An Affirmative Pentecostal Theology of the Miraculous

 

Introduction

I am personally fully persuaded that the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements have been raised up by God in manifestation of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit through the Lord Jesus Christ. However, I have noticed two reflex reactions that often occur when the subject of miracles is raised. Either a defensive stance or a polemical mode is soon evident. A defensive stance can appear when someone who affirms the reality of miracles in the Bible and in the daily life of faith is confronted by someone who challenges that very possibility. A polemical mode can appear when someone who challenges what appears to be an incredulous acceptance of so-called inexplicable events is confronted with someone who believes that miracles do happen. As much as possible, I mean to avoid such negative and non-productive reactionary modes by developing an understanding that is non-defensive and non-polemical. In a word, it will be positive—and therefore, hopefully, constructive and productive.

While apologetic or polemic modes can certainly motivate strong initiative in developing our thinking, these dynamics can contribute to extremist positions that ultimately undermine the effectiveness of the theological process. Accordingly, theology done cool headedly but warm heartedly may accomplish more in the long run. At least that is the goal. In any case, the following affirms the glorious reality of the miraculous and its great benefit with a critical eye toward abuse or misuse and a view toward establishing constructive alternatives.

Supernatural Worldview

The subject of miracles is not merely theoretical for Pentecostals. Belief in biblical miracles and expectations of experiencing the miraculous in the life of faith are inherent in the deepest levels of Pentecostal identity.[1] In describing the foundations of Pentecostal theology, Railey and Aker rightly aver that what is popularly described as belief in the supernatural is inextricably embedded in the Pentecostal worldview. Pentecostal belief in the miraculous or supernatural is grounded in theology proper, that is, in its understanding of the nature of God. Pentecostals believe in the “God who works in mighty ways and reveals himself in history.” Additionally, Pentecostal belief in miracles is grounded in their cosmology, or view of the universe, and in its epistemology. The Pentecostal is not a materialist, and so does not reduce reality to the physical world, or a rationalist, and so does not deny ways of knowing that defy logical analysis.[2] Obviously, Pentecostal belief in the miraculous is not simply superstitious credulity that fails to understand or appreciate natural law or scientific method. It is theologically grounded. These are critically important points requiring at least brief elaboration.

To begin, Pentecostals believe that God the Creator is active and involved with creation and creatures, especially with people of faith. God is not passive or distant. The world does not possess independent existence. Pentecostalism may be the ultimate counterpart to deism’s cold and distant machinist God of a mechanical universe. For Pentecostals, God’s active involvement is predicated on God’s relational purpose as suggested in God’s self-disclosure or self-revelation. The God of Pentecostals is the God who knows us by name (Isaiah 45:3-4; John 10:3), cares about what we are going through (Nahum 1:7; I Peter 5:7), and works mightily in our behalf (Genesis 45:7; Philippians 1:9). This Pentecostal theology of the nature and character of God undergirds and energizes belief in God’s miraculous intervention in the lives of human beings within historical contexts.[3]

Next, Pentecostals believe the realities of the cosmos exceed what can be quantifiably measured by man. There is more to life than can be studied in a laboratory. Without discounting the importance of scientific processes, indeed, with all due appreciation and respect for its appropriate use, Pentecostals are not at all ready or willing to limit all life entirely to that narrow account. To do so is the height of human arrogance. Pentecostals, therefore, embrace a cosmology recognizing the existence and activity of spiritual beings or entities in relationship with the so-called natural or sensory perceived world of being. Again, this cosmology (and ontology) is also rooted in the nature of “the God of the spirits of all flesh” (Numbers 16:22; 27:16; cp. Hebrews 12:9). Indeed, Christian anthropology requires recognition of the essentially spiritual nature of human identity and existence (1 Corinthians 14:32; Hebrews 12:23). Consistent with this affirmation of the holistic nature of all existence, Pentecostals not surprisingly expect there to be miraculous moments when the thin veil between Heaven and Earth is opened up and interactive encounters occur in myriad forms that may include otherwise inexplicable events as well as experiences of dreams, visions, and other divine communications and revelations (e.g. Genesis 22:11, 15; 28:12; Acts 2:2; 7:55-56; 9:3; Revelation 4:1-2).

Certainly, these intuitively insightful ways of being and knowing can fly in the face of reductionist systems prone to deny any but rationalistic and naturalistic versions of reality. However, Pentecostal spirituality and theology do not contradict logic or reason so much as they transcend them, rising above their aridity and rigidity to affirm and embrace a larger, more expansive and inclusive, vision of the nature of reality. It is not reason or scientific knowledge per se which is problematic but their misuse in the exclusion of the supernatural out of infatuation for the natural. We need not denigrate human logic or reason, much less the natural created order; but, we must not deify them either. At the risk of sounding harsh, I sometimes wonder if the outlandish fetish-like fascination of modern society with the material world order might be nothing other than a sophisticated violation of the Decalogue’s prohibition against idolizing the creaturely (Exodus 20:4). In any case, it appears evident that Pentecostalism’s belief in the supernatural is an inseparable part of its overall theological make up; it simply cannot be jettisoned without violating its own innermost ethos. And yet in their affirmation of the miraculous Pentecostal Christians are notoriously out of step with most of the modern world. Or are they?

