This captivating collection of essays reveals to the reader 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 churches and in the world. The many questions posed by the authors (covering topics from leadership to theology to creation to society to ecclesiology and more) open up new boundaries and horizons not only for Pentecostals but for all churches. I highly recommend Pentecostal Voices Across Continents to anyone passionate about Christianity’s future. For this Lutheran, it is exciting to read about a reimagined pneumatology that engages an ecumenical path on which we are invited to walk together in our witness to Jesus Christ.

Prof. Dirk G. Lange, Assistant General Secretary, Lutheran World Federation

Rooted in the conviction that the natural habitat of theological reflection is the life of the Spirit-empowered, Christ-centered church, Pentecostal Voices Across Continents models a form of theological engagement that is robust and practical, local and global, respectful and honest. Arising out of the conference held at City Harvest Church in Singapore (May 2025), Pentecostal Scholars from Europe and Asia engage shared challenges like secularism, pluralism, political authoritarianism and societal polarization. This is no sectarian volume of retreat to insular existence in the face of these challenges. The whole of the volume offers rich appropriations of biblical, theological, experiential and social scientific resources for the life of the church in the world. Eyes wide open to the work of the Spirit across contexts and challenges, this book is a crucial read for anyone interested serious theological engagement that does not yield to accommodationist temptations. It is consistently articulate about contexts and cultures. It also recognizes points of tension between them and the embodiment of the gospel. The Spirit is: forming one church for mission; discerned in other faith traditions; engendering incarnational engagement with society; directing the redemption of all creation in Christ; giving gifts for plural leadership in the church; and strengthening the persecuted church for its prophetic role in the world. This is an astute collection of essays and responses that address global challenges in local ways. This book is unapologetically theological and biblical and leans into the life of the church and the world God loves. An amazing embodiment of exuberant, thoughtful scholarship.

Rev. Richard R. Topping Ph.D, President and Vice-Chancellor, Professor of Studies in the Reformed Tradition Vancouver School of Theology, Canada

This volume offers a cornucopia of riches. The table of contents – touching topics as diverse as anthropology, leadership, ecumenism, eschatology, cosmology, soteriology, ethics, and ecclesiology – offers a foretaste of the bounty ahead. Copious footnotes and extended bibliographies range across multiple disciplines. The prose is cut with lapidary precision. The authors speak to real life concerns that arise in local churches rather than dry academic conferences. Most significant, perhaps, is the sweep of nationalities and training institutions the writers represent. Western-based voices are paired with responses from Eastern-based ones. The volume combines academic experience with pastoral wisdom. Pentecostal Voices Across Continents will energize the study of the modern global Pentecostal movement for years to come.

Grant Wacker, Duke Divinity School Gilbert T. Rowe Distinguished Professor (Emeritus) of Christian History

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): 978-1-917059-77-0
ISBN (eBook): 978-1-917059-78-7

Typeset by Words by Design

An Introduction from the Editors: A Vision Gaining Clarity

Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen

In November 2023, several years of discernment and planning came to fruition in the Global Pentecostal Summit held at City Harvest Church in Singapore. The proceedings were published as Voices Loud and Clear by Regnum Books UK, the publishing arm of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies.¹ This event was more than a large scholarly gathering of global Pentecostal scholars. It was actually the incubator for catalysing the vision of City Harvest Church to speak prophetically to its region and beyond. Given that the historic centre of vibrant theological reflection has been the local church, this event was a first attempt at reemphasising the context of vibrant ministry as a necessary contextual catalyst for Pentecostal theologising. We were seeking to break the mould of scholarly symposia being only a small group of people who offer their scholarly work exclusively to fellow professionals. We believed that reestablishing the local church as the context for theological reflection was a necessary element of sustaining the current global “Spirit-empowered” movement. The impact of the event in November 2023 convinced us that the effort to replace the model of the professional guild with the theologically informed local church as the key “influencer” for quality theological work and sustained ministry effectiveness was a worthwhile effort.

The priority of the local church as prime influencer is exemplified in the case study of the church at Antioch – a paradigmatic ecclesiastical model of establishing churches for “all the people” in Acts 11:19–13:4. The Apostle Paul’s theologically informed strategy is rooted in the valuing of the gifts of both prophets and teachers in the Antiochian leadership team (13:1).² Our growing commitment is not a new idea; but is a return to a foundational principle rooted in church history, both ancient and more recent.³

The Emerging Efforts

Subsequent discussions following the Global Pentecostal Summit led to the belief that what was emerging from this initial event was a long-term initiative that has become known as Global Pentecostal Voices (www.GPVoices.org). This partnership with the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies (www.ocms.ac.uk) and its publishing arm, Regnum Books, which began with the Global Pentecostal Summit in November 2023, has become a solidified effort to publish the proceedings of all subsequent events. While print versions of these publications will occur, the real desire is to make these publications available in open access formats. This powerful development allows for Pentecostals globally and particularly in the Majority World to access resources previously unavailable.

An additional dimension of this effort to strengthen theological foundations has expressed itself in the enhancement of the efforts of the School of Theology at City Harvest Church. Subsequent to the Global Pentecostal Summit in November 2023, discussions began with Alphacrucis University College in Australia to develop further programmes (www.ac.edu.au). This discussion has led to a partnership that extends the validation of Alphacrucis University College to the degree programmes offered through School of Theology at City Harvest Church (Diploma in Ministry, Associate Degree in Ministry, Bachelor of Theology, and Master of Arts in Theology). For more information, see https://sot.chc.org.sg.

What was implicit in the development of the Global Pentecostal Summit has now been identified in key principles which guide the Global Pentecostal Voices initiative. They are as follows:

•Locate significant Pentecostal scholarly events in the context of a vibrant Majority World church with global influence.

•Provide a vibrant example of a local church that honours scholars whose gifts are offered to the church.

•Demonstrate the powerful constructive collaboration generated when Majority World and Western Pentecostal scholars work together as equal partners.

•Provide scholarly reflection on the contribution that Pentecostalism is making to the continuing vibrancy of Global Christianity.

•Reemphasise and facilitate the necessary focus of Pentecostal scholarship that empowers the enduring effectiveness of the local church globally.

The Europe-Asia Pentecostal Summit

As the Global Pentecostal Voices initiative emerged, there was a realisation that Europe and Asia have faced similar challenges. The challenges of secularisation have become dominant in Europe and increasingly in Asia. The experiences of authoritarianism that Europe has lived through are currently mirrored in Asia. Subsequently, it was felt that the experiences of European Pentecostals could be instructive to their counterparts in Asia. Their dialogue together could be a synergising force that the Spirit could use to strengthen the Pentecostal Movement in both regions. All theology must acknowledge the impact of context, and so the voices of European scholars offered rich insight for their Asian colleagues to consider, critique, and integrate into the current realities of Asian Pentecostalism.⁴

On 14th-18th May 2025, at City Harvest Church in Singapore, European scholars from Norway, Bulgaria, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, and Germany delivered eight presentations, which were subsequently responded to by Asian scholars from Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, and The Philippines. The presentations and responses were focused on the following themes and are presented in the following chapters:

•The work of the Holy Spirit outside the church, particularly in the non-Christian religions of the world;

•The challenge of understanding the unique nature of Pentecostal leaders and the dynamic of leaders, followers, and organisational structures that encourage and discourage the growth of the church;

•The value of Pentecostals being involved in ecumenical relationships across the broad spectrum of Christian traditions;

•The event of Pentecost as the future of humanity, as the church embodies the eschatological destiny of all creation in which Christ is “all in all”;

•The challenge of worldviews that impact deliverance and exorcistic ministry in Pentecostal communities;

•The practices of Pentecostal Christians in the quest to be good citizens in civil society;

•The question of the continuity of the church with the life of Jesus, in what the Scriptures call the “scandal of Christ”;

•The biblical foundations necessary to empower communities facing adversity and persecution.

To demonstrate key learnings from this dialogue between European and Asian Pentecostal scholars, an interactive process yielded a set of affirmations that has given rise to the title of this volume: Pentecostal Voices Across Continents.

These affirmations provide opportunity for local churches to focus their attention on strengthening their congregations by resolving to:

•Recognise the Spirit’s workings beyond the church, even among other religions, without compromising our Christological beliefs and succumbing to theological pluralism and universalism.

•Recognise effective Pentecostal leadership as a contextual, complex, and relationally dynamic process where influence is granted through co-discernment with the congregation.

•Actively pursue ecumenical dialogue and relationship to offer united and credible Christian witness in a world shaped by secularisation, pluralism, and polarisation.

•Live as Spirit-bearers, embodying the ongoing Pentecost as God’s sanctuary in the world – loving both humanity and non-anthropic others as signs of creation’s redemption and reconciliation in Christ, that God may be all in all.

•Develop a balanced doctrine of demonology and healthy deliverance practices in our Pentecostal communities.

•Integrate practical, Spirit-empowered Christianity, rooted in biblical and theological foundations, with concrete, incarnational engagement with society for authentic transformation.

•Identify with the life and gospel of Christ and the scandal of the divine Word in the flesh and manifest the Spirit-filled life as His corporate Body in the public domain by living out the transforming power of the Holy Spirit in our own authentic human brokenness.

•Affirm the role of the Paraclete amid persecution and opposition. Recognise that the church is a prophetic community, which together with its ecclesial life and charismatic manifestations testifies to hope and eschatological salvation.

The emergence of the Global Pentecostal Voices initiative from the Majority World is a clear indication that the vitality of Christianity’s current centre is awakening to its responsibility for service through solid theological reflection. Pentecostal Voices Across Continents gives a rich example of what can occur when the scholarly gifts of two groups of Pentecostal scholars from continents distant from each other in history and geography join to offer their gifts to strengthen the Church for continued mission in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Bibliography

Hiestand, Gerald, and Todd Wilson. The Pastor Theologian: Resurrecting an Ancient Vision. Zondervan, 2015.

Hee, Kong, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen. Voices Loud and Clear. Regnum Books, 2024.

Keener, Craig. Acts: New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge University Press, 2020.

Kinsler, F. Ross. The Extension Movement in Theological Education. William Carey Library, 1978.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J., and Owen Strachan. The Pastor as Public Theologian. Baker Academic, 2015.

“Why Christianity is Taking an Asian Turn”, The Economist, 16th April 2025, updated 21st April 2025. [Available at: https://www.economist.com/asia/2025/04/16/why-christianity-is-taking-an-asian-turn?utm_campaign=shared_article], [Last accessed: 7th October 2025].

Zorn, Herbert M. Viability in Context. The Theological Education Fund, 1975.

¹ Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus, Douglas Petersen, Voices Loud and Clear (Regnum Books, 2024).

² Craig Keener, Acts: New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2020): 326-28.

³ For a more robust discussion, see Gerald Hiestand and Todd Wilson, The Pastor Theologian: Resurrecting an Ancient Vision (Zondervan Publishing, 2015). See also Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Owen Strachan, The Pastor as Public Theologian (Baker Academic, 2015), www.pastortheologians.com. This critical issue, of who can do theological work and where its location should be centred, had a mid-twentieth century focus from both evangelical and Mainline Protestant vantage points. The more evangelical Theological Education by Extension (TEE) Movement spent considerable efforts in reenvisioning theological work in the global context. See F. Ross Kinsler, The Extension Movement in Theological Education (William Carey Library, 1978). During this same period, the World Council of Churches (WCC) funded three theological mandates through its Theological Education Fund to explore these same issues. This significant effort is highlighted in Herbert M. Zorn, Viability in Context (The Theological Education Fund, 1975). Interestingly, both the TEE Movement and the World Council of Churches’ Theological Mandates focused their efforts on the needs of sustaining Christianity in the Global South. It is not coincidental that the effort at City Harvest Church follows this pattern of concern for sustaining the current growth of Christianity in the Global South.

⁴ “Why Christianity is Taking an Asian Turn,” The Economist, 16th April 2025, updated 21st April 2025. [Available at: https://www.economist.com/asia/2025/04/16/why-christianity-is-taking-an-asian-turn?utm_campaign=shared_article], [Last accessed: 7th October 2025].

Session 1

Does the Spirit Blow Where It Wills? Pentecostals and the Struggle of Discerning the Holy Spirit among Religions

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

Abstract

The purpose of this presentation is to explore the work of the Holy Spirit outside the church, particularly among other religions, and Pentecostals’ struggle to exercise the gift and capacity of discerning the Spirit of God and the spirit(s) therein. As a framework for the investigation, there is a comprehensive and multilayered account of the work of the Spirit of God in the world that God has created. The Holy Spirit is active and present not only in the church, personal salvation, and charismatic empowerment, but also in creation and the workings of the world, society, and culture (politics, economy, arts, friendship, etc.), the spiritual powers and beings (such as angels and demons), as well as other religions and their visions of the “spirit(s).” Without succumbing to theological pluralism and universalism or weakening in evangelistic and holistic missional fervour, I challenge Pentecostals to reconsider their somewhat limited and restricted vision of the sovereign work of the Divine Spirit. If there is one place where such careful, Spirit-guided openness is urgently needed, it is across Asia. “The wind blows where it wills” (John 3:8, RSV).¹

Key Words: theology of religions, interfaith, religious diversity, pneumatology, Holy Spirit, religious pluralism

Introduction

The title of this presentation² may seem strange in light of the fact that Pentecostalism is known for its love and appreciation of the Holy Spirit’s power and freedom. (In fact, wouldn’t the title be much more fitting for my own Lutheran tradition?) Yet, I propose that despite Pentecostalism’s openness to and hunger for the Spirit’s work, global Pentecostalism stands at a crossroads in developing a more holistic and comprehensive understanding of the work of the Divine Spirit. With this in mind, my goal is to explore the work of the Holy Spirit beyond the church – particularly among other religions – and to examine the challenges Pentecostals face in discerning the Spirit of God in relation to other spirits.

As a framework for this investigation, I aim to develop what I call a “world-embracing, multilayered” account of the work of the Spirit of God in the world. I propose that this account can help Pentecostals broaden the scope of their pneumatology. My key biblical passage is Psalm 139:7-12:³

Where can I go from your Spirit?

Where can I flee from your presence?

If I go up to the heavens, you are there;

if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.

If I rise on the wings of the dawn,

if I settle on the far side of the sea,

even there your hand will guide me,

your right hand will hold me fast.

If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me

and the light become night around me,”

even the darkness will not be dark to you;

the night will shine like the day,

for darkness is as light to you.

Can you see in this passage how boundless and universal the presence of the Spirit of God is in God’s world? There is no place where the Spirit cannot be found, no dimension of the universe absent of the Spirit’s presence. The Holy Spirit is active and present everywhere – not only within the church or in personal salvation and charismatic empowerment, as necessary and appreciated as those aspects of the Spirit’s work are. The Spirit is also actively at work in creation, the workings of the world, and in society and culture, including politics, economy, the arts, friendship, and more. Furthermore, the Spirit dwells among spiritual powers and beings (such as angels and demons) and is present in other religions and their visions of the spirit(s).

Without succumbing to theological pluralism and universalism, and without undermining the urgency of evangelistic and holistic mission work, I challenge Pentecostals to reconsider their somewhat limited and restricted understanding of the sovereign work of the Divine Spirit. If anywhere in global Pentecostalism, this careful, Spirit-guided openness is badly needed all over in Asia. “The wind blows where it wills” (John 3:8, RSV).

The outline of the presentation is as follows: First, I briefly remind us of the ways Pentecostals perceive the value of other religions – or the lack thereof. Second, to support my main argument briefly stated above, I present a broader and more comprehensive, multilayered picture of the many ways the Spirit is at work in the world God has created. In the third section, I ask whether Pentecostal theology and spirituality are both willing and able to embrace such a world-embracing vision of the Divine Spirit: Is the Spirit truly allowed to blow where it wills among Pentecostals? This leads naturally, in the fourth section, to an investigation of some of the emerging Pentecostal inquiries into the work of the Spirit among other religions and faiths. This brings me to the ultimate goal of my presentation: scrutinising the complex and complicated work of discerning the Spirit(s) across religions, as well as Pentecostal resources and motivations for that work. I end with tasks and opportunities for the future of Pentecostal pneumatology and missiology.

Other Religions in Pentecostal Estimation⁴

For most Pentecostals, it seems that the issue of religious plurality is not an urgent concern. They may ignore it or, if confronted, likely minimise its importance. Others might even consider it a dangerous and unhelpful topic altogether.

Typically, Pentecostals view other religions as erroneous and mistaken ways of searching for God. Their default response when encountering adherents of other faith traditions is to share the gospel and seek to persuade them of the necessity of salvation through Christ. A conservative-fundamentalistic exclusivism is taken for granted.

It is also common for Pentecostals to have serious doubts about the saving role of the Holy Spirit apart from the proclamation of the gospel. They have tended either to limit the Spirit’s saving work to the church (except for the work of the Spirit preparing for receiving the gospel) or to overlook the question of the Spirit’s work apart from the preaching of the gospel.⁵

There are additional reasons why Pentecostals are hesitant about interfaith engagement:

•The danger of compromising Christology: that Christ’s uniqueness is compromised for the sake of interfaith hospitality.

•The fear of going beyond or against the Bible: that biblical teachings about the sinful and erroneous nature of other religions are dismissed for a premature embrace of any religious position.

•A distorted soteriology: the belief that salvation can be found among other religions as well.

•The neglect of mission and evangelisation: the concern that the Christian church should only dialogue and have conversations with the Religious Other instead of making an appeal to non-Christians to convert to Christ.⁶

A case in point is the warning from a Pentecostal official in the USA: a religiously pluralistic approach (1) is contrary to Scripture, (2) replaces the obligation for world evangelism, and (3) fails the Great Commission.⁷ Even when Roman Catholics challenged the Pentecostal stance on other religions during their mutual conversations that started in 1972, Pentecostals insisted that there cannot be salvation outside the church and through the acceptance of the gospel.⁸ Most Pentecostals wanted to limit the saving work of the Spirit to the church and its proclamation of the gospel, although they were willing to acknowledge the work of the Holy Spirit in the world convicting people of their sin.⁹ The rationale for this more exclusivist attitude was rooted in the fallen state of humankind, which, for Pentecostals, leaves little hope for non-Christians:

There was no unanimity whether non-Christians may receive the life of the Holy Spirit … The classical Pentecostal participants do not accept … [the Roman Catholic Church’s inclusivist stance according to which non-Christians may be saved under certain conditions] but retain their interpretation of the Scripture that non-Christians are excluded from the life of the Spirit: “Truly, truly I say unto you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the Kingdom of God” (John 3:3).¹⁰

Furthermore, Pentecostals, like many of the early Christians, pointed out demonic elements in other religions.¹¹

Before looking at the emerging Pentecostal attempts to reconsider their stance on engaging with other religions and the Spirit’s role therein, let us first outline what I call a “world-embracing, multilayered” vision of the Spirit in the world. As noted above, this broader pneumatological vision serves as my general framework.

A “World-Embracing Multilayered” Vision of the Work of the Holy Spirit

The reimagined pneumatology I propose enables us to discern the presence and work of the Spirit of God in creation, the cosmos, the secular and religiously pluralistic world and society, and in Christian life at both at the ecclesial and personal levels. Building on the rich and variegated pneumatological traditions in Christian history, this new account also sympathetically critiques, challenges, and expands the traditional understandings – including those within Pentecostalism.¹²

By expanding the sphere of the work of the Spirit, I neither seek nor desire to blur the distinction between the Spirit of God – the Holy Spirit – and other spirits, nor to compromise in any way the distinctive work of the Spirit in salvation and the church. On the contrary, driven by biblical passages such as Psalm 139 quoted above and influenced by the broader Christian tradition, I am eager to embrace to work of the Spirit as fully as possible!

What does the term, “world-embracing, multilayered” vision of the Spirit mean? Unlike the traditional view of the Spirit that limits the work of the Spirit to the “spiritual,” the multilayered approach critically considers a multiplicity of layers, domains, or realms in which the Spirit is at work. In other words, while traditional Christian pneumatology has focused mainly (although not exclusively) on topics such as the Trinity, revelation, salvation, spirituality, and some aspects of the church, the multilayered account envisions the Spirit’s work in all aspects of the world and human life. This includes creation, the cosmos, other religious traditions, the sciences, society, politics, the economy, the arts, entertainment, and more. This world-embracing approach also seeks to discern the Spirit’s work in the church and in personal salvation in more comprehensive terms.

Allow me to briefly outline the various layers or domains in which the Spirit is at work, based on biblical teaching and highlighting examples of how some emerging Pentecostal scholarship is recognising these pneumatological riches.

The Spirit in Creation: The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Life, bringing about, nourishing, and enlivening creation, enabling every breath of all creatures.¹³ The Holy Spirit works in tandem with the Son, Jesus Christ, as, to borrow a phrase from Irenaeus, the “Two Hands of God.” The following biblical passages are telling:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit [ruach] of God was hovering over the waters (Gen. 1:2-3).

By the word [dabar] of the Lord the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath [ruach] of his mouth (Ps. 33:6).

When you hide your face,

they [the creatures] are terrified;

when you take away their breath [ruach],

they die and return to the dust.

When you send your Spirit [ruach],

they are created,

and you renew the face of the ground (Ps. 104:29-30).

The Hebrew word ruach (whose equivalents are the Greek pneuma and Latin spiritus) is used in the Old Testament to refer both to the Creator Spirit and the creature, the former giving “life” to the latter. And the term “word” (in the middle passage) is the New Testament word logos, the Word, the Christ: “In the beginning was the Word [logos], and the Word [logos] was with God, and the Word [logos] was God … Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:1, 3).

The Spirit in the Cosmos: Recall the passage cited above from Psalm 139. The Spirit is everywhere in the cosmos, unlimited, present even in the highest heavens and the lowest abyss. This is what the church firmly believed until the times of the Enlightenment in Europe and North America. Now things have changed. Through education, mass media, and social platforms, this scepticism is rapidly spreading to Asia in the form of secularism and atheism. According to these perspectives, the ontology – the nature and essence of the world – is flat, lacking a non-material, spiritual dimension. Pentecostalism and traditional Christianity firmly oppose this flattening of ontology, boldly announcing with the Bible that there is more to the world that can be seen and touched – a supernatural reality!

Angels, demons, spiritual powers, spiritual energies – the other-worldly reality – is alive and well. Above all is the unique, distinctive, and omnipotent Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit. Amos Yong’s concept of the “spirit-filled cosmos” is a prime example of a well-developed Pentecostal construction of a biblically informed worldview.¹⁴ Therein, the spiritual, supernatural dimension of the world is highlighted alongside the visible world. Pentecostalism should never lose sight of this. However, as can sometimes happens with Pentecostalism – particularly among (neo-)charismatic movements – there tends to be an over-emphasis on demonology and the “powers.” A biblically based and pastorally sound radical middle way should be sought.

The point for this presentation is that, without in any way compromising the absolute uniqueness of the Spirit of God – whose presence fills even the smallest atoms and quarks – we may call the Holy Spirit the only true Spirit of Cosmos.

The Spirit in the Society: Following the Dutch Reformed theologian and politician Abraham Kuyper, I wholeheartedly affirm that the Spirit of God leaves “not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence” untouched.¹⁵ Unlike in the past, Pentecostals and other Christians are invited to consider the role of the Spirit – the creative and sustaining Spirit – in all areas of society and culture, including history, the arts, politics, social justice, environmental care, and the economy.¹⁶

The Spirit in the Church and in Personal Salvation: This is a cherished and crucial topic for Pentecostals but will not be developed in this presentation. Pentecostals would lose their identity and calling in the world if they became soft on evangelism and outreach, conversion and holiness, healing and deliverance, or any of the charismatic gifts. I repeat: the attempt to broaden the scope of the Spirit of God for Pentecostals is not intended to diminish or fundamentally alter the defining characteristics of Pentecostals; rather, it seeks to create a surplus – for the sake of our suffering and needy world, and in faithfulness to the biblical record and Christian tradition.

The Spirit among Religions: This is the main focus of this presentation and will be further developed in what follows.

With this world-embracing, multilayered pneumatological vision in mind, let us now return to Pentecostalism and consider both its promise and its struggles with discerning the Spirit(s) among different religions. Let us begin by considering whether there is anything in the theological and spiritual structure of global Pentecostalism that might be resisting – perhaps anonymously or unknowingly – the project of broadening the scope of pneumatology. Following that, we will be prepared to highlight the emerging efforts to engage other religions from a robust and comprehensive Pentecostal pneumatology.

Whether the Spirit is Really Allowed to Blow Where It Wills among Pentecostals

A quick look at Global Pentecostalism, characterised by its Christo-centric charismatic spirituality, reveals that, in principle, the movement could easily be at the forefront of the world-embracing, multilayered pneumatological framework with which I am concerned. This could help further the original calling of Pentecostals to help other churches “catch the fire.” That said, there might be theological and spiritual reasons for wanting to limit the Spirit’s freedom – reasons that require elaborating on complex theological concepts. I propose that a potential dualism lies behind many of the perceived liabilities of Pentecostal pneumatology, especially when it comes to the goal of broadening the vision of the work of the Spirit.¹⁷

In short, I refer to this dualism as the “continuity-versus-discontinuity” dynamic in the conception of the Spirit’s work. Pentecostal theology and imagination face a profound difficulty in finding a dynamic mutuality and balance between the continuity of the Divine Spirit’s work in all of its various layers in the world (in creation, the cosmos, religions, and society) and the discontinuity between that and God’s unique, salvific, and charismatic work in personal salvation and the believing community.

In other words, Pentecostals may suspect that any attempt to widen the scope of the Spirit’s work beyond one’s own salvation and the church may lead to compromising the unique, distinctive work of the Spirit. That is a legitimate fear. We have to be clear that not every spirit is the Spirit of God and not every “salvation” promised comes from the God of the Bible. At the same time, we should listen to the growing number of Pentecostals, Evangelicals, and other Bible-believing theologians who are arguing that it is not either-or. We do not have to decide between limiting the ministry of the Spirit to personal salvation and the church or adopting universalistic, heretical views that the Spirit brings salvation to every adherent or non-Christian religions. No, we can take the radical middle road. We can uphold the biblical teaching that every human, fallen and hopeless apart from Christ, must put their hope in Christ. This is our missionary mandate. At the same time, we can also affirm, in line with the biblical teaching and Christian witness, that the Spirit of God is sovereign and operates in the world in ways that are unknown to us. This is our pneumatological mandate.

Theologically speaking, we may put it like this: Without conflating the divine and the human, we must be able to hold together the deep and complex continuity between these mutually conditioning poles: on the one hand, the work of the Spirit of God in creation, history, society, religions, and cultures; and, on the other hand, the same Spirit’s presence as a special, unique gift of salvation in believers, shown in Christian growth and sanctification, the celebration of the sacraments, in prayer, and in charismatic gifts and endowments. Here, the late Lutheran Wolfhart Pannenberg is our guide:

God’s Spirit is not only active in human redemption as he teaches us to know the eternal Son of the Father in Jesus of Nazareth and moves our hearts to praise of God by faith, love, and hope. The Spirit is at work already in creation as God’s breath, the origin of all movement and all life, and only against this background of his activity as the Creator of all life can we rightly understand on the one hand his work in the ecstatics of human conscious life, and on the other hand his role in the bringing forth of the new life of the resurrection of the dead.¹⁸

The late South African charismatic theologian Henry I. Lederle says the same:

For too long the Spirit and his work has been conceived of in too limited a sense. There was a capitulation at the beginning of the modern era in which faith became restricted to the private devotional life and the latter was then described as “spiritual”. The Spirit should not be limited to spiritual experiences and charisms – even though it needs to be recognised that this element still awaits acknowledgment in much of Christianity. We need, however, to set our sights much higher. Not only the reality discovered by Pentecostalism needs to be reclaimed but also the cosmic dimensions of the Spirit’s work. The Spirit is at work in the world and should not be degraded to an ornament of piety.¹⁹

This important theological clarification helps us move to considering emerging Pentecostal voices towards inquiring into the work of the Spirit of God among religions.

Emerging Pentecostal Inquiries into the Work of the Spirit among Religions

Over against those who issue a warning against any Pentecostal attempt to understand and engage different religions – as they see it as a way of compromising the Great Commission – there are growing numbers of Pentecostal theologians to whom the engagement of other religions is important and vital. Amos Yong lists the following reasons as to why Pentecostals should engage religions:

•their international roots and global presence;

•the presence of urgent missiological issues such as syncretism;

•the difficulty with dealing with questions regarding the gospel and culture relationship;

•the quest for Pentecostal identity and theological truth.

According to Yong, the truth question of any religion cannot be answered without the challenge of competing (or complementary) truth claims.²⁰ I interpret his reasoning as a way of encouraging Pentecostals to boldly venture into the investigation of both the positive and the negative aspects of religions.

The late sympathetic observer of Pentecostalism, the Canadian Baptist Clark Pinnock, similarly urges Pentecostals to get involved: “One might expect the Pentecostals to develop a Spirit-oriented theology of mission and world religions, because of their openness to religious experience, their sensitivity to the oppressed of the Third World where they have experienced much of their growth, and their awareness of the ways of the Spirit as well as dogma.”²¹ Yong and others took a lesson from Pinnock. In his first contribution, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions and its sequel, Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions,²² Yong argues for a uniquely Pentecostal pneumatology that, while holding to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and trinitarian faith, also remains open to acknowledging the ministry of the Spirit outside the Christian church and among other religions. His first goal was to develop criteria for discerning the Spirit of God. For Yong, a Pentecostal theology of religions can best be defined as “the effort to understand both the immensely differentiated experiences of faith and the multifaceted phenomena of religious traditions and systems that is informed by experiences of the Spirit in the light of Scripture, and vice versa.”²³ In other words, avoid at any cost oversimplifying both the complexity of religious experiences of people following their particular religion and the surprising ways the Spirit of God might be working among them.

This brings us to the important task of carefully considering the nature and function of religions. Why are there so many religions? Why has God allowed more than one to appear? Is everything about other religions only bad or evil? The question is, to say the least, complicated. In his The Spirit Poured Out On All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology, Yong helpfully notes that “Religions are neither accidents of history nor encroachments on divine providence but are, in various ways, instruments of the Holy Spirit working out the divine purposes in the world;” at the same time, in keeping with Pentecostal “restrictivism”, he reminds us that “the unevangelised, if saved at all, are saved through the work of Christ by the Spirit (even if mediated through the religious beliefs and practices available to them).”²⁴ In other words, Pentecostalism is open to acknowledging the hidden and mysterious work of God’s Spirit among religions – the all-present Spirit – without in any way compromising the belief that salvation is found in Christ alone.

Another significant recent contribution comes from Bishop Tony Richie (Church of God, Cleveland, TN). In his 2011 monograph, Speaking by the Spirit: A Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Dialogue, Richie takes lessons from Pentecostal pioneers, seeing in their ethos seeds of openness to other religions while remaining faithful to their own religion.²⁵

Among the growing number of Pentecostals engaged in interfaith relations,²⁶ allow me to register the Hispanic Samuel Solivan’s principles for relating to religious plurality: (1) the fact that the Holy Spirit is the one who leads Christians to all truth; (2) the importance of identification with the poor of the world and the need to bring their distinctive voice into the dialogue; (3) the conviction of the prevenient workings of the Holy Spirit in every human being; (4) the empowerment of believers for witness by the Spirit; and (5) the diverse and pluralistic character of the Spirit’s manifestations across racial, class, gender, language, and religious boundaries.²⁷ On this foundation, Solivan, a Pentecostal pastor and academic theologian, is led to “examine the diverse ways the Holy Spirit is at work among other people of faith.”²⁸ However, he approaches this critically, acknowledging that there are always pitfalls – such as the relativisation of truth – in an approach to mission where dialogue is the main vehicle.²⁹

My own work in the field of interfaith studies has focused on developing a trinitarian understanding of the role of the Spirit in the world and among religions in the dialogue with Protestant and Catholic scholars.³⁰ In recent years, I have also engaged in comparative theology, including in pneumatology. On that project, I have engaged Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu views of the Spirit(s) and spirituality.³¹

Having outlined emerging Pentecostal attempts to theologically engage with other religions and religious plurality, the last section of this presentation addresses the ultimate question of the conditions and promise for Pentecostal discernment of the Spirit of God among religions.

The Work of the Discerning of the Spirit(s)

Fortunately, Pentecostalism has helped the contemporary universal church to rediscover the gift of the discernment of the Spirit. Unfortunately, the gift and capacity of discernment of the Spirit(s) in relation to other living faiths has not received significant attention among Pentecostals.

What is the discernment of the Spirit? The obvious place to begin is in Christian Scripture. Pentecostals³² routinely note that among several New Testament passages which speak of discernment, the key biblical passage is 1 Corinthians 12:10-11: “To one is given through the Spirit [v. 8], … prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits … All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.”³³ The dilemma here is that the discernment of spirits in the biblical canon is set in a different context than the multifaith world within which we find ourselves. In Scripture, discernment pertains to encounters with false prophets and finding God’s will among competing claims. More importantly, it concerns issues of spirituality and morality, particularly in the post-biblical church. Relevant to our discussion is the New Testament reference to the charismatic gift of the “distinguish[ing] between spirits” (1 Cor. 12:10).

Pentecostal theologians have rightly outlined important criteria for discernment, including:

•Alignment with Scripture, the hallmark among all criteria.

•The spiritual and moral quality of the person giving the utterance, making a decision, or doing the act.

•What can be called “transrational criterion,” that is, something that “may appear almost as an existential, intuitive sense that all is not as it may otherwise appear. It is a divinely given sense which enables the detection of the source from which the prophetic word arises.”³⁴

On the basis of an ethnographic study, Stephen E. Parker also confirms the intuition common among Pentecostals that “[o]ne criterion that Pentecostals used to discern the Spirit’s leading was retrospective judgment; if things worked out for the good, then it was the Lord’s leading, [and] if they did not, it probably was not.”³⁵

These are all valuable and useful guidelines for the work of discernment. However, similar to the biblical criteria, these instructions were not developed for the sake of interfaith encounters but rather for distinguishing between an authentic and false utterance or act (such as healing or deliverance) by a teacher or a prophet. In this regard, they do not help us establish more specific criteria for discerning the Spirit of God among religions amidst other spirits.

Adding to the challenge of discernment is this important observation: since there are “no simple phenomenological criteria by which we can test the presence of the Holy Spirit,” ultimately, such discernment requires a theological and spiritual process of judgement and assessment.³⁶ For this, Christology is the most important criterion, for “every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God” (1 Jn 4:3). As Lesslie Newbigin, missionary bishop to India, said, “The work of the Spirit does not lead past, or beyond, or away from Jesus.”³⁷ The christological criterion is key for interfaith discernment. Any appeal to the work of the Spirit that distances us further from Christ is most likely false. Any appeal to the work of the Spirit that points to Christ and his work is likely (more) trustworthy. Similarly, in any area of discernment, alongside Christ, the appeal to ethical and moral criteria is also important.

Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that our task is discerning and not controlling the Spirit of God. To ask whether or how the Holy Spirit is at work in the world “is to remind the church that the Spirit is not under our control and that it may even challenge us to repent and reform.”³⁸ In other words, the all-present, all-mighty, and all-knowing Spirit of God is sovereign to work his own agenda. The Spirit does not require our approval; the Spirit blows where it wills.

It is also essential to remember that, as a work in progress, discernment is always provisional. Let us not hasten too quickly to issue the final word on matters that are far too complex and complicated for our frail and limited human minds to fully comprehend. Let us wait patiently. Patience is necessary because the work of the discernment is not primarily individual but communal. It is the work of the church community – ultimately the whole church of Christ – that is the platform and agency of this discernment. Communal decisions and deliberations always take time.

For our task, we may glean additional lessons from the International Dialogue between the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and Pentecostals, started in 1986.³⁹ Let us highlight the following three lessons: First, “sometimes discernment requires interpretation,” as can be seen in the biblical encounter between the prophet Agabus and Paul in Acts 21. While Agabus’ prophesy – claimed under the authority of the Holy Spirit – about Paul’s fate if he went up to Jerusalem was interpreted by the audience as a warning against the trip, Paul, “bound by the Spirit” chose to make the journey (Acts 20:22; 21:13).⁴⁰ Second, “sometimes discernment takes time,” as evident in a number of biblical passages including the promise of God to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3). Even though Abraham died long before God’s promise came to fruition, in hindsight the promise can be discerned as authentic.⁴¹ Third, and related, “a prophetic word is ultimately considered to be valid when it is fulfilled … This point of discernment is important to remember in light of recent claims by some that the Lord would return by a specific date (Mt. 24:36; 25:13).”⁴²

Concluding Reflections

The existence of so many religions and ideologies, each with their own passionate claims for truth and salvation, continues to be a major challenge for the church of the third millennium. The challenge is particularly acute for an enthusiastic missionary movement like the global Pentecostal Movement. But what if religious plurality and religious pluralism were not necessarily seen as demonic or as enemies of Christ? This is the opinion of the British philosopher-theologian Keith Ward, who argues that ultimately “for a religious person, to accept disagreement is to see it as within the providence of God” – even disagreement stemming from the diversity of religious beliefs and convictions.⁴³ Religions do not exist without God’s permission and allowance. The continuing challenge, particularly for the staunch monotheist, is to reconcile one’s own deeply held (God-given?) beliefs with different, often opposing, convictions.⁴⁴ This is an undoubtedly complex and painful task, but it can also be taken as an opportunity.

Francis Clooney, the leading American comparative theologian, speaks to the same issue:

If we are attentive to the diversity around us, near us, we must deny ourselves the easy confidences that keep the other at a distance. But, as believers, we must also be able to defend the relevance of the faith of our community, deepening our commitments even alongside other faiths that are flourishing nearby. We need to learn from other religious possibilities, without slipping into relativist generalisations. The tension between open-mindedness and faith, diversity and traditional commitment, is a defining feature of our era, and neither secular society nor religious authorities can make simple choices before us.⁴⁵

The rapidly growing Pentecostal Movement has the opportunity to take leadership in the vital Christian mission of addressing the complex issue of different religions and religious plurality, while continuing its faithful and enthusiastic work of evangelism and social service. Led by the power of the God’s Spirit, Pentecostals might yet discover God’s Spirit in places they have yet to explore, trusting that “the wind blows wherever it pleases” (Jn 3:8).

Bibliography

Bergen, Jeremy M. “The Holy Spirit in the World”, Vision: A Journal for Church and Theology 13(1), (Spring 2012): 84-92.

Carpenter, Harold. “Tolerance or Irresponsibility: The Problem of Pluralism in Missions”, Advance 31(2), (February 1995): 19. [Available at: https://pentecostalarchives.org/?a=d&d=ADV199502-01.1.17&e=------199-en-20--1--img-txIN-advance-----------], [Last accessed: 9th October 2025].

Clooney, Francis X. Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Religious Borders. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Duffield, Guy P., and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave. Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1983.

“Experience in Christian Faith and Life: Worship, Discipleship, Discernment, Community, and Justice: The Report of the International Dialogue between Representatives of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders 2001–2011”, Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research 21. January 2012. [Available at: http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj21/WARC_2011d.html], [Last accessed: 9th October 2025].

“Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness: Report from the Fifth Phase of the International Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders (1990–1997)”, Vatican Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. [Available at: https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-occidentale/pentecostali/dialogo/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese.html], [Last accessed: 9th October 2025].

“Final Report of the Dialogue between the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostals (1977-1982)”, Vatican Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity. [Available at: https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-occidentale/pentecostali/dialogo/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese2.html], [Last accessed: 9th October 2025].

Hiebert, Paul G. “Discerning the Work of God”, In Cecil M. Robeck Jr., Ed. Charismatic Experiences in History. Hendrickson, 1985.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. “Discerning the Holy Spirit in the World of Religious Pluralism(s), Secularism(s), and Science(s): A Multilayered Constructive Christian Vision of Pneumatology for the Third Millennium”, Journal of World Christianity 14(1), (2024): 1-24.

–––. “Theology of Religions: Divine Hospitality and Spiritual Discernment”, In Wolfgang Vondey, Ed. Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal Theology. Routledge, Taylor & Francis, 2020.

–––. “The Challenge of Discerning between the Genuine and Counterfeit ‘Signs of the Spirit’: Toward a Pentecostal Theology of the Discernment of the Spirit(s)”, Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 39(2), (2019): 165-83, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/18124461.2019.1627510], [Last accessed: 9th October 2025].

–––. “The Discernment of the Spirit(s) in Pentecostal Practice and Theology”, In John Huntzinger and S. David Moore, Eds. The Pastor and the Kingdom: Essays Honoring Jack W. Hayford. TKU/Gateway Press, 2018.

–––. Spirit and Salvation. Vol. 4 of A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World. Eerdmans, 2016.

–––. “Is the Origin of the Spirit Still a Theological Impasse? A Modest Ecumenical Proposal about the Derivation of the Spirit in the Trinity”, In Eric Nelson and Lois E. Olena, Eds. Children of the Calling: Essays in Honor of Stanley M. Burgess and Ruth V. Burgess. Pickwick Publications, 2014.

–––. “Spirit(s) in Contemporary Christian Theology: An Interim Report of the Unbinding of Pneumatology”, In Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Kirsteen Kim, and Amos Yong, Eds. Interdisciplinary and Religio-Cultural Discourses on a Spirit-Filled World. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

–––. The Spirit in the World: Emerging Pentecostal Theologies in Global Contexts. Eerdmans, 2009.

–––. “‘How to Speak of the Spirit among Religions’: Trinitarian ‘Rules’ for a Pneumatological Theology of Religions”, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 30(3), (July 2006): 121-27.

–––. “Trinitarian Rules for a Pneumatological Theology of Religions”, In Michael Welker, Ed. The Work of the Spirit: Pneumatology and Pentecostalism. Eerdmans, 2006.

–––. “The Uniqueness of Christ and Trinitarian Faith”, In Sung Wook Chung, Ed. Christ the One and Only: A Global Affirmation of the Uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Paternoster, 2005.

–––. “Trinity and Religions: On the Way to a Trinitarian Theology of Religions for Evangelicals”, Missiology 33(2), (2005): 159-74.

–––. Trinity and Religious Pluralism: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology of Religions. Ashgate, 2004.

–––. Creation and Humanity. Vol. 3 of A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World. Eerdmans, 1995.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti, Kirsteen Kim, and Amos Yong, Eds. Interdisciplinary and Religio-Cultural Discourses on a Spirit-Filled World. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Kuyper, Abraham. Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, edited by James D. Bratt. Eerdmans, 1998.

Lederle, Henry I. Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of Spirit-Baptism in the Charismatic Renewal Movement Hendrickson, 1988.

McLean, Mark D. “The Holy Spirit”, in Stanley M. Horton, Ed. Systematic Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective. Logion Press, 1994.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Fortress, 1992.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel. Handsel Press, 1982.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Vol. 3. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Eerdmans, 1998.

Parker, Stephen E. Led by the Spirit: Toward a Practical Theology of Pentecostal Discernment and Decision Making. Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Pinnock, Clark. Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Richie, Tony. Speaking by the Spirit: A Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Dialogue. Emeth Press, 2011.

–––. “Azusa-Era Optimism: Bishop J.H. King’s Pentecostal Theology of Religions as a Possible Paradigm for Today”, Journal of Pentecostal Tradition 14(2), (April 2006): 247-60.

Robeck, Jr., Cecil M. “A Pentecostal Assessment of ‘Towards a Common Understanding and Vision’ of the WCC”, Mid-Stream 37(1), (1998): 1-36.

–––. “Discerning the Spirit in the Life of the Church”, In William R. Barr and Rena M. Yocom, Eds. The Church in the Movement of the Spirit. Eerdmans, 1994.

–––. “Written Prophecies: A Question of Authority”, Pneuma 2(2), (1980): 26-45. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/157007480X00080], [Last accessed: 11th October 2025].

Sauls, Ned D. Pentecostal Doctrines: A Wesleyan Approach. The Heritage Press, 1979.

Solivan, Samuel. “Interreligious Dialogue: An Hispanic American Pentecostal Perspective”, In S. Mark Heim, Ed. Grounds for Understanding: Ecumenical Responses to Religious Pluralism. Eerdmans, 1998.

Ward, Keith. Religion and Community. Oxford University Press, 1999.

Williams, Ernest S. Systematic Theology. Gospel, 1953.

Wilson, Aaron M. Basic Bible Truth: A Doctrinal Study of the Pentecostal Church of God. Messenger, 1987.

“Word and Spirit, Church and World: The Final Report of the International Dialogue between Representatives of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders 1996–2000”, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 23(1), (Spring 2001): 9-43. This document was also published in the Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 4(1), (2001): 41-72; and as “Word and Spirit, Church and World: Final Report of the International Pentecostal-Reformed Dialogue”, Reformed World 50(3), (September 2000): 128-56.

Wright, Nigel. “A Pilgrimage in Renewal”, In Thomas Smail, Andrew Walker, and Nigel Wright, Eds. Charismatic Renewal: The Search for a Theology. SPCK, 1993.

Yong, Amos, and Clifton Clarke, Eds. Global Renewal, Religious Pluralism, and the Great Commission: Towards a Renewal Theology of Mission and Interreligious Encounter. Emeth Press, 2011.

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

–––. “Discernment, Discerning the Spirits”, In William Dyrness, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Juan Martinez, and Simon Chan, Eds. Global Dictionary of Theology. InterVarsity Press, 2008.

–––. The Spirit Poured Out On All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology. Baker Academic, 2005.

–––. Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions. Baker Academic, 2003.

–––. Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions. Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

¹ All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the NIV.

² For careful editorial work and double-checking the references, I am indebted to my Research Assistant, Dr Nick Scott-Blakely at the Center for Advanced Theological Studies, Fuller Theological Seminary.

³ Unless otherwise noted, biblical citations come from the New International Version (NIV).

⁴ Throughout, I am borrowing from my “Theology of Religions: Divine Hospitality and Spiritual Discernment”, Wolfgang Vondey (ed), in Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal Theology (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020): 443-53.

⁵ A quick survey of Pentecostal manuals shows this clearly: Ernest S. Williams, Systematic Theology (Gospel Publishing House, 1953), vol.3, 155-56; Ned D. Sauls, Pentecostal Doctrines: A Wesleyan Approach (The Heritage Press, 1979): 54; Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1983): 268-70; Aaron M. Wilson, Basic Bible Truth: A Doctrinal Study of the Pentecostal Church of God (Messenger Publishing House, 1987): 115; Mark D. McLean, “The Holy Spirit”, in Stanley M. Horton (ed), Systematic Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective (Logion Press, 1994): 392. For this bibliographical note, I am indebted to Cecil M. Robeck, “A Pentecostal Assessment of ‘Towards a Common Understanding and Vision’ of the WCC”, Mid-Stream 37(1), (1998): 31-40.

⁶ Tony Richie, Speaking by the Spirit: A Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Dialogue (Emeth Press, 2011): 26 (and more widely, chapter 6).

⁷ Harold Carpenter, “Tolerance or Irresponsibility: The Problem of Pluralism in Missions”, Advance 31(2), (1995): 19.

⁸ “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness: Report from the Fifth Phase of the International Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders (1990–1997)”, Vatican Dicastery Council for Promoting Christian Unity, [Available at: https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-occidentale/pentecostali/dialogo/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese.html, para. 14], [Last accessed: 7th October 2025].

⁹ “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness”, para. 20.

¹⁰ “Final Report of the Dialogue between the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostals (1977–1982)”, Vatican Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, [Available at: https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-occidentale/pentecostali/dialogo/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese2.html, para. 14], [Last accessed: 7th October 2025].

¹¹ “Final Report of the Dialogue”, para. 21.

¹² I have kept references to a minimum, but the interested reader can find meticulous documentation in the following: Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Spirit(s) in Contemporary Christian Theology: An Interim Report of the Unbinding of Pneumatology”, in Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Kirsteen Kim, and Amos Yong (eds), Interdisciplinary and Religio-Cultural Discourses on a Spirit-Filled World (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013): 29-40; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Part I: Spirit”, in Spirit and Salvation, vol. 4 of A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World (Eerdmans, 2016); Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Discerning the Holy Spirit in the World of Religious Pluralism(s), Secularism(s), and Science(s): A Multilayered Constructive Christian Vision of Pneumatology for the Third Millennium”, Journal of World Christianity 14:1 (2024): 1-24.

¹³ A groundbreaking work is Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation, trans. Margaret Kohl (Fortress, 1992). See also Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Creation and Humanity, vol. 3 of A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World (Eerdmans, 1995).

¹⁴ See Amos Yong’s chapter, “A Spirit-Filled Creation?: Toward a Pneumatological Cosmology”, in his book The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal-Charismatic Imagination (Eerdmans, 2011).

¹⁵ Abraham Kuyper, Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Eerdmans, 1998): 488.

¹⁶ A wonderful resource to inspire Pentecostal thinking is the diverse and interdisciplinary collection of essays in Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Kirsteen Kim, and Amos Yong (eds), Interdisciplinary and Religio-Cultural Discourses on a Spirit-Filled World (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).

¹⁷ True, this dualism is not unique to Pentecostalism, as it can be diagnosed in many conservative and fundamentalist traditions. However, any spirit-oriented movement such as Pentecostalism is particularly liable to this dualism.

¹⁸ Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Eerdmans, 1998): 1.

¹⁹ Henry I. Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of Spirit-Baptism in the Charismatic Renewal Movement (Hendrickson, 1988): 338. See also Nigel Wright, “A Pilgrimage in Renewal”, in Thomas Smail et al. (eds), Charismatic Renewal: The Search for a Theology (SPCK, 1993): 31.

²⁰ See Amos Yong, “On the Way to a Pentecostal-Charismatic Theology of Religions”, in Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions (Sheffield Academic Press, 2000): Ch. 6.

²¹ Clark Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996): 274.

²² Amos Yong, Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions (Baker Academic, 2003).

²³ Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 24.

²⁴ Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Baker Academic, 2005): 235-36.

²⁵ Richie, Speaking by the Spirit; see also Tony Richie, “Azusa-Era Optimism: Bishop J.H. King’s Pentecostal Theology of Religions as a Possible Paradigm for Today”, Journal of Pentecostal Tradition 14(2), (April 2006): 247-60.

²⁶ For a collection of essays – several of which address interfaith issues – by Pentecostal theologians broadly representing global perspectives, see Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen (ed), The Spirit in the World: Emerging Pentecostal Theologies in Global Contexts (Eerdmans, 2009); Amos Yong and Clifton Clarke (eds), Global Renewal, Religious Pluralism, and the Great Commission: Towards a Renewal Theology of Mission and Interreligious Encounter (Emeth Press, 2011).

²⁷ Samuel Solivan, “Interreligious Dialogue: An Hispanic American Pentecostal Perspective”, in S. Mark Heim (ed), Grounds for Understanding: Ecumenical Responses to Religious Pluralism (Eerdmans, 1998): 37-45.

²⁸ Solivan, “Interreligious Dialogue”, 43.

²⁹ Solivan, “Interreligious Dialogue”, 44.

³⁰ Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Trinity and Religious Pluralism: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology of Religions (Ashgate, 2004); Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “‘How to Speak of the Spirit among Religions’: Trinitarian ‘Rules’ for a Pneumatological Theology of Religions”, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 30(3), (July 2006): 121-27; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “The Uniqueness of Christ and Trinitarian Faith”, in Sung Wook Chung (ed), Christ the One and Only: A Global Affirmation of the Uniqueness of Jesus Christ (Paternoster, 2005): 111-35; Kärkkäinen, “Trinity and Religions”, 159-74; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Trinitarian Rules for a Pneumatological Theology of Religions”, in Michael Welker (ed), The Work of the Spirit: Pneumatology and Pentecostalism (Eerdmans, 2006): 47-70.

³¹ Kärkkäinen, Spirit and Salvation, chap. 5 particularly.

³² For a thoughtful essay on distinctively Pentecostal understanding, see Cecil M. Robeck Jr., “Discerning the Spirit in the Life of the Church”, in William R. Barr and Rena M. Yocom (eds), The Church in the Movement of the Spirit (Eerdmans, 1994): 29-50. A useful and accessible brief overview of biblical, historical, and contemporary global perspectives can be found in Amos Yong, “Discernment, Discerning the Spirits”, in William Dyrness et al. (eds), Global Dictionary of Theology (InterVarsity Press, 2008): 232-35. See also Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “The Discernment of the Spirit(s) in Pentecostal Practice and Theology”, in John Huntzinger and S. David Moore (eds), The Pastor and the Kingdom: Essays Honoring Jack W. Hayford (TKU/Gateway Press, 2018): 174-93; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “The Challenge of Discerning between the Genuine and Counterfeit ‘Signs of the Spirit’: Toward a Pentecostal Theology of the Discernment of the Spirit(s)”, Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 39(2), (2019): 165-83, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/18124461.2019.1627510], [Last accessed: 9th October 2025].

³³ Robeck, “Discerning the Spirit”, 32. Emphasis added.

³⁴ Cecil M. Robeck Jr., “Written Prophecies: A Question of Authority”, Pneuma 2(2), (1980): 38. For the listing and discussion of the criteria mentioned above and some others, based on a comprehensive scrutiny of Pentecostal sources, see Stephen E. Parker, Led by the Spirit: Toward a Practical Theology of Pentecostal Discernment and Decision Making (Sheffield Academic Press, 1996): 31-37.

³⁵ Parker, Led by the Spirit, 105.

³⁶ Paul G. Hiebert, “Discerning the Work of God”, in Cecil M. Robeck Jr. (ed), Charismatic Experiences in History (Hendrickson, 1985): 151.

³⁷ Lesslie Newbigin, The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel (Handsel Press, 1982): 216–17.

³⁸ Jeremy M. Bergen, “The Holy Spirit in the World”, Vision: A Journal for Church and Theology 13(1), (Spring 2012): 84.

³⁹ “Word and Spirit, Church and World: The Final Report of the International Dialogue between Representatives of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders 1996–2000”, #22–35; available in Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 23(1), (Spring 2001): 9-43. This document was also published in the Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 4(1), (2001): 41-72; and as “Word and Spirit, Church and World: Final Report of the International Pentecostal-Reformed Dialogue”, Reformed World 50(3), (September 2000): 128-56. An even more extensive discussion appears in the second report, which covered the first decade of the third millennium: “Experience in Christian Faith and Life: Worship, Discipleship, Discernment, Community, and Justice: The Report of the International Dialogue between Representatives of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders 2001–2011”, Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research 21, January 2012, [Available at: http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj21/WARC_2011d.html], [Last accessed: 9th October 2025].

⁴⁰ “Experience in Christian Faith and Life”, para. 97.

⁴¹ “Experience in Christian Faith and Life”, para. 98

⁴² “Experience in Christian Faith and Life”, para. 99.

⁴³ Keith Ward, Religion and Community (Oxford University Press, 1999): 25. Emphasis in original.

⁴⁴ Ward, Religion and Community, 25.

⁴⁵ Francis X. Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning Across Religious Borders (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010): 7.

Response to Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen’s “Does the Spirit Blow Where It Wills? Pentecostals and the Struggle of Discerning the Holy Spirit among Religions”

Bobby Chaw

Thank you, Dr Kärkkäinen, for the opportunity to engage with your inspiring presentation. Your paper offers a theologically incisive and stimulating perspective on the Pentecostal challenge of discerning the Spirit’s work beyond the four walls of the church, especially as I reflect within the context of Asia’s religious plurality. Your contribution is important, urging Pentecostals to stay open to the Spirit’s untameable movement while discerning against pluralism, universalism, and a diminished urgency for evangelism and holistic mission.

Kärkkäinen’s central argument is to urge Pentecostals to expand their pneumatological framework. While Pentecostals readily embrace the Spirit’s power, he highlights their hesitation to recognise the Spirit’s activity outside the church, Christian salvation, and charismatic experience. Drawing from Psalm 139 and John 3:8, he advocates for a “world-embracing, multilayered” pneumatology that acknowledges the Spirit’s presence across creation, society, culture, and among other religions.

