Empowered Evangelists, ed. Wonsuk Ma et al. (ORU Press, 2026), 7-12.

⁴ Todd M. Johnson and Gina A. Zurlo, World Christian Encyclopedia, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh University Press, 2020), 10. WCE henceforth.

⁵ Johnson and Zurlo, WCE, 10.

⁶ Johnson and Zurlo, WCE, 6.

⁷ Wonsuk Ma, “Asian Pentecostalism as a Growth Engine for Global Christianity: Potentials and Challenges,” in The Holy Spirit, Spirituality and Leadership: Essays in Honour of Younghoon Lee, ed. Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies (Regnum Books, 2024), 260.

⁸ For example, Johnson and Zurlo, Introducing Spirit-Empowered Christianity, esp. 18.

⁹ The number is 2020’s. Johnson and Zurlo, WCE, 32.

¹⁰ For more discussion, see Ma, “Asian Pentecostalism as a Growth Engine,” 257-58.

¹¹ US Assemblies of God defines this experience, for example, as “distinct from and subsequent to … the new birth.” See Assemblies of God USA, “Statement of Fundamental Truths, 07,” accessed August 6, 2025, https://ag.org/Beliefs/Statement-of-Fundamental-Truths.

¹² All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the New International Version.

¹³“Pentecost Has Come,” The Apostolic Faith 1, no. 1 (September 1906), 1, https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5e17afe412fc21ddcb6e961c/5e31ae7419d810ece991c296_Azusa-Paper-Original-01.pdf.

¹⁴ See Frank D. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Zondervan, 2006), 17, taking Spirit baptism as “an organizing principle of a Pentecostal theology.”

¹⁵ Evan Liu, “Impacts of Pentecostalism on Modern China’s Christianity,” Journal of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity 45, no. 1 (2025): 5, https://doi.org/10.1080/27691616.2025.2536642.

¹⁶ See the seminal work by Jaime C. Bulatao, Split-Level Christianity (Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1966).

¹⁷ Alpha, Alpha Guide: Is This It? Why Am I Here? Is There More to Life Than This? (Alpha International, 2016), https://uploads.weconnect.com/mce/ff33a8f10515011cba0d191ae58f7f9a4dd7a3e1/Guest%20Week-by-Week%20Handbook.pdf.

¹⁸ Pew Research Center, “Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals,” October 5, 2016, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2006/10/05/spirit-and-power/.

¹⁹ Asia E. Williamson and Joseph W. Handley, “Deep Rivers: A Pentecostal Approach to Disciple-Making,” International Bulletin of Mission Research 48, no. 1 (January 1, 2024): 114, https://doi.org/10.1177/23969393231181893.

²⁰ Williamson and Handley, “Deep Rivers,” 118-20.

²¹ See the seminal work on the subject: Roger Stronstad, The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology (Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). Also, Wonsuk Ma, “Pentecostal Theological Formation and Education for Tomorrow (Sec 1),” Pentecostal Education 7, no. 2 (Fall 2022): 269-73.

²² Pew Research Center, “Spirit and Power.”

²³ For instance, Myung Soo Park, “Korean Pentecostal Spirituality as Manifested in the Testimonies of Members of Yoido Full Gospel Church,” in David Yonggi Cho: A Close Look at His Theology and Ministry, ed. Wonsuk Ma et al. (APTS Press, 2004), 43-67.

²⁴ Thus, Pentecostals developed pneumatological missiology. Similarly, Pentecostalism contributes to a missional ecclesiology, bringing evangelism to the centre of church life and call. See Wonsuk Ma, “Two Tales of Emerging Ecclesiology in Asia: An Inquiry into Theological Shaping,” in The Church from Every Tribe and Tongue: Ecclesiology in the Majority World, ed. Gene L. Green, Stephen Pardue, and K. K. Yeo, Majority World Theology Series, vol. 5 (Langham Literature, 2018), 53-73.

²⁵ Younghoon Lee, “Female Cell Leaders as Spirit-Empowered Ground-Level Evangelists: A Case Study of Yoido Full Gospel Church,” in Everyone Reaching EveryONE: Portraits of Spirit-Empowered Evangelists, ed. Wonsuk Ma et al. (ORU Press, 2026).

²⁶ This statement was made in a private conversation. Close to the statement is the effective mission work by fast-growing overseas Filipino workers. See Melba Maggay, “Early Protestant Missionary Efforts in the Philippines,” in Asian Church and God’s Mission, ed. Wonsuk Ma and Julie C. Ma (OMF Lit., 2003), 39.

²⁷ Heidi Østbø Haugen, “African Pentecostal Migrants in China: Marginalization and the Alternative Geography of a Mission Theology,” African Studies Review 56, no. 1 (April 2013): 81-102.

²⁸ Liu, “Impacts of Pentecostalism,” 9-10.

²⁹ Liu, “Impacts of Pentecostalism,” 9-10.

³⁰ Wonsuk Ma, “East Asian Pentecostalism Engaging with the World: A Theological and Practical Inquiry” (a study presented at the East Asia Christianity Conference, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, April 2025).

³¹ See Angelia Waite, Diverse Leadership in The Foursquare Church: What Would Aimee Say? (AWM Publishing, 2023).

³² Stanley M. Horton, “Holy Spirit, Doctrine of the,” in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements ed. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 415.

³³ For example, see Assemblies of God USA, “Statement of Fundamental Truths 08: The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” accessed September 12, 2025, https://ag.org/Beliefs/Statement-of-Fundamental-Truths.

³⁴ Wonsuk Ma, Mission in the Spirit: Formation, Theology, and Praxis (Regnum Books International, 2023), 97.

³⁵ Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation (Augsburg Fortress, 2001), 45, quoted in Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 76-77.

³⁶ Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (T&T Clark, 2008), 89.

³⁷ Julie C. Ma and Wonsuk Ma, Mission in the Spirit: Towards a Pentecostal/Charismatic Missiology, Regnum Studies in Mission (Regnum Books, 2010), 59-71.

³⁸ Liu, “Impact of Pentecostalism,” 3-4.

³⁹ Park, “Korean Pentecostal Spiritualty,” 43-67.

⁴⁰ Stephen G. Fogarty, “02 The Dark Side of Charismatic Leadership,” Australasian Pentecostal Studies 13 (December 2010), https://aps-journal.com/index.php/APS/article/view/104.

⁴¹ Frank D. Macchia, Jesus the Spirit Baptizer: Christology in Light of Pentecost (Eerdmans, 2018), 156.

⁴² Robert Oh and P. Vachna, “Spirit-Empowered Living and Witnessing in the Buddhist Context of Cambodia” (a study presented at the Scholars Consultation of the Global Network of Spirit-Empowered Scholars, Jakarta, Indonesia, May 2024).

⁴³ Edward Burnett Tylor, Primitive Culture: Research into the Development of Mythology (S. N. Book World, 2025), 417.

⁴⁴ Johnson and Zurlo, WCE, 738.

⁴⁵ For example, Wonsuk Ma and Opoku Onyinah, eds., Among Other Religions: Spirit-Empowered Engagement for Authentic Living and Witness (ORU Press,forthcoming).

⁴⁶ For a helpful survey, see Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “‘The Wind Blows Where It Wishes—or Does It?’: The Pentecostal Approaches to Religions between Openness and Restrictivism,” in Among Other Religions.

⁴⁷ Ivan Satyavrata, “The Voice of Truth in the Christian Encounter with World Religions,” in Voices Loud and Clear, ed. Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen (Regnum Books, 2024), 59-76. See also Ivan Satyavrata, “What’s So Special About Jesus? Responding to the Challenge of Pluralism,” Influence, July 30, 2015, https://influencemagazine.com/theory/whats-so-special-about-jesus-responding-to-the-challenge-of-religious-pluralism.

⁴⁸ Johnson and Zurlo, WCE, 10.

⁴⁹ For example, see Rebecca Paul Rashid, “Spirit-Empowered Women in Ministry in Pakistan: Grade and Hurdles” and Karuna Sharma, “Role of Nepali Christian Women in Fulfilling the Great Commission in Nepali Context” (studies presented at the Scholars Consultation of the Global Network of Spirit-Empowered Scholars, Jakarta, Indonesia, May 2024).

⁵⁰ See, for example, Julie C. Ma, When the Spirit Meets the Spirits: Pentecostal Ministry among the Kankana-Ey Tribe in the Philippines, 2nd rev. ed., Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity (Peter Lang, 2001), esp. ch. 8, “A Comparative Theological Analysis of Traditional Kankana-ey and Pentecostal Practices.”

⁵¹ Simon Chan, Grassroots Asian Theology: Thinking the Faith from the Ground Up (IVP Academic, 2014).

⁵² Opoku Onyinah, “Spiritual Warfare: The Cosmic Conflict between Good and Evil,” in The Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal Theology, ed. Wolfgang Vondey (Routledge, 2020), 321-31.

⁵³ Noriyuki Miyake, “Second Chance Theory in Japanese Mission,” Pentecostal Education 10, no. 2 (Fall 2025): 223-37.

⁵⁴ Wonsuk Ma, “A ‘First Waver’ Looks at the ‘Third Wave’: A Pentecostal Reflection on Charles Kraft’s Power Encounter Terminology,” Pneuma 19, no. 2 (1997): 189-206.

⁵⁵ Satyavrata, “Voice of Truth,” 66-72.

⁵⁶ For example, see Lucinda Yang, “Nile Mother: The Story of Lillian Trasher,” Mutuality 27, no. 1 (Spring 2020), https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/story-lillian-trasher/.

⁵⁷ Donald E. Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori, Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement (University of California Press, 2007).

⁵⁸ E.g., Gordon D. Fee, “The Kingdom of God and the Church’s Global Mission,” in Called and Empowered: Global Mission in Pentecostal Perspective, ed. Murray W. Dempster et al. (Hendrickson, 1991), 7-21.

⁵⁹ Also see Murray W. Dempster, “Evangelism, Social Concern, and the Kingdom of God,” in Called and Empowered: Global Mission in Pentecostal Perspective, ed. Murray W. Dempster et al. (Hendrickson, 1991), 22-43.

⁶⁰ See George O. Wood with George Paul Wood, “Compassionate Christ, Compassionate Church,” Enrichment 17, no. 1 (Winter 2012): 26-31, https://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/Issues/2012/Winter-2012/Compassionate-Christ-Compassionate-Church. The entire issue of the magazine is devoted to “Compassion.”

⁶¹ Connie Au, “Globalization and Asian Pentecostalism in the Twenty-First Century,” Pneuma 42, no. 3-4 (2020): 502–503, https://brill.com/view/journals/pneu/42/3-4/article-p500_9.xml?language=en&srsltid=AfmBOop0lirHU0OX7M9ujFpj17OAdaM70QITvFT1z-G5C_3GCPd0Dund&ebody=full%20html-copy1.

⁶² United Nations Development Programme, “2024 Regional Human Development Report: Making Our Future: New Directions for Human Development in Asia and the Pacific,” UNDP, November 6, 2023, https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/publications/making-our-future-new-directions-human-development-asia-and-pacific.

⁶³ For more elaborate discussion, see Wonsuk Ma, Pentecostalism in Asia: Its Theology and Mandates (APTS Press, 2025), 179-200, ch. 9 “Serving the world: Mission in the Spirit.”

⁶⁴ Akinwumi Ambrose Akindolie, “Social Engagement of Pentecostal Churches: An International Comparative Survey,” The Journal of World Christianity 15, no. 2 (2025): 112–28 for a helpful survey.

⁶⁵ See, for example, Wonsuk Ma, “Pentecostal Social Engagement: The Genesis Foundation,” in Pentecost, Pentecostalism, and the Making of World Christianity: Essays in Honor of Allan H. Anderson, ed. Tim Welch (E. J. Brill, forthcoming).

⁶⁶ For a helpful study of the passage, see William L. Lyons, “Anointing by the Spirit and Ministry to the Poor,” in Good News to the Poor: Spirit-Empowered Responses to Poverty, ed. Wonsuk Ma and Opoku Onyinah (ORU Press, 2022), 11-26.

⁶⁷ For example, Jerry M. Ireland, The Missionary Spirit: Evangelism and Social Action in Pentecostal Missiology (Orbis, 2021).

⁶⁸ Victor John and Dave Cole, Bhojpuri Breakthrough: A Movement That Keeps Multiplying (WIGTake Resources, 2019).

⁶⁹ Wonsuk Ma, “Pentecostal Holistic Mission: Looking Back and Looking Forward,” in Missionary Statesman, Strategist, and Servant: A Festschrift for Tetsunao (Ted) Yamamori, ed. Sadri Joy Tira and Laurie Nichols (Langham Global Library, 2023), 135-40.

⁷⁰ Microsoft Copilot, response to “What are ten priority tasks for Asian Pentecostals to lead the church to growth while fulfilling God’s mission in the Asian setting?” Microsoft, September 10, 2025.

⁷¹ Microsoft Copilot, response to “Why is prioritizing the Great Commission critical for Asian Pentecostalism to fulfill its role and mandate?” Microsoft, September 10, 2025.

Theological and Missiological Challenges Facing the Spirit-Empowered Church in Asia

Ivan Satyavrata

It is a special privilege for me to respond to the well-researched and insightful presentation of my colleagues and friends, Drs. Julie and Wonsuk Ma. No one who has even a superficial familiarity with Pentecostal scholarship in Asia will fail to recognise the names Julie and Wonsuk Ma. They have for several decades been the “Aquila and Priscilla” of mission theology in Asia and have between them written or edited innumerable books and scholarly articles. I cannot think of anyone more qualified to address the topic “Theological Tasks for Spirit-Empowered Mission in Asia,” in which they seek to identify the pressing theological priorities facing “Spirit-empowered Christianity” (their preferred term) within Asia’s rapidly changing religious and social landscape.

This topic is of burning importance for several reasons, not the least being that there appears to be widespread and growing recognition of the value of the Pentecostal Movement’s contribution to the future of the broader church-in-mission. This is best illustrated by the following by Alex Mayfield:

One of the biggest stories in 20th-century religious history is the rapid rise of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity around the world … almost 1 in 3 Christians around the world can be identified as Pentecostal or Charismatic … [citing Joel Cabrita and David Maxwell, Relocating World Christianity] … the birth of world Christianity is intimately intertwined with the spread of this fervent form of faith. Today, Pentecostal and Charismatic groups have a world fellowship, participate in ecumenical bodies, and show continued growth rates around the world.¹ (emphasis mine)

Thus, for Ma and Ma, identifying and addressing the pressing theological tasks of Spirit-empowered Christianity is essential not just for the growth of the tradition itself but for the future ongoing impact of the Christian Movement.

Ma and Ma begin by noting the extraordinary growth and diversity of global Pentecostalism, highlighting its significant evangelistic impact in Asia despite the continent’s religious plurality and cultural complexity. In Asia, Pentecostalism intersects with deeply rooted religious traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, folk practices) and socio-political challenges (poverty, pluralism, persecution). This context requires theological reflection that is both biblically grounded and culturally sensitive and that results in local adaptations possessing vitality and cultural relevance. This feature of Pentecostalism was the controlling theme of the landmark symposium, anchored by Drs. Murray Dempster, Byron Klaus, and Doug Petersen over twenty-five years ago, published as Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel.²

After defining key terms used and clarifying the rationale for limiting the scope of the study to East and Southeast Asia, Ma and Ma go on to identify five critical theological themes that both undergird Asian Pentecostalism’s exponential growth and indicate its mission task in the Asian context. They discuss each of these in relation to the theme’s Pentecostal distinctiveness and its contextual relevance to Asia, along with a brief constructive critique and practical recommendations.

Spirit Baptism for Empowered Life and Witness

The authors highlight how the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism resonates deeply with Asian religious sensibilities, attuned to supernatural realities amidst widespread animistic beliefs. They call for renewed emphasis on teaching, fostering prayer in tongues, discipleship programmes that incorporate experiential spirituality, and the reenactment of Spirit baptism through public testimony to strengthen this foundation in Asian Pentecostal churches.

Prophethood of All Believers: Theology of Empowerment

This emphasis is a corollary of the Pentecostal experience: access to Spirit baptism of every member of the body of Christ empowers all believers to be evangelists and witnesses, eliminating the traditional clergy–laity divide. This may be observed in many Asian Pentecostal contexts, notably the Korean cell-group system with its lay leadership and the significant role of female pastors and evangelists. Challenges, however, persist due to entrenched hierarchical and gender norms; hence, the need exists for intentional discipleship to translate belief into active mission.

Signs, Wonders, and Healing in Witnessing

Power-encounters are a powerful evangelistic tool. Pentecostal conviction regarding access to spiritual gifts by all the people of God and belief in miracles aligns well with Asian worldview expectations for divine intervention. However, within the hierarchical social order in Asia there are cultural and religious forces that resist such empowered egalitarianism that permits lay people to drift into the domain of the religious specialists. Ma and Ma commend the responsible stewardship of spiritual gifts, while at the same time registering a word of caution: power can be a formidable tool for social transformation, but it can have destructive impact if misused. Nevertheless, equipping and releasing all the people of God to minister in the spiritual gifts must be an important priority for every Spirit-empowered church.

Spirit-Empowered Engagement with Religions

Ma and Ma emphasise the importance and urgency for Pentecostals to engage the religiously diverse cultures of Asia meaningfully and creatively. The Pentecostal rejection of religious pluralism must be complemented by strategies for Spirit-empowered engagement with other faiths that promote peaceful coexistence alongside sensitive and effective witness. They rightly observe that Christians across the globe can benefit much from the experience of their sisters and brothers in Asia in learning to live in harmony with neighbours of other faiths, even while bearing witness to Christ authentically in life, word, and deed.

While the Pentecostal emphasis on healing, prophecy, and deliverance from demonic powers connects deeply with worldviews within tribal and folk religious contexts, there remain potential syncretistic pitfalls to guard against. Furthermore, the persistent hold of ancestor veneration in many East Asian cultures remains an ongoing challenge that needs theological attention and thoughtful, creative missional engagement.

Spirit-Empowered Witness amidst Human Suffering and Poverty

The authors see a solid theological basis for diakonic mission in a biblical pneumatology that emphasises the life-giving and restorative role of the Spirit. They rightly observe that there is today adequate empirical evidence to validate Pentecostal commitment to social transformation and justice alongside verbal witness. The debate might persist in some academic circles, but the mission praxis of Pentecostals clearly demonstrates their commitment to holistic mission and the ability to naturally blend evangelism with compassionate service.