Enlightenment Skepticism

Anglican theologian Alister McGrath rightly points out that a result of the Enlightenment (or Age of Reason, 1650s- 1780s) turn to a reductionist form of rationalism was the rejection of the possibility of the miraculous.[4] Of course, this rejection eventually came to include not only dramatic healings and inexplicable manifestations of power over nature in the Bible, and expectations of such happenings in contemporary life, but also the very resurrection of Jesus Christ himself. No wonder Charismatic theologian Larry Hart says an Enlightenment mentality of “unbelieving rationalism and skepticism is an offense to the Spirit of Christ.”[5] The central tenets of Christian faith all involve miracle: creation, incarnation, resurrection, and consummation. As Hart says, “Christianity is rife with supernaturalism.”[6] Accordingly, combat lines between Enlightenment skepticism and biblical Pentecostalism are bold and sharp. I note two interesting details. First, the rationalist rejection of the miraculous was in large part a repudiation of the credibility of human testimony. Second, after centuries of predominance Enlightenment rationalism and its derivative modernistic mindset itself has recently been found largely wanting. One might note on the first point that consistent repudiation of the validity of human testimony would destroy both the foundation and fabric of any human society. For example, no judicial or legislative system could survive in such an arid environment. The casual dismissal of the credibility of human testimony on this point alone while depending on it in almost all other areas of human activity and history is at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical.[7]

On the second point I note that Enlightenment modernism has failed miserably to live up to its own early, and now, obviously, overly optimistic, Utopian promise. Thus postmodernism now replaces it without too much ado.[8] After centuries of rationalism, humanities’ deepest dilemmas and problems are, if anything, more acute and chronic than ever. Educational and technological advancement have not made any noticeable strides toward the Utopia promised by starry eyed advocates. Without denying or even downplaying the real and wonderfully helpful work of science in many areas of human life, for example, health and medicine or communication and transportation, it is all too evident that underlying issues have not been significantly alleviated. We now live in a world dominated by terrorism and disease as well as prejudice and poverty. Science is not, and should not be expected to be, the solution for the overall human condition. Science itself cannot stand the strain of that unrealistic and misguided expectation. It is, in my opinion, pseudoscience which attempts to hang on to naturalistic rationalism in a panic stricken but mistaken notion that it is essential to its survival. Well, perhaps it is essential to the survival of pseudoscience (and its close cousin, scientism[9]) after all; but not to robust science, not to a real and healthy science. Pentecostals need have no aversion to real science.[10] Cannot we understand how hypocritical it appears to others when we enjoy the benefits of science in our everyday lives while railing against science from our pulpits on Sundays? However, it is only false science predicated upon faulty knowledge which Pentecostals believe the Bible rejects (1 Timothy 6:20).

Christian thinkers have handled the modernistic rejection of the miraculous in vastly different ways. Much of the debate ultimately leads to a consideration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the identifying signifier of the Christian faith. The notorious New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann basically accepted rationalism’ rejection of the miraculous, including rejecting Christ’s resurrection as historical event; he reinterpreted such biblical descriptions in terms of “demythologization”. Karl Barth’s affirmed the resurrection as an actual event but placed it beyond historical inquiry, which McGrath describes as “highly vulnerable”, while Wolfhart Pannenberg argues (more substantively) that skeptics reject Christ’s resurrection through presupposition rather than through rational conclusion, and that Christ’s resurrection may be viewed as a historical event which is a “prolepsis” of the eschaton.[11] These comparisons suggest that how Christians approach the concept of the miraculous can be diverse. A straightforward mindset is best. Blatant attempts to “bite the bullet” (i.e. concede defeat ala Bultmann) or “dodge the bullet” (i.e. dig into a hole ala Barth) are inconsistent and unconvincing. Honest efforts to address underlying issues (i.e. carefully weighing the facts from the standpoint of faith ala Pannenberg) seem most on target. Pentecostals should learn this lesson too.

In any case, I am inclined to agree with C. S. Lewis’ astute observation that those who deny Christian miracles, though they claim to be Christians, often appear to have already abandoned parts of Christian doctrine and are perhaps in danger of relapsing, at best, into mere religion.[12] Of course, this statement derives from Lewis’ underlying conviction that one cannot subtract the miraculous from Christianity and still have anything left that can be properly called Christian. For Lewis, there is no such thing as—indeed cannot be any such thing as—“naturalistic Christianity”.[13] Christianity is by nature miraculous. It is the story of incarnation and resurrection. While some struggle to understand how anyone living in the twenty-first century can believe in miracles, Pentecostals are much more prone to wonder how anyone who is recognizably Christian can doubt the miraculous.

An Elastic Concept

At the outset it is essential to have a clear understanding of the definition of miracle. A classical definition of miracle is “things which are done by divine agency beyond the order commonly observed in nature.”[14] Biblically, miracles can be described as manifestations of God’s power which evoke wonder in observers as signs of God’s reign with focus on Christ’s works.[15] Miracles do not violate nature’s laws so much as they supersede them. The prefix “super” in “supernatural” does not mean that which is against or contrary to but that which is above or beyond. Even this significant qualification is further qualified by limitations of finite human understanding regarding, as I might say, the nature of nature. A massive jetliner taking off on a runway to soar away into the sky may seem to violate the law of gravity but in fact the law of aerodynamics has simply superseded the law of gravity. Thus it is when in sovereign freedom and infinite power God chooses to supersede what we know about nature with what is to us only known as supernatural.[16] In discussions such as these it quickly becomes apparent that a major part of the task is seeking to understand just what constitutes a miracle in the first place.

Defining miracle is not merely a theoretical issue. As Rebecca Barlow Jordan mentions, we certainly do not want to miss the miraculous because it does not happen as expected.[17] Accordingly, Don Thorsen offers a helpful if a bit more technical definition of the miraculous: “miracles are thought to represent an extraordinary achievement or event that exceeds natural agency, which attests to a divine power that transcends ordinary human or natural power.” He immediately adds a significant qualifier: “A miracle does not necessarily signify something contrary to nature; we may not yet know enough about how nature works. But a miracle signifies that God supervened in a way for we which we can (sic) account.”[18] However, Railey and Aker argue that, biblically speaking, a miracle may be defined as “any manifestation of God’s power, not necessarily to a rare or unusual event.”[19] These two views can be conceived of as complementary; the latter being a more generalized perspective, the first more specialized.