Kärkkäinen critiques the historical Pentecostal view of other religions, marked by indifference and fear of compromising Christological and missional commitments. He urges Pentecostals to adopt a more expansive pneumatology that recognises the Spirit’s work globally, while upholding Christ’s uniqueness, resisting pluralism and universalism, and affirming the urgency of the Great Commission. Drawing on Pentecostal scholars such as Amos Yong, Samuel Solivan and others, Kärkkäinen highlights new efforts to develop a Christ-centred pneumatology open to the Spirit’s unexpected activity among other religions. He also explores the complex theological tensions between continuity and discontinuity in the Spirit’s work: affirming both the Spirit’s universal presence and God’s unique salvific and charismatic work in personal salvation and the believing community.

At the heart of Kärkkäinen’s argument is a call for Pentecostals to actively exercise discernment – carefully, patiently, and communally – in recognising the Spirit’s activity among the religions, guided by Scripture, Christological fidelity, ethical fruit, and a humility that acknowledges that the Spirit cannot be domesticated or controlled. By doing so, he envisions a global Pentecostal Movement that embraces a richer, more holistic pneumatology, empowering it to engage faithfully with the realities of religious pluralism.

His call for a more expansive Pentecostal pneumatology is both compelling and challenging. In what follows, I reflect on his vision, considering its theological strengths, potential tensions, and practical applications within the pluralistic realities of Asia.

First, I appreciate Kärkkäinen’s candid and forthright observation that many Pentecostals tend to view the issue of religious plurality as non-urgent, often minimising its significance or perceiving it as a threat. His robust, biblically and theologically grounded argument for the Spirit’s active presence in all dimensions of the world and human life – including within religious traditions – suggests that this issue cannot be dismissed. To enrich this important conversation, I would like to offer a complementary perspective that adds further nuance. At the 2023 Global Pentecostal Summit, Ivan Satyavrata underscored the urgency of addressing religious plurality from a social standpoint, noting that the rise of multiculturalism and religious plurality increases the potential for communal conflict.¹ Moreover, Pastor Kong Hee emphasised the missional importance of the issue, grounded in the biblical account of Acts 17, where Paul, upon arriving in Athens, engaged the city’s diverse citizens with humility, respect, and kindness, seeking common ground without compromising his conviction in the centrality of Christ.² Thus, to sideline this conversation is to neglect not only the biblical and theological concerns but also the social and missional significance.

In recent weeks, our church³ organised two large outdoor healing services in Pakistan – a nation ranked among the highest on Open Doors’ World Watch List for extreme persecution of Christians.⁴ Over 100,000 attended – mostly non-Christians. The events were co-hosted with Pastor Anwar Fazal, a local Pentecostal leader who maintains a close relationship with the Grand Imam, the country’s highest religious authority in Islam, the majority religion of Pakistan. During a private tour of the Badshahi Mosque, overseen by the Grand Imam, we learned that Pastor Anwar had collaborated on initiatives to support the poor in the Muslim community, while the Imam had, in turn, offered shelter in the mosque to displaced Christians following occasional radical attacks. Acknowledging a shared reverence for “the God of Abraham,” the Imam referred to us Christians as “cousins in faith.” Pastor Anwar later emphasised that this relationship – rooted in respect, service, and peace – helps ease interfaith tensions and enables him to fulfil the Great Commission in a challenging context. This raises the question: Can everything associated with other religions be viewed as inherently bad or evil? To truly foster understanding of those from different faiths, the importance of everyday interaction must be emphasised. Knowing others’ religious beliefs, traditions, and customs humanises them by focusing on commonalities rather than differences.⁵

A second observation concerns the practical and theological challenge of discerning the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit among other religions. As Kärkkäinen notes, the absence of clear criteria for recognising the Spirit’s work in these contexts necessitates a posture of discernment both theologically grounded and spiritually attuned. This process is inherently complex, requiring careful navigation between the dual commitments of the church’s “missionary mandate” and “pneumatological mandate.”⁶ The difficulty of holding these commitments in tension is especially acute in the Asian context, where religious plurality is not only deeply embedded but also increasingly dynamic.

A 2014 study by the Pew Research Center found that the Asia-Pacific region holds the highest Religious Diversity Index (RDI) globally, with Singapore ranked as the most religiously diverse country.⁷ Within such contexts, Asian Pentecostals live amidst deep religious plurality, often sharing daily life with adherents of other faiths as family, colleagues, and friends. Many pursue peace and mutual respect, recognising the Spirit’s presence beyond their own tradition. Yet, their affirmation of Christ’s particularity and God’s unique salvific and charismatic work often sparks misunderstanding or conflict. How, then, can they faithfully navigate this tension within pluralistic societies?

To further illustrate the complexity of the Asian context, consider Rachel Prasanth Babu’s story.⁸ Raised in a devout Hindu family in India, she experienced a profound conversion to Christianity at age seventeen while studying medicine in Russia. Fearing familial conflict, she kept her faith hidden. When she returned home at age twenty-three, her parents responded with hostility – discarding her Bible and disowning her. Her father remained silent toward her for six years, while her mother turned to spiritism to pressure her into a religiously acceptable marriage. Despite efforts towards reconciliation, Rachel ultimately relocated to another city to remain faithful to Christ and avoid further strife. She continues to grapple with guilt, as she deeply respects her parents but perceives herself as falling short of their expectations due to her commitment to a faithful Christian witness. Her story highlights the profound cost of conversion and the tension between faith, family, and identity in religiously pluralistic Asian societies. How can Christians in honour-based Asian contexts navigate the tension between faithfulness to Christ and the demands of family and culture?

Third, a critical challenge in Asia involves navigating the biblical imperative to reject the worship of other deities and avoid syncretism, while discerning the activity of the Holy Spirit among those of other faiths. The second commandment calls believers to reject idols (Ex. 20:4), a directive echoed by Paul when he commends the Thessalonians for having “turned to God from idols” (1 Th. 1:9). At first glance, this turning implies the absence of the Spirit in such contexts, suggesting a clear call to renounce idolatry and other deities. Yet Paul offers a more nuanced view, recognising even in misguided worship a sincere spiritual longing – perhaps a drawing initiated by the Holy Spirit? In Athens, he saw in the altar to an “unknown God” (Acts 17:23) a sign of this search and proclaimed: “You are ignorant of the very thing you worship – and this is what I am going to proclaim to you” (v. 23). As Frank Macchia writes:

All idolatry is misdirected ultimate concern, as Paul Tillich reminded us. Even if tainted by idolatry, there is hidden in the quest for gods an important clue as to who we really are, creatures made for God. The point is that these theologians would not look at the names of the many deities “atheistically.” Many would view these “gods” as indications of a deep yearning for the true God, more or less characteristic of a reach for transcendence that is resident in all of humanity.⁹

In Asia, however, responding to the Spirit-stirred yearning can come at great cost – sometimes even suffering or death – highlighting the need for a theology that holds both discernment and empowerment through suffering.

Given Kärkkäinen’s work in comparative theology and pneumatology, I would inquire of him how believers might discern the presence of the Holy Spirit in contexts where many Asian religions are overtly idolatrous, as Paul did in his engagement with the Athenians? Furthermore, in situations of religious persecution, how can believers navigate the tension between renouncing idolatry (where the Spirit is seemingly absent) and engaging others with humility and discernment, particularly when such engagement risks misunderstanding, opposition or discord?

In conclusion, Kärkkäinen’s call for an expansive Pentecostal pneumatology challenges believers to recognise the Holy Spirit’s active presence beyond traditional boundaries, especially in religiously plural contexts. His work fosters and encourages essential dialogue on the tensions between the “missionary mandate” and a broader “pneumatological mandate”,¹⁰ while paving a radical middle way. For Pentecostals in Asia, balancing the call to reject syncretism with discerning the Spirit’s work in other religions presents a profound challenge, as illustrated by the experiences shared in this response. In navigating this complexity, Pentecostals are called to maintain theological fidelity while humbly engaging with others, affirming both the uniqueness of Christ and the Spirit’s broader activity in the world.

Bibliography

Chinyong Liow, Joseph. “Managing Religious Diversity and Multiculturalism in Singapore”, In Terence Chong, Ed. Navigating Differences: Integration in Singapore. ISEAS, 2020.

“Global Religious Diversity.” Pew Research Centre. 4th April 2014. [Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2014/04/04/global-religious-diversity/], [Last accessed: 11th October 2025].

Hee, Kong. “Singapore: The Antioch of Asia?” In Kong Hee, Bryon D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, Eds. Voices Loud & Clear. Regnum, 2024.

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 Europe-Asia Pentecostal Summit, Singapore, 14th May 2025.

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

Satyavrata, Ivan. “The Voice of Truth in the Christian Encounter with World Religions”, In Kong Hee, Bryon D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, Eds. Voices Loud & Clear. Regnum, 2024.

“The 2025 World Watch List”, Open Doors US. [Available at: https://www.opendoorsus.org/en-US/persecution/countries], [Last accessed: 11th October 2025].

¹ Ivan Satyavrata, “The Voice of Truth in the Christian Encounter with World Religions”, in Kong Hee et al. (eds), Voices Loud & Clear (Regnum, 2024): 59.

² Kong Hee, “Singapore: The Antioch of Asia?” in Hee et al. (eds), Voices Loud & Clear (Regnum, 2024): 188.

³ City Harvest Church is a congregation based in Singapore, where I currently serve as the Executive Pastor.

⁴ “The 2025 World Watch List”, Open Doors US [Available at: https://www.opendoorsus.org/en-US/persecution/countries], [Last accessed: 11th October 2025].

⁵ Joseph Chinyong Liow, “Managing Religious Diversity and Multiculturalism in Singapore”, in Terence Chong (ed), Navigating Differences: Integration in Singapore (ISEAS, 2020): 32, as quoted in Kong, “Singapore: The Antioch of Asia?” 189-90.

⁶ 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 Europe-Asia Pentecostal Summit, Singapore, 14th May 2025, 10.

⁷ “Global Religious Diversity”, Pew Research Centre, 4th April 2014, [Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2014/04/04/global-religious-diversity/], [Last accessed: 11th October 2025].

⁸ Rachel Prasanth Babu is a key leader at City Harvest Church Horizon in Chennai, India. Her story is shared with her permission and is based on an interview I conducted with her on 5th May 2025.

⁹ Frank D. Macchia, Tongues of Fire: A Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Cascade Books, 2023), Kindle Edition, 177-78.

¹⁰ Kärkkäinen, “Does the Spirit Blow Where It Wills?” 10.

Session 2

Perspectives on Pentecostal Leadership: Contextuality, Complexity, and Constructiveness

Truls Åkerlund

Abstract

Leadership is a complex phenomenon difficult to define as a single concept; rather, it is often understood as social processes that influence people towards common goals, an approach I will follow in this study. Based on general leadership theory and research on Pentecostal leadership, I emphasise the interaction between leaders, followers, and the spiritual dimension, leading to a constructivist perspective on the leader-follower relationships. The article first addresses leadership in various settings, emphasising the need to contextualise leadership in different cultures but also keep an analytical distance to avoid dominating discourses that break with Christian perspectives. Second, I discuss the complexity in Pentecostal leadership, especially the collaboration between divine and human interventions, the dialectic connection between agency and structure, and the ambivalence and tension between leaders and followers in ecclesial settings. Finally, I highlight humility and the constructive relations between leaders and followers. While leaders hold a formal position, leadership is also a social phenomenon effective only if it makes sense to church members, implying that the leader’s task is not to create everything from scratch but to build relationships and draw from the resources and spirituality present within the congregation.

Key Words: Pentecostal leadership, context, discourse, relational leadership, humility

Introduction

According to Grant Wacker, the Pentecostal history shows that “strong, determined, clear-eyed leaders orchestrated the revival from first to last.”¹ Enterprising and innovative leaders have been important to Pentecostalism’s growth and expansion since its inception,² and many Pentecostal leaders have also gained cultural influence in public and political spheres.³ In general, Pentecostalism can be grounded in a pneumatological centre where the emphasis is on the use of spiritual gifts;⁴ still, Pentecostal leadership can be seen as perplexing and paradoxical in the tension between primitivism and pragmatism, leadership theory and pneumatology, power to the anointed few, and empowerment of marginalised groups.⁵

Leadership is a complex phenomenon that can be challenging to define as a single concept;⁶ it is often understood as social processes that influence others towards common goals, an approach I follow in this study.⁷ Leaders and leadership in religious organisations have been a central theme in social scientific studies of religion since the beginning of the twentieth century, and findings show that complexity and ambivalence characterise leadership in religious groups across congregations and contexts.⁸ Different religious organisations exhibit significant variations in how leadership is connected to roles and structures,⁹ and this is an argument for specifically addressing leadership in Pentecostal settings – supported by the explosive growth of the movement, the role leadership has had in its development, and the lack of research in this area.¹⁰

In this article, I both use leadership theory and draw on my previous studies on Pentecostal leadership. Based on former research, I emphasise the interaction between leaders, followers, and the spiritual dimension, leading to a beneficial perspective on the leader-follower relationship. While leaders hold a formal position, leadership is also a social phenomenon effective only if it makes sense to the followers, implying that the leader’s task is not to create everything from scratch but to draw from the resources and spirituality present within the congregation.¹¹ Due to the nuances in Pentecostal leadership, I therefore emphasise contextuality, complexity and constructiveness throughout the paper, starting by highlighting how cultures and circumstances frame the understanding of leadership.

Contextuality

Pentecostalism is a “religion made to travel”¹² with the world as its parish,¹³ and it has been the fastest growing religious movement in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, estimating more than a billion Pentecostal believers around 2050.¹⁴ Pentecostalism has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to adapt to diverse cultural contexts, leading both to achieve global influence and a capacity to localised expressions of its universal message. The Pentecostal Movement is thus not a uniform phenomenon, and it has many different variations – also in leadership. As summarised by Allan Heaton Anderson, “Pentecostalism has an ability to transpose itself into local cultures and religions effortlessly, because of its primary emphases on the experience of the Spirit and the spiritual calling of leaders who do not have to be formally educated in theology.”¹⁵ This flexibility includes both benefits and burdens, as contexts and cultures implicitly influence religious organisations.

From a leadership perspective, it is natural that leaders adapt to different settings, for instance based on Implicit Leadership Theories (ILT). This relates to follower attributions formed by cultural locations and cognitive schemas, shaping individuals’ understandings, interpretations, and evaluations of leadership behaviours.¹⁶ Leadership is from this perspective in the eye of the beholder and defined as “the process of being perceived by others as a leader,”¹⁷ making it a result of the socio-cognitive procedures individuals use to label others. Cultural values do not predict leadership behaviours directly, but the culture is an antecedent which influences leadership expectations and predicts culturally endorsed leadership theories and behaviours.¹⁸ Consequently, individuals perceived as leaders will have greater influence and be more transformational compared to those who do not meet the implicit expectations of organisational members.¹⁹ In sum, leaders recognised by their followers tend to be more effective. The stronger the alignment, the greater the acceptance of the leader.²⁰

This implies that there are differences in leadership styles in various contexts, showed for instance in the extensive GLOBE study.²¹ As an example, the study shows that differences exist in leadership styles in Confucian Asia and Nordic Europe, as the first is being self-protective, team-oriented, and humane oriented, while the Nordic paradigm is visionary, participative, diplomatic, and less humane oriented and self-protective.²² Compared with Norway, Singapore places greater emphasis on power distance and collectivism, implying that a Norwegian leadership style characterised by free rein, involvement, and consideration would likely be ineffective in Singapore.²³ Another study shows that Americans describe leaders standing in front of groups, while Asians depict leaders standing behind groups, prioritising interpersonal and group responsibilities over individual assertion.²⁴ Culture hence “colours the pictures we see when we imagine following the leader,” both spatially and socially.²⁵

The point here is not to elevate one cultural style over another but to emphasise that the process of being and becoming a Pentecostal leader is stimulated by cultural and contextual expectations. Leadership is socially constructed and embedded in a context, and various leadership dimensions thus vary in different settings.²⁶ As such, Pentecostalism has flexibility and efficiency to meet different contexts, but its complexity can also be stained with “signs and blunders,”²⁷ and leadership can be seen as both diverse and contextual.²⁸ Since leadership is a complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon that cannot be reduced to simple formulas,²⁹ contexts will unavoidably shape the understanding of leadership as “culture is the fabric of meaning in terms of which human beings interpret their experience and guide their action.”³⁰ This means that we need to contextualise leadership to meet the culture we lead in, but also should keep an analytical distance since “what we ‘think’ about leading is merely the tip of the iceberg while the bulk lies beneath the surface in implicit knowledge.”³¹ One perspective on contextual adaptation of leadership seldom takes into account the implications of how power shapes the setting out of which leadership appears: “Context therefore not only encompasses the situation within which leadership takes place but also the framework of assumptions, beliefs, and practices through which we come to know what leadership is.”³² Consequently, the models or paradigms that dominate a setting often become dominating for how persons are accepted by others as leaders, and cultural assumptions also shape how they recognise themselves and their understanding of what leadership entails.³³ Dominating discourses in particular settings may influence forms of leadership paradigms as an “operating theatre in terms of their relationship with the discourses of Christianity in its various shapes and forms”³⁴ – implying that we should distil the discourses for analysis and embrace a healthy critical reflection on various aspects of (Pentecostal) leadership. The lens through which we perceive ourselves and the world is frequently polished by discursive hands as a “vehicle for thought, communication and action,”³⁵ indicating that discursive regimes (specific ways of understanding and ordering human activity) often set the standard for leadership ideals to match current values and concerns.³⁶ This perspective means that the way we practise and talk about leadership often is influenced by the paradigmatic and cultural language we are linked to,³⁷ and mental models hence constrict, inhibit, and facilitate our understanding of leadership.³⁸ This also means that there frequently is a normative pressure to adopt and demonstrate leadership in specific yet hegemonic ways, driven by various discourses also within organisational settings.³⁹

Subjects and objects often become constituted by dominating paradigms, and sources of Pentecostal authority could thus be connected to denominations’ discourses and rhetorical devices, which could lead to both appropriation and manipulation.⁴⁰ On one side, a possible strength is that Pentecostalism generally does not require formal training, hence “turning the losers of society into winners”⁴¹ by opening the space for people to take on leadership roles based on spiritual experiences. On the other side, this concept of sacred intervention and interference in human activities permeates their lifeworlds. It influences their daily experiences and interpretations of events, and empowers them to develop a distinct sense of agency – one shaped by cultural contexts and that leads to “learning a particular religious language and using it in the interpretation and narration of events and individual biographies.”⁴² This complexity implies that Pentecostals are both determined and determining through interaction between subjective experiences and dominating paradigms, and the impact of culture and contextuality, hence underscores the need for reflexivity and self-analysis.

Complexity

The last segment showed some of the nuances in contextual leadership and, in this section, I draw on Pentecostal leadership research to show some of the complexity of this model. The summary of a phenomenological study on Pentecostal leadership in Norway showed that leaders were motivated by a sense of divine purpose to serve God’s plan for the congregation and the world.⁴³ This implied that leadership was seen as derived from God; still, it was crucial for leaders to discern what God was doing without reducing leadership to merely listening and obeying. The belief that God was active in every aspect of life released these leaders to combine spirituality and rationality in leading the churches. This concept was confirmed in another empirical study drawing on data from Singapore, the USA, and Norway, showing an interaction between divine and human agency: “The participants were neither monarchs nor mouthpieces: They sensed that they led on behalf of God and were thus not entirely free to pursue their own agenda, yet they could not resign to apathy since the outworking of the divine initiative involved human agency.”⁴⁴ This leadership process involved both “praying and planning” with no divide between the spiritual and material domains, placing the leaders between an invisible spiritual realm and the tangible realities of organisational tasks: “God’s leading was subtle and open-ended, taking the shape of a mandate to act innovatively and exploit opportunities, thus leaving more room for organisational leaders to work out the implications of the divine initiative.”⁴⁵ Spirituality was still the core of their leadership, and the leaders related to the Pentecostal tradition in diverse and unsystematic ways, considering God’s guidance and producing a pragmatic and eclectic stance toward the Pentecostal tradition.⁴⁶

In one sense, then, the plasticity of Pentecostalism opened doors for leaders to be innovative and pioneering. As one saw the tradition more as a resource than a source, a lot of opportunities opened for Pentecostal leaders and congregations. A value in this perspective was participation, in which the church was “a fluid, co-participating organism … [where] Pentecostals have a certain knack of improvisation.”⁴⁷ God was working diversely in various settings, and Pentecostalism should not be brought to a well-ordered sense of closure, meaning that spirituality and theology is “not spoon-fed to people or crammed down their throats but is constantly being rearticulated at the local level in ways that ring true to people’s life experiences and the experiences of their communities.”⁴⁸ From another perspective, there is a risk that Pentecostal leaders end up being seamless and borderless, leaning towards a pragmatic tendency that can make their leadership a two-edged sword: “On one side, it fosters innovation by freeing leaders to actively choose the forms and methods that are best suited to serve the overall purpose of church in the times and places in which they exist. On the other side, the freedom from binding traditions may end up as a slippery slope of uncritical utilitarian emphasis on visible success.”⁴⁹ Based on the latter sentence, leaders can be highly subjective and function as gatekeepers who delimit the spirituality in the congregation based on their own will and understanding.

Pentecostal leadership can be autocratic rather than democratic, implying that pastors are heavy-handed and grant few others influence in the organisation.⁵⁰ In contrast, the Pentecostal tradition is a communal affair, and leaders should therefore be attuned to the community when defining and expressing the congregation’s direction and spirituality.⁵¹ This highlights the relational and reciprocal nature of Pentecostal leadership, which I discuss in the section on constructiveness. Still, it is a complex process where the “experience of leadership happens in a dialectic relationship between agency and structure, in which [the leader’s] ability to influence the organisation hinges on [one’s] ability to adapt to the organisation,”⁵² indicating an important interplay between the individual and the collective in Pentecostal organisations. In most settings, a leader’s break with the congregants’ support and submission will weaken his or her leadership as one gains influence by meeting the organisation’s expectations. Generally, there are no self-made leaders since leadership depends on their ability to define and convey reality and purpose in a way that resonates with the organisation. Structure and agency are mostly interconnected, and a leader must therefore adhere to the often-implicit expectations set by the organisation as highlighted in implicit leadership theories and social identity theories of leadership.⁵³

The mentioned cross-cultural study in Singapore, USA, and Norway showed an ambivalence and tension between leaders and others in Pentecostal churches (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Pentecostal Leadership⁶¹

While many of the leaders acknowledged the significant role of followers as co-constructors of leadership, some were more monocratic and represented a perplexing tension in Pentecostal leadership: “Spirituality was core for the leaders – but also for their followers; hence there was a constant potential for conflict in issues like differing views on God’s will, the shape of church gatherings, or more pragmatic organisational decisions.”⁵⁴ Leadership roles in Pentecostal settings can thus been seen as enigmatic and powerful with a latent tension between open egalitarianism (as all members have access to the Holy Spirit) and the ideas of authoritarian impulses based on hierarchy and submission (since the Spirit has empowered some to lead).⁵⁵ God pours out the Spirit “on all people” (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17)⁵⁶ and gives gifts to all believers for the advantage of the church, and leadership in congregations may thus “arise at any moment as any sister or brother becomes the vehicle for the authoritative word or touch of God in the midst of the gathering.”⁵⁷ This democratic perspective does not undermine leadership: leaders have an influential role in shaping the lives of people in churches, but this should include ethical reflection more than merely enforced submission. To merely “trust and obey,” Christian leaders can undermine the means for learning virtue and shaping character; they should thus function as ethical guides and create space for congregants to reflect and take responsibility for their moral lives.⁵⁸ Since “critical self-reflection is essential when a movement matures,”⁵⁹ all participants in their relations with leaders share the responsibility for preventing destructive charismatic cultures and fostering ethical agency within the organisation.⁶⁰

Without room for this to happen, leadership might be destructive. If one merely thinks that Pentecostal leadership is elected by God, divine attribution can lead to severe abuse of power since “the religious leader becomes representative of a divine being whose will is that of God and whose actions are above reproach.”⁶² An empirical study from Pentecostal fellowships in Norway showed that loyalty to God implied loyalty to the leaders, and exposing vulnerability or expressing personal views were seen as threats to the primary mission of the church. The gospel always took precedence over sharing personal experiences, thoughts, and feelings, and the informants felt powerless and borderless when leaders claimed to have received messages from God. They thus felt God’s will as destructive and forced upon them through the communication of leaders.⁶³ “‘Touch not God’s anointed’ and ‘Thus saith the Lord’ all too often become the desperate pleas of leaders,”⁶⁴ and frequently turn out to be a problem when they are seen in direct contact with the divine will more than other church members. This might involve a heroic and romanticised view of leadership, where leaders get the ability to dominate the destinies of the organisation through their charges and cause members to systematically overestimate the importance of leadership on groups and organisations.⁶⁵ The romancing of leaders may similarly involve a stronger commitment to obey a leader’s unethical request⁶⁶ and make followers mainly ineffectual.⁶⁷ If such relations are dominated by involuntariness, the idea of followership also tends to lose its meaning.⁶⁸

To fully grasp the transformational aspects of leadership, then, leader-centred approaches must be complemented with follower-centred approaches.⁶⁹ From a more positive view, leadership can be seen as co-constructed between leaders and followers through interaction and sensemaking. Each member of the congregation has personal and equal access to the spiritual reality, still it transcends the individual, connecting the entire community with the divine and making it a collective experience as well. Related to Figure 1 above, leadership can thus be seen as a collective phenomenon involving interaction between the leader, others, and the spiritual reality. Consequently, Pentecostal leadership should be granted rather than taken and it should be built through attribution and co-construction, relying on the leader’s ability to discern God’s will and make it meaningful and attainable for the congregation.⁷⁰ This involves the management of meaning,⁷¹ and leadership can be seen a social process where the leader’s ability to lead is proportional to how well their definition and interpretation of reality resonates with others.⁷² In sum, Pentecostal leadership should be co-constructed through an iterative process of sensemaking between leaders and followers within their shared ecclesial context,⁷³ “in which both leaders and followers attempt to understand their situation, and a leader is successful only to the extent that his or her interpretation of reality makes sense to followers.”⁷⁴ Subsequently, in the following section, I emphasise the constructive relationship between leaders and followers in Pentecostal and ecclesial settings.

Constructiveness

The complexity discussed in the last section does not undermine the need for leadership; leaders are important in ecclesial organisations, also in Pentecostal settings due to its expansion and entrepreneurism: “Given the explosive energies unleashed by the Pentecostal spirit, only resourceful and decisive leadership can prevent fragmentation and a loss of a sense of direction.”⁷⁵ Throughout the history of the church, however, leaders have played both heartful and hurtful roles, and the intricacy of leadership should therefore be constructive in the relationship between leaders and followers.⁷⁶ This emphasis on followership thus involves a “reversal of the lenses”⁷⁷ as it sees followers as agents who highlight the role they play in creating and sustaining effective followership and leadership outcomes. Until recently, little attention was given to followership in leadership research, and this underemphasised how leadership is a process co-created in relational and social interaction between leaders and followers.⁷⁸ “Central to leader-follower relations is the mutual need of followers to perceive and respond to the leader, and for the leader to them,”⁷⁹ and this relationship involves both leaders’ and followers’ characteristics and behaviours contributing to the co-production of leadership (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: A Leadership Co-Production Model⁸⁰

This model is of course a general outline of relationships more than a theory, but it underscores the need for emphasising both leaders and followers in the development and impact of leadership roles – even more in Christian settings where both leaders and followers are joined to the spiritual dimension and connected to God. As indicated by Simon Chan, popular notions of leadership centring around the leader with a vision for the Pentecostal congregation may often reduce the rest of the community to passive followers and subvert the biblical concept of the church.⁸¹ Instead, the leader should make explicit what is implicit among its members and “theologise from and for the community of faith.”⁸² Pentecostal theology emphasises the importance of a gifted congregation rather than focusing solely on an anointed individual.⁸³ Still, the interplay between ideals of equality inspired by the Spirit and cultural conventions shaped by the wider context might complicate the picture. The egalitarian ideal of Pentecostalism might contrast with the privilege of leadership and realities in many Pentecostal organisations,⁸⁴ and relations are thus especially important from a Pentecostal view due to the empowering of the Spirit on all people. The significant metaphors of the Christian community in the New Testament includes all Christians,⁸⁵ and a comprehensive understanding of the leadership process should thus include simultaneous attention to the domains of leaders, followers, and relationships.⁸⁶ As Mary Uhl-Bien shows, leaders and followers should work together to enable adaptability in complex social systems, indicating that leadership can be both top-down and centralised but also relational, collective, or distributed: “Without effective followership, leadership and adaptive responses fail.”⁸⁷ The engagement and connection between people in churches can thereby be understood through a relational lens where leadership is seen as “relational, takes place in networks of relationships, and demonstrates the nature of God’s love through the way that these relationships actually work.”⁸⁸ In sum, I argue that relationships are crucial for the development of Pentecostal leadership.

Connected to the co-constructive relationship between leaders and followers, expressed humility is another vital aspect of effective leadership in contemporary organisations because it has significant interpersonal implications that indicate that leaders can achieve self-awareness and learn through others. Humility has a rich background in theology and philosophy,⁸⁹ and from an organisational perspective, it is seen as an interpersonal trait that signifies (a) a willingness to view oneself accurately, (b) an appreciation of others’ strengths and contributions, and (c) teachability and openness to new ideas and feedback.⁹⁰ This aspect avoids excessive self-focus and enables leaders to gain self-awareness and build perspectives in their relationships with followers since leaders’ “self-views are focused on their interdependence with others rather than their independence from others.”⁹¹ Members can greatly benefit from compassionate leaders willing to work behind the scenes, and leaders’ humility can put followers and their needs at the foreground and contribute to their gratification with interpersonal features of the leader’s performance.⁹² Humility has positive associations with followers, leaders, teams, and organisations,⁹³ and it provides significant implications for the development of leader-follower relationships as it proceeds along a steady, upward trajectory, characterised by loyalty, growing trust, and mutual respect.⁹⁴ Humble leaders are thus rooted in the understanding that there is something greater than themselves, and they are expressed through self-awareness, openness to feedback, appreciation of others, low self-focus, and the pursuit of self-transcendent goals.⁹⁵ Leaders who act humble in their social exchange with followers develop positive relationships where members have emotional trust in their leader,⁹⁶ which connects with relational leadership in ecclesial settings.

The relationship between pastors and congregational members can be explained as friendship, where members highlight trust, loyalty, and the friendship-like relationship with the leader as an ideal.⁹⁷ Friendship can still encompass aspects of submission to authority and obedient service, but submission arises from relationship, where obedience is freely chosen and rooted in knowledge and love (cf. John 15:12-17).⁹⁸ “The pastor is called to embody the friendship of God in relationships with members of a congregation,”⁹⁹ and congregational leadership hence necessitates a reflection on the profound and enduring memories of the Christian tradition where the goal goes beyond mere submission to the leader and involves a relational practice. A leader in a large church cannot necessarily have close relationships with everyone but can embrace humility and make hierarchies dynamic, in which power is exercised to encourage the sharing of information and responsibility and enable the entire community to collectively discern truth and direction.¹⁰⁰

Looking back at the concept of contextuality, “culture is both our palace and prison.”¹⁰¹ As such, the setting we live in frequently shapes our understanding of biblical leadership,¹⁰² and we might read the Bible anachronistically through the lens of contemporary and dominating leadership perspectives.¹⁰³ Cultural and sociological discourses can shape churches’ priorities and strategies in, for instance, working for growth and marketisation,¹⁰⁴ and in ecclesial locations we hence need to renew our minds and keep a distance from dominant discourses in our time. A central aspect of Pauline leadership dealt with peoples’ relationship to Christ; the apostle broke with the prevailing culture and showed that Christian management regularly came into conflict with ideologies of leadership in the wider society.¹⁰⁵ According to Lynch, “managerialism must not be permitted to become default teloi of ecclesial leadership. The telos of incarnational ecclesial leadership is, rather, the deepening participation by believers in Christ’s life and ministry of love towards the Father that overflows to humanity.”¹⁰⁶ This does not mean that congregational leadership should dismiss general leadership theories, but the overarching biblical narrative should set the direction for the church. Followers should thus connect to the central goal of the organisation and support the leader yet challenge them if the purpose is threatened; they should take a moral position unlike the leader if it is necessary to prevent ethical abuse.¹⁰⁷ It is hence important in Christian settings to involve followers in an active role and open the space for reflection. Power can be seen as relationships between people with mutual intentions or purposes,¹⁰⁸ and the most ethically and morally uplifting leadership implies a process of inclusive and participatory relationship (rather than coercive and manipulative) between leaders and followers.¹⁰⁹

Conclusion

From an overall perspective, the Christian congregation is, in different ways, both a sociological and religious entity,¹¹⁰ and it should therefore draw on both mainstream leadership research and theological perspectives. Research on ecclesial leadership can thus be integrated into various existing disciplines, making it unnecessary to establish it as one distinct or separate field. It should not be studied in isolation but rather as a transdisciplinary field that combines insights from multiple academic and practical contexts.¹¹¹

From a Pentecostal perspective, then, leadership can be seen as a complex phenomenon since it happens in “relationships between organisational members and positional leaders, structure and agency, words and deeds, and spirituality and pragmatism.”¹¹² In one sense, “Pentecostals promote indigenous leadership”¹¹³ and emphasise the Spirit’s work in and through all believers so that God’s people can be seen as potential leaders and minimise the division between clergy and laity.¹¹⁴ From another perspective, leaders can be celebrated and elevated to high levels of prestige and power, which might praise the leader more than Christ and replace the gospel through unusual exercises threatening to people’s lives.¹¹⁵

As such, leaders can serve the organisation altruistically or be self-centred for personal gain, possessing both positional and personal power, which they can wield for the benefit of the community or for their own ego.¹¹⁶ Since “the fire from heaven can burn and destroy as well as purify and inspire,”¹¹⁷ it is important that Pentecostal leaders address identity, reflexivity and the issue of power to avoid toxic and abusive leadership.¹¹⁸ Leadership is a process linked with influence, and from a general Christian and specific Pentecostal setting, it must be connected to the overarching telos of the ecclesial intension. Leaders should hence move from heroes to hosts, “receiving and welcoming others into the discursive and symbolic spaces for which they are responsible.”¹¹⁹ Pentecostal leaders can make room to listen to God and set direction for the congregation, but this guidance should not typically break with the followers. We argue for promoting reflexiveness, active followership, and moral accountability for a move toward healthier leadership processes in Pentecostal organisations, for when congregational members are involved in decision-making and empowered to take charge of their lives and ministries, growth can occur, and the risk of manipulative management will decrease.¹²⁰

In sum, Pentecostal leaders must listen to the Spirit, discern their time and context, and attend to the people they lead in the congregation. This implies that leadership is contextual and complex, but also constructive, as it sets a direction for the church and helps the local members to “learn the script and understand how it should be performed in the present cultural scene.”¹²¹ Consequently, Pentecostal leaders are not completely free to act as they want; they serve as directors rather than authors. A leader may set the direction for a local congregation, yet this is most effective only if the congregants have trust in the pastor’s direction and discernment. For leadership to be sustainable, then, the influence of the congregation must be granted, not grabbed.

Bibliography

Aasmundsen, Hans Geir. “Pentecostals and Politics in Argentina: A Question of Compatibility?” Iberoamericana. Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies XLII(1–2), (2012): 85-107.

Åkerlund, Truls. “Taking Ownership of Our Spirituality: Pentecostal Leaders as Liturgical Directors”, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 31(1), (2022): 114-32.

–––. A Phenomenology of Pentecostal Leadership. Wipf & Stock, 2018.

–––. “Missional Leadership: A Critical Review of the Research Literature”, Australasian Pentecostal Studies 18 (2016). [Available at: https://apsjournal.com/index.php/APS/article/view/9493], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

–––. “Son, Sent, and Servant: Johannine Perspectives on Servant Leadership Theory”, Scandinavian Journal of Leadership and Theology 2 (November 2015). [Available at: https://doi.org/10.53311/sjlt.v2i1.9], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

–––. “Leadership in Corinth: Reciprocity and Leader-Member Exchange in 2 Corinthians 6:11-13”, Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 6(1), (2014): 162-75.

Åkerlund, Truls, and Åse-Miriam Smidsrød. “When Dominant Models Become Dominating: A Narrative Identity Approach to Female Leadership in Pentecostal Organizations”, Journal of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity 44(2), (2024): 110-30.

Åkerlund, Truls, and Karl Inge Tangen. “Charismatic Cultures: Another Shadow Side Confessed”, Pneuma 40(1–2), (2018): 109-29.

Albrecht, Daniel E., and Evan B. Howard. “Pentecostal Spirituality”, In Cecil M. Robeck Jr. and Amos Yong, Eds. The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Alvesson, Mats, and André Spicer. “Metaphors for Leadership”, In Mats Alvesson and André Spicer, Eds. Metaphors We Lead by: Understanding Leadership in the Real World. Routledge, 2011.

Alvesson, Mats, and Martin Blom. “The Hegemonic Ambiguity of Big Concepts in Organization Studies”, Human Relations 75(1), (2022): 58-86.

Alvesson, Mats, and Stefan Sveningsson. “Good Visions, Bad Micro-Management and Ugly Ambiguity: Contradictions of (Non-)Leadership in a Knowledge-Intensive Organization”, Organization Studies 24(6), (2003): 961-88.

Anderson, Allan Heaton. Spirit-Filled World: Religious Dis/Continuity in African Pentecostalism. Christianity and Renewal - Interdisciplinary Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.

Anderson, Allan. To the Ends of the Earth: Pentecostalism and the Transformation of World Christianity. Oxford Studies in World Christianity. Oxford University Press, 2013.

–––. Spreading Fires: The Missionary Nature of Early Pentecostalism. SCM Press, 2007.

–––. “Signs and Blunders: Pentecostal Mission Issues at ‘Home and Abroad’ in the Twentieth Century”, Journal of Asian Mission 2(2), (2000): 193-210.

Auvinen, Tommi P., Anna-Maija Lämsä, Teppo Sintonen, and Tuomo Takala. “Leadership Manipulation and Ethics in Storytelling”, Journal of Business Ethics 116(2), (2013): 415-31. [Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-012-1454-8], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

Bass, Bernard M., and Bruce J. Avolio. “Potential Biases in Leadership Measures: How Prototypes, Leniency, and General Satisfaction Relate to Ratings and Rankings of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Constructs”, Educational and Psychological Measurement 49(3), (1989): 509-27.

Blom, Martin, and Mats Alvesson. “All-Inclusive and All Good: The Hegemonic Ambiguity of Leadership”, Scandinavian Journal of Management 31(4), (2015): 480-92.

Blom, Martin, and Mikael Lundgren. “The (In)Voluntary Follower”, Leadership 16(2), (2020): 163-79.

Bolden, Richard, Beverley Hawkins, Jonathan Gosling, and Scott Taylor. Exploring Leadership: Individual, Organizational & Societal Perspectives. Oxford University Press, 2011.

Breedt, Jacob J., and Cornelius J.P. Niemandt. “Relational Leadership and the Missional Church”, Verbum et Ecclesia 34(1), (2013): 1-9.

Carsten, Melissa K., Mary Uhl-Bien, Bradley J. West, Jaime L. Patera, and Rob McGregor. “Exploring Social Constructions of Followership: A Qualitative

Study”, The Leadership Quarterly 21(3), (2010): 543-62.

Chan, Simon. Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition. Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Chandler, Jeffrey A., Nicholas E. Johnson, Samantha J. Jordan, Darren K.B, and Jeremy C. Short. “A Meta-Analysis of Humble Leadership: Reviewing Individual, Team, and Organizational Outcomes of Leader Humility”, The Leadership Quarterly 34(1), (2023): 101660. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101660], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

Chaves, Mark, Joseph Roso, and Anna Holleman. “The National Survey of Religious Leaders: Background, Methods, and Lessons Learned in the Research Process”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 61(3–4), (2022): 737-49.

Clifton, Shane. Pentecostal Churches in Transition: Analysing the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia. Brill, 2009.

Corbin Reuschling, Wyndy. “‘Trust and Obey’: The Danger of Obedience as Duty in Evangelical Ethics”, Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 25(2), (2005): 59-77.

Cox, Harvey. Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the 21st Century. Da Capo Press, 1995.

Dorfman, Peter, Mansour Javidan, Paul Hanges, Ali Dastmalchian, and Robert House. “GLOBE: A Twenty Year Journey into the Intriguing World of Culture and Leadership”, Journal of World Business 47(4), (2012): 504-18.

Eskil Vigdel, Hans, Marianne Rodriguez Nygaard, and Tormod Kleiven. “Cultures Shaped by Elements of Ideological Totalism – Experiences of Misuse of Power in Some Pentecostal Christian Fellowships”, Diaconia 13(1), (2022): 70-94.

Eskil Vigdel, Hans, Marianne Rodriguez Nygaard, and Tormod Kleiven. “Longing for Humanity: The Process of Leaving a Context of Perceived Spiritual Abuse”, Pastoral Psychology 73 (2024): 283-303. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-024-01137-8], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

Fairhurst, Gail T., and Mary Uhl-Bien. “Organizational Discourse Analysis (ODA): Examining Leadership as a Relational Process”, The Leadership Quarterly 23(6), Leadership Quarterly Yearly Review: Theoretical and Methodological Advances in Leadership (2012): 1043-62.

Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, 1973.

Graen, G.B., and Mary Uhl-Bien. “Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader-Member Ex-Change (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective”, Leadership Quarterly 6(2), (1995): 219-47.

Grint, Keith, Owain Smolovic Jones, and Clare Holt. “What Is Leadership: Person, Result, Position, Purpose or Process, or All or None of These?” In John Storey, Jean Hartley, Jean-Louis Denis, Paul 't Hart, and Dave Ulrich, Eds. The Routledge Companion to Leadership. Routledge, 2016.

Guder, Darrell L. “Walking Worthily: Missional Leadership after Christendom”, Princeton Seminary Bulletin 28(3), (2007): 251-91.

Haslam, S. Alexander, Stephen D. Reicher, and Michael J. Platow. The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence, and Power. Psychology Press, 2011.

Hegstad, Harald. The Real Church: An Ecclesiology of the Visible. Vol. 7 of Church of Sweden Research Series. Wipf and Stock, 2013.

Heuser, Roger, and Byron D. Klaus. “Charismatic Leadership Theory: A Shadow Side Confessed”, Pneuma 20(2), (1998): 161-74.

Hoge, Dean R. “The Sociology of the Clergy”, In Peter B. Clarke, Ed. The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Hollander, Edwin P. “Further Ethical Challenges in the Leader-Follower Relationship”, In Joanne B. Ciulla, Ed. Ethics, the Heart of Leadership, 3rd ed. Praeger, 2014.

House, Robert J., Paul J. Hanges, Mansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman, and Vipin Gupta, Eds. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. SAGE, 2004.

Jacobs, Janet L. “Charisma, Male Entitlement, and the Abuse of Power”, In Anson D. Shupe, William A. Stacey, and Susan E. Darnell, Eds. Bad Pastors: Clergy Misconduct in Modern America. New York University Press, 2000.

Jacobsen, Douglas G. Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement. Indiana University Press, 2003.

Jepson, Doris. “The Importance of National Language as a Level of Discourse within Individuals’ Theorising of Leadership – A Qualitative Study of German and English Employees”, Leadership 6(4), (2010): 425-45.

Johnson, Alan. Leadership in a Slum: A Bangkok Case Study. Regnum, 2009. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Historical, Global, and Interreligious Perspectives, 2nd ed. InterVarsity Press, 2021.

Kessler, Volker. “Pitfalls in ‘Biblical’ Leadership”, Verbum et Ecclesia 34(1), (2013): 1-7.

Kessler, Volker, and Louise Kretzschmar. “Christian Leadership as a Trans-Disciplinary Field of Study”, Verbum et Ecclesia 36(1), (2015): 1-8.

Klaus, Byron D., and Loren O. Triplett. “National Leadership in Pentecostal Missions”, In Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, Eds. Called and Empowered: Global Mission in Pentecostal Perspective. Hendrickson, 1991.

Krumrei-Mancuso, Elizabeth J., and Wade C. Rowatt. “Humility in Novice Leaders: Links to Servant Leadership and Followers’ Satisfaction with Leadership”, The Journal of Positive Psychology 18(1), (2023): 154-66.

Liborius, Patrick, and Christian Kiewitz. “When Leader Humility Meets Follower Competitiveness: Relationships with Follower Affective Trust, Intended and Voluntary Turnover”, Journal of Vocational Behavior 135 (2022): 103719. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103719], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

Lilleaasen, Robert. “Friendship, Followership, and Leadership”, Scandinavian Journal for Leadership and Theology 11 (2024): 104-105. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.53311/sjlt.v11.124], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

Lindhardt, Martin. “Introduction: Presence and Impact of Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity in Africa”, In Martin Lindhardt, Ed. Pentecostalism in Africa: Presence and Impact of Pneumatic Christianity in Postcolonial Societies. Brill, 2015.

Lindhardt, Martin. Power in Powerlessness: A Study of Pentecostal Life Worlds in Urban Chile. Religion in the Americas Series. Brill, 2012.

Lingenfelter, Sherwood G. Leading Cross-Culturally: Covenant Relationships for Effective Christian Leadership. Baker Academic, 2008.

Lord, Robert G., Christy L. De Vader, and George M. Alliger. “A Meta-Analysis of the Relation between Personality Traits and Leadership Perceptions: An Application of Validity Generalization Procedures”, Journal of Applied Psychology 71(3), (1986): 402-10.

Lord, Robert G., and Karen J. Maher. Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance. Routledge, 1993.

Lord, Robert G., Olga Epitropaki, Roseanne J. Foti, and Tiffany Keller Hansbrough. “Implicit Leadership Theories, Implicit Followership Theories, and Dynamic Processing of Leadership Information”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 7(1), (2020): 49-74.

Lynch, Chloe. Ecclesial Leadership as Friendship. Routledge, 2019.

Macchia, Frank D. “Theology, Pentecostal”, In Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Maas, Eds. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Zondervan, 2002.

MacGregor Burns, James. Leadership. Harper & Row, 1978. Kindle.

Mareen Junker, Nina, and Rolf van Dick. “Implicit Theories in Organizational Settings: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda of Implicit Leadership and Followership Theories”, The Leadership Quarterly 25(6), (2014): 1154-73.

Markow, Franklin, and Truls Åkerlund. “Pentecostal Leadership: Exploring a Global Phenomenon”, Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 20(5), (2023): 526-50. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.51327/JHKQ5569], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

Martin, David. The Future of Christianity: Reflections on Violence and Democracy, Religion and Secularization. Routledge, 2016. eBook.

–––. Pentecostalism: The World Their Parish. Blackwell, 2002.

McCauley, J.F. “Africa’s New Big Man Rule? Pentecostalism and Patronage in Ghana”, African Affairs 112(446), (2013): 1-21.

Meindl, James R. “The Romance of Leadership as a Follower-Centric Theory: A Social Constructionist Approach”, The Leadership Quarterly 6(3), (1995): 329-41.

–––. “On Leadership: An Alternative to the Conventional Wisdom”, In Barry M. Staw and L.L. Cummings, Eds. Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews. Vol. 12. JAI Press, 1990.

Meindl, James R., Sanford B. Ehrlich, and Janet M. Dukerich. “The Romance of Leadership.” Administrative Science Quarterly 30(1), (1985): 78-102.

Menon, Tanya, Jessica Sim, Jeanne Ho-Ying Fu, Chi-yue Chiu, and Ying-yi Hong. “Blazing the Trail versus Trailing the Group: Culture and Perceptions of the Leader’s Position”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 113(1), (2010): 51-61.

Moberg, Marcus. Religion, Discourse, and Society: Towards a Discursive Sociology of Religion. Routledge, 2022.

Nelson, Reed E. “Authority, Organization, and Societal Context in Multinational Churches”, Administrative Science Quarterly 38(4), (1993): 653-82. [Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2393340], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

Nessan, Craig L. Beyond Maintenance to Mission: A Theology of the Congregation, 2nd ed. Fortress, 2010.

Nielsen, Rob, Jennifer A. Marrone, and Holly S. Slay. “A New Look at Humility: Exploring the Humility Concept and Its Role in Socialized Charismatic Leadership”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(1), (2010): 33-43. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051809350892], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

Northouse, Peter G. Leadership: Theory and Practice. 8th ed. Sage, 2019.

Olutunde Ojewole, Afolarin, and Efe Monday Ehioghae. “Leadership and Power in the Pentecostal Movement: Selected Case Studies”, In Adeshina Afolayan, Olajumoke Yacob-Haliso, and Toyin Falola, Eds. Pentecostalism and Politics in Africa. Springer International, 2018.

Osborn, Richard N., James G. Hunt, and Lawrence R. Jauch. “Toward a Contextual Theory of Leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly 13(6), (2002): 797-837.

Ospina, Sonia, and Georgia J. Sorenson. “A Constructionist Lens on Leadership: Charting New Territory”, In George R. Goethals and Georgia J. Sorenson, Eds. A Quest for a General Theory of Leadership. Edward Elgar, 2006.

Ou, Amy Y. et al. “Humble Chief Executive Officers’ Connections to Top Management Team Integration and Middle Managers’ Responses”, Administrative Science Quarterly 59(1), (2014): 34-72. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213520131], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

Owens, Bradley P., and David R. Hekman. “Modeling How to Grow: An Inductive Examination of Humble Leader Behaviors, Contingencies, and Outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal 55(4), (2012): 787-818.

Owens, Bradley P., Michael D. Johnson, and Terence R. Mitchell. “Expressed Humility in Organizations: Implications for Performance, Teams, and Leadership”, Organization Science 24(5), (2013): 1517-38.

Price Tangney, June. “Humility”, In C.R. Snyder and Shane J. Lopez, Eds. Handbook of Positive Psychology. Oxford University Press, 2002.

Purvis, Trevor, and Alan Hunt. “Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideology…”, The British Journal of Sociology 44(3), (1993): 473-99.

Resane, Kelebogile Thomas. “‘And They Shall Make You Eat Grass like

Oxen’ (Daniel 4:24): Reflections on Recent Practices in Some New Charismatic Churches”, Pharos Journal of Theology 98 (2017): 1-17. [Available at: https://www.pharosjot.com/uploads/7/1/6/3/7163688/article_10__vol_98_2017.pdf], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

Resane, Kelebogile T. “Christ and the Neo-Pentecostal Preacher on the Platform: Catechists or Celebrities?” In Mookgo Solomon Kgatle, Marius Nel, and Collium Banda, Eds. Christological Paradigm Shifts in Prophetic Pentecostalism in South Africa. Routledge, 2022.

Samuel, Vinay. “Pentecostalism as a Global Culture: A Response”, In Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, Eds. The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel. Regnum, 1999.

Schedlitzki, Doris, and Gareth Edwards. Studying Leadership: Traditional & Critical Approaches. Sage, 2014.

Shamir, Boas. “From Passive Recipients to Active Co-Producers: Follower’s Roles in the Leadership Process”, In Boas Shamir, Rajnandini Pillai, Michelle C. Bligh, and Mary Uhl-Bien, Eds. Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl. Leadership Horizons Series. Information Age Publishing, 2007.

Smircich, Linda, and Gareth Morgan. “Leadership: The Management of Meaning”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 18(3), (1982): 257-73.

Stringer, Martin D. A Sociological History of Christian Worship. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Sund, Berit. Typisk norsk å være (selv)god: En liten bok om den norske lederstilen. Cappelen Damm akademisk, 2019.

Templeton, John. Worldwide Laws of Life: Two Hundred Eternal Spiritual Principles. Templeton Foundation Press, 1997.

Uhl-Bien, Mary. “Complexity Leadership and Followership: Changed Leadership in a Changed World”, Journal of Change Management 21(2), (2021): 144-62.

Uhl-Bien, Mary. “Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the Social Processes of Leadership and Organizing”, The Leadership Quarterly 17(6), The Leadership Quarterly Yearly Review of Leadership (2006): 654-76.

Uhl-Bien, Mary, Ronald E. Riggio, Kevin B. Lowe, and Melissa K. Carsten. “Followership Theory: A Review and Research Agenda”, The Leadership Quarterly 25(1), Leadership Quarterly 25th Anniversary Issue (2014): 83-104.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

Vondey, Wolfgang. Pentecostalism: A Guide for the Perplexed. Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013.

Wacker, Grant. Heaven below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture. Harvard University Press, 2001.

Wilson, Suze. Thinking Differently about Leadership: A Critical History of Leadership Studies. Edward Elgar, 2016.

Yukl, Gary A. Leadership in Organizations, Global Edition. Pearson Education, 2013.

Zurlo, Gina A., Todd M. Johnson, and Peter F. Crossing. “World Christianity and Mission 2020: Ongoing Shift to the Global South”, International Bulletin of Mission Research 44(1), (2020): 8-19.

¹ Grant Wacker, Heaven below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture (Harvard University Press, 2001): 141.

² Allan Anderson, To the Ends of the Earth: Pentecostalism and the Transformation of World Christianity, Oxford Studies in World Christianity (Oxford University Press, 2013): 224; Reed E. Nelson, “Authority, Organization, and Societal Context in Multinational Churches”, Administrative Science Quarterly 38(4), (1993): 672, [Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2393340], [Last accessed: 11th October 2025].

³ E.g., Hans Geir Aasmundsen, “Pentecostals and Politics in Argentina: A Question of Compatibility?” Iberoamericana. Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies XLII(1–2), (2012): 85-107; J.F. McCauley, “Africa’s New Big Man Rule? Pentecostalism and Patronage in Ghana”, African Affairs 112(446), (2013): 1-21; Martin Lindhardt, “Introduction: Presence and Impact of Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity in Africa”, in Martin Lindhardt (ed), Pentecostalism in Africa: Presence and Impact of Pneumatic Christianity in Postcolonial Societies (Brill, 2015): 1-53.

⁴ Allan Anderson, Spreading Fires: The Missionary Nature of Early Pentecostalism (SCM Press, 2007): 4.

⁵ Truls Åkerlund, A Phenomenology of Pentecostal Leadership (Wipf & Stock, 2018): 4.

⁶ See for instance Mats Alvesson and Martin Blom, “The Hegemonic Ambiguity of Big Concepts in Organization Studies”, Human Relations 75(1), (2022): 58-86; Keith Grint, Owain Smolovic Jones, and Clare Holt, “What Is Leadership: Person, Result, Position, Purpose or Process, or All or None of These?” in John Storey et al. (eds), The Routledge Companion to Leadership (Routledge, 2016): 3-20.

⁷ E.g., Peter G. Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice, 8th ed (Sage, 2019); Gary A. Yukl, Leadership in Organizations, Global Edition (Pearson Education, 2013); Richard Bolden et al., Exploring Leadership: Individual, Organizational & Societal Perspectives (Oxford University Press, 2011).

⁸ Mark Chaves, Joseph Roso, and Anna Holleman, “The National Survey of Religious Leaders: Background, Methods, and Lessons Learned in the Research Process”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 61(3–4), (2022): 737-749.

⁹ Dean R. Hoge, “The Sociology of the Clergy”, in Peter B. Clarke (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion (Oxford University Press, 2009): 581-96.

¹⁰ See a brief overview in Åkerlund, Phenomenology of Pentecostal Leadership, 1-7.