Summary Evaluation

Ma’s and Ma’s chapter presents a compelling invitation and call to Spirit-empowered theologians to help equip Pentecostalism in Asia to engage creatively with the opportunities and challenges facing the Christian witness amidst Asia’s diverse cultures. It succeeds in its objective as an agenda-setting manifesto, largely descriptive, with little in-depth analysis of the urgent theological tasks it identifies. Hence, it does not attempt to wrestle seriously with any of the burning issues confronting the Pentecostal witness that it identifies nor offer specific recommendations for taking forward reflection on issues such as engagement with religious pluralism, the clergy–laity divide, ancestor worship, and power abuse in Pentecostal circles.

The theological contribution of this study must be evaluated in the context of its pointed challenge to Pentecostals to address pressing issues of significant relevance and value to the life of the church and its mission. It highlights the need to balance the Pentecostal emphasis on healing and prosperity with a biblical theology of suffering and endurance that takes seriously the poverty and persecution of Asia. It further calls for a theology of power that balances Pentecostal emphasis on Spirit-empowerment with an honest and rigorous critique of the abuses of authority and other excesses within the Pentecostal Movement in Asia. The chapter implicitly highlights the need for a mission engagement that takes the multicultural, religiously plural context of Asia seriously.

The greatest strength of the chapter Ma and Ma have provided lies in the rich wealth of research and diversity of sources from which the authors draw in their theological and missiological reflection. Its contextual rootedness and its attention to Asia’s lived realities, such as the focus on suffering, interfaith engagement, and spiritual power dynamics resonates strongly with the socio-religious struggles of Asian Christians. Most refreshing is the constructive vision that undergirds the chapter: the authors do not merely criticise weaknesses but indicate areas where Spirit-empowered theology could contribute meaningfully to mission in Asia. They thus effectively raise several pertinent and urgent issues towards a theological and missiological agenda for young, emerging Asian Pentecostal theologians to explore further and take forward for the benefit of the church’s witness in Asia.

Bibliography

Dempster, Murray, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen. Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel. Regnum, 1999.

Mayfield, Alex. “Why Is It So Hard to Do Pentecostal History?” Patheos, September 18, 2025. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2025/09/why-is-it-so-hard-to-do-pentecostal-history/.

¹ Alex Mayfield, “Why Is It So Hard to Do Pentecostal History?” Patheos, September 18, 2025, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2025/09/why-is-it-so-hard-to-do-pentecostal-history/.

² Murray Dempster et al., Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel (Regnum, 1999).

Session 12

Paul Supported the Ministry of Women¹

Craig Keener

Abstract

When Paul writes to former colleagues in Rome, he commends the ministries of more women than men; one of those he commends he even labels a fellow apostle. Paul, who ranks apostles and prophets as the most prominent ministries, allows for women to prophesy. His most common terms for ministry, diakonos (“minister,” “servant”) and sunergos (“fellow worker”), he applies to women as well as men. So why do two passages seem to limit the ministry of women? Although Mediterranean antiquity provided women less access to learning, Paul in both passages invites women to learn. The one passage that grammatically might prohibit women from teaching appears in the one set of letters where we know that false teachers were targeting women with their teaching. In general, then, Paul affirmed women in ministry; he restricted it only where necessary for specific situations.

Key Words: diakonos, Early Church views of female leaders, female apostles and prophets, gender and authority in the New Testament, interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14, interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, Junia, Pauline restrictions and cultural context, Phoebe, Priscilla, synergos, women in ministry

The question of ministry by women is a pressing concern for today’s church. It is paramount, first because we need the gifts of all members God has called to serve the church; now the concern, however, has extended beyond the church itself. Increasingly, secular thinkers today attack Christianity as “against women” and thus as irrelevant to the modern world.

Yet the Assemblies of God and most other denominations birthed in the Holiness and Pentecostal revivals affirmed women’s ministry long before the role of women became a secular or liberal agenda.² Likewise, in the historic missionary expansion of the nineteenth century, two-thirds of all missionaries were women. The nineteenth-century women’s movement that fought for a woman’s right to vote originally grew from the same revival movement led by Charles Finney and others that advocated the abolition of slavery. By contrast, those who identified everything in the Bible’s culture with the Bible’s message were obligated to both accept slavery and reject women’s ministry.³

For Bible-believing Christians, however, mere precedent from church history cannot settle a question; we must establish our case from Scripture. Because the current debate focuses especially on the teaching of Paul, I focus on his writing, after I briefly summarise some other biblical teachings on the subject.

Ministry of Women in the Rest of the Bible

The Ancient West Asian world of which Israel was a part was definitely a “man’s world.” Because God spoke to Israel in a particular culture, however, does not suggest that the culture itself was holy; the culture included polygamy, divorce, slavery, and a variety of other practices we now recognise as less than ideal.

Despite the prominence of men in ancient Israelite society, God still sometimes called women as leaders. When Josiah needed to hear the word of the Lord, he sent to the most prominent prophetic figure of his day, namely Huldah (2 Kgs 22:12-20). Deborah was not only a prophetess but a judge (Judg 4:4) – that is, she held the place of greatest authority in Israel in her day. She is the only prophetic judge in the Book of Judges, and one of the few judges of whom the Bible reports no failures (Judg 4–5).

Although first-century Jewish women rarely if ever studied with teachers of the law the way male disciples did,⁴ Jesus allowed women to join his ranks (Mark 15:40-41; Luke 8:1-3) – something the culture could regard as scandalous.⁵ As if this were not scandalous enough, he allowed a woman who wished to hear his teaching to “sit at his feet” (Luke 10:39) – taking a posture normally reserved for disciples (Acts 22:3). Disciples were potentially teachers in training!⁶ To send women out on the preaching missions (e.g., Mark 6:7-13) might have proved too scandalous to be practical, but the gospels nevertheless unanimously report that God chose women as the first witnesses of the Resurrection, even though first-century Jewish men often dismissed the testimony of women.⁷

Joel explicitly emphasised that, when God poured out his Spirit, women as well as men would prophesy (Joel 2:28-29). Pentecost meant that all God’s people qualified for gifts of God’s Spirit (Acts 2:17-18), just as salvation meant that male or female would have the same relationship with God (Gal 3:28). Outpourings of the Spirit in recent centuries have often led to the same effect.

Ancient Mediterranean Prejudices⁸

Some of Paul’s contemporaries argued that women had less intelligence or were more easily deceived than men.⁹ Juvenal ridicules women who seek advanced education (Sat. 6.434-56). The Greek moralist Plutarch considers himself exceptional for advocating a husband’s care for his wife’s learning; he believes this training would protect her from following nonsense and immorality (Bride 48, Mor. 145C). Yet even Plutarch adds that, if left only to themselves, women produce only unhealthy passions and foolishness.¹⁰ Judeans raised boys but not girls to recite Torah.¹¹

Conservative tradition disapproved of women’s public speech¹² and mistrusted their counsel.¹³ With only a handful of exceptions throughout antiquity, mostly in select philosophic schools, women barely ever taught men.¹⁴

Passages Where Paul Affirms Women’s Ministry

Paul often affirms the ministry of women despite the gender prejudices of his culture. With a few exceptions in some philosophic sects, advanced education was a male domain. Because most people in Mediterranean antiquity were functionally illiterate, those who assumed teaching roles were generally those who could read and speak well and, with rare exceptions, these were men.¹⁵ In the first centuries of our era, most Jewish men, such as Philo, Josephus, and many later rabbis, reflected the prejudice of much of the broader Greco-Roman culture.¹⁶

Women’s roles varied from one region to another, but Paul’s writings clearly rank him among the more women-affirming, not the more restrictive, writers of his day. Many of Paul’s co-labourers in the gospel were women.

Thus, Paul commends the ministry of a woman who brings his letter to the Roman Christians (Rom 16:1-2). Phoebe is a diakonos, or “servant,” of the church at Cenchrea. Diakonos may refer to a “deacon,” a term sometimes designating administrative responsibility in the Early Church (1 Tim 3:8, 12); in his epistles, however, Paul most frequently applies the term to any minister of God’s Word, including himself (e.g., 1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; Eph 3:7; 6:21). He also calls Phoebe a “benefactor” or “helper” of many (16:2); this term technically designates her as the church’s “patron” or sponsor, most likely the owner of the home in which the church at Cenchrea was meeting. This was an honoured position in ancient associations, including synagogues and churches.¹⁷

Nor is Phoebe the only influential woman in the church. Whereas Paul greets about twice as many men as women in Romans 16, he commends the ministries of about twice as many women as men in that list. (Some use the predominance of male ministers in the Bible against women’s ministry, but that argument could work against men’s ministry in this passage!) These commendations may indicate his sensitivity to the opposition women undoubtedly frequently faced for their ministry and are remarkable given the prejudice against ministry by women that existed in Paul’s culture.

If Paul follows ancient custom when he praises Prisca, he may mention her before her husband Aquila because of her higher status (Rom 16:3-4). Elsewhere we learn that she and her husband taught Scripture to another minister (Acts 18:26). Paul also lists two fellow apostles,¹⁸ Andronicus and Junia. Although “Junia” is clearly a feminine name, writers opposed to the possibility that Paul could have referred to a female apostle have sometimes suggested that “Junia” is a contraction for the masculine “Junianus.” Yet Junia is always a woman’s name in ancient inscriptions; this suggestion that Junia is male rests not on the text itself but entirely on the presupposition that a woman could not be an apostle.

Elsewhere, Paul refers to the ministry of two women in Philippi, who, like his many male fellow ministers, shared in his work for the gospel there (Phil 4:2-3). Because women typically achieved more prominent religious roles in Macedonia than in most parts of the Roman world,¹⁹ Paul’s female colleagues in this region may have moved more quickly into prominent offices in the church (cf. also Acts 16:14-15). Is it a coincidence that Paul commends women in ministry especially in two cities in the Roman Empire – Rome and Philippi – where women had more freedoms to speak than in some other locations? What might that mean for us today, in societies where women may be educated and speak in public?

Although Paul ranks prophets second only to apostles (1 Cor 12:28), he acknowledges the ministry of prophetesses (11:5), following the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Exod 15:20; Jud 4:4; 2 Kgs 22:13-14) and early Christian practice (Acts 2:17-18, 21:9). Clearly women do speak God’s message. In Scripture as a whole, prophets are the most common agents of God’s message. Thus, those who complain that Paul does not specifically mention “female pastors” by name miss the point. Paul never mentions any “male pastors” by name, either; he most often simply mentions his travelling companions in ministry, who were naturally men. His two most common titles for such fellow ministers are diakonos (“minister,” “servant”) and sunergos (“fellow worker”) – both of which terms he also applies to women (Rom 16:1, 3; Phil 4:3). Given the culture that Paul addressed, it was natural that fewer women could exercise the social independence necessary to achieve positions of ministry. Where they did so, however, Paul commends them, and includes commendations to women apostles and prophets, the offices of the highest authority in the church!

While passages such as these establish Paul among the more women-affirming writers of his era, the primary controversy today rages around other passages in which Paul seems to oppose the ministry of women. Before turning there, we should examine one passage where nearly everyone today acknowledges that Paul addresses a local cultural situation.

Paul on Head Coverings

Although Paul often advocated the mutuality of gender roles,²⁰ he also worked within the boundaries of his culture where necessary, for the sake of the gospel. We begin with his teaching on head coverings because, although it is not directly related to women’s ministry, it will help us understand how he contextualised universal principles for cultural situations. Most Christians today agree that women do not need to cover their heads in church in all cultures, but many do not recognise that Paul used the same kinds of arguments for women covering their heads as for women refraining from congregational speech. In both cases, Paul uses some general principles but addresses a specific cultural situation.

When Paul urged women in the Corinthian churches to cover their heads (the only place where the Bible teaches about a woman’s “covering”), he follows a custom prominent in the Eastern Mediterranean milieu of his day.²¹ Although women and men alike covered their heads for various reasons,²² married women specifically covered their heads to prevent men other than their husbands from lusting after their hair.²³ A married woman who went out with her head uncovered was considered promiscuous, and could be divorced as an adulteress.²⁴ Because of what head coverings symbolised in that culture, Paul asks the less-restricted women to cover their heads so as not to scandalise the others. Among his arguments for head coverings are the fact that God created Adam first; in the particular culture he addresses, this argument would make sense as an argument for women wearing head coverings.²⁵

Passages Where Paul May Restrict Women’s Ministry

Because Paul in other cases advocated for the ministry of women, we cannot read his restrictions on their ministry as universal prohibitions. Rather, as in the case of head coverings in Corinth above, Paul is addressing a specific cultural situation. This is not to say that Paul here or anywhere else wrote Scripture that was not for all time. It is merely to say that he did not write it for all circumstances, and that we must take into account the circumstances he addressed so we can understand how he would have applied his principles in very different situations.

Let Women Keep Silent (1 Cor 14:34-36)

Two passages in Paul’s writings at first seem to contradict those that affirm the ministry of women. We should keep in mind that these are the only two passages in the Bible that could remotely be construed as contradicting Paul’s endorsement of the ministry of women elsewhere. Beyond ministry, they mandate silence (1 Cor 14:34; 1 Tim 2:11-12). Since almost no churches anywhere today take that literally, if they allow women to sing in church, all churches should welcome exploring what these passages really did mean in their contexts.

First, Paul instructs women to be silent and save their questions about the service for their husbands at home (1 Cor 14:34-36). Yet Paul cannot mean silence under all circumstances, because earlier in the same letter he acknowledged that women could pray and prophesy in church (11:5), and he ranked prophecy even higher than teaching (12:28).

Here, knowing ancient Mediterranean culture helps us understand the passage better. Scholars have proposed various explanations, many of which other scholars have found dissatisfying. Some hold that a later scribe accidentally inserted these lines into Paul’s writings,²⁶ but many consider the textual evidence for this proposal too slender. Others think that churches, like synagogues, were segregated by gender, somehow making women’s talk disruptive. This view falters on two counts: first, scholars debate when gender segregation began in synagogues; second, the Corinthian Christians met in homes, whose architecture would have rendered such segregation impossible. Some also suggest that Paul addresses women abusing the gifts of the Spirit, or a problem with judging prophecies. But while the context addresses these issues, Paul explicitly allows women to pray and prophesy (1 Cor 11:5). Ancient writers commonly used digressions, and the theme of church order is sufficient to unite this digression to its context.

I find another explanation more likely. Paul elsewhere affirms women’s role in prayer and prophecy (1 Cor 11:5), and the only kind of speech he directly addresses in 14:34-36 is wives asking questions.²⁷ In ancient Greek and Jewish lecture settings, advanced students or educated people frequently interrupted public speakers with reasonable questions. Yet the culture had deprived most women of education and considered it rude for uneducated persons to slow down lectures with questions that betrayed their lack of training.²⁸ Raising the question of women’s education in antiquity is not reading into the text. There is a reason why women learning is an issue in both 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-12; meanwhile, learning quietly was considered the appropriate way for all new learners to learn.

So, Paul provides a short-range solution: don’t interrupt with questions; and a long-range solution: husbands should take a personal interest in their wives’ learning and catch them up privately. As noted, most ancient husbands doubted their wives’ intellectual potential, but Paul here supports their learning. By ancient standards, far from repressing these women, Paul was supporting them!²⁹

This text cannot prohibit women announcing the word of the Lord (1 Cor 11:4-5), and nothing in the context here suggests that Paul specifically prohibits women from Bible teaching. The only passage in the entire Bible that one could directly cite against women teaching the Bible is 1 Tim 2:11-15.

In Quietness and Submission (1 Tim 2:11-15)

In this passage, Paul might forbid women to teach and exercise authority (or teach in such a way as to exercise authority) over men. Most supporters of women ministering think that the latter expression means “usurp authority,”³⁰ something Paul would not want men to do any more than women, but the matter is disputed.³¹ Yet even if the passage forbids women to “teach” or “exercise authority,” it is the only passage in the Bible that does so (contrast Deborah as prophet-judge). And if this is Paul’s universal practice, why does not Timothy, who has long ministered with Paul, already know about it?

More importantly, if this were a universal prohibition, it would make Paul look hypocritical – since he endorses the ministries of a number of his female friends elsewhere (Rom 16:1-7; Phil 4:2-3). Thus, he presumably addresses the specific situation in this community; because both Paul and his readers knew their situation and could take it for granted, the situation that elicited Paul’s response is thus assumed in his intended meaning.

Paul’s letters to Timothy in Ephesus provide us a glimpse of the situation: false teachers (1 Tim 1:6-7, 19-20; 6:3-5; 2 Tim 2:17) were misleading the women (1 Tim 5:13;³² 2 Tim 3:6-7) – presumably the most susceptible to false teaching because they had been granted the least education. This behaviour was bound to bring reproach on the church from a hostile society already convinced that Christians subverted the traditional roles of women and slaves.³³ Is it just a coincidence that the one passage in the Bible that might exclude women from teaching the Bible appears in the one set of letters where false teachers were explicitly targeting women? So again, Paul provides a short-range solution: “Do not teach” (under the present circumstances); and a long-range solution: “Let them learn” (1 Tim 2:11).

Today we read “learn in silence” and think the emphasis lies on “silence.” That these women are to learn “quietly and submissively” may reflect their witness within society (these were characteristics normally expected of women). But ancient culture expected all beginning students (unlike advanced students) to learn silently; for that matter, the same word for “silence” here is applied to all Christians in the context (1 Tim 2:2). Paul specifically addresses this matter to women for the same reason he addresses the admonition to stop disputing to the men (v. 8): they are the groups involved in these issues in the Ephesian churches. Again, it appears that Paul’s long-range plan is to enable, not subordinate, the ministry of women. The issue is not gender but learning God’s Word.