A more generalized understanding allows for affirmation of events in which the marvelous nature may involve, for example, timing, rather than some apparently outstanding departure from (or transcendence of) the known laws of nature, as nonetheless having miraculous elements. For example, if an unemployed (or, as is common today, an underemployed) person in dire financial straits is praying for God’s help and intervention when the phone rings with an offer of employment with a significant salary increase, he or she might deem it in some sense miraculous though nothing phenomenal occurred in the realm of nature’s “normal” operations. It could also apply to spiritual gifts or charismata, which are divine manifestations in the sense of having their origin and energy from the Holy Spirit but also involve human receptivity and willing response (1 Corinthians 12:11; Acts 2:4). Thus, the charismata, gifts of grace for Christian service, are properly understood as supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit’s presence and power.[20] This suggestion is undergirded by juxtaposition of the gift of miracles alongside charismatic gifts of the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, faith, gifts of healings, prophecy, discerning of spirits, different kinds of tongues, and interpretation of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:8-10). This entire list of gifts assumes recipients are moving in the realm of the supernatural.

Larry Hart points out that to believe in providence at all, that is, in God’s working in the world, is in a sense to believe in miracles. The same is the case for practicing the life of prayer. If God hears and answers prayer, as most Christians assuredly believe, then that is a kind of miracle. Even such basic assumptions about Christian belief and practice as divine providence and believing prayer are laden at some level with presuppositions about the supernatural.[21] However, as noted, there is a more specialized notion of what constitutes supernatural miracles. Thus Thorsen’s specialized definition above surely helps keep understanding of the miraculous from diminishing into suppositions of remarkable coincidence or synergistic cooperation and such. In all cases, it is good to keep in mind that “Miracles reflect the freedom, love, and power of God”—not arbitrarily, but—in alignment with God’s “clear kingdom purposes.”[22] In short, it would seem that the miraculous is an elastic concept with clear biblical warrant. And this is as it should be. An inordinate desire to clarify and quantify the miraculous is itself not improbably a residual effect of Enlightenment thinking. In a sense, the miraculous or supernatural by definition defies precise definition. Of course, we naturally need to understand as much as possible but we also need to acknowledge the limits of such understanding.

Resurgence and Increase

French Arrington helpfully explains that the Greek grammar of 1 Corinthians 12:10 and 29 (energemata dunameon) indicates diversity and plurality in manifestations of miraculous gifts and power. Miracles are closely associated with supernatural healings but the two are not synonymous. Faith is vitally connected to workings of miracles. Arrington adds that the ministry of miracles by Jesus or by his apostles was not for simple displays of power but to glorify God and meet genuine human needs.[23] Therefore, it seems wise to bear in mind that miracles are multifaceted in nature and that proper motivation is at least as important as powerful manifestation. As noted above, miraculous acts cannot be neatly cubby-holed and categorized for analysis and filed away under the appropriate headings. Neither is the Christian ministry of miracles some “magic act” put on for the entertainment of credulous or curious onlookers. Miracles glorify God according to God’s sovereign and wise purposes. Miracles exercise compassion toward the Creator’s beloved creation and its creatures (more below on this particular aspect).

Thorsen makes several important observations. First, biblically speaking, manifestations of miraculous power and spiritual gifts were an important part of early Christians’ relationship with God and their life and ministry. Further, while throughout church history most Christians have affirmed the reality of the miraculous they have also been suspicious of extravagant claims. Finally, contemporary Pentecostal and Charismatic movements have led a revival of interest in and experience of a spirituality often characterized by the supernatural, including healings, miracles, and such spiritual gifts as speaking in tongues.[24] Larry Hart suggests that the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements are a “desperately needed corrective” for a church world that has come to lean on human understanding and ability.[25] What is needed in the churches of our day, and indeed in all days, is the “demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Corinthians 2:4 NASB). Thus Jon Ruthven suggests that perhaps Pentecostalism’s explosive and unprecedented global growth should be attributed to its acceptance of the miraculous.[26] Perhaps Pentecostals and Charismatics are tapping into the human spirit’s inner yearning for that which supernatural in nature. Perhaps in the wake of post-Enlightenment reductionism the hunger and thirst of the human spirit has intensified and is now demanding to be satisfied.

Arguably, the fate of Pentecostalism is linked to its future attitude toward the realm of the miraculous. If so, I suggest that in the current climate of careful openness Pentecostal theology would do well to articulate a balanced theology of the miraculous. A balanced theology would avoid the extremes of uncritical acceptance of claims to the miraculous, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the uncritical rejection of the possibility of the miraculous. Pentecostals must beware of either triumphalism, that is, exulting winning the war about the reality of miracles, leading to unrestrained and unwise excesses, or accommodationism, that is, allowing an imperceptible erosion of our commitment to the miraculous, leading to practical, if not theological, cessation.

Thorsen notes that miracles played an important, and sometimes clearly affirming, role in the ministry of Jesus; but, Jesus was nevertheless reluctant to focus the faith of his followers too much on miraculous signs. However, this qualification did not signal a minimization of their importance since he still strongly emphasized the sign of his resurrection, arguably the ultimate miracle (Matthew 12:39, 41; cp. 16:1; 24:3; Mark 8:1).[27] At least part of the cautionary tone derives from the candid admission that some miraculous powers may be spurious in one way or another. Spurious miracles which are not of divine origin may arise from some secret magical art or demonic activity (Exodus 7:11, 22; 8:7; Matthew 7:22; 24:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:9).[28] Thorsen suggests that Christians should use prudence and temperance regarding their belief in and approach to miracles. Christians should avoid being either presumptuous or pessimistic about the miraculous.[29]

Arrington likewise warns against naiveté toward pseudo-miracles and counterfeit miracles. These have their origin in the occult, Satanism, witchcraft, and spiritualism.[30] The Man of Sin (Antichrist) will be noted for such miracles (2 Thessalonians 2:9). However, genuine miracles are signs pointing to the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God in our midst (Matthew 12:28), participating in the “powers of the age to come” (Hebrews 6:5). Accordingly, rather than a decrease of miracles we might reasonably expect an increase as we approach the coming again of Jesus Christ.[31] Amazingly, belief in the miraculous appears to have survived pre-modern superstition and modern rejection to flourish in postmodern times.