¹¹ Truls Åkerlund, “Taking Ownership of Our Spirituality: Pentecostal Leaders as Liturgical Directors”, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 31 (2022): 114-32.

¹² Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the 21st Century (Da Capo Press, 1995): 102.

¹³ David Martin, Pentecostalism: The World Their Parish (Blackwell, 2002).

¹⁴ Gina A. Zurlo et al., “World Christianity and Mission 2020: Ongoing Shift to the Global South”, International Bulletin of Mission Research 44(1), (2020): 8-19.

¹⁵ Allan Heaton Anderson, Spirit-Filled World: Religious Dis/Continuity in African Pentecostalism, Christianity and Renewal - Interdisciplinary Studies (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018): 256.

¹⁶ Robert G. Lord et al., “Implicit Leadership Theories, Implicit Followership Theories, and Dynamic Processing of Leadership Information”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 7(1), (2020): 49-74.

¹⁷ Robert G. Lord and Karen J. Maher, Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance (Routledge, 1993): 9.

¹⁸ Peter Dorfman et al., “GLOBE: A Twenty Year Journey into the Intriguing World of Culture and Leadership”, Journal of World Business 47(4), (2012): 504-18.

¹⁹ E.g., Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio, “Potential Biases in Leadership Measures: How Prototypes, Leniency, and General Satisfaction Relate to Ratings and Rankings of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Constructs”, Educational and Psychological Measurement 49(3), (1989): 509-27; Robert G. Lord, Christy L. De Vader, and George M. Alliger, “A Meta-Analysis of the Relation between Personality Traits and Leadership Perceptions: An Application of Validity Generalization Procedures”, Journal of Applied Psychology 71(3), (1986): 402-10.

²⁰ Edwin P. Hollander, “Further Ethical Challenges in the Leader-Follower Relationship”, in Joanne B. Ciulla (ed), Ethics, the Heart of Leadership, 3rd ed. (Praeger, 2014): 57-61.

²¹ Robert J. House et al. (eds), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (SAGE, 2004).

²² The GLOBE-study summarised in Northouse, Leadership, 448-49.

²³ Berit Sund, Typisk norsk å være (selv)god: En liten bok om den norske lederstilen (Cappelen Damm akademisk, 2019): 82.

²⁴ Tanya Menon et al., “Blazing the Trail versus Trailing the Group: Culture and Perceptions of the Leader’s Position”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 113(1), (2010): 51-61.

²⁵ Menon et al., “Blazing the Trail”, 60.

²⁶ Richard N. Osborn et al., “Toward a Contextual Theory of Leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly 13(6), (2002): 797-837.

²⁷ Allan Anderson, “Signs and Blunders: Pentecostal Mission Issues at ‘Home and Abroad’ in the Twentieth Century”, Journal of Asian Mission 2(2), (2000): 193-210.

²⁸ Åkerlund, Phenomenology of Pentecostal Leadership, 32-36.

²⁹ E.g., Mats Alvesson and André Spicer, “Metaphors for Leadership”, in Mats Alvesson and André Spicer (eds), Metaphors We Lead by: Understanding Leadership in the Real World (Routledge, 2011): 31-50.

³⁰ Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (Basic Books, 1973): 145.

³¹ Alan Johnson, Leadership in a Slum: A Bangkok Case Study (Regnum, 2009): 199.

³² Bolden et al., Exploring Leadership, 99.

³³ Truls Åkerlund and Åse-Miriam Smidsrød, “When Dominant Models Become Dominating: A Narrative Identity Approach to Female Leadership in Pentecostal Organizations”, Journal of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity (2024): 3-4. This article also contributes to research on Pentecostal female leadership by approaching the topic from an organisational perspective and emphasising the Pentecostal pneumatological narrative of spiritual empowerment.

³⁴ Martin D. Stringer, A Sociological History of Christian Worship (Cambridge University Press, 2005): 15.

³⁵ Trevor Purvis and Alan Hunt, “Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideology…”, The British Journal of Sociology 44(3), (1993): 485.

³⁶ Suze Wilson, Thinking Differently about Leadership: A Critical History of Leadership Studies (Edward Elgar, 2016): 8-11.

³⁷ Doris Schedlitzki and Gareth Edwards, Studying Leadership: Traditional & Critical Approaches (Sage, 2014): 95-97; 233-40; Doris Jepson, “The Importance of National Language as a Level of Discourse within Individuals’ Theorising of Leadership – A Qualitative Study of German and English Employees”, Leadership 6(4), (2010): 425-45.

³⁸ Sonia Ospina and Georgia J. Sorenson, “A Constructionist Lens on Leadership: Charting New Territory”, in George R. Goethals and Georgia J. Sorenson (eds), A Quest for a General Theory of Leadership (Edward Elgar, 2006): 200.

³⁹ Mats Alvesson and Stefan Sveningsson, “Good Visions, Bad Micro-Management and Ugly Ambiguity: Contradictions of (Non-)Leadership in a Knowledge-Intensive Organization”, Organization Studies 24(6), (2003): 961-88; Martin Blom and Mats Alvesson, “All-Inclusive and All Good: The Hegemonic Ambiguity of Leadership”, Scandinavian Journal of Management 31(4), (2015): 480-92.

⁴⁰ Martin Lindhardt, Power in Powerlessness: A Study of Pentecostal Life Worlds in Urban Chile, Religion in the Americas Series (BRILL, 2012): 21-25, 146-150.

⁴¹ Lindhardt, Power in Powerlessness, 6.

⁴² Lindhardt, Power in Powerlessness, 9.

⁴³ Åkerlund, Phenomenology of Pentecostal Leadership. The eight constituents in the phenomenological study were described as (1) motivated by a sense of higher, divine purpose, (2) derived leadership, (3) human and divine agency in a seamless interaction between rationality and spirituality, (4) pragmatic and eclectic stance toward the Pentecostal tradition, (5) persuasive communication, (6) dialectic relationship between structure and agency, (7) adaptive to context, and (8) involving the leader’s entire life. These elements are drawn from Åkerlund’s book, Phenomenology of Pentecostal Leadership, Chapters 5–6.

⁴⁴ Franklin Markow and Truls Åkerlund, “Pentecostal Leadership: Exploring a Global Phenomenon”, Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 20(5), (2023): 533, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.51327/JHKQ5569], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

⁴⁵ Markow and Åkerlund, “Pentecostal Leadership”, 533.

⁴⁶ Åkerlund, Phenomenology of Pentecostal Leadership, 80-85, 103-10.

⁴⁷ Daniel E. Albrecht and Evan B. Howard, “Pentecostal Spirituality”, in Cecil M. Robeck Jr. and Amos Yong (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism (Cambridge University Press, 2014): 243.

⁴⁸ Douglas G. Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement (Indiana University Press, 2003): 363.

⁴⁹ Åkerlund, Phenomenology of Pentecostal Leadership, 83.

⁵⁰ Markow and Åkerlund, “Pentecostal Leadership”, 535. Cf. Shane Clifton, Pentecostal Churches in Transition: Analysing the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia (Brill, 2009): 176-88; 208-12.

⁵¹ Simon Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition (Sheffield Academic Press, 2000): 17-18.

⁵² Åkerlund, Phenomenology of Pentecostal Leadership, 72. See also the discussion on structure and agency on pp. 85-89; 115-21.

⁵³ E.g., Nina Mareen Junker and Rolf van Dick, “Implicit Theories in Organizational Settings: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda of Implicit Leadership and Followership Theories”, The Leadership Quarterly 25(6), (2014): 1154-73; S. Alexander Haslam, Stephen D. Reicher, and Michael J. Platow, The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence, and Power (Psychology Press, 2011).

⁵⁴ Markow and Åkerlund, “Pentecostal Leadership”, 535.

⁵⁵ Åkerlund, Phenomenology of Pentecostal Leadership, 37-44.

⁵⁶ All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the NIV.

⁵⁷ Albrecht and Howard, “Pentecostal Spirituality”, 243.

⁵⁸ Wyndy Corbin Reuschling, “‘Trust and Obey’: The Danger of Obedience as Duty in Evangelical Ethics”, Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 25(2), (2005): 59-77.

⁵⁹ Chan, Pentecostal Theology, 20.

⁶⁰ Truls Åkerlund and Karl Inge Tangen, “Charismatic Cultures: Another Shadow Side Confessed”, Pneuma 40(1–2), (2018): 109-29.

⁶¹ Markow and Åkerlund, “Pentecostal Leadership”, 537.

⁶² Janet L. Jacobs, “Charisma, Male Entitlement, and the Abuse of Power”, in Anson D. Shupe et al. (eds), Bad Pastors: Clergy Misconduct in Modern America (New York University Press, 2000): 114.

⁶³ Hans Eskil Vigdel, Marianne Rodriguez Nygaard, and Tormod Kleiven, “Cultures Shaped by Elements of Ideological Totalism – Experiences of Misuse of Power in Some Pentecostal Christian Fellowships”, Diaconia 13(1), (2022): 70-94; Hans Eskil Vigdel, Marianne Rodriguez Nygaard, and Tormod Kleiven, “Longing for Humanity: The Process of Leaving a Context of Perceived Spiritual Abuse”, Pastoral Psychology (2024), [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-024-01137-8], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

⁶⁴ Roger Heuser and Byron D. Klaus, “Charismatic Leadership Theory: A Shadow Side Confessed”, Pneuma 20(2), (1998): 170.

⁶⁵ James R. Meindl, Sanford B. Ehrlich, and Janet M. Dukerich, “The Romance of Leadership”, Administrative Science Quarterly 30(1), (1985): 78-102; James R. Meindl, “The Romance of Leadership as a Follower-Centric Theory: A Social Constructionist Approach”, The Leadership Quarterly 6(3), (1995): 330.

⁶⁶ Mary Uhl-Bien et al., “Followership Theory: A Review and Research Agenda”, The Leadership Quarterly 25(1), Leadership Quarterly 25th Anniversary Issue (2014): 93.

⁶⁷ Melissa K. Carsten et al., “Exploring Social Constructions of Followership: A Qualitative Study”, The Leadership Quarterly 21(3), (2010): 546.

⁶⁸ Martin Blom and Mikael Lundgren, “The (In)Voluntary Follower”, Leadership 16(2), (2020): 163-79.

⁶⁹ James R. Meindl, “On Leadership: An Alternative to the Conventional Wisdom”, in Barry M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, vol. 12 (JAI Press, 1990): 198.

⁷⁰ Åkerlund, “Taking Ownership of Our Spirituality”, 127-29.

⁷¹ Linda Smircich and Gareth Morgan, “Leadership: The Management of Meaning”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 18(3), (1982): 257-73.

⁷² Åkerlund, Phenomenology of Pentecostal Leadership, 120-22.

⁷³ Markow and Åkerlund, “Pentecostal Leadership”, 540.

⁷⁴ Åkerlund, “Taking Ownership of Our Spirituality”, 126.

⁷⁵ David Martin, The Future of Christianity: Reflections on Violence and Democracy, Religion and Secularization (Routledge, 2016): 71, eBook.

⁷⁶ E.g., Ospina and Sorenson, “A Constructionist Lens”; Mary Uhl-Bien, “Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the Social Processes of Leadership and Organizing”, The Leadership Quarterly 17(6), The Leadership Quarterly Yearly Review of Leadership (2006): 654-76.

⁷⁷ Boas Shamir, “From Passive Recipients to Active Co-Producers: Follower’s Roles in the Leadership Process”, in Boas Shamir et al. (eds), Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl (Information Age Publishing, 2007): ix-xxxix.

⁷⁸ Uhl-Bien et al., “Followership Theory”; Gail T. Fairhurst and Mary Uhl-Bien, “Organizational Discourse Analysis (ODA): Examining Leadership as a Relational Process”, The Leadership Quarterly 23(6), Leadership Quarterly Yearly Review: Theoretical and Methodological Advances in Leadership (2012): 1043-62.

⁷⁹ Hollander, “Further Ethical Challenges in the Leader-Follower Relationship”, 67.

⁸⁰ Shamir, “From Passive Recipients to Active Co-Producers”, xx.

⁸¹ Chan, Pentecostal Theology, 18.

⁸² Chan, Pentecostal Theology, 18.

⁸³ Frank D. Macchia, “Theology, Pentecostal”, in Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. Van der Maas (eds), The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Zondervan, 2002): 1137.

⁸⁴ Wolfgang Vondey, Pentecostalism: A Guide for the Perplexed (Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013): CH 6.

⁸⁵ E.g., Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Historical, Global, and Interreligious Perspectives, 2nd ed. (InterVarsity Press, 2021): 9-11.

⁸⁶ G.B. Graen and Mary Uhl-Bien, “Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader-Member Ex-Change (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective”, Leadership Quarterly 6(2), (1995): 219-47.

⁸⁷ Mary Uhl-Bien, “Complexity Leadership and Followership: Changed Leadership in a Changed World”, Journal of Change Management 21(2), (2021): 156.

⁸⁸ Darrell L. Guder, “Walking Worthily: Missional Leadership after Christendom”, Princeton Seminary Bulletin 28(3), (2007): 282; cf. Jacob J. Breedt and Cornelius J.P. Niemandt, “Relational Leadership and the Missional Church”, Verbum et Ecclesia 34(1), (2013). This perspective is not shared by any scholar – see Truls Åkerlund, “Missional Leadership: A Critical Review of the Research Literature”, Australasian Pentecostal Studies 18 (2016), [Available at: https://apsjournal.com/index.php/APS/article/view/9493], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

⁸⁹ E.g., June Price Tangney, “Humility”, in C. R. Snyder and Shane J. Lopez (eds), Handbook of Positive Psychology (Oxford University Press, 2002): 411-19; John Templeton, Worldwide Laws of Life: Two Hundred Eternal Spiritual Principles (Templeton Foundation Press, 1997).

⁹⁰ Bradley P. Owens, Michael D. Johnson, and Terence R. Mitchell, “Expressed Humility in Organizations: Implications for Performance, Teams, and Leadership”, Organization Science 24(5), (2013): 1517-38.

⁹¹ Rob Nielsen et al., “A New Look at Humility: Exploring the Humility Concept and Its Role in Socialized Charismatic Leadership”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17(1), (2010): 35, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051809350892], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

⁹² Elizabeth J. Krumrei-Mancuso and Wade C. Rowatt, “Humility in Novice Leaders: Links to Servant Leadership and Followers’ Satisfaction with Leadership”, The Journal of Positive Psychology 18(1), (2023): 154-66.

⁹³ Jeffrey A. Chandler et al., “A Meta-Analysis of Humble Leadership: Reviewing Individual, Team, and Organizational Outcomes of Leader Humility”, The Leadership Quarterly 34(1), (2023): 101660, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101660], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

⁹⁴ Bradley P. Owens and David R. Hekman, “Modeling How to Grow: An Inductive Examination of Humble Leader Behaviors, Contingencies, and Outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal 55(4), (2012): 787-818.

⁹⁵ Amy Y. Ou et al., “Humble Chief Executive Officers’ Connections to Top Management Team Integration and Middle Managers’ Responses”, Administrative Science Quarterly 59(1), (2014): 34-72, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213520131], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

⁹⁶ Patrick Liborius and Christian Kiewitz, “When Leader Humility Meets Follower Competitiveness: Relationships with Follower Affective Trust, Intended and Voluntary Turnover”, Journal of Vocational Behavior 135 (2022): 103719, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103719], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

⁹⁷ Robert Lilleaasen, “Friendship, Followership, and Leadership”, Scandinavian Journal for Leadership and Theology 11 (2024): 104-105, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.53311/sjlt.v11.124], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

⁹⁸ Chloe Lynch, Ecclesial Leadership as Friendship (Routledge, 2019): 130-34.

⁹⁹ Craig L. Nessan, Beyond Maintenance to Mission: A Theology of the Congregation, 2nd ed. (Fortress Press, 2010): 89.

¹⁰⁰ Anita Koeshall referred to in Lynch, Ecclesial Leadership as Friendship, 193.

¹⁰¹ Sherwood G. Lingenfelter, Leading Cross-Culturally: Covenant Relationships for Effective Christian Leadership (Baker Academic, 2008): 59.

¹⁰² Volker Kessler, “Pitfalls in ‘Biblical’ Leadership”, Verbum et Ecclesia 34(1), (2013): 1-7.

¹⁰³ E.g., Truls Åkerlund, “Son, Sent, and Servant: Johannine Perspectives on Servant Leadership Theory,” Scandinavian Journal of Leadership and Theology 2 (2015), [Available at: https://doi.org/10.53311/sjlt.v2i1.9], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

¹⁰⁴ Marcus Moberg, Religion, Discourse, and Society: Towards a Discursive Sociology of Religion (Routledge, 2022): CH 6.

¹⁰⁵ Truls Åkerlund, “Leadership in Corinth: Reciprocity and Leader-Member Exchange in 2 Corinthians 6:11-13”, Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 6(1), (2014): 162-75.

¹⁰⁶ Lynch, Ecclesial Leadership as Friendship, 208.

¹⁰⁷ Northouse, Leadership, 299.

¹⁰⁸ James MacGregor Burns, Leadership (Harper & Row, 1978): 11-13, Kindle.

¹⁰⁹ Tommi P. Auvinen et al., “Leadership Manipulation and Ethics in Storytelling”, Journal of Business Ethics 116(2), (2013): 418, [Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-012-1454-8], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025].

¹¹⁰ E.g., Harald Hegstad, The Real Church: An Ecclesiology of the Visible, vol. 7 of Church of Sweden Research Series (Wipf and Stock, 2013): CH 3.

¹¹¹ Volker Kessler and Louise Kretzschmar, “Christian Leadership as a Trans Disciplinary Field of Study”, Verbum et Ecclesia 36(1), (2015): 7.

¹¹² Åkerlund, Phenomenology of Pentecostal Leadership, 144.

¹¹³ Vinay Samuel, “Pentecostalism as a Global Culture: A Response”, in Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen (eds), The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel (Regnum, 1999): 253.

¹¹⁴ Byron D. Klaus and Loren O. Triplett, “National Leadership in Pentecostal Missions”, in Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen (eds), Called and Empowered: Global Mission in Pentecostal Perspective (Hendrickson, 1991): 226; 234.

¹¹⁵ Kelebogile Thomas Resane, “‘And They Shall Make You Eat Grass like Oxen’ (Daniel 4:24): Reflections on Recent Practices in Some New Charismatic Churches”, Pharos Journal of Theology 98 (2017): 1-17, [Available at: https://www.pharosjot.com/uploads/7/1/6/3/7163688/article_10 vol_98_2017.pdf], [Last accessed: 14th October 2025]; Kelebogile T. Resane, “Christ and the Neo-Pentecostal Preacher on the Platform: Catechists or Celebrities?”, in Mookgo Solomon Kgatle et al. (eds), Christological Paradigm Shifts in Prophetic Pentecostalism in South Africa (Routledge, 2022): 167.

¹¹⁶ E.g., Afolarin Olutunde Ojewole and Efe Monday Ehioghae, “Leadership and Power in the Pentecostal Movement: Selected Case Studies”, in Adeshina Afolayan et al. (eds), Pentecostalism and Politics in Africa (Springer International, 2018).

¹¹⁷ Cox, Fire from Heaven, 279.

¹¹⁸ Åkerlund, Phenomenology of Pentecostal Leadership, 133-138.

¹¹⁹ Bolden et al., Exploring Leadership, 126.

¹²⁰ Åkerlund and Tangen, “Charismatic Cultures: Another Shadow Side Confessed”.

¹²¹ Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Westminster John Knox Press, 2005): 449; cf. Åkerlund, “Taking Ownership of Our Spirituality”.

Engaging with Truls Åkerlund’s “Perspectives on Pentecostal Leadership: Contextuality, Complexity, and Constructiveness”

Wonsuk Ma

Introduction

I begin with my confession: I am not a leadership theorist. My interest in the subject emerged through my biblical study on the Spirit of God, especially in the Old Testament, and observation of Pentecostal-charismatic leaders. For this reason, reading Truls Åkerlund’s study on Pentecostal leadership was a delight, as he brings a social scientific perspective to Pentecostal leadership. His succinct characterisation of Pentecostal leadership in three C’s is equally helpful: contextuality, complexity, and constructiveness. The first two describe the multifaceted aspects of Pentecostal leadership, while the last, “constructiveness,” presents its ultimate outcome (or telos).

Notably, Åkerlund is correct about the critical role of a given socio-cultural context, as Pentecostalism has proven its ingenuity in adapting to local contexts. His earlier study on Norwegian Pentecostal leadership took the role of social context seriously in the shaping and exercising of leadership, for both leaders and followers. His jump into the Asian context must have challenged him to identify key contextual components in Asia, especially while aware that there is no one Asian context!

Contextual Challenges in Asia

One contextual issue in Asia is the overwhelming presence of religions, both organised and unorganised, such as animism and shamanism. This makes Christianity a minority religion, accounting for only 8.2 percent of the vast population in 2020.¹ This Asian reality therefore requires recasting Åkerlund’s Nordic assumptions into a radically different context. More is needed than simply replacing his native European context with an Asian one because non-Christian religion has so deeply shaped Asian communities and their social and ethical values. Due to the persistent presence of different religions, many Christians in Asia convert from another religion, often unknowingly bringing their former religious orientations to their Christian life.

Even for those born in Christian families, the influence of other religions remains significant. For example, how religious leadership is perceived may be a crossover element. Often considered to be intermediaries between divine and human worlds, religious leaders are traditionally set apart from ordinary humans. They command not only reverence but also fear, as they are seen to possess the power to bring misfortune as well as blessing. The power distance between religious leadership and adherents therefore tends to be large by default. The gap is further widened by hierarchical culture in Asia. (See below for further discussion). Pentecostal leadership may increase the power distance even more if the leader is perceived as “supernaturally empowered” and “anointed.” As Åkerlund warns, a “super” leader can turn into an unaccountable figure, becoming a risk to the community he or she is to serve. The history of the modern Pentecostal Movement, unfortunately, is riddled with such failed but otherwise gifted leaders. The position can be, yes, in the king’s palace but also in prison, if not handled properly.

Equally challenging in Asia are age-old social class systems, even though some of them are claimed to no longer legally be imposed. The caste system in India, for instance, has been an ongoing challenge as rights and privileges continue to be determined by caste. While the Indian national constitution technically illegalised discrimination, Christianity has not been successful in breaking widespread dehumanising practices as churches, including Pentecostals, congregate along caste lines. The extent of leaders’ influence seldom crosses this social barrier.²

Another discriminating system is Chinese hukou , literally meaning “household individual,” but more accurately, “household registration.” Presently enshrined in the legal system, one’s home location determines and restricts social services and employment opportunities, solidifying disparities especially between rural and urban populations. As the system also restricts people’s movement, millions of Chinese rural farmers now working as migrant labourers in urban centres (called nongmin gong, are not eligible for medical services or children’s education. For this and other reasons, urban house churches in China are divided between congregations consisting of rural immigrant Christians and ones with urban “native” Christians. In such a social system, leaders from immigrant churches are not likely to lead urban believers. Thus, there are many settings in Asian where religious dynamics have profound implications for churches and Christian leadership, especially restrictive social systems. On the other hand, there are many settings in Asia where religious dynamics have benevolent implications for churches and Christian leadership.

Pentecostal Egalitarian Value and Cho’s Cell Group System

Åkerlund presents a conceptual dilemma of Pentecostal leadership: its inherent tendency to concentrate power in the leader, alongside the theological foundation that every believer is empowered. The process through which David Yonggi Cho created the celebrated Cell Group System has served as a successful case in negotiating this conflicting current. It also teaches several crucial lessons in Pentecostal leadership.

Cho’s inspiration came during his health struggle in the middle of rapid growth in his second church in Seoul, Korea. In his weakness, the Holy Spirit drew his attention to the shared and delegated leadership model that Jethro advised to Moses in the wilderness (Ex. 18). Through a series of biblical revelations, he “got the point.” Then the Lord led him to discover the “church within the family,” especially in the Early Church. This led to embracing women’s leadership. All three elements were countercultural in Korea and the Korean Church.

When Cho finally announced his plan to radically reorganise his church, he expected a pushback from male lay leaders. To his surprise, however, it was women who raised strong objection, refusing to break the male-dominant cultural norm. He promised regular training to make them his closest co-workers, and Rev. Jashil Choi, his mother-in-law, led this new group of female lay leaders. Ultimately, Cho created thousands of “smallest churches” within his largest church in the world.³

This well-attested story illustrates several key leadership lessons: (1) A change in an organisation begins with the leader; (2) challenges come from both the context and the church tradition; (3) the leader must direct the change with conviction, humility, and patience; and (4) a Pentecostal leader should empower followers.

This last point is what Åkerlund passionately argues. As traditional leadership studies focus on leaders, both in secular and Christian conversations, he attempts to level “the leadership playing field.” He begins with a simple and no-nonsense axiom: there is no leader without followers. This is particularly true in a voluntary community like a local church. Åkerlund then contends that a healthy relationship between leaders and followers will mutually strengthen each other’s call in the mission of the ecclesial community. The latter occurs because the egalitarian spirit of Pentecostalism places the leader among fellow Spirit-empowered and Spirit-called “leaders.” Moses’s prophetic statement rings loud and clear, “I wish that all the LORD’s people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!” (Num. 11:29, NIV). The typical polity of an Asian Pentecostal church, however, concentrates power in the pastor-leader, unlike the presbyterian system, which sets the pastor as one of elder-leaders. Furthermore, small non-ecclesial structures, such as mission organisations, ministries, and NGOs, may include fewer accountability measures.

Areas to Explore?

How this Pentecostal egalitarian ideal can be achieved, especially in more traditional contexts, is a continuing quest. While Asian Pentecostalism has broken ground in encouraging women in ministry, cultural glass ceilings still exist.⁴ To mitigate culturally rooted social hierarchy, Åkerlund suggests “friends” as a conceptual framework for mutual relationship between leaders and followers. However, while this may be a viable option in his context, it will meet a huge cultural challenge in Asia, where social ordering is based on hierarchy. Seniority and leadership position are two critical components of the Asian context, so the idea of “friendship” will immediately face this challenge. For example, a younger person will be reluctant or prohibited to call a senior person (either by age or position) “friend” as it is against the cultural norm.

One potential direction is to introduce leadership as also followership, by adding God into the leadership relationship. While most leadership theories recognise two parties in play – the leaders and the followers – Christian leadership stands out for including God with the people the leader is to lead. The leader therefore models following to followers, by following God. Indeed, the leader effectively leads people by exemplifying his or her submission to God and dedication to God’s call. In this way, the leader now becomes a fellow follower as all are called, empowered, and commissioned. Putting self-interest at bay, when the interest of God and the interest of followers come into conflict, the leader gives priority to God’s will over the followers’ will.⁵

Still another area to explore, to address the leader-follower binary, is the cycle of Spirit-empowerment. Åkerlund’s contention of “every believer’s Spirit-empowerment” must extend beyond his assumed context of an ecclesiastical community or local church and into the spheres of everyday life. In these areas, as much as a church leader is a follower of God, their followers are also empowered by the Holy Spirit and commissioned as leaders to influence their homes and workplaces. For instance, a nurse who is a church member exercises his or her God-given Spirit-empowered leadership of those they serve. During the COVID-19 pandemic, repeated testimonies emerged of Spirit-empowered nurses functioning as chaplains to dying patients who had no family present. Many prayed for salvation and provided spiritual and emotional support in addition to basic medical care. Likewise, Spirit-empowered teachers, who may be “followers” in church, perform their God-given leadership call in preparing the new generation through human formation and spiritual nurture.⁶ In this way, ecclesial leaders should treat and prepare “followers” as fellow leaders in God’s economy.

Conclusion

So far, much discussion has focused on the contextuality and complexity of (Pentecostal) leadership in Asia. It is the “constructiveness” part that we all need, to journey together. As Åkerlund pleads, Spirit-empowered Pentecostal leadership is to bring about transformation to individual and communal life, while faithfully stewarding the gift of the Spirit’s empowerment by serving and empowering others. This will not only equip every believer to perform their God-given ministries (Eph. 4:1-13) but also perpetuate the cycle of empowerment to the next generations until all flesh is filled with the Spirit (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17). Asia stands with Åkerlund in his prayer, “Maranatha!”

Bibliography

Boyd, Kim, and Philida Rosalind Ignacio. “Holy Spirit Empowered Teaching: Stories of Teacher Survival during the Pandemic”, In Wonsuk Ma and Opoku Onyinah, Eds. The Pandemic and the Holy Spirit: From Lament to Hope and Healing. ORU Press, 2024.

Cho, David Yonggi. Dr. David Yonggi Cho: Ministering Hope for 50 Years. Bridge-Logos, 2008.

John, Victor, with Dave Coles. Bhojpuri Breakthrough: A Movement that Keeps Multiplying. WIGTake Resources, 2019.

Johnson, Todd M., and Gina A. Zurlo. Introducing Spirit-Empowered Christianity. ORU Press, 2023.

Ma, Wonsuk. “East Asian Pentecostalism Engaging with the World: A Theological and Practical Inquiry”, Presentation at the East Asian Christianity Conference, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, April 2025.

Ma, Wonsuk. “Toward Spirit-Empowered Leadership: An Old Testament Foundation”, In Kong Hee et al., Eds. Voices Loud and Clear. Regnum Books, 2024.

¹ Todd M. Johnson and Gina A. Zurlo, Introducing Spirit-Empowered Christianity (ORU Press, 2023): 158.

² For this reason, I consider ministries that successfully overcome the caste system to be genuinely Spirit-empowered leadership. See Victor John with Dave Coles, Bhojpuri Breakthrough: A Movement that Keeps Multiplying (WIGTake Resources, 2019).

³ David Yonggi Cho, Dr. David Yonggi Cho: Ministering Hope for 50 Years (Bridge-Logos, 2008): 83-96.

⁴ Wonsuk Ma, “East Asian Pentecostalism Engaging with the World: A Theological and Practical Inquiry”, (presentation at the East Asian Christianity Conference, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, April 2025).

⁵ Wonsuk Ma, “Toward Spirit-Empowered Leadership: An Old Testament Foundation”, in Kong Hee et al. (eds), Voices Loud and Clear. (Regnum, 2024), 33-44.

⁶ See, for example, Kim Boyd and Philida Rosalind Ignacio, “Holy Spirit Empowered Teaching: Stories of Teacher Survival during the Pandemic”, in Wonsuk Ma and Opoku Onyinah (eds), The Pandemic and the Holy Spirit: From Lament to Hope and Healing (ORU Press, 2024): 359-74.

Session 3

Lessons Learned During Thirty Years of Ecumenical Dialogue: What Future Challenges Can Be Expected?

Jean-Daniel Plüss

Abstract

Having been involved in various ecumenical dialogues over the past three decades, I have gained some important insights. Much progress has been made, yet the question remains: How can we, despite our diverse histories and identities, live and function as the church together? Secularising tendencies in our societies have brought about new challenges, especially in large urban centres. For the sake of a credible Christian witness, we need to address common concerns together. Fundamental spiritual desires are not met in a secular context. Christian churches have the opportunity to respond to these human yearnings, to this felt void, and present the good news of Jesus Christ in relevant ways. Furthermore, as we live in increasingly pluralistic societies, we witness a growing polarisation of attitudes. This is evident in one-sided nationalist agendas and discourse rooted in fear. The ecumenical work done so far can serve as a bridge for a common Christian witness “so that the world may believe.”

Key Words: common witness, ecumenism, dialogues, Pentecostalism, pluralist societies, polarisation, secularisation

Introduction

Around 1970, the future president of the Swiss Pentecostal Mission wrote the following about Pentecostal churches in Germany and Switzerland:

W.J. Hollenweger sees the Pentecostal movement “moving more and more in the direction of the traditional churches”. Today, “the difference between Pentecostalism and the traditional churches in many places consists in a doctrinal difference – truly a tragic situation for a movement that set out to overcome dogmatic differences through a common spiritual experience.” However, Pentecostalism finds not so much its own situation tragic as the fact that even today there is still an ugly trench between the traditional churches … and (the Pentecostal movement) … But despite all ecumenical goodwill, the Pentecostal movement cannot ignore this trench either. It is there.¹

This was the situation when I was a young Pentecostal, with Pentecostals defining themselves as different from other Christian denominations. On the other side of that gulf, some argued that Pentecostals were sectarian.² Was Professor Hollenweger, the early expert on global Pentecostalism, right in claiming that Pentecostals were moving closer to the traditional churches? My aim in this paper is to take you on a journey and present some historical context of ecumenical efforts by Pentecostals. What lessons were learned, and what challenges can we discern ahead of us, especially if we consider the secularising influence in many of our societies?

The Ecumenical Roots of Pentecostalism

Walter Hollenweger has argued that Pentecostalism started in most places as an ecumenical renewal movement in the mainline churches.³ He makes his point by showing that early European Pentecostal leaders came from a variety of ecclesial backgrounds. Thomas Ball Barratt, the man who brought the Azusa Street revival to Norway during the Christmas Season in 1906, was a Methodist minister. Jonathan Paul, the first leader of the Pentecostal Movement in Germany, was a Lutheran pastor. Alexander Boddy, an Englishman, began to gather the first Pentecostal believers in his Anglican parish in Sunderland. Gerrit Polman, the first Pentecostal pastor in the Netherlands, was an officer in the Salvation Army. Lewi Pethrus, the influential Pentecostal leader in Sweden, was a Baptist. Louis Dallière was a leading charismatic pastor within the French Reformed Church. Indeed, the birth of European Pentecostalism happened in a multi-ecclesial context. A strong bond existed among these early leaders as they would meet from 1908 to 1914 at the yearly Sunderland Conventions in the Northeast of England. They all had their faith in the same Lord Jesus, and they all had experienced an infilling of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, they came from very different traditions. Anglicans and Lutherans were baptising children, whereas Baptists insisted on believers’ baptism, and members of the Salvation Army did not baptise at all. Reformed Pentecostals had espoused a congregational understanding of the church whereas Methodists had an episcopal setup. While some would refer to the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament, others saw this rite in terms of an ordinance.

So, although a strong sense of unity existed, there was also diversity in terms of particular practices and ecclesial convictions. Would this situation enable the renewal of all Christian churches? Many understood the renewed outpouring of the Holy Spirit as a gift for everyone and lived with a vision of “Christian unity everywhere.”⁴

As time passed, Pentecostal gatherings began to assemble as churches, and by the 1930s, most European Pentecostals had solidified as separate denominations.⁵ That meant that many Pentecostals in Europe defined their identity in terms of being different. Especially their views on the experience of a baptism in the Holy Spirit set them apart from other renewal movements and evangelical denominations, not to mention the traditional churches.

The onset of the charismatic renewal in the late 1960s and early 1970s, mostly among Episcopal and Roman Catholic communities in North American and Europe, brought the issue of ecumenical relations back to the table. Suddenly, it was not only Pentecostals who claimed having received the gift of speaking in tongues, uttered prophetic messages, or exercised the charism of prayer for healing. New realities began to emerge.⁶

Pentecostals in Dialogue

The first international religious dialogue involving Pentecostals began in 1972 when the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity⁷ of the Roman Catholic Church began conversations with individual Pentecostals and charismatic leaders. Later, it became clear that the Pentecostal group should only represent classical Pentecostals as this would make the conversations more focused. This dialogue has continued ever since and recently celebrated its fiftieth anniversary.⁸ Its various documents testify to a rich theological exchange.⁹

Since the mid-1990s, Pentecostals have begun official dialogues with other church families like the Reformed and Lutheran Churches, the Anglican communion, conversations with Orthodox churches and a Joint Consultative Group with the World Council of Churches.¹⁰ This essay focuses on the dialogue between Pentecostals and the World Communion of Reformed Churches (WCRC) and the dialogue with the Lutheran World Federation (LWF). I describe their development and venture into a reflection on the significance of these dialogues for the Pentecostal Movement today.

The Beginnings of Dialogue with the Churches of the Reformation

Why were Reformed and Lutheran churches interested in starting dialogical conversations with Pentecostals? On the one hand, there was the strong growth of the Pentecostal Movement. Some churches felt threatened by the upsurge of Pentecostal churches.¹¹ Another reason for engaging with Pentecostals was the pentecostalisation of Protestant churches. J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, a Methodist minister and expert on African Pentecostalism, brings the issue into focus: “The impact of neo-Pentecostalism has left the older churches with very little room to manoeuvre. Their very survival has come to depend not on their historic achievements in education and social work, but on how open they are to a Pentecostal or charismatic culture.”¹² In other words, pastoral concerns necessitate dialogue with Pentecostals.

Whether concerned with the growing charismatic presence in the Presbyterian Church of Ghana or the Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus, partner churches of the World Communion of Reformed Churches or the Lutheran World Federation respectively, need to understand these new realities. Páraic Réamoun, a former communications executive of the WARC, argued that in many parts of the world, Pentecostals and Reformed are at loggerheads or compete for religious market share.¹³ A concrete expression of this tension was evident in the strained relations between the Presbyterians and Pentecostals in the Republic of Korea.¹⁴ Entering dialogue with Pentecostals seemed to be a necessary way forward.

In July 1995, an exploratory committee of four Reformed and four Pentecostals met on the grounds of the Assemblies of God Bible college in Mattersey, England, to see whether a dialogue between the two traditions might prove useful.¹⁵ The official dialogue between the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (now World Communion of Reformed Churches) and Pentecostals – now Pentecostal World Fellowship (PWF) – began in 1996. In the meantime, three reports have been published reflecting the progress of each round, each lasting about five years.¹⁶ A fourth round of dialogues began in 2025.

Similarly, a study group between members of the Lutheran World Federation and Pentecostals began in 2004 at the Institute for Ecumenical Research in Strasbourg; yearly meetings lasted until 2010 when the group met in Tampere, Finland, and published a report.¹⁷ The official dialogue between the Lutheran World Federation and the Pentecostal World Fellowship began in 2016. The first round ended with the publication of “The Spirit of the Lord is Upon Me” in 2023.¹⁸ The LWF and the PWF both supported a continuation of this dialogue. The second round began in 2025 in São Leopoldo, Brazil.

These documents communicate how the church traditions met, built trust, and learned to pray and think together.

The Language of Early Dialogues

The introduction of the first report of the Reformed–Pentecostal dialogue describes the struggles they encountered in getting started.¹⁹ As a consequence, it was helpful to affirm basic agreements such as “We stand in communion with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed”²⁰ or that God revealed himself in Jesus Christ and by means of the Scriptures through the agency of the Holy Spirit.²¹ The Reformed team stated, “In previous centuries, Reformed theologians usually said that all signs and wonders were confined to the apostolic age. Increasingly, theologians, pastors, and church members see that this opinion finds no ground in the Scriptures.”²² The document also mentions areas, like the prophetic ministry of the church, where Pentecostal and Reformed Christians differ in emphasis.²³ Likewise, the Reformed and Pentecostals tend to identify the faithful church differently. Whereas the Reformed define the faithful church as a place where the Word of God is proclaimed and the sacraments rightly administered,²⁴ Pentecostals would see the faithful church as community where “Jesus Christ is lifted up, the Word of God is preached and obeyed, and where the Spirit’s gifts are manifested in the lives of believers.”²⁵ Such differences in emphasis were picked up as a positive challenge – for instance, “Deeper dialogue concerning the role of sacraments or ordinances, and the place of the Holy Spirit’s gifts, may lead to mutual enrichment.”²⁶

Furthermore, a useful gauge of evaluating progress in dialogue is the “we” language being used in documents. Forty-four times, the word “we” is used in this first document of the Reformed-Pentecostal dialogue. Phrases like, “we confess, we share, we agree, and we believe” indicate that there is a commonality that suggests the possibility for a fruitful continuation of that dialogue.

When the second round began, the dialogue partners first had to agree on the overarching topic for the next five years. In a mutual gathering of ideas, the theme chosen was “Experience in the Christian Faith and Life.” Every year, the focus would be on a different aspect – worship, discipleship, discernment, community, and justice. When the second document was written, it turned out to be considerably larger than the previous one.²⁷ Assuming the same dialogical dynamics, one could expect about eighty “we” references. In fact, there are 167 uses of that word, not counting citations. This illustrates in a simple way that this dialogue represents a journey of fruitful encounter. Paragraph 30 in “Experience in Christian Faith and Life” puts it as follows:

We can explore the depth of God’s covenant of grace, from Abraham through Sinai to the new covenant sealed in Christ’s blood that establishes new relationships among God’s covenant people. We can explore the riches of the Spirit’s gifts, poured out at Pentecost and poured out today that build up the one body of Christ. We can explore the Nicene Creed’s marks of the church – unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity – in congregations, denominations, and the Church universal. We can explore the reality of the Church as the people of God, the body of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Spirit. As we probe these elements of our common heritage, we will be drawn into realities of koinonia that we have not yet imagined.²⁸

It is indeed common exploration, and I would add common worship and witness, that draw us into the reality of greater fellowship (koinonia) and unity in Christ.

The third document of the dialogue between representatives of the Word Communion of Reformed Churches and the Pentecostal Word Fellowship was published in 2020 just as the COVID-19 pandemic started; its title is “Called to God’s Mission.” The first paragraph explains that “This document is a testimony to how Pentecostal and Reformed Christians respond together to God’s mission into which we have been called.”²⁹ Who would have thought that a dialogue that began with mutual reservations would develop to a confession that would benefit both church traditions?

The dialogue between the Lutheran World Federation and the Pentecostal World Fellowship has taken a different journey. Right at the beginning of those conversations that preceded the official dialogue, it was agreed upon that the common format of bipartisan theological reflection was often structured on the non-Pentecostal churches’ terms, and a different methodology was needed that would take into consideration an experiential dimension.³⁰ A second point soon established the fact that there are no basic doctrinal disagreements to talk about. Although we have different styles of worship and expressing our faith, there is basic doctrinal agreement.

Together we confess God the Holy Trinity. We believe in Jesus Christ, truly human and truly divine, who is our Saviour and Lord. We hold that salvation is a purely gracious and free gift of God, and that sinners are justified by faith, which sets us free and sends us out into the world to serve. We interpret our experiences through holy Scripture and with the help of both the local and the global church. It is in the joyful recognition of these convergences in our Christian faith and practice that we can proceed to deeper exploration.³¹

It is noteworthy that the deeper exploration suggested in this document emphasises experience and practice. It is not limited to theological exploration.

The report of the first round of the Lutheran-Pentecostal dialogue ends with a section entitled “Looking Toward the Future”, which mention that we both witness in a world characterised by polarisation and pluralism: “We are often confronted by the same challenges […] we discussed the impact of secularism on both of our churches.”³² To this point we shall return shortly, but let us first look at some fundamental lessons learned.

Lessons Learned

Every initial ecumenical encounter between two or more Christian traditions is loaded with uncertainties and fundamental questions. Why would an ecumenical encounter be desired? What misconceptions could hinder open dialogue? Are there historical wounds between the dialogue partners? Are ecumenical dialogues for the academic elite, or do they have any relevance to the churches in their regional and local contexts? We must raise these and other important questions repeatedly.

Instead of addressing these questions individually, which would necessitate a look at various historical contexts and cultural situations, I suggest here four fundamentally significant points.

First, at every beginning there is Christ. Our common allegiance to Christ builds the basis of our encounters. It is not the differences between our religious traditions or church cultures. If there is a common starting point, then it will have to focus on Jesus Christ as our common Lord and Saviour. Jesus Christ being fully human and fully divine, as described in the Scripture and as the Nicene Creed proclaims, must be our foundation.³³ Everything else will follow from that.

Second, we must ask hard questions. Members of certain church traditions have reservations towards others for many reasons. They may have misconceptions, traditional misgivings, false characterisation of past events, and other impediments to open encounter and conversation. Hard questions help to clarify the situation and allow us to take steps toward mutual correction and reconciliation. The tensions between Pentecostals and Roman Catholics in Italy serve as an example that I will describe later.

Third, relationships need time to grow. Human factors like building trust and developing friendships play an important role in ecumenical rapprochement. Speaking as a Pentecostal, I would say that it is in relationships that God can work through the Holy Spirit in creative ways.

Fourth, we have more in common than we first assumed. That is a frequently voiced comment by participants and is reflected in various ecumenical documents.³⁴ It is a foundation to build on. If, as believers in Christ, we acknowledge that we have more in common than what separates us, then there is no reason why we should not attempt to engage in common witness. I would even go so far as to argue that given the increasing influence of secularisation in our time, we need common witness to be credible in a world less and less concerned about God. This argument brings us to the last section of this paper.

Common Challenges in View of Secularisation, Pluralism, and Polarisation

Many religious people consider the influence of secularism as a threat to their faith. Similarly, we increasingly live in pluralist societies that seem to level distinctions as if any particular value is optional.³⁵ This can be compared to a supermarket mentality where the consumer can choose from a wide range of breakfast cereals, different types of milk, or a detergent that washes whiter. Opposed to those trends, or perhaps because of them, we can notice strong tendencies toward polarisation of opinions, whether they are political, social, or ideological. These unsettling tendencies call for discernment.³⁶ We are facing these tendencies regardless of whether we are Pentecostal, Protestant or Catholic; we sit in the same boat, so why not address these challenges together? If we do not, my thesis would claim, we become less credible with our Christian witness in this world because people will be distracted by our differences. We can also put it differently: the ecumenical dialogues have taught us not only to pray and believe together but also to be a prophetic voice in our societies so we can uphold peace, justice, and reconciliation. An image that comes to mind is the prophet Jeremiah’s call: “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jer. 29:7, NRSV). So, how can we seek for the welfare – also the spiritual welfare – of society in this secular, pluralistic, and divided world? Let me answer by looking at three objections.

The first objection would say that there is nothing good in secularism. I would answer that while it is true that secularism can distract people from paying attention to fundamental spiritual values, secularism is not all bad because it can protect us from extreme positions. The former Anglican Bishop of Durham argues that “A certain degree of secularity – by which we mean preventing theocracy, enabling the free exercise of religion, and permitting liberty of conscience in religion – is far better than Christian nationalism.”³⁷ In certain countries, especially in the West, some people advocate for some form of Christian nationalism, but let me remind them that Pentecostals suffered persecution from governments that saw themselves as custodians of a Christian nation. German National Socialism comes to mind. More interesting in our context is the fact that Italian Pentecostals suffered in the 1930s until the mid-1940s from the fascist regime that was in co-operation with the Roman Catholic Church. They were not allowed to assemble, their properties were attacked, and their members were put into insane asylums and prisons until a secular initiative in the 1950s gave them the right to exist as a Pentecostal denomination and practice their faith freely.³⁸ No wonder Italian Pentecostals had a strained relationship with Catholics. They had every right to demand an apology from the Pope. In 2014, Pope Francis travelled to Naples and attended a Pentecostal worship service led by his Pentecostal friend, Giovanni Traettino. The pope publicly acknowledged wrongdoing by the Catholic Church and asked for forgiveness.³⁹

The second objection focuses on pluralism. It is a common misconception that pluralism necessitates a levelling of opinions. Some people say that if people accept pluralism, then there is no conviction worth fighting for because everything is seen as acceptable. You are OK, and I am OK, as long as nobody is exclusivist. But there is a more constructive approach to pluralism. Veli Matti Kärkkäinen pleads for a hospitable, dialogical and witness-oriented communication. Borrowing from missiologist Harold Netland, Kärkkäinen pleads for the following:

1.Bearing witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ among religious others is not optional, but rather obligatory for the Christian Church.

2.Christians are to bear witness to the gospel in accordance with God’s love.

3.Christian witness must be respectful of others and be conducted with humility and integrity.

4.Christian witness should include appropriate forms of interreligious dialogue.

5.Christians are to reject violence and the abuse of power in witness.⁴⁰

If the late Walter Hollenweger would hear this, he would probably laugh and say, “I have long argued that the Pentecostal movement is in itself fundamentally pluralistic.”⁴¹ Pluralism in our societies is simply the context of our lives.

Finally, there is the perception of polarisation in our societies and churches. Since the rise of social media and partially as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, individual opinions are more pronounced. People are increasingly willing to defend their oftentimes extreme convictions more rigorously. Here again, being in dialogue with other Christian traditions has been a blessing to Pentecostals. Practising true dialogue means paying attention, being a good listener, and trying to find mutual understanding – qualities we desperately need in a fragmented world.

To conclude, I would say that the twenty-first century brings several challenges to our social lives and personal convictions. Never was it so obvious that we cannot manage on our own if we want to be faithful to our missional calling in the world. We need one another, especially in the community of faith, if we want to discern the guidance of the Holy Spirit and be credible witnesses of Christ. The dialogues between Pentecostals and representatives of other Christian families are a gift by which we can learn to journey together, grow in wisdom, and live lives loving God and our neighbours as ourselves.

Bibliography

Asamoah-Gyadu, J. Kwabena. “Neo-Pentecostalism and the Changing Face of Christianity in Africa”, In Karen L. Bloomquist, Ed. Lutherans Respond to Pentecostalism. Lutheran University Press, 2008.

Bloomquist, Karen L., Ed. Lutherans Respond to Pentecostalism. Lutheran University Press, 2008.

“Catholic Pentecostal International Dialogue”, Vatican Dicastery for the Promotion of Christian Unity. [Available at: https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-occidentale/pentecostali/dialogo.html], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

EPCRA. “2023. Lutheran-Pentecostal Dialogue”, The European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association, 2023. [Available at: http://www.epcra.ch/papers.html], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

EPCRA. “Called to God’s Mission: Reformed Pentecostal Dialogue”, The European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association (EPCRA). 2020. [Available at: http://www.epcra.ch/papers.html], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

EPCRA. “Experience in Christian Faith and Life: Reformed Pentecostal Dialogue”, The European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association (EPCRA). 2012. [Available at: http://www.epcra.ch/papers.html], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

EPCRA. “Word and Spirit, Church and World: Reformed Pentecostal Dialogue”, The European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association. 2000. [Available at: http://www.epcra.ch/papers.html], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

Global Christian Forum. “About Us”, GCF Website 2025. [Available at: https://globalchristianforum.org/about-us/], [Last accessed: 19th October 2025].

Hocken, Peter D. “Berlin Declaration”, In Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard Van der Maas, Eds. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Zondervan, 2002.

Hollenweger, Walter. “My Pilgrimage in Mission”, Refleks 4(2), (2005): 93-94. Available at: https://pentecostalarchives.org/?a=d&d=REF2005-Issue4-2.1.1&srpos=2&e=-------en-20--1--img-txIN-refleks+My+pilgrimage+in+mission-----------], [Last accessed: 19th October 2025].

–––. Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide. Hendrickson, 1997.

Institute for Ecumenical Research, David Du Plessis Center, and The European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association. “Lutherans and Pentecostals in Dialogue”, Institute for Ecumenical Research Website / Institut für Ökumenische Forschung, June 2022. [Available at: https://ecumenical-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Lutherans-and-Pentecostals-in-Dialogue-Text-FINAL.pdf], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. “Christian Church among Religions: Toward a Hospitable Encounter with the Other”, In Marina Ngursangzeli Behera and Jean-Daniel Plüss, Eds. Conviction in an Optional Society: Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity & Religious Pluralism. Regnum, 2020.

Lange, Dirk G., Pauline Mumia, Jean-Daniel Plüss, and Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, Eds. “International Lutheran-Pentecostal 2016–2022 Dialogue Statement: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is Upon Me’”, Lutheran World Federation. 2023. [Available at: https://lutheranworld.org/resources/publication-spirit-lord-upon-me], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

McKenna, Josephine. “Pope Francis Apologizes for Persecution of Pentecostals”, National Catholic Reporter. 28th July 2014. [Available at: https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-francis-apologizes-persecution-pentecostals#:~:text=During%20the%20visit%2C%20Francis%20apologized,were%20crazy%2C%22%20Francis%20said], [Last accessed: 19th October 2025].

“Message of Pope for 50th Anniversary of International Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue”, 22nd July 2022. Vatican Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity. [Available at: https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

Netland, Harold. Christianity and Religious Diversity: Clarifying Christian Commitment in a Globalizing Age. Baker Academic, 2015.

Ngursangzeli Behera, Marina, and Jean-Daniel Plüss, Eds. Conviction in an Optional Society: Pentecostal /Charismatic Christianity & Religious Pluralism. Regnum, 2020.

Plüss, Jean-Daniel. Vom Geist bewegt. Die Geschichte der Schweizerischen Pfingstmission. Asaph Verlag, 2015.

–––. “European Pentecostal Reactions to Totalitarianism: A Study of Ethical Commitment in the 1930s: Part II”, EPTA Bulletin 4(3), (1985): 88-100.

–––. “European Pentecostal Reactions to Totalitarianism: A Study of Ethical Commitment in the 1930s: Part I”, EPTA Bulletin 4(2), (1985): 40-55.

Réamounn, Páraic. “Introduction”, Reformed World, Can Two Walk Together? 50(3), (September 2000): 103.

Robeck, Cecil M. “Fifty Years of Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 1972-2-22: A Pentecostal Assessment”, Pneuma 44(2), (2022): 220-50.

Robeck Jr., Cecil M. “Yoido Full Gospel Church ad Ecumenism”, In Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies, Eds. The Holy Spirit, Spirituality and Leadership. Regnum, 2024.

Ruff, P. Richard, and Anton B. Reuss. “Erklärung”, Die Verheissung des Vaters, no. 41 (November 1913): 1-3.

Seymour, William. “The Apostolic Faith Movement”, The Apostolic Faith, September 1906.

World Council of Churches. “The Basis of the WCC”, WCC Website, [Available at: https://www.oikoumene.org/node/6243#:~:text=and%20Holy%20Spirit.%22-,The%20WCC's%201948%20inaugural%20assembly%20declared:%20%22The%20World%20Council%20of,churches%20by%20its%20own%20wisdom.%22], [Last accessed: 19th October 2025].

Wright, Tom, and Michael F. Bird. Jesus and the Powers. Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies. SPCK, 2024.

Zopfi, Jakob. Deutschland und die Schweiz in Die Pfingstkirchen. In Die Kirchen der Welt. Vol. VII, edited by Walter J. Hollenweger. Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1971.

¹ Jakob Zopfi, Deutschland und die Schweiz in Die Pfingstkirchen, in Walter J. Hollenweger (ed), Die Kirchen der Welt, vol. VII, (Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1971): 73.

² This trench was partially created in 1909 by the Berlin Declaration in which a branch of conservative Lutherans claimed that the Pentecostal Movement was “from below.” Peter D. Hocken, “Berlin Declaration”, in Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard Van der Maas (eds), The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Zondervan, 2002): 371.

³ Walter Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide (Hendrickson, 1997): 334.

⁴ William Seymor, “The Apostolic Faith Movement”, The Apostolic Faith, September 1906, 1-2. Similarly, Swiss Pentecostal pastors made a declaration of ecumenical intent; P. Richard Ruff and B. Reuss, “Erklärung”, Die Verheissung des Vaters, 41 (November 1913): 1-3.

⁵ In Switzerland, the Eglise de Réveil organised itself in 1932. The Gemeinde für Urchristentum organised in 1933, and the Schweizerische Pfingstmission – previously a mission agency – declared itself a denomination in 1935. In the United Kingdom, the process began with the first Elim church in Belfast in 1915, and the British Assemblies of God were established in 1924. In Germany, the Christian Mülheim Fellowship (Christlicher Gemeinschaftsverband Mülheim an der Ruhr) was established as an independent body in 1913. The Italian Assemblies of God (Assemblee di Dio in Italia) officially constituted themselves as a denomination in 1959; for further details see section, “Common Challenges in View of Secularisation, Pluralism, and Polarisation”. See also Jean-Daniel Plüss, “European Pentecostal Reactions to Totalitarianism: A Study of Ethical Commitment in the 1930s”, EPTA Bulletin 4(2–3), (1985): 40-55, 88-100. This two-part article focuses mainly on Germany, and on Italy during the influence of German National Socialism and fascism in Italy. In Sweden, on the other hand, there was no formal Pentecostal body for many decades to come because of a strong congregational setup that gave autonomy to local churches. Eventually, The Pentecostal Alliance of Independent Churches was founded in 2001.