What particularly causes some otherwise sympathetic scholars to question this otherwise logical case is Paul’s following argument, where he bases his case on the roles of Adam and Eve (1 Tim 2:13-14). Paul’s argument from the creation order here, however, is one of the very arguments he earlier used to contend that women should wear head coverings (1 Cor 11:7-9). In other words, Paul sometimes cited Scripture to make an ad hoc case for particular circumstances that he would not apply to all circumstances. His argument from Eve’s deception is even more likely to fit this category. If Eve’s deception prohibits all women from teaching, Paul would be claiming that all women, like Eve, are more easily deceived than all men. If, however, the deception does not apply to all women, neither does his prohibition of their teaching. Paul probably uses Eve to illustrate the situation of the unlearned women he addresses in Ephesus; but he elsewhere uses Eve for anyone who is deceived, not just women (2 Cor 11:3).³⁴

Because we do not believe that Paul would have contradicted himself, Paul’s approval of the ministry of women in God’s Word elsewhere confirms that 1 Timothy 2:9-15 does not prohibit women’s ministry in all situations but addresses a particular situation.

Some have protested that women should not hold authority over men because men are the “head” of women. Aside from the many debates about the meaning of the Greek term “head” (for instance, some translate it as “source” instead of “authority over”),³⁵ Paul speaks only of the husband as head of his wife, not of the male gender as head of the female gender. Further, we Pentecostals and charismatics affirm that the minister’s authority is inherent in the minister’s calling and ministry of the Word, not the minister’s person. In this case, gender should be irrelevant as a consideration for ministry – for us as it was for Paul.

Should we allow background to influence our understanding? Nearly everyone takes into account background and local situations when they read biblical texts³⁶ – although they sometimes do so selectively. To take examples just from two letters cited above, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy: do we all set aside money for the Jerusalem church each Sunday (1 Cor 16:2)? Do we all drink wine to solve our stomach problems (1 Tim 5:23), or are antacids allowed? Do our churches always support eligible widows, on the condition that they have washed the saints’ feet (1 Tim 5:10)?

Expanding to 2 Timothy, how many of us have travelled to Troas, excavated there, and looked for Paul’s cloak so we can bring it to him (2 Tim 4:13)? We of course recognise such a reading as absurd. We can learn principles from all texts – in that case, from the trusted mentor–mentee relationship between Paul and Timothy – but we cannot apply the text without taking into account the specific situation that it addresses. Why then do some interpreters press two passages that seem to mandate women’s silence in church against the many other passages that support them speaking for God?

Conclusion

Today we should affirm those whom God calls, whether male or female, and encourage them in faithfully learning God’s Word. We need to affirm all potential labourers, both men and women, for the abundant harvest fields.

Bibliography

Modern Sources

Abrahamsen, Valerie Ann. “The Rock Reliefs and the Cult of Diana at Philippi.” ThD diss., Harvard Divinity School, 1986.

Baer, Richard. Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female. Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 3. Brill, 1970.

Belleville, Linda. “Ἰουνίαν … ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις: A Re-examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of Primary Source Materials.” NTS 51, no. 2 (2005): 231-49.

Belleville, Linda L. “Lexical Fallacies in Rendering αὐθεντεῖν in 1 Timothy 2:12: BDAG in Light of Greek Literary and Nonliterary Usage.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 29, no. 3 (2019): 317-41.

Brooten, Bernadette J. Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues. Scholars, 1982.

Delaney, Carol. “Seeds of Honor, Fields of Shame.” In Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean, edited by David Gilmore. American Anthropological Association, 1987.

Eickelman, Dale F. The Middle East: An Anthropological Approach. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, 1989.

Epp, Eldon Jay. Junia: The First Woman Apostle. Fortress, 2005.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Eerdmans, 1987.

Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. New International Biblical Commentary. Hendrickson, 1988.

Gardner, Jane F. Women in Roman Law and Society. Indiana University Press, 1986.

Giles, Kevin. Created Woman: A Fresh Study of the Biblical Teaching. Acorn, 1985.

Grenz, Stanley J., and Denise Muir Kjesbo. Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry. InterVarsity Press, 1995.

Hardesty, Nancy. Women Called to Witness. Abingdon, 1984.

Keener, Craig S. IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. 2nd ed. InterVarsity Press, 2014.

Keener, Craig S. “Man and Woman.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Keener, Craig S. Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Baker, 1992.

Keener, Craig S. “Was Paul for or against Women’s Ministry?” Enrichment 6, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 82-86.

Keener, Craig S. “Women’s Education and Public Speech in Antiquity.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 4 (2007): 747-59.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, eds. Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Baker Publishing Group, 1995.

Liefeld, Walter L. “The Wandering Preacher as a Social Figure in the Roman Empire.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1967.

Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd. Aphrodite’s Tortoise: The Veiled Woman of Ancient Greece. Classical Press of Wales, 2003.

MacMullen, Ramsay. “Women in Public in the Roman Empire.” Historia 29 (1980): 208-18.

Padgett, Alan. “The Pauline Rationale for Submission: Biblical Feminism and the hina Clauses of Titus 2:1-10.” Evangelical Quarterly 59, no. 1 (1987): 51-63.

Safrai, S. “Education.” In The Jewish People in the First Century, edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern, 2:945-70. Fortress, 1976.

Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993.

Scholer, David. “Women’s Adornment: Some Historical and Hermeneutical Observations on the New Testament Passages.” Daughters of Sarah 6 (1980): 3-6.

Stambaugh, John E., and David L. Balch. The New Testament in Its Social Environment. Westminster, 1986.

Stanton, Graham N. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 1989.

Swidler, Leonard. Women in Judaism. Scarecrow Press, 1976.

Synan, Vinson. The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States. Eerdmans, 1971.

Usry, Glenn, and Craig S. Keener. Black Man’s Religion: Can Christianity Be Afrocentric? InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Verner, David C. The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 71. Scholars Press, 1983.

Winter, Bruce W. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities. Eerdmans, 2003.

Witherington, Ben, III. Women in the Ministry of Jesus. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 51. Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Witherington, Ben, III. Women in the Earliest Churches. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 59. Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Ancient and Classical Sources

Apuleius. The Golden Ass. Translated by W. Adlington. Revised by S. Gaselee. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1915.

Aristotle. Politics. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard; Heinemann, 1932.

Avianus. Fables. Translated by Laura Gibbs. Southern Methodist University Press, 2009.

Babrius and Phaedrus. Translated by Ben Edwin Perry. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1965.

Chariton. Chaereas and Callirhoe. Translated by Warren E. Blake. University of Michigan Press; Humphrey Milford; Oxford University Press, 1939.

Cicero. Works. 28 Vols. Translated by Harry Caplan et al. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1913–.

Epictetus. The Discourses as Reported by Arrian; the Manual; and Fragments. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. 2 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1926-1928.

Heliodorus. Ethiopian Story. Translated by Sir Walter Lamb. Everyman’s Library. E. P. Dutton; J. M. Dent & Sons, 1961.

Iamblichus. On the Pythagorean Way of Life: Text, Translation, and Notes. Edited and translated by John Dillon and Jackson Hershbell. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 29. Graeco-Roman Religion Series 11. Scholars Press, 1991.

Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1926-1965.

Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and R. Marcus. 12 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1929–62.

Philostratus, Flavius, and Eunapius. The Lives of the Sophists. Translated by Wilmer Cave Wright. Loeb Classical Library. G. P. Putnam’s Sons; Heinemann, 1922.

Plutarch. Moralia. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt et al. 17 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. G. P. Putnam’s Sons; Harvard University Press; Heinemann, 1927-2004.

Pseudo-Phocylides. Translated by P. W. van der Horst. OTP 2:565-82.

Publilius Syrus. Sententiae. In Minor Latin Poets. Translated by J. Wight Duff and Arnold M. Duff. Rev. ed. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1935.

Seneca. Moral Essays. 3 Vols. Translated by John W. Basore. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard, 1928–35.

Sophocles. Translated by Hugh Lloyd-Jones. 3 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1994-1996.

Testament of Job. Translated by R. P. Spittler. OTP 1:839-68.

The Testament of Job according to the SV Text. Edited by Robert A. Kraft, with Harold Attridge, Russell Spittler, and Janet Timbie. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 5. Pseudepigrapha Series 4. Scholars Press, 1974.

Valerius Maximus. Memorable Deeds and Sayings, Book 1. Edited and translated by D. Wardle. Clarendon, 1998.

Varro. On the Latin Language. Translated by Roland G. Kent. 2 Vols. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1938.

¹ I modify here my “Was Paul for or against Women’s Ministry?”, originally published in the Assemblies of God’s Enrichment 6, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 82-86.

² See e.g., Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States (Eerdmans, 1971), 188-89.

³ See Stanley Grenz and Denise Muir Kjesbo, Women in the Church (InterVarsity, 1995), 42-62; Nancy Hardesty, Women Called to Witness (Abingdon, 1984); Glenn Usry and Craig Keener, Black Man’s Religion (InterVarsity, 1996), 90-94, 98-109.

⁴ Leonard Swidler, Women in Judaism (Scarecrow, 1976), 97-111; Craig Keener, Paul, Women & Wives (Baker, 1992), 83-84. The one exception apart from Jesus’s disciples is Beruriah (second century), who confronted prejudice from most male rabbis.

⁵ See Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford, 1989), 202; John Stambaugh and David Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment (Westminster, 1986), 104; Walter Liefeld, “The Wandering Preacher as a Social Figure in the Roman Empire” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1967), 240. Critics often maligned movements supported by women (E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus [Penguin, 1993], 109).

⁶ To “sit before” a teacher’s feet was to take the posture of a disciple (m. Ab. 1:4; Ab. R. Nat. 6, 38 A; 11, §28 B; b. Pes. 3b; y. Sanh. 10:1, §8). On women in Jesus’s ministry, see especially Ben Witherington, III, Women in the Ministry of Jesus, SNTSM 51 (Cambridge University, 1984).

⁷7 See Josephus Ant. 4.219; m. Yeb. 15:1, 8-10; 16:7; Ketub. 1:6-9; t. Yeb. 14:10; Sipra VDDeho. pq. 7.45.1.1; cf. Luke 24:11. In Roman law, see similarly Jane Gardner, Women in Roman Law & Society (Indiana University, 1986), 165.

⁸ See, much more fully, Craig S. Keener, “Women’s Education and Public Speech in Antiquity,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 4 (Dec. 2007): 747-59.

⁹ On their cognitive limitations, see e.g., Valerius Maximus 9.1.3; Plutarch Bride 48, Mor. 145CD; T. Job 26:6/26:7-8. For “old wives’ tales” (cf. 1 Tim 4:7), see Cicero De Nat. Deor. 1.20.55; Seneca Ep. Lucil. 94.2; Philostratus Vit. apoll. 5.14; Vit. soph. 1.25.541; Iamblichus Vit. Pyth. 32.227; Jos. Asen. 4:10/14.

¹⁰ Plutarch Bride 48 Mor. 145DE; cf. Publilius Syrus 365, 376.

¹¹ E.g., m. Ab. 5:21 (cf. Jos. Life 9-12; Ant. 20.264-65); S. Safrai, “Education,” in The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern, 2 vols. (Fortress, 1974-76), 955.

¹² Soph. Ajax 293; Valerius Maximus 3.8.6; Plutarch Bride 32, Mor. 142D; Heliodorus Eth. 1.21; Sir 9:9; Ps.-Phoc. 215-16.

¹³ Babrius Fable 16.10; Avianus Fables 15-16; Phaedrus 4.15; Fronto Ep. Graec. 2.3; Josephus Ant. 18.252-55.

¹⁴ See also Bruce W. Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Eerdmans, 2003), 115-16.

¹⁵15Although inscriptions demonstrate that women filled a prominent role in some synagogues (see Bernadette J. Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues [Scholars, 1982]), they also reveal that this practice was the exception rather than the norm.

¹⁶ E.g., Philo Prob. 117; see further Safrai, “Education,” 955; Richard Baer, Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female (AZLGHJ 3; Brill, 1970).

¹⁷ See further Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 237-40.

¹⁸ Because Paul nowhere else appeals to commendations from “the apostles,” most scholars recognise that “notable apostles” remains the most natural way to construe this phrase. See further Eldon Jay Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle (Fortress, 2005); Linda Belleville, “Ἰουνίαν … ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις: A Re-examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of Primary Source Materials,” NTS 51, no. 2 (2005): 231–49.

¹⁹ See, e.g., Valerie Ann Abrahamsen, “The Rock Reliefs and the Cult of Diana at Philippi” (ThD diss., Harvard Divinity School, 1986).

²⁰ See, e.g., comments in Craig Keener, “Man and Woman,” in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne et al. (InterVarsity, 1993), 584-85.

²¹ Among Jewish people, see, e.g., Sus 32; m. B. Qam. 8:6; Sipre Num. 11.2.2; Ab. R. Nat. 3, 17A; 3 Macc 4:6. Elsewhere in the East, cf. e.g., Ramsay MacMullen, “Women in Public in the Roman Empire,” Historia 29 (1980): 209-10; more widely, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, Aphrodite’s Tortoise: The Veiled Woman of Ancient Greece (Classical Press of Wales, 2003).

²² Sometimes men (Plutarch R.Q. 14, Mor. 267A; Chariton Chaer. 3.3.14) and women (Plutarch R.Q. 26, Mor. 270D; Chariton Chaer. 1.11.2; 8.1.7; Ab. R. Nat. 1A) covered their heads for mourning. Similarly, both men (m. Sot. 9:15; Epictetus Disc. 1.11.27) and women (Ab. R. Nat. 9, §25B) covered their heads for shame. Roman women normally covered their heads for worship (e.g., Varro 5.29.130; Plutarch R.Q. 10, Mor. 266C), in contrast to Greek women, who uncovered their heads (SIG 3d ed., 3.999). But in contrast to the custom Paul addresses, none of these specific practices differentiates men from women.

²³ Hair was the primary object of male desire (Apuleius Metam. 2.8-9; Chariton Chaer. 1.13.11; 1.14.1; Ab. R. Nat. 14, §35B; Sipre Num. 11.2.1; y. Sanh. 6:4, §1). This was why many peoples required married women to cover their hair, but allowed unmarried girls to go uncovered (e.g., Charillus 2 in Plutarch Sayings of Spartans, Mor. 232C; Philo Spec. Leg. 3.56).

²⁴ E.g., m. Ket. 7:6; b. Sot. 9a; R. Meir in Num. Rab. 9:12. For a similar custom and reasoning today in traditional Islamic societies, see Carol Delaney, “Seeds of Honor, Fields of Shame,” in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean, ed. David Gilmore (American Anthropological Association, 1987), 42, 67; cf. Dale F. Eickelman, The Middle East: An Anthropological Approach, 2nd ed. (Prentice Hall, 1989), 165.

²⁵ On Paul’s various arguments here, see more fully Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 31-46; or more briefly, in “Man and Woman,” 585-86. For a similar background for 1 Timothy 2:9-10, see David Scholer, “Women’s Adornment: Some Historical and Hermeneutical Observations on the New Testament Passages,” Daughters of Sarah 6 (1980): 3-6; Keener, Women, 103-7.

²⁶ E.g., Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Eerdmans, 1987), 699-705.

²⁷ E.g., Kevin Giles, Created Woman: A Fresh Study of the Biblical Teaching (Acorn, 1985), 56.

²⁸ See e.g., Plutarch On Lectures 4, 11, 13, 18, Mor. 39CD, 43BC, 45D, 48AB; compare t. Sanh. 7:10.

²⁹ For more detailed documentation, see Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 70-100; similarly, Ben Witherington, III, Women in the Earliest Churches, SNTSM 59 (Cambridge University, 1988), 90-104.

³⁰ See further discussion in Linda Belleville, “Lexical Fallacies in Rendering αὐθεντεῖν in 1 Timothy 2:12: BDAG in Light of Greek Literary and Nonliterary Usage,” BBR 29, no. 3 (2019): 317-41.

³¹ For noteworthy arguments in favour of “exercise authority,” see the articles in Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, eds., Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Baker, 1995).

³² The Greek expression for the women’s activities here probably refers to spreading false teaching; see Gordon Fee, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, NIBC (Hendrickson, 1988), 122.

³³ Given Roman society’s perception of Christians as a subversive cult, false teaching that undermined Paul’s strategies for the church’s public witness (see Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 139-56) could not be permitted (cf. 1 Tim 3:2, 7, 10; 5:7, 10, 14; 6:1; Titus 1:6; 2:1-5, 8, 10; cf. Alan Padgett, “The Pauline Rationale for Submission: Biblical Feminism and the hina Clauses of Titus 2:1-10,” EQ 59, no. 1 [1987] 52; David Verner, The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles, SBLDS 71 [Scholars, 1983]).

³⁴1 Tim 2:15 may also qualify the preceding verses; see Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 118-20.

³⁵ With Gordon Fee, I suspect that ancient literature allows both uses of the term, but that Paul uses an image relevant in his day (see further, Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 32-36, 168).

³⁶ This is the reason I worked to supply it in my IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 2nd ed. (InterVarsity, 2014).

Response to Dr. Craig Keener’s “Paul Supported the Ministry of Women”

Daniel Lim

Introduction

Thank you, Dr. Keener, for the opportunity to engage with your excellent chapter. Your scholarly work is an invaluable gift to our generation. As a father of two daughters, I deeply resonate with the release of women into ministry and how the full participation of Spirit-gifted women is essential for the building of the global church and our Christian witness in the world.

In my response, I would like to offer three observations: first, Dr. Keener’s hermeneutical framework. Second, the theological and historical Pentecostal foundations on women in ministry. Lastly, I would like to highlight a few critical challenges faced by Pentecostal churches today.

Contextualising Pauline Advocacy and Prohibition

First, Keener’s chapter pivots on contextualising Paul’s voice. He states that despite Paul’s conservative Jewish background, he followed Jesus’s example and demonstrated an exceptional level of support for women’s public ministry. Paul’s commendation of women in the concluding salutations in Romans 16:1-16 is evident as he names seven women alongside five men as co-labourers, calling them “women who work hard in the Lord” (v. 12).¹ These women bore significant leadership titles such as deacon, apostle, and prophet. In particular, Junia’s identification as a female apostle (v. 7) further solidifies the case for women holding foundational apostolic authority in early Christianity.² John Chrysostom, an Early Church father, writes, “To be an apostle is something great … They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.”³ Keener prioritises these clear commendations of women over the debated restriction passages. This insight underscores his hermeneutical methodology – to interpret the ambiguous texts through the lens of the unambiguous.