Biblical Balance

Again, much needed balance is prominent on the topic of the miraculous. Yet while there is a clear need for caution there is no need to discredit in toto the miraculous as of no value or viability in authentic Christian belief and practice. Believers need sensitivity to the leading of the Holy Spirit in distinguishing the identity of the source of specific miraculous activity (1 Corinthians 12:10). Interestingly enough, we can discern from where a miracle is coming by noting where it is going. If it points to God’s Kingdom it is from God. If it points to the kingdom of darkness it is from Satan. Perhaps another way of putting this principle is that both good and evil can be known by the fruits they bear (Matthew 7:15-20). The “fruit of the light”, which “consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth” (Ephesians 5:9), stands in stark contrast to “the unfruitful deeds of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11 NASB). It is vital for Pentecostals to distinguish correctly between the true and the false in their encounters with the miraculous.

A Pentecostal tendency, as I have perceived it, to react reflexively and affirmatively to almost any and all so-called manifestations of the miraculous, out of an ardent and understandable but indefensible desire to defend the category of miracles as a viable reality against all comers, has not helped the perception of others regarding our credibility and reliability. This prejudicial tendency existed in the New Testament too—and not only among Christians—and with questionable results. I find the candor of the New Testament account of Paul’s trial before the Jewish High Priest most admirable. It freely admits that when Paul found himself in trouble he flagrantly appealed to the prejudice of the Pharisees toward the miraculous and the spiritual over against the negative bias of the Sadducees regarding the same (Acts 23:6, 8). This act resulted in a near riot!

An ancient Christian commentator, Bede, readily admits that “the apostle attempted to cause dissension among his persecutors, so that they might in their division release the man whom in their agreement they had bound”—namely Paul himself.[32] In Paul’s defense, this act likely saved his life in an unfair and illegal court scene when all the odds were stacked against him in a ridiculous case based on a trumped up charge. However, Paul apparently nonetheless regretted his actions, driven though they were by desperation, and later admitted it openly (24:21). Interestingly, another ancient commentator, Chrysostom sees Paul’s candid admission as evidence of his integrity and accountability.[33] Might not willingness to confess frankly a bias toward the supernatural that has sometimes led to questionable results be seen by many others as assurance of Pentecostals’ integrity and reliability? If so, might not our subsequent testimonies to authentic miraculous manifestations be deemed more credible?

One of the hardest hurdles for Pentecostals to overcome is the persistent stereotype of gullibility and larceny. Images of Pentecostal congregations willing to believe almost anything and of traveling evangelists willing to supply it for a price are damaging beyond description. Apostle Peter’s rebuke of Simon the Magician for efforts to commercialize the gospel through manipulation of the miraculous comes to mind (Acts 8:4-24). This text is a model for Pentecostals due to its demonstration of a distinct experience of immersion in the Holy Spirit chronologically subsequent to conversion accompanied by outward manifestations of spiritual gifts—a point to which many commentators, ancient and modern, quite agree.[34] They also agree that personal greed and lust for power to manipulate the miraculous are not appropriate or ethical in the practice of ministry.[35] We would all do well to listen.

However, in spite of the New Testament admonition, an ancient manual for church ministry, The Didache, indicates that discerning true from false prophets continued to be a problem in post-apostolic times. There was not a denial of the continuing validity of spiritual gifts in the communities of faith but rather discipline designed to guard against the faithful being manipulated or misled.[36] The problem continues even to this day and is prevalent among some Pentecostals. Accordingly, the ancient advice requiring prophets to teach the truth and follow what they teach in their practice is still valid today. If Pentecostals have an Achilles heel, it is probably a disturbing tendency to allow those who seem unusually gifted to get away with not keeping the usual guidelines for conducting ministry with integrity. That must stop. The true gospel links proclamation and practice in “the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness” (Titus 1:1 NASB). Anything else is false.

Miraculous Signs and Wonders

At the paradigmatic Pentecost event, Apostle Peter offers the idea that miracles have special sign value (Acts 2:22-24). At the first, New Testament miracles attested to the identity of Jesus as God’s chosen Messiah. But an authenticating theme arises in Paul’s miraculous ministry too, both in his defense and in his refutation of false apostles (Romans 15:19; 2 Corinthians 12:9; cp. chapters 10-12). Thus Hart asserts that “sign” “is perhaps the most helpful term for describing the nature of miracle because a “miracle is a sign of the kingdom of God” that “points beyond itself to a transcendent reality, purpose, and person (God).”[37] In paradoxical fashion Jesus refuses to cater to sign seekers even while performing miraculous signs (Mark 8:11-13). Jesus warned the faithful against false prophets and phony messiahs who deceive the simple through misleading signs (Matthew 24:24). Yet John’s Gospel insists that Jesus’ numerous miraculous signs are an incentive for and aid to saving, life-giving faith in God’s Son (20:30-31).