⁶ Jean-Daniel Plüss, Vom Geist bewegt. Die Geschichte der Schweizerischen Pfingstmission (Asaph Verlag, 2015): 150-51.

⁷ Now known as the Dicastery for the Promotion of Christian Unity.

⁸ For more on the fiftieth anniversary, see: “Message of Pope for 50th Anniversary of International Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue”, 22nd July 2022, Vatican Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, [Available at: https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/news/2022/2022-07-12-dialogo-cattolico-pentecostale.html], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025]; Cecil M. Robeck, “Fifty Years of Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 1972-2-22: A Pentecostal Assessment”, Pneuma 44(2), (2022): 220-50.

⁹ See the reports at “Catholic Pentecostal International Dialogue”, Vatican Dicastery for the Promotion of Christian Unity, [Available at: https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-occidentale/pentecostali/dialogo.html], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

¹⁰ The official dialogue with the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) started in 1996. The World Council of Churches Joint Consultative Group with Pentecostals started in 2000, and a proto dialogue with members of the Lutheran World Federation began in 2004. The international dialogue between Anglican Communion and the Pentecostal World Fellowship had its beginning in 2022. Besides engaging in official dialogues, Pentecostals have also participated in Faith and Order meetings of the WCC at least since 1985 when Cecil Mel Robeck was invited to join that group.

¹¹ Karen L. Bloomquist (ed), Lutherans Respond to Pentecostalism (Lutheran University Press, 2008): 5.

¹² J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, “Neo-Pentecostalism and the Changing Face of Christianity in Africa”, in Bloomquist, Lutherans Respond, 20.

¹³ Páraic Réamounn, “Introduction”, Reformed World, Can Two Walk Together? 50(3), (September 2000): 103.

¹⁴ Cecil M. Robeck Jr., “Yoido Full Gospel Church ad Ecumenism”, in Wonsuk Ma and Robert P Menzies (eds), The Holy Spirit, Spirituality and Leadership (Regnum, 2024): 279.

¹⁵ Those present at this meeting were on the Reformed side: Hugh Davidson, Margaret M. McKay, Salvatore Ricciardi and Henry Wilson. The Pentecostal participants were Richard Israel, Frank Macchia, Jean-Daniel Plüss and Cecil M. Robeck Jr.

¹⁶ “Word and Spirit, Church and World: Reformed Pentecostal Dialogue”, European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association (EPCRA), 2000, [Available at: http://www.epcra.ch/papers.html], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025]; “Experience in Christian Faith and Life: Reformed Pentecostal Dialogue”, European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association (EPCRA), 2012, [Available at: http://www.epcra.ch/papers.html], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025]; “Called to God’s Mission: Reformed Pentecostal Dialogue”, European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association (EPCRA), 2020, [Available at: http://www.epcra.ch/papers.html], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

¹⁷ “Lutherans and Pentecostals in Dialogue”, Institute for Ecumenical Research, David Du Plessis Center, and The European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association, June 2022, [Available at: https://ecumenical-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Lutherans-and-Pentecostals-in-Dialogue-Text-FINAL.pdf], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025]; See also “2023 Lutheran-Pentecostal Dialogue”, The European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association, 2023, [Available at: http://www.epcra.ch/papers.html], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

¹⁸ Dirk G. Lange et al. (eds), “International Lutheran-Pentecostal 2016–2022 Dialogue Statement: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is Upon Me,’” 2023, Lutheran World Federation, [Available at: https://lutheranworld.org/resources/publication-spirit-lord-upon-me], [Last accessed: 15th October 2025].

¹⁹ “Word and Spirit, Church and World”, §1-14.

²⁰ Lange, “Spirit of the Lord”, (§15).

²¹ Lange, “Spirit of the Lord”, (§19).

²² Lange, “Spirit of the Lord”, (§32).

²³ Lange, “Spirit of the Lord”, (§35).

²⁴ Lange, “Spirit of the Lord”, (§38).

²⁵ Lange, “Spirit of the Lord”, (§39).

²⁶ Lange, “Spirit of the Lord”, (§41).

²⁷ “Word and Spirit, Church and World” has a word count of about 11,300, whereas “Experience in Christian Faith and Life” has 20,000 words. The third report, “Called to God’s Mission”, has even more “we” language – 166 mentions with a word count of 14,100.

²⁸ “Experience in Christian Faith and Life”, (§30).

²⁹ “Called to God’s Mission”, (§1).

³⁰ “Lutherans and Pentecostals in Dialogue”, and “2023 Lutheran-Pentecostal Dialogue”, 2.

³¹ Lange, “Spirit of the Lord”, §23.

³² Lange, “Spirit of the Lord”, § 97. Incidentally, this document has a word count of 12,900 and contains 163 “we” references. The question arises if there is so much agreement, why should we not learn to witness together?

³³ The World Council of Churches affirmed in 1961 that the Lord Jesus Christ is both God and Saviour according to the Scriptures: World Council of Churches, “The Basis of the WCC”, WCC Website 2025, [Available at: https://www.oikoumene.org/node/6243#:~:text=and%20Holy%20Spirit.%22-,The%20WCC's%201948%20inaugural%20assembly%20declared:%20%22The%20World%20Council%20of,churches%20by%20its%20own%20wisdom.%22], [Last accessed: 19th October 2025]. More recently, the Global Christian Forum communicated that its purpose is to be “an open space wherein representatives from a broad range of Christian churches and inter-church organisations, which confess the triune God and Jesus Christ as perfect in His divinity and humanity, can gather to foster mutual respect, to explore and address together common challenges” – Global Christian Forum, “About Us”, GCF Website 2025, [Available at: https://globalchristianforum.org/about-us/], [Last accessed: 19th October 2025].

³⁴ “Word and Spirit, Church and World”, §9; “Lutherans and Pentecostals in Dialogue”, and “2023 Lutheran-Pentecostal Dialogue”, 2; “Experience in Christian Faith and Life”, §11; “Called to God’s Mission”, §3, §85; Lange, “Spirit of the Lord”, §91.

³⁵ Cf. Marina Ngursangzeli Behera and Jean-Daniel Plüss (eds), Conviction in an Optional Society: Pentecostal /Charismatic Christianity & Religious Pluralism (Regnum, 2020).

³⁶ Whereas the LWF-PWF report calls for discernment in biblical and spiritual terms (“Spirit of the Lord”, §15, §76, §82, §87), the reports of the WCRC – PWF dialogue emphasise communal discernment for the benefit of society at large. In “Experience in Christian Faith and Life”, a whole section was dedicated to the theme of discernment (§§73-116).

³⁷ Tom Wright and Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies (SPCK, 2024): 134.

³⁸ Plüss, “European Pentecostal Reactions to Totalitarianism”.

³⁹ Josephine McKenna, “Pope Francis Apologizes for Persecution of Pentecostals”, National Catholic Reporter, 28th July 2014, [Available at: https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-francis-apologizes-persecution-pentecostals#:~:text=During%20the%20visit%2C%20Francis%20apologized,were%20crazy%2C%22%20Francis%20said], [Last accessed: 19th October 2025].

⁴⁰ Harold Netland, Christianity and Religious Diversity: Clarifying Christian Commitment in a Globalizing Age (Baker Academic, 2015): 234-42, quoted in Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Christian Church among Religions: Toward a Hospitable Encounter with the Other”, in Marina Ngursangzeli Behera and Jean-Daniel Plüss (eds), Conviction in an Optional Society: Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity & Religious Pluralism (Regnum, 2020): 20.

⁴¹ Walter Hollenweger, “My Pilgrimage in Mission”, Refleks 4(2), (2005): 93-94, [Available at: https://pentecostalarchives.org/?a=d&d=REF2005-Issue4-2.1.1&srpos=2&e=-------en-20--1--img-txIN-refleks+My+pilgrimage+in+mission-----------], [Last accessed: 19th October 2025].

Response to Jean-Daniel Plüss’ “Lessons Learned during Thirty Years of Ecumenical Dialogue: What Future Challenges Can Be Expected?”

Eva Wong Suk Kyun

Thank you, Dr Plüss, for the splendid presentation. Indeed, church history reveals many divisions and trenches in the universal church. Pentecostals’ ecumenical dialogue has played an important role in bringing unity to the Christian faith in past decades. Although the trench of doctrinal differences is still there, Christian unity in diversity is possible, and ecumenism has progressed remarkably since the last century. The ecumenical roots of Pentecostalism in Europe have been phenomenal, with early Pentecostal leaders from various ecclesial backgrounds. Indeed, the outpouring of the Spirit and renewals are the universal gift of everyday spiritual experiences for Christians on every continent, particularly with the spread of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement, even to many traditional churches in the past century, with a vast expansion in Asia.

Pentecostals in Dialogue

As Plüss mentioned, in ecumenical dialogues, “the Pentecostal group should only represent classical Pentecostals” for more focused conversations; doing so facilitated rich theological exchange. I ponder several questions about the ongoing ecumenical efforts: How are these dialogues bringing impact, awareness, and unity at the grassroots level? What are ecumenical engagements like in the Global South? How are larger Spirit-empowered Christian groups represented at the table? In my response, I highlight the biblical basis for ecumenical work and why it is important. While ecumenism continues, I see the need to bridge the gaps in global Pentecostalism, broadening Pentecostal representation at ecumenical tables as the way forward in Christian unity.

The Biblical Basis for Ecumenism

I fully agree with Plüss that Pentecostals, charismatics, and various church traditions can and must develop a “strong sense of unity amidst diversity” through common faith in Jesus Christ and the experience of the Holy Spirit, despite their differences in liturgical practices and ecclesial convictions. I affirm that ecumenical work is important because it demonstrates God’s love and the work of the Holy Spirit in uniting and empowering the body of Christ as a Christian witness to the world.

God Commands Love for One Another

Ecumenical work demonstrates God’s love among Jesus’s followers, heeding God’s command to love and to unite in diversity, rather than perpetuating division and indifference. Jesus commands his disciples to love one another in the New Covenant as a new commandment.¹ Loving one another is a command, an imperative to be obeyed and demonstrated as believers reflect God’s love.²

God’s Love Unites the Body of Christ

God’s love unites the universal church as one body in Jesus Christ. Christians are God’s children and one body of Christ in the bond of love, regardless of historical background, tradition, and place (Jn 1:12; Rom. 8:16-21; Eph. 5:1; 1 Jn 3:1; 5:2). God’s salvation and love transcend barriers, as Jesus has broken down every barrier of humanity in the New Covenant. Ecumenical work is crucial as all believers are one body in Jesus Christ (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:12; 2 Cor. 5:10; Col. 3:14-15).

God’s Witness to the World

Ecumenism is an excellent way toward Christian unity, bridging Christ’s witness to all peoples globally. Jesus prayed in his high priestly prayer that his disciples may become one “so that the world may believe” (Jn 17:20-23),³ particularly in the secular world. Christian unity reflects the triune God or Trinity: God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit. The heart of unity is love. The unity of Christians worldwide is God’s desire, as God’s love is demonstrated by Jesus’ disciples loving one another, and it is imperative as his witness to the world.

The Holy Spirit Breaks Barriers and Empowers God’s Mission

The Holy Spirit breaks barriers and equips believers with spiritual gifts for the Christian life and missions. Since the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on believers, transcending all boundaries of ethnicity, gender, age, and status (Acts 2:17-18).⁴ In the unity of the Spirit, believers are to collaborate in synergy, doing God’s mission and fulfilling the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20). The recent Lausanne Fourth Congress on World Evangelisation in Seoul 2024 gathered Christians from a rich diversity of the global church with the theme, “Let the Church Declare and Display Christ Together,” calling for collaborative action to accelerate the global mission as Christian leaders with common calling, vision, and goals to fulfil the Great Commission.⁵

Bridging the Gap in Global Pentecostalism

Regarding focused dialogue conversations having classical Pentecostals representing denominational Pentecostals, global statistics show that classical Pentecostals are the smaller group, estimated at around 124 million within the larger global Pentecostal body, totalling 644 million as of 2020.⁶ Thus, the data shows an increasing gap between classical Pentecostals and a growing Spirit-empowered Christianity.⁷ The diverse wider groups, therefore, may not be sufficiently represented in ecumenical dialogues.

Since the 1980s, newer and different theologies of neo-Pentecostals and Third Wave groups have caused many influences and tensions to arise among classical Pentecostals and traditional denominations. These newer theologies and emphases are an important area for theological dialogues.⁸ Additionally, traditional churches are experiencing the impact of renewal groups. Spirit-empowered Christianity is the fastest-growing and second-largest Christian group after Catholics.⁹ There is a growing need for theological conversations among the diverse global Pentecostals and charismatics at the table. As classical Pentecostals have been long-established in theological development and Pentecostal education, Wonsuk Ma stresses the importance of “theological formation/education to strengthen the growth of global Christianity so it can serve the wider Pentecostal-Charismatic [M]ovement, actively contribut[ing] to the life of the wider universal [C]hurch, and meaningfully engag[ing] with the world in the public space.”¹⁰ As such, solid Pentecostal theological education and consistent theological conversations among the wider Pentecostal-charismatic Movements can help bridge the gaps within the diverse Spirit-empowered Christianity should church leaders earnestly seek unity in God’s love under the guidance of Scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Way Forward for Ecumenical Dialogue

The Nicene Creed as the Theological Foundation for Christian Unity

The Nicene Creed is a solid theological foundation of the common Christian affirmation of faith, particularly relative to the belief in the trinitarian God. The Nicene Creed is the first ecumenical creed formulated at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325. It unites universal Christianity in a confession of faith and affirms fundamental doctrines of orthodoxy. The Nicene Creed remains an important tool for uniting all churches and denominations in the Christian faith, even though stark differences remain in culture, traditions, practices, and expressions of worship. In 2025, the World Council of Churches (WCC) and other ecumenical efforts are commemorating the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council, noting its affirmation of faith, its focus on “the mission of God’s triune love, and the implications this has for the common witness and service of the churches.”¹¹ The Nicene Creed defines and unites the universal church in our belief in who God is and who we are in our relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ the Son, in the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed helps all believers respond to God and one another in doctrinal truth, whether from orthodox, traditional, or the modern Pentecostal-charismatic churches, united as one.

Involvement at the Grassroots Level

Involvement at the grassroots level will benefit the universal church in cultivating Christian unity. It would be more impactful for the dialogues and issues to be shared with the public and with grassroots believers, especially now in the digital age that transcends geographical borders. The conversations will help unite different denominations and churches, not just at the leadership level, but also at the level of congregations at large. An Asian example is the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and Pentecostal Dialogue in May 1999 among the Presbyterian and Pentecostal communities in Seoul, Korea, open to the public through Korean television news reports and newspapers. Such ecumenical efforts get down to the grassroots level. This dialogue facilitated extended conversations among the churches throughout South Korea toward mutual understanding and unity. Stronger ecumenical ties were formed over the years, and then Korean churches hosted the WCC 10th Assembly in Busan in 2013.¹²

Inclusion of the Wider Circle of Spirit-Empowered Christianity

“Who is missing at the table?” is the mantra of the Global Christian Forum (GCF), which aims to engage those outside their circle and has initiated important theological dialogues.¹³ Universal Christianity has diverse histories and identities, with an increasing number of post-denominational independent Pentecostal, neo-Pentecostal, and Charismatic churches worldwide. Similarly, Pentecostals can ask the same question, “Who is missing at the table?” and broaden the existing theological dialogues.¹⁴

A New Form of Ecumenism through Global Pentecostal Scholarship

Global Pentecostalism is quite diverse, and there is an emerging new trending ecumenical approach and uniting effort in the fastest-growing Christian movement through Pentecostal scholarship. The uniting contributions through scholarships, consultations, and dialogues worth noting are the European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association,¹⁵ the Global Network of Spirit Empowered Scholars (GNSES),¹⁶ and Global Pentecostal Voices.¹⁷ These initiatives are scholarly ecumenical dialogues among global Pentecostals and/or Spirit-empowered movements from every continent to learn and share their unique theological insights and gifts with the larger body of Christ. As these resources are widely available, this scholarly approach of global Pentecostal conversations – in theology, doctrines, Spirit-empowered living, church and ministry, missions and evangelism, and cultural engagements – effectively connects, shares knowledge, and bridges the gaps among global Pentecostals and the global church with long-lasting impact.

Conclusion

The Holy Spirit unites the body of Christ, the diverse universal church, on every continent, through the outpouring of the Spirit, in revivals and renewals. Ecumenism plays a significant role in bringing the body of Christ from dialogue to collaboration in God’s mission amidst the contemporary challenges of secularisation, pluralism, and polarisation.

Christian unity is a foretaste of heaven on earth, as described in Revelation 7:9-10:

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

The church, although diverse, is the beautiful Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:7).

Bibliography

Essamuah, Casely B., and Jean-Daniel Plüss. “Christianity Moving South – Walter Hollenweger’s Propositions Revisited: A Conversation”, In Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies, Eds. The Holy Spirit, Spirituality and Leadership: Essays in Honour of Younghoon Lee. Regnum Studies of Missions. Regnum, 2024.

Essamuah, Casely B., and Richard Howell, Eds. Faithfulness in a Multi-Faith Context: Global Christian Forum Asia Regional Consultation, 14th–16th October 2022. Global Christian Forum by Caleb Institute, 2023.

European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association (EPCRA) Website. [Available at: http://www.epcra.ch/home.html], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

Global Christian Forum. “GCF Asia Regional Meeting: ‘Faithfulness in a Multi-Faith Context’”, GCF Website [Available at: https://globalchristianforum.org/gcf-asia-regional-consultation-2022/], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

Global Christian Forum. “Message of Fourth Global Gathering ‘That the World May Know’”, GCF Website [Available at: https://globalchristianforum.org/june-2024-newsletter/], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

Global Network of Spirit Empowered Scholars (GNSES). “Who Are We?” Empowered 21 Website [Available at: https://empowered21.com/about/gnses/], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

Global Pentecostal Voices. “Home Page”, GPVoices Website [Available at: https://www.gpvoices.org/], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

Granberg-Michaelson, Wesley. Future Faith: Ten Challenges Reshaping Christianity in the 21st Century. Word & World Books: Theology for Christian Ministry. Fortress, 2018.

Howell, Richard. “Faithfulness in a Multi-Faith Context”, Paper presented at the Global Christian Forum Asia Regional Consultation, Seoul, Korea, 14th–16th October 2022. Later published in Evangelical Review of Theology 48(1), (February 2024): 86-93. [Available at: https://theology.worldea.org/evangelical-review-of-theology/], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025]. Also published as a chapter in Faithfulness in a Multi-Faith Context: Global Christian Forum Asia Regional Consultation, 14th-16th October 2022. Global Christian Forum by Caleb Institute, 2023.

Johnson, Todd M., and Gina A. Zurlo. Introducing Spirit-Empowered Christianity: The Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Movement in the 21st Century. Oral Roberts University Press, 2023.

Lausanne Movement. “Gathering Seoul-Incheon 2024”, 22nd–28th September 2024. [Available at: https://lausanne.org/gathering/seoul-2024/], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

Ma, Wonsuk. “Asian Pentecostalism as a Growth Engine for Global Christianity: Potentials and Challenges”, In Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies, Eds. The Holy Spirit, Spirituality and Leadership: Essays in Honour of Younghoon Lee. Regnum Studies of Missions. Regnum, 2024.

–––. “Pentecostal Theological Formation and Education for Tomorrow (Sec 1). Part III of ‘Global Christianity Today, the Locus of Pentecostal-Charismatic Faith, and Theological Education for Tomorrow’”, World Alliance for Pentecostal Theological Education (WAPTE). Pentecostal Education 7(2), (Fall 2022): 261-73. [Available at: https://wapte.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Pentecostal-Education-7-2-Fall-2022-v2.pdf/], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

Robeck, Cecil M., Jr. “Yoido Full Gospel Church and Ecumenism”, In Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies, Eds. The Holy Spirit, Spirituality and Leadership: Essays in Honour of Younghoon Lee. Regnum Studies of Missions. Regnum, 2024.

Wong, Eva Suk Kyun. “Contextual Pentecostalism from a Classical Pentecostal Movement to a Contemporary Pentecostal Church Movement: A Study of the Assemblies of God of Malaysia with Special Reference to Joel 2:28-32”, Ph.D. diss., Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, Middlesex University, 2022.

World Council of Churches. “Sixth World Conference on Faith and Order Set for October: ‘Where Now for Visible Unity?’” WCC Website, [Available at: https://www.oikoumene.org/events/sixth-world-conference-on-faith-and-order-set-for-october-where-now-for-visible-unity/], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

¹ Jesus said, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:34-35). Jesus repeated this later in John: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you […] These things I command you, so that you will love one another” (15:12; 17). All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the ESV.

²“We love because he first loved us” (1 Jn 4:19).

³“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me” (Jn 17:20-23).

⁴“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17-18).

⁵ Lausanne Movement, “Gathering Seoul-Incheon 2024”, 22nd–28th September 2024, [Available at: https://lausanne.org/gathering/seoul-2024], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025]. I served on the Lausanne Global Analysis Editorial Advisory Board and participated in the congress.

⁶ Todd M. Johnson and Gina A. Zurlo, Introducing Spirit-Empowered Christianity: The Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Movement in the 21st Century (Oral Roberts University Press, 2023): 8-11.

⁷ According to Johnson and Zurlo, classical Pentecostals are the denominational Pentecostals (Type 1), estimated to have a total of 124 million in 2020. Among the classical Pentecostal denominations are groups such as the Assemblies of God, Church of God (Cleveland, TN), Church of God in Christ (COGIC), The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, and Oneness Pentecostals like the United Pentecostal Church. Type 2 are the charismatics, those who are Spirit baptised but who remain in their mainline Christian denominations, namely Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and others, with a total of about 268 million. Type 3 are the Independent charismatics, with an estimated total of 252 million. The newer name for the overarching movement is Spirit-empowered Christians, with an estimated total of 644 million in 2020. Previous names used for the movement worldwide are Pentecostalism, Global Pentecostalism, charismatic, Pentecostal and Charismatic, Pentecostal-Charismatic, and Renewal. The newest term is Spirit-empowered Christians, around 26 percent of universal Christians.

⁸ Eva Wong Suk Kyun, “Contextual Pentecostalism from a Classical Pentecostal Movement to a Contemporary Pentecostal Church Movement: A Study of the Assemblies of God of Malaysia with Special Reference to Joel 2:28-32” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, Middlesex University, 2022). The newer theologies and practices of neo-Pentecostals and Third Wave include the Seven Mountains Mandate, Strategic Level Spiritual Warfare, Inner Healing, 24-hour Prayer Movement, and Charismatic Worship, among others.

⁹ Wonsuk Ma, “Asian Pentecostalism as a Growth Engine for Global Christianity: Potentials and Challenges”, in Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzie (eds), The Holy Spirit, Spirituality and Leadership: Essays in Honour of Younghoon Lee, Regnum Studies of Missions (Regnum, 2024): 259.

¹⁰ Wonsuk Ma, “Pentecostal Theological Formation and Education for Tomorrow (Sec 1), Part III of ‘Global Christianity Today, the Locus of Pentecostal-Charismatic Faith, and Theological Education for Tomorrow’”, World Alliance for Pentecostal Theological Education (WAPTE), Pentecostal Education 7(2), (Fall 2022): 264, [Available at: https://wapte.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Pentecostal-Education-7-2-Fall-2022-v2.pdf], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

¹¹ World Council of Churches, “Sixth World Conference on Faith and Order Set for October: ‘Where Now for Visible Unity?’”, World Council of Churches Website [Available at: https://www.oikoumene.org/events/sixth-world-conference-on-faith-and-order-set-for-october-where-now-for-visible-unity], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

¹² Cecil M. Robeck Jr., “Yoido Full Gospel Church and Ecumenism”, in Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies (eds), The Holy Spirit, Spirituality and Leadership: Essays in Honour of Younghoon Lee, Regnum Studies of Missions (Regnum, 2024), 283-86. The WCC 10th Assembly in Busan was hosted by the Korean Host Committee, comprised of Rev. Dr Younghoon Lee, senior pastor of Yoido Full Gospel Church, who is also the General Superintendent of the Korean Assemblies of God; the Rev. Samhwan Kim, founder and pastor of Myung Sung Presbyterian Church; and the Rev. Jong-wha Park.

¹³ Casely B. Essamuah and Jean-Daniel Plüss, “Christianity Moving South – Walter Hollenweger’s Propositions Revisited: A Conversation”, in Ma and Menzies, The Holy Spirit, Spirituality and Leadership, 227-28.

¹⁴ I was privileged to be involved in the Global Christian Forum Asia Regional Meeting as part of the Message Drafting Committee in Seoul, Korea, in 2022. I also participated in the GCF Fourth Global Gathering in Accra, Ghana, in 2024, themed “That the World May Know” (Jn 17:23) and experienced the unique sharing of faith stories and fellowships at the tables. See Global Christian Forum, “GCF Asia Regional Meeting: ‘Faithfulness in a Multi-Faith Context’”, GCF Website [Available at: https://globalchristianforum.org/gcf-asia-regional-consultation-2022/], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025]; see also Global Christian Forum, “Message of Fourth Global Gathering ‘That the World May Know’”, GCF Website, [Avaialbe at: https://globalchristianforum.org/june-2024-newsletter/], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

¹⁵ See the European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association (EPCRA) Website at: http://www.epcra.ch/home.html. EPCRA started in 1981 and is presently chaired by Dr Jean-Daniel Plüss.

¹⁶ See Global Network of Spirit Empowered Scholars (GNSES), “Who Are We?”, Empowered 21 Website, [Available at: https://empowered21.com/about/gnses/], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025]. GNSES is co-chaired by Dr Wonsuk Ma and Dr Opoku Onyinah, providing a common platform for meaningful consultations among scholars in the larger global Pentecostalism. It was launched in 2023 as part of Empowered21’s annual Scholars Consultations.

¹⁷ See Global Pentecostal Voices, “Home Page”, GPVoices Website, [Available at: https://www.gpvoices.org], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025]. The GPV Initiative is co-chaired by Dr Byron Klaus, Dr Douglas Petersen, and Dr Kong Hee, organising the Global Pentecostal Summit 3rd–6th November 2023, the Europe-Asia Pentecostal Summit 13th–18th May 2025, and the Asia Pentecostal Summit 29th October–2nd November 2025.

Session 4

Pentecost as the Future of Creation

Daniela C. Augustine

Abstract

This presentation discusses the event of Pentecost as the future of humanity and the rest of creation. It upholds a vision of Pentecost’s cosmic reach, stretching from the very act of creation to the eschaton. The presentation asserts that everything in creation – every speck of dust, every particle of matter, including the human body in all its intricate complexity – is created to be joined to the Spirit; in other words, it is created for Pentecost. In light of this assertion, the presentation spotlights human ontology, affirming that from the beginning, humanity is created as a charismatic creature in the image and for the likeness of its prototype and telos – Christ, the Spirit-bearer. In continuity with this understanding, the presentation proceeds with a reflection on the Church, the Spirit-bearing communal body of Christ, as an ongoing Pentecost. As such, the Church embodies the eschatological destiny of all creation in which Christ is “all in all.” This is an eschatological glimpse of the Church circumscribing the cosmos as one grand, charismatic, ecclesial macro-anthropos, covering the earth with the worship of God.

Key Words: creation, Holy Spirit, human ontology, ongoing Pentecost, pneumatological eschatology

Introduction

In John 16:7, Jesus announces to his disciples: “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.”¹ How could Jesus’ departure be to the disciples’ advantage? He has just assured them that they will be hated, cast out of the synagogues and persecuted; that people will kill them believing that in so doing they are offering a sacrifice pleasing to God (Jn 16:2-3). How could it be better if he leaves them alone in the face of this forthcoming suffering? Furthermore, who is this intangible, enigmatic Helper, whose presence is supposed to exceed the benefits of Jesus’ companionship?

The announcement of the Spirit’s pending arrival is joined with the mandate given by Jesus to the disciples to bear much fruit to the glory of God the Father (Jn 15:8) – the fruit of Christ, the great Vine, of whom in the mystery of salvation they are made the branches. In the same breath, Jesus also gives them the commandment to love one another as he has loved them (v. 12). This is a self-giving, self-sacrificial love, for “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (v. 13). Loving one another with Jesus’ love (in bearing forth His fruit) witnesses/testifies of him, authenticating his identity and their discipleship (v. 8). Indeed, persecution and martyrdom became part of the Early Church’s witness. As Tertullian famously remarked, “the blood of the martyrs became the seeds of the church.”² Undoubtedly, the shadow of the Cross looms large over this conversation, and this is not just the shadow of Christ’s cross. Those who follow Him, who are called by His name, also must do some dying and do it daily. The cross is unavoidable, inescapable if they want to follow Jesus on that journey of discipleship (Mt. 16:24). They must die to themselves so that no longer they but he may live in them (Gal. 2:20-21). His cross, or rather he himself, is to become the model, the form, the content of their daily life, and for this they desperately need the Spirit who alone enfleshes God’s Word in its receptive hearers so they may become Christ’s flesh – His living, resurrected body – to the world. This Christifying journey demands that they be joined to the Spirit as Christ is. They need the Spirit in order to follow and become like the Spirit-bearer. It is not surprising, then, that St Seraphim of Sarov insists in his pneumatological eschatology that the goal of the Christian life is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit.³

Indeed, the Christ event in its entirety – from the Incarnation (Mt. 1:18-20) through the death on the Cross (Heb. 9:14) and the Resurrection (Rom. 1:4) – is the plan, mission, and action of the Spirit. Consistent with this pneumatic outlook, Vladimir Lossky asserts that Christ came so that the Spirit can come. In his reading of the biblical narrative, Pentecost is not merely a continuation of the Incarnation or its sequel. It is its very purpose. In Lossky’s words, “Pentecost is thus the object, the final goal of the divine economy upon earth. […] The creature has become fit to receive the Holy Spirit”⁴ and be the dwelling place and in-fleshed reality of the trinitarian koinonia in the cosmos.⁵ As Frank Macchia states (echoing Eugene Rogers), “To put it christologically, the Word took on body from the Spirit in order to mediate the Spirit to all bodies […] Incarnation is fulfilled at Pentecost.”⁶

The event of Pentecost and the confession of Christ as Spirit-Baptiser are traditional focal points of genuinely Pentecostal theological reflection and spirituality.⁷ The Christocentricity of the so-called “full” or “fivefold gospel,”⁸ viewed as the distinct template of Pentecostal theological inquiry, highlights this confession as essential for the church’s understanding of her identity and mission. Wolfgang Vondey offers a succinct articulation of the connection between Pentecost and the full (or fivefold) gospel within Pentecostal theology in his proposal that “Pentecost is the core theological symbol of Pentecostal theology, and its theological narrative is the full gospel.”⁹

Undoubtedly, Pentecost serves as the contextual origin, dialogical anchor, and ceaseless source of inspiration for Pentecostal theological reflection, and the present paper is no exception. It presents the event of Pentecost as the future of humanity and the rest of creation, upholding a vision of Pentecost’s cosmic reach, stretching from the very act of creation to the eschaton. This vision asserts that everything in creation (every speck of dust, every particle of matter, including the human body in all of its intricate complexity) is created to be joined to the Spirit – in other words, is created for Pentecost.¹⁰ In view of this assertion, the paper spotlights human ontology, affirming that from the beginning humanity is created as a charismatic creature in the image and for the likeness of its prototype and telos – Christ, the Spirit-bearer. In continuity with this understanding, the paper proceeds further with a reflection on the church, the Spirit-bearing communal body of Christ, as an ongoing Pentecost. As such, the church embodies the eschatological destiny of all creation in which Christ is “all in all” (Eph. 1:23). This is an eschatological glimpse of the church circumscribing the cosmos as one grand, charismatic, ecclesial macro-anthropos, who has covered the earth with the worship of God.

The Cosmic Scope of Pentecost

Perhaps the most vivid depiction of Pentecost’s comic reach as the destiny of all creation comes to us from Sergius Bulgakov. For him, Pentecost as the telos of creation is “anticipated and prepared from the foundations of the world which has always been vivified by the Holy Spirit.”¹¹ For Bulgakov, the Book of Genesis depicts the life-giving, incubating hovering of the Spirit over the surface of the waters (Gen. 1:2) as a prototypical “first cosmic Pentecost by anticipation,” and the act of the creation of Adam [with God’s breath entering his nostrils (Gen. 2:7)] as a second, this time “human Pentecost,” revealing humanity’s inherently charismatic ontology.¹²

Further, Bulgakov gives us the image of Jesus’s miraculous conception as being “the Pentecost of the Virgin.”¹³ As the Holy Spirit descends upon Mary in response to her willingness and readiness for service (Lk. 1:38), she presents herself as a pneumatic sanctuary – a home of God’s Spirit-bearing Word made flesh – amidst humanity (Jn 1:14). Bulgakov describes the Spirit’s descent upon Christ during his baptism in Jordan as anticipation of the “universal Pentecost,” which is to come in the Spirit’s outpouring upon all flesh on the Day of Pentecost.¹⁴ In this breathtaking vision of the Spirit’s world-making and world-mending, Pentecost is revealed as the origin and eschatological future of creation and presents the only sufficient hermeneutical key to unlocking biblical cosmology, soteriology, anthropology, Christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.

In the Eastern liturgical calendar, Pentecost is celebrated as the Feast of the Trinity. This is not accidental. Pentecost reveals the telos of the Trinity’s work of creation, redemption and renewal of the cosmos, and (as we will see further in this paper) inaugurates the Church as a Trinitarian theophany. Pentecost is an invitation to all humanity and the rest of creation to enter the life of the triune God, the life of the Spirit who hosts all that is and circumscribes all time and space in the unconditional hospitality of the Creator.¹⁵

Pentecost and Creation as a Eucharistic Feast

Lifting its cosmological lens, Pentecost’s economics of the Spirit reveal the world as a Eucharistic feast made to be shared with the other towards the fostering of the deepest communion that joins matter and Spirit into one cosmic community (Acts 2 and 4). This vision of the world reveals all matter as made to be saturated by the Spirit – to be a Spirit-bearing body. Therefore, as suggested earlier, from the beginning, creation is made for Pentecost. By participating in it as Spirit-bearing charismatic creatures, human beings must learn solidarity with others in the shared cosmic nature that each one of them hypostatises and yet all have in common. As Dimitru Staniloae points out, “A separation of cosmic nature taken to the limit between human individuals is impossible.”¹⁶ Accordingly, the God-given limitations of the material world also point to creation’s intentional pedagogy on becoming like God – the proto-communal Trinity. Sharing life in communal solidarity with others in mutual safekeeping and faithful stewardship of creation, leads to the realisation that the only way matter can meet all existential needs is through the generosity of the Spirit. This in-Spirit-ed perspective, enfleshed by the Spirit in the life of the Pentecost’s community, presents humanity’s economic life as a charismatic activity in all its aspects – production, distribution, and consumption. It upholds epicletic economics as a visible mark of humanity’s Eucharistic existence and provides an antidote to unrestrained, self-indulging consumerism, which commodifies the world, abandoning its sacramental purpose and distorting the vision of the fellow human from a co-celebrant in the Spirit’s cosmic liturgy to a competitor forever shrinking material resources.¹⁷

Pentecost’s economics of the Spirit present the world as given to humanity by God in self-sharing as a gift of life so that humanity may, in turn, learn to share it with the other and the different. Indeed, the world is a gift with a pedagogical purpose – helping humanity “to grow spiritually”¹⁸ in the likeness of its Creator. According to Dimitru Staniloae, this pedagogy develops through the “dialogue of the gift” between the recipient and the giver in which the world is to be continually received with gratitude and offered back to God (in the Eucharist and daily communal commensality) as an act of self-giving¹⁹ for the life of the world. The gift’s Christoforming pedagogy teaches giving to the other more than one has received from them (Mt. 25:14-30). One adds to the gift his, her or their very life in the form of creative labour before offering it back to God. Thus, grain and grapes are transformed through the askesis of human work into bread and wine before being offered to God.²⁰ Ultimately, the Eucharistic nature of the cosmos is to transform through the Spirit everyday work of world-making into a liturgical act of home-building for the other. Human creative labour is to become a priestly sacramental enactment of God’s love for His creation – the very love that hosts the cosmos in self-sacrificial nurture and care for all creatures and demands the same of humanity as a faithful stewardship of God’s household.

Humanity as a Charismatic Homo Adorans

As humanity’s prototype and telos, Christ, the Spirit-bearer, is paradigmatic for understanding human ontology and vocation. Alexander Schmemann asserts the triadic royal, priestly, and prophetic dimensions of the Christic vocation as ontological categories, inherent characteristics of humanity in its pre-lapsarian state. He states that one of the Bible’s unique revelations about human ontology is that before the royal, priestly, and prophetic offices became associated with a particular human being, they belonged to the very reality of being human as humanity’s distinct “calling and dignity.”²¹ According to Schmemann, Scripture’s anthropological account depicts humanity’s kingship, priesthood, and prophethood as created, fallen, and, finally, redeemed in Christ. The author asserts that Christ’s kingship, priesthood, and prophetic office are “rooted above all in His human nature; that they are not exceptions but an ‘integral part’ of His humanity. He is the Last Adam, the perfect (complete) human being, the redeemer and restorer of humanity itself to its ‘wholeness and totality’.”²² Thus, the soteriological meaning of these three offices is found in their “ontological character,” in their “belonging” to the very nature of humanity “assumed by Christ for its salvation.”²³

The ontological human vocation in the cosmos is to mirror this triadic Christic vocation. In light of this assertion, Schmemann describes humanity’s priestly and prophetic vocation as inscribed from the beginning within human ontology alongside the royal mandate for just stewardship of all creation.²⁴ Scripture constantly articulates the essence of all three ontological dimensions of human vocation (the royal, priestly, and prophetic) as charisms of the Holy Spirit – as the Spirit’s movement within the world in enactment (and embodiment) of the divine will through consecrated/anointed human agency. Therefore, from the beginning, humanity is created to move in and with the Spirit and to be an in-Spirit-ed, pneumatised sanctuary of God’s breath (His living and enlivening presence) within the cosmos (Gen. 2:7).

This is why, in the act of creation, God summons humanity into existence as the special charismatic creature raised from the clay by the indwelling Spirit. Created in the likeness of the proto-communal Trinity, humanity is also a creature made to be with and for the other (God, the fellow human and the rest of creation). Marked by its priming for communion with the other, humanity has the capacity to hear God’s Word and respond to it in prayer as a creature whose ontological actualisation is to be attained through partaking within God’s communal discourse, within the conversational communion of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4). As Schmemann states, humanity is, therefore, first and foremost homo adorans, a worshipping creature, the priest ministering before God on behalf of the entire creation.²⁵ In its priestly and liturgical essence, humanity is to offer an unceasing intercession on behalf of the world, taking it in prayer before its Creator. To be capable of prayer means (in the words of H.A.H. Bartholomew I) having “the capacity to offer the world back to God in thanksgiving, and it is only in this act of offering that we become genuinely human and truly free.”²⁶ Prayer in and through the Holy Spirit transforms humanity’s worship into an extension of the Trinity’s liturgical acts of creation-making and creation-mending. In prayer, redeemed humanity joins the Spirit’s intercession for the healing of the cosmos, partaking in the Spirit’s “groanings too deep for words” (Rom. 8:26). Prayer as world-mending becomes a divine-human partnership – breathing, speaking, groaning, and moving with, in, and through the Spirit toward creation’s theotic telos – the cosmic Pentecost, in which the world has become the Spirit’s community of all flesh (Acts 2:17).

Often theologies that justify greedy, unrestrained exploitation and destruction of nature perceive the first human beings as the perfect, complete project (the very crown of creation) for whom all exists – having irrevocable, royal dominion over the created world. In contrast, understanding Christ as the prototype and telos of humanity presents the first Adam as a good but still unfolding creation, an ongoing project, whose telos is the Last Adam – the visible icon of the invisible God and, therefore, the one fully human, pneumatised, Eucharistic being. Therefore, the human being is a primer for creation’s movement toward Christoformation in and through the sanctifying/Christifying agency of the Holy Spirit. Life in the Spirit is growing in the freedom of divine, cruciform love towards all that exists²⁷ – the totality of the cosmos; it is the free-willed journey into the likeness of God, in which humanity is transfigured by the Spirit “from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3:18) in a perpetual ascent toward Christlikeness. In the words of Schmemann, it is “the very communion with the Holy Spirit that enables us to love the world with the love of Christ,” and the joy of the Kingdom (as life in the Spirit) “makes us remember the world and pray for it.”²⁸

If Christ represents redeemed humanness in union with the Spirt, then we can understand the true original meaning and teleological intent of the triadic human vocation only in light of its fulfilment in and through him – his life, character, and mission amidst and on behalf of all creation.²⁹ Therefore, in contrast to fallen humanity’s violent dominion over creation, Christ’s dominion is one of self-giving to the other so they may live life to the fullest. Beholding the life of Christ as the Spirit’s vision of the anointed homo adorans, we realise that there is “not kingship alone and not priesthood alone” – they belong together “as fulfilment of one in the other” – thus, “royal priesthood.”³⁰ Therefore, as Schmemann points out, the power of humanity over creation is “fulfilled in sacrifice” and in “sanctifying the world, by ‘making’ it into communion with God”³¹ as the Holy Spirit transforms human life itself into “a ‘liturgy,’ a service to God and communion with Him”³² for the life of the world, for the flourishing of all his creatures.

The Church as Continuing Pentecost

It is difficult to overstate the significance of the event of Pentecost for Christian ecclesiology. Pentecost ushers the Church into history as an eschatological reality³³ – the life of the Spirit as the life of the age to come³⁴ – and is, therefore, essential for understanding the nature, marks and mission of the Church.

The Church’s worship reveals her eschatological essence since it unfolds in/with/by the Spirit. The Church’s worship is epicletic – a perpetual invocation and anticipation of the Spirit – and as such, the arrival of the ever-coming and ever-present Spirit constitutes the Church as a continuous, ceaseless Pentecost. The adventing Spirit carries the worshipping Church into the eschaton – her home – her origin and destination. In this homecoming, the Church enters “the eighth day”³⁵ – the day beyond time, where she leads all of creation in worship. Since the worship of the Church takes place in heaven/in the eschaton, as Schmemann points out, each day of the week on earth (and not just Sunday) is a day for worship.³⁶ In the Spirit, every moment of time is vested with a cosmic Eucharistic anticipation, revealing the sacramental purpose and potentiality of all creation. In the Church’s pneumatic worship, the cosmos – space, time and matter – are reclaimed by eternity, making each day the Lord’s day and proclaiming Christ’s lordship over all creation.

Consistent with the above assertion, the overarching ecclesiological framework of the Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (Crete, 2016) also highlights the centrality of Pentecost in its succinct systematic definition of the Church: “a divine-human communion in the image of the Holy Trinity, a foretaste and experience of the eschaton […] a revelation of the glory of the things to come […] a continuing Pentecost […] a prophetic voice in this world that cannot be silenced, the presence and witness of God’s Kingdom ‘that has come with power’ (cf. Mk 9.1).”³⁷ This definition displays the pneumatic emphasis of Eastern Christianity, which Pentecostals find compelling and reassuring. It is precisely the reality of the Church as “a continuing Pentecost” that seems to hold together in a harmonious whole the multiple dimensions of this complex definition, outlining the trinitarian, charismatic, and eschatological dynamics of the Spirit-baptised faith community.

As mentioned earlier, Pentecost is celebrated as the Feast of the Trinity,³⁸ for it reveals the Church as a theophany of the communal body of the Son, doing the will of the Father in the power of the Holy Spirit.³⁹ As such, the Church continues the ministry of the resurrected Christ (the Spirit-bearer) as the living extension of his character and mission. Pentecost’s descent of the Spirit marks, therefore, the transference of messianic anointing from Christ (the head) to his communal body on earth, presenting the Church as the charismatic prophethood and royal priesthood of all believers.⁴⁰

Simultaneously, Pentecost marks also the beginning of the eschata and asserts the advent of God’s future in the midst of the communal body of Christ as the entrance to the new aion of the fullness of God’s Kingdom on earth.⁴¹ In this eschatological in-breaking (in the words of Simon Chan), Pentecost introduces something new in the present age, something beyond “just an extension of Christ’s mission on earth.”⁴² It uplifts the prophesying community of faith as the embodiment of the very future of the world – the sacred space where human history meets its eschatological unfolding with the demand for and inevitability of transfiguration. As the embodiment of this future on earth, the Church faces the world with the face of Christ – the ultimate destiny of all existence. Further, the event of Pentecost (as articulated in the narrative of Acts 2) visibly outlines the marks of the Church ushering on the stage of salvation history the community of faith as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic koinonia of the Spirit.⁴³ This is the community of the new humanity and the entire new creation is its cosmic scope; for, as noted earlier, the Church as “communion of the Holy Spirit”⁴⁴ is the visible expression of creation’s pneumatic telos.⁴⁵

The experience of Pentecost reveals the Holy Spirit as the sustainer of the Church’s unity as well as the guardian and assurer of her diversity.⁴⁶ The gift of Pentecost is manifested in the recovery of the speech of the other, and in regained mutual understanding amidst the polyphony of many tongues. Therefore, without Pentecost’s unity-weaving self-pouring of the Spirit, there is no possibility for mutual ecumenical understanding,⁴⁷ even when all are gathered in one place and seem to be speaking the same language.

As I have argued elsewhere, rethinking the marks of the Church in light of Pentecost exposes the scandalous⁴⁸ and grievous reality of church divisions as being driven by forces antithetical to the Spirit’s work of reconciliation and unity-building within Christ’s body. Pentecost’s radical inclusion of the other, uplifted in its capacious polyphony and daily commensality (through the all-enlivening life of the Spirit), circumscribes in God’s unconditional hospitality all others across ethnic, racial, cultural, socio-economic, gender divides. It highlights the Spirit’s cosmic sobornost as catholicity that is both cosmopolitan and ecological,⁴⁹ extending to the global village and the non-anthropic other. Indeed, Pentecost’s vision of the cosmos (in the words of Steve Studebaker) is a “green cosmopolitan world.”⁵⁰ It is the inauguration of redemptive renewal for both the city (humanity’s cultural project) and the Garden (God’s first [agri]cultural project delegated to humanity), culminating in their eschatological communion within the City of God.⁵¹ Also illuminated by Pentecost, the apostolicity of the Church, as the continuation of the mission of Christ in the power of the Spirit, becomes the gospel-proclamation to all of creation – mandating a spirituality of sustainability and building an infrastructure of life that seeks the flourishing of all God’s creatures.⁵²

Indeed, Pentecost is not just the constitutive event of the Church, but the Spirit’s transfiguring presence that makes the Church an unceasing Pentecost. As such, the Church waits for and moves with the Spirit (Acts 1:4).⁵³ The believers wait for the ever-coming, yet ever-present Spirit so they may be made “fit for God by God […] By the Spirit for the Word,”⁵⁴ for the Spirit alone makes the Word flesh, both in the Virgin Birth and at Pentecost. On the Day of Pentecost, the Spirit’s kenosis transforms the 120 who had been in the Upper Room (1:13) into Christ-bearers and a living extension of his resurrected Spirit-bearing body on earth. In a manner similar to the event of the Incarnation, as the Spirit descends upon the disciples on the Day of Pentecost, Christ is conceived in them, and they are empowered (Acts 1:8) towards Christlikeness. Individually and corporately, they become theophorous (God-bearing) and bear forth (as an enfleshed Word) the one who is the Light and Life of the world, the one who summons all of creation into the Trinity’s redemptive cosmic embrace.

Renewed as a living temple of God’s presence, humanity finds itself reflecting the spaciousness of divine love for the other and the different from oneself. As the Spirit makes humanity partaker of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), love for God becomes love for his entire world, and the creature experiences and manifests the likeness of the Creator as perfect love for the whole of creation (both anthropic and non-anthropic). Embodying the life of the Spirit, the believers find themselves apprehended into the trinitarian communal life.⁵⁵ This is the ongoing, eschatological, pneumatic life of the believer’s personal and communal Pentecost experienced as theo-/Christoformation.

Conclusion

As Studebaker states, “The Holy Spirit is the telos of redemption and, therefore, the divine person that consummates the fellowship of the triune God.”⁵⁶ Christianity’s pneumatological foundation uplifts the confession of the Spirit as “the Lord of and Giver of Life,” who moves all creation from origin to eschaton, redeeming and mending the broken world. The Spirit moves in/with creation, leading it toward its theotic/pneumatic destiny of becoming the pneumatised body of the Spirit-bearing Last Adam – the one who is to become all in all through the agency of the Spirit until the world becomes one cosmic, charismatic, ecclesial macroanthropos.⁵⁷ This is precisely the world’s destiny depicted in John’s eschatological vision of the Church as the Bride of the Lamb – the City of God – a trans-continental, global holy of holies, a living home for the divine presence which hosts all that lives, a Spirit-filled sanctuary that has covered the earth with God’s glory (Rev. 21–22).⁵⁸ Since the beginning, this is the soteriological project of the Spirit – a theotic, in-Spirit-ed creation. In this cosmic eschatological vision, every speck of dust, every molecule of matter is permeated by and enlivened with the Spirit. This is the eschatological completion of Pentecost –the Spirit has saturated “all flesh,” joining it into one cosmic pneumatic community. Although now we still see “as through a glass dimly” (1 Cor. 13:12), the shimmering glow of this eschatological vision in-breaks within the present in the worship of the Church, in her presence on earth as an ongoing Pentecost and a living icon of the future of the world. And then suddenly… everything is luminous and illuminated.

Bibliography

Archer, Kenneth J. A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century: Spirit, Scripture and Community. T&T Clark, 2004.

Augustine, Daniela C. “Reading the Creed in the Light of Pentecost: An Eastern European Pneumatic Reflection”, International Journal of Systematic Theology (19th March 2025): 1-18. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijst.12756], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

–––. “Theology of Economics: Pentecost and the Household of the Spirit”, In Wolfgang Vondey, Ed. The Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal Theology. Routledge, 2020.

–––. The Spirit and the Common Good: Shared Flourishing in the Image of God. Eerdmans, 2019.

–––. “The Liturgical Teleology of Human Creativity and the City of God as Theosis of Culture”, Cultural Encounters: A Journal for the Theology of Culture 10(2), (April 2015): 3-26. [Available at: https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/publications/the-liturgical-teleology-of-human-creativity-and-the-city-of-god-/], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

–––. Pentecost, Hospitality and Transfiguration: Toward a Spirit-Inspired Vision of Social Transformation. CPT Press, 2012.

Barth, Karl. The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life: The Theological Basis for Ethics. Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.

Bulgakov, Sergius. “By Jacob’s Well”, In Nicolas Zernov and James Palin, Eds. A Bulgakov Anthology. Wipf & Stock, 1976.

Bulgakov, Sergius. “Pentecost and the Descent of the Spirit”, In Nicolas Zernov and James Palin, Eds. A Bulgakov Anthology. Wipf & Stock, 1976.

Chan, Simon. “Jesus as Spirit-Baptizer: Its Significance for Pentecostal Ecclesiology”, In John Christopher Thomas, Ed. Toward a Pentecostal Ecclesiology: The Church and the Fivefold Gospel. CPT Press, 2010.

Chan, Simon. Liturgical Theology: The Church as Worshiping Community. IVP Academic, 2006.

Coakley, Sarah. God, Sexuality, and the Self: An Essay ‘On the Trinity’. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

H.A.H. Bartholomew I. Encountering the Mystery. Doubleday, 2008.

Holy and Great Council. “Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church”, Holy and Great Council Pentecost 2016 Website. [Available at: https://www.holycouncil.org/encyclical-holy-council], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976 [1957].

Macchia, Frank D. Jesus the Spirit Baptizer: Christology in Light of Pentecost. Eerdmans, 2018.

McFague, Sallie. A New Climate for Theology. Fortress, 2008.

Metropolitan Kallistos. The Orthodox Church. Penguin, 1997.

Saint Jonah Orthodox Church. “The Resurrectional Dismissal Theotokia”, Saint Jonah Orthodox Church Website. [Available at: https://saintjonah.org/handy-tools-for-vigil/the-resurrectional-dismissal-theotokia/], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

Schmemann, Alexander. For the Life of the World. St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1983.

–––. Of Water and Spirit: A Liturgical Study of Baptism. St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974.

–––. Introduction to Liturgical Theology. St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1966.

–––. “Ecclesiological Notes”, Paper read at the Institute for Contemporary Theology, Montreal, July 1965.

Smith, James K.A. Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation. Baker Academics, 2009.

St Seraphim of Sarov. “On the Acquisition of the Holy Spirit: Conversation with Motovilov”, Orthodox Christianity. [Available at: https://orthochristian.com/47866.html], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

Staniloae, Dimitru. The Experience of God. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Vol. 2 of The World: Creation and Deification. Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2005.

Studebaker, Steven. The Spirit of Atonement: Pentecostal Contributions and Challenges to the Christian Traditions. T & T Clark, 2021.

–––. From Pentecost to the Triune God: A Pentecostal Trinitarian Theology. Eerdmans, 2012.

Tertullian. “The Blood of Christians is Seed”, Early Church Texts Website. [Available at: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/tertullian_blood_christians_seed.htm], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

Vondey, Wolfgang. Pentecostal Theology: Living the Full Gospel. Systematic Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology 1. Bloomsbury, 2017.

¹ Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version (NKJV) or my own translation.

² Tertullian, “The Blood of Christians is Seed”, Early Church Texts Website, [Available at: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/tertullian_blood_christians_seed.htm], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

³ St Seraphim of Sarov, “On the Acquisition of the Holy Spirit: Conversation with Motovilov”. Orthodox Christianity, [Available at: https://orthochristian.com/47866.html], [Last accessed: 21st October 2025].

⁴ Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997): 159.

⁵ Daniela C. Augustine, Pentecost, Hospitality and Transfiguration: Toward a Spirit-inspired Vision of Social Transformation (CPT Press, 2012): 23.

⁶ Frank D. Macchia, Jesus the Spirit Baptizer: Christology in Light of Pentecost (Eerdmans, 2018): 123-24.

⁷ Simon Chan, “Jesus as Spirit-Baptizer: Its Significance for Pentecostal Ecclesiology”, in John Christopher Thomas (ed), Toward a Pentecostal Ecclesiology: The Church and the Fivefold Gospel (CPT Press, 2010): 139.

⁸ For an expounded reflection on the fivefold gospel, see Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century: Spirit, Scripture and Community (T&T Clark, 2004).

⁹ Wolfgang Vondey, Pentecostal Theology: Living the Full Gospel, Systematic Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology 1 (Bloomsbury, 2017): 1.

¹⁰ Daniela C. Augustine, The Spirit and the Common Good: Shared Flourishing in the Image of God. (Eerdmans, 2019): 206.

¹¹ Sergius Bulgakov, “Pentecost and the Descent of the Spirit”, in Nicolas Zernov and James Palin (eds), A Bulgakov Anthology (Wipf & Stock, 1976): 184.

¹² See the section on humanity’s charismatic ontology in Daniela C. Augustine, “Theology of Economics: Pentecost and the Household of the Spirit”, in Wolfgang Vondey (ed), The Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal Theology (Routledge, 2020).