Second, the two isolated restriction passages, 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15, are critically re-examined as pragmatic, short-term solutions addressing specific, cultural issues, and not universal bans on female speech or authority. The long-term solution in both contexts is not subordination but empowerment through education: “Let the woman learn in silence” (1 Tim 2:11, KJV). This reframes Paul’s instruction from a gender-based subordination to an act of nurturing informed participation. The “silence” described a posture of humility and readiness to learn, applicable to all believers, male and female, before God calls them to speak or lead.

Our Pentecostal Foundations

The Pentecostal concept of women in ministry is rooted in the theological implications of Pentecost – restoration and new creation.⁴ The Spirit’s outpouring in Acts 2:17-18 is explicitly egalitarian and inclusive: “I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy … Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.” Social theologian Doug Petersen characterises Pentecost as “a theological justification for diffusion of leadership, a division of labour”⁵ where the Spirit dismantles restrictive social and gender inequality. The equality of male and female in Christ (Gal 3:28) affirms that sexual differentiation is no barrier to full participation in ministry. Women at Pentecost are liberated and their contributions affirmed as needful and valued alongside men.⁶

Retracing Azusa Street

Historical early Pentecostalism attests to this egalitarian stance. Arising often from marginalised communities, the movement did not initially discriminate genders in ministry. Anyone “anointed by the Spirit” was free to preach, teach, prophesy, or pray for the sick.⁷ The Azusa Street revival (1906-1909) serves as a powerful testament to a radical “embracive koinonia” where racial and gender lines were demolished not only at the pew level but at the pulpit; the racially diverse leadership team at Azusa Street Mission, which included seven women elders and five men, serves as historical proof of a practical, lived egalitarianism.⁸ With the accomplishment of the USA women’s suffrage movement in 1920, women have served in almost every type of ministry position available. This Pentecostal legacy continued with women serving as missionaries, pastors, evangelists, and teachers.⁹

Our Asian Pentecostal Roots

Early Pentecostalism in Asia also featured dynamic female leaders such as Pandita Ramabai, who led the Mukti Revivals in India (1905).¹⁰ Dora Yu, a revivalist preacher in China, would also become the only Chinese woman invited to speak at the Keswick Convention in 1927.¹¹ Kong Mui Yee, a converted Hong Kong film actress, sparked a significant revival in 1963 that resulted in the birth of numerous independent Pentecostal churches.¹² Evangelist-turned-pastor, Naomi Dowdy, whose thirty-year tenure as the founding pastor of Trinity Christian Center, one of Singapore’s largest Assemblies of God churches, demonstrates the practical acceptance of women as the spiritual authority in the highest pastoral role.¹³ These examples remind us that the Spirit who once called women to rise within the restrictive Asian culture is still speaking. However, is the church still listening? Various ecclesial and cultural factors have left women subordinated under their husbands in their homes and under the leadership and authority of males in the churches.¹⁴ I propose that the challenges facing Pentecostal women in ministry today are largely internal rather than external.

Alignment with Non-Pentecostal Traditions

As Pentecostal churches institutionalise, there is increasing alignment with North American evangelicalism, driven by the adoption of a more literalist, Bible-centred piety. This has resulted in the loss of our distinct Pentecostal witness. A key consequence is the gradual alignment with evangelical complementarianism, leading to a perceptible “eroding and silencing of women’s voices.”¹⁵ This alignment often adopts the flawed premise that women are permanently “deceived” (derived from Eve’s frailty mentioned in 1 Tim 2:14). This undermines Christ’s atonement and the Spirit’s outpouring in women as incomplete and relegates women to only certain ministry roles.¹⁶ As Amos Yong contends, “Full salvation includes the redemption of women and of the fallen social structures that have conspired to prohibit women’s full realization of the image and calling of God in their lives.”¹⁷ Thus, our refusal to welcome women’s full participation makes us complicit in this conspiracy.

Ambivalence in the Ordination of Women

The institutionalisation of Pentecostalism has also been accompanied by a decline in the number of women in ministry and their subsequent marginalisation from positions of authority. With the rise of liberal hermeneutics carrying feminist undertones, conservative Pentecostals are drawn to adopt an evangelical, restrictive ministry model where women can be active as long as they do not have authority over men (1 Tim 2:12).¹⁸ This understanding has led to pervasive “glass ceilings” for women ministers.¹⁹ Gender gaps still exist in some contemporary Pentecostal churches that constitutionally limit women’s roles, permitting titles like “missionary” or “mother” but forbidding the title of “pastor” and demanding women to operate under the spiritual “covering” of a man should she “temporarily” pastor.²⁰ This inconsistency causes Pentecostal women to struggle to reconcile their call to ministry with the prevailing expectations of their times, their churches, and even their spouses.

Contextual Challenges of Traditions

Contextual challenges of traditions in Asia are compounded by Confucian-influenced patriarchal and hierarchical traditions. The idea of men as “sky” and women as “earth” forces women to subordinate societal and ecclesial roles, often restricting their identity to “wife” and “mother.”²¹ Asian Pentecostals must recognise that many restrictive church traditions passed down are often conflated with our unredeemed culture and human prejudices. Therefore, the need for a revision of our church traditions is not a concession to culture but a reflection of biblical truth.²²

Pauline Advocacy for Asian Women in Ministry

The issue of women in ministry is not simply a matter of ethics or politics, whether secular or ecclesial; it is essentially theological.²³ Keener states, “The minister’s authority is inherent in the minister’s calling and ministry of the Word, not the minister’s person. In this case, gender should be irrelevant as a consideration for ministry – for us as it was for Paul.”²⁴ How then, can we imitate Paul within the boundaries of Asian culture to advocate for women in ministry? I would like to offer two reflections:

First, we must safeguard our Pentecostal witness by constantly articulating the theological and pneumatological basis for women in ministry. The Pentecost event serves as a divine, “prophetic destabilizing voice” that transcends all traditional and cultural hierarchies.²⁵ Pentecost provides the theological authority to challenge our traditions and to promote women in ministry as a Kingdom ideal – not as a cultural preference.

Second, we need to critically examine and dismantle structural and cultural biases within our church governance that limit women’s access to authority. Like Paul, we can create advocacy and practical pathways for women’s ordination and placement at all levels. This involves the intentional use of positional authority in the church to open doors for the nurturing of female ministers and to allow their full release in their ministry giftings, letting their ministry fruit become the evidence of their divine calling.

Conclusion

The whole biblical narrative reveals women’s crucial role in salvation history. The criterion for spiritual leadership is based not on gender, but on character, lifestyle, and the recognition of God’s calling and gifting for the flourishing of the church. Pentecostal ecclesiology requires us to have a renewed desire to listen to what the Spirit is saying to the church today. Have we considered this question: why is the church comfortable with women leaders in the world, but hesitant to see them as leaders within its own walls? Perhaps it is time for both women and men, especially men, to listen, to “learn in silence,” and to restore women in ministry. Let the church embody that which was affirmed on the Day of Pentecost – to see female empowerment not as a loss of authority but as a participation in God’s justice and his ecclesial vision. May the “Marys” who sit at the feet of Jesus walk boldly in full pursuit of their calling as the Holy Spirit beckons them until the Lord returns.

Bibliography

Chow, Alexander. “The Remarkable Story of China’s ‘Bible Women.’” Christianity Today. March 16, 2018. https://www.christianitytoday.com/2018/03/christian-china-bible-women/.

Chrysostom, John. Homily 31 on Romans. In The Complete Works of the Church Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff. Public Domain, 2016. Kindle.

Clifton, Shane. “Empowering Pentecostal Women.” Australasian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 12, no. 2 (2009): 171-79. https://aptspress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/09-2-Shane-Clifton.pdf.

Dabney, E. J. What It Means to Pray Through. Church of God in Christ Publishing Board, 1987.

de Alminana, Margaret English, and Lois E. Olena, eds. Women in Pentecostal and Charismatic Ministry: Informing a Dialogue on Gender, Church, and Ministry. Vol. 21 of Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies. Brill, 2017.

Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9–16. Word Biblical Commentary 38B. Word, 1988.

Gabaitse, R. M. “Pentecostal Hermeneutics and the Marginalisation of Women.” Scriptura: Journal for Biblical, Theological and Contextual Hermeneutics 114 (2015): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.7833/114-0-1043.

Keener, Craig S. “Women in Ministry: An Egalitarian View.” In Two Views on Women in Ministry, edited by Linda L. Belleville and Craig L. Blomberg. Zondervan, 2001.

Lampe, Peter, and Marshall D. Johnson. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. Continuum, 2003.

Ma, Julie. “Women’s Leadership in Asia and Their Influence on Global Christianity.” In Voices Loud & Clear, edited by Kong Hee, Bryon D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen. Regnum Books International, 2024.

Nel, Marius. “Pentecostal Hermeneutical Considerations about Women in Ministry.” Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae 43, no. 1 (2017): 122-37. https://unisapressjournals.co.za/index.php/SHE/article/view/2126/1514.

Petersen, Doug. Not by Might nor by Power: A Pentecostal Theology of Social Concern in Latin America. Regnum, 1996.

Tan, Daniel. “Singapore.” In The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, edited by Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Maas. Zondervan, 2002.

Tan-Chow, MayLing. Pentecostal Theology for the Twenty-First Century: Engaging with Multi-Faith Singapore. Ashgate, 2007.

Wingfield, Mark. “Saddleback and Fern Creek Churches Face off against Al Mohler at SBC Meeting.” Baptist News Global. June 14, 2023. https://baptistnews.com/article/saddleback-and-fern-creek-churches-face-off-against-al-mohler-at-sbc-meeting/.

Yong, Amos. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology. Baker Academic, 2005.

¹ All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the New International Version. Peter Lampe and Marshall D. Johnson, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (Continuum, 2003), 169.

² See James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Word Bible Commentary 38B (Word, 1988), 895, where Dunn states that Junia is regarded as “one of the foundation apostles of Christianity [who] was a woman and wife.”

³ John Chrysostom, Homily 31 on Romans, Rom XVI ver. 7. in The Complete Works of the Church Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff (Public Domain, 2016), loc. 402133, Kindle.

⁴ Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Baker Academic, 2005), 95.

⁵ Doug Petersen, Not by Might nor by Power: A Pentecostal Theology of Social Concern in Latin America (Regnum, 1996), 130.

⁶ MayLing Tan-Chow, Pentecostal Theology for the Twenty-First Century: Engaging with Multi-Faith Singapore (Ashgate, 2007), 136.

⁷ Marius Nel, “Pentecostal Hermeneutical Considerations about Women in Ministry,” Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae 43, no. 1 (2017): 122-37, https://unisapressjournals.co.za/index.php/SHE/article/view/2126/1514.

⁸ Tan-Chow, Pentecostal Theology for the Twenty-First Century, 45-48. When asked about the results of the outpouring, William Seymour was quoted as saying, “The priority of love, i.e., embracive koinonia, is the definitive evidence … that the love of God was to be demonstrated in unity across boundaries of colour and gender.”

⁹ Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 191-93.

¹⁰ Shane Clifton, “Empowering Pentecostal Women,” Australasian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 12, no.2 (2009): 171-79, https://aptspress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/09-2-Shane-Clifton.pdf.

¹¹ Alexander Chow, “The Remarkable Story of China’s ‘Bible Women’”, Christianity Today, March 16, 2018, https://www.christianitytoday.com/2018/03/christian-china-bible-women/.

¹² Daniel Tan, “Singapore,” in The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Maas (Zondervan, 2002), 224-25.

¹³ Margaret English de Alminana and Lois E. Olena, eds. Women in Pentecostal and Charismatic Ministry: Informing a Dialogue on Gender, Church, and Ministry, vol. 21 of Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies (Brill, 2017), 389-90.

¹⁴ Yong, Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 191.

¹⁵ Yong, Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 32.

¹⁶ Yong, Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 192.

¹⁷ Yong, Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 95.

¹⁸ Yong, Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 193.

¹⁹ Mark Wingfield, “Saddleback and Fern Creek Churches Face off against Al Mohler at SBC Meeting,” Baptist News Global, June 14, 2023, https://baptistnews.com/article/saddleback-and-fern-creek-churches-face-off-against-al-mohler-at-sbc-meeting/. In upholding the decision to disavow Saddleback Church after they had ordained women pastors in top positions, Mohler said that “the clause affirms that women can work as assistant pastors, but, ‘there is no doubt that in the New Testament, particularly in the writings of Paul,’ that men and women’s roles are ‘not identical but complementary.’ … ‘For nearly 2,000 years, Christian churches unanimously understood the preaching office as restricted to men,’ he said.”

²⁰ E. J. Dabney, What It Means to Pray Through (Church of God in Christ Publishing Board, 1987), 45.

²¹ Julie Ma, “Women’s Leadership in Asia and Their Influence on Global Christianity,” in Voices Loud & Clear, ed. Kong Hee et al. (Regnum Books International, 2024), 228.

²² Craig S. Keener, “Women in Ministry: An Egalitarian View,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry, ed. Linda L. Belleville and Craig L. Blomberg (Zondervan, 2001), 130-93.

²³ Tan-Chow, Pentecostal Theology for the Twenty-First Century, 138.

²⁴ Craig S. Keener, “Paul Supported the Ministry of Women,” in Asian Voices Amplified, ed. Kong Hee et al. (Regnum, 2026), 289.

²⁵ R. M. Gabaitse, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics and the Marginalisation of Women,” Scriptura: Journal for Biblical, Theological and Contextual Hermeneutics 114 (2015): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.7833/114-0-1043.

Session 13

Simultaneous Glossolalia: A Theological Survey

Kong Hee

Abstract

A distinctive hallmark of Pentecostal spirituality is speaking in tongues. Believers praying or singing in tongues together – or simultaneous glossolalia, as this chapter terms it – belongs at the heart of Pentecostal piety and mission. This chapter identifies and critically evaluates five common objections to simultaneous glossolalia, through a careful examination of church historical context, scriptural evidence, and the writings of Early Church theologians as well as present-day scholars. It also draws on the experiences and insights of pastors from contemporary Asian churches to demonstrate how congregational tongues have fostered unity, courage, church growth, and resilience under pressure. Ultimately, the chapter calls for Pentecostal churches to recover wise and ordered simultaneous glossolalia as a biblical, historic, and missional practice.

Key Words: contemporary churches; glossolalia; Pentecost; simultaneous; singing; speaking; spirituality; theological objections; tongues

Glossolalia,¹ or speaking in tongues, has long been recognised as a distinctive hallmark of Pentecostal spirituality. From the earliest days of the Azusa Street Revival, the practice of simultaneous praying in tongues has not only been frequent but has also constituted a defining feature of the movement’s worship life. In such moments of Spirit-empowered, united prayer, Pentecostals experience deep renewal, divine encounter, and missionary zeal. What first ignited this global movement should continue to sustain it: the dynamic outpouring of the Holy Spirit expressed in a congregation lifting their voices together in tongues.²

In recent decades, however, this practice has been increasingly devalued in many Pentecostal contexts. The embourgeoisement (social elevation) of Pentecostals – most visibly in the rise of urban megachurches – has led some leaders to downplay or even omit simultaneous glossolalia in public worship. This tendency is often driven by a desire to appear more respectable to the unchurched, to present a polished liturgy that appeals to middle-class sensibilities, or to avoid controversies with cessationist or fundamentalist critics. As a result, one of the earliest and most powerful marks of Pentecostal identity has become muted – sometimes to the point of invisibility – within the very churches that claim Pentecostal heritage.

This chapter seeks to recover the importance of simultaneous glossolalia – not as a cultural oddity or relic of early Pentecostalism, but as a Spirit-given means of uniting the church in prayer, strengthening communal life, and fuelling ongoing mission. By examining its biblical foundations, historical roots, and contemporary relevance, I argue that the very practice that birthed the Pentecostal Movement must also be the means by which it is continually renewed and propelled into the future.

Objections to Simultaneous Glossolalia

In discussions concerning simultaneous glossolalia, Pentecostals frequently face five recurring objections:

1.The Cessationist Objection: Tongues, along with other charismata, are believed to have ceased with the apostolic age or with the completion of the New Testament canon and are therefore considered no longer valid for the contemporary church.

2.The “Xenolalia Only” Objection: All authentic tongues are claimed to be unlearned human languages given for missionary proclamation. Modern tongues, being unintelligible, are thus viewed as inauthentic and unsuitable for public worship.

3.The Pastoral or Seeker-Sensitive Objection: Public glossolalia is said to confuse or alienate unbelievers and should therefore be restrained or excluded from corporate worship settings.

4.The Pauline-Regulation Objection: Drawing from 1 Corinthians 12–14, critics argue that tongues in a corporate gathering should occur sequentially and with interpretation, not as simultaneous or overlapping prayers that may appear disorderly or even chaotic.

5.The “Least Gift” Objection: Even if tongues are accepted as still operative, they are often regarded as optional, of minimal importance, and peripheral to the believer’s spiritual life and the mission of the church.

(1) The Cessationist Objection

Cessationism and the Debate over Tongues

Cessationism holds that the charismata listed in 1 Corinthians 12 – including glossolalia – ceased with the apostolic age and are therefore neither valid nor normative for the believer or the church. “Old Princeton” theologian B. B. Warfield, in The Cessation of the Charismata, explicitly stated that “kinds of tongues, the interpretation of tongues … belonged therefore exclusively to the apostolic age … They were withdrawn when they had served their purpose.”³ Other cessationists contend that tongues ended with the completion of the New Testament canon in the fourth century, citing 1 Corinthians 13:8, 10 (“as for tongues, they will cease … when the perfect comes”)⁴ and interpreting “the perfect” as the closing of the canon.⁵

Pentecostals reply, first, that “the perfect” refers not to Scripture but to the eschatological glory of Christ’s return, for Paul continues: “Now we see in a mirror dimly but then face to face” (1 Cor 13:12). Only then will the charismata pass away. Second, there is abundant historical evidence of glossolalia continuing well beyond both the apostolic age and the fourth century, demonstrating that tongues were not confined to the Early Church.⁶

Glossolalia throughout Church History

If Mark 16:17 indeed belongs to the “long ending” of Mark, which many scholars regard as a later addition from the second century – this suggests that even in the post-apostolic church there remained an expectation of glossolalia.⁷ Church historian Philip Schaff affirms: “The speaking with tongues … perpetuated itself in the apostolic church. We find traces of it still in the second and third centuries.”⁸

In the second century, Irenaeus of Lyons described believers in his day as manifesting charismatic gifts, including speaking in tongues.⁹ Montanus also led a prophetic movement marked by glossolalic utterances, which was confirmed by historian Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History.¹⁰

In the third century, in his challenge to the heretic Marcion, Tertullian revealed that the interpretation of tongues was still active in his church, and that these manifestations were genuine evidence of the Spirit’s presence.¹¹

In the fourth century, Hilary of Poitiers affirmed Paul’s teaching that “the gifts of the Holy Spirit are many and diverse … to another kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.”¹² This serves as another witness to the continued grace of glossolalia in the post-apostolic church.