Of course miraculous signs and wonders did not originate with the contemporary Pentecostal movement. Stan Burgess and Gary McGee carefully chart an impressive, if sporadic, record of signs and wonders throughout the long ages of Church history.[38] They further affirm that the emergence of Pentecostalism has led to renewed interest in and emphasis on miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit which are often associated with effective evangelism mission. Frank Macchia assures that ample evidence suggests “Pentecostals were convinced from the beginning that they were involved in a latter rain of the Spirit that included a proliferation of miraculous gifts needed to restore the church to apostolic power.”[39] In this light, Pentecostals do not see signs and wonders as ends in themselves but as tangible assurances of the restoration of pristine power to the Church.

Miraculous signs and wonders occur in the Church for purposes of ministry or divine service. Thus Macchia can say, “A ‘charismania’ that sees spectacular gifts as an end in themselves will not do.” Rather, God graces believers with “manifestations and ministries that transcend the ordinary and the mundane in order to free them from structures and routines and to expose them to more liberating alternatives.”[40] In a word, signs and wonders are inseparable from ecclesial mission and point to Spirit-empowered service in the world for Christ’s sake. One of the most prevalent and persistent problems in Pentecostalism today has been a tendency to see the presence of signs and wonders as authenticating a particular minister or ministry. That is not the case. In fact, spiritual gifts often seem to be manifested in those least likely to be impressive otherwise (cp. 1 Corinthians 1:25-27). At best, miraculous signs only point to a minister or his/her ministry indirectly. Miraculous signs are God’s testimony to our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 2:1-4). Note Mark 16:19-20.

So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed. (NASB)[41]

Quite clearly, “signs” (semeion) is here used in the sense of “attesting miracles”. The idea of miraculous attestation is consistent with the overall message of the Gospels but Mark’s Gospel has a distinctive emphasis. I H. Marshall observed that in the Gospel of Mark “the mighty works” are quite distinctively concerned with the authority and identity of Jesus specifically—rather than general signs of the Kingdom of God.[42] Verse 20 certainly seems well aligned with that interpretation. In any case, the attestation by signs is not actually of, that is, to, the Apostles themselves. It is of or to the Word. The signs are specific miraculous attestations, or divine testimonies, to the truth and power of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Such attestation was not a new idea, and often reveals an evangelistic motif. Martin lists numerous scripture passages from the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles to support his observation that “The notion that God’s powerful works were being performed to lead people to repent and understand his intentions is found frequently in the NT”.[43] Miraculous manifestations were prevalent in the New Testament as witness to the nature of the gospel (e.g. Galatians 3:5). Pentecostal Christological and soteriological foci are apparent in Martin’s description of the gift of miracles as “a particular spiritual endowment by which a person is able to demonstrate God’s justifying and saving power, and to manifest the lordship of Jesus Christ over the whole universe by bringing about physical and moral effects that clearly transcend the power of merely human resources.”[44] However, Duffield and Van Cleave are doubtless on target to remind that miracles in themselves do not produce repentance.[45] Nonetheless essential to sound theology is an affirmation that miracles manifest the lordship of Jesus Christ over all creation. Miracles testify to the deity of Christ and to the verity of his gospel.

A House Divided

In short, sound Pentecostal theology understands miraculous signs and wonders as attestations to the Lord Jesus Christ and the good news of the gospel without which the witness and worship of the Church is deprived of much of its power and impoverished in its performance of its divinely ordained purpose in mission. However, Ruthven offers a significant additional emphasis. Before looking at it directly, let’s note some contextual background. The totality of the confusion over the validity of the miraculous cannot be correctly laid at the door of the Enlightenment. Christianity’s own “in fighting” is also partly to blame. Historically, Roman Catholicism affirmed the miraculous but relegated it to rarity. Thus miracles became mostly perceptible signs pointing out true doctrine or identifying great saints. In other words, miracles were sometimes used to affirm the superiority of Catholicism. Accordingly, many Protestants rejected the miraculous, either in whole or in part, as a reactionary defensive measure. In this manner, the doctrine of “cessationism,” or the teaching that miracles and spiritual gifts were limited to the New Testament era, arose and became widespread.[46] The unbiblical doctrine of cessationism is completely counter to everything Pentecostals are about.

The major difference between Enlightenment anti-supernaturalism and Protestant cessationism is minor. Of course, cessationism does accept the reality of the miraculous in biblical times. To a greater or lesser degree, depending on other hermeneutical (interpretive) presuppositions, cessationism accepts the miraculous nature of certain events in the history of Israel and the ministry of Christ and his apostles. However, this tacit acceptance is minimized by its insistence that nothing miraculous has ever or could occur since those times. So then, Enlightenment influenced philosophers deny that any miracles have ever or could ever happen while cessationist theologians deny that any other miracles have ever or could ever, or most especially, do ever, happen.

Cessationism tries to have it both ways. It points to miracles in the Bible as proof of Christianity but spoofs any historical or contemporary claims to the miraculous as spurious. While cessationism’s acceptance of biblical miracles is not unimportant, in the long run its denial of the miraculous in the everyday life of faith comes out in the end at the same place as Enlightenment skepticism: expect no miracles. Furthermore, it is less consistent. Cessationism opens itself up to skeptics’ charge that the same spurious quality they attribute unblushingly to contemporary miracles can be not unfairly transferred to biblical narratives of miracles as well. Not surprisingly, cessationism is in serious decline as its unsustainable elements become increasingly apparent to honest thinkers.