¹³ Mary’s free will is essential for the Incarnation. The embodiment of the Word must be a free act of love; the beginning of the new/renewed creation is to echo the beginning of all beginnings. In the Incarnation’s mystery, as depicted by The Resurrectional Dismissal, Theotokia, Mary’s womb “became more spacious than the heavens,” for she carried in it her Creator (“The Resurrectional Dismissal Theotokia”, Saint Jonah Orthodox Church, [Available at: https://saintjonah.org/handy-tools-for-vigil/the-resurrectional-dismissal-theotokia/], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025]).

¹⁴ Sergius Bulgakov, “Pentecost and the Descent of the Spirit”, 184-85. Many Pentecostal scholars agree that Pentecost represents the telos of redemption. See for example, Steven Studebaker, From Pentecost to the Triune God: A Pentecostal Trinitarian Theology (Eerdmans, 2012); Frank Macchia, Jesus the Spirit Baptizer, 302-309; Vondey, Pentecostal Theology, 155-74; Augustine, Pentecost, Hospitality and Transfiguration, 79.

¹⁵ Augustine, Pentecost, Hospitality and Transfiguration, 15-30.

¹⁶ Dimitru Staniloae, The Experience of God. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2 of The World: Creation and Deification (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2005): 2.

¹⁷ Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1983): 17.

¹⁸ Staniloae, Experience of God, 22.

¹⁹ Staniloae, Experience of God. The author states: “The paradox [of the return of the gift] is explained by the fact that the gift received and returned draws the persons close to one another to such an extent that the object of the gift becomes something common and comes to be the transparent means for the fullest communion between persons. And not only is the gift something common, but it is also increased through the life which the persons communicate to one another through the love manifested in the gift they make; in this way the persons give themselves as a gift, and through this giving they grow spiritually” (22). “The dialogue of the gift between God and the human person lies in the fact that each bestows himself upon the other” (23).

²⁰ For more on the liturgical nature of human creativity, see James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Baker Academics, 2009): 199; and Daniela C. Augustine, “The Liturgical Teleology of Human Creativity and the City of God as Theosis of Culture”, Cultural Encounters: A Journal for the Theology of Culture 10(2), (April 2015): 3-26, [Available at: https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/publications/the-liturgical-teleology-of-human-creativity-and-the-city-of-god-/], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

²¹ Alexander Schmemann, Of Water and Spirit: A Liturgical Study of Baptism (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974): 82; 95; 100. On this foundation, Schmemann argues for the priesthood, prophethood, and kingship of all believers as redeemed vocational dimensions of human ontology.

²² Schmemann, Of Water and Spirit, 95.

²³ Schmemann, Of Water and Spirit, 95.

²⁴ Schmemann, Of Water and Spirit, 95.

²⁵ Schmemann, For the Life of the World, 15.

²⁶ H.A.H. Bartholomew I, Encountering the Mystery (Doubleday, 2008): 132.

²⁷ Echoing St Isaac the Syrian, Patriarch Bartholomew I discusses sanctification in terms of “love for the whole of creation,” seeing the world as a “‘cosmic liturgy’ or celebration of the essential interconnection and interdependence of all things” (Encountering the Mystery, 94).

²⁸ Schmemann, For the Life of the World, 44

²⁹ Schmemann, Of Water and Spirit, 95-96.

³⁰ Schmemann, Of Water and Spirit, 95.

³¹ Schmemann, Of Water and Spirit, 96.

³² Schmemann, Of Water and Spirit, 97.

³³ Simon Chan, Liturgical Theology: The Church as Worshiping Community (IVP Academic, 2006): 32. As Chan states, “to speak of the church as temple of the Spirit is also to recognise its essentially eschatological character, since the Spirit is the Spirit of ‘the last days’.” (32).

³⁴ Augustine, The Spirit and the Common Good, 64.

³⁵ Alexander Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1966): 76-80; Chan, Liturgical Theology, 81.

³⁶ Schmemann, For the Life of the World, 52.

³⁷ Holy and Great Council, “Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church”, Holy and Great Council Pentecost 2016 Website, [Available at: https://www.holycouncil.org/encyclical-holy-council, I.1], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

³⁸ Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 239.

³⁹ Augustine, Pentecost, Hospitality and Transfiguration, 16.

⁴⁰ Schmemann, Of Water and Spirit, 103. Schmemann expounds on this thought in light of the sacrament of chrismation, described as the believer’s personal Pentecost.

⁴¹ Therefore, according to Schmemann, Pentecost reveals the Church “as creation renewed by Christ and sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (Alexander Schmemann, “Ecclesiological Notes”, paper read at the Institute for Contemporary Theology, Montreal, July 1965): 35.

⁴² Chan, Liturgical Theology, 32.

⁴³ See Augustine, Pentecost, Hospitality and Transfiguration, 17.

⁴⁴ Holy and Great Council, “Encyclical”, II.6.

⁴⁵ Sergius Bulgakov, “Pentecost and the Descent of the Spirit”, 184-85. As Bulgakov states, the “descent of the Holy Spirit is the fulfilment of Christ’s work and the realisation of God’s conception of man, since man was created to be the temple of the Holy Spirit together with the world of nature of which he is meant to be the head and the soul” (184-85). Indeed, as noted earlier, Pentecost is the end of creation and as such is, according to Bulgakov, “anticipated and prepared from the foundations of the world which has always been vivified by the Holy Spirit.”

⁴⁶ Metropolitan Kallistos, The Orthodox Church (Penguin, 1997): 242. As Metropolitan Kallistos points out, “The gift of the Spirit is a gift to the Church, but it is at the same time a personal gift, appropriated by each in her or his way” (242).

⁴⁷ Sergius Bulgakov states that “the positive spiritual basis of Christian ‘ecumenism’” is experienced as “a breathing of God’s Spirit in grace, as a revelation of Pentecost”. Sergius Bulgakov, “By Jacob’s Well”, in Nicolas Zernov and James Palin (eds), A Bulgakov Anthology (Wipf & Stock, 1976): 102.

⁴⁸ Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 211-12.

⁴⁹ Sallie McFague, A New Climate for Theology (Fortress, 2008): 33-35. Here, McFague articulates the notion of “ecological catholicity”.

⁵⁰ Steven Studebaker, The Spirit of Atonement: Pentecostal Contributions and Challenges to the Christian Traditions (T & T Clark, 2021): 196.

⁵¹ Augustine, Pentecost, Hospitality and Transfiguration, 136-38.

⁵² See Daniela C. Augustine, “Reading the Creed in the Light of Pentecost: An Eastern European Pneumatic Reflection”, International Journal of Systematic Theology (19th March 2025): 1-18, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijst.12756], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

⁵³ Augustine, Pentecost, Hospitality, and Transfiguration, 119-22.

⁵⁴ Karl Barth, The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life: The Theological Basis for Ethics (Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993): 7.

⁵⁵ Sarah Coakley emphasises the Holy Spirit’s work of incorporating humanity into the trinitarian communal life, and of its “reflexively” in the believers. God, Sexuality, and the Self: An Essay ‘On the Trinity’ (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 111.

⁵⁶ Studebaker, “A Pentecostal Third Article Theology”, 1.

⁵⁷ Augustine, The Spirit and the Common Good, 17.

⁵⁸ For more on the City of God in relation to divine hospitality see Augustine, Pentecost, Hospitality, and Transfiguration, especially 67-69, 133-38.

Response to Daniela C. Augustine’s “Pentecost as the Future of Creation”

Simon Chan

I have always enjoyed the writings of Daniela Augustine, and this one is no exception. I suppose part of the reason is that we share an appreciation of Eastern Orthodox theology, especially its pneumatology.

The grand vision Augustine presents in this paper could be summed up in this way: the coming of the cosmic Spirit to the church transforms a group of disparate individuals into a Spirit-indwelled communion that “embodies the eschatological destiny of all creation in which Christ is ‘all in all’.”¹ This means that the church as the all-encompassing reality “[circumscribes] the cosmos as one grand, charismatic, ecclesial macro-anthropos, who has covered the earth with the worship of God.”²

According to Vladimir Lossky, Pentecost is the coming of the Spirit in his own person to indwell the church.³ This is perhaps the most critical component in making sense of Augustine’s thesis. The presence of the Spirit as person is what makes the church the communion of persons. And what the Spirit accomplishes at Pentecost is what God has always intended for the whole creation to be: a community existing in communion with the Father, through the Son, by the power of the indwelling Spirit.

The Eucharist or Holy Communion is the foretaste of and key to actualising this communion. To paraphrase Augustine, the Eucharist epitomises the commensal and economic life of the New Creation. The result of the church’s eucharistic participation is an eucharistic ethos that radically challenges the social, economic, and political order of a fallen world. For example, it challenges human identity markers based on social distinctions. At the Lord’s Table, these distinctions have become irrelevant.

Many far-reaching implications come to mind as I reflect on this excellent paper, but space only allows me to focus on a few of these. First, its vision of the church as the telos of creation needs to be affirmed against attempts to see the original creation as an end in itself. Following Irenaeus, Augustine notes that the First Adam is still “an ongoing project,” which finds its fulfilment in the Second Adam in whom all believers are incorporated by the Spirit to form the one body of Christ. In short, God created the world in order to make the church, not vice versa. To use the author’s words: “[C]reation is made for Pentecost.”⁴ The ultimate goal of creation is not about the pursuit of justice, peace, freedom, or some other ethical principles lost through the Fall but communion, actualised by the Spirit in the Pentecost event. It is in the context of the communion of persons that we know what justice, peace, and freedom truly are. Without locating the virtues in the ecclesial context, “freedom” could become a slogan to justify one’s preferred ideology. Christian ethics is theological ethics.⁵

Second, this understanding of the church vis-à-vis the world has implications for the church’s mission. If the telos of creation is communion, then we need to reconceive mission not only as going out to save lost souls but also returning them to communion with God in the body of Christ. If mission is seen only as centrifugal, there is a tendency to regard evangelism as an end in itself without asking: What are people saved for? Mission then becomes largely a recruitment exercise: We save souls in order to make them save more souls! Does this not describe much of Pentecostal (not to mention evangelical) mission today?

A third implication concerns the worship of the church. Augustine highlights a number of critical points that underscore the centrality of worship. First, humans are “first and foremost homo adorans.”⁶ This means that worship is what distinguishes the church as church. Most Christian traditions understand church as constituted by word and sacrament. Word and sacrament are also the two components of the ancient liturgy. Yet, Pentecostal worship has tended to follow the evangelicals in centralising preaching (with a “praise and worship” add-on) and treat the sacrament almost as an appendix. Second, “the church’s worship is epicletic – a perpetual invocation and anticipation of the Spirit” to “constitute” the church as a “ceaseless Pentecost.” Pentecostals generally locate the epiclesis in the “praise and worship” segment rather than in the Holy Communion, whereas in the traditional liturgy the epiclesis and the words of institution are essential components of the eucharistic prayer. The significance of its location in the eucharistic prayer is that it connects the action of the Spirit specifically to creation. The Spirit comes to transfigure “these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we […] may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.”⁷ The liturgy underscores the cosmic dimension of the action of the Spirit.

The concerns Augustine highlights are all embodied in the liturgy. In other words, the liturgy that culminates in the Eucharist can help Pentecostals preserve and advance what is quintessentially Pentecostal. Perhaps it is time for Pentecostals to take seriously what the traditional liturgy offers and find ways to put it into practice. But Pentecostals have fallen short. If the liturgy is, according to many liturgical scholars, doing primary theology, then we are in deep trouble. Our form of worship often denies what we affirm in theory; e.g., our “contemporary worship” marginalises the sacrament. Our songs are mostly individualistic and subjective, rarely corporate and hardly trinitarian. What we seem to be reinforcing is a sentimental “my relationship with Jesus,” which lacks trinitarian grounding. We see this in many modern songs where an ambiguous “my Lord” is the focus of worship. As Lester Ruth rightly observes, “Composers who write songs that express their heart and create a sense of closeness with God do not see a need for the Trinity.”⁸

A fourth implication of Augustine’s paper has to do with how we conceptualise the nature and meaning of personhood. One of her key points is that Pentecost is about the creation of the ecclesial community, which embraces the entire creation, directing creation to its intended end, namely, communion with the triune God. Even non-human and inanimate creation finds its fulfilment in the church, but can the concept of communion, which implies personhood, be predicated of the non-human? John Zizioulas, the “ecological bishop,” has much to say about this. He speaks of the “hypostatisation” of the whole creation including non-human creation.⁹ All creatures, human and non-human, are meant to achieve their distinctive otherness or hypostasis in communion with the triune God.

The place of the non-human creation has attracted much attention in recent years, especially from proponents of animal theology. Although they may be motivated by other concerns like the ecological crisis and animal rights, the question about the status of animals is not new. Earlier writers have speculated on the existence of animals in the new creation. John Wesley in a sermon on Romans 8:19-22 has this to say:

The whole brute creation will then, undoubtedly, be restored, not only to the vigour, strength, and swiftness which they had at their creation, but to a far higher degree of each than they ever enjoyed. They will be restored, not only to that measure of understanding which they had in paradise, but to a degree of it as much higher than that, as the understanding of an elephant is beyond that of a worm. And whatever affections they had in the garden of God, will be restored with vast increase; being exalted and refined in a manner which we ourselves are not able to comprehend […] They will be delivered from all irregular appetites, from all unruly passions, from every disposition that is either evil in itself, or has any tendency to evil. No rage will be found in any creature, no fierceness, no cruelty, or thirst for blood.¹⁰

But more importantly, some ancient writers have addressed this question in relation to the Eucharist. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313–386) in his Catechetical Lectures explains to neophytes, that is, the newly baptised, the meaning of the Preface of the eucharistic prayer:

After this, we make mention of heaven, and earth, and sea; of sun and moon; of stars and all the creation, rational and irrational, visible and invisible; of Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, Thrones; of the Cherubim with many faces: in effect repeating that call of David’s Magnify the Lord with me […].¹¹

The Roman missal takes up the same theme in the Preface of Eucharistic Prayer IV:

[…] yet you, who alone are good, the source of life, have made all that is, so that you might fill your creatures with blessings and bring joy to many of them by the glory of your light. And so, in your presence are countless hosts of Angels, who serve you day and night and, gazing upon the glory of your face, glorify you without ceasing. With them we, too, confess your name in exultation, giving voice to every creature under heaven as we acclaim: Holy, holy, holy.¹²

Augustine’s paper challenges Pentecostals to seriously reconsider the way we worship. We need more than right theology; we need worship practice that reinforces right theology. For a start, we need to return the Eucharist to the place where it rightly belongs, namely, as “the source and summit of the Christian life.”¹³

Bibliography

Catholic Resources. “Basic Texts for the Roman Catholic Eucharist, Eucharistic Prayers I – IV”, Catholic Resources Website, compiled by Felix Just. [Available at: https://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

Cyril of Jerusalem. “Catechetical Lecture 23”, New Advent Website. [Available at: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

Episcopal Church. Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church. Church Publishing Incorporated, 2007. [Available at: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/book_of_common_prayer.pdf], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

Hauerwas, Stanley. A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Social Ethic. University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.

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

Ruth, Lester. “Lex Amandi, Lex Orandi: The Trinity in the Most-Used Contemporary Christian Worship Songs”, In Bryan D. Spinks, Ed. The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer: Trinity, Christology, and Liturgical Theology. Liturgical Press, 2008.

Vatican Archive. “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, Libreria Editrice Vaticana. [Available at: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

Wesley, John. The Works of John Wesley. 3rd ed. Vol. VI. Baker, 1979.

Zizioulas, John. Communion and Otherness. Edited by Paul McPartlan. T & T Clark, 2006.

¹ Daniela C. Augustine, “Pentecost as the Future of Creation”, in Kong Hee et al. (eds), Pentecostal Voices Across the Continents, Regnum Studies in Mission (Regnum, 2026), 91.

² Augustine, “Pentecost as the Future of Creation”, 93.

³ Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976): 167-69.

⁴ Augustine, “Pentecost as the Future of Creation”, 95.

⁵ This point has been strongly emphasised by Stanley Hauerwas. See, for example, A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Social Ethic (University of Notre Dame Press, 1981).

⁶ Augustine, “Pentecost as the Future of Creation”, 97.

⁷ Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church (Church Publishing Incorporated, 2007), Prayer 1, Rite 1, [Available at: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/book_of_common_prayer.pdf], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

⁸ Lester Ruth, “Lex Amandi, Lex Orandi: The Trinity in the Most-Used Contemporary Christian Worship Songs”, in Bryan D. Spinks (ed), The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer: Trinity, Christology, and Liturgical Theology. (Liturgical Press, 2008): 351.

⁹ John Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, edited by Paul McPartlan (T & T Clark, 2006), esp. chap. 1.

¹⁰ John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, 3rd ed., vol. VI (Baker, 1979): 249.

¹¹ Cyril of Jerusalem, “Catechetical Lecture”, New Advent, 23.6, (emphasis added), [Available at: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

¹² Catholic Resources, “Basic Texts for the Roman Catholic Eucharist, Eucharistic Prayers I - IV”, Catholic Resources Website compiled by Felix Just. (emphasis added), [Last updated on 27th June 2023], [Available at: https://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

¹³ Vatican Archive, “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, §1324, [Available at: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM], [Last accessed: 25th October 2025].

Session 5

Worldviews beneath Cosmological Kerygma: Demons as a Case Study

Sanna Urvas and Markus Nikkanen

Abstract

Pentecostal communities believe in the power of the Holy Spirit in a healthy and empowering way. However, beliefs in the power and influence of demons, especially in the case of illnesses, generate unhealthy practices for the ministries of deliverance and exorcism. This paper explores the underlying worldviews that inform such beliefs in the field of demonology, especially where they appear to distort the biblical emphasis on God’s love and sovereign care for his people. The analysis focuses on the theological worldview of Derek Prince and the hermeneutical approach of Michael Heiser, particularly his Divine Council worldview. Within the forementioned worldviews, the aim is to provide observations of theological conclusions that are not grounded in a sound biblical basis.

Key Words: Derek Prince, Michael Heiser, demons, worldview, divine council worldview, Genesis 6:1-4, biblical hermeneutics

Introduction

Europe once had, half a millennium ago, one dominant religion: Western Catholic Christianity. Since the eras of Reformation and Enlightenment, that has changed, and today Europeans live amidst religious diversity impacted by secularisation as well as many faith traditions other than Christianity. According to several studies, the importance of religion has diminished in Western Europe more than in any other continent. Peter Berger argues that the main reason could be found in Europe’s distinctive political and educational history; however, he notes that Europe is an exception, and earlier theories of inevitability of secularisation should be revised as they fail to accurately reflect the role of religion and religiosity on other continents.¹

Jorge Botelho Moniz has engaged with theories of secularisation which aim to understand this phenomenon in the context of Europe. One remark by Moniz is the diversity of worldviews – religious, irreligious, or nonreligious, and the mutual fragilisation of these worldviews. This diversity is assumed to be a result of contact and interpenetration between different understandings of the world, truth, and the concept of a good life. Furthermore, this will lead to fragmentation of religious truths in general. Secularisation can become accelerated, per Moniz, when the relativisation of beliefs are a result of the diversity of and competition between religious worldviews.² Therefore, it is difficult for any one of them to be declared as the true one.³ As a consequence of this competition of worldviews, it is increasingly challenging to maintain the kerygma of a Christian biblical worldview even within a Christian context.

This study focuses on the importance of a healthy biblical worldview in relation to preaching and practices within church communities. Biblical worldviews are challenged by other non-Christian worldviews, and secularisation but an additional threat emerges from within a group of Christian religious worldviews.

James Sire explains worldview as a commitment, expressed as a set of presuppositions – true or false – that form the foundation on which a person lives and understands reality. Worldview answers the questions of what is real – material and spiritual realities, humanity, and how relationships between all these should be understood.⁴ No singular Christian biblical worldview remains entirely free from contextual influences. Therefore, when evaluating worldviews within a Christian framework, it is essential to discern the cultural, ideological, or other contextual elements that may compromise structural foundations for sound theology. Likewise, it is important to create a profound understanding of dogmas that form a robust foundation for Pentecostal theology and praxis – a strong Christology, pneumatology, and missional-trinitarian understanding of the church as the body of Christ. However, due to the limits of this essay, these dogmas are not elaborated further.

This paper focuses specifically on cosmology, and demons within the cosmic order. The aim is to present examples that have challenged or potentially will challenge traditional Pentecostal teaching on demonology, as well as practices of deliverance and exorcism. It is not easy to argue why these practices have gained platform in European Pentecostalism,⁵ but it is possible to observe some key elements behind the phenomenon.

Keith Warrington writes that Pentecostals generally accept the existence of demons and see exorcism as part of the gospel commission. He describes the characteristics of common assumptions among Pentecostals:

Some argue [that] it is helpful to think of demonic activity directed toward the Christian as on a sliding scale of intensity from temptation, through persistent oppression of the mind, to total control of a specific area of one’s life. However, demonic influence in the lives of Christians should be differentiated from the dominating influence [that a] demon may have over a non-Christian, given that Christians are believed to have considerable supernatural resources available to combat demonic influence, as delegated to them by God.⁶

Classical Pentecostals reject the possibility of demon possession of Christians.⁷ However, various trends within global Pentecostalism contain features other than those confirmed within Classical Pentecostal doctrinal traditions. The possibility of the acceptance of a variety of cosmologies within Pentecostal beliefs is embedded within the usual acceptance of an enchanted worldview as an umbrella term for more specific expression of cosmological views, structures, and hierarchies of immaterial beings and agents.

David Garrard describes the strong demonology and practical challenges of these beliefs in Central African Pentecostal communities. Garrard focuses on the question of the possibility of demon possession in believers within the groups he names as New or Neo Pentecostals.⁸ The African traditional worldview with a rich cosmology is inevitably one of the main causes for the growth of such views and practices. Nevertheless, Opoku Onyinah has demonstrated in his research that this emphasis on deliverance, and the excessive need for exorcism, were imported to Akan Pentecostalism from outside of Ghana.⁹ Therefore, an enchanted worldview does not directly generate a cosmological hierarchy in which demons have exaggerated loci, status, and agency. The Church of Pentecost in Ghana, and globally, has produced an entire educational programme to train their pastors against harmful theological beliefs that generate unhealthy praxis for Pentecostal and charismatic communities. These same harmful but influential voices have been recognised behind Afro-European Pentecostal communal life, as noted by Garrard.¹⁰ Additionally, these voices and their influence have been recognised also in the Finnish Pentecostal Movement and other charismatic communities, for example the Evangelical Free Church of Finland. This paper is part of a larger project to provide sound theology together with solid biblical exegetics for the theology of sin and evil.

Derek Prince and the Worldview behind His Deliverance Ministry

Derek Prince (1915–2003) was an international and influential speaker, author, and a teacher. Derek Prince Ministries has spread to almost all corners of the globe.¹¹ While Prince and his ministry are well-known for numerous commendable charitable initiatives, this study focuses on the more controversial and problematic aspects of his teaching – particularly the emphasis on the demonisation of Christians and the perceived need for deliverance within believing communities. Several studies have raised concerns about these practices, especially regarding the implied causal link between health, illness – particularly mental health – and demonic activity. Of particular concern is the potential for such teachings to lead to the rejection of medical science and professional care, even in cases involving life-threatening conditions.¹²

Derek Prince was born in India to an upper-class British family. Prince recounts the early influence of his nanny from whom he learned to adore the esoteric wisdom of India.¹³ Another significant source shaping his worldview was his studies of Greek philosophy at Cambridge University with a particular focus on Platonism. Reflecting on this period, Prince writes, “As I gained further insight into the way people become exposed to demons, I saw that my admiration for Socrates and Plato kept open a door in my personality that made me vulnerable to demonic influence.”¹⁴ Additionally, his time living in Western Kenya exposed him to African worldviews, which also left a lasting impression.¹⁵ Taken together, these diverse influences contributed to the formation of his theological outlook.

Prince published multiple volumes in which he teaches and explains his theology at a practical level. The key volume is They Shall Expel Demons. This is the most reliable source to understand his worldview according to the primary source principle. Prince was not a systematic theologian or systemic thinker. However, he describes his view of the cosmos, demons, and the relationships between the unseen world and humanity occasionally on a theoretical level but mostly as narratives from his life experience.

Despite naming Greek philosophers as a cause factor for his own demonic influence, Prince utilised the Platonist cosmology in several ways. First, he refers directly to Socrates as one source for the capacity and agency of demons.¹⁶ Additionally, he derives the system and hierarchy of demonological spheres by utilising Greek words daimon and daimonion in the New Testament text without referring to wider cosmological insights given within an entire revelation of God, both Old and New Testaments, or the exegetical context of the terms in question.¹⁷ This does not follow the key exegetical rule that safeguards the authority of the text; the Bible should provide the context for its interpretation, not an outside source.

Prince combines the primary meaning of assumed Greek concept of demons from words that can be found in New Testament texts and applies it as an interpretation to the Old Testament.¹⁸ This is an anachronistic way to read and relate these two texts together. This type of either narrative or symbolic hermeneutical reading was common during the Patristic Era, but early Greek church Fathers were renowned apologists who safeguarded their theology from Hellenistic syncretistic errors. The main concern for the church Fathers was to defend Christian proclamation of Christ and salvation, not to create an alternative worldview that would utilise the exact errors they were fighting against. Therefore, it is not possible to defend Prince’s views by finding similarities from the patristic material.¹⁹

Another problem adopted from the Platonist worldview is a strong dualism, evident in two ways. First, dualism appears in a dichotomy of God and Satan in which Satan as devil and his demons receive a major sphere and power to influence all aspects of life. As per Prince, “Satan’s headquarters and permanent residence are still in ‘the heavenlies’.”²⁰ Prince continues to explain this by referring to the Greek Platonist system and uses that to interpret Ephesians 6:12 and Matthew 12:43-44. It is problematic to divide the world in two spheres under different dominances and to neglect the sovereign power of the Creator of all. Cosmos is part of the created sphere. Therefore, the presence of the Holy Spirit should be one of the ruling aspects to understand the world, both naturally and spiritually. This is part of the Pentecostal pneumatological kerygma. The presence of Satan’s headquarters in the heavenlies is not a primary principle to interpret any natural or supernatural phenomena. Instead, the pneumatological reading of the theology of creation provides a better insight to observe the cosmos.

This can be viewed as a one-sided and dominant relationship between God and His creation but also as a relationship of mutuality and interaction through the Holy Spirit.²¹ Most importantly, there is no dualistic reality with the two competing forces of good and evil. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen frames spirits in general as created, subjected under Christ’s lordship, and if fallen, then parasitic.²² Furthermore, a system that treats Greek sources as primary and the Bible as secondary remains highly problematic. However, Prince does not create a definite systemic explanation for the origin of demons.²³

Prince applies the principles of the Platonic dualism that elevates the immaterial realm above material reality. That is yet another problematic adoption from Platonic worldview into his cosmological system. Prince writes:

A lot of people imagine that what we see, touch, hear and taste are the only truly real items. Down through the ages, however, philosophers have come to the conclusion that what we see, touch, hear and taste are not truly real; they are temporary, and they are very often deceptive. These philosophers have warned us that you cannot rely on your senses.

And the Bible agrees! Paul said that the things that are seen are fleeting; the things that are not seen are eternal. In other words, our sensory world is passing away, and therefore only partly real because it does not endure.²⁴

This view on matter was a major concern of early apologists who defended the Christian witness against pagan Greek metaphysics. Irenaeus was one of those voices, and today we have a strong and robust Christology grounded in the theology of the Incarnation that proclaims the good news for all creation.²⁵ The importance of the positive view of matter was precisely what distinguished early Christians from their pagan neighbours and fostered the development of caritative love towards all human life and well-being. Otherworldly orientation within early Pentecostalism generated a neglect of social and societal awareness especially among White Pentecostals during the early development of Classical Pentecostalism.²⁶ Fortunately, global Pentecostal communities exhibit a wide range of social engagement in today’s world.²⁷

Strong dualism between the material and immaterial worlds also promotes the denial of scientific knowledge. This is especially dangerous in relation to medical science. Prince creates an opposition between psychology and psychiatric science, and an interpretation of related phenomena with demonic origin. Two layers of interpretive errors can be identified. First, the mental dimension of a person is explained with dualism, considering all negative emotions, feelings, and thoughts as harmful and alien to humanity. Second, those aspects in a person’s mental health are assumed as originating from demons, and any sources pointed out in psychiatric evaluation are claimed as false. It can prove exceedingly dangerous for a suffering person if a diagnosis for mental illness is claimed to only cloak the real cause, assumed to be a demon or something from a demonic origin.²⁸

One must always critically evaluate hermeneutical principles of any given theological construction. Prince describes his theological method in both theoretical and narrative ways. Obviously, the base is in the experiences of his own life story, which encouraged him to seek answers from the Bible. Rather than keeping the biblical text as an authority in itself, however, he merely used the Bible to confirm his own experiences. Prince tells how he was delivered from demonic presence in his life, and he fluently utilises this personal experience as a key method for constructing his theology. He writes, “Now, as I studied the gospel accounts in the light of my new experiences […]”.²⁹ Additionally, this was transformed into theological claims that were then preached in the church. Prince served only a short period within a Pentecostal denomination; due to the criticism of his methods and teaching, he left to form an independent deliverance ministry.³⁰

Prince does not explicitly utilise any biblical sources nor any analytical method to draw observations from the Bible. This opens a door to an unconscious application of unbiblical worldviews. Pentecostals must construct their view of the world with a strong biblical base but also rely on a vivid pneumatological understanding of cosmos and humanity. This includes thorough investigation of the Pentecostal principles of theological anthropology and the biblical basis for sound theological proposals to understand humanity. A robust Pentecostal theology of sin requires the acknowledgement of human problems residing primarily in the sinfulness of the human heart.³¹ Second, the use of sciences such as psychology, psychiatric diagnostic techniques, and a sociological understanding of communities are required as a basis for healthy churches. It is also necessary to create a precise terminology for a ministry of deliverance and exorcism, to clearly communicate the meaning of the various levels of influence, harassment, or possession of demons. This needs both observations and clarifications at the ontological level both in the fields of theological anthropology and demonology.³²

Pentecostal theological enterprise requires dialogue with communal experiences and contextual interpretations, but these things cannot override the Bible. Therefore, it is crucial to construct one’s cosmological insights based on knowledge available in Scripture. The following section examines the exegetical methodology and current academic discourse related to demonology and cosmology.

Michael Heiser and the Divine Council Worldview³³

Michael S. Heiser (1963–2023) was a North American evangelical biblical scholar best known for his books,³⁴ podcasts,³⁵ and documentary films³⁶ that explore the unseen realm and the divine council worldview. His work sought to reintroduce readers to the supernatural framework of the Bible, particularly as it relates to the interplay between the seen and unseen realms and the roles of both human and nonhuman agents in the biblical narrative.

Heiser’s theological journey was shaped by a movement away from the “selective supernaturalism” of his non-charismatic background toward a more comprehensive embrace of the Bible’s supernatural worldview.³⁷ Despite this shift, he remained committed to the doctrines of biblical inspiration and inerrancy. His project was not an embrace of speculative mysticism but an attempt to allow the text of Scripture to speak on its own terms – without the interpretive filters imposed by later theological traditions, creeds, or denominational frameworks.³⁸

Central to Heiser’s approach was the conviction that many of the Bible’s more obscure and neglected passages are not peripheral, but integral, to its overall message. He argued that these so-called strange texts help to construct a sweeping metanarrative that “informs every Bible doctrine in significant ways.”³⁹ This metanarrative is laid out most fully in Heiser’s major work, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, where he traces a cosmic conflict involving God’s imagers – both human and divine – some of whom rebel and corrupt creation.

According to Heiser, the biblical narrative unfolds through three divine rebellions. The first occurs in Eden, where the serpent – a divine throne guardian – rebels and seduces humanity into sin (Gen. 3). The second involves the sons of God fathering the Nephilim with human women (Gen. 6); Heiser links this to Mesopotamian and Second Temple traditions, arguing that these beings become the demons of the New Testament. The third rebellion follows the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11), when God disinherits the nations and assigns them to lesser divine beings (Dt. 32:8-9). These beings subsequently rule unjustly, provoking divine judgement (Ps. 82) and initiating God’s plan to reclaim the nations, beginning with the call of Abraham and culminating in the mission of Christ. Through Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, he disarms the rebellious divine powers and restores redeemed humanity as the true sons of God. The Great Commission thus becomes not only a call to evangelism but a cosmic mission to recover the nations.

Critical Evaluation

As an exegete, Heiser deserves recognition for elucidating the Mesopotamian traditions that underpin some of the most obscure passages of the Bible. However, his theological interpretations of these obscure texts often appear forced and exceed what the biblical author was claiming precisely because of his heavy reliance on extrabiblical material. Heiser’s interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 demonstrates this: “Genesis 6:1-4 describes an event where divine beings (‘sons of God’) intentionally violated their proper domain by fathering offspring with human women. This episode, in turn, leads to great wickedness and judgment, underscoring that supernatural rebellion was an active force in human depravity.”⁴⁰ Three key moves in Heiser’s interpretation stand out: (1) the identification of the sons of God with the members of God’s divine council, (2) the emphasis placed on their contribution to human sin and the ensuing judgement (the Flood), and (3) the use of extrabiblical sources. In the following, these will be discussed in order.

Several exegetes largely concur with Heiser that sons of God should be identified with the members of God’s divine council.⁴¹ While alternative interpretations have been proposed in the past, the evidence supporting the divine council interpretation is comparatively stronger, as seen in the table below:

(1) Biblical authors employ the phrase “sons of God” to describe God’s entourage. | 4QDeut.j/LXX Deut. 32:8; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1; 82:6; 89:7
(2) Many biblical texts either refer to the divine council or presume its existence. | Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Is. 40:1-2; Dan. 7:9-10
(3) Second Temple texts interpret Genesis 6:1-4 as referring to a fall of God’s angels. | 1 Enoch 6-11, 15-16; Jub. 4:15; 5.1; 7:21-22; Sir. 16:7; Wis. 14:6; Bar. 3:24-28; T. Reub. 5:5-6; T. Naph. 3:5; 1 QapGenar II.1; CD II.16b-19; 2 Bar. 56:12-15; 3 Bar. 4:10; Josephus, Ant. 3.1.73; Philo, Gig. 2:6; 13:58; Quest.1:92; Jude 6, 14-15 cf. 2 Pet. 2:4
(4) Early Church Fathers endorse this interpretation. | Justin, 2 Apol. 5; Irenaeus, Haer. 4:36; Pseudo-Clementine, Homilies 7:12-15; 8:11-15; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3:2; Tertullian, Virg. 7

Jewish exegesis of the passage remained unchanged until the mid-second century, at which point “sons of God” is reinterpreted as humans.⁴² In early Christian circles, this shift occurred even later: the human interpretation emerged in the third century, while the traditional angelic interpretation persisted until the fifth century.⁴³

Accordingly, Heiser seems to have the correct exegetical insight: the author of Genesis views the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 as angelic beings, not humans. This does not mean, however, that one should adopt Heiser’s theological interpretation of the passage. One must ask what the author of Genesis is doing through the text and what the Bible is claiming.

A Subtle Critique of Seth’s Lineage

Heiser’s reading of Genesis 6:1-4 betrays a lack of attention to the structure and detail of the text itself, for he treats the events mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4 as the reason for the Flood, a kind of tipping point after which there is no return. According to his reading, evil is not solely the result of human sin but also of supernatural rebellion – an idea that is a significant deviation from traditional interpretations of the Flood account but foundational throughout his work.⁴⁴

Genesis 6:1-4 is part of a broader narrative showing how human actions threaten God’s cosmic order.⁴⁵ After the fall in Eden, this growing disorder is evident in Cain’s lineage, marked by violence and the establishment of human culture apart from God (4:1-24). In contrast, Seth’s descendants pursue communion with God, although not without inconsistencies (4:25–6:4). These appear in the mixed unions of Genesis 6:1-4, which, while notable to the original audience, are not described as sinful.⁴⁶

Genesis 6:5-8, the prologue to the Flood account, explains the reason for God’s ensuing judgement. While a connection between verses 1-4 and 5-8 is indicated through repeated key words,⁴⁷ the text attributes moral culpability exclusively to humans and makes them the sole recipients of the judgement. The sons of God are not in view. Walton and Walton even argue that the placement of Genesis 6:1-4 in a different toledot than the Flood narrative indicates that “the sons of God and Nephilim are not actually associated with the flood at all.”⁴⁸ In any case, Genesis 6:1-4 is best understood as a sophisticated critique of Seth’s lineage rather than as the final justification for the Flood.⁴⁹

The Book of Watchers as an Interpretive Lens

In his effort to read the Bible without filters, Heiser has, paradoxically, adopted a new, extrabiblical interpretive lens. His interpretation of Genesis 6:1 4 is rooted in his close reading of the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36), a third-century BCE pseudepigraphal text that includes a peculiar retelling of the Flood narrative (1 Enoch 6:1–10:22).⁵⁰ According to this retelling, the Flood was caused by the fall of the Watchers – angels who violated divine boundaries by descending to earth, taking human wives (6:1-2), producing gigantic demonic offspring (15:9-12), and imparting forbidden knowledge (8:1-2). In essence, the Book of Watchers attributes the origin of evil to an angelic rebellion against God rather than to the sin of Adam.

According to Heiser, Genesis 6:1-4 and the Book of Watchers draw from a common Mesopotamian material, implying that they share the same worldview.⁵¹ While the parallels are notable, the relationship is more nuanced than Heiser suggests. After reviewing the evidence, Walton and Walton acknowledge that while Mesopotamian material may have informed 1 Enoch’s reading of Genesis, this does not necessitate that Genesis 6:1-4 itself shares the same interpretive framework.⁵² Indeed, even if Genesis incorporates earlier Mesopotamian motifs, its theological message is distinct. The author was free to reuse common material from the “cultural river”⁵³ of Mesopotamia for a distinct theological purpose, differing from the interpretive trajectory of the Book of Watchers.

This is demonstrably true with questions pertaining to the origin of evil: while the Book of Watchers attributes the origin of evil to an angelic fall, biblical texts, and many other Second Temple texts link it to human disobedience.⁵⁴ In fact, the Book of Watchers’ theological divergence in this key matter likely contributed to its decline in influence within the Early Church,⁵⁵ which did not adopt its theological framework but held onto the one found in her own Scriptures.

The key to interpreting Genesis 6 lies within the text itself – not in equating its worldview with that of the Book of Watchers. Thus, citing the widespread influence of 1 Enoch within Second Temple Judaism and the Early Church does not justify the conclusion that its interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 was (or should be) universally accepted or authoritative.⁵⁶ The same is true about the New Testament authors who refer to or even cite the Book of Watchers (1 Pet. 3:19-20; 2 Pet. 2:4-10, and Jude 6-15). Their use of the Book of Watchers is not a wholesale endorsement of its views.⁵⁷

Biblical Worldview

Heiser’s attempt to allow the text of Scripture to speak on its own terms is commendable, but his execution of the project runs into problems. His reading of the text is predicated on an assumed worldview of the biblical author – a worldview he pieces together through extrabiblical sources and expects modern readers to adopt.⁵⁸

This is unfortunate, since the author’s assumed worldview is not the same as a biblical worldview. Biblical inspiration does not pertain to the worldview of its authors. Rather, it pertains to the text itself (locution) which was accommodated to a high-context, ancient Israelite audience.⁵⁹ Similarly, biblical authority does not rest on the beliefs of its authors. Rather, biblical authority “is tied to the message the author intends to communicate as an agent of God’s revelation” (illocution).⁶⁰ Thus, as Kevin Vanhoozer argues, interpretation is an act of justice – of correctly ascribing to an author the illocutionary acts actually performed.⁶¹ Heiser, by contrast, overlooks the author’s illocutionary act by disregarding questions of genre, literary structure, and the text’s role within the broader narrative. This is why the shortcomings of Heiser’s exegesis should not be underestimated. While Heiser himself was cautious in terms of praxis, those who read him may not be.

Concluding Thoughts

This paper examines two influential authors within Christian communities: Derek Prince and Michael Heiser. While they write in different fields, both have developed significant followings that shape how people perceive reality and form their worldviews. Pentecostal and charismatic communities approach the world with a deep trust in an all-powerful God and in our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Whether in secularised Europe or elsewhere, all believers and churches are called to study the Word of God within its own context – while also humbly acknowledging that they are not immune to the influence of their surrounding culture and prevailing worldviews. We need the guidance of the Holy Spirit to develop sound doctrine and healthy principles for church practices – especially when ministering to those afflicted by the burdens of earthly life.

We propose the following principles be applied. First, the Bible does not provide specific information about the origin or creation of demons. This fact alone should be seen as an indication that such knowledge is not beneficial to humans, as our attention should be directed primarily and unwaveringly toward Christ, and the sovereign rule of the ever-loving triune God. Second, we are not encouraged to seek deeper knowledge of evil beyond what is revealed in Scripture and the visible world. Therefore, one should neither invent origin narratives nor rely on knowledge derived from sources outside the Bible. Third, all theological hermeneutics should keep Christ as the primary focus. Fourth, when interpreting the Bible, we should respect its message and avoid adding ideas or systems that do not belong. Finally, we must define clear terminology (deliverance, exorcism, possession etc.) to have a fruitful dialogue between pastors, theologians, and those serving in the deliverance ministry.

Bibliography

Anderson, Allan H. “Pentecostalism and Social, Political, and Economic Development”, Spiritus: ORU Journal of Theology 5(1), (Spring 2020): 121-36.

Annus, Amar. “On the Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions”, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 19(4), (2010): 277-320.

Auffarth, Christoph, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Eds. The Fall of the Angels. Volume VI of Themes in Biblical Narrative. Brill, 2004.

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude–2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary 50. Zondervan, 1983.

Berger, Peter L. “Secularization and De-Secularization”, In Linda Woodhead, Ed. Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformation. Psychology Press, 2002.

Botelho Moniz, Jorge. “Secularization in Europe: Causes, Consequences, and Cultural Diversity”, Religion, Quo Vadis? Secularization in the Modern World 14(3), 423 (March 2023): 1–11. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14030423], [Last accessed: 26th October 2025].

Davids, Peter H. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. PNTC. Eerdmans, 2006.

de Jong, Chris. “Adam and Humanity: Meaning and Consequences of the Use of the Word Toledot in Genesis 2.4 and 5.1”, MTh diss., University of Utrecht, 2015.

Docherty, Susan. The Jewish Pseudepigrapha: An Introduction to the Literature of the Second Temple Period. Fortress, 2015.

Farrar, Thomas J. “Review of Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in Its Cultural and Literary Context, by John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton”, Journal of Theological Studies 72(1), (2021): 364-68.

Garrard, David. “Witchcraft and Deliverance: An Exaggerated Theme in Pentecostal Churches in Central Africa”, Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 37(1), (2017): 52-53.

Heiser, Michael S. Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness. Lexham, 2020.

–––. Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host. Lexham, 2018.

–––. Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ. Defender, 2017.

–––. Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World and Why it Matters. Lexham, 2015.

–––. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Lexham, 2015.

–––. “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature”, PhD Diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004.

–––. “The Naked Bible Podcast”. Naked Bible Podcast Website. [Available at: https://nakedbiblepodcast.com], [Last accessed: 26th October 2025].

Hendel, Ronald. Genesis 1–11. Yale Anchor Bible. Yale University Press, 2024.

Hendel, Ronald. “The Nephilim Were on the Earth: Genesis 6:1-4 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context”, In Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Eds. The Fall of the Angels. Themes in Biblical Narrative. Brill, 2004.

Homewood, Nathanael J. Seductive Spirits: Deliverance, Demons, and Sexual Worldmaking in Ghanaian Pentecostalism. Stanford University Press, 2024.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. Spirit and Salvation. Vol. 4 of A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World. William B. Eerdmans, 2016.

Kvanvig, Helge. “Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, and Enochic: An Intertextual Reading”, Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement 149. Brill, 2011.

Kvanvig, Helge. “The Watcher Story and Genesis: An Intertextual Reading”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 18(2), (2004): 163-83.

Longman III, Tremper, and John Walton. The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate. IVP Academic, 2018.

Mansfield, Stephen. Derek Prince: A Biography. Derek Prince Ministries, 2005.

Mercer, Jean. “Deliverance, Demonic Possession, and Mental Illness: Some Considerations for Mental Health Professionals”, Mental Health, Religion & Culture 16(6), (2012): 595-611, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2012.706272], [Last accessed: 26th October 2025].

Miller, Donald E., and Tetsunao Yamamori. Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement. University of California Press, 2007.

Moltmann, Jürgen. God in Creation. A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God. Fortress, 1993.

Paraffin, Annah. “Pentecostal Healing and Schizophrenia”, In Francis Machingura, Lovemore Togarasei, and Ezra Chitando, Eds. Pentecostalism and Human Rights in Contemporary Zimbabwe. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018.

Prince, Derek. “Home Page”, Derek Prince Ministries UK Website, [Available at: https://www.derekprince.com/], [Last accessed: 26th October 2025].

–––. They Shall Expel Demons: What You Need to Know about Demons – Your Invisible Enemies. Derek Prince Ministries International, 2020.

–––. The Devil’s Plan to Destroy Your Life. Rev. ed. Derek Prince Ministries, 2007. Sersch, Michael J. Demons on the Couch: Spirit Possession, Exorcism and the DSM–5. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019.

Siganto, Talissa. “Instead of Giving Her Life-Saving Insulin, Elizabeth Struhs’s Parents Prayed over Her Dying Body”, ABC News. 29th January 2025. [Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-30/elizabeth-struhs-religous-group-guilty-manslaughter/104859334], [Last accessed: 26th October 2025].

Sire, James W. The University Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog. InterVarsity Press, 2020.

Stanley, Brian. “From Plato to Pentecostalism: Sickness and Deliverance in the Theology of Derek Prince”, In Studies in Church History 58. Cambridge University Press, 2022.

Tobin, Sean M. “Exorcism, Deliverance, and Psychotherapy from a Catholic-Christian Perspective: A Critical Literature Review”, Doctoral diss. Azusa Pacific University, 2019.

Urvas, Sanna. “Theology of Sin and Evil in Classical Pentecostalism. Two Case Studies”, Doctoral diss. University of Helsinki, 2020. [Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10138/319015], [Last accessed: 26th October 2025].

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “From Speech Acts to Scripture Acts: The Covenant of Discourse and the Discourse of the Covenant”, In Craig Bartholomew, Colin Greene, and Karl Möller, Eds. After Pentecost: Language and Biblical Interpretation. Paternoster, 2001.

von Balthasar, Hans Urs. “Introduction”, In The Scandal of the Incarnation: Irenaeus against Heresies. Translated by John Saward. Ignatius, 1990.

Walton, John H. New Explorations in the Lost World of Genesis. Advances in the Origins Debate InterVarsity, 2025.

Walton, John H., and D. Brent Sandy. The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority. IVP Academic, 2013.

Walton, John H., and J. Harvey Walton. Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in Its Cultural and Literary Context. Cascade, 2019.

Warrington, Keith. “Exorcism”, In Adam Stewart, Ed. Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity. Northern Illinois Cornell University Press, 2012.

Yoshiko Reed, Annette. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Church Fathers

Augustine. The City of God. In Philip Schaff, Ed. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1886–1889, Series 1. Vol. 2, 14 vols. Repr. Hendrickson, 1994.

Clement of Alexandria. The Instructor. In Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by. 1885–1887. Vol. 2, 10 vols. Repr. Hendrickson, 1994.

Chrysostom, John. Homilies on Genesis 18–45. Translated by Robert C. Hill. The Fathers of the Church. Vol. 82. The Catholic University of America Press, 1990.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. In Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 1885–1887. Vol. 1, 10 vols. Repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.

Justin Martyr. The Second Apology of Justin. In Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 1885–1887. Vol. 1, 10 vols. Repr. Hendrickson, 1994.

Pseudo-Clementine. Homilies. In Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 1885–1887. Vol. 8, 10 vols. Repr. Hendrickson, 1994.

Tertullian. On the Veiling of Virgins. In Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by 1885–1887. Vol. 4, 10 vols. Repr. Hendrickson, 1994.

¹ Peter L. Berger, “Secularization and De-secularization”, in Linda Woodhead (ed), Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformation (Psychology Press, 2002): 336-44.

² Jorge Botelho Moniz, “Secularization in Europe: Causes, Consequences, and Cultural Diversity”, Religion, Quo Vadis? Secularization in the Modern World 14(3), 423 (March 2023): 8. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14030423], [Last accessed: 26th October 2025].

³ Botelho Moniz, “Secularization in Europe”, 8.

⁴ James W. Sire, The University Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog (InterVarsity Press, 2020): 4-9.

⁵ There are no consistent studies available. However, there are remarks from local communities such as Finnish Pentecostal Church or Evangelical Free Church of Finland and how these demonological practices gained platform.

⁶ Keith Warrington, “Exorcism”, in Adam Stewart (ed), Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity (Northern Illinois Cornell University Press, 2012): 81-84. Warrington provides also a helpful journey to the key biblical texts relative to this topic.

⁷ Sanna Urvas, “Theology of Sin and Evil in Classical Pentecostalism. Two Case Studies”, (Doctoral diss., University of Helsinki, 2020): 81-86, [Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10138/319015], [Last accessed: 26th October 2025].

⁸ David Garrard, “Witchcraft and Deliverance: An Exaggerated Theme in Pentecostal Churches in Central Africa”, Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 37(1), (2017): 52-53.

⁹ Urvas, “Theology of Sin and Evil”, chap. 4.

¹⁰ Garrard, “Witchcraft and Deliverance”, 54.

¹¹ Derek Prince, “Home Page”, Derek Prince Ministries UK Website, [Available at: https://www.derekprince.com/], [Last accessed: 26th October 2025].

¹² Jean Mercer, “Deliverance, Demonic Possession, and Mental Illness: Some Considerations for Mental Health Professionals”, Mental Health, Religion & Culture 16(6), (2012): 595-611, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2012.706272], [Last accessed: 26th October 2025].

See also Michael J. Sersch, Demons on the Couch: Spirit Possession, Exorcism and the DSM–5 (Cambridge Scholars, 2019); and Annah Paraffin, “Pentecostal Healing and Schizophrenia”, in Francis Machingura et al. (eds), Pentecostalism and Human Rights in Contemporary Zimbabwe (Cambridge Scholars, 2018): 96-109. Additionally, Nathanael J. Homewood provides an ethnographic study: Seductive Spirits: Deliverance, Demons, and Sexual Worldmaking in Ghanaian Pentecostalism (Stanford University Press, 2024). Extreme belief can also result in death, as in the case of parents who refused to give their daughter insulin: Talissa Siganto, “Instead of Giving Her Life-Saving Insulin, Elizabeth Struh’s Parents Prayed over Her Dying Body”, ABC News, 29th January 2025, [Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-30/elizabeth-struhs-religous-group-guilty-manslaughter/104859334], [Last accessed: 26th October 2025].

¹³ Derek Prince, They Shall Expel Demons: What You Need to Know about Demons – Your Invisible Enemies (Derek Prince Ministries International, 2020): 124-25. See also Stephen Mansfield, Derek Prince: A Biography (Derek Prince Ministries, 2005): 20-33.

¹⁴ Prince, They Shall Expel Demons, 125.

¹⁵ Brian Stanley, “From Plato to Pentecostalism: Sickness and Deliverance in the Theology of Derek Prince”, in Studies in Church History 58 (Cambridge University Press, 2022): 401-402. See also Mansfield, Derek Prince, 191.

¹⁶ Prince, They Shall Expel Demons, 147.

¹⁷ Prince, They Shall Expel Demons, 14-18.

¹⁸ Prince, They Shall Expel Demons, 152-53.

¹⁹ See Urvas, Theology of Sin and Evil, chap. 2, for further information about views of demonology during the patristic era.

²⁰ Prince, They Shall Expel Demons, 149.

²¹ See, for example, Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God (Fortress, 1993:, 14.

²² Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Spirit and Salvation, vol. 4 of A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World (William B. Eerdmans, 2016): 107-10.

²³ Prince, They Shall Expel Demons, 145-52.

²⁴ Derek Prince, The Devil’s Plan to Destroy Your Life, rev. ed. (Derek Prince Ministries, 2007): 12.

²⁵ See more about Irenaeus’ contribution to the theology of the Incarnation in Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Introduction”, in The Scandal of the Incarnation: Irenaeus against Heresies, trans. John Saward (Ignatius, 1990): 1-11.

²⁶ Progressive Pentecostalism pronounces the change in this paradigm; see Donald E. Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori, Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement (University of California Press, 2007): 1-5.

²⁷ Allan H. Anderson, “Pentecostalism and Social, Political, and Economic Development”, Spiritus: ORU Journal of Theology 5(1), (Spring 2020): 121-36.

²⁸ See Prince, They Shall Expel Demons, 94; 101; 169; 173-76.

²⁹ Prince, They Shall Expel Demons, 94.

³⁰ Prince, They Shall Expel Demons, 107. See also Mansfield, Derek Prince, 194-95.

³¹ Urvas, “Theology of Sin and Evil”, chap. 2.6.

³² Sean M. Tobin’s thesis presents a helpful collection of studies of exorcism and related sciences: Sean M. Tobin, “Exorcism, Deliverance, and Psychotherapy from a Catholic-Christian Perspective: A Critical Literature Review”, Doctoral diss. (Azusa Pacific University, 2019).

³³ I wish to thank Nathan French (personal communication) for his insights on Heiser and Genesis 6:1-4.

³⁴ Michael S. Heiser: The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Lexham, 2015); Michael S. Heiser, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World and Why it Matters (Lexham, 2015); Michael S. Heiser, Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ (Defender, 2017); Michael S. Heiser, Angels: What the Bible Really Says about God’s Heavenly Host (Lexham, 2018); Michael S. Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says about the Powers of Darkness (Lexham, 2020). Heiser’s dissertation and academic articles focus on the question of YHWH’s divine council and seek to invalidate the idea that Israelite religion progressed from polytheism to monotheism. See Michael S. Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature”, (PhD Diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004). See also Heiser’s resumé at https://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Cumulative-Resume-2020.pdf [Last accessed: 26th October 2025].

³⁵ Michael S. Heiser, “The Naked Bible Podcast”, Naked Bible Podcast Website [Available at: https://nakedbiblepodcast.com], [Last accessed: 26th October 2025].

³⁶ See Heiser’s films at Faithlife TV, [Available at: https://faithlifetv.com], [Last accessed: 26th October 2025].

³⁷ Heiser, Unseen Realm, 17-18.

³⁸ Heiser, Unseen Realm, 14-15, 18-20.

³⁹ Heiser, Unseen Realm, 13.

⁴⁰ Heiser, Unseen Realm, 102.

⁴¹ For a recent review of evidence, see Ronald Hendel, Genesis 1–11, Yale Anchor Bible (Yale University Press, 2024), 265f. Heiser, Unseen Realm, 94-97, builds his case on Amar Annus, “On the Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions”, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 19(4), (2010): 277-320, and Helge Kvanvig, “Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, and Enochic: An Intertextual Reading”, Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement 149 (Brill, 2011); Helge Kvanvig, “The Watcher Story and Genesis: An Intertextual Reading”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 18(2), (2004): 163-83. See also Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge University Press, 2005). Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (eds), The Fall of the Angels. Vol. VI of Themes in Biblical Narrative. Jewish and Christian Traditions (Brill, 2004). For critical evaluation, see John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton, Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in Its Cultural and Literary Context (Cascade, 2019): 113-20; 177-86.

⁴² Richard J. Bauckham, Jude–2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary 50 (Zondervan, 1983): 51.

⁴³ Bauckham, Jude, 51. See John Chrysostom, Serm. Gen. 22:2; Augustine, Civ. 15:23.

⁴⁴ Heiser, Reversing Hermon, 105ff.