In the sixth century, the scholar and monk Cassiodorus wrote a massive commentary on the Psalms, in which he refers many times to the grace of “jubilation.” He writes, “Jubilation … with great delight leaps with joy into the voice. What the speech of a confused voice cannot explain, the devout bursting forth of the rejoicing believer declares.”¹³ Catholic author Eddie Ensley believes Cassiodorus was describing an experience that closely resembles glossolalia.

In the seventh century, Isidore of Seville explained jubilation as a breathtaking experience of joy in God: “Language cannot explain … words cannot explain … it is an effusion of the soul … When the joy of exultation erupts by means of the voice, this is known as jubilation.”¹⁴ To Ensley, this too represented a Spirit-inspired utterance or song beyond human language.

In the twelfth century, Hildegard of Bingen wrote to Pope Anastasius IV describing a divine encounter in which she received “an unknown tongue” and “a language … from above.”¹⁵ This experience bears striking resemblance to glossolalia. The “unknown tongue” she later recorded in her Lingua Ignota has led many scholars to associate Hildegard with the phenomenon of speaking in tongues.¹⁶

In the sixteenth century, Teresa of Avila wrote of “a strange and mysterious kind of prayer,” sometimes accompanied by jubilation or an inward movement that the soul cannot fully express. In The Interior Castle, she observed: “This may sound nonsense (‘gibberish’) but it really happens. So excessive is its jubilee that the soul will not enjoy it alone but speaks of it to all around so that they may help it to praise God, which is its one desire.”¹⁷ Catholic theologian Peter Kreef believes that Teresa was describing an experience akin to speaking in tongues.¹⁸

Louis Bertrand, a contemporary of Teresa, was a Spanish Dominican friar who evangelised widely in Nueva Granada (modern Colombia), particularly in the regions of Cartagena, Turbaco, and parts of the West Indies. The Bull of Canonisation (1671) recorded that he had been “miraculously endowed with the gift of tongues,” enabling him to communicate the gospel to the native peoples without learning their languages.¹⁹

In the seventeenth century, the Quakers often experienced intense emotional states in worship – quaking, trembling, shaking, crying – with spontaneous vocal expressions. Edward Burrough describes early Quaker meetings: “While waiting upon the Lord in silence … we received often the pouring down of the Spirit upon us, and our hearts were made glad and our tongues loosened, and our mouths opened, and we spake with new tongues, as the Lord gave us utterance.”²⁰

In the early eighteenth century, the Camisards of southern France were noted for prophetic and often ecstatic experiences. A key source, Le Théâtre sacré des Cévennes, explicitly records an episode described as the “first example … of the gift of tongues in the Cévennes.”²¹

In the nineteenth century, the London congregation of Scottish Presbyterian Edward Irving experienced “outbursts of tongues and prophecy” that frequently interrupted worship services at Regent Square Church.²²

Around the same period, the Holiness Movement, a major precursor to Pentecostalism, was often marked by revival and camp meetings filled with intense emotional and spiritual expressions such as crying, shouting, laughter, and jubilation. At the 1896 Shearer Schoolhouse Revival in Camp Creek, North Carolina, “about 130 persons received the Holy Spirit with tongues, and many healings took place.”²³ Some view this as one of the first large-scale outpourings of the Spirit in America.²⁴

At Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas, Charles Parham asked his students to study the biblical sign of Spirit baptism.²⁵ To his surprise, they all concluded that the sign was glossolalia. On New Year’s Day 1901, when Parham laid hands on one student, Agnes Ozman, the Holy Spirit fell on her and she spoke in tongues. Historian Klaude Kendrick notes, “Although Agnes Ozman was not the first person in modern times to speak in ‘tongues,’ she was the first known person to have received such an experience as a result of specifically seeking a baptism in the Spirit with the expectation of speaking in tongues … For this reason the experience of Agnes Ozman is designated as the beginning of the Modern Pentecostal Revival.”²⁶

From 1906 to 1909, the Pentecostal outpouring at the Azusa Street Mission in Los Angeles, under the leadership of William J. Seymour, marked a turning point in modern church history. Eyewitnesses described multitudes speaking in tongues, prophesying, falling under the power of the Spirit, and engaging in interracial worship – an unprecedented phenomenon for the era. The Los Angeles Times (April 18, 1906) published the first outside report under the headline, “Weird Babel of Tongues,” describing a “tumble-down shack on Azusa Street” filled with “men and women, white and black” praying, swaying, and “howling” for hours, claiming “the gift of tongues” and producing “a babel” of strange speech.²⁷ By contrast, the first issue of The Apostolic Faith (September 1906) offered a different picture: “The power of God now has this city agitated as never before. Pentecost has surely come and with it the Bible evidences are following, many being converted and sanctified and speaking with the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues as they did on the day of Pentecost.”²⁸ Together, these contrasting accounts captured the moment glossolalia at Azusa Street became both a public spectacle and the defining mark of modern Pentecostalism.

By the mid-twentieth century, glossolalia began to appear outside classical Pentecostal churches through the Charismatic Renewal in mainline denominations – Episcopal, Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist, and others – bringing tongues into millions of non-Pentecostal congregations.²⁹ The Catholic Charismatic Renewal alone claims tens of millions of adherents worldwide who practise or accept glossolalia.³⁰

(2) The “Xenolalia Only” Objection

This view treats tongues strictly as xenolalia – foreign speech given for missionary proclamation. Reformed pastor John MacArthur writes that “nowhere does the Bible teach that the gift of tongues is anything other than ‘human languages!’”³¹ Cessationist Tom Pennington similarly argues that glossolalia is “speaking in a known language or a known dialect. Compare that with today’s tongues which are ecstatic speech. It’s not the same thing.”³² Another cessationist paper defines tongues as “the supernatural ability to speak in other languages … [In Acts 2,] tongues communicated the gospel in a foreign language.”³³

Glossolalia Is Not Missionary Speech

Yet Acts resists such a narrow reading. In Caesarea, the only audience for tongues was Peter and his Jewish companions (Acts 10:45-46); in Ephesus, Paul stood alone (19:6-7). In both cases, foreign languages were unnecessary and served no evangelistic purpose. When Peter later equated the Gentiles’ tongues with “what happened at the beginning” (11:15), the common element was not missionary speech but praise to God. This is confirmed by Paul’s statement: “Anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God” (1 Cor 14:2). At Pentecost, the crowd testified, “We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues” (Acts 2:11). Before Peter ever preached (vv. 14-41), the disciples were already extolling God.

I personally experienced something similar in 1987, during my first mission to Laoag, Philippines. In an early-morning prayer meeting, as we prayed simultaneously in tongues, two locals told me they had heard me praying fluently in Ilocano, praising God for sending His glory on the city. Surprised, they asked whether I had grown up in the Philippines. I replied that it was my first time in their country. This encounter mirrored Pentecost, where known languages were heard – yet the focus was worship rather than preaching.

As Old Testament scholar Hermann Gunkel notes, this is “pneumatic in character … not the usual praise any Christian may give at any time but an ecstatic praise connected with glossolalia.”³⁴ The Expositor’s Greek Testament calls it “jubilant ecstatic praise.”³⁵ The mockers’ accusation of drunkenness (Acts 2:13) ironically reveals the exuberance of Spirit-filled worship. Paul draws the same contrast in Ephesians 5:18-20: “Do not get drunk on wine … be filled with the Spirit,” resulting in psalms, hymns, and Spirit-inspired songs.

Luke shows the same pattern in Caesarea: “speaking in tongues and praising God” (Acts 10:46). These are likely one and the same – an example of hendiadys, where two words express one idea. Luke’s wording varies (“declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues” in Acts 2:11; “speaking in tongues and praising God” in Acts 10:46), yet the same Greek root megal- underlies both expressions, denoting magnification. In Jerusalem and Caesarea alike, they magnified God’s mighty deeds. Charismatic theologian J. Rodman Williams aptly calls this “transcendent praise.”³⁶

Transcendent Speech with Intelligible Content

Acts consistently presents glossolalia as Spirit-given utterance. “They began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them” (Acts 2:4): the believers spoke, but the Spirit supplied the utterance, making it qualitatively different from normal language. Critics such as Kirsopp Lake reduce glossolalia to emotional outbursts or psychological release;³⁷ yet before the mockers’ accusation of drunkenness, Luke notes that “each one heard their own language being spoken” (v. 6). The tongues of Pentecost carried intelligible content, not incoherent babble, even when expressed as the language of “mysteries” known only to God (1 Cor 14:2).

Transcendent speech is not irrational noise but a suprarational utterance – beyond ordinary human language, yet fully intelligible to God.³⁸ The term “other tongues” itself indicates a new kind of speech, qualitatively different from normal languages: the Spirit’s self-expression through human voices. Jesus promised that believers would “speak in new tongues” (Mark 16:17); the Greek kainos (“new”) points to a kind of speech never spoken before – a Spirit-given utterance of an entirely new order.³⁹ Paul calls this “different kinds of tongues” (1 Cor 12:10), a genus of speech that may include “the tongues of men or of angels” (13:1). New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn considers glossolalia “as speaking the language(s) of heaven.”⁴⁰

A parallel may be found in 2 Corinthians 12:4, where Paul describes hearing “inexpressible words” in paradise – heavenly language beyond ordinary human articulation. While it is possible that one might speak in a known foreign language, Paul notes that under ordinary circumstances, “no one understands them” (14:2). Far from incoherent gibberish, glossolalia is suprarational – fully intelligible to God and, when supernaturally interpreted, revealing divine truth to others. Because the Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of truth,”⁴¹ such speech is filled with truth that transcends ordinary expression.

(3) The Pastoral/Seeker-Sensitive Objection

Since Azusa Street, Pentecostalism has been one of the fastest-growing movements in modern Christianity, with an estimated 664 million Pentecostal and charismatic believers worldwide, a number projected to exceed one billion by 2050.⁴² New Testament scholar Robert Menzies argues that Spirit baptism with tongues – private, corporate, and simultaneous – has been a defining feature of the movement from its inception; without this linkage, it is doubtful that Pentecostalism would have emerged or endured.⁴³ Yet within Pentecostal circles, a pastoral or seeker-sensitive objection – shaped by evangelical assumptions about orderly worship – is frequently raised: simultaneous glossolalia confuses visitors and should therefore be avoided in public services.

Not “Fundamentalist-Plus” Or “Evangelical-Plus”

Amidst such rapid growth and ongoing debates over practices, questions naturally arise regarding how Pentecostalism should be understood and classified within the wider Christian tradition. Since its emergence at the turn of the twentieth century, Pentecostalism has often been treated as a subset of the Protestant movement. Pentecostals have sometimes described themselves as “fundamentalist-plus” or “evangelical-plus,” suggesting that their movement is essentially a version of these traditions – plus fire, dedication, Spirit baptism, tongues, healing, and missionary success.

Swiss scholar Walter Hollenweger argues that such categorisations fail to account for Pentecostalism’s distinctive origins, impulses, and trajectory.⁴⁴ Theologian Russell P. Spittler similarly notes that while fundamentalism arose as an intellectual reaction to modernist theology, Pentecostalism emerged as a spiritual response to ecclesial lifelessness. Fundamentalists pursued doctrinal recovery; Pentecostals sought spiritual renewal. Fundamentalists mounted arguments; Pentecostals offered Spirit-empowered experience – tongues, prophecy, healing, and passionate worship.⁴⁵

This divergence soon created distance. By 1928, fundamentalist organisations had officially condemned Pentecostals as sectarian outsiders, dismissing their practices as fanaticism.⁴⁶ By the mid-twentieth century, many Pentecostals increasingly aligned themselves with the evangelical movement – a “milder form of fundamentalism.”⁴⁷ From 1947 to the late 1970s, numerous Pentecostal denominations in the United States joined Billy Graham’s National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) and similar bodies.⁴⁸ By the 1980s, Pentecostal colleges sought accreditation, adopted evangelical doctrinal statements, and toned down charismatic practices to fit evangelical norms.⁴⁹

While such alliances brought respectability and influence, they also came at a cost. The evangelicalisation of Pentecostals led to a dilution of early distinctives, including pacifist convictions, the egalitarian participation of women, openness to ecumenical dialogue,⁵⁰ and the reduction of charismatic expressions in public worship, particularly simultaneous glossolalia. To call Pentecostalism “fundamentalist-plus” or “evangelical-plus” is to seriously misread its DNA.

Though it may share certain convictions with both, it is reducible to neither. Alliances may shift, but Pentecostalism’s enduring vocation is to keep alive the fire of Pentecost as a Spirit-birthed movement in its own right.

Tongues as a Sign for Unbelievers

In recent decades, the embourgeoisement of Pentecostalism has given rise to urban megachurches. This sociological shift has reshaped worship culture and public presentation, often driven by a desire to appeal to middle-class sensibilities and avoid controversy with cessationist or fundamentalist critics. Leaders increasingly emphasise polished liturgy, professional production, and cultural respectability, often at the expense of simultaneous glossolalia.

Some argue that tongues should be restrained or omitted because they confuse seekers. Yet Acts 2 demonstrates the opposite: the sound of simultaneous glossolalia drew the crowd together (v. 6). Catholic scholar George Montague observes that it was tongues at Pentecost that “got their attention.”⁵¹ Though some mocked, many more believed – and about three thousand were saved (v. 41). Paul likewise writes, “Tongues … are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers” (1 Cor 14:22). When met with unbelief, they (tongues) harden; when received in faith, they reveal God’s presence and power (cf. 1 Cor 2:14).⁵²

This has also been the experience of City Harvest Church (CHC) in Singapore. In every public worship service, one of the core spiritual practices is a five- to ten-minute period of simultaneous glossolalia. Far from deterring visitors, the sound of congregational praying and singing in tongues has neither hindered members from inviting friends nor prevented seekers from being drawn to the services. According to CHC’s internal records, between 2015 and 2024 – including the COVID-19 years – the church recorded an average of 5,197 people each year receiving Christ as Saviour.⁵³ Clearly, simultaneous glossolalia is not a barrier to evangelistic growth. In fact, anecdotal evidence suggests that when congregational tongues are wisely interwoven into prayer and song, they heighten seekers’ awareness of God’s presence, contributing to consistently strong altar call responses.

Heavenly Anthem – Singing in the Spirit

In Ephesians 5:18-19, Paul exhorts believers to “be filled with the Spirit” and to “sing psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit,” echoing “I will sing with the spirit” in 1 Corinthians 14:15 – a clear reference to glossolalic singing.⁵⁴ Just like psalms and hymns are to be sung corporately, Paul makes the communal dimension explicit: “speak to one another with … songs from the Spirit” (Eph 5:19) and “admonish one another with … songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts” (Col 3:16). These commands presuppose a corporate setting.

Emerging scholar Randal Ackland notes that early Pentecostals prized this “heavenly anthem” – simultaneously singing in tongues – as an essential element of their spirituality because it (a) was widely accepted by outsiders, (b) created hunger for the gift, and (c) often became a person’s first glossolalic experience.⁵⁵ Such moments frequently made a profound impact on unbelievers, stirring them to seek the reality behind what they had heard.⁵⁶ True worship longs to transcend ordinary language, and the Spirit answers with a new heavenly language – an impulse scholars see echoed in jubilation, Gregorian chant, and Eastern liturgical prayer.⁵⁷

At Azusa Street, the heavenly anthem was “one of the most indisputable evidences of the presence of God,”⁵⁸ as worshippers proleptically joined “the four living creatures, the twenty-four elders and innumerable people in singing a ‘new song.’”⁵⁹ Earthly speech is too limited to convey divine worship fully; until the age to come gives us language adequate to express our love and joy, God bridges the gap by granting Spirit-inspired utterance. In this way, he opens within us a channel of prayer and worship that more fully glorifies him.⁶⁰

Dunn rightly observes that the person “who experiences glossolalia … experiences it as effective communication with God.”⁶¹ Tongues, then, are not marginal but a gift of intimate communion – Spirit-given speech in which the believer speaks mysteries to God and receives a foretaste of heavenly worship.

Pentecostal theologian Frank Macchia observes that tongues in worship “tap the soul,” transforming merely cerebral services into powerful encounters with God,⁶² while Hollenweger describes congregational tongues as a “cathedral of sounds” proclaiming, “God is here.”⁶³ In all its strangeness, simultaneous glossolalia remains a Spirit-given sign – speech not manufactured by human effort but produced by divine visitation and power – still opening hearts and revealing God’s presence today.

(4) The Pauline-Regulation Objection

Critics often appeal to Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 14 to question the validity of simultaneous glossolalia. Paul writes: “So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?” (v. 23). This verse is frequently cited to argue that overlapping tongues hinder evangelism or disrupt worship. Some Pentecostals agree and suspend such expressions in order to prioritise intelligibility. Yet Paul also explicitly encourages “singing with the spirit” in worship gatherings (Eph 5:18-19; Col 3:16). If congregational singing in tongues is commended, then simultaneous praying in tongues should likewise not be excluded.

Corporate Glossolalia: Sequential or Simultaneous?

Paul writes: “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two – or at the most three – should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God” (1 Cor 14:27-28). Critics interpret this as a prohibition of simultaneous glossolalia, viewing it as disorderly.

Yet several passages depict believers speaking in tongues together. At Pentecost, “all of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues” (Acts 2:4) – many people speaking at once, heard by a large crowd gathered in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost (Shavout). In Caesarea, “they heard them speaking in tongues” (10:46): Cornelius and his household all spoke, as at Pentecost. In Ephesus, when Paul laid hands on the disciples, “the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied” (19:6) – about twelve men in all. Each scene portrays a collective, simultaneous experience rather than a sequential one.