Ruthven points out that recent increasing scientific knowledge has not substantiated but rather tended to repudiate Enlightenment skepticism.[47] True science simply does not inevitably exclude the possibility of the reality of God or of God’s powerful acts in the world. Pentecostals have long pointed out that careful biblical study refutes cessationism as well. I argue above that the Pentecostal supernatural worldview bases itself squarely on theology proper, that is, on the doctrine of God. At the popular level, Pentecostal preachers often appeal to the prophetic description of the Lord’s unchanging character and nature (Malachi 3:6) and to the apostolic injunction regarding the ceaseless character and nature of Christ and of the gospel (Hebrews 13:8). I recall that my Pentecostal preacher father often appealed to these texts to proclaim the message that the God who worked in people’s lives in the Bible has not changed and therefore still works in similar fashion today for those who have faith. When confronted with the claim that “the days of miracles” are past, my uncle, also a preacher, would often retort, “There never was a ‘day’ of miracles, only a God of miracles—and he hasn’t changed!”[48] These words exemplify the doctrine of continuationism or the theological belief that miracles and spiritual gifts continue to the present age. They also indicate that Pentecostal continuationism is ultimately an affirmation of the immutability and reliability of God’s nature and character. Now, let’s go on to Ruthven’s additional emphasis as already mentioned.

Authentic Gospel Expression

Ruthven takes the popular continuationist theme to a clear theological level. Although it is noted above that miracles have a certain sign value, Ruthven warns against overemphasizing this aspect. For him, “New Testament ‘miracles’ do not prove the gospel” so much as “they express the gospel”.[49] Apostle Paul’s words, “For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power” (1 Corinthians 4:20 NASB), indicate that the miraculous acts are an inherent element of the gospel message and experience. That is a subtle but significant nuance. Accordingly, miracles and spiritual gifts cannot be replaced by the biblical account of the gospel or by the preaching of the gospel because they are intrinsic to the gospel as it is manifested in this fallen world (cp. 1 Corinthians 12:8-12).[50] Miracles, signs, and wonders are not an ancillary aspect that can be detached and discarded. God’s powerful deeds are part of the gospel.

The gospel of Jesus Christ does not stop with merely announcing a message of glad tidings to hapless and helpless sinners; the gospel goes on to enact deliverance and transformation in the lives of broken people. Many of Jesus’ most dramatic miracles occurred out of his compassion for those who suffer (Matthew 9:35-36; 14:14; 15:32-38; 20:34). Therefore, miracles can no more cease than Jesus can cease being compassionate. Jesus being no longer compassionate is of course unimaginable. So, divine compassion and divine miracles are linked together. God does not merely work miracles to convince stubborn sinners of the gospel. God performs might acts out of loving compassion for hurting people. (Once again, note the assertion of theology proper that the miraculous is ultimately rooted in God’s own nature and character.)

According to Ruthven, divine acts of power “reveal God in expressing the gospel”. Miracles were prominent in the ministries of Jesus and of Paul as well as others and should and do continue today. Indeed, Ruthven boldly asserts that “the very essence of Christianity” or “the kingdom of God” is its “divine (miraculous) power” (1 Corinthians 2:4-5; 4:20; cp. Matthew 12:28). True enough, miracle mongering cannot be tolerated (as argued above). Divine worship is not a circus for the latest huckster to hawk his or her sensational wares. Neither can the plight or pain of those who continue to suffer be swept aside. The eschatological tension of now-not yet must be maintained. Believers experience the “now” or “already” of the miracle working power of the Holy Spirit alongside the “not yet” of final victory over all suffering and evil.[51] Especially in the Pentecostal context, this last point deserves brief elaboration.

Many Pentecostal testimonies lift up, and rightly so, the blessings of divine healing. I myself testify to being dramatically healed of life-threatening disease.[52] God can and does miraculously heal. It is also the case that not everyone is automatically or instantly healed. Some may not be healed in this life at all. It is critically important that Pentecostal theology of the miraculous be inclusive of the full range of actual life experiences. Thus it must account for and include those who are not yet healed (but experience God no less); and, therefore, they help contribute to a full-orbed theology of well-being.[53] God graciously works to sustain and strengthen those who are not immediately healed. In such cases, God’s sustaining grace and love are present and sufficient (2 Corinthians 12:9). Any Pentecostal testimonial theology open to describing dramatic healings as extensions of the biblical narrative must also carefully and compassionately address and embrace those who are not immediately or spectacularly healed. Compassionate sensitivity to the still suffering need not weaken affirmation within the believing community that Jesus still heals. It does, however, strengthen affirmation of divine sovereignty.

Theological Praxis

Pentecostals and Charismatics perceive healing and deliverance as two especially important dimensions of ecclesial mission and Christian living.[54] Julie Ma’s research indicates that Pentecostal missions have been uniquely effective among societies in the majority world precisely because of attention to these and similar elements which are relatively ignored by most other Christian groups. She suggests Pentecostal missiologists need to further develop their theological foundations in these areas and that Pentecostal missionaries need to take full advantage of unusual preparation by the Spirit.[55] For my purposes here, healing and deliverance demonstrate an appropriate interface between theology and praxis in the context of an affirmative Pentecostal theology of the miraculous.[56] Natural and supernatural considerations coalesce in an especially noteworthy way in divine healing and deliverance. In the case of physical healing, Pentecostals believe in divine miraculous healings but also affirm the value of health care and medical treatment. In the case of deliverance, Pentecostals believe in exorcisms but also affirm the value of psychological care and counseling.[57] A mature Pentecostal theology will therefore be holistic in nature, accounting for both natural and supernatural aspects of divine agency and human well-being.