⁴⁵ For a discussion of the Flood narrative, see Hendel, Genesis, 283-345; and Tremper Longman III and John Walton, The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate (IVP Academic, 2018).

⁴⁶ Leviticus 19:19; 20:16 and Deuteronomy 7:3; 22:9-11 prohibit the mixing of two unrelated substances, and it is often suggested that ancient readers/hearers would have picked this up. See Hendel, Genesis, 265. Walton and Walton, Demons and Spirits, 119 and 180 argue that the text does not view the actions of the sons of God as morally culpable. Ronald Hendel, “The Nephilim Were on the Earth: Genesis 6:1-4 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” in Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (eds), The Fall of the Angels, Themes in Biblical Narrative (Brill, 2004): 12, takes a slightly different view while ascertaining that it is humans who are held accountable.

⁴⁷ Hendel, “The Nephilim”, 12. These include “humans began to multiply,” “the wickedness of humans was great,” “the sons of God saw that,” and “the Lord saw that.”

⁴⁸ Walton and Walton, Demons and Spirits, 179-80. See Chris de Jong, “Adam and Humanity: Meaning and Consequences of the Use of the Word Toledot in Genesis 2.4 and 5.1” (MTh diss., University of Utrecht, 2015) for a view of the use of the toledot that keeps them separate and yet belonging together.

⁴⁹ Similarly, Longman and Walton, Lost World, 126.

⁵⁰ See Susan Docherty, The Jewish Pseudepigrapha: An Introduction to the Literature of the Second Temple Period (Fortress, 2015): 125-37.

⁵¹ Heiser, Unseen Realm, 102. Heiser suggests that the genealogies in Gen 4 and 5 reflect the Sumerian King List, where early kings ruled with divine sages called apkallu. These beings taught humanity culture and knowledge, and later kings claimed descent from them, implying a divine-human lineage. See especially Annus, “On the Watchers”; Kvanvig, Primeval History; and Kvanvig, “The Watcher Story and Genesis”. For a critical evaluation of this material, see Hendel, Genesis, 259-62, and Walton and Walton, Demons and Spirits, 115-20.

⁵² Walton and Walton, Demons and Spirits, 116-17.

⁵³ Longman and Walton, Lost World, 6. See John H. Walton, New Explorations in the Lost World of Genesis: Advances in the Origins Debate (InterVarsity, 2025), 18ff, for an explanation of the term, “cultural river.” Similar river imagery is used by Hendel, Genesis, 278.

⁵⁴ See 4 Ezra 3:20-26; 4:30; 7:118; 2 Bar. 23:4; 48:42-43; 54:15; 56:5-8; Gen. 3:1-24; Rom. 5.

⁵⁵ Bauckham, Jude, 51.

⁵⁶ Contra Heiser, Unseen Realm, 99-100.

⁵⁷ On the question of Jude calling Enoch a prophet, see Titus 1:12, John 11:51, and Acts 17:28. Peter H. Davids, (The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, PNTC (Eerdmans, 2006): 75) suggests that the idea of prophecy combined with the quotation formula is an indication of Jude’s belief in “divinely inspired speech.” Bauckham, Jude, 90, agrees with Davids on divine inspiration of 1 Enoch’s prophecy but denies that Jude has elevated 1 Enoch to scriptural status.

⁵⁸ See Heiser, Unseen Realm, 99-100, on the adoption of an interpretive framework.

⁵⁹ Longman and Walton, Lost World, 5.

⁶⁰ Longman and Walton, Lost World, 9.

⁶¹ Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “From Speech Acts to Scripture Acts: The Covenant of Discourse and the Discourse of the Covenant”, in Craig Bartholomew et al. (eds), After Pentecost: Language and Biblical Interpretation (Paternoster, 2001): 25. John H. Walton and D. Brent Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority (IVP Academic, 2013): 200, suggest that scriptural authority lies precisely in what “the communicator was actually asserting in his illocutions.” Walton and Walton, Demons and Spirits, 18, go as far as to argue that all biblical statements about demons (including those in the New Testament) are references, not affirmations. Their position is too restrictive. See Thomas J. Farrar, “Review of Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in Its Cultural and Literary Context, by John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton”, Journal of Theological Studies 72(1), (2021): 364-68. See Walton, New Explorations, 17-69, for clarification and methodological discussion.

Response to Sanna Urvas and Markus Nikkanen’s “Worldviews beneath Cosmological Kerygma: Demons as a Case Study”

Chiong Xiao Ting

Introduction

According to Sanna Urvas and Markus Nikkanen, “Pentecostal communities believe in the power of the Holy Spirit in a healthy and empowering way,”¹ and we firmly aim to uphold this in our understanding of demonology. Urvas and Nikkanen highlight four principles in constructing a healthy doctrine of demonology. First, since the Bible does not reveal the origin or creation of demons, this is not a subject we should fixate on. Second, we must avoid exploring the nature of evil beyond what Scripture reveals. Third, Christ must remain the focus of our demonology. Last, all theological reflections must stay within the boundaries of the biblical framework. I fully agree that these four principles are essential and foundational to a sound understanding of demonology.

On Derek Prince’s Demonology

Urvas and Nikkanen’s main critique on Derek Prince has to do with how Prince has been influenced by Greek philosophy and mythology. However, we must note that, while Prince does speculate on the nature of demons, he models his exorcism after the deliverance ministry of Jesus.² Although the Bible is not explicit on the origin of demons, there is no denying that deliverance is one of the “most obvious and important aspects” of Jesus’s ministry, which implies that this ministry cannot be neglected in the life of the church.³ In the Great Commission, Jesus commands his disciples and believers to cast out demons in his name (Mt. 10:1; Mk 16:17).

Urvas and Nikkanen highlight the extremes in Prince’s teaching that overemphasise the immaterial world, which may lead to a denial of genuine psychological and medical conditions and diagnosing them as demonic instead. They also critique Prince’s Platonist dualistic worldview. Some of these critiques are valid, and we should seek to restore balance to demonology within Pentecostal churches. Nevertheless, Scripture affirms that while God is sovereign, Satan still “rules over a hierarchy of evil spirits in the heavenly realms”⁴ (cf. Dan. 10:13, 20-21). It is vital to acknowledge that the Christian life involves “wrestling with principalities and powers”⁵ (Eph. 6:12, NJKV), which most scholars agree are hostile demonic powers, and this implies that spiritual warfare is still a normal part of the Christian life. Even in the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus teaches believers to pray, “deliver us from the evil one” (Mt. 6:13), making spiritual vigilance part of our daily walk. At the same time, He assures us that we have been given authority over the spiritual realm, including the demonic (Lk. 9:1; 10:19).

On Michael Heiser’s Divine Council Worldview

In addition, Urvas and Nikkanen challenge the divine council worldview proposed by Michael Heiser, who uses Ancient Near Eastern traditions and pseudepigraphal texts to present theories on the origins of demons and evil. I agree that we should not build our theology on such theories, especially those developed outside the framework of Scripture, although they can provide helpful references and context for studying the Bible.

Do Christians Need Deliverance?

Beyond Urvas and Nikkanen’s critique of Prince and Heiser, one crucial question arising from their paper is this: Do some Christians need deliverance? They highlight that Classical Pentecostalism does not believe Christians can be demon-possessed. The Assemblies of God position paper rejects the possibility that a believer can be possessed by demonic forces. While it affirms that “believers will engage in spiritual warfare and will be oppressed,” it stops short of saying that Christians may need deliverance.⁶ Despite this, an increasing number of Assemblies of God ministries are now exploring the possibility that Christians can be influenced by demons and may require deliverance.⁷

Many in the Global South agree that while Christians cannot be owned or possessed by a demon, they can be subject to demonic influence or even infestation.⁸ In the Gospels, the Greek term daimonizomai (e.g., Mt. 4:24; Mk 5:15-16, 18; Lk. 8:36; Jn 10:21), often transliterated as “demonised,” does not imply “ownership” but rather suggests a form of “temporary control” or influence by demons.⁹ In other cases, the Bible simply states that some had a demon or unclean spirits (Mk 1:23; Lk. 4:33; 6:18; 13:12). Although Scripture may not state it explicitly, the Gospels show that demonisation can vary in degree – from a woman in Luke 13:10-16 described as “a daughter of Abraham” bound by a spirit of infirmity to the Gerasene man possessed by many demons (Mk 5:1-9). This suggests that while a believer may not be fully possessed, they can still be bound by Satan, as seen in the case of the bent-back woman in Luke 13.

One common argument against the idea that Christians can have demons is this: if our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), how can a demon and the Holy Spirit dwell in the same place?¹⁰ However, it is difficult for this argument to withstand scrutiny. Paul speaks of the Christian having two natures warring between us – the desire to do good and the presence of sin at work in our bodies (Rom. 7:21-23). At conversion, the Holy Spirit indwells within us, but the process of salvation is yet to be completed. Christians still sin against God, and this can be a plausible reason for demonic strongholds to remain in their lives. After all, Paul warns believers not to “give the devil a foothold” (Eph. 4:27), implying that it is indeed possible for Christians to do so. The term “foothold” can mean a “place, position or opportunity”¹¹ – suggesting that ongoing sin can give Satan access to areas of our lives. The Scripture warns us against the “wiles of the devil” (Eph. 6:11, NKJV), and Peter admonishes believers to stay alert, as Satan “prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). Sadly, some believers may have failed to withstand his flaming arrows and succumbed as casualties in this spiritual battle.

Spiritual Experiences

Urvas and Nikkanen caution against building our theology on subjective experiences, a major critique they have of Prince. While their concerns are legitimate, experience has always played an important role in Pentecostal theology, as long as it does not go against the teachings of Scripture. Theologian William MacDonald describes Pentecostal theology not as “experience-centred” but “experience-certified.”¹² William Menzies and MacDonald regard experience as a crucial element in theology, and its role is “certifying or verifying the theological enterprise.”¹³ Roger Stronstad goes a step further to propose that Pentecostals bring an “experiential presupposition” to the Scripture that validates it and helps us understand it better.¹⁴ In addition, although Prince started off with his own journey, his experience is not unique; it echoes the stories of innumerable believers throughout history and around the world, particularly in the Global South.

The Early Church

Research into Early Church literature reveals that exorcism was very much part of baptismal rites of believers. In the third century, baptismal candidates had to have hands “laid upon them daily in exorcism” and anointed with the “oil of exorcism” during baptism.¹⁵ It was not assumed that a believer would no longer have demons within them after conversion or baptism; instead, extra steps were taken to ensure that evil spirits were driven out of a believer. In the Apostolic Constitutions of the fourth century, candidates who had “a demon” could not become clergymen and had to be cleansed and freed from the demon. Once again, this example shows the possibility that even a believer could be possessed by a demon.¹⁶ In Roman Catholicism, exorcism has always been part of the church’s ministry, and even the “faithful” can be demonically afflicted.¹⁷ During the Protestant Reformation, although Martin Luther rejected many Catholic practices, he still retained the rite of exorcism in his baptismal handbook for Christians.¹⁸

Pentecostalism in the Twentieth Century

At the turn of the twentieth century, the Azusa Street revival was characterised by signs and wonders, which included healings and deliverance from demons.¹⁹ Even William Seymour himself believed that the body of believers can be afflicted by demons.²⁰ Although classical Pentecostalism did not believe that Christians need deliverance, British professor Stephen Hunt argues that “the growth and appeal of deliverance has come with the expansion of the ‘classical’ Pentecostal movement at the beginning of the twentieth century.”²¹ Across the Global South – in Africa, Latin America, and Asia – countless believers have experienced powerful deliverance and freedom from demonic oppression.

In Africa, where witchcraft is widespread, it is commonly believed that even Christians can be demonised and require deliverance from witchcraft, demonic spirits, generational curses, or diseases. African theologian Opoku Onyinah writes about the Church of Pentecost in Ghana, which establishes prayer centres for the sick, where “deliverance becomes a major activity.”²²

In Latin America, Argentinian evangelist Carlos Annacondia’s revival meetings are characterised by deliverance ministry for both believers and non-believers alike.²³ Pablo Bottari, Annacondia’s crusade director, compiled and systematised these deliverance materials, influencing movements like G12.²⁴ Founded by Columbian pastor Cesar Castellanos, the G12 movement encourages believers to attend an “Encounter” retreat, where they receive ministry, including deliverance from past sins and trauma.²⁵

In Asia, at the world’s largest church, Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, there are testimonies of both believers and non-believers experiencing deliverance from demons.²⁶ Research into the religious climate of Singapore reveals that many Pentecostal/charismatic pastors emphasise deliverance ministry, often requiring new converts to sever ties with past dedication to idols or demonic associations.²⁷ For many in the Global South, these experiences with the diabolic and demonic are genuine, and deliverance is not automatic at conversion. Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge these realities and thoughtfully consider the role of deliverance ministry in the local church.

Restoring Balance in Deliverance Practices

In our Pentecostal communities, we acknowledge that abuses and extremes exist in some deliverance practices. For example, deliverance patients have undergone beatings, chaining, and long fasting in some African prayer centres, and this has brought about a stigmatisation of deliverance practices.²⁸ However, these extremes do not represent the whole and should not invalidate the importance of deliverance ministry in our churches today.

In a 2012 think tank on Magic, Witchcraft, Demon Beliefs and Deliverance held in Asia and Africa, it was proposed that “deliverance ministry should be one of the forms of a contextualised ministry in Asia.”²⁹ They affirmed that Christians, even pastors, may need deliverance because “they can be possessed, traumatised, and oppressed.” Pastors Jaharianson Saragih and Parulihan Sipayung propose a holistic ministry approach called “Psycho-Del-Si,” which integrates psychology, deliverance, and spirituality in diagnosing problems.³⁰ This is a fine example of how we can redeem deliverance practices instead of rejecting them, putting them back where they belong in the church. Onyinah suggests that this ministry should not be “suppressed” or “pushed to periphery,” but our theology of the spirit-world should complement it; experientially, we should allow the Holy Spirit to lead us into exorcism in our services when the need arises.³¹

In conclusion, Urvas and Nikkanen correctly argue for sound hermeneutics that will influence our beliefs – in this case, beliefs about demons, especially over Christians. I propose that deliverance can have a rightful place in the church when situated in sound theology and good praxis. By avoiding extremes and not forsaking the genuine need for psychological and psychiatric care for those suffering from mental illnesses, we can redeem the deliverance ministry and make it a healthy, empowering part of Pentecostal life, helping believers live in freedom and fullness.

Bibliography

Annacondia, Carlos. Listen to Me, Satan. Creation House, 2008.

Asamoah-Gyadu, J. Kwabena. “Signs, Wonders, and Ministry: The Gospel in the Power of the Spirit”, Evangelical Review of Theology 33(1), (2009): 32-46. [Available at: https://theology.worldea.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ERT-33-1.pdf], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

Asamoah, Moses Kumi. “Leveraging the Deliverance Phenomenon: Penteco/Charismatic Vista”, Journal of Religion and Health 55(5), (October 2016): 1642-64. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0209-8], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

Assemblies of God. “Position Paper on Spiritual Warfare and the Believer”, The General Council of the Assemblies of God Website, Adopted by the General Presbytery in session on 30th July 2019, [Available at: https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers/Spiritual-Warfare-and-the-Believer], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

Bartleman, Frank. Azusa Street. Whitaker House, 1982.

Chiang, Ming Shun. “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: What Is It and Is It Relevant Today?” Methodist Message. 1st February 2023. [Available at: https://www.methodist.org.sg/methodist-message/the-wesleyan-quadrilateral-what-is-it-and-is-it-relevant-today/], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

DeBernardi, Jean. “Global Christian Culture and the Antioch of Asia”, In Lai Ah Eng, Ed. Religious Diversity in Singapore. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008.

Hippolytus, Antipope. The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus: Translated into English with Introduction and Notes. Translated by Burton Scott Easton. Cambridge University Press, 1934.

Hunt, Stephen. “Managing the Demonic: Some Aspects of the Neo-Pentecostal Deliverance Ministry”, Journal of Contemporary Religion 13(2) (1998): 215-30. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13537909808580831], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

Jenkins, Philip. The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South. Oxford University Press, 2006. ProQuest eBook Central.

King, Paul L. “A Historical Survey of Belief and Practices Regarding Deliverance of Demonized Christians”, Refleks 3(1), (2004): 53-65. [Available at: https://pentecostalarchives.org/?a=d&d=REF2004-Issue3-1.1.55&e=-------en-20--1--img-txIN------------], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

Lowenberg, Doug. “Demonisation and the Christian Life: How the Devil Influences Believers”, Enrichment Journal (Summer 2013): 87-97. [Available at: https://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/Issues/2013/Summer-2013/Demonization-and-the-Christian-Life], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

Ma, Julie C., and Wonsuk Ma. Mission in the Spirit: Towards a Pentecostal/Charismatic Missiology. Regnum, 2010.

MacDonald, William G. “Pentecostal Theology: A Classical Viewpoint”, In Russell Spittler, Ed. Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism. Baker, 1976.

Mora-Ciangherotti, Fernando Adolfo. “Latin American Megachurches in a Changing Culture: An Integrative Review and an Exploration of Future Research Directions”, Religions, 13:843 (2022): 1-32. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13090843], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

Moreau, A. Scott. “Demon”, In Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Baker Reference Library. Baker, 1996.

Onyinah, Opoku. “Principalities and Powers”, In Wonsuk Ma, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, and J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, Eds. Pentecostal Mission and Global Christianity. Regnum, 2014.

–––. “Deliverance as a Way of Confronting Witchcraft in Modern Africa: Ghana as a Case History”, Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 5(1), (2002): 107-34. [Available at: https://www.academia.edu/63615905/Opoku_Onyinah_Deliverance_as_a_Way_of_Confronting_Witchcraft_in_Modern_Africa_Ghana_as_a_Case_History_pp_109_136_], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

Park, Myung Soo. “Korean Pentecostal Spirituality as Manifested in the Testimonies of Believers of the Yoido Full Gospel Church”, Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 7(1), (2004): 35-56. [Available at: https://www.academia.edu/63604223/Myung_Soo_Park_Korean_Pentecostal_Spirituality_as_Manifested_in_the_Testimonies_of_Members_of_Yoido_Full_Gospel_Church_pp_35_56_], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

Prince, Derek. They Shall Expel Demons. Chosen Books, 2020.

Saragih, Jaharianson, and Parulihan Sipayung. “Deliverance, Mental Health, and Prosperity: A Holistic Diaconial Perspective from Indonesian Context”, In Godwin Ampony et al., Eds. International Handbook on Ecumenical Diakonia. Regnum, 2021.

Schaff, Philip. The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 7. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1885. [Available at: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07/anf07], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

Seymour, William. “Pentecost with Signs Following”, The Apostolic Faith Mission. December 1906. [Available at: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5e17afe412fc21ddcb6e961c/5fab0c0e25a290e51f211641_Azusa-Paper-Original-04.pdf], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

Stronstad, Roger. Spirit, Scripture and Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective. 2nd ed. Wipf & Stock, 2019. ProQuest eBook Central.

Twelftree, Graham. In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism Among Early Christians. Baker Academic, 2007.

The General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God. Can Born-Again Believers Be Demon Possessed? Gospel Publishing House, 1972.

Unger, Merrill. What Demons Can Do to Saints. Moody, 1991.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “Exorcism”, USCCB Website, [Available at: https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments-and-sacramentals/sacramentals-blessings/exorcism], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

Wingeier-Rayo, Philip. “The Transculturalization and the Transnationalization of the Government of 12: From Seoul to Bogoto to Charlotte, North Carolina”, In Younghoon Lee, Wonsuk Ma with Kuewon Lee, Eds. Pentecostal Mission and Global Christianity. Regnum, 2014.

Zacharias, H. Daniel. Biblical Greek Made Simple: All the Basics in One Semester. Lexham, 2018.

¹ Sanna Urvas and Markus Nikkanen, “Worldviews beneath Cosmological Kerygma: Demons as a Case Study”, in Kong Hee et al. (eds), Pentecostal Voices Across the Continents Regnum Studies in Mission (Regnum, 2026): 113.

² For example, Prince highlights Jesus casting out demons in a Capernaum synagogue (Mk 1:21-26), after the Sabbath (Lk. 4:40-41), and from the man in Gadara with a legion (Mk 5:9). Prince also draws from the Early Church, referencing Philip’s deliverance ministry in Samaria (Acts 8:6-7) and Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (Acts 19:11-17); see Derek Prince, They Shall Expel Demons (Chosen Books, 2020), chap. 3, eBook.

³ Graham Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism Among Early Christians (Baker Academic, 2007): 46.

⁴ Opoku Onyinah, “Principalities and Powers”, in Wonsuk Ma et al. (eds), Pentecostal Mission and Global Christianity (Regnum, 2014): 153.

⁵ All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the NIV.

⁶ Assemblies of God, “Position Paper on Spiritual Warfare and the Believer”, The General Council of the Assemblies of God Website, Adopted by the General Presbytery in session on 30th July 2019, [Available at: https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers/Spiritual-Warfare-and-the-Believer], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

⁷ Doug Lowenberg, “Demonisation and the Christian Life: How the Devil Influences Believers”, Enrichment Journal (Summer 2013): 87-97, [Available at: https://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/Issues/2013/Summer-2013/Demonization-and-the-Christian-Life], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

⁸ American biblical scholar Merrill Unger defines demonic influence as “the action of demonic powers working to corrupt a person.” [See Merrill Unger, What Demons Can Do to Saints (Moody, 1991): 50]. African scholar J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu differentiates between demonic possession and oppression, defining oppression as “malevolent supernatural powers [that] influence a person’s life for ill,” while possession takes place when spirits “take over the executive faculties of a person.” [See J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, “Signs, Wonders, and Ministry: The Gospel in the Power of the Spirit”, Evangelical Review of Theology 33(1), (2009): 41, [Available at: https://theology.worldea.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ERT-33-1.pdf], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025]].

⁹ A. Scott Moreau, “Demon”, in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Baker Reference Library (Baker, 1996): 164.

¹⁰ The General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God, Can Born-Again Believers Be Demon Possessed? (Gospel, 1972): 2.

¹¹ H. Daniel Zacharias, Biblical Greek Made Simple: All the Basics in One Semester (Lexham, 2018): 285.

¹² William G. MacDonald, “Pentecostal Theology: A Classical Viewpoint”, in Russell Spittler (ed), Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism (Baker, 1976): 64, quoted in Roger Stronstad, Spirit, Scripture and Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective, 2nd ed. (Wipf & Stock, 2019): 42, ProQuest Ebook Central.

¹³ Stronstad, Spirit, Scripture and Theology, 42.

¹⁴ Stronstad, Spirit, Scripture and Theology, 43; The Wesleyan Quadrilateral suggests that our Christian faith is revealed in Scripture but also “vivified in personal experience.” [See Ming Shun Chiang, “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: What Is It and Is It Relevant Today?” Methodist Message, 1st February 2023, [Available at: https://www.methodist.org.sg/methodist-message/the-wesleyan-quadrilateral-what-is-it-and-is-it-relevant-today/], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].] As such, experience does not replace Scripture but helps us understand and apply it in real life.

¹⁵ Antipope Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus: Translated into English with Introduction and Notes, trans. Burton Scott Easton (Cambridge University Press, 1934): 44-45.

¹⁶ Philip Schaff, The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 7 (Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1885): 1102. [Available at: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07/anf07], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

¹⁷ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Exorcism”, USCCB Website, [Available at: https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments-and-sacramentals/sacramentals-blessings/exorcism], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

¹⁸ Paul L. King, “A Historical Survey of Belief and Practices regarding Deliverance of Demonized Christians”, Refleks 3(1), (2004): 53-65, [Available at: https://pentecostalarchives.org/?a=d&d=REF2004-Issue3-1.1.55&e=-------en-20--1--img-txIN------------], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

¹⁹ Frank Bartleman, Azusa Street (Whitaker House, 1982): 64.

²⁰ See William Seymour, “Pentecost with Signs Following”, The Apostolic Faith Mission, December 1906, [Available at: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5e17afe412fc21ddcb6e961c/5fab0c0e25a290e51f211641_Azusa-Paper-Original-04.pdf], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025], who writes, “Can a man have salvation and yet his body be afflicted, which is the work of demons? Yes, we may have salvation and yet disease of the body for, ‘though our outward man perisheth, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.’ Job said when Satan had afflicted his body, ‘I know that my redeemer liveth. And though after my skin worms shall destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.’ (Job 19:26, 27) So though demons were in his flesh, he had Christ within his soul. The demons had afflicted his body with sickness, but yet his soul was free from sin. But did he send for a doctor? No, his trust was in his God, and God delivered him and gave him twice as much as he had before. God has always been the healer of His people, for He says, ‘I am the Lord, thy God that healeth thee.’”

²¹ Stephen Hunt, “Managing the Demonic: Some Aspects of the Neo-Pentecostal Deliverance Ministry”, Journal of Contemporary Religion 13(2), (1998): 216, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13537909808580831], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

²² Opoku Onyinah, “Deliverance as a Way of Confronting Witchcraft in Modern Africa: Ghana as a Case History”, Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 5(1), (2002): 122, [Available at: https://www.academia.edu/63615905/Opoku_Onyinah_Deliverance_as_a_Way_of_Confronting_Witchcraft_in_Modern_Africa_Ghana_as_a_Case_History_pp_109_136_], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025]. It is believed that generational curses manifest in hereditary diseases, mental breakdowns, and repeated unnatural deaths, supported by Scriptures like Exodus 20:4-6 and Deuteronomy 28.

²³ Philip Jenkins, The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South (Oxford University Press, 2006): 106, ProQuest eBook Central; Carlos Annacondia writes about Christians being spiritually oppressed, see Carlos Annacondia, Listen to Me, Satan (Creation House, 2008): 46.

²⁴ Fernando Adolfo Mora-Ciangherotti, “Latin American Megachurches in a Changing Culture: An Integrative Review and an Exploration of Future Research Directions”, Religions 13(9), 843, (2022): 12, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13090843], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

²⁵ Philip Wingeier-Rayo, “The Transculturalization and the Transnationalization of the Government of 12: From Seoul to Bogoto to Charlotte, North Carolina”, in Younghoon Lee et al. (eds), Pentecostal Mission and Global Christianity (Regnum, 2014): 261.

²⁶ Yonggi Cho’s mother-in-law, Choi Ja-sil, who co-founded Yoido Full Gospel Church with Cho) frequently encountered demon-possessed cases. One example is described in Julie C. Ma and Wonsuk Ma, Mission in the Spirit: Towards a Pentecostal/Charismatic Missiology (Regnum, 2010): 252. One Yoido Full Gospel Church member shared how “a demon which caused sickness in her for ten years, was driven out” when Yonggi Cho laid hands on her and prayed. See Myung Soo Park, “Korean Pentecostal Spirituality as Manifested in the Testimonies of Believers of the Yoido Full Gospel Church”, Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 7(1), (2004): 42, [Available at: https://www.academia.edu/63604223/Myung_Soo_Park_Korean_Pentecostal_Spirituality_as_Manifested_in_the_Testimonies_of_Members_of_Yoido_Full_Gospel_Church_pp_35_56_], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

²⁷ Jean DeBernardi, “Global Christian Culture and the Antioch of Asia”, in Lai Ah Eng (ed), Religious Diversity in Singapore (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008): 137.

²⁸ Moses Kumi Asamoah, “Leveraging the Deliverance Phenomenon: Penteco/Charismatic Vista”, Journal of Religion and Health 55(5), (October 2016): 1659, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0209-8], [Last accessed: 27th October 2025].

²⁹ Jaharianson Saragih and Parulihan Sipayung, “Deliverance, Mental Health, and Prosperity: A Holistic Diaconial Perspective from Indonesian Context”, in Godwin Ampony et al. (eds), International Handbook on Ecumenical Diakonia (Regnum, 2021): 492.

³⁰ Saragih and Sipayung, “Deliverance, Mental Health, and Prosperity”, 494.

³¹ Onyinah, “Deliverance”, 134; Onyinah, “Principalities and Powers”, 160.

Session 6

Pentecostals in Societal Engagement: A Theology of Incarnational Transformation

Ulrik Josefsson

Abstract

The Christian faith is formed around Jesus, an obvious fact when reading the Apostles’ Creed with the second article significantly longer than the others. In the Pentecostal tradition, faith is even more Christ-centric with formulations around the full gospel as an example. Jesus is the centre of the theological understanding. Pentecostalism gives attention to the Spirit, as doctrine, sign, and experience. When we peel the onion, layer by layer, we find Jesus everywhere and in every layer – of course as the foundation of statements but also as a lived example and the core of experience. His transformational presence is unique but can also function as a theological paradigm for Christian life in this world. This paper investigates how one can understand Christian presence and engagement in society as incarnational and transformative. Pentecostalism is, in many ways, a practical and concrete type of religion. Some scholars have described it as entrepreneurial, active, or practical. For Pentecostals, faith is not merely an idea but a lived experience. In this sense, it is faith taking concrete form, or in other words, incarnational. Moreover, Pentecostals feel eager to see radical change. Salvation, for them, means becoming a new creation. Spirit baptism fills believers with new power and possibility; the church is the redeemed alternative community. Their whole spirituality is about change, development, or transformation. The main question, however, remains: How can Pentecostal social engagement be understood as incarnational transformation?

Key Words: incarnational, societal engagement, Swedish Pentecostalism, transformation

Introduction

Why should we care for society when we belong to another Kingdom? I sometimes encounter that kind of question from Pentecostal friends. I respond, “Because God cares.” The whole creation belongs to God, and he loves the world. The Spirit is God’s dynamic presence breathing life into every creature. Jesus became one of us in the Incarnation, defeated death through his resurrection, and sustains all things by his powerful word. As his people, our life and actions should, as far as possible, align with God’s identity.

For most people, and hopefully especially for Christians, it is instinctual to help people in need. I remember a discussion some years ago in my local church. At that time, many refugees were arriving in Sweden, among them a lot of young boys without parents. The situation was tense. The social authorities did the best they could, but more help was needed. As a church, we decided to open our facility to host some of the boys. Although initially this began as more of a spontaneous reaction to the crisis, along the line, our motivations became clearer. We wanted to show love and help the individuals in their vulnerable situations. We also wanted to serve as a constructive partner in building a good society alongside the authorities. During the process, we also realised that in this praxis we became better versions of ourselves. We were not only praying and confessing but also building the kingdom of God, and by that having to think more deeply through our theology. Christians in general and Pentecostals in particular need to strengthen their theological foundation for the natural praxis of caring. This article attempts to do so.

The Christian faith is formed around Jesus, an obvious fact when reading the Apostles’ Creed with the second article much more expanded than the others. Jesus is the focal point. Faith in the Pentecostal tradition is even more Christcentric, with formulations around the full gospel where Jesus is the centre of the theological understanding.¹ Distinctive theological expressions for the Pentecostal tradition are pneumatology and eschatology. One can arguably see the event of Pentecost as the inauguration or the foretaste of the coming Kingdom.² When we peel the onion, however, layer by layer, we find Jesus everywhere – of course as the foundation of faith and statements but also as a lived example and the core of experience. Jesus’ incarnational presence is unique but can nevertheless have the function as the theological paradigm for Christian life in this world. How can nurturing a thoroughly incarnational understanding of Christian faith and life deepen one’s societal engagement?

Jesus’ example also shows a radical transgressive presence of the divine amidst this world. He calms storms, turns water into wine, heals the sick, and resurrects the dead. In the end, he defeats death itself and invites humanity through his transformative work into a new and more open reality – the same world and yet another, the same circumstances but with new possibilities. We can describe God’s work through Jesus as a transformation of reality, a transformation that he invites humanity to share, a transformation he challenges humanity to live in and contribute to its realisation. The Christian life is in this sense transformative, and the Christian presence in society can therefore have a transformative effect. This remains the case even more so in the Pentecostal tradition where the life of Jesus finds continuation through the event of Pentecost in what Nimi Wariboko calls the Pentecostal principle.³ How can one live the Pentecostal principle in this world and understand and perform the Pentecostal presence as truly transformational?

This paper investigates how one can understand Christian presence and engagement in society as incarnational and transformative. The study focuses on Pentecostalism, mainly the Swedish Pentecostal Movement. Pentecostalism is in many ways a practical and concrete type of religion. Some scholars have described it as entrepreneurial, active, or practical, or as Luke Bretherton says, “embodied experience.”⁴ Faith for Pentecostals involves not so much an idea but more a lived experience. In that sense, it is faith taking concrete form, or, in other words, incarnational. On the other hand, Pentecostals feel eager to see radical change. Salvation, for Pentecostals, means becoming a new creation and Spirit baptism being filled with new power, possibility, and perspective. The church is the redeemed alternative community. Eschatology is the dream of a Kingdom with new heavens and a new earth. The whole spirituality is about change, development, and transformation. In bringing this into Pentecostal life in society, the main question remains: What might a Pentecostal theology of societal engagement look like, and can we describe it as incarnational transformation?

Situating Pentecostalism

Most scholars today see the root and beginnings of Pentecostalism as multifaceted. The events at Azusa Street in 1906 played a crucial role in the image and spread of Pentecostalism.⁵ At the same time, it is obvious that Pentecostalism arose among theological ideas and revival-oriented practices, most of which preceded Pentecostalism itself.⁶ Many have tried to create a unified definition of the Pentecostal tradition,⁷ and in recent years, the multidimensional image of Pentecostalism formulated by Allan Andersson has gained impact in pointing to the differences within Pentecostalism.⁸ Sometimes Pentecostalism is either presented as a spirituality more than a theological tradition – or as a kind of “evangelical plus.” Increasingly, though, Pentecostalism is understood as a family of denominations, churches, and expressions, constituting a unified church family alongside Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.⁹ Among Pentecostal scholars today, it is more natural to understand Pentecostalism as a Christian tradition in its own right, despite the variations, and from that point engage in a wider theological dialogue.¹⁰ In this article, I draw on the wide expressions of Pentecostalism but take the main material and examples from the Swedish Pentecostal Movement.

In Global Pentecostalism,¹¹ authors Donald Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori show that Pentecostalism, or at least a significant proportion of Pentecostal groups, show strong participation in, and a clear impact on, society and its development. This is not a result of development projects or political agitation but through the way the church is operating – through faith in the transformative power of the gospel; through the empowerment of the people involved; and through worship, experiences, and fellowship.¹² We find a similar reflection by Martina Björkander showing that the transformative nature of Pentecostalism includes a holistic understanding of the gospel.¹³ The engagement with societal development and common good turns out to be rooted in the way Pentecostals look at faith and the Christian life. The economic anthropologist Dena Freeman has shown that Pentecostal groups, in her case in Ethiopia, could demonstrate more far-reaching and lasting social change precisely because the change was rooted in the theological ideas, in the common morality carried by the church, and in the fact that both leaders and participants shared beliefs, experiences, and common life.¹⁴ We can therefore affirm the need to develop a thick ecclesiology and a theology for societal engagement.

The Swedish Pentecostal Movement has from its beginning been characterised by a missionary zeal with strong social pathos. Allan Anderson states that the movement “has made a remarkable contribution […] far beyond its numbers” and that an “important contribution is its holistic approach to missions”, which involved both preaching and contributing to the creation of social institutions such as schools and health centres.¹⁵ Agnes Abuom, leader of the World Council of Churches, similarly emphasises the Swedish Pentecostal Movement’s holistic approach to mission; she points to “the importance of such a holistic approach rather than isolating boundaries. The gospel we proclaim needs to touch the whole of life. That is what Swedish Pentecostal Mission is all about.”¹⁶ Diakonia, social activities, and integral mission have been highly integrated into the gospel in the Swedish Pentecostal Movement.

Thus far in our discussion, we have framed our enquiry – into how to understand Christian presence and engagement in society as incarnational and transformative – within a focus on Pentecostalism and in particular the Swedish Pentecostal Movement and its international ramifications. I have described the theological identity of the Swedish Pentecostal Movement as experience-based practical Christianity through Jesus-centred missionality. Within this articulation, the emphasis on experience and missionality can be characterised by a transformative dimension, while the practically oriented Jesus-centredness has incarnational features. I discuss more deeply below these dimensions of the Swedish Pentecostal Movement’s theological basis for societal engagement. To begin that examination, I first briefly set out what lies behind the terminology of “engagement” in this context.

Social Engagement and Political Theology

I remember a conversation among the board of WAPTE (World Alliance for Pentecostal Theological Education) where we were discussing the theme and terminology for the next issue of the journal Pentecostal Education. Some of our questions included consideration of what we are actually talking about when the gospel, faith, and the church meet the world, society, and social needs. We asked whether we should use the terms social, societal, or community. The concepts overlap but also have different meanings. Then came the question of whether we should talk about awareness, responsibility, engagement, or transformation. It looked like the theme would be “community transformation”, but in the end the discussion led to the formulation of the phrase, “Pentecostal social engagement.”¹⁷ In this article, I have selected to use the term societal engagement: “societal” because I want to avoid ending up in an overly introverted or individual discussion and “engagement” to make room for passion, based on convictions, while emphasising personal agency.

The question of whether and how the church should relate to its surroundings and its associated challenges is as old as the church itself. In the second century, Tertullian asked himself what Athens had to do with Jerusalem to show the distance between faith and the world.¹⁸ For long periods in history, however, the church, faith, the State, and power have almost completely merged.

Within classical Pentecostalism during certain periods, an almost sectarian attitude has been cultivated. The first academic work in modern times on Swedish Pentecostalism has the subtitle, From Sect to Christian Society [my translation], showing the journey from a sectarian mentality to the ambition to protect what the Pentecostals perceived as a Christian society.¹⁹ Amos Yong discusses the different ways in which Pentecostals have related to the surrounding society, drawing out three types of relationship:

•Pentecostal sectarianism that does not want to be contaminated by the surrounding society and so keeps away.²⁰

•Pentecostal conservatism, which according to Yong is more confrontational and argues for theological, moral, and political positions with the aim to try to control.²¹

•Pentecostal progressivism which is more socially activist and, in Yong’s terminology, more prophetic in its relationship with society with the aim to transform the society.²²

In the choice of terminology to discuss the church’s role in and relationship to society, the term political theology has become increasingly common over the past decade. Many classical Pentecostal groups have striven to be apolitical. As a child of a missionary family in South America, I remember how that position was the prominent stance. We were in Bolivia to build churches and help needy people, and we should not be political. The reason for this was twofold: politics were perceived as worldly and corrupting, and, at a strategic level, mission should not offend those in power in order to remain in the country.

The Belgian sociologist, Chantale Mouffe, distinguishes political from politics, observing that politics is about engaging in political parties, elections, and the political system whereas political involves working and acting in the public sphere for the common good.²³ Using this terminology, most Pentecostals have avoided entering politics, but almost all have to different degrees and in different ways been political – some unintentionally, others based on a thoughtfully theological position. Since 2010, several books have been published dealing with public or political Pentecostalism.²⁴

To conclude this section, we can state that almost all Pentecostals are political in the sense of action in the public sphere. We also see a growing reflection of what it means to be Pentecostal and political even if this interest has not yet been fully adopted outside more academic circles. I now turn to look more closely at the case of the Swedish Pentecostal Movement.

The Case of Swedish Pentecostalism

I have previously described the Swedish Pentecostal Movement as experience-based practical Christianity through Jesus-centred missionality. In line with several of the cited researchers, not least Freeman, it is my conviction that for the church’s practices and commitment to build a sustainable and effective society, the church must anchor those practices in and integrate them with theological convictions.²⁵ I therefore want to unpack the condensed description of the theological identity of the Swedish Pentecostal Movement in light of societal engagement. In doing so, I end by reflecting on the two terms incarnational and transformation.

Experiences and affections have played and still play an important role in forming theology and spirituality among Swedish Pentecostals.²⁶ This is in line with the wider description of Pentecostalism. It does not necessarily mean, however, that thought or theology is diluted. Rather, it means that the theological method is different from the classical academic more rationalistic method.²⁷ A Pentecostal epistemology must include practices, experiences, and affections.²⁸ Steven Land goes so far as to believe that affections take precedence in the formation of a Pentecostal spirituality.²⁹ Current research shows a clear connection between the experience-based understanding of faith and life and the societal engagement among Swedish Pentecostals. The encounter with God, the world, and others becomes, for Pentecostals, a way of integrating faith and life, heaven and earth, spiritual and material. In this integrative process, experiential theology plays a significant role both in the formation of one’s own faith and in the encounter with the surrounding society (Josefsson and Wenell, 2025).³⁰

Action-oriented practical Christianity is the second dimension which we need to deal with. The experience-based emphasis could lead to looking inward for affections and emotions. This is balanced within Pentecostal spirituality with an activist and action-oriented trait.³¹ The Swedish Pentecostal pioneer Lewi Pethrus repeatedly spoke about the need for faith to take concrete expression; he used the term practical Christianity in this context.³² An analysis of Swedish Pentecostal preaching from recent decades shows that emphasis on practical Christianity remains strong.³³ Emphasis on action, activity, and practical Christianity was already present during the revival at Azuza Street, with a strong and radical pathos and norm-breaking practices regarding gender, race, and tradition.³⁴ After a highly emotional service, one of the Azuza Street leaders urged, “Do not go from here and talk about the tongues but go and try to get people saved.”³⁵ The Swedish Pentecostal Movement involved many forms of inherent entrepreneurship, but perhaps the clearest expression is found in the diaconal and social field. Caring for the vulnerable has remained a prominent expression of faith. Pentecostals have not perceived this as political commitment; when the movement’s leaders started a political party, the agenda was rather conservative with the ambition to protect Christian values in society. Nevertheless, Swedish Pentecostal emphasis on practical Christianity mostly has been expressed in concern for the vulnerable and a far-reaching social commitment.³⁶

The Christ-centric theology dimension of Swedish Pentecostalism is not undermined by experience-based practical Christianity. Jesus is the centre of Pentecostal spirituality in a way that interacts with the two preceding traits. The primary experience in this revival-oriented Christianity is conversion. Atonement is usually understood in Pentecostalism as an objective reality rooted in Jesus’s vicarious sacrifice on the Cross. However, the reception of this objective reality in salvation has strong and important subjective dimensions. One of these is the intertwined process of conversion, confession, and surrender in which people are expected to function as active participants not in the conditions or reality of salvation but in its reception and appropriation.

As a result, expectation also exists regarding a personal experience of assurance of salvation, expressed in the famous song, “Blessed Assurance.” Jesus is thus the centre of the crucial Pentecostal experience but also the centre of the tapestry of theological convictions that have come to be called the full gospel. Here, Jesus is at the centre as Saviour, Sanctifier, Healer, Spirit baptiser and coming King. In relation to societal engagement, however, Jesus appears more as an example. The early Swedish Pentecostals read the Jesus story through the lens of practical Christianity. Jesus descended, and so should his followers. Jesus went out, met people amidst their everyday lives and often in their vulnerability, and this forms an example that further strengthens the incentives for societal engagement. At the same time, we need to see that Pentecostal Christ-centric societal engagement often ends with the compassion and action for the needy and rarely takes the next step into working for more structural changes.³⁷

Pentecostalism in general is a missionally oriented type of Christianity. The Swedish Pentecostal Movement is very much so.³⁸ The introduction to this article quoted Anderson as saying that the movement has made a global imprint far beyond its size.³⁹ Missiologist David Bundy has made a similar analysis, speaking of disproportionate influence.⁴⁰ For Pentecostals, missionality is about an eagerness to spread the gospel, see people come to faith, and form vibrant and self-sustained local churches. However, it also has to do with having a mission and remaining in motion. In the missional identity, the desire to spread the gospel interacts with activism, Christocentrism, and the desire to bear witness to one’s own experiences. Missionality in general and missionary work in particular offer an arena and practices that connect several other important theological fields. Mission has a strong intrinsic value, reinforced by and intertwining with the necessity of salvation, the experience of the Spirit to provide power for witness, anticipation of Jesus’ return, and the dawn of the new age. All in all, this means that the Pentecostal missiology is strengthened as if by multiplication.⁴¹

Another dimension of missionality is precisely to follow Jesus, the first missionary, and to be led by the Spirit, God’s dynamic presence in the world. A clear and holistic soteriology can also be a driving force for societal engagement.⁴² Jesus-centred missionality is about following Jesus, led by the Spirit to the world where God is already present. Societal engagement is not about taking God into the world but to discover the God who is there. In the encounter with other religions, it is not about winning theological discussions nor about toning down the message about Jesus, but about discovering where Jesus through the Spirit is already present.⁴³ In the encounter with suffering and vulnerability, it is, as it was with Jesus, about meeting people where they are and letting the gospel become the good news that meets real needs. In the encounter with unjust structures, it can be about contributing to liberation and redress for individuals and thus seeing a social change from below.⁴⁴

We have discussed four aspects of the theological identity of the Swedish Pentecostal Movement in light of societal engagement. The overarching question for this article is if and in what way Pentecostal societal engagement can be understood as incarnational transformation. I first address the question of if before I end with a reflection on how.

Societal Engagement as Incarnational Transformation

Pentecostal identity can, as I have shown, be described as a Christ-centric, practical, embodied experience. For most Pentecostals, faith is a personal and inner reality that takes form in real life. When a person is saved, a visible change is expected. The Spirit’s moving comes with concrete utterances like tongues, healing, and miracles. When the church is working, it is forward-looking, active, and entrepreneurial. Pentecostal faith must be manifested, concrete, and embodied.

Incarnation means that the divine becomes material, that God himself becomes human but without abolishing or erasing his original identity. The Incarnation blurs the division between God’s transcendence and his immanence. The exalted God becomes present, the invisible is made visible, and the involvement of God in human life takes concrete form. In the modern study of religion, we can see a material turn, with increasing emphasis placed on material expressions of faith. One of the major sociological perspectives here is the actor-network theory formulated by Bruno Latour, where the actor is seen as embedded in the context of networking factors. It is an emphasis on actorship in context.⁴⁵

In a Pentecostal context, this fits into the image of faith as manifested practical Christianity, where personal experience is partly shaped in the community of other believers, and partly portrayed in a given social context. Thus, it takes concrete form in the society in which the person and congregation are situated. The incarnational dimension of Pentecostal faith is on the one hand founded in theology and on the other in praxis. The theological dimension is the Christcentric spirituality and the immanent presence of Christ through the Spirit that forms the motivation to experience, proclaim, and embody that presence. The more practical side of this is the tendency among Pentecostals to measure God’s presence in visible and concrete utterances.

One can understand all this as incarnational in the sense that the spiritual and otherworldly experience and presence is taking form in the concrete reality of everyday life of the church and the believer. Regarding societal engagement, this emerges as an offspring of the divine love experienced by the believer. God’s love took form in the practical and concrete action of incarnation; in a similar way, one can see practical Christianity as the incarnation of love and divine presence. This is both spiritual and material, both divine and human in the enchanted world of Pentecostal reality.

Pentecostal expression is based in radical and personal experience that do not stay as inner feeling of wellbeing but rather set the person in motion in what can be called missionality. God’s grace is seen as an active element in the believer forming change and transforming heart, not just covering sin and guilt. The Spirit is for Pentecostals not foremost the life-giver but the power-giver who transforms and gives power for life and witness. In the eschatological vision, Pentecostals see the new world coming towards the existing world from the future to transform it into a new heavens and new earth. Pentecostalism has an embedded transformative vision of life and existence.

We can describe the divine presence in ordinary life as transformational. The Spirit was hovering over chaos and turned it into cosmos (Gen. 1). Christ entered into death and darkness and turned this into resurrection (1 Cor. 15). On the Day of Pentecost, ordinary disciples used their normal bodies to speak foreign languages familiar to other people present. The experience of the disciples was transferred by the divine presence into understandable messages to the listeners in Jerusalem (Acts 2). This kind of Christian transformation combines several elements.

A connection occurs between the before and after of transformation in the sense that recognition exists between the two stages; they are both new and the same. In the transfiguration of Jesus, he is completely new but still recognisable. Transformation is both something new and at the same time the same.

Transformation is about divine presence and agency but not without human involvement. Transformation is not built by hard work or human efforts but by God’s active and dynamic presence forming something new within and through the existing. Transformation is also something lasting and not just a moment of heavenly light. It brings forth a new dimension, transcending the limitations of ordinary life and shapes the ordinary human life with extraordinary divine possibilities.

Pentecostal understanding of life and faith is in this regard transformational both in the personal life of the believer, the communal life of the community, and in the life and service in society. When we talk about societal engagement here, it is truly political in the sense that it is seen, visible, and concrete. For most Pentecostals, however, the starting point for transformation is from within and from below. Therefore, societal transformation begins with personal transformation of the heart. From that personal transformation, the rings rippling out on the water change society from within.⁴⁶

This inward focus is both the strength and the weakness of Pentecostal societal engagement. The strength is shown by scholars like Freeman and others who note that transformation tends to be deeper, more lasting, and broader in reach when founded in personal identity, value systems, and embedded praxis. This leads to an integration of different dimensions of life and possibility to sustainability. The weakness is that unjust structures and political limitations are difficult to change through the life of individuals, even if over time those individuals become the many. In recent years, some Pentecostals in countries like Zambia⁴⁷ or in the civil movement around Denis Mukwege in Congo⁴⁸ are taking the lead in political processes and channelling societal engagement into structural transformation. On the other hand, we also see Pentecostal groups supporting leaders with dubious agendas in different parts of the world.

Altogether, it is probably fair to say that the Pentecostal way of thinking is promoting a transformational aspect of Christian life, at least in the case of the Swedish Pentecostal Movement. It is also obvious that incarnational and transformative dimensions fit together in this understanding of Christian faith in that both focus on practical presence and radical transformative change in both personal life and societal engagement. Having addressed the question of if societal engagement can be described as incarnational and transformational within a Pentecostal understanding, I conclude this article with a short reflection on how such incarnational transformation might be expressed in terms of Pentecostal societal engagement

As a junior doctoral student, I spent one semester at the Pentecostal Theological Seminary in Cleveland with scholars such as Steven Land and Cheryl Bridges Johns. I followed one course with Dr Land, and he often asked the students, “Is it this or is it that – and the answer is YES.” He helped us to see how many things are meant to be held together and integrated. In his book, Pentecostal Spirituality, he uses the terms fusion and fission in discussing the tensions in Pentecostal spirituality where fusion denotes that polarities are being hold together.⁴⁹ Bretherton uses the term dyatic for the same tendency in Pentecostal life and thinking.⁵⁰ Pentecostals have, in many cases, tried to separate dimensions from each other into more binary categories such as church as opposed to society, but in forming the theological foundation for societal engagement, I would advocate for a more integrative approach.

In our cosmology, spiritual and material dimensions are intertwined. Soteriologically, holistic salvation is a gospel for both soul and body. In our ecclesiology, we can understand the church as God’s presence in this world. The Spirit infuses every part of creation, and our experience of the Spirit can become an integrating centre. In our eschatological understanding, we bring present and future together where the already informs the not yet and vice versa. In a thoroughly holistic theology, we confess, pray, and act for God’s Kingdom to come. This comes about through an integrative process where the ongoing work of practical Christianity is interrupted by the inbreaking of the divine presence. In this way, Pentecostal societal engagement can be understood and performed as a truly incarnational transformation.

Bibliography

Aboum, Agnes. “Faithful to the Mission”, In Andreas Svedman and Gunnar Swahn, Eds. Called to the Nations. Libris, 2022.

Alegre, Rakel, and Tommy Davidsson. “From Medical Kits to Fighting Rape as a Weapon of War”, In Kimberly Ervin Alexander, Melissa L. Archer, Mark J. Cartledge and Michael D. Palmer, Eds. Sisters, Mothers, Daughters: Pentecostal Perspectives on Violence against Women. Brill Academic, 2022.

Alexander, Estrelda. The Women of Azusa Street. Seymour, 2023.

Anderson, Allan. “Varieties, Taxonomies, Perspectives”, In Allan Anderson, Michael Bergunder, André Droogers, and Cornelis van der Laan, Eds. Studying Global Pentecostalism. University of California Press, 2010.

–––. “Sweden’s Global Footprint”, In Andreas Svedman and Gunnar Swahn, Eds. Called to the Nations. Libris, 2022.

Augustine, Daniela C., and Chris E.W. Green, Eds. The Politics of the Spirit: Pentecostal Reflections on Public Responsibility and the Common Good. Seymour, 2023.

Björkander, Martina. “God’s People – A Missionary Community”, In Andreas Svedman and Gunnar Swahn, Eds. Called to the Nations. Libris, 2022.

Bretherton, Luke. Christ in the Common Life. Eerdmans, 2019.

Bundy, David. Visions of Apostolic Mission. Uppsala University Press, 2009.

Cartledge, Mark J. The Mediation of the Spirit: Interventions in Practical Theology. Pentecostal Manifesto Series. Eerdmans, 2015.

Cartledge, Mark J., Sarah L.B. Dunlop, Heather Buckingham, and Sophie Bremner. Megachurches and Social Engagement: Public Theology in Practice. Vol. 33 of Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies. Brill, 2019.

Castelo, Daniel. Pentecostalism as a Christian Mystical Tradition. Eerdmans, 2017.

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

Dayton, Donald. Theological Roots of Pentecostalism. Baker Academic, 1987.

Freeman, Dena. Pentecostalism and Development. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Freeman, Dena. “Pentecostalism and Economic Development in Sub-Sahara Africa”, In Emma Tomalin, Ed. The Routledge Handbook of Religions and Global Development. Routledge, 2015.

Frestadius, Simo. Pentecostal Rationality: Epistemology and Theological Hermeneutics in the Foursquare Tradition. T&T Clark, 2020.

Hollenweger, Walter. The Pentecostals. SCM Press, 2012.

Hollenweger, Walter. Pentecostalism: Origins and Development Worldwide. SCM Press, 1980.

Jacobsen, Douglas. The World’s Christians. Wiley-Blackwell, 2021.

Johns, Jackie David, and Cheryl Bridges Johns. “Yielding to the Spirit: A Pentecostal Approach to Group Bible Study”, Journal for Pentecostal Theology 1 (1992): 109-34. [Available at: https://www.academia.edu/2954228/Yielding_to_the_Spirit_A_Pentecostal_Approach_to_Bible_Study], [Last accessed: 28th October 2025].

Josefsson, Ulrik. “Rooted in the Bible, Experience and Society”, In Andreas Svedman and Gunnar Swahn, Eds. Called to the Nations. Libris, 2022.

Josefsson, Ulrik, Ed. Pentecostal Education. WAPTE, 2021.

–––. “Nutida svensk pingstpredikan: Analys av tre pingstledares predikningar på Nyhemsveckan”, In Stephan Borgehammar, Sune Fahlgren, Ninna Edgardh, and Stina Fallberg Sundmark, Eds. Gudstjänstens mening. Artos, 2019.

–––. Liv och över nog. Artos, 2005.

Josefsson, Ulrik, and Niclas Lindgren. “State-Church Partnerships: Opportunities and Challenges”, In Wonsuk Ma, Opoku Onyinah, and Rebekah Bled, Eds. The Pandemic and the Holy Spirit: Responses of Spirit-Empowered Communities to COVID-19. ORU Press, 2023.

Josefsson, Ulrik, and Matthew Novachek. “Practitioners and Pentecostalism: An Epistemological Investigation into Learning as Doing, Experience, and Reflection”, Pentecostal Education 7(1), (2022): 102-103.

Josefsson, Ulrik, and Magnus Wahlström, Eds. Teologi för hela skapelsen. Institutet för pentekostala studier, 2017.

Josefsson, Ulrik, and Fredrik Wenell. “Är svenska pingstvänner progressiva?” Scandinavian Journal for Leadership and Theology 12 (May 2025): 93-111. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.53311/sjlt.v12.127], [Last accessed: 28th October 2025].