Many Evangelicals find simultaneous praying disorderly,⁶⁴ yet it is not an anomaly in Scripture. When Peter and John were arrested and released, the believers gathered to pray: “When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God” (Acts 4:24), and the meeting place was shaken by the Holy Spirit. While Luke does not specify every detail of their prayer, the language suggests a corporate outpouring – everyone lifting their voices at once. Menzies believes these were likely glossolalic prayers.⁶⁵

Moreover, Paul permits the private use of tongues during worship (“speak to himself and to God,” 1 Cor 14:28). Taken together, these passages indicate that Paul distinguishes between devotional tongues (prayer and praise directed to God, which may occur simultaneously) and ministry tongues (a glossolalic message addressed to the congregation, which should occur one at a time and be interpreted). It was the confusion between these two forms that created tension in Corinth and prompted Paul’s careful regulation in 1 Corinthians 12–14.

The Corinthians appeared to have been offering public utterances in tongues intended for the assembly but without interpretation. Paul describes this as unedifying “speech into the air” (1 Cor 14:9). The problem, therefore, was not simultaneous prayer but uninterpreted public messages. Thus, he insists that if a tongue is meant for the congregation, it must be interpreted, and only two or three should speak in turn (vv. 27-28).

Devotional and Ministry Glossolalia

Luke’s account in Acts presents tongues as a sign of Spirit baptism for believers (“for they heard them speaking in tongues” (Acts 10:46), whereas Paul’s Corinthian discussion focuses on tongues as a gift exercised within corporate worship. The difference lies in function, not essence.

Devotional tongues are available for all believers – Paul affirms, “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues” (1 Cor 14:5).⁶⁶ Ministry tongues, by contrast, are a charisma given for the edification of the congregation. This is the glossolalia of chapter 12, where Paul lists it as a specific gift – “to another speaking in different kinds of tongues” (v. 10) – and concludes with a rhetorical question, “Do all speak in tongues?” (v. 30). The implied answer is no. The distinction is clear: while ministry tongues are distributed selectively, devotional glossolalia is for all.

Thus, while it is correct to say, “I do not speak in tongues because that is not my gift,” referring to public ministry tongues, it is incorrect to conclude, “Therefore God does not want me to speak in tongues at all.” Not everyone is gifted to lead worship, yet all are called to sing. Not everyone is called to lead public prayer, yet all are called to pray. Similarly, while ministry tongues are given only to some, devotional glossolalia is offered to all believers. To reject this is to miss both the overflow of being filled with the Spirit and the continuing prayer and praise he desires to release.

The believer who speaks in tongues publicly is already one who prays in tongues privately, though the reverse is not always true. Many who pray or sing in tongues regularly may never experience the gift of tongues for ministry. This ministry gift depends wholly on the Spirit, who “distributes to each one, just as he determines” (1 Cor 12:11). All tongues – whether devotional or ministry – are given by grace, never earned or achieved. Ministry glossolalia, like every charisma, may be earnestly desired (v. 31). Such desire does not compel the Spirit, but it prepares the heart for his sovereign action.

Praying and singing in tongues may rightly occur within corporate worship, but for the congregation to be edified through understanding, ministry tongues must be accompanied by interpretation (1 Cor 14:13-16). Without interpretation, praying in the Spirit remains a genuine act of devotional prayer within the gathered community, strengthening the individual rather than instructing the body. In such cases, Paul directs the glossolalist to “speak to himself and to God” (14:28) – a personal devotion expressed within the corporate assembly. Yet even this shared devotional practice nurtures profound spiritual unity as the congregation together lifts their hearts to God.

Far from being chaotic, simultaneous glossolalia is deeply biblical – an enacted sign of communal worship and unity-in-diversity under the Spirit. Macchia insightfully notes that Pentecost does not erase Babel’s diversity but heals its confusion. Augustine observed, “Through proud men, divided were the tongues; through humble apostles, united were the tongues.”⁶⁷ Thus, congregational tongues rehearse the church’s eschatological future: many peoples gathered around Christ, praising God’s mighty works as one.

(5) The “Least Gift” Objection

A common objection to simultaneous glossolalia is that tongues are the “least” of the gifts, since Paul lists it last in several catalogues of the charismata (1 Cor 12:8-10, 28; 13:8-10). Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce, for example, speaks of “nine forms of ‘spiritual manifestation’” as “probably in descending order of value,”⁶⁸ placing tongues and interpretation of tongues at the bottom. On this reading, a practice based on the “least” gift should not dominate public worship. Yet the assumption of “least because it’s last” does not necessarily follow. In 1 Corinthians 13:13, Paul lists “faith, hope, love,” then concludes, “but the greatest of these is love.” Love is last – but certainly not least.

A Peculiar Sign of God’s New Supernatural Work

Williams suggests that tongues and interpretation may appear last because they were the final charismata to appear. The other seven gifts have Old Testament precedents; these two do not. In a climactic way, they embody the Spirit’s self-expression – human voices speaking as the Spirit gives utterance and interpretation.⁶⁹ From the outset, glossolalia carried a sign-character: when the disciples spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost, it marked an unprecedented act of divine self-disclosure – God inaugurating a new supernatural age.

Glossolalia is often dismissed as strange or undesirable – written off as emotional excess, explained psychologically as disorder, or treated as taboo.⁷⁰ The American linguist William Samarin claimed that “anybody can produce glossolalia if he is uninhibited and discovers what the ‘trick’ is – essentially, the free flow of nonsense syllables.”⁷¹ Williams responds emphatically: “Anyone who has truly spoken in tongues knows that there is no possible comparison of it with human gibberish.”⁷² Dominican priest Simon Tugwell likewise insists, “You cannot engineer tongues.”⁷³ This does not deny that counterfeit expressions may occur, but such cases are exceptional, not normative.

For the glossolalist, the perspective is radically different. The experience may feel peculiar – speaking a language never learned – yet it remains a profound sign of God’s activity. Glossolalia is evidence of a miracle: speech not manufactured by human effort but inspired by the Spirit. In all its strangeness, it testifies to divine visitation and the Spirit’s abiding power. Tongues remain, and continue to be, a special sign.

Tongues Were Important to Paul

More than two decades after Pentecost, Paul still viewed glossolalia as a cherished spiritual practice: “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you” (1 Cor 14:18).⁷⁴ His repeated references in 1 Corinthians 14 demonstrate that the phenomenon was widespread in Corinth. Indeed, he assumes the possibility that “the whole church” might speak in tongues (v. 23). For those who did not, Paul expressed his desire that they might: “I want you all to speak in tongues” (v. 5). His purpose was never to prohibit glossolalia but to regulate it for edification. His final instruction is clear: “Do not forbid speaking in tongues” (v. 39).

Tongues as Transcendent Prayer

Paul links glossolalia directly with prayer: “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful” (1 Cor 14:14). Tongues are Spirit-given utterances that transcend conceptual thought. Paul neither dismisses glossolalia as “unfruitful” nor excludes understanding; he affirms both dimensions: “I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding” (v. 15). When a believer prays or sings in tongues, the vocal organs act, yet the words themselves are supplied by the Spirit. The Spirit does not compel or override the speaker; the will remains free while the utterance originates deeper than intellect or emotion – at the level of the human spirit inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Glossolalists brings multiple benefits to the believer’s devotional and communal life:

a. Praying Without Ceasing

The first benefit is the ability to “pray in the Spirit on all occasions” (Eph 6:18). Unlike prayer of the mind, which requires deliberate thought, praying in the Spirit can flow continuously – even amidst daily activities. It is the practical means of fulfilling Paul’s exhortation to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess 5:17).

b. Praying the Will of God

The second benefit arises when “we do not know what we ought to pray for … the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans” (Rom 8:26). These groans are Spirit-given utterances beyond human language. Gunkel calls them “glossolalic-ecstatic outbursts,”⁷⁵ and New Testament scholar J. Behm saw in them the Spirit coming “to aid the believer in his weakness and represent him before God … by glossolalia.”⁷⁶ Paul continues, “And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God” (v. 27). Glossolalic prayer thus moves the believer beyond the limits of mental petition into the Spirit’s own intercession, perfectly aligned with God’s will.

c. Praying in Revelatory Mysteries

Third, in tongues, believers “utter mysteries by the Spirit” (1 Cor 14:2). Glossolalia is Spirit-empowered communion that transcends ordinary knowledge and expression. Dunn describes the glossolalist as “holding a secret conversation with God … the subject matter is the eschatological secrets known only in heaven.”⁷⁷ Paul roots this in the Spirit’s depths: “The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God” (1 Cor 2:10). To speak in tongues is to participate in this divine communion. Such mysteries may also concern present realities, for “we have … the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us” (v. 12). Praying in the Spirit does not replace prayer of the mind but deepens it; one may begin in glossolalia and, as the Spirit grants interpretation, move to intelligible speech with greater insight and confidence: “I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding” (1 Cor 14:15).

d. Praying in Spiritual Warfare

Fourth, glossolalia empowers believers for spiritual battle: “Pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests” (Eph 6:18). Pentecostal theologian Mark J. Cartledge highlights tongues “as a key tool in the armory … a means of personal and corporate prayer and empowerment, enabling committed and self-sacrificial service to the community for the sake of the gospel.”⁷⁸ Anecdotal evidence from many Asian Pentecostal contexts likewise suggests that glossolalia frequently functions as a prayer language of deliverance in spiritual warfare.

e. Praying that Unites and Comforts in Suffering

Fifth, glossolalia offers the grace of shared lament and mutual strengthening. Praying in tongues together allows believers not only to celebrate resurrection life but also to carry one another’s suffering and burdens through Spirit-inspired intercession. Macchia writes:

There are also gifts like speaking in tongues and intercessory prayer that allow members to groan together in ways too deep for words for the liberty of the Spirit to come (Rom. 8:26), groaning that helps them to bear the suffering of others so as to comfort them with the hope at the horizon of our shared faith. We suffer with those who suffer and rejoice with those who rejoice (1 Cor. 12:26).⁷⁹

In this way, simultaneous glossolalia becomes not only a sign of joy and unity but also a channel of shared lament, compassion, and hope.

f. Praying that Edifies the Soul

Finally, glossolalia edifies the believer personally. Paul declares, “Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves” (1 Cor 14:4). Through this Spirit-given language – whether in worship, intercession, or warfare – the believer is built up inwardly. Jude links the same dynamic: “Building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit” (Jude 20). Because the human spirit is the deepest aspect of the self, its strengthening affects the whole person. New Testament scholar Gordon D. Fee notes, “Contrary to the opinion of many, spiritual edification can take place in ways other than through the cortex of the brain.”⁸⁰

Modern neuroscience lends support to Paul’s claim. A University of Pennsylvania study scanned believers as they prayed in tongues.⁸¹ During glossolalia, the brain’s frontal lobes – regions linked to language production and control – grew quiet, while areas connected to relational awareness became more active. Neuroscientist Andrew B. Newberg explains that this reflects “relinquishing control while gaining a very intense experience of how the self relates to God.”⁸² Participants reported feeling peaceful, energised, and spiritually refreshed – not entranced or dissociated. These findings suggest that glossolalia engages the person at a level deeper than conscious thought, providing a plausible neurological basis for the inner strengthening Paul describes. In this sense, glossolalia fulfils Isaiah’s promise of “rest” (Isa 28:11-12) and Paul’s reference to it in 1 Corinthians 14:21 bringing the believer into the Spirit’s refreshing rest.

This is not to exaggerate the role of glossolalia; countless believers have grown spiritually without ever speaking in tongues. Yet praying and singing in tongues remain unique expressions of supreme praise, joy, and intercession through which believers experience profound spiritual upbuilding. To pray in the Spirit, as Jude exhorts, is to “build yourselves up in your most holy faith” (Jude 20). Surely all believers need such edification.

A Hallmark of Asian Pentecostal Spirituality

From Seoul to Surabaya, Coimbatore to China’s underground churches, believers gather to lift their voices together in the Spirit. This practice has produced extraordinary growth, boldness, and resilience. The following examples illustrate how simultaneous glossolalia shapes worship, fuels evangelism, and sustains Pentecostal churches under both prosperity and persecution.

Yoido Full Gospel Church

The most influential Pentecostal church in Asia is David Yonggi Cho’s Yoido Full Gospel Church (YFGC) in Seoul. One hallmark of its worship is the practice of tongsung kido (“crying out together loudly”), where individuals lift their petitions and emotions to God simultaneously – without self-consciousnessness or fear of disturbing others. This distinctive form of prayer has been part of the Korean prayer movement since the early 1900s.⁸³

At YFGC, tongsung kido begins with the invocation of God’s name three times – Chu-yoi! Chu-yoi! Chu-yoi! (“Lord! Lord! Lord!”) – after which thousands of congregants pray simultaneously in tongues.⁸⁴ Current senior pastor, Younghoon Lee, notes that most members, many from impoverished backgrounds, pour out their pain and hardship before God. The Chu-yoi sam chang (“Lord, three times”) expresses the sigh of a life marked by suffering.⁸⁵ Korean theologian Tae-Young So observes that such passionate, simultaneous glossolalic prayer “originated from the saints in the Korean church who had no place to hope but God in their lives of absolute despair.”⁸⁶

The results of these prayers have been extraordinary. Under Cho’s ministry, YFGC reached 100,000 members by 1981; 400,000 by 1984; 700,000 by 1992; and 750,000 by 2008.⁸⁷ Under Lee, simultaneous praying in tongues has continued unabated, and the church’s expansion has not stopped: by early 2025, membership has already surpassed 900,000.⁸⁸ Lee echoes his mentor (Cho) in affirming that prayer – specifically, simultaneous glossolalic prayer – is the key to revival.⁸⁹

Bethany Church Nginden and Gereja Bethel Indonesia (GBI) Gatot Subroto

In Indonesia, Pentecostals stand at the forefront of revival in evangelism and missions. Bethany Church Nginden in Surabaya is one of Asia’s most influential mission-sending churches, with a 30,000-seat main campus and over 200,000 members.⁹⁰ Its founder, Abraham Alex Tanuseputra, championed simultaneous glossolalia as vital to evangelism and growth, urging the congregation to pray and sing fervently in the Spirit.⁹¹

In 1988, Tanuseputra released Niko Njotorahardjo to Jakarta, where Gereja Bethel Indonesia (GBI) Gatot Subroto was birthed. Under Njotorahardjo’s leadership, more than 1,200 churches and 8,200 cell groups have been established.⁹² With 350,000 members, GBI Gatot Subroto is one of Indonesia’s largest churches. From its earliest services, members have been encouraged to pray and sing in tongues simultaneously. Pastor Njotorahardjo explains:

When people speak in tongues together, each one is directly communicating with God. They experience His presence and glorify Him. Some receive miracles, healing, deliverance, peace, guidance, and breakthroughs. Most importantly, their lives are transformed so that they become witnesses, and the Lord adds souls. This will continue until the greatest and final harvest before the Lord Jesus comes again.⁹³

Indian Pentecostal Assemblies

India ranks eleventh on the Open Doors World Watch List (2025) for Christian persecution,⁹⁴ yet David and Ketzy Prakasm’s Indian Pentecostal Assemblies (IPA) in Coimbatore has grown into a dynamic church-planting movement of over 131,000 members. Nearly all its 3,000 congregations devote time each week for simultaneous glossolalia. Pastor David explains:

Every time everyone prays together in tongues, a holy boldness comes upon us and the anointing for evangelism is released. The supernatural power of the Holy Spirit is activated, transforming ordinary believers to do extraordinary things for God. This outpouring results in remarkable church growth and a great harvest in missions, just like the Early Church in Acts 2.⁹⁵

The Chinese House Church (Jiating Jiaohui)

China ranks fifteenth on the Open Doors World Watch List (2025). As unregistered congregations are shut down and state-approved churches restricted,⁹⁶ Christianity – especially Pentecostalism – continues to grow. Prominent house-church leader Brother Shi recalls how, in 1988, a meeting that was to close with the Lord’s Prayer erupted into prolonged singing and praying in tongues. Believers trembled, wept, repented, and received boldness to preach. From a congregation of about one hundred, his house church multiplied to twenty-six churches with thousands of new believers within eighteen months. Shi testifies:

When we all pray in tongues together, we experience God face to face. Tongues brings courage, intimacy, and revelation. It gave us strength to carry the cross and follow Jesus and suffer for the sake of the gospel. Many of us became very bold and answered the call to become full-time preachers, to share the good news of salvation throughout China. We may not be seminary-trained, but when we prayed in tongues together, the Holy Spirit often granted us understanding into difficult passages of Scripture during our Bible study sessions. After all these years, we have remained grounded in the sound doctrine of the Word through the faithful guidance of the Spirit.⁹⁷

Among China’s five major house-church networks, practically all embrace Spirit baptism and simultaneous glossolalia. In the Fangcheng network, a pivotal moment also came in 1988, when missionary Dennis Balcombe taught on the grace of tongues.⁹⁸ Over the next two decades, the movement grew explosively.

Sister Lydia, an eyewitness of the Fangcheng revival, recounted how leaders often gathered in chai qian meetings for worship, simultaneous glossolalia, prophecy, and healing.⁹⁹ By 2007, the movement had reached ten million members despite intense persecution.¹⁰⁰ One lasting legacy was the Canaan Hymns,¹⁰¹ composed by Sister Xiaomin (often with Lydia) – over one thousand songs, many of them spontaneously inspired during congregational glossolalia. Lydia recalls, “Tongues bring deep peace. Tears flow freely as His presence descends. Our lives were changed.”¹⁰² The Fangcheng revival demonstrates how Spirit baptism and simultaneous glossolalia fuelled one of China’s greatest Christian awakenings, imparting power, boldness, peace, joy, and revelation to a persecuted church.

Conclusion

Qualitative case studies and interviews across several Asian contexts indicate that simultaneous glossolalia consistently nurtures spirituality, empowerment, unity, and boldness among Pentecostal congregations. Congregational tongues are not a marginal curiosity but a defining sign of Pentecostal experience – one that connects believers to the life and vitality of the apostolic church. Why, then, abandon a practice that has served the movement so well? Rather than diminish it, Pentecostals should recover and deepen it.