Pentecostals have a strong biblical case for practicing healing and deliverance. For example, the Synoptic Gospels clearly emphasize healing and deliverance in Jesus’ ministry. The results of a selective overview are representative. Matthew relates the centrality of Jesus healing the sick and delivering people from demons (4:23-25) and announces that Jesus’ Spirit enabled power over the demonic is indicative of the sovereignty of God (12:28; cp. Luke 10:17). However, in Matthew Jesus warns that performing miracles and exorcisms are not substitutes for obedience to God’s will (7:21-23). Mark opens up with Jesus delivering the demonized and healing the sick (1:21-34) and consistently presents Jesus as one who conquers disease, demons, and death (5:1-43). Luke defines Jesus’ Messianic identity in terms of his proclamation of the gospel and liberation of those who are bound, blind, or oppressed (4:18). Luke indicates that the ministry of preaching, healing, and delivering passed on to the disciples as well (9:1-2). Luke articulates the relation between physical healing and deliverance from demons (exorcism) (4:38-41; 13:10-17). Furthermore, the New Testament Church continued performing healing and deliverance ministries. Healings and deliverances were prominent in the Apostles’ ministries (Acts 5:12-16). Healing and deliverance occurred in dramatic fashion among various apostles, including Paul (Acts 8:1-4; 19:11-20). If the New Testament portrays the pattern for the Church today, as Pentecostals ardently believe, then there is no reasonable doubt that believers today should be involved in healing and deliverance ministries.[58]

Pentecostal ecclesiology clearly understands the Church to exist as a healing community.[59] In addition to proclaiming the gospel message of salvation as forgiveness, or better, as part an intrinsic part of that proclamation, the Church’s demonstration of the gospel shows in compassion for the sick. Although there are diverse models, compassionate care for the sick can include prayer for the sick, sometimes with the laying on of hands, anointing with oil, and other emblematic elements, to conventional health care and social action in behalf of the suffering. Ecclesiologically speaking, local Pentecostal congregations exist as diverse healing communities.[60] Visions of existential and relational wholeness (shalom) include a holistic or multidimensional anthropology and soteriology with salvation/healing for spirit, soul, and body. Relational and communal reconciliation as well as spiritual elements of suffering and supernatural sources of affliction call for concerted attention to healing and deliverance. Pentecostals believe that for the Church to really be the Church as it should be it offers help in the Lord for the whole person here and now as well as happiness with the Lord for all eternity.[61] Accordingly, not only forgiveness of sins and future blessedness but present healing and deliverance are intrinsic to the gospel and integral to the mission of the Church.

As it is incumbent upon Christ’s ministers to fulfill their ministry in faithfulness (Colossians 4:17; 2 Timothy 4:5), challenges facing development of a solid Pentecostal theology of healing and deliverance must be adequately addressed. Solomon lists three pairs for particular consideration: epistemology and cosmology, theodicy and suffering, and faith and superstition.[62] Epistemology and cosmology were briefly addressed above. Suffice it to say here that the world of the spiritual and supernatural are affirmed. Regarding theodicy and suffering the historic Christian tradition recognizes the reality of the world, the flesh, and the devil as opponents of God and his good angels and of humanity. It also recognizes the role of human choice and sin. Demons or evil spirits aligned with the devil are no match for the sovereign God, the Triune God of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Humans make free choices and are responsible to make the right ones—to repent of sin, to repudiate Satan, and to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and as Lord. Although suffering will continue to occur in this fallen world until Jesus comes again, there is help and hope in Christ. Regarding faith and superstition it is essential to separate decisively from that which is unbiblical as contrary to sound doctrine; it is the unfruitful works of darkness. Pentecostal Christians must embrace only that which is scripturally and doctrinally sound or healthy; this and this only gives light and life to the world. Prudent examination of self and one’s culture is essential to assure the devil does not get a foothold. Syncretism, the mixing of authentic Christian faith with inconsistent elements from other religious sources, will be self-defeating, at the least, and possibly damning.

God has given the gifts of the Spirit to the Church (1 Corinthians 12:8-10). These gifts include healings and distinguishing of spirits. They are for a purpose. They are to be used. The gifts of healing are greatly needed today.[63] Pentecostal believers can approach circumstances of sickness with the certainty of faith even while acknowledging the sovereignty of God in and over all situations. As Kydd says, “The healings flow from God, and God keeps his own good counsel. It is enough that we know that God looks with mercy on human pain.”[64] Deliverance from demonic oppression is available in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Grant McClung observes that that is the testimony of Scripture and of the Christian tradition.[65] Sickness and spiritual oppression, and therefore healing and deliverance, are often connected but are not synonymous. There are various levels of demonic influence and presence. Pastoral sensitivity is a must for dealing with the afflicted. McClung lists three necessities for actual practice: discernment, preparation, and action. Discernment includes supernatural insight (1 Corinthians 12:10) as well as looking for telltale signs of demonic presence (e.g. 1 John 4:1). Preparation includes such things as prayer, Bible study, self-examination, and team support. Action includes most particularly approaching and confronting the demonized in the name of Jesus with faith in his authority to accomplish the expulsion. However, Jesus’ name should never be used as if it is a magical formula. It is more a matter of standing under the authority of Jesus against all powers opposed to his name. In all of this process maintain an assurance that exorcism is part of the mission of the Church.

Conclusion

I have now come to that which I most wish to say. And I have already hinted at it in my introductory remarks. “I am personally fully persuaded that the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements have been raised up by God in manifestation of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit through the Lord Jesus Christ.” At one level, this statement expresses my deep commitment to my own faith community. Of course, it also expresses my profound appreciation for the Trinitarian theological orientation. In the context of this study, however, it expresses my unapologetic affirmation of the miraculous. Two ideas are uppermost in my mind at the moment. First, this essay demonstrates my conviction that an affirmation of the reality of the miraculous and its great benefit for believers is a biblically and theologically credible and defensible stance. For now, enough has been said about that. So I will focus on a second idea.

I see the Pentecostal movement as itself an amazing expression of God’s miraculous power.[66] In many ways Pentecostalism is unprecedented and unparalleled. Arising from among the marginalized and disenfranchised, Pentecostalism has not only survived but thrived in an essentially hostile environment. There has never been anything quite like it in the history of Christianity. It is not only that Pentecostals started small and grew large, or even that Pentecostals are currently the fasting growing religious movement on the face of the earth. Pentecostals have immeasurably impacted the world—especially, but not only, the religious world. The Pentecostals have made mistakes; some of them are glaring and garish. May God forgive us and lead us forward into the future. But problems aside, Pentecostalism can be marvelous to behold in its sheer energy and spiritual vitality. And belief in and experience of the miraculous is in the essence of Pentecostalism, in its very soul. The supernatural is engraved—indeed, emblazoned!—on the Pentecostal heart.