Land, Steven. Pentecostal Spirituality. Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

McClung, Grant. “Try to Get People Saved: Revisiting the Paradigm of an Urgent Pentecostal Missiology”, In Murray Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, Eds. The Globalization of Pentecostalism. Regnum, 1999.

M’fundisi-Holloway, Naar. “The Role of the Church as a Political Entity: A Case for Zambia”, Pentecostal Education 6(2), (2022): 147-60.

Macchia, Frank. Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God. Pentecostal Manifesto Series. Eerdmans, 2010.

Miller, Donald, and Yamamori, Tetsunao. Global Pentecostalism. University of California Press, 2007.

Morgan, David. “Materiality”, In Michel Stausberg and Steven Engler, Eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Study of Religion. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Mouffe, Chantale. On The Political. Taylor & Francis, 2005.

Mugambi, Kyama. A Spirit of Revitalization: Urban Pentecostalism in Kenya. Studies in World Christianity. Baylor University Press, 2020.

Pethrus, Lewi. Filadelfiaförsamlingens i Stockholm tioårsberättelse. Förlaget Filadelfia, 1921.

Robeck, Cecil M. The Azusa Street Mission and Revival. Thomas Nelson, 2017.

Sahlberg, Carl-Erik. Pingströrelsen och tidningen Dagen: Från sekt till kristet samhälle. Svenska kyrkohistoriska föreningen, 1977.

Smith, James K.A. Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy. Pentecostal Manifesto Series. Eerdmans, 2010.

Stenhammar, Mikael. The Worldview of the Word of Faith Movement. T&T Clark, 2021.

Stephenson, Christopher. Types of Pentecostal Theology. Oxford University Press, 2013.

Studebaker, Steven. From Pentecost to the Triune God. Pentecostal Manifesto Series. Eerdmans, 2012.

Tertullian. “Prescription against Heretics”, New Advent Website. [Available at: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm], [Last available: 28th October 2025].

Thomas, John Christopher. Toward a Pentecostal Ecclesiology. CPT Press, 2010.

Vondey, Wolfgang. Beyond Pentecostalism: The Crisis of Global Christianity and the Renewal of the Theological Agenda. Pentecostal Manifesto Series. Eerdmans, 2010.

Vondey, Wolfgang. Pentecostal Theology: Living the Full Gospel. T&T Clark, 2017.

Wariboko, Nimi. The Pentecostal Principle: Ethical Methodology in New Spirit. Pentecostal Manifesto Series. Eerdmans, 2011.

Warnelid, Martin. When Pentecostals Cry: A Phenomenological Study of Encountering God. Brill, 2025.

Yong, Amos. In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political Theology. Eerdmans, 2010.

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

¹ In relation to the definition of the full gospel, historical divisions exist among Pentecostals in different groups. Still, leading Pentecostal theologians such as Wolfgang Vondey in Pentecostal Theology: Living the Full Gospel (T&T Clark, 2017), Amos Yong in In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political Theology (Eerdmans, 2010), and John Christopher Thomas in Toward a Pentecostal Ecclesiology (CPT Press, 2010) use the paradigm of the full gospel.

² See for example Daniela Augustine and Chris Green (eds), The Politics of the Spirit: Pentecostal Reflections on Public Responsibility and the Common Good (Seymour, 2023) when they talk about the event of Pentecost as the eschatological telos of all creation.

³ Nimi Wariboko, The Pentecostal Principle: Ethical Methodology in New Spirit, Pentecostal Manifesto Series (Eerdmans, 2011).

⁴ Luke Bretherton, Christ in the Common Life (Eerdmans, 2019): 127.

⁵ Cecil M. Robeck, The Azusa Street Mission and Revival (Thomas Nelson, 2017).

⁶ Donald Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Baker Academic, 1987).

⁷ For example, see Walter Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Development Worldwide (SCM Press, 1980) and The Pentecostals (SCM Press, 2012) and Vondey, Pentecostal Theology.

⁸ Allan Anderson, “Varieties, Taxonomies, Perspectives”, in Allan Anderson et al. (eds), Studying Global Pentecostalism (University of California Press, 2010): 13-29. A similar picture can also be found in, for example, Harvey Cox in Fire from Heaven (Addison-Wesley, 1995). From a more theological standpoint, Christopher Stephenson shows in Types of Pentecostal Theology (Oxford University Press, 2013) a variety of Pentecostal theology.

⁹Douglas Jacobsen, The World’s Christians (Wiley-Blackwell, 2021).

¹⁰One example of this is Daniel Castelo in Pentecostalism as a Christian Mystical Tradition (Eerdmans, 2017). Another example is the Pentecostal Manifesto series edited by Amos Yong and James K.A. Smith in which leading Pentecostal scholars engage in a wider theological conversation: Amos Yong, The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal-Charismatic Imagination (Eerdmans, 2011); Frank D. Macchia, Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God (Eerdmans, 2010); James K.A. Smith, Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy (Eerdmans, 2010); Mark J. Cartledge, The Mediation of the Spirit: Interventions in Practical Theology (Eerdmans, 2015); Wariboko, The Pentecostal Principle; Steven M. Studebaker, From Pentecost to the Triune God: A Pentecostal Trinitarian Theology (Eerdmans, 2012); and Wolfgang Vondey, Beyond Pentecostalism: The Crisis of Global Christianity and the Renewal of the Theological Agenda (Eerdmans, 2010).

¹¹Donald Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori, Global Pentecostalism (University of California Press, 2007).

¹²Miller and Yamamori, Global Pentecostalism, 129-59.

¹³Martina Björkander, “God’s People – A Missionary Community”, in Andreas Svedman and Gunnar Swahn (eds), Called to the Nations (Libris, 2022).

¹⁴Dena Freeman, Pentecostalism and Development (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012): 26-27.

¹⁵Allan Anderson, “Sweden’s Global Footprint”, in Andreas Svedman and Gunnar Swahn (eds), Called to the Nations (Libris, 2022): 13-15.

¹⁶Agnes Aboum, “Faithful to the Mission”, in Andreas Svedman and Gunnar Swahn (eds), Called to the Nations (Libris, 2022): 18.

¹⁷The result of the process was Pentecostal Education 6(2), (2021).

¹⁸Tertullian, “Prescription against Heretics”, New Advent, chap. 7 (“Pagan Philosophy…”), [Available at: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm], [Last accessed: 28th October 2025].

¹⁹Carl-Erik Sahlberg, Pingströrelsen och tidningen Dagen: Från sekt till kristet samhälle (Svenska kyrkohistoriska föreningen, 1977).

²⁰Yong, In the Days of Caesar, 27-31.

²¹ Yong, In the Days of Caesar, 31-34.

²² Yong, In the Days of Caesar, 34-38.

²³ Chantale Mouffe, On the Political (Taylor & Francis, 2005): 17-39.

²⁴Here are just a small sample: Yong, In the Days of Caesar; Mark Cartledge et al., Mega Churches and Social Engagement: Public Theology in Practice, vol. 33 of Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies (Brill, 2019); Bretherton, Christ and the Common Life; Kyama Mugambi, A Spirit of Revitalization: Urban Pentecostalism in Kenya, Studies in World Christianity (Baylor University Press, 2020); Josefsson, (ed), Pentecostal Education, a special issue on Pentecostal social engagement; Daniela C. Augustine and Chris E.W. Green, (eds), The Politics of the Spirit: Pentecostal Reflections on Public Responsibility and the Common Good (Seymour, 2023).

²⁵ Dena Freeman, “Pentecostalism and Economic Development in Sub-Sahara Africa”, in Emma Tomalin (ed), The Routledge Handbook of Religions and Global Development (Routledge, 2015): 117-23.

²⁶ Ulrik Josefsson. Liv och över nog (Artos, 2005): 365-66; Martin Warnelid, When Pentecostals Cry: A Phenomenological Study of Encountering God (Brill, 2025), forthcoming.

²⁷ See for example Smith, Thinking in Tongues, 48-85; Simo Frestadius, Pentecostal Rationality: Epistemology and Theological Hermeneutics in the Foursquare Tradition (T&T Clark, 2020): 215-17.

²⁸ Jackie David Johns and Cheryl Bridges Johns, “Yielding to the Spirit: A Pentecostal Approach to Group Bible Study”, Journal for Pentecostal Theology 1 (1992): 109-34, [Available at: https://www.academia.edu/2954228/Yielding_to_the_Spirit_A_Pentecostal_Approach_to_Bible_Study], [Last accessed: 28th October 2025]; see also Ulrik Josefsson and Matthew Novachek, “Practitioners and Pentecostalism: An Epistemological Investigation into Learning as Doing, Experience, and Reflection”, Pentecostal Education 7(1), (2022): 102-103.

²⁹ Steven Land, Pentecostal Spirituality (Sheffield Academic Press, 1993): 47-48.

³⁰ Ulrik Josefsson and Fredrik Wenell, “Är svenska pingstvänner progressiva?” Scandinavian Journal for Leadership and Theology 12 (May 2025): 93-111, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.53311/sjlt.v12.127], [Last accessed: 28th October 2025].

³¹ Josefsson. Liv och över nog, 323-25.

³² Lewi Pethrus, Filadelfiaförsamlingens i Stockholm tioårsberättelse (Förlaget Filadelfia, 1921): 55.

³³ Ulrik Josefsson. “Nutida svensk pingstpredikan: Analys av tre pingstledares predikningar på Nyhemsveckan”, In Stephan Borgehammar et al. (eds), Gudstjänstens mening (Artos, 2019).

³⁴ Estrelda Alexander, The Women of Azusa Street (Seymour, 2023): 9-16, 179-84.

³⁵ Grant McClung, “Try to Get People Saved: Revisiting the Paradigm of an Urgent Pentecostal Missiology”, in Murray Dempster et al. (eds), The Globalization of Pentecostalism (Regnum, 1999): 35.

³⁶ Ulrik Josefsson and Magnus Wahlström (eds), Teologi för hela skapelsen (Institutet för pentekostala studier, 2017): 7-20.

³⁷ Josefsson and Wahlström (eds), Teologi för hela skapelsen, 7-20.

³⁸ Sahlberg, Missionens historia genom 2000 år, 146-49.

³⁹ Anderson, “Sweden’s Global Footprint”, 13-15.

⁴⁰ David Bundy, Visions of Apostolic Mission (Uppsala University Press, 2009), 1-4.

⁴¹ Ulrik Josefsson, “Rooted in the Bible, Experience and Society”, in Andreas Svedman and Gunnar Swahn (eds), Called to the Nations (Libris, 2022): 32-47.

⁴² Björkander, “God’s People”, 78-97.

⁴³ Björkander, “God’s People”, 97-102.

⁴⁴ Ulrik Josefsson and Niclas Lindgren, “State-Church Partnerships: Opportunities and Challenges”, in Wonsuk Ma et al. (eds), The Pandemic and the Holy Spirit: Responses of Spirit-Empowered Communities to COVID-19 (ORU Press, 2023): 137-57.

⁴⁵ David Morgan, “Materiality”, in Michel Stausberg and Steven Engler (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Study of Religion (Oxford University Press, 2016): 271-89.

⁴⁶ Another stream exists in Pentecostalism forming a theology where the church through the power of the Spirit is expected to rule and dominate; this is often called Dominion theology. See Mikael Stenhammar, The Worldview of the Word of Faith Movement (T&T Clark, 2021).

⁴⁷ Naar M’fundisi-Holloway, “The Role of the Church as a Political Entity: A Case for Zambia”, Pentecostal Education 6(2), (2022): 147-60.

⁴⁸ Rakel Alegre and Tommy Davidsson, “From Medical Kits to Fighting Rape as a Weapon of War”, in Kimberly Alexander et al. (eds), Sisters, Mothers, Daughters: Pentecostal Perspectives on Violence against Women (Brill Academic, 2022): 154-84.

⁴⁹ Steven Land, Pentecostal Spirituality (Sheffield Academic Press, 1993): 92.

⁵⁰ Bretherton, Christ in the Common Life, 130.

A Response to Ulrik Josefsson’s “Pentecostals in Societal Engagement: A Theology of Incarnational Transformation”

Joel Agpalo Tejedo

By way of introduction, I begin with an interesting story about three religious leaders who were talking about the severity of graft and corruption in their respective countries:

The Indonesian Imam said, “Bribery in Indonesia is bad; government agencies always receive money under the table.”

The Buddhist monk claimed, “It is much worse in Thailand; government officials do it over the table.”

Then the two asked the Filipino bishop, “How about in the Philippines?”

“In the Philippines,” he said, “We take even the table.”

I happened to ask my Pentecostal students when I was teaching in American Samoa years ago about how they do corruption in Samoa, and they told me, “Here in Samoa, we eat even the table.”

I congratulate Dr Josefsson for his excellent paper here at the Europe-Asia Pentecostal Global Summit. I take it as an honour to have the opportunity to respond to his ideas and concepts which he has communicated to global Pentecostals, especially Asian Pentecostals. Reading his paper not only shows us the complex problems in our society, but it also shows us who we are as people of the Spirit, why societal engagement matters, and what potential contributions we can make in our society. In contrast to the religious leaders I mentioned earlier who were only talking about the problems in our society, Dr Josefsson also proposes “incarnational transformation” as the challenging pathway to effect genuine social change in our society.

Rationalisations of Societal Engagement of Pentecostals

Josefsson’s paper centres on the theological foundation and rationalisation of Pentecostal theology for societal engagement, which he calls “incarnational transformation.” His paper is rooted in the idea that God, after creating the whole creation, was involved in the affairs of the whole created order – breathing, identifying, and sustaining everything so all life would flourish and be protected. Josefsson asserts at the outset of his paper that Pentecostals should care about the whole of creation because God cares. His Spirit overshadowed and breathed all of life and, at Jesus’s incarnation, our Lord did not remain distant but identified himself among us.

Josefsson is right that Pentecostals are confronted with societal issues which require them to be responsible, incarnational, and transformative in their action. His church realised that responding to the vulnerable refugees coming to Sweden was not only a collaborative effort of government and civil society organisations such as the church but that such a response indeed reflected the very heart of the mission of Jesus. Josefsson argues that the Christian faith, as believed and lived out by Pentecostals, was formed and shaped by their understanding of Jesus’s incarnation and transformative action on earth. In the New Testament, we see Jesus, according to Josefsson, as radical, aggressive, and transformative when it comes to confronting social reality. However, Jesus’ way of transforming social reality cannot only be mediated by his sole power and presence. Rather, this takes place by inviting human beings – especially his children – to partner with God in this incarnational and transformative action in our broken world. For Josefsson, the Pentecostal Movement is the most concrete, entrepreneurial, and practical type of religion that can effect genuine transformation in society due to its Christo-centric theology, pneumatological experiences, and eschatological expectations. Pentecostals believe in a radical change demonstrated in their salvation experience and in the power of the Holy Spirit who creates a new community.

Who We Are as People of the Spirit

Building his arguments from the work of Pentecostal scholars and theologians, Josefsson situates Pentecostalism as a multifaceted “family of denominations, churches, and expressions, constituting a unified church family alongside Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.”¹ He then cites Donald Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori as showing that these Spirit-filled people “show strong participation in, and clear impact on, society and its development […] operating–through faith in the transformative power of the gospel.”² This far-reaching and lasting social change, Josefsson notes, was rooted in Pentecostals’ theological ideas, a common belief in morality shared in the community of believers. Therefore, with these characteristics of Pentecostals as a Spirit-filled religion, “societal engagement” is the appropriate concept when it comes to dealing with the issues and challenges that surround the church. Josefsson criticises Pentecostals for being sectarian and apolitical in the past but encourages them to reappraise their relationship to society. He suggests that Pentecostals should develop a political theology that guides their action in the public sphere.

Using Swedish Pentecostals as a case in his paper, Josefsson underscores four aspects of the theological identity of Swedish Pentecostals as people. In contrast to the academic and rationalistic method of spiritual formation, he points out that Pentecostals must increase practices, experiences, and affections, translating those emotive practices into social activism and action-oriented activities fuelled and shaped by their Christo-centric theology and empowered missionally oriented type of Christianity. For Josefsson, these aspects frame our Pentecostal theology of societal engagement.

Pathways of Translating Societal Engagement: Incarnational and Transformative

The last section of Josefsson’s study proposes that Pentecostal societal engagement be expressed as incarnational transformation. This recommendation is rooted in the idea that Pentecostal people are Christo-centric, experiential, and practical segments of Christianity, therefore faith need not be privately practised but lived out in public. By incarnation, he means that the “divine” becomes material, the invisible becomes visible, and the concrete expression between the transcendence and the immanence of God, the interplay of theology and praxis, all are expressed in divine love by Spirit-filled believers.

Josefsson further explains that when these experiences of Pentecostal faith are expressed internationally, it sets believers into motion to become missional – creating change and transformation in individuals and societies. Having the example of Jesus and the ordinary disciples at Pentecost, Pentecostal believers have the potential, Josefsson holds, to transform chaotic situations into the creation of a just, loving, and transformed society. This can take place when Pentecostals translate their incarnational theology into praxis.

Josefsson concludes by calling like-minded Pentecostals to advocate for the integration and intertwining of spiritual and material dimensions – a holistic salvation that addresses the issue of soul and body, the theology of Spirit that permeates everything, and the eschatology that brings together the present and future. For Josefsson, this is the whole idea of being a Pentecostal in societal engagement – a theology of incarnational transformation.

Evaluation and Recommendation

This paper invites us to understand more deeply what we should think, as Pentecostals, about our theology of societal engagement. It acquaints us with the growing Pentecostal scholarly literature dealing with Pentecostal social/societal engagement. It can serve as a good theological resource for a new breed of Pentecostal scholars and researchers to frame a grounding theology of societal engagement. Surely, it will add to the library of knowledge created by Pentecostal scholars of the past and present.

The concept of societal engagement is not just a new grammar of faith being used by the church in general or the Pentecostal Movement in particular but a sociological theory popularised by prominent social scientists like Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman, and Robert Putnam. According to these scholars, both religious and non-religious organisations who are socially engaged have greater political voices in society; they can convert their social capital into economic-well-being and will become happier and healthier people in the community.

No doubt the doctrine of incarnation provides a theological template that should challenge Pentecostals to become incarnational in their praxis of ministry and mission. To further establish the conceptual and theological link that the church is the continuing incarnation of Jesus in society today should be emphasised more – not only to understand the rich conceptual framework of the theology of incarnation by New Testament writers – for Pentecostals to appreciate deeper its implications in the context of church societal engagement.

For instance, the concepts of likeness (katartizo) (Lk. 6:40; Rom. 8:29; 1 Jn 3:2); the word written in the flesh (Jn 1:14; 2 Cor. 3:3); reflecting Christ (Mt. 5:14; Jn 8:12; Acts 11:26); and missio Dei (Jn 20:21)³ are all vital examples that the body of Christ is the continuing incarnation of Jesus on earth today.

I suggest that a foundational theology of Pentecostals – that the Spirit at work in the Old Testament and given to Jesus in fullness, was the same Spirit who empowered the church to continue the incarnation of Jesus in our society – should be included as an important theological theme in establishing our Pentecostal theology of societal engagement. This foundational Pentecostal theology once overlooked should be explored more. We must communicate a substantive Pentecostal theology of incarnational and transformative societal engagement.

Additionally, I recommend that if Josefsson is pleased to communicate that Swedish Pentecostalism is an important case study with the capacity to interplay theology into praxis, then he must provide hard evidence to demonstrate that, within Swedish Pentecostal churches and organisations, incarnational and transformative societal engagement exists as functional among Swedish Pentecostals. As we Asian Pentecostals say, “To see is to believe.” Where is the hard evidence, and how do Swedish Pentecostals do societal engagement that is both incarnational and transformative? How do Swedish Pentecostals address the issues of increasing migration, homelessness, poverty, etc? What are the expressions of holistic, integral mission practiced by Swedish Pentecostals? For Asian Pentecostals, is an important element to flesh out in the paper so that we have something to emulate and perhaps adopt. I recognise that he limited his study on the conceptual nature of Pentecostal theology of societal engagement; therefore, the task remains for our new breed of Pentecostal scholars to provide evidence for this excellent theology.

Finally, I wonder whether Pentecostal societal engagement can be more pronounced, incarnational, and transformative when Pentecostal thinkers in Sweden or Europe can become prophetic by increasingly making themselves visible in public dialogues, discourses, and debates in the public sphere? I observe an acute need for Pentecostal apologetics trained to be dialogic in public. I rarely find Pentecostals confronting secular philosophies invading Europe today. For millennia, the Bible served as a game changer for the shaping, forming, and creation of Western civilisation. For the West, it is not the Greeks or the Romans who shaped Western civilisation but rather the Christian religion. Christianity was and is the most satisfying, revolutionary, and transformative religion to shape Western civilisation.⁴ With all the current religious and secular ideologies swimming in the seas of Western civilisation, Christianity cannot afford to be neutral. It must defend its most cherished beliefs and values or else religious militants and secular ideologies will replace the very foundation and core values of its existence.

How I wish that Pentecostals in Sweden would join other Christian thinkers in Europe to return the God hypothesis to their universities soon? It is my humble prayer that Pentecostals in Sweden and across other parts of Europe will welcome and open their churches to migrants from the Global South contributing immensely to the refuelling of faith in the religious landscape of Europe. Will we see the rebirth of belief in God soon? Will there be a coming revival for Europe? I earnestly pray that Pentecostals in Sweden and the whole of Europe will increasingly engage their faith and spirituality publicly.

Bibliography

Holland, Tom. Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World. Little, Brown, 2019.

Jacobsen, Douglas. The World’s Christians. Wiley-Blackwell, 2021

Miller, Donald, and Tetsunao Yamamori. Global Pentecostalism. University of California Press, 2007.

¹ Douglas Jacobsen, The World’s Christians (Wiley-Blackwell, 2021), quoted in Ulrick Josefsson, “Pentecostals in Societal Engagement: A Theology of Incarnational Transformation”, in Kong Hee et al. (eds), Pentecostal Voices Across the Continents Regnum Studies in Mission (Regnum, 2026), 141.

² Donald Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori, Global Pentecostalism (University of California Press, 2007), quoted in Josefsson, “Pentecostals in Societal Engagement”, 144.

³ All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the NIV.

⁴ Tom Holland, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World (Little, Brown, 2019).

Session 7

The Church as Scandal of Salvation: Pentecost and the Continuity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Wolfgang Vondey

Abstract

This presentation raises the question of the continuity of the church with the life of Jesus, that is, what the Scriptures call the scandal of Christ. The use of the term scandal is derived from the Greek skandalon as used in the New Testament. In its ancient usage, the root of the term identifies the “means whereby one closes something” and refers to the mechanism sealing a trap to which the bait is mounted. The trigger is the stick or the stone preventing the trap from closing, but once removed, along with the bait, the victim is caught and unable to escape. A typical use of this image in the New Testament is to translate skandalon as “stumbling block”, a metaphor applied repeatedly to Jesus and to the gospel. The story of Jesus exhibits a striking pattern of division, culminating in the public scandal of his criminal trial and crucifixion. In turn, this scandal which forms the core of the Christian gospel is itself portrayed as a “stumbling block” to Jesus’ followers, Jews and Gentiles alike. However, few studies have examined the meaning of this scandal, identified how it works, or explored its consequences for the life of the Christian community today. This presentation examines how the scandal of Christ continues to function in the life of the apostolic community and, by extension, in the church today. It proceeds in four steps: (1) an explanation of the scandal found in the gospel of Christ, (2) the identification of the mechanism of the scandal, (3) an exposition of how this mechanism continues in the church at Pentecost, and (4) a discussion of the way the church today can endorse this scandal and how this task reflects the challenges that churches face in today’s world.

Key Words: church, scandal, Jesus, flesh, salvation

Introduction

The history of early Christianity is frequently told in stories of outrage and disgrace.¹ The story of Jesus, especially, culminates in the public scandal of his criminal trial and execution. The advent of the church at Pentecost presents an immediate case of public offence following the scandal of Jesus. Today, however, Christianity has largely lost touch with the public scandal that characterised Jesus and his disciples. Instead, the history of Christianity is convoluted with myths and controversies aimed at evading any form of scandalous behaviour.² Scandals are indications of the need to reform, at best, or are to be avoided altogether.³ Contemporary scandals among church leaders and clergy have discredited the notion of a scandalous community as unfit to apply to the Christian life. Among the Christian values of love and tolerance, the prominence of seeker-friendly churches and entertaining worship, and the popularity of personal faith and private spirituality, the public scandal has lost its place.⁴ As a result, we know very little about the nature of the biblical scandal, what is at the heart of the scandal of Jesus Christ, and whether the church can avoid this scandal if it follows in the footsteps of Jesus. I want to address this dilemma by explaining the mechanism of the scandal in the life of Jesus and at Pentecost with the aim of pointing the church to the uncomfortable discovery that to be a follower of Christ is not an escape to a private and spiritualised life of a gospel of bliss but a public witness to a gospel that upsets and corrects for the sake of the salvation of the world.

The Nature of the Biblical Scandal

The origin of the word scandal in most of the world’s languages derives from the Greek term skandalon. In its original sense in the ancient world, the word identifies the “means whereby one closes something” and is etymologically connected with the ideas of “springing forward and back” or “mounting” and “slamming.”⁵ In its figurative sense, skandalon refers to the mechanism sealing a trap to which the bait is mounted. The trigger is the stick or stone preventing the trap from closing, but once removed along with the bait, the victim is caught and unable to escape. Hence, the scandal constitutes the risk for the unsuspecting victim and, in its metaphorical sense, the mechanism becomes identified with the threat of entrapment and the trap itself: the skandalon marks an obstacle, a hindrance and offence and thus becomes a reason for confusion, fear, and resentment.

The action of the scandal involves the notions of stumbling, striking, or dashing against something, either in the active sense of pushing or knocking someone down or passively in the sense of slipping, falling, succumbing or suffering hurt and misfortune.⁶ The idea of stumbling occurs particularly often in metaphors involving the image of the stone or a path, usually with a negative connotation of scandalising as the placement of a stumbling block or obstacles before others.⁷ This sense of the scandal entered into popular ancient use as a figurative designation for the instrument of suffering harm and adversity. In the religious context, the scandal became a warning of potential obstacles of the faith, including heresy and idolatry, both in the sense of warning against actively teaching false doctrine and in the passive sense of being led astray into doubt and apostasy.⁸ Hence, the act of offence includes always both the one who scandalises and the one who is scandalised. This distinction entered the world of the New Testament nowhere more clearly than regarding the identity and destiny of Jesus (Mt. 13:57; 26:31; 33:11; Mk 6:3; Lk. 7:23; Jn 6:61).

The Scandal of Jesus Christ

Luke offers perhaps “one of the purest expressions of the central New Testament concept” that identifies the scandal with the messianic character of Jesus.⁹ In the unfolding story of his ministry, it is the fate of Jesus culminating in his suffering and crucifixion that marks the direct cause of offence, and Jesus himself exclaims to his disciples that “all you shall be scandalised in me” (Mt. 26:31, Douay-Rheims Bible). The subtle difference between the scandal as a form of offence located in Jesus and the scandalising as a response to Jesus allows for an important distinction.¹⁰ Jesus’ own perception of being scandalous becomes inevitably apparent in his rejection by others (see Mt. 13:57; 15:12; 17:27; Mk 2:16; Lk. 5:30; Jn 6:61).¹¹ Put differently, the scandal is triggered not by his own actions but in the public response, so that Jesus can say “blessed is anyone who takes no offence at me” (Lk. 7:23).¹² Jesus is eminently aware of his own identity as the mechanism of offence (see Mt. 11:6; Mk 12:10; Jn 11:9) and finds this characteristic predicted of the messiah in the Jewish scriptures (see Ps. 118:22; Zech. 13:7).¹³ Yet, Jesus offends only when he becomes an obstacle, and only when others are scandalised by Jesus is the mechanism of the offence exposed. It is not Jesus but those who are scandalised who initiate the scandal. The tension between the offence located in Jesus and its scandalising effect in the response of others provides important insight in the anatomy of his scandal.

The most immediate offence of Jesus is his outward observable behaviour, especially his public practices. Often seemingly in direct conflict with religious customs, social expectations, cultural norms, and political regulations, the history of Jesus tells the story of a scandalous outsider. By healing on the Sabbath, Jesus enflamed Jewish debates about Jewish laws and customs (see Mt. 12:10; Mk 1:25; 3:2; Lk. 4:39; 6:7; 13:14; Jn 7:23; 9:16).¹⁴ The care for the sick, the poor, and the outcasts of society was a hallmark of his life, and the Pharisees were regularly offended that Jesus “welcomes sinners and eats with them” (Lk. 15:1). His radical companionship with people at the margins, including his fellowship with women, offered one of the most frequent grounds for offence (Mt. 11:19; Mk 2:16; Lk. 7:34).¹⁵ Not only was it a common occurrence to find “sinners and tax collectors” (Mt. 9:10-17; Mk 2:15-22; Lk. 5:29-39) in his audience, but his custom of attending meals with them uninvited earned him the reputation of being “a glutton and a drunkard” (Mt. 11:19; Lk. 7:34).¹⁶ Jesus did not fit the public image of a religious leader let alone the normative Jewish expectations of the “Christ.”

Intimately connected with his scandalous behaviour is the manner and content of Jesus’ teaching. The full force of the scandal is found in Jesus’s teaching regarding his own fate, where the mechanism of the scandal is triggered by his contradiction of the dominant messianic expectations – or more precisely – by his followers’ rejection of Jesus’ prediction of his own suffering, death, and resurrection. Despite Jesus’ warning that he had taught the disciples everything so that they may not be scandalised (Jn 16:1), Jesus’ public trial and death ultimately become a scandal to both the political authorities (Mt. 27:64; 28:12; Acts 2:31; 4:2; 10:40) and the disciples (Mt. 24:11; Mk 16:11; Lk. 24:25-26; Jn 20:9, 25). The offence of this scandal divides the entire world. From the perspective of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:18, the “stumbling block” is the proclamation of the crucified Christ, which divides not only the Jews amongst themselves but the whole world into “those who are perishing” and “those who are being saved.”¹⁷ In 1 Peter 2:7, similarly, the stumbling block of the Cross divides the world principally into those “who believe” and “those who do not believe.” Yet, while the scope of the scandal is universal, the mechanism is not triggered by Jesus’ own action but by anyone who attempts to oppose and remove the scandal. Moreover, the full force of Jesus’ scandal becomes evident not in its universal distribution but in its effectiveness among Jesus’ own followers. The culmination of this internal scandal is particularly visible in response to Jesus’ teaching following the multiplication of bread to feed a crowd of five thousand (Jn 6:25-71).

Although it is the audience who draws explicit parallels between Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand and God’s provision of manna for the Israelites in the wilderness (Ex. 16:4, 15; Ps. 78:24; Neh. 9:15; Jn 6:31), Jesus instead rebukes them for their literal interpretation.¹⁸ The audience tied the bread incorrectly and exclusively to Moses as the source and model of redemption. Instead, Jesus argues that it was not Moses who had provided the manna but God (v. 32). His teaching breaks with the identification of the bread as ordinary “loaves” and shifts to the “true bread from heaven” (v. 32) that is then identified as “the bread from God […] which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (v. 33).¹⁹ Offended by Jesus’ claim to be “the bread that came down from heaven” (v. 42), the audience distances itself from him, and the text says, “the Jews began to complain” (Jn 6:41), echoing the murmuring of the Israelites in the wilderness. Yet, the offence increases to the breaking point with Jesus’ explanation that the bread he will give them is his own “flesh” (v. 52).²⁰ Jesus’ final response to their dispute unleashes the full force of the offence, dividing not only his audience in the synagogue but his own disciples:

Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which the ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever. (Jn 6:53-58)

In a provocative shift of subject from God to himself, the bread of life (in the present context and in the wilderness) is instead given by Jesus, and even more controversially, it is actually identical with him.²¹ In the end, his exposition of the bread returns to the beginning claim that God gives the true bread from heaven, albeit now it is Jesus’ flesh that is true food and his blood that is true drink (vv. 31 and 55).

Jesus’ identification as the source and material of the bread is an offence in its own right, but the encouragement to eat his flesh and drink his blood while he is still alive is even more scandalous.²² The disciples respond with bewilderment and rejection, and many find “this teaching” too difficult to accept (Jn 6:60). In turn, Jesus not only questions rhetorically whether his followers have now been “scandalised: but suggests again that among his disciples “there are some who do not believe” (v. 64). We find Jesus’ followers at a turning point in their relationship with Christ and are told that “because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him” (v. 66). The scandal had reached deeply into the core of his followers, and eventually Jesus questions even the original twelve whether they wished to leave him. Although they affirm their belief in Jesus as the Christ, he exposes that they are in fact the real subject of the scandal: “One of you is a devil” (v. 70). John’s Gospel adds that Jesus was speaking of Judas Iscariot (v. 71), who would later betray him, yet in the history of the scandal now attributed to the apostles, we find that Judas is not the only offence to Jesus but that the scandal had penetrated the entire Christian community.

The Mechanism of the Christian Scandal

The mechanism of the scandal is deeply rooted in the Cross. However, this mechanism is not triggered by the crucifixion nor by Jesus’ own endorsement of the Cross or the violent act of his execution, but by the rejection of Jesus’ fate among his own followers. The earliest manifestation of this mechanism appears as soon as Jesus began to proclaim his suffering and death. With immediate focus on Peter, Matthew 16 tells us that the apostle took Jesus aside “and began to rebuke him” (v. 22). In a sharp reprimand, the emboldened apostle corrects his own master: “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you” (v. 22). In turn, Jesus, who had just named Peter the “rock” upon which he will build his church (v. 18), reacts by identifying the apostle as a skandalon, a stumbling block, and more vividly as “Satan” (v. 23) who stands in his way to the Cross.²³ The close proximity of admiration and accusation, following and deserting, in the same person, reveals the dual nature of the offence: scandalised by Jesus’ endorsement of the Cross, Peter has now become a scandal for Christ. In a striking development, Peter’s instrumental use echoes that of Jesus: they are both the stones of foundation and of stumbling.²⁴ Jesus and Peter exemplify what we might call the “law of scandal”²⁵ that “whoever scandalises others is first scandalised himself.”²⁶

The confrontation of Jesus and Peter and their mutual scandalisation by the other exposes the full offensive violence of the gospel. The Cross is consistent with Jesus’ teaching but conflicts with the disciples’ expectations of the Messiah and ultimately of themselves as followers of the Christ. They are scandalised by the despair of this irreconcilability, which eventually becomes the occasion for their own denial and forsaking of Jesus. The relationship of Jesus and Peter shows that the risk of the Christian scandal is not only to be offended but, by being scandalised, to become the cause of another scandal, which threatens even the potency of the original offence. In the heat of the scandal, the scandalised Peter, already declared to be the foundation of Christ’s church, stands at a diabolical distance from Christ, because Jesus, now scandalised by Peter, resists the pressures of his demands, which have not only aligned with the normative expectations but become a destructive voice for the dominant authority. Jesus resists the demands of authority vocalised by Peter who by being scandalised threatens Jesus’ identity and destiny.²⁷ And Jesus emerges from this conflict once more as a scandalous figure through both his humiliation by and resistance to his own followers.²⁸

Any resistance to the norms of authority only further enforces the scandal. As those who are scandalised by Jesus begin to challenge and criticise Jesus for his actions, he responds with equal criticism and condemnation.²⁹ Rather than avoid the scandal, Jesus instead responds by offering a subversive alternative to the model of the dominant expectations.³⁰ In doing so, he both confirms the scandal and bears its consequences. Paradoxically, the law of scandal is not aimed at abandoning the offence but at increasing its scandalous potential. Hence, Jesus’ parables destabilise and reconstitute the entire familiar world and interpretive universe of the Jews.³¹ His behaviour towards social outcasts and companionship with sinners rejects and reorganises normative roles, identities, and relationships.³² His teaching radically shatters expectations of the Messiah and assembles a new image of the kingdom of God that fully embraces the scandal of the cross. Jesus’ response to the scandalised authority is his own flesh, which both literally and symbolically endures the scandal in his own suffering and crucifixion.

The disciples learned that the overthrow of the norms and expectations of authority is aimed at liberating the world for the acceptance of the scandal albeit transformed for the purposes of God. The scandal of the crucified Messiah therefore demands an understanding of God and the church that does not resist the scandal but refuses its suppression. The law of scandal brings to the church similar consequences to those suffered by Jesus, including persecution, imprisonment, suffering, and death. In other words, the church retains Jesus’ power to offend and to be offended as both the model and anti-model of its own existence. The gospel of God crucified in Christ is also the scandal of the church because it demands a fundamental decision: to accept the offence or to be scandalised. Yet, to accept the offence is not the route for escape but for participation; when the church arose into the public world at Pentecost, it emerged as a partner in the scandal.

The Scandal of Pentecost

At Pentecost, the scandal of Christ manifested in his flesh continues in the outpouring of the Spirit of Christ “on all flesh” (Acts 2:17). The church emerges in public view not in complete contrast to Jesus but in continuity with the original offence. Where the scandal of Jesus directs the attention to the scandal of the Word of God that had become flesh, Pentecost directs the attention to the scandal of the church “in the flesh” that is baptised with the Holy Spirit.³³ As much as it is impossible to separate the coming of the Messiah from the flesh of Jesus, so it is impossible to separate the outpouring of the Spirit from the flesh of his followers. It is a scandalous discovery that the physical, biological, physiological, and psychological dimensions of human nature are the co-operative conditions for the Word and the Spirit in the world.

The scandal of the flesh is demonstrated with particular clarity in the visual, behavioural, linguistic, and prophetic behaviour of the disciples.³⁴ Like Jesus, the church offends when it becomes an obstacle to the norms of authority, and in response, the intoxicating effects of receiving the Spirit in the flesh are trivialised, rationalised, and suppressed by the public accusation of the disciples’ drunkenness. The obvious intoxication with the Spirit finds a climax in the further offence of the disciples captured in their speaking in other tongues.³⁵ That the church speaks not in its own language but in all the languages of the world widens the Christian scandal to global proportions. Yet, the ecstatic character of the Christian community and its universal prophetic claims are the fertile ground for the astonishment and wonder that lead the audience to the gospel of the crucified Christ – and to its scandal. It is the “incarnational” character of the divine revelation operative in human flesh anointed by God’s Spirit that becomes a witness to the redemption and the judgment of all flesh. The birth of the church as a public community at Pentecost displays not a private embodiment of divine power, a personal relationship with Jesus, an ascetic withdrawal from the world, choreographed rituals of worship, grammatically articulative doctrines, or domesticated religious behaviour, but a social and relational witness to the salvation of all flesh that had begun in the flesh of Christ. The church at Pentecost suffers the scandal of the flesh for the sake of its public witness to God.

That the Spirit is poured out not on specific flesh but on all flesh has far reaching consequences. The promise of the Spirit to men and women, young and old, slaves and free (Acts 2:17) 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 flesh. The scandal of Pentecost signals that, before we can understand the church as a community of Christ and the Spirit, we must learn how the church can exist as a community of the flesh. The challenge to the church is that this “enfleshed” reality of the Christian witness cannot avoid extending the scandal of the flesh we have seen in Christ. Because the outpouring of God’s Spirit on all flesh aims at the salvation of “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord” (Acts 2:21), the public witness of the church must embody and empower the whole scope of humanity. The scandal of Pentecost is the resistance of the church to claim the power of the Spirit as its own, to elevate the divine empowerment above ordinary humanity, and thereby to sever the continuity with the humanity of Jesus and to domesticate the power of the Spirit by placing it in the service of its own ambitions, institutions, and regulations.

The baptism in the Spirit is a scandal of the flesh because it subjects the body to the power of the Spirit so that the Christian witness to the world is both ordinary and extraordinary. The effect of this baptism is “charismatic” in the sense that it is a “gift” of the Holy Spirit into the brokenness of human flesh and therefore transformative of human nature.³⁶ This charismatic witness of the church is grounded in neither a triumphalist anthropology of exceptional human abilities nor a realist anthropology that surrenders to human weakness. Because the source of power is not the church but God, the public Christian witness functions as the scandal of the realisation of divine power enacted and embodied by the ordinary, the weak, the sick, the disabled, the poor, and the persecuted. This is the true scandalous image of the church!

The scandal of the church is a witness in the flesh that proclaims the hope of the world in scandalous fellowship with the flesh of sinners, social outcasts, marginalised, and stigmatised human beings, in every challenge of the flesh of the strong, the healthy, the able, and the powerful, and in every attempt at human transformation, reconciliation, healing, and redemption – even at the risk of public failure. The path towards rediscovering this scandal must begin with a rediscovery of the flesh, Christ’s flesh and our own, which together form the body of Christ in the world.

Conclusion

On the most basic level, the scandal of the flesh constitutes a great challenge to the institutionalised church with a history that has forgotten, above all, the redemption of the flesh. This forgetfulness of the flesh reflects the law of scandal: scandalised by the flesh we spiritualise salvation and exclude the flesh as sinful and unnecessary from God’s Kingdom, and scandalising the flesh, we elevate it above the Word and the Spirit as the expression of human independence and power. We see this among Pentecostal congregations who, on the one hand, demand the sanctification, if not the crucifixion, of the flesh, but on the other, proclaim a gospel of the prosperity and authority of the flesh. Particularly challenging is a witness to humanity that receives the gifts of the Spirit not for the sake of possessing the power of God but for the sake of giving it away to the world. The scandal of the flesh is that the power of the church is not tied to the control of wealth, possession, status, education, age, gender or the exercise of institutional, political, religious, and spiritual authority. The Christian world cannot afford a triumphalist image of the flesh that censors anyone who does not measure up to normative expectations of intellectual ability, physical strength, linguistic or cultural conformity.

The detachment of the church from the scandal of the flesh can produce several deeply interrelated threats to the life and well-being of Christian congregations. The first is the separation of the community from the public scandal of Jesus. Without this scandal, the church is publicly no longer recognisable as the body of Jesus because it has sterilised itself from the outrage of the public scandal of the crucified, risen, and ascended Christ and the gift of his flesh. A sign of this church is the absence of “sinners and tax collectors” from the local community and of the “gluttons and drunkards” who care to have fellowship with them.

A second threat is the separation of congregations from the scandal of the gospel, which proclaims that in Jesus the Word of God has become flesh. The public witness of the church is then more concerned with the quality of the mechanisms, structures, and methods of its proclamation than with the scandalous quality tied to the Incarnation. A sign of this church is the preference of praise over transformation and of a life in the Spirit that aims to please rather than to point back to the life in the flesh evident in the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ – and his followers.

A third risk is the separation of congregations from the scandal of Pentecost, that is, from its own offensiveness as the public witness to God’s Spirit poured out on all flesh. The disregard of this scandal isolates the public witness of the church from the confrontation with the world through which Christianity came into public existence. A church without this scandal suppresses the physical, biological, physiological, and psychological dimensions of the human beings that form the co-operative conditions for the divine acts of redemption. Aided by these pervasive risks, a false dichotomy lures the church to an even more severe threat where those who have become attuned to a life in the Spirit neglect to live the Christian life also deliberatively in the flesh. The opposition of the flesh and the Spirit is an opposition of the Incarnation and Pentecost – of God and humanity, Christ and the church. The Christian response must be that the awe and wonder of the world at the difference of the Christian life cannot be produced without the “carnality” of the human constitution made evident through the whole range of human beings and of the gifts of the Spirit poured out on all flesh. The question for Christian congregations today remains whether we are offended by the scandal of the flesh or ready to be a partner in that scandal.

Bibliography

Beverley, Thomas. Woe of Scandal: Scandal in Its General Nature and Effects. Thomas Parkhurst, 1682.

Borgen, Peder. Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John. Brill, 1965.

Busse, Ulrich. Das Johannesevangelium: Bildlichkeit, Diskurs und Ritual. Leuven University Press, 2002.

Cantalamessa, Raniero. Sober Intoxication of the Spirit: Filled with the Fullness of God. Servant Books, 2005.

Carter, Warren. “Matthew and Empire”, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 59(3–4), (2005): 86-91.

Clark, Samuel. Of Scandal: Together with a Consideration of the Nature of Christian Liberty and Things Indifferent. Benjamin Alsop, 1680.

Collins, Nina L. Jesus, the Sabbath and the Jewish Debate: Healing on the Sabbath in the 1st and 2nd Centuries CE. Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.

Connolly, Patrick. “The Concept of the Scandal in a Changed Ecclesial Context”, Studia Canonica 51(1), (2017): 135-48.

D’Angelo, Mary Rose. “Re-membering Jesus: Women, Prophecy, and Resistance in the Memory of the Early Church”, Horizons 19(2), (1992): 199-218.

Dunn, James D.G. “Pharisees, Sinners, and Jesus”, In J. Neusner, Ed. The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute of Howard Clark Kee. Fortress, 1988.

Ferda, Tucker S. “Flesh from Heaven: The Text of John 6.52 and Its Intertext”, New Testament Studies 65(3), (2019): 371-87.

Heilmann, Jan. “A Meal in the Background of John 6:51–58”, Journal of Biblical Literature 137(2), (2018): 481-500.

Hertig, Paul. “The Subversive Kingship of Jesus and Christian Social Witness”, Missiology 32(4), (2004): 475-90.

Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Politics of Palestine. University of South Carolina Press, 2014.

Hylan, Susan. Allusion and Meaning in John 6. de Gruyter, 2005.

Jordan, Mark D. Telling Truths in Church: Scandal, Flesh, and Christian Speech. Beacon, 2016.

Kendall, R.T. The Scandal of Christianity. Hodder & Stoughton, 2011.

Kerrigan, Michael. Dark History of the Catholic Church: Schisms, Wars, Inquisitions, Witch Hunts, Scandals, Corruption. Sterling, 2014.

Kobel, Esther. Dining with John: Communal Meals and Identity Formation in the Fourth Gospel and Its Historical and Cultural Context. Brill, 2011.

Lindblom, Johannes. Skandalon: Eine lexikalisch-exegetische Untersuchung. Almquist & Wiksells, 1921.

Lütz, Manfred. Der Skandal der Skandale: Die geheime Geschichte des Christentums. Herder, 2018.

Malina, Bruce J., and Jerome H. Neyrey. “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World”, In Jerome H. Neyrey, Ed. The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Hendrickson, 1991.

Marshall, Mary. “Jesus: Glutton and Drunkard?” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3(1), (2005): 47-60.

McCracken, David. The Scandal of the Gospels: Jesus, Story, and Offense. Oxford University Press, 1994.

Müller, Karlheinz. Anstoss und Gericht: Eine Studie zum jüdischen Hintergrund des paulinischen Skandalon-Begriffs. Kösel-Verlag, 1969.

Neyrey, Jerome H. Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew. Westminster John Knox, 1998.

Patmore, Hector. “‘Arrière de moi, Satan! Tu m’es en scandale!’ (Mt 16.23). Analyse de l’ajout du rèdacteur dans son contexte juif”, New Testament Studies 66(1), (2020): 1-20. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688519000237], [Last accessed: 29th October 2025].

Phillips, Gary A. “This Is a Hard Saying: Who Can be Listener to It? Creating a Reader in John 6”, Semeia 26 (1983): 23-56.

Rippentrop, Jan. “Mark’s Passion Narrative as Political Authority”, Currents in Theology and Mission 44(4), (2017): 11-19.

Senander, Angela. Scandal: The Catholic Church in Public Life. The Liturgical Press, 2012.

Stählin, Gustav. “προσκόπτω, πρόσκομμα, προσκοπή, πρόσκοπος”, In Gerhard Kittel, G.W. Bromiley, and G. Friedrich, Eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 6. Eerdmans, 1971.

Stählin, Gustav. “σκάνδαλον, σκανδαλίζω,” In Gerhard Kittel, G.W. Bromiley, and G. Friedrich, Eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 7. Eerdmans, 1971.

Stählin, Gustav. Skandalon: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte eines biblischen Begriffs. Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie 2. Bertelsmann, 1930.

van der Watt, Jan G. “I am the Bread of Life: Imagery in John 6:32-51”, Acta Theologica 2 (2007): 186-204.

von Corvin, Otto. Scandals in the Roman Catholic Church. Merkur, 2003.

Vondey, Wolfgang. People of Bread: Rediscovering Ecclesiology. Paulist Press, 2008.

Vondey, Wolfgang. The Scandal of Pentecost: A Theology of the Public Church. T&T Clark, 2024.

Ward, Graham. Christ and Culture. Blackwell, 2005.

Webster, Jane S. Ingesting Jesus: Eating and Drinking in the Gospel of John. Society for Biblical Literature, 2003.

Westhelle, Vitor. The Scandalous God: The Use and Abuse of the Cross. Fortress, 2006.

Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus. 2nd ed. Eerdmans, 1994.

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

Zimmermann, Ruben. Christologie der Bilder im Johannesevangelium: Die Christopoetik des vierten Evangeliums unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Joh 10. Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

¹ See Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World”, in Jerome H. Neyrey (ed), The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Hendrickson, 1991): 25-66; Jerome H. Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Westminster John Knox, 1998): 14-34.

² Cf. R.T. Kendall, The Scandal of Christianity (Hodder & Stoughton, 2011); Vitor Westhelle, The Scandalous God: The Use and Abuse of the Cross (Fortress, 2006); David McCracken, The Scandal of the Gospels: Jesus, Story, and Offense (Oxford University Press, 1994): 3-13; Manfred Lütz, Der Skandal der Skandale: Die geheime Geschichte des Christentums (Herder, 2018); Patrick Connolly, “The Concept of the Scandal in a Changed Ecclesial Context”, Studia Canonica 51(1), (2017): 135-48.

³ See Mark D. Jordan, Telling Truths in Church: Scandal, Flesh, and Christian Speech (Beacon, 2016).

⁴ See Michael Kerrigan, Dark History of the Catholic Church: Schisms, Wars, Inquisitions, Witch Hunts, Scandals, Corruption (Sterling, 2014); Angela Senander, Scandal: The Catholic Church in Public Life (The Liturgical Press, 2012); Otto von Corvin, Scandals in the Roman Catholic Church (Merkur, 2003).

⁵ Gustav Stählin, “σκάνδαλον, σκανδαλίζω”, in Gerhard Kittel, G.W. Bromiley, and G.Friedrich (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 7 (Eerdmans, 1971): 338-58; Johannes Lindblom, Skandalon: Eine lexikalisch-exegetische Untersuchung (Almquist & Wiksells, 1921): 5-6.

⁶ Gustav Stählin, “προσκόπτω, πρόσκομμα, προσκοπή, ἀπρόσκοπος”, in Gerhard Kittel, G.W. Bromiley, and G. Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6 (Eerdmans, 1971): 745-59.

⁷ Stählin, “σκάνδαλον”, 340.

⁸ Lindblom, Skandalon, 14-18.

⁹ Stählin, “σκάνδαλον”, 345. Luke does not use the actual term “σκάνδαλον” but “πτῶσις” in this text.

¹⁰ Stählin, “σκάνδαλον”, 345; Gustav Stählin, Skandalon: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte eines biblischen Begriffs, Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie 2 (Bertelsmann, 1930): 105-271. See also Lindblom, Skandalon, 50.

¹¹ Lindblom, Skandalon, 37.

¹² Cf. McCracken, The Scandal of the Gospels, 107-27. All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the NRSV.

¹³ Stählin, “σκάνδαλον”, 353, n79.

¹⁴ Nina L. Collins, Jesus, the Sabbath and the Jewish Debate: Healing on the Sabbath in the 1st and 2nd Centuries CE (Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014).

¹⁵ James D. G. Dunn, “Pharisees, Sinners, and Jesus”, in J. Neusner (ed), The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute of Howard Clark Kee (Fortress, 1988): 264-89.

¹⁶ Mary Marshall, “Jesus: Glutton and Drunkard?” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3(1), (2005): 47-60.

¹⁷ Karlheinz Müller, Anstoss und Gericht: Eine Studie zum jüdischen Hintergrund des paulinischen Skandalon-Begriffs (Kösel-Verlag, 1969): 108-18.

¹⁸ See Jan Heilmann, “A Meal in the Background of John 6:51-58”, Journal of Biblical Literature 137(2), (2018): 481-500; Jan G. van der Watt, “I am the Bread of Life: Imagery in John 6:32-51”, Acta Theologica 2 (2007): 186-204; Ruben Zimmermann, Christologie der Bilder im Johannesevangelium: Die Christopoetik des vierten Evangeliums unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Joh 10 (Mohr Siebeck, 2004): 406-46; Ulrich Busse, Das Johannesevangelium: Bildlichkeit, Diskurs und Ritual (Leuven University Press, 2002): 273-402.

¹⁹ Susan Hylan, Allusion and Meaning in John 6 (de Gruyter, 2005): 137-41.

²⁰ Cf. Wolfgang Vondey, People of Bread: Rediscovering Ecclesiology (Paulist Press, 2008): 129-35. A different reading offers Tucker S. Ferda, “Flesh from Heaven: The Text of John 6.52 and Its Intertext”, New Testament Studies 65(3), (2019): 371-87.

²¹ Hylan, Allusion and Meaning, 140; Gary A. Phillips, “This Is a Hard Saying: Who Can be Listener to It? Creating a Reader in John 6”, Semeia 26 (1983): 23-56; Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John (Brill, 1965): 87-90.

²² Heilmann, “A Meal in the Background”, 491; Esther Kobel, Dining with John: Communal Meals and Identity Formation in the Fourth Gospel and Its Historical and Cultural Context (Brill, 2011): 231-37, 252-70; Jane S. Webster, Ingesting Jesus: Eating and Drinking in the Gospel of John (Society for Biblical Literature, 2003): 76-79.

²³ Hector Patmore, “‘Arrière de moi, Satan! Tu m’es en scandale!’ (Mt 16.23). Analyse de l’ajout du rèdacteur dans son contexte juif”, New Testament Studies 66(1), (2020): 1-20, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688519000237], [Last accessed: 29th October 2025].

²⁴ Stählin, “σκάνδαλον”, 348.

²⁵ Samuel Clark, Of Scandal: Together with a Consideration of the Nature of Christian Liberty and Things Indifferent (Benjamin Alsop, 1680): iii.

²⁶ Thomas Beverley, Woe of Scandal: Scandal in Its General Nature and Effects (Thomas Parkhurst, 1682): vii. See Clark, Of Scandal, 16-17.

²⁷ Jan Rippentrop, “Mark’s Passion Narrative as Political Authority”, Currents in Theology and Mission 44(4), (2017): 11-19; Warren Carter, “Matthew and Empire”, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 59(3–4) (2005): 86-91.

²⁸ John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 2nd ed. (Eerdmans, 1994): 112-33.

²⁹ Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Politics of Palestine (University of South Carolina Press, 2014): 128-53.

³⁰ Paul Hertig, “The Subversive Kingship of Jesus and Christian Social Witness”, Missiology 32(4), (2004): 475-90.

³¹ Graham Ward, Christ and Culture (Blackwell, 2005): 46.

³² Mary Rose D’Angelo, “Re-membering Jesus: Women, Prophecy, and Resistance in the Memory of the Early Church”, Horizons 19(2), (1992): 199-218.

³³ See Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Baker Academic, 2005): 31-80.

³⁴ See Wolfgang Vondey, The Scandal of Pentecost: A Theology of the Public Church (T&T Clark, 2024): 85-234.

³⁵ See Raniero Cantalamessa, Sober Intoxication of the Spirit: Filled with the Fullness of God (Servant, 2005).

³⁶ Vondey, Scandal of Pentecost, 193-234.

Response to Wolfgang Vondey’s “The Church as Scandal of Salvation: Pentecost and the Continuity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”

Daniel Lim

Thank you, Dr Vondey, for the opportunity to respond to your excellent paper. Your insightful analysis challenges us Pentecostals to participate in the “scandal of salvation” and embody the Spirit-empowered witness in the public sphere for the sake of the gospel. Your call for the church to resist retreating into private comfort and instead remain bold as a social and relational witness is both timely and compelling.