For those who have not yet experienced glossolalia, Menzies offers a balanced encouragement:

Tongues serves as an important symbol for Pentecostals. While it is possible to experience Pentecostal power without speaking in tongues, it is not the full biblical experience. Earnest Christians who have not spoken in tongues must not allow their inability to discourage them in their spiritual growth or mission. Tongues is neither a sign of Christian maturity nor is a lack of tongues a sign of immaturity. Stay hungry for God and rejoice with others when they speak in tongues. Allow their utterances to serve as reminders of our common bond with the apostolic church.¹⁰³

It is time for Pentecostals to reclaim what has been muted. The embourgeoisement of Pentecostalism may have produced middle-class respectability, but at the cost of one of the movement’s earliest and most powerful marks. Scripture, history, and the vibrant witness of Asian Pentecostalism all attest to the enduring value and power of congregational tongues.

If Pentecostal churches are to remain faithful to their apostolic roots, they must not sideline but wisely embrace simultaneous glossolalia. Far from repelling seekers, when it is taught and modelled with spiritual sensitivity, this distinctive refreshes both believers and newcomers with an authentic encounter of God’s love and presence. In recovering it, Pentecostals reaffirm their identity and prepare the church for the greatest harvest yet to come.

Bibliography

Ackland, Randal. “Toward a Pentecostal Theology of Glossolalia.” PhD diss., Bangor University, 2020.

Archer, Melissa L. “I Was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day”: A Pentecostal Engagement with Worship in the Apocalypse. CPT Press, 2015.

Au, Selena Y. Z., and Dik Allan. “Self-Narration and Theological Formation of Contemporary Chinese House Church Networks.” In Asia Pacific Pentecostalism, edited by Denise A. Austin, Jacqueline Grey, and Paul W. Lewis. Brill, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Author unknown. “Pentecost Has Come.” The Apostolic Faith 1, no. 1 (September 1906): 1.

Author unknown. “Weird Babel of Tongues.” Los Angeles Times. April 18, 1906.

Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Harper & Row, 1968.

Behm, J. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 5. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromley. Eerdmans, 1959.

Bell, Margaret H. “The Life and Writings of Nicolas De Clamanges: A Study in the Repercussions of the Schism and the Conciliar Movement.” MA thesis, May 1948. Accessed October 2, 2025. https://repository.royalholloway.ac.uk/file/c88f0f19-a1f3-493f-ac4f-d25bd3ab9051/1/10097205.pdf.

Bernard, David K. A History of Christian Doctrine: The Twentieth Century A.D. 1900–2000. Word Aflame Press, 1999. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/History%20of%20Christian%20Doctrine%20Vol%203.pdf. Blue Letter Bible. “Mark 16:17 Interlinear.” Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mar/16/17/t_conc_973017.

Blue Letter Bible. “Strong’s G2537 – kainos.” Accessed October 1, 2025. ttps://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2537/kjv/tr/0-1/.

Bost, Ami, ed. Le Théâtre sacré des Cévennes. 2nd ed. H. Bost, 1847. https://archive.org/stream/lesprophtespro00missuoft/lesprophtespro00missuoft_djvu.txt.

Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. The New Century Bible Commentary. Eerdmans, 1996.

Burgess, Stanley M., ed., Christian Peoples of the Spirit: A Documentary History of Pentecostal Spirituality from the Early Church to the Present. NYU Press, 2011.

Burrough, Edward. “Quaker Faith & Practice.” 5th ed., chapter 19 (19.20). Accessed October 1, 2025. https://qfp.quaker.org.uk/passage/19-20/.

Carey, Benedict. “A Neuroscientific Look at Speaking in Tongues.” The New York Times, November 7, 2006. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/health/a-neuroscientific-look-at-speaking-in-tongues.html.

Cartledge, Mark. Encountering the Spirit: The Charismatic Tradition. Darton, Longman & Todd, 2006.

Cassiodori, M. Aureli. “Psalm 97:5.” In Patrologia Latina. Vol 70. J.-P. Migne, 1865.

Center for the Study of Global Christianity. “Status of Global Christianity, 2025, in the Context of 1900–2050.” Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2025/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2025.pdf.

Chia, Philip Suciadi. “From the East to the West: From the Third Pentecost Phenomenon in Indonesia to the Asbury Revival.” Transformation 2025 42, no. 2 (2024): 161-69.

Cho, David Yonggi. Prayer: Key to Revival. Broadstreet Publishing, 2019.

Christianity Today. “New Policies on Divorce and Speaking in Tongues.” September 18, 1987. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.christianitytoday.com/1987/09/new-policies-on-divorce-and-speaking-in-tongues.

Chun, Yohang. “Tongsung Kido (A Unique Korean Prayer).” United Methodists of Upper New York. May 10, 2017. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.unyumc.org/news/article/tongsung-kido-a-unique-korean-prayer.

Delling, Gerhard. Worship in the New Testament. Westminster Press, 1962.

Dunn, James. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians. Eerdmans, 1975.

Ensley, Eddie. Sounds of Wonder: 20 Centuries of Praying in Tongues and Lively Worship. Tau Publishing, 2013.

Eusebius. Church History 5.16. Church Fathers. New Advent. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm.

Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Eerdmans, 1987.

Global Church Network. “10 Global Churches Larger Than America’s Largest.” January 18, 2012. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://gcnw.tv/2012/01/18/10-global-churches-larger-than-americas-largest/.

Green, Michael. I Believe in the Holy Spirit. Eerdmans, 2004.

Gromacki, Robert. The Modern Tongues Movement. Baker Publishing Group, 1967.

Gunkel, Hermann. Die Wirkungen des Heiligen Geistes (The Influence of the Holy Spirit): The Popular View of the Apostolic Age and the Teaching of the Apostle Paul. Fortress Press, 1979.

Harkness, Nicholas. “Glossolalia and Cacophony in South Korea: Cultural Semiosis at the Limits of Language.” American Ethnologist 44, no. 3 (2017): 476-89. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/amet.12523/full.

Hilary of Poitier. On the Trinity 8.33. Church Fathers. New Advent. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330208.htm.

Hildegard of Bingen. “Letter 8: Hildegard to Pope Anastasius.” In Letters of Hildegard of Bingen: Volume 1. Oxford University Press, 1998. Accessed October 1, 2025. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Holden, Constance. “Tongues on the Mind.” Science. November 2, 2006. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.science.org/content/article/tongues-mind.

Hollenweger, Walter. Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide. Hendrickson, 1997.

Hummel, Charles E. “Worldwide Renewal: The Charismatic Movement.” Christian History, Issue 9, 1986. https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/uploaded/50cf7433157261.54595091.pdf.

Irenaeus of Lyon. Against Heresies 2.32.4. Church Fathers. New Advent. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103232.htm.

Irenaeus of Lyon. Against Heresies 5.6.1. Church Fathers. New Advent. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103506.htm.

Isidore of Seville. Opera Omnia V, 43. Typis Antonii Fulgonii, 1797.

Johnson, Todd M. “Counting Pentecostals Worldwide.” Pneuma 36, no. 2 (2014): 265-88. https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15700747-03602006.

Kendrick, Klaude. The Promise Fulfilled: A History of the Modern Pentecostal Movement. Gospel Publishing House, 1961.

Kildahl, John P. The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues. Hodder & Stoughton, 1972.

Kim, Natasha. “SIBKL and Their Remarkable Beginning.” Christianity Malaysia. October 8, 2012. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://christianitymalaysia.com/wp/sibkl-remarkable-beginning.

Lake, Kirsopp. The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles. Vol. 4. MacMillan and Co, 1933.

Lawrence, Bennett Freeman. “Article X – Apostolic Faith Restored: My First Visit to the Azusa Street Pentecostal Mission, Los Angeles, California.” WE 131 (March 18, 1916).

Lee Younghoon. “The Role of Prayer and its Centrality in Sustaining the Effectiveness of Global Christianity.” In Voices Loud & Clear, edited by Kong Hee, Bryon D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen. Regnum Books International, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j0vaTRY8r0.

MacArthur, John F. Charismatic Chaos. Zondervan, 1992.

Macchia, Frank. The Spirit-Baptized Church: A Dogmatic Inquiry. T&T Clark, 2020.

Martin, Michael D. “What We Believe: Cessationism.” First Baptist Church of Wellsburg. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://wellsburgfirstbaptist.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-We-Are-Cessationist-Web.pdf.

Menzies, Robert. Pentecost: This is Our Story. Gospel Publishing House, 2013. Kindle.

Menzies, Robert. “Simultaneous Prayer: A Pentecostal Perspective.” Themelios 49, no. 2 (2024): 410-22. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/simultaneous-prayer-a-pentecostal-perspective/.

Menzies, Robert. Speaking in Tongues: Jesus and the Apostolic Church as Models for the Church Today. CPT Press, 2016.

Meyer, Werner. Der erste Korintherbrief: Prophezei. Vol. 2. Translated by A. Bittlinger. Zwingli-Verlag, 1945.

Montague, George. The Holy Spirit: Growth of a Biblical Tradition. Wipf and Stock, 2006.

Nevins, Dave. “Charisms: Visions, Tongues, Healing, etc (w/ Dr. Peter Kreeft).” YouTube video. https://youtu.be/mqUc-hQr8ow?si=BrnEc4yRkUbBeKfP.

Newberg, Andrew B., Nancy A. Wintering, Donna Morgan, and Mark R. Waldman. “The Measurement of Regional Cerebral Blood Flow During Glossolalia: A Preliminary SPECT Study.” Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging 148, no. 1 (2006): 67-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2006.07.001.

Nicoll, W. Robertson ed. Expositor’s Greek Testament, Volume Two: Apostles, Romans, First Corinthians. Eerdmans, 1988.

O’Connor, John B. “Louis Bertrand, Saint.” Catholic Answers. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/louis-bertrand-saint.

Open Doors. “World Watch Ranking: China.” Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.opendoors.org/en-US/persecution/countries/china/.

Open Doors. “World Watch Ranking: India.” Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.opendoors.org/en-US/persecution/countries/india/.

Parham, Sarah E. The Life of Charles Parham: Founder of the Apostolic Faith Movement. Garland Publishing Inc, 1985.

Pennington, Tom. “A Case for Cessationism (Tom Pennington).” Grace For You. October 17, 2013. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.gty.org/sermons/TM13-7/a-case-for-cessationism-tom-pennington.

Persecution.org. “Jailed Chinese Pastor Rongliang Near Death.” September 26, 2007. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://persecution.org/2007/09/26/jailed-chinese-pastor-rongliang-near-death.

Reinhart, Albert. “Vincent Ferrer, Saint.” Catholic Answers. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/vincent-ferrer-saint.

Rodgers, Darrin J. “The Week in AG History – May 10, 1947.” Assemblies of God. May 12, 2022. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://news.ag.org/en/article-repository/news/2022/05/this-week-in-ag-history-may-10-1947.

Samarin, William J. Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism. Macmillan, 1972.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Apostolic Church: With a General Introduction to Church History. Charles Scribner, 1863.

So, Tae-Young. “Chu-Yoi Sam Chang That Includes Spirituality of Lamentation and Education in the Format of Prayer.” YoungSan Theological Journal 40 (2017): 107-40.

Spittler, Russell P. “Are Pentecostals and Charismatics Fundamentalists? A Review of American Uses of These Categories.” In Charismatic Christianity as a Global Culture, edited by Karla Poewe. University of South Carolina Press, 1994.

Spittler, Russell P. “Are Pentecostals Evangelicals?” Pneuma 9 (1987): 1-19.

Strachan, C. Gordon. “Pentecostal Worship in the Church of Scotland.” The Liturgical Review 2, no. 2 (November 1972): 16-27. https://www.churchservicesociety.org/sites/default/files/journals/1972-Nov-16-27.pdf.

Stunt, Timothy C. F. “Edward Irving and the Catholic Apostolic Church.” In Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology, edited by Nigel M. de S. Cameron. IVP Academic, 1993.

Synan, H. Vinson. The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, 2nd ed. Eerdmans, 1997.

Synan, H. Vinson. “The Role of Tongues as Initial Evidence.” In Spirit and Renewal: Essays in Honor of J. Rodman Williams, edited by Mark Wilson. Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

Teresa of Avila. The Interior Castle. Translated by the Benedictines of Stanbrook. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1921. Accessed October 1, 2025. http://ccel.org/ccel/teresa/castle2/castle2.x.vii.html.

Tertullian. Against Marcion 5.8. Church Fathers. New Advent. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03125.htm.

Tugwell, Simon. Did You Receive the Spirit? Darton, Longman & Todd, 1975.

Warfield, Benjamin B. The Cessation of the Charismata. C. Scribner’s Sons, 1918. E-book.

Williams, J. Rodman. The Era of Spirit. Logos International, 1971.

Williams, J. Rodman. Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective. Zondervan, 1996.

Yoido Full Gospel Church 60 Years History Compilation Committee. Yoido Full Gospel Church 60 Years History. Seoul Logos, 2018.

¹ The word “glossolalia” comes from two Greek words: glossa, meaning “tongue” or “language,” and lalia, meaning “speech” or “talk.” It literally means “speaking in tongues.”

² The same gospel truths and power of the Spirit that ignited early Pentecostals keep carrying us forward (1 Cor 15:1-2; Col 1:22-23; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2 Thess 2:15).

³ Benjamin B. Warfield, The Cessation of the Charismata (C. Scribner’s Sons, 1918), e-book. Warfield explicitly states that “kinds of tongues, the interpretation of tongues … belonged therefore exclusively to the apostolic age … They were withdrawn when they had served their purpose of indicating the duties to be permanently performed. To ‘gifts of tongues’ succeeded orderly human teaching.”

⁴ All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the English Standard Version (ESV).

⁵ Tom Pennington, “A Case for Cessationism (Tom Pennington),” Grace for You, October 17, 2013, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.gty.org/sermons/TM13-7/a-case-for-cessationism-tom-pennington.

⁶ Stanley M. Burgess, ed., Christian Peoples of the Spirit: A Documentary History of Pentecostal Spirituality from the Early Church to the Present (NYU Press, 2011).

⁷ James Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1975), 246. New Testament scholar James G. D. Dunn agrees: “The significance of the reference is then that, with the Christian mission probably already a century old, speaking in tongues was regarded as a typical sign of the gospel’s expression in the first century and perhaps also in the second.”

⁸ Philip Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church: With a General Introduction to Church History (Charles Scribner, 1863), 197-98.

⁹(a) Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.6.1, Church Fathers, New Advent, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103506.htm. Although the Greek original of Against Heresies Book V is lost, the Latin version preserves this statement: “In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, bring to light for the common benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God—whom also the apostles term spiritual.” The Latin phrase omnibus linguis (“all kinds of languages”) closely parallels Paul’s phrase alii genera linguarum (“different kinds of tongues”) in 1 Corinthians 12:10. Most scholars therefore regard Irenaeus’s description as a clear reference to glossolalia. (b) Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.32.4, Church Fathers, New Advent, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103232.htm. Elsewhere, in Against Heresies Book II, Irenaeus explicitly cites Mark 16:17-18, affirming that the same signs promised by Jesus—casting out demons, healing the sick through the laying on of hands, and speaking in new tongues—continued among “those who are truly His disciples.” While he summarises the tongues phenomenon under the phrase “utter prophetic expressions,” this can reasonably be understood as encompassing all forms of Spirit-inspired speech and interpretation. Taken together, these passages leave little doubt that Irenaeus affirmed the continuing reality of glossolalia in the church of his time.

¹⁰ Eusebius, Church History 5.16. Eusebius quotes critics, who were eyewitnesses of that movement, that Montanus “became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying…”

¹¹ Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.8, Church Fathers, New Advent, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03125.htm quotes, “Let Marcion then exhibit … prophets who speak not by human sense but with the Spirit of God … let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer—only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy … whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him.” The continued practice of interpreting tongues in Tertullian’s own church suggests that glossolalic utterances were still occurring, and he regarded such manifestations as genuine evidence of the Spirit’s presence.

¹² Hilary of Poitier, On the Trinity 8.33, Church Fathers, New Advent, accessed October 1, 2025, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330208.htm.

¹³ M. Aureli Cassiodori, Psalm 97:5, in Patrologia Latina, vol. 70, col. 689-90 as quoted by Eddie Ensley, Sounds of Wonder: 20 Centuries of Praying in Tongues and Lively Worship (Tau Publishing, 2013), 14.

¹⁴ Isidore of Seville, Opera Omnia V, 43, quoted by Ensley, Sounds of Wonder, 15.

¹⁵ Hildegard of Bingen, “Letter 8: Hildegard to Pope Anastasius,” in Letters of Hildegard of Bingen: Volume 1 (Oxford University Press, 1998), accessed October 1, 2025, ProQuest Ebook Central quotes, “But He who is great and without flaw [God] has now touched a humble dwelling [Hildegard] so that it might see a miracle and form unknown letters and utter an unknown tongue. And this was said to that little inhabitation: You have written these things in a language given to you from above, rather than in ordinary human speech, since it was not revealed to you in that form, but let him who has the pumice stone [likely her secretary Volmar] not fail to polish it and make it intelligible to mankind.”

¹⁶ Robert Gromacki, The Modern Tongues Movement (Baker Publishing Group, 1967), 18.

¹⁷ Teresa of Avila, The Interior Castle 6.11, trans. The Benedictines of Stanbrook (Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1921), accessed October 1, 2025, http://ccel.org/ccel/teresa/castle2/castle2.x.vii.html.

¹⁸ Dave Nevins, “Charisms: Visions, Tongues, Healing, etc (w/ Dr. Peter Kreeft),” YouTube video, 30:21, https://youtu.be/mqUc-hQr8ow?si=BrnEc4yRkUbBeKfP.

¹⁹ John B. O’Connor, “Louis Bertrand, Saint,” Catholic Answers, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/louis-bertrand-saint.

²⁰ Edward Burrough, Quaker Faith & Practice, chapter 19.20, accessed October 1, 2025, http://qfp.quaker.org.uk/passage/19-20/.

²¹ Ami Bost, ed., Le Théâtre sacré des Cévennes, 2nd ed. (H. Bost, 1847), https://archive.org/stream/lesprophtespro00missuoft/lesprophtespro00missuoft_djvu.txt.

²² C. Gordon Strachan, “Pentecostal Worship in the Church of Scotland,” The Liturgical Review 2, no. 2 (November 1972): 17, https://www.churchservicesociety.org/sites/default/files/journals/1972-Nov-16-27.pdf; Timothy C. F. Stunt, “Edward Irving and the Catholic Apostolic Church,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (IVP Academic, 1993), 420-22. Irving interpreted these as signs of the imminent return of Christ and the restoration of apostolic gifts. After his death, his followers organised the Catholic Apostolic Church and continued to emphasise glossolalia and prophecy.