First, Vondey’s central argument is that the skandalon (1 Cor. 1:1-24, NIV) of the crucified Christ demands an understanding of God and the church that does not resist and suppress the “scandal.” In addition, rejection of the “scandal” is a scandal on its own, which can sometimes become an obstacle to our understanding and application of our faith. Perhaps Vondey, who has lived in Japan, can give some practical examples on how he sees Asian Pentecostals returning to a public ecclesiology divinely rooted in the scandalous nature of Jesus’ life and death and in the advent of Pentecost, where God’s Spirit is imparted to the “flesh” dramatically in the public sphere.

Second, Vondey critiques the contemporary church’s view of Pentecost, marked by an unwillingness and apprehension to fully participate in the continuous witness of the “scandal.” In a quest to become culturally relevant and “seeker-friendly,” some – by their fears and regulations – have institutionalised the faith and domesticated the Spirit along with his gifts. Sometimes, we Asian Pentecostals face pressures from the churches in the West, who admonish us for not being modern enough, “cool” enough, or “seeker-friendly” enough. We are seen as too conservative, backward, and boring. I wonder if Vondey can share more on how European Pentecostals remain steadfast to their witness and do not succumb to the same pressure. The contemporary tendency is also to shy away from any public engagement that elicits criticism. This stands in stark contrast to the foundational impulse of the early Pentecostals, through whom the Spirit’s transformative presence actively confronted and subverted the prevailing social and religious norms. Their speaking in other tongues alone was an offence that persists even today, which, as Vondey says, widens the Christian scandal to global proportions.¹ In some Asian contexts, it is not easy to be Pentecostal.

Third, Vondey also rightly highlights the significance of Spirit embodiment in the flesh. The baptism in the Spirit is a scandal of the flesh because it subjects the body to the power of the Spirit so that the Christian witness to the world is both ordinary and extraordinary. The “visible” church becomes an eschatological sign that salvation of all flesh is possible. The tangible, bodily manifestations of the Spirit is also ongoing evidence of God’s active presence in human brokenness. The scandal here is that the church is a witness in weak human flesh that proclaims the hope of the world – even at the risk of public failure. As Amos Yong points out, “Our salvation involves both present renewal and future hope, acknowledging that our struggle persists until Christ’s return.”² As we acknowledge the Spirit working through human brokenness, perhaps the “scandal of salvation” can expand to address negative scandals, not only as points of reform, but as part of our witness.

As I reflect on Vondey’s challenge to overcome the danger of “normativity,” which will domesticate the Spirit in our churches, I would like to offer three observations within the context of Asia.

First, a need exists for a deeper and more robust Pentecostal education here in Asia. Theologically, a scandal in the church is the active teaching of false doctrines and the passive sense of being led astray into doubt and apostasy. As Asian Pentecostals, we must reject a gospel that conflates Spirit embodiment with materialistic success or a triumphalist physical perfection. At the recent 2023 Global Pentecostal Summit, Pastor Kong Hee underscored the importance of how we must engage in self-reflection and honestly deal with the inadequacy and abuse of theologies within our ranks, and not allow fringe teachings like hyper-faith, hyper-grace, the prosperity gospel, and dominion theology to hijack Pentecostalism.³

Second, in Asia, “the scandal of salvation” is even more nuanced because of the honour-shame dynamics and the high regard for relational reputation.⁴ The Chinese word for “scandal” is shameful news or disgraceful matters. The association with any scandal, whether justified or not, often leads to a loss of face and, thus, dishonour. Hence, the inward inclination to avoid any scandal often dictates our relationship with God and our yielding to the Spirit. We Asian Pentecostals need courage to “shamelessly” allow the Spirit’s continuous in-breaking, as we proclaim God’s transformative power in present tangible ways. Perhaps Vondey can offer examples on how Pentecostal churches can practically live out their scandalous witness, like speaking in tongues, healing, and prophecy in an increasingly secularised world.

Third, Pentecost’s “scandal of the flesh” is that God’s divine power is enacted and embodied through ordinary persons like you and me, still subject to human brokenness. A perfect God can indwell an imperfect body, which can still fail in life and ministry. Even though we do not actively look for negative scandals to discredit our witness, we need to make room for them as part of our redemption narrative within our public witness.

A Case Study: City Harvest Church

The City Harvest Church (CHC) case study illustrates these tensions in contextualising the “scandal of salvation.” In 2002, CHC embarked on an unconventional missionary effort called the Crossover Project. Inspired by Mark 4:35, “Let us cross over to the other side” (NKJV), the project aimed to share the gospel through the medium of pop culture. Sun Ho – wife of the senior pastor and a worship leader – ventured into the Asian pop music scene with the goal of reaching secular audiences, particularly in nations closed to traditional evangelism. Through her concerts, she shared her personal testimony and ended most performances with an invitation to receive Christ. Over a twenty-five-month tour across Asia, more than half a million people were reached, resulting in more than 140,000 decisions for salvation.⁵ Despite its evangelistic success, the project drew criticism when it expanded to the West, with scrutiny over Sun’s Hollywood image and allegations that funds meant for church buildings were redirected to finance the mission. In response, CHC stated that the Crossover Project embodied its evangelistic purpose of the church.⁶

At the trial’s conclusion in 2015, six CHC leaders were sentenced.⁷ The judge highlighted the unique nature of this case, noting that those found guilty did not seek personal gain and genuinely believed they were fulfilling the church’s mission.⁸ The court found that there was never any sinister or malicious plan by any of the six to strip the church of its funds and that the senior pastor had acted in the church’s best interests, although he was still found guilty of criminal breach of trust.⁹

This highly publicised case brought embarrassment and scrutiny, leaving both church members and the public “scandalised” by the media coverage and the unfolding events. While the experience was painful and deeply humbling, CHC chose to respond with brokenness and faith, trusting that God would work all things together for good (Rom. 8:28).¹⁰ Nonetheless, this case serves as a cautionary tale, reminding us that even well-intentioned missional efforts must be exercised with discernment and care – especially when scandal or public misunderstanding may arise. Perhaps, further research can be done on how Pentecostals can maintain our public witness and minimise causing “scandal” or misunderstanding. When we are “scandalised” – whether justified or not – what should our posture be? And how should we treat others who are going through negative scandals?

In closing, we need to recognise Pentecost as the ongoing event of the church today. The clearest evidence of the presence of the Spirit in our witness is the outpouring of the “scandalous” divine love of God,¹¹ which continues to invite us into an inclusive fellowship that transcends social, racial, and economic barriers. Perhaps, Vondey can advise us on how we Asian Pentecostals can practically live out the scandalous divine love of God.

Bibliography

City Harvest Church. “Dear Church Family…”, City Harvest Church’s Facebook Page. 20th October 2015. [Available at: https://www.facebook.com/cityharvestchurch/posts/10153747244519711], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

Fernando, Ajith. “Confronting Lying Biblically in Honour-and Shame-Oriented Cultures”, Evangelical Review of Theology: A Global Forum 46(2), (May 2022): 171-79, [Available at: https://theology.worldea.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ERT-46-2c.pdf], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

Han, Lim Yi, Ng Huiwen, Lee Min Kok, Danson Cheong. “City Harvest Trial: Kong Hee Sentenced to 8 Years in Prison, 5 Other Church Leaders Get between 21 Months and 6 Years”, The Straits Times. 20th November 2015, Last updated April 29, 2016. [Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/city-harvest-trial-kong-hee-sentenced-to-8-years-in-prison-5-other-church], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

Haughey, John. The Conspiracy of God. Claretian, 1995.

Hee, Kong. “Singapore: The Antioch of Asia?” In Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, Eds. Voices Loud & Clear. Regnum, 2024: 181-203.

Sng, Edric. “‘I Am Truly Sorry’: City Harvest Pastor Kong Hee”, Thirst. 20th April 2017. [Available at: https://thirst.sg/truly-sorry-city-harvest-pastor-kong-hee/], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

Tan, Theresa, Dawn Seow, and Ciong Xiao Ting. “20 Years after the Crossover Project”, City News. 22nd April 2022. [Available at: https://www.citynews.sg/2022/04/22/20-years-after-the-crossover-project/], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

Vondey, Wolfgang. “The Church as Scandal of Salvation: Pentecost and the Continuity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”, In Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, Eds. Pentecostal Voices Across the Continents, Regnum Studies in Mission. Regnum, 2025.

Wong, Tessa. “Inside Singapore’s City Harvest Megachurch Scandal”, BBC News. 21st October 2015. [Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34589932], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

Yip, Jany, and Susan Ainsworth. “‘Whatever Works’: The Marketplace Mission of Singapore’s City Harvest Church”, Journal of Macromarketing 36(4), (2016): 443-56. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146716641990], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

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

¹ Wolfgang Vondey, “The Church as Scandal of Salvation: Pentecost and the Continuity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”, in Kong Hee et al. (eds), Pentecostal Voices Across the Continents, Regnum Studies in Mission (Regnum, 2026), 65.

² Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out On All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Baker Academic, 2005): 97.

³ Kong Hee, “Singapore: The Antioch of Asia?” in Kong Hee et al. (eds), Voices Loud & Clear (Regnum, 2024): 198.

⁴ Ajith Fernando, “Confronting Lying Biblically in Honour- and Shame-Oriented Cultures”, in Evangelical Review of Theology: A Global Forum 46(2), (May 2022): 172, [Available at: https://theology.worldea.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ERT-46-2c.pdf], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

⁵ Theresa Tan, Dawn Seow and Chiong Xiao Ting, “20 Years after the Crossover Project”, City News, 22nd April 2022, [Available at: https://www.citynews.sg/2022/04/22/20-years-after-the-crossover-project/], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

⁶ Jany Yip and Susan Ainsworth, ‘‘‘Whatever Works’’: The Marketplace Mission of Singapore’s City Harvest Church”, Journal of Macromarketing 36(4), (2016): 443-56, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146716641990], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

⁷ Tessa Wong, “Inside Singapore’s City Harvest Megachurch Scandal”, BBC News, 21st October 2015, [Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34589932], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

⁸ Lim Yi Han et al., “City Harvest Trial: Kong Hee Sentenced to 8 Years in Prison, 5 Other Church Leaders Get between 21 Months and 6 Years”, The Straits Times, 20th November 2015, last updated 29th April 2016, [Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/city-harvest-trial-kong-hee-sentenced-to-8-years-in-prison-5-other-church], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

⁹ Edric Sng, “‘I Am Truly Sorry’: City Harvest Pastor Kong Hee”, Thirst, 20th April 2017, [Available at: https://thirst.sg/truly-sorry-city-harvest-pastor-kong-hee/], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

¹⁰ City Harvest Church, “Dear Church Family…”, City Harvest Church’s Facebook Page, 20th October 2015, [Available at: https://www.facebook.com/cityharvestchurch/posts/10153747244519711], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

¹¹ John Haughey, The Conspiracy of God (Claretian, 1995): 56.

Session 8

A Spirit-Driven Ecclesiological Tenacity: Tested and Proven Response to Hostility and Afflictions

Joseph Dimitrov

Abstract

The church is the spiritual community of the seeing ones. It has been called “out of darkness into his (God’s) wonderful light” (1 Pet. 2:9).¹ This community consists of “children of the light and children of the day” who “do not belong to the night or to the darkness” (1 Thess. 5:5) but have the obligation to “live as children of light” (Eph. 5:8). The one who provides this environment of light, enabling the church to see, is the person of the Holy Spirit. In contrast with humanity’s previous state of blindness, the Spirit’s work in the believer involves guiding, speaking, teaching of all things, reminding what was said, and revealing what is yet to come (Jn 14, 15, 16). Therefore, the scriptural contrast between darkness and light is not simply implying the transition from the state of unbelief to the state of belief. Instead, this enlarged perspective rather reveals the effect of a Spirit-led sight empowerment. This ability to walk with insight and discernment could be defined as pneumatological quality. Scripturally and in practice, we find this truth especially important for times when this “light-and-day” defined community goes through adversity and persecution. Ecclesiological seeing is possible through a pneumatological mindset. From its conception until modern times, this mindset has helped the church not only to survive afflictions but to thrive spiritually. This is how the three painful effects of persecution – “the split consciousness,” “the split faithfulness,” and “the split leadership” – have been and will be overcome.

Key Words: persecution, atheism, totalitarianism, pneumatology, charismata

Introduction

The church represents a spiritual community of individuals described in Scripture as those “called out of darkness into his [God’s] wonderful light” (1 Pet. 2:9). This collective identity further includes “children of the light and children of the day” who are exhorted not to “belong to the night or the darkness” (1 Thess. 5:5) but are instead obligated to “live as children of light” (Eph. 5:8). The source of this illumination, which enables the church to perceive and navigate its spiritual journey, is rooted in the work and presence of the Holy Spirit.

In contrast to this description of the believers’ prior condition of spiritual blindness, Scripture depicts the Holy Spirit as the one who guides, instructs, and reveals. By enabling believers to recall prior teachings, comprehend the present, and discern revelation concerning the future (Jn 14, 15, 16), the Spirit facilitates a transformation from darkness into light that goes beyond the sphere of saving faith. That transformation involves a deeper progression of empowerment and insight brought about through the Spirit’s illumination.

This capacity for discernment, wisdom, and confident action is an essential pneumatological attribute which God means for the church to embody. Particularly under circumstances of adversity and persecution, this Spirit-enabled perspective becomes indispensable. The theological contrast between darkness and light, therefore, signifies not merely the transition from unbelief to faith but also a broader framework of spiritual empowerment.

From the church’s inception until now, this Spirit-oriented mindset has historically enabled the church to endure afflictions and achieve spiritual growth despite hostile environments. Drawing upon the understanding that the birth and early development of the church occurred under oppressive conditions, as well as employing scriptural exegesis and lessons from recent Eastern European Pentecostal church history, this analysis examines how the phenomena of “split consciousness”, “split faithfulness,” and “split leadership” – as consequences of persecution – have been mitigated and could continue to be addressed effectively within the ecclesiological framework.

Context and Effects of Ideological Religious Hostility

The implementation of ideological strategies against the church and individual believers constitutes a central aspect of atheistic totalitarian systems’ opposition to religious faith. Historical evidence from the recent Eastern European church experience illustrates how secular humanistic ideology was systematically employed as a means of challenging the existence of the Christian faith and church congregations. The Russian philosopher and theologian Nikolai Berdyaev, a former Marxist who later embraced Orthodox Christianity, characterised communism in his writings as a “pseudo-religion,”² thereby highlighting its attempts to emulate doctrinal elements and objectives traditionally associated with Christianity:

Communism in actual fact is the foe of every form of religion and especially of Christianity, not as a social system, but as itself a religion. It wants to be a religion itself, to take the place of Christianity. It professes to answer the religious questions of the human soul and to give a meaning to life. Communism is integrated; it embraces the whole of life; its relations are with no special section of it. On this account its conflict with other religious faiths is inevitable.³

Following the division of Europe after the Second World War, the implementation of scientific atheism and various repressive policies that had been initially pioneered within the Soviet Union were also adopted by the communist regimes of Central and Eastern Europe.

False Consciousness, Split Consciousness, and Split Faithfulness

Atheistic ideology represents a pronounced form of secularism, with its primary focus directed at influencing the emerging younger generation. Within this demographic, faith in God is perceived as being in its formative stage and is particularly vulnerable to external pressures. A critical method employed in ideological confrontation involved establishing institutions and promoting activities designed to foster scientific ideologies to directly challenge both the intellectual and emotional convictions of individuals influenced by religious beliefs. These efforts were diligently designed to displace the life of faith with a secular intellectual framework, operating under the presumption that religious conviction and scientific reasoning are fundamentally incompatible. Educators and academic professionals were encouraged to adopt the outlook of militant atheists, firmly committed to the notion that ideological compromise is untenable.⁴

Children and youth residing in regions governed by atheistic and totalitarian regimes navigated a daily life shaped by family, schooling, and engagement with social or athletic organisations specifically structured for them. A central goal of these initiatives was to turn away the younger generation not only from religion broadly but also from the foundational concept of faith in God. Intellectuals were entrusted with advancing this faith-eroding agenda through training programmes implemented within local educational institutions and through the national youth communist league, or Komsomol, which targeted individuals aged fourteen to twenty-eight. These young individuals already had prior experience in the National Children’s Pioneer Organisation, which served as a formative experience.⁵ This long-lasting exposure to educational doctrines and activities aimed to shape the cognitive and ethical prospects of the children, guiding their future political engagement. Their expected political activism and ethical perceptions as youth would be based on the presented dichotomy, namely that the bourgeoisie is inherently evil while the proletariat is always morally right.⁶ Textbooks, higher education curricula, and various media outlets were utilised as key instruments for disseminating ideological narratives, predominantly critiquing Western societies and analysing global suffering. The conclusions drawn from these analyses regarded the prevailing conditions of suffering as morally indefensible.⁷ Such statistical data and reports provided atheistic activists with opportunities to not only broaden public discourse but also assert their interpretative authority over reality, using ideological narratives as tools to reshape societal perceptions and norms. Consequently, the discourse about suffering evolved into a mechanism to legitimise atheistic ideology, reinforcing its claims on intellectual and practical grounds.⁸

The most intense manifestations of ideological persecution occurred under totalitarian regimes. Religious totalitarianism, for example, was noted for its comprehensive ambition to dominate every aspect of an individual’s existence, extending control even to their thoughts.⁹ Within the framework of atheistic ideology, religion was identified as an issue of false consciousness and was systematically countered through force, persecution, persuasive rhetoric, and propaganda. The youth leagues dedicated themselves to illustrating the detrimental effects of religious superstitions and prejudices, organising specialised groups and lectures to propagate anti-religious sentiments.¹⁰ Christian youth faced significant adversity in affiliating with these organisations, encountering widespread social stigmatisation. This provoked an ongoing ideological battle for the minds of young individuals, with Christian youth frequently branded as “withdrawn, uncommunicative,” or socially inept.¹¹ To atheistic authorities, such traits represented the destructive consequences of religious influence within the family unit.¹² Since the task of winning a Christian youth through atheistic education generally turned out to be challenging, the main objective was to shake the established religious feelings and move the person to an unstable condition of “split consciousness.”¹³ Educational institutions and youth organisations were tasked with preventing nascent religious feelings from developing into steadfast religious convictions.

While fear represents a critical factor in the development of split consciousness, it would be quite simplistic to attribute this phenomenon solely to fear. For the Early Church, “dealing with the lapsed was predominantly a spiritual matter.”¹⁴ The unbelief in God’s promises and Jesus’ warning that “the one who stands firm to the end will be saved” (Mt. 10:22) was identified as holding greater significance than mere fear. Unbelief was conceived as the precursor to fear itself.

Judicial records from the early Christian era illustrate the devastating impact of split-consciousness dilemmas. Governor Pliny’s perspective, for instance, viewed the mere admission of being Christian as sufficient grounds for guilt. Consequently, numerous Christians disavowed their faith, asserting either that they had never been Christians or that they had renounced Christianity. Such individuals succumbed to imposed practices, such as emperor worship and the cursing of Christ. These actions, born of internal conflict, undermined the Christian faith’s capacity for vindication.¹⁵

Pneumatological Mindset

To endure the challenges posed by persecution, numerous churches, both historically and in contemporary settings, have anchored their doctrines and practices in Pentecostal charismatic spirituality. This foundation has been instrumental in fostering resilience during periods of hostility.

The retrieval of biblical, ancient, and historical Christianity for the purpose of contemporary spiritual renewal reveals a profound commitment to facing the grave consequences of belonging to a spiritual community perceived as incompatible with broader societal norms. Such commitment is rooted in the understanding of the church as a prophetic body, which subsequently informs its actions.

Maintaining devotion to God is inherently a spiritual endeavour in contexts of persecution. Therefore, “churches cannot be worshipping communities alone: only prophetic communities can truly worship, and only worshipping communities can be truly prophetic.”¹⁶ Churches have embraced a holistic interpretation that integrates worship with prophetic mission, focusing on the empowering presence of the Spirit as a sign of hope within their communities.¹⁷

Early in the history of the church, persecution was understood as a test of the believer’s relationship with the Holy Spirit. This is how, for example, Tertullian exhorted the imprisoned Christians: “O blessed, grieve not the Holy Spirit, who entered prison with you.”¹⁸ He then reminded them that they were anointed with and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, which is sufficient to drive all fear away.¹⁹

The persecuted church has consistently adopted a pneumatological framework to interpret and navigate adverse circumstances. This theological position finds strong biblical support in Jesus’ farewell discourse with his disciples, as documented in the Gospel of John. Within this discourse, Jesus explains the pivotal role of the Holy Spirit amid the animosity between his followers and the world. The Spirit, referred to as the Paraclete, provides divine presence that would accompany and empower believers, enabling them to testify about Jesus amidst the anticipated hatred and persecution from the world. Jesus further clarifies this hostility, attributing it to the world’s guilt of sin and its rejection of his works (Jn 15:18-26). The farewell discourse functions as both a preparatory framework for the Johannine community and as a timeless call for all subsequent Christian communities to anticipate and endure tribulations. The Spirit’s mission, as articulated by Jesus, underscores the Spirit’s dual role: to testify about Jesus and to empower the disciples to bear witness to His teachings (Jn 15:26-27). This theological insight highlights the Spirit’s indispensable role in sustaining faith during persecution, reinforcing the Spirit’s significance for both the original disciples and contemporary believers navigating crises of faith.²⁰

In John 16:1, “Jesus reveals that the reason for this discourse is to prevent the disciples from stumbling.”²¹ Certainly, as Estrada writes:

when Jesus exhorts the disciples to remember and know the reason why they are being hated by the world, his statements are an attempt to prevent the disciples and the Johannine community from falling away from the faith in the same manner that other disciples abandoned him when they were scandalised about his teaching on eating and drinking his flesh and blood […] According to the Fourth Gospel, we notice that knowledge or remembrance of Jesus’ words does not occur without the aid of the Paraclete. When Jesus exhorts the disciples to know, remember, and recognise that his life will help them understand the coming persecution in 15:18–16:4, the Paraclete is the testifier that enables the disciple to perceive the significance of the coming or past events.²²

The church’s resilience during periods of adversity is intrinsically linked to the presence and ministry of the Paraclete, as promised and sent by Jesus. The verbs attributed to the Paraclete constitute the various activities which he performs within the church and the lives of individual believers.

A central objective of persecution is to induce crises of faith. Scholarly analysis suggests that “by the time the Fourth Gospel was in its final form, persecution and the expulsion of Jewish Christians from synagogues had moved far beyond the realm of gloomy predictions into the realm of an ever-present living reality for the Johannine community.”²³ While it remains uncertain whether the original disciples served as the audience for the Gospel text, the linguistic and thematic content implies its relevance to both the disciples and subsequent readers. Notably, the theological principles and language described within chapters 14, 15, and 16 imply text validity not only for the early Christian community under immediate threat but also for the successive persecuted Christian communities throughout history. Central to this connection is the experience of the Holy Spirit as an “inner testifier,” a concept that unites unrelated Christian communities in their shared theological framework.²⁴ The Johannine perspective suggests that “the Paraclete will testify to the disciples,”²⁵ and, by extension, to all future readers of the text who belong to “the difficult future.”²⁶

The Holy Spirit, functioning as an internal witness, engages the believer’s conscience while simultaneously testifying “within the believer and through the believer.”²⁷ Thus, the Holy Spirit serves as an internal and external voice. Through processes of teaching, reminding, and witnessing the truth, the Holy Spirit assists with divine revelation (illumination), designed not only to advance the gospel’s proclamation to the world but also to provide spiritual guidance within Christian communities themselves. This dynamic was systematically targeted by totalitarian atheistic ideologies, which employed rigorous indoctrination techniques and strategic interventions to undermine the ability of the Spirit-filled and Spirit-led youth and adults to fulfil these functions.

The forensic role of the Holy Spirit has been extensively analysed, particularly focusing on its prosecutorial functions towards the world as described in John 16:8-11.²⁸ Similarly, scholarly interpretations have emphasised the Spirit’s role as a “supporter or sponsor,”²⁹ a “prophetic teacher,”³⁰ and a “guarantor of continuity.”³¹ These perspectives align with the functions attributed to the Spirit in the farewell discourse, which include “comforting, encouraging, reproving, exhorting, teaching, and preaching” while operating within and among the disciples.³² Such roles emphasise how believers have been enabled to confront crises of faith provoked by persecution.

A genuine Christian existence, particularly under conditions of mistreatment and oppression, is considered impossible without the presence and work of the Paraclete. This theological perspective suggests that the guidance of the Holy Spirit should be normative for all times, and persecuted Christians extended this truth by emphasising the charismatic dimensions of the Spirit’s activities. The manifestation of spiritual gifts, visions, dreams, and other phenomena attributed to the Spirit emerged as integral elements of the Paraclete’s ministry, encompassing guidance, comfort, defence, exhortation, encouragement, and preservation of the church. These functions, alongside teaching and preaching, constituted the prophetic voice of the Spirit, enabling the church to discern contemporary challenges and anticipate future developments. This interpretative framework concerning suffering demanded the cultivation of a mindset that prioritised reliance on the Spirit and anticipated divine accompaniment and empowerment.³³ Consequently, persecution and the Paraclete-given charismata have proven to be quite compatible biblical concepts.

Pneumatological Conduct and Leadership Dilemma

This pneumatological interpretation of persecution significantly influenced the conduct of the church. For instance, during the era of oppressive totalitarian regimes, this perspective contributed to the portrayal of Eastern European churches as “communities of living hope”³⁴ within the oppressed societies of these nations. The primary responsibility of their leaders involved guiding the church to discern the voice of the Holy Spirit amidst efforts aimed at silencing its presence. This continuous rediscovery of God’s proximity and active presence fostered a dynamic relationship with the divine, which, in turn, necessitated a mode of existence defined as “prophetic.”³⁵ Seeking deeper spirituality, the persecuted church understood that:

the prophetic model of the relation between the church and the world assumes that the mission of the church in the world can be sustained only by the same Spirit of the new creation whose presence makes the church to be the church. To be a prophetic community the church needs the Spirit, who will make its sons and daughters prophesy, its young men see visions, and its old men dream dreams (cf. Acts 2:17ff.). To be a sign of hope, the church needs the Spirit who will cause flesh to come upon its dry bones, put breath into it, and make it live (cf. Ezek. 37:6).³⁶

The historical trace of the persecuted church provides a clear indication of its eschatological focus and anticipation of ultimate salvation. Such a church bears witness to this salvation not solely through the proclamation of the Word but also through its deeply ingrained prayer and worship practices. The cyclical experiences of religious hostility and persecution often revitalise the theological understanding that the church exists in this world as a community in exile. This reality prompts an eschatological mode of existence and reflects the notion that “being a stranger is not simply a posture which the church adopts in relation to the world; it is founded in the very essence of the church as a foretaste of the new creation.”³⁷ Furthermore, the New Testament provides ample evidence supporting the assertion that “the church was born into a tradition of persecution and suffering that shaped its earliest identity.”³⁸ The perpetual tension between the spiritual statuses of the church and the world underlines an inherent conflict. Martyrdom emerges as the ultimate manifestation of this tension, with biblical Scripture affirming that the existence of the church is inseparable from martyrdom.³⁹

Churches that avoid afflictions and persecution by compromising and exchanging their eschatological identity for organisational identity according to the models of this world “will at best be able to give the world lessons about ideological and institutional survival, possibly even about success.”⁴⁰ Such churches, however, miss the opportunity to be a “sign of living hope,” and “hope is born where the Spirit of the new creation is seen at work in the conflicts of the church with the spirits of this world.”⁴¹ The persecuted church may never have articulated its experience using this last theological definition, but it consistently lived out this spiritual reality, as Jesus had foreseen and predicted.

During the centuries-long history of the Eastern Orthodox Church, its conservative doctrine and traditions fostered a strong belief in miraculous events and supernatural phenomena. This influence significantly shaped the national identities and cultural frameworks of various Eastern European Pentecostal churches. Consequently, alongside their Pentecostal and charismatic theological foundations, these communities demonstrated a pronounced openness to supernatural occurrences. The Orthodox tradition emphasised that “genuine miracles occurred not only in the first century but have continued through the lives of many saints, martyrs, and confessors of the faith up to today.”⁴² Furthermore, unlike developments in the free world, where Christian theology became increasingly integrated with secular philosophy, Pentecostal Christians in these regions regarded the prophetic and charismatic aspects of church life as essential and beyond question.

Deprived of any form of dignified status in society, pressured by educational state organisations and activities whose goal was to eliminate their faith, forbidden to possess any Christian literature or offer formal or informal theological training, and forced to hold a vulnerable organisational system with untrained leaders, many Pentecostal communities in most of the former communist countries focused on the spiritual dimension of church life and leadership. Prayer played an essential role in these communities, conducted both within state-monitored churches and within underground house churches. This delicate environment of external oppression and internal spiritual engagement fostered an intensified expectation for and reception of spiritual manifestations. This grassroots spiritual awakening challenged the leadership of government-recognised churches, compelling them either to align themselves with the Spirit-filled practices of their congregations or to face isolation within their ministries due to concessions made to the authorities.

This aspect of Pentecostal spirituality and the examples of faithful spiritual leaders strongly influenced the younger generation of the church. Youth meetings often served as the catalyst for local church revivals, where experiences such as the baptism in the Holy Spirit became central to the worship and testimony of young believers. These spiritual phenomena frequently included manifestations of gifts such as prophecy, interpretation of tongues, and words of knowledge and wisdom. For older Pentecostal believers, these events served as confirmations of their prayers and steadfast commitment to the gospel.

Within the persecuted Pentecostal communities, the revelatory spiritual gifts described in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, particularly prophecy, knowledge, and wisdom, were integral to worship services and prayer meetings. These gifts, while subject to congregational discernment and pastoral oversight, were intended to provide divine guidance where “neither scripture, nor gospel, nor tradition could do so.”⁴³ They also indicated “how the risen Lord perceived the church’s condition”⁴⁴ and often provided spiritual direction. Tongue-interpretations, prophetic utterances, or words of knowledge and wisdom would either reinforce already existing thoughts, plans, and ideas, or the individual and the group of believers would receive illumination over what to do in their particular circumstances. In essence, charismata manifestations were words of encouragement, prophetic promises of approaching victory, divine warnings of impending dangers, or appeals to stand firm amid some fiery trial. Under the close supervision of the pastor or the elder in charge, these revelatory gifts enabled “the Christian church to function as a community of healing.”⁴⁵ Collectively, these practices exemplified the persecuted church’s commitment to the apostolic exhortation to “earnestly desire spiritual gifts,” and they received what they prayed for.

The unique characteristics of Pentecostal spirituality posed significant challenges for communist authorities attempting to suppress religious practices. The distinctively charismatic nature of Pentecostal worship heightened their resilience during persecution. Communist ideologists, in their attempts to discredit Pentecostal practices, often cited critical perspectives from other Christian traditions and labelled the churches as belonging to a “Holy Spirit cult.” Pentecostal spirituality, characterised by its emphasis on Spirit baptism and charismatic manifestations, was perceived as a form of “spiritual microclimate” that provided communal religious fulfilment. Unlike traditional Catholic and Orthodox practices, which were seen as offering religious experiences to select individuals, Pentecostalism was interpreted as empowering the entire congregation. This led communist analysts to label Pentecostalism as one of the most resilient religious movements within atheistic societies. Their inability to fully comprehend phenomena like glossolalia resulted in interpretations that framed these practices as psychological mechanisms that transform “human energy into mental experiences,” leading to a sense of optimism.⁴⁶ Ultimately, Pentecostal spirituality was recognised by its opponents as a formidable source of strength and perseverance within these marginalised communities.⁴⁷

Conclusion

Years ago, a Chinese house church leader observed, “When Chinese believers read the book of Acts, we see in it our own experience; when foreign Christians read the book of Acts, they see in it inspiring stories.”⁴⁸ This observation aptly captures how the persecuted church interprets and applies New Testament pneumatology. Numerous scholars and church historians agree that “searching before God for personalised spiritual experiences, including the more spectacular gifts, is characteristically a phenomenon of the church in periods of insecurity, introspection, and historical instability, rather than in those of consolidation and self-confidence.”⁴⁹ The latter half of the twentieth-century Eastern European church history confirmed the validity of this assertion. During this period, the church, through the adversity of persecution, became less sociologically integrated with its environment and more attuned to its connection with the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, who, among other roles, provides spiritual insight and direction. Consequently, significant segments of the church in these regions of spiritual oppression and hostility experienced the “charismatisation” of their theological perception and behaviour. This process mitigated the development of a mentality of helplessness and enabled members of the persecuted Pentecostal communities to cultivate a more self-assured identity.

Following the fall of communism in 1989, after forty-five years of severe persecution and intense atheistic ideological indoctrination, the Eastern European Pentecostal churches emerged from this dark period invigorated, especially with a youthful demographic. These young people, the primary targets of the state atheistic ideologists’ systematic doctrinal efforts, were expected to align with the state-promoted narrative. Instead, they embraced the narrative of the Paraclete, as revealed and reiterated within the prophetic community of hope. An analysis of such ecclesiological endurance would be incomplete without acknowledging that “the promise of supernatural power, as reflected in Acts 1:8,⁵⁰ is a fundamental consequence of the presence of the Spirit.”⁵¹ Similarly to the Apostle Paul, the persecuted church “trusted in the gifts the Spirit gave for the common good (1 Cor. 12).”⁵² The parakletos provided the dunamis enablement through spiritual charismata for ecclesial tenacity. The dark did not hinder the church from seeing!

Bibliography

Anonymous. “Program of the Komsomol”, Pravda, 23rd April 1936, “Soviet Legislation (XVI): Selection of Decrees and Documents”, The Slavonic (and East European) Review, XV(43), (July 1936): 221-225. [Available at: https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1936-2/childhood-under-stalin/childhood-under-stalin-texts/program-of-the-komsomol/], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

Anonymous. “Children and Atheism in the Soviet Union”, Religion in Communist Lands (Documents) 4(2), (1976): 46-48. [Available at: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rcl/04-2_46.pdf], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

Berdyaev, Nicolas. The Origin of Russian Communism. University of Michigan Press, 1960.

Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John 13–21. Doubleday, 1970.

Estrada III, Rodolfo Galvan. “The Spirit as an Inner Witness in John 15:26”, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 22(1), (2013): 77-94. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/17455251-02201008], [Last accessed: 2nd November 2025].

Franck, Eskil. Revelation Taught: The Paraclete in the Gospel of John. Coronet, 1985.

Grayston, Kenneth. “The Meaning of Parakletos”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament (1981): 67-82. [Available at: https://www.scribd.com/document/814566229/GRAYSTON-The-Meaning-of-Parakletos], [Last accessed: 3rd November 2025].

Hill, Kent R. “Christian Mission, Proselytism and Religious Liberty: A Protestant Appeal for Christian Tolerance and Unity”, Religion, State & Society 25(4), (1997): 307-32. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09637499708431792], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

Johnston, George. The Spirit Paraclete in the Gospel of John. Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Lord, Andy. “Incarnational Partnership in Mission: A Response to Questionable Assumptions”, JEPTA 26(2), (2006): 113-19.

Mark, Daniel. “Religious Totalitarianism, Secular Totalitarianism, and Other Threats to International Religious Freedom”, Public Discourse, 1st April 2018, [Available at: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/04/21172/], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

McClymond, Michael J. “Charismatic Gifts: Healing, Tongue-Speaking, Prophecy, and Exorcism”, In Lamin Sanneh and Michael J. McClymond, Eds. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to World Christianity. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.

Melichar, Bohumil, and Jakub Rákosník. “The Communist Organization of Children and its Discourse in Czechoslovakia between Two Wars”, Histoire et Politique 33 (2017). [Available at: https://journals.openedition.org/histoirepolitique/9991#ftn26], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

Menzies, Robert. “Luke’s Understanding of Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Pentecostal Perspective”, PentecoStudies 6(2), (2007): 108-26.

Mizov, Nikolai, and Jordan Nikolov. Protestant Sects in Bulgaria. Partizdat, 1972.

Moore, Barrington. The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt. MacMillan, 1978.

Pomerville, Paul A. The Third Force in Mission: A Pentecostal Contribution to Contemporary Mission Theology. Hendrickson, 1985.

Tertullian. “Ad Martyras”, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 3. Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall. [Available at: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-52.htm#P12056_3357193], [Last accessed: 3rd November 2025].

Turner, Max. “Spiritual Gifts Then and Now”, Vox Evangelica 15 (1985): 7-63.

Volf, Miroslav. “The Church as a Prophetic Community and a Sign of Hope”, European Journal of Theology 2(1), (1993): 9-30.

Warrington, Keith. Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter. T&T Clark, 2008.

Williams, D.H. “The Tradition of Christian Persecution”, Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology 28(4), (2019): 403-17.

¹ All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the NIV.

² Nicolas Berdyaev, The Origin of Russian Communism (University of Michigan Press, 1960): 158, cited in Kent R. Hill, “Christian Mission, Proselytism and Religious Liberty: A Protestant Appeal for Christian Tolerance and Unity”, Religion, State & Society 25(4), (1997): 310, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09637499708431792], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

³ Hill, “Christian Mission”, 310.

⁴ This was Lenin’s fundamental formulation.

⁵ Barrington Moore, The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt (MacMillan, 1978): 88, cited in Bohumil Melichar and Jakub Rákosník, “The Communist Organization of Children and its Discourse in Czechoslovakia between Two Wars”, Histoire et Politique 33 (2017), [Available at: https://journals.openedition.org/histoirepolitique/9991#ftn26], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

⁶ Moore, Social Bases, 88.

⁷ Moore, Social Bases, 88.

⁸ Moore, Social Bases, 88.

⁹ Daniel Mark, “Religious Totalitarianism, Secular Totalitarianism, and Other Threats to International Religious Freedom”, Public Discourse, 1st April 2018, [Available at: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/04/21172/], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

¹⁰ “Program of the Komsomol”, Pravda, 23rd April 1936, “Soviet Legislation (XVI): Selection of Decrees and Documents”, The Slavonic (and East European) Review, XV(43), (July 1936): 221-225. [Available at: https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1936-2/childhood-under-stalin/childhood-under-stalin-texts/program-of-the-komsomol/], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025].

¹¹ “Children and Atheism in the Soviet Union”, Documents (n.d.): 47, [Available at: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rcl/04-2_46.pdf], [Last accessed: 1st November 2025]. (Article was originally published as “Save the Children” in the newspaper, Soviet Belorussia, 31st January 1976, by a lecturer at a pedagogical institute in Minsk.)

¹² “Children and Atheism”, 47.

¹³ “Children and Atheism”, 47.

¹⁴ D.H. Williams, “The Tradition of Christian Persecution”, Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology 28(4), (2019): 412.

¹⁵ Williams, “Tradition”, 410-13.

¹⁶ Miroslav Volf, “The Church as a Prophetic Community and a Sign of Hope”, European Journal of Theology 2(1), (1993): 13.

¹⁷ Volf, “Church as Prophetic Community”, 26. Romans 15:13 declares that the Spirit enables the Church with hope: “Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

¹⁸ Tertullian, “Ad Martyras”, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, 693, cited in Williams, “Tradition”, 413.

¹⁹ Williams, “Tradition”, 413.

²⁰ Rodolfo Galvan Estrada III, “The Spirit as an Inner Witness in John 15:26”, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 22(1), (2013): 81, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/17455251-02201008], [Last accessed: 2nd November 2025].

²¹ Estrada, “Spirit as Inner Witness”, 81. “All this I have told you so that you will not fall away” (John 16:1).

²² Estrada, “Spirit as Inner Witness”, 82.

²³ Raymond Brown, The Gospel according to John 13–21 (Doubleday, 1970): 695, cited in Estrada, “Spirit as Inner Witness”, 82.

²⁴ Brown, Gospel according to John 13–21, 82.

²⁵ Brown, Gospel according to John 13–21, 82.

²⁶ Brown, Gospel according to John 13–21, 83.

²⁷ Brown, Gospel according to John 13–21, 90.

²⁸ This comes from multiple word studies of the Spirit’s designation as παράκλητος or the corresponding verb παρακλεΐν.

²⁹ Kenneth Grayston, “The Meaning of Parakletos”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament (1981): 67, cited in Estrada, “Spirit as Inner Witness”, 92.

³⁰ George Johnston, The Spirit Paraclete in the Gospel of John (Cambridge University Press, 1970): 80-81, cited in Estrada, “Spirit as Inner Witness”, 92.

³¹ Eskil Franck, Revelation Taught: The Paraclete in the Gospel of John (Coronet Books, 1985): 17-29, cited in Estrada, “Spirit as Inner Witness”, 92.

³² Franck, Revelation Taught, 92.

³³ Paul A. Pomerville, The Third Force in Mission: A Pentecostal Contribution to Contemporary Mission Theology (Hendrickson, 1985): 63-78, cited in Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (T&T Clark, 2008): 251.

³⁴ Volf, “The Church as a Prophetic Community and a Sign of Hope”, 13.

³⁵ Volf, “The Church as a Prophetic Community and a Sign of Hope”, 24.

³⁶ Volf, “The Church as a Prophetic Community and a Sign of Hope”, 26.

³⁷ Volf, “The Church as a Prophetic Community and a Sign of Hope”, 20.

³⁸ Williams, “Tradition”, 403.

³⁹ Volf, “The Church as a Prophetic Community and a Sign of Hope”, 20.

⁴⁰ Volf, “The Church as a Prophetic Community and a Sign of Hope”, 20.

⁴¹ Volf, “The Church as a Prophetic Community and a Sign of Hope”, 20.

⁴² Michael J. McClymond, “Charismatic Gifts: Healing, Tongue-Speaking, Prophecy, and Exorcism”, in Lamin Sanneh and Michael J. McClymond (eds), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to World Christianity (John Wiley & Sons, 2016): 402.

⁴³ Max Turner, “Spiritual Gifts Then and Now”, Vox Evangelica 15 (1985): 55.

⁴⁴ Turner, “Spiritual Gifts”, 55.

⁴⁵ McClymond, “Charismatic Gifts”, 415.

⁴⁶ Nikolai Mizov and Jordan Nikolov, Protestant Sects in Bulgaria (Partizdat, 1972): 194; 198.

⁴⁷ Mizov and Nikolov, Protestant Sects, 202.

⁴⁸ Robert Menzies, “Luke’s Understanding of Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Pentecostal Perspective”, PentecoStudies 6(2), (2007): 108.

⁴⁹ Turner, “Spiritual Gifts”, 43.

⁵⁰ “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.”

⁵¹ Warrington, Pentecostal Theology, 250.

⁵² Andy Lord, “Incarnational Partnership in Mission: A Response to Questionable Assumptions”, JEPTA 26(2), (2006): 117.

Response to Joseph Dimitrov’s “A Spirit-Driven Ecclesiological Tenacity: Tested and Proven Response to Hostility and Afflictions”

Julie Ma

Joseph Dimitrov structures his paper primarily in three parts: Context and Effects of Ideological Religious Hostility, Pneumatological Mindset, and Pneumatological Conduct and Leadership Dilemma. As I read the paper, I sensed his burden and concern for the Eastern European Church.

Context and Effects of Ideological Religious Hostility

In the first part of the paper, the three agonising consequences of persecution that have been and may be overcome are “the split consciousness,” “the split faithfulness,” and “the split leadership.” Dimitrov outlines the consequences of secularism and atheistic philosophy, expressing his grave concern about its significant influence on the next generation – the main target of such ideological indoctrination. This group of Christians believes faith in God is still in its infancy and is especially vulnerable.

Dimitrov further notes that every effort was purposefully directed toward a process in which a well-established kind of secular intellectualism progressively supplanted the life of faith, with the assumption that science and religion could not co-exist. Because schoolteachers and university professors in Eastern Europe during the communist era believed that there could be no ideological compromise, they were urged to take up the cause of militant atheism.

The Church worldwide faces similar problems as Dimitrov has described. Secularistic and materialistic ideology has become deeply ingrained in the lives of all generations, both in secular societies and even in the church. Secularism and atheistic ideology have affected not only the European Church but also churches in North and South America, Africa, and Asia, although its impact varies.

The Eastern European Church, however, added a heavier element – communist ideology. Throughout the twentieth century, communism significantly impacted Eastern Europe’s political, economic, and social systems. The Soviet Union expanded its sway over the area following World War II by establishing one-party communist governments that persisted until the late 1980s. Thus, leaders and scholars must consider this noteworthy and essential topic for the upcoming generation.

Dimitrov makes a powerful comment that according to Governor Pliny in the early Christian era, someone was guilty just by admitting they were a Christian. As a result, Dimitrov notes, an unspecified percentage of Christians “asserted either that they had never been Christians or that they had renounced Christianity.”¹ They even agreed to the emperor’s statues being worshipped and the curse of Christ being placed upon them. The Christian religion was robbed of validation due to the mental and emotional conflict that culminated in the denial of Christian confession. Under communist governments in Eastern Europe, which aimed to stifle Christian influence, churches encountered numerous difficulties. Several churches used calculated tactics to preserve their independence and stave off ideological intrusion.

Pneumatological Mindset

In the second part of the paper, Dimitrov aptly explains the pneumatological notion and the work of the Holy Spirit in Christians’ lives from John chapters 15 and 16. He describes how the final discourse of Jesus served as a call for the Johannine community and future Christian disciples to foresee and prepare for their troubles with the world. Dimitrov, quoting Raymond Brown, then stresses the importance of having the Holy Spirit as “one’s inner testifier.”²

Dimitrov further notes that the Holy Spirit bestows revelation (illumination) to believers through the study and teaching of Scripture, helping them to see the truth. This revelation is intended for proclamation of the gospel to the world and as a message of instruction for the Christian community. These make up the prophetic voice of the Spirit, allowing the church to discern the present and look to the future, alongside its ministry of teaching and preaching. Believers who adopt a view of suffering that helps them remain tenacious require a mindset properly focused on the Spirit, expecting that he will empower and accompany them.

Pneumatological Conduct and Leadership Dilemma

In the third section, “Pneumatological Conduct and Leadership Dilemma,” Dimitrov discusses the significance of leadership in regions like Eastern Europe. I conjecture that only dedicated individuals may assume leadership roles. Dimitrov notes that church leaders played a significant role during hostile totalitarian rule. Their job was to assist the church in hearing the voice of God’s Spirit in the face of circumstances that sought to silence it. Dimitrov also emphasises how communities of believers serve as a source of hope for these nations’ subjugated societies. The nearness and presence of God were constantly being discovered in new ways, and such a dynamic relationship with God “necessitated a mode of existence defined as ‘prophetic’.”³ A prophetic model of the relationship between the church and the world assumes that the Church’s mission can be sustained only by the same Spirit of the new creation whose presence makes the church the church.

Four Questions in Response

In response to Dimitrov’s article, I would like to pose four questions to Eastern European leaders:

1.In a voiceless church, how do the leaders assist the members in understanding the activity of the Holy Spirit and hearing God’s voice?

2.How do church leaders foster a more profound spirituality within the persecuted Church?

3.How can church leaders encourage individuals to consistently encounter God’s presence and deepen their relationship with him?

4.How can the Church increase young people’s faith and safeguard them against ideological brainwashing?

Eastern European churches and churches in other parts of the world can wrestle with these questions and find answers from God and Christian communities who have had various spiritual experiences. This is the only thing that will enable the Church to believe in God and develop into a vibrant, spiritual community is the Spirit.

The Church and Persecution

The New Testament stories unequivocally attest that the Church was born into a tradition of persecution and suffering that formed its earliest identity. Because the Church and the outer world have distinct spiritual statuses, conflict and friction on a spiritual level will always exist. Martyrdom is the expression of this truth. The biblical perspective holds that a church cannot exist without martyrdom.

I will briefly reflect here on the Christian movement in North Korea to reinforce the experiences of the Eastern European Church. According to a historical study, the church in Pyongyang, North Korea, was very interested in evangelising people; its activities included prayer meetings, Bible studies, and spreading the gospel, particularly following the Pyongyang revival in 1907. Church members’ evangelism saved hundreds of unbelievers within a few years. When North Korea’s capital had so many Christians, it was called the “Jerusalem of the East.”⁴ In 1948, North Korea became a communist nation, which affected the Church enormously. The government believed that the North Korean Church should be silenced, inert, and subjected to ongoing persecution. Churchgoers were tortured physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. However, with the help of the Holy Spirit, they spiritually triumphed over all the trials and persecution although, of course, persecution still continues.

A Chinese student from China at a Philippine seminary where I served testified in chapel service that she praised God more after being assaulted in prison. She thanked God for allowing her to participate in persecution for the Almighty God. Her testimony was quite poignant. Such Christians who face extreme persecution grow more devoted to their faith. No faithful Christian betrays their unwavering faith. This was the case with me personally as well. My parents persecuted me for becoming a Christian. God sustained me to remain strong during that challenging period.

Despite its geographical division and differences into Central, East, and West Europe, Europe was historically highly developed both theologically and missiologically. For critical reasons, Martin Luther and John Calvin undertook the theological reformation in Germany in 1517 and Geneva, Switzerland, in 1541, respectively. Four mission movements began throughout Europe, including Pietism in Germany in the seventeenth century, Moravians in Germany in the eighteenth century, Methodists in England in the eighteenth century, and Puritanism in England in the seventeenth century. God made great use of the Church throughout Europe resulting in both immense theological progress and the establishment and flourishing of mission movements. I hope that churches on this continent, including Eastern Europe, experience tremendous revitalisation and a restoration of their spiritual condition through the power of the Holy Spirit and go on to accomplish what their forefathers did.

Conclusion

As a conclusion to my response, I would like to mention spiritual resilience through faith practices to provide some historical reflection on Pentecostal spiritual resilience. Pentecostals in Eastern Europe have consistently drawn strength from their charismatic worship, which includes fervent prayer, speaking in tongues, and a profound sense of the Holy Spirit’s presence. These spiritual experiences have been particularly vital during periods of persecution. For instance, during Romania’s communist era, believers often gathered clandestinely, yet their worship was marked by an intensity and joy that transcended their circumstances. This joy beyond understanding was seen as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, giving them the strength to endure and resist oppression.

With the help of the Holy Spirit, I trust that the churches in Eastern Europe will experience the restoration of perfect leadership instead of any “split leadership,” full consciousness instead of any “split consciousness,” and entire fidelity instead of any “split faithfulness.” Regardless of their circumstances or temptations, the Spirit will fill, guide, and enable church members. As the Spirit does this work, the churches will develop theologically and biblically to keep secular and communist ideologies from infiltrating the lives of Christians.

As the Holy Spirit strengthens believers, this has the potential to transform politics, culture, and even secular and communist beliefs. Thus, I urge Eastern European churches to have more faith in God and in the work of his Spirit. Our enabling God can perform the supernatural miracles mentioned in the Bible. Countless children of God have witnessed his marvels and miraculous occurrences. As the saying goes, suffering is the school where we learn to pray and gain the strength to conquer.

Bibliography

Brown, Raymond. The Gospel according to John 13–21. Doubleday, 1970.

Cavanaugh, Ray. “When North Korea’s Capital Had So Many Christians It Was Called the ‘Jerusalem of the East’”, Christianity Today. 19th April 2017. [Available at: https://www.christiantoday.com/news/when-north-koreas-capital-had-so-many-christians-it-was-called-the-jerusalem-of-the-east], [Last accessed: 3rd November 2025].

Dimitrov, Joseph. “A Spirit-Driven Ecclesiological Tenacity: Tested and Proven Response to Hostility and Afflictions”, In Kong Hee, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, Eds. Pentecostal Voices Across the Continents. Regnum Studies in Mission. Regnum, 2025.

Estrada III, Rodolfo Galvan. “The Spirit as an Inner Witness in John 15:26”, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 22(1), (2013): 77-94. [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/17455251-02201008], [Last accessed: 2nd November 2025].

Volf, Miroslav. “The Church as a Prophetic Community and a Sign of Hope”, European Journal of Theology 2(1), (1993): 9-30.

¹ Joseph Dimitrov, “A Spirit-Driven Ecclesiological Tenacity: Tested and Proven Response to Hostility and Afflictions”, in Kong Hee et al. (eds), Pentecostal Voices Across the Continents. Regnum Studies in Mission (Regnum, 2026), 187.

² Raymond Brown, The Gospel according to John 13–21 (Doubleday, 1970): 695, cited in Rodolfo Galvan Estrada III, “The Spirit as an Inner Witness in John 15:26”, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 22(1), (2013): 81, [Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/17455251-02201008], [Last accessed: 2nd November 2025].

³ Miroslav Volf, “The Church as a Prophetic Community and a Sign of Hope”, European Journal of Theology 2(1), (1993): 13, cited in Dimitrov, “Spirit-Driven Ecclesiological Tenacity”, 187.

⁴ Ray Cavanaugh, “When North Korea’s Capital Had So Many Christians It Was Called the ‘Jerusalem of the East’,” Christianity Today, 19th April 2017, [Available at: https://www.christiantoday.com/news/when-north-koreas-capital-had-so-many-christians-it-was-called-the-jerusalem-of-the-east], [Last accessed: 3rd November 2025].

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)

D. Min. 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

Ph.D. Oxford Centre for Mission Studies

Contributors

Truls Åkerlund (Norway)

Professor in Leadership, Norwegian School of Leadership and Theology

Ph.D. Regent University

Daniela C. Augustine (Bulgaria)

Reader in World Christianity, University of Birmingham

Director of Graduate Studies, Professor of Theological Ethics, Lee University

D. Th. University of South Africa

Joseph Dimitrov (Bulgaria)

President, Continental Theological Seminary (Belgium)

Ph.D. Evangelical Theological Faculty; University of Leuven

Ulrik Josefsson (Sweden)

President, Academy of Leadership and Theology

Associate Professor of Practical Theology, ALT School of Theology

Ph.D. Lund University

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen (Finland)

Professor of Systematic Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary

Ph.D. University of Helsinki

Jean-Daniel Plüss (Switzerland)

Chair, European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association

President, Swiss Global Christian Forum Foundation

Ph.D. Catholic Theological Faculty, University of Leuven

Sanna Urvas (Finland)

Professor of Systematic Theology, The Theological School of Finland

Ph.D. University of Helsinki

Wolfgang Vondey (Germany)

Professor of Christian Theology and Pentecostal Studies, University of Birmingham

Ph.D. Marquette University

Respondents

Simon Chan (Singapore)

Earnest Lau Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Theological College (Retired)

Ph.D. University of Cambridge

Bobby Chaw (Singapore)

Executive Pastor and President of City Harvest Church Management Board

D. Min. Southern Methodist University

Chiong Xiao Ting (Singapore)

Translator and Theological Researcher, City Harvest Church, Singapore

MA in Theology Vanguard University

Sun Ho (Singapore)

Co-founder and Senior Pastor, City Harvest Church, Singapore

Daniel Lim (Singapore)

Pastor, City Harvest Church, Singapore

M.Div. Trinity Theological College

Julie Ma (South Korea)

Professor of Missions and Intercultural Studies, Oral Roberts University

Ph.D. Fuller Theological Seminary

Wonsuk Ma (South Korea)

Distinguished Professor of Global Christianity, Oral Roberts University

Ph.D. Fuller Theological Seminary

Joel Agpalo Tejedo (Philippines)

Director, Asia Pacific Research Centre, Asia Pacific Theological Seminary

D. Min. Asia Pacific Theological Seminary

Eva Wong Suk Kyun (Malaysia)

Director, Malaysia Pentecostal Research Centre, Bible College of Malaysia

Ph. D. Oxford Centre for Mission Studies.