²³ David K. Bernard, A History of Christian Doctrine: The Twentieth Century A.D. 1900-2000 (Word Aflame Press: 1999), 41, https://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/History%20of%20Christian%20Doctrine%20Vol%203.pdf.

²⁴ H. Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, 2nd ed. (Eerdmans, 1997), 87-89.

²⁵ Sarah E. Parham, The Life of Charles Parham: Founder of the Apostolic Faith Movement (Garland Publishing Inc, 1985), 52.

²⁶ Klaude Kendrick, The Promise Fulfilled: A History of the Modern Pentecostal Movement (Gospel Publishing House, 1961), 52-53.

²⁷ Author unknown, “Weird Babel of Tongues,” Los Angeles Times, April 18, 1906.

²⁸ Author unknown, “Pentecost Has Come,” The Apostolic Faith 1, no. 1 (September 1906): 1.

²⁹ Charles E. Hummel, “Worldwide Renewal: The Charismatic Movement,” Christian History, Issue 9, 1986, https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/worldwide-renewal-charismatic-movement.

³⁰ Todd M. Johnson, “Counting Pentecostals Worldwide,” Pneuma 36, no. 2 (2014 281, https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15700747-03602006.

³¹ John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos (Zondervan, 1992), 226.

³² Pennington, “Case for Cessationism.”

³³ Michael D. Martin, “What We Believe: Cessationism,” First Baptist Church of Wellsburg, accessed October 1, 2025, https://wellsburgfirstbaptist.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-We-Are-Cessationist-Web.pdf.

³⁴ Hermann Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des Heilige Geist (The Influence of the Holy Spirit): The Popular View of the Apostolic Age and the Teaching of the Apostle Paul (Fortress Press, 1979), 18.

³⁵ W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., Expositor’s Greek Testament, Volume Two: Apostles, Romans, First Corinthians (Eerdmans, 1988), Acts 10:46.

³⁶ J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective (Zondervan, 1996), 660.

³⁷ Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 4 (MacMillan and Co, 1933), 117, 120.

³⁸ Williams, Renewal Theology, 669. Williams cautions against the word “ecstasy” because of its associations with loss of control, confusion, or madness, without intelligent content. The Greek ekstasis can mean confusion or astonishment.

³⁹ Blue Letter Bible, “Mark 16:17 Interlinear,” accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mar/16/17/t_conc_973017; Blue Letter Bible, “Strong’s G2537— kainos,” accessed October 1, 2025, ttps://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2537/kjv/tr/0-1/.

⁴⁰ Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 244.

⁴¹ John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 John 4:6; 1 Peter 1:22.

⁴² Center for the Study of Global Christianity, “Status of Global Christianity, 2025, in the Context of 1900-2050,” accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2025/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2025.pdf.

⁴³ Robert Menzies, Pentecost: This Story is Our Story (Gospel Publishing House, 2013), loc. 978, Kindle.

⁴⁴ Walter Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide (Hendrickson, 1997), 192, 202.

⁴⁵ Russell P. Spittler, “Are Pentecostals and Charismatics Fundamentalists? A Review of American Uses of These Categories,” in Charismatic Christianity as a Global Culture, ed. Karla Poewe (University of South Carolina Press, 1994), 103-16, mentioned in Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 191.

⁴⁶ Prominent leaders such as G. Campbell Morgan dismissed Pentecostalism in caustic terms, describing it as “the last vomit of Satan.” Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 191.

⁴⁷ Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 192.

⁴⁸ Darrin J. Rodgers, “The Week in AG History—May 10, 1947,” Assemblies of God, May 12, 2022, accessed October 1, 2025, https://news.ag.org/en/article-repository/news/2022/05/this-week-in-ag-history-may-10-1947, as quoted by Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 192-93.

⁴⁹ Russell P. Spittler, “Are Pentecostals Evangelicals?” Pneuma 9 (1987): 1-19.

⁵⁰ Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 194.

⁵¹ George Montague, The Holy Spirit: Growth of a Biblical Tradition (Wipf and Stock, 2006), 179, quoted by Williams, Renewal Theology, 844.

⁵² Quoting Isaiah—“With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me” (v. 21; cf. Isa 28:11)—he recalls how God used the Assyrians’ foreign speech to confront Israel, yet they remained deaf. Paul now applies this principle to glossolalia: tongues signal that God is speaking, but those with unbelief will refuse to hear. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Harper & Row, 1968), 323, quoted by Williams, Renewal Theology, 844. Barrett notes, “When they are not met with faith (cf. Heb. 4:2), tongues serve to harden and thus to condemn the unbeliever.” For those who believe, however, tongues are recognised as a sign of God’s presence and power, spiritually discerned as an expression of the Spirit’s love and activity. Those with unbelief will dismiss them as foolishness, confirming Paul’s earlier words: “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God … and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit” (1 Cor 2:14). Thus, tongues also become a sign of judgement, exposing those who reject them as “natural” persons hardened in unbelief.

⁵³ According to CHC’s internal records, the number of respondents at its altar calls to receive Christ from 2015 to 2024 were 6,303; 5,805; 5,502; 6,218; 4,927; 783; 1,468; 4,546; 7,489; and 8,928 respectively. Notably, during the COVID-19 years, the figures dropped to 783 in 2020 and 1,468 in 2021.

⁵⁴ Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 238-39, quoted in Williams, Renewal Theology, 669. The Greek phrase for “spiritual songs” is odais pneumatikais, the same expression used in Colossians 3:16. Dunn notes the songs from the Spirit referring specifically to “spontaneous singing in tongues.” Similarly, the Jerusalem Bible views the “inspired songs” of Colossians 3:16 as likely charismatic improvisations prompted by the Spirit during worship. Clearly, Paul’s exhortations concerning singing in the Spirit is a call for simultaneous glossolalia.

⁵⁵ Randal Ackland, Toward a Pentecostal Theology of Glossolalia (PhD diss., Bangor University, 2020), 357.

⁵⁶ Williams, Renewal Theology, 669.

⁵⁷ Here are a few examples: (a) Michael Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (Eerdmans, 2004), 158-59. Scholars have noted echoes of this in church history. Anglican rector Michael Green writes about his visit to a church with glossolalic worship in his book: “We were lifted out of ourselves in the worship of the Lord. There was a period of singing in tongues, and the variety in the sound was matched only by its harmony and the unanimity with which it began and ended, almost as if at the signal of a conductor; but there was no conductor—at least, not a human one;” (b) J. Rodman Williams, The Era of Spirit (Logos International, 1971), 33. Williams describes the experience of singing in the Spirit as such: “There may be long periods of joyful, lilting music, quite unplanned, moving back and forth through psalms, hymns, choruses, and the like as the Spirit guides the meeting. But the climax is the moment when not only is the melody given by the Spirit but also the language, as words and music sung by the assembled worshipers blend into an unimaginable, humanly impossible, chorus of praise. Here is ‘singing in the Spirit’ at its zenith—the sublime utterance of the Holy Spirit through the human spirit to the glory of Almighty God;” (c) Werner Meyer, Der erste Korintherbrief: Prophezei, vol. 2, trans. A. Bittlinger (Zwingli-Verlag, 1945), 122, quoted in Ensley, Sounds of Wonder, 117. Meyer calls the glossolalia of the early Eastern Church “the germ cell of sung liturgical prayer” and sees its influence in Gregorian chant; (d) Ensley, Sounds of Wonder, 115, quoted by Williams, Renewal Theology, 669. A related practice, jubilation—wordless cries of joy—has been referred to by Ensley as “a continuation of the glossolalia of the New Testament;” (e) Gerhard Delling, Worship in the New Testament (Westminster Press, 1962), 35, quoted by Williams, Renewal Theology, 669. Delling likewise describes tongues as “a special language of jubilation … an anticipation of the praise and worship of God in the heavenly service.”

⁵⁸ Bennett Freeman Lawrence, “Article X ‒ Apostolic Faith Restored: My First Visit to the Azusa Street Pentecostal Mission, Los Angles, California,” WE 131 (March 18, 1916), 4-5, 7, quoted by Ackland, Glossolalia, 358.

⁵⁹ Revelation 4 and 5; Melissa Archer, ‘I Was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day’: A Pentecostal Engagement with Worship in the Apocalypse (CPT Press, 2015), 173-91, quoted by Ackland, Glossolalia, 359.

⁶⁰ Williams, Renewal Theology, 666.

⁶¹ Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 245, quoted by Williams, Renewal Theology, 669.

⁶² Frank Macchia, The Spirit-Baptized Church: A Dogmatic Inquiry (T&T Clark, 2020), 260.

⁶³ Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 225.

⁶⁴ Robert Menzies, “Simultaneous Prayer: A Pentecostal Perspective,” Themelios 49, no. 2 (2024): 421, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/simultaneous-prayer-a-pentecostal-perspective/.

⁶⁵ Robert Menzies, Speaking in Tongues: Jesus and the Apostolic Church as Models for the Church Today (CPT Press, 2016), 37.

⁶⁶ Williams, Renewal Theology, 844. According to TDNT, the verb thelo carries the sense of authoritative intent, always carrying the force of a resolute will, not mere wish or desire (3:49). The RSV captures Paul’s force: “I want you …” The same usage appears in 1 Corinthians 10:1; 11:3; and 12:1, where thelo is rightly rendered “I want” or “I do not want.”

⁶⁷ Macchia, Spirit-Baptized Church, 144.

⁶⁸ F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, The New Century Bible Commentary (Eerdmans, 1996), 119, quoted by Williams, Renewal Theology, 844.

⁶⁹ Williams, Renewal Theology, 829.

⁷⁰ John P. Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues (Hodder & Stoughton, 1972), 54-55. Kildahl dismisses glossolalia as a sign of “hypnotisability”; Christianity Today, “New Policies on Divorce and Speaking in Tongues,” September 18, 1987, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.christianitytoday.com/1987/09/new-policies-on-divorce-and-speaking-in-tongues. The Southern Baptist Home Mission Board has developed a policy that “disqualifies missionary candidates who actively participate in, or promote the practice of speaking in tongues.” Further, “any missions personnel already appointed, approved, or endorsed by the mission board who become involved in glossolalia will be counselled by a mission board representative. Continued participation in speaking in tongues would result in their dismissal.”

⁷¹ William J. Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism (The Macmillan Company, 1972), 227-28.

⁷² Williams, Renewal Theology, 669.

⁷³ Simon Tugwell, Did You Receive the Spirit? (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1975), 63.

⁷⁴ Williams, Renewal Theology, 669. It also indicates that Paul spoke frequently in tongues. In fact, to put it in everyday terms, Paul was the “champion” in this practice—“more than you all.”

⁷⁵ Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des Heilige Geist (The Influence of the Holy Spirit), 80-81. On page 66, Gunkel also points to the cry, “Abba, Father” in Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6, noting: “In Rom. 8:15 and Gal. 4:6 as well, glossolalic utterances are cited [by Paul] as words of the Holy Spirit.”

⁷⁶ J. Behm, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 5, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromley (Eerdmans, 1959), 813.

⁷⁷ Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 244, quoted by Williams, Renewal Theology, 669.

⁷⁸ Mark J. Cartledge, Encountering the Spirit (Darton, Longman & Todd, 2006), 111, quoted by Ackland, Glossolalia, 83.

⁷⁹ Macchia, Spirit-Baptized Church, 321.

⁸⁰ Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1987), 657.

⁸¹ Andrew B. Newberg et al., “The Measurement of Regional Cerebral Blood Flow During Glossolalia: A Preliminary SPECT Study,” Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging 148, no. 1 (2006): 67-71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2006.07.001.

⁸² Constance Holden, “Tongues on the Mind,” Science, November 2, 2006, accessed October 1, 2025, http://www.science.org/content/article/tongues-mind.

⁸³ Yohang Chun, “Tongsung Kido (A Unique Korean Prayer),” United Methodists of Upper New York, May 10, 2017, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.unyumc.org/news/article/tongsung-kido-a-unique-korean-prayer.

⁸⁴ Nicholas Harkness, “Glossolalia and Cacophony in South Korea: Cultural Semiosis at the Limits of Language,” American Ethnologist 44, no. 3 (2017): 476, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/amet.12523/full.

⁸⁵ Younghoon Lee, “The Role of Prayer and its Centrality in Sustaining the Effectiveness of Global Christianity,” in Voices Loud & Clear, ed. Kong Hee et al. (Regnum Books International, 2024), 87, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j0vaTRY8r0.

⁸⁶ Tae-Young So, “Chu-Yoi Sam Chang That Includes Spirituality of Lamentation and Education in the Format of Prayer,” YoungSan Theological Journal 40 (2017): 115.

⁸⁷ Yoido Full Gospel Church 60 Years History Compilation Committee, Yoido Full Gospel Church 60 Years History (Seoul Logos, 2018), 72.

⁸⁸ Younghoon Lee, personal conversation with author, January 17, 2025.

⁸⁹ David Yonggi Cho, Prayer, Key to Revival (Broadstreet Publishing, 2019), 1.

⁹⁰ Global Church Network, “10 Global Churches Larger Than America’s Largest,” January 18, 2012, accessed October 1, 2025, https://gcnw.tv/2012/01/18/10-global-churches-larger-than-americas-largest/.

⁹¹ Agus Gunawan, personal conversation with author, September 14, 2025. Agus was Abraham Alex Tanuseputra’s secretary.

⁹² Philip Suciadi Chia, “From the East to the West: From the Third Pentecost Phenomenon in Indonesia to the Asbury Revival,” Transformation 2025 42, no. 2 (2024): 162.

⁹³ Niko Njotorahardjo, personal conversation with author, September 15, 2025.

⁹⁴ Open Doors, “World Watch Ranking: India,” accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.opendoors.org/en-US/persecution/countries/india/.

⁹⁵ David Prakasm, personal conversation with author, September 12, 2025.

⁹⁶ Open Doors, “World Watch Ranking: China,” accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.opendoors.org/en-US/persecution/countries/china/.

⁹⁷ Brother Shi, personal conversation with author, May 1, 2025.

⁹⁸ Selena Y. Z. Au and Dik Allan, “Self-Narration and Theological Formation of Contemporary Chinese House Church Networks,” in Asia Pacific Pentecostalism, ed. Denise A. Austin et al. (Brill, 2019), 74, ProQuest Ebook Central.

⁹⁹ Au and Allan, “Contemporary Chinese House Church Networks,” 75.

¹⁰⁰ Persecution.org, “Jailed Chinese Pastor Rongliang Near Death,” September 26, 2007, accessed October 1, 2025, https://persecution.org/2007/09/26/jailed-chinese-pastor-rongliang-near-death/.

¹⁰¹ Au and Allan, “Contemporary Chinese House Church Networks,” 75.

¹⁰² Sister Lydia, personal conversation with author, May 8, 2025.

¹⁰³ Robert Menzies, Pentecost, location 1378.

Contributors

Editors

Kong Hee

Co-Founder and Senior Pastor City Harvest Church Singapore

MA Theology Vanguard University

Doctoral studies at Bangor University

Byron D. Klaus

President, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary (1999-2015)

DMin Fuller Theological Seminary

Douglas Petersen

Margaret S. Smith Distinguished Professor of World Mission and Intercultural Studies (Emeritus), Vanguard University

Distinguished Professor of Social Theology, School of Theology City Harvest Church, Singapore

PhD Oxford Centre for Mission Studies

Presenters

Heidi Campbell

Professor and Presidential Impact Fellow, Texas A&M University

PhD University of Edinburgh

Simon Chan

Past Earnest Lau Professor of Systematic Theology, Trinity Theological College, Singapore

PhD University of Cambridge

Wayne Choong

Strategic Planning Executive, City Harvest Church

Lecturer, Nanyang Technical University

PhD Nanyang Technical University

Roger Heuser

Professor Emeritus, School of Theology and Ministry, Vanguard University

PhD New York University

Craig Keener

F. M. and Ada Thompson Professor of Biblical Studies, Asbury Theological Seminary

PhD Duke University

Julie Ma

Professor of Missions and Intercultural Studies, Undergraduate College of Theology and Ministry, Oral Roberts University

PhD Fuller Theological Seminary

Wonsuk Ma

Executive Director, ORU Center for Spirit-Empowered Research

Distinguished Professor of Global Christianity, Oral Roberts University

PhD Fuller Theological Seminary

Frank Macchia

Professor of Christian Theology, Vanguard University

Associate Director of the Centre for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies,

Bangor University (UK)

DTheol University of Basel

Joy Qualls

Associate Dean and Professor of Communications, Biola University

PhD Regent University

Ivan Satyavrata

Pastor Emeritus, The Assembly of God Church, Kolkata, India

PhD Oxford Centre for Mission Studies

Aizaiah Yong

Executive Director, Collegeville Institute for Ecumenical and Cultural Research

PhD Claremont School of Theology

Amos Yong

Professor of Theology and Mission, Fuller Theological Seminary

Senior Fellow for From Despair to Hope Initiative, Center for Theological

Inquiry, Princeton

PhD Boston University

Respondents

Bobby Chaw

Executive Pastor, City Harvest Church

President, City Harvest Management Board

DMin Southern Methodist University

Jacob Cherian

Professor of New Testament and Dean of Faculty,

Centre of Global Leadership Development, Southern Asia Bible College

PhD Princeton Theological Seminary

Sun Ho

Co-Founder and Senior Pastor, City Harvest Church Singapore

Pravinkumar Israel

President, Centre for Global Leadership Development, Southern Asia Bible College

MTh Asia Graduate School of Theology

Doctoral Studies Oxford Centre for Mission Studies

Jun Kim

Academic Dean, Asia Pacific Theological Seminary

President, Asia Pentecostal Society

PhD Oxford Centre for Mission Studies

Daniel Lim

Pastor, City Harvest Church

MDiv Trinity Theological College

Kelvin Tan

Pastoral Supervisor, City Harvest Church

MA Theology Vanguard University

Joel Tejedo

Director of Asia Pacific Research Centre, Asia Pacific Theological Seminary

DMin Asia Pacific Theological Seminary

Chiong Xiao Ting

Senior Translator, City Harvest Church

Academic Programs Manager, School of Theology at City Harvest Church

MA Theology Vanguard University