A few days ago in a serious conversation over a long lunch a good friend with an impressive Pentecostal pedigree asked me if I think our movement is going to make it. I replied with something to the effect that I am not so much concerned about the movement as such but that I am confident that the moving of God’s Spirit cannot fail. How could I say that? It is because the moving of the Holy Spirit is miraculous. It is divine power in action. And neither Pentecostals nor anyone else has a monopoly on the Spirit or on the Spirit’s power. I sometimes wrestle with what all that really means. But when I get down on my knees and lift up my voice to God the assurance of its truth is certain. Accordingly, in the end I am grateful for the conviction that as long as Pentecostals allow the Holy Spirit to move through us, then the movement is not ours but God’s. And God’s miracle working power is unstoppable.

 

PR

 

[1] Guy P. Duffield/N.M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angeles: L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1983, 1987), 326-62.

[2] James H. Railey, Jr. and Benny C. Aker, “Theological Foundations,” 39-60, Stanley M. Horton, ed., Systematic Theology (Springfield, MO: Logion Press, 1995 revised ed.), 58.

[3] I do not doubt that most Pentecostals would heartily “Amen!” the C. S. Lewis observation that, “the more we understand what God it is who is said to be present and the purpose for which He is said to have appeared, the more credible the miracles become.” See C.S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: HarperCollins, 1947, 1960, 1996), 217.

[4] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007, 4^th ed.), 69, 306-07, 321, 322.

[5] Larry D. Hart, Truth Aflame: Theology for the Church in Renewal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999, 2005), 194.

[6] Hart, Truth Aflame, 195.

[7] See Tony Richie. “Spiritual Transformation through Pentecostal Testimony,” Chapter Nine, Knowing God in the Ordinary Practices of the Christian Life, eds. Jackie David Johns and David S.E. Han (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, forthcoming).

[8] Tony Richie, “Effectively Engaging Pluralism and Postmodernism in a So-Called Post-Christian Culture: A Review Essay of Lesslie Newbigin’s The Gospel in a Pluralist Society,” The Pneuma Review (Fall 2007), 27-39.

[9] As C.S. Lewis uses the term, descriptive of a seriously deficient philosophy that science is somehow the savior of the world. Lewis’ views on scientism are most dramatically portrayed in his That Hideous Strength (New York: Scribner, 1996).

[10] R.F. Carlson, “Science and Theology,” 793-800, Global Dictionary of Theology (GDT), eds. William A. Dryness and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, assoc. eds. Juan Francisco Martinez and Simon Chan (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), insists on separating “true science from science that has been mixed with metaphysics”, e.g. naturalistic philosophy or naturalistic metaphysics, 800. Naturalistic presuppositions rule out the supernatural without due consideration and thus result in false science.

[11] See McGrath, Christian Theology, 322-25.

[12] Lewis, Miracles, 217-18.

[13] Lewis, Miracles, 108.

[14] See J. Ruthven, “Miracle,” 546-50, GDT, 547.

[15] Hart, Truth Aflame, 195.

[16] Hart, Truth Aflame, 195.

[17] Rebecca Barlow Jordan’s insightful blog, “5 Miracles It’s Too Easy to Miss,” http://www.crosswalk.com/faith/spiritual-life/5-miracles-its-too-easy-to-overlook.html, affirms that she has witnessed “heart-stopping, mountain moving miracles” on rare occasions, but also accepts less dramatic but more obvious everyday miracles. She trusts God’s sovereignty because “He alone determines who, when, where and what will honor Him the most.” Cp. Duffield/Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, 233.

[18] Don Thorsen, An Exploration of Christian Theology (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson 2008), 180. This is misspoken. Don has told me he meant to say that we cannot account for the happening. I.e. it is beyond human explanation.

[19] Railey and Aker, “Theological Foundations,” 58.

[20] French L. Arrington, Christian Doctrine: A Pentecostal Perspective, vol. 3 (Cleveland, TN: Pathway, 1994), 114-16 and 29-30.

[21] Hart, Truth Aflame, 193.

[22] Hart, Truth Aflame, 196.

[23] Arrington, Christian Doctrine, 3:139-40.

[24] Thorsen, An Exploration, 310-12.

[25] Hart, Truth Aflame, 200.

[26][26] Ruthven, “Miracle,” 547.

[27] Thorsen, An Exploration, 180.

[28] Thorsen, An Exploration, 180.

[29] Thorsen, An Exploration, 180.

[30] Pentecostals seek to meet this occult aspect through God’s authentic power. E.g. see Opoky, Onyinyah, “Deliverance as a Way of Confronting Witchcraft in Modern Africa: Ghana a Modern Case History” (July 2010), http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj10/onyinah.html.

[31] Arrington, Christian Doctrine, 3:141.

[32] Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament (ACCS): Volume V: Acts, ed. Francis Martin, gen. ed., Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 278.

[33] ACCS: Acts, 286.

[34] French L. Arrington, “Acts of the Apostles,” 535-692, Full Life Bible Commentary to the New Testament: An International Commentary for Spirit-Filled Christians, eds. French L. Arrington and Roger Stronstad (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 574-77. Cp. Chrysostom, ACCS: Acts, 93, and David J. Williams, New International Biblical Commentary: Acts (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1985, 1990), 156.

[35] For example, see Cyril of Jerusalem, ACCS: Acts, 93-94.

[36] Clayton N. Jefford with Kenneth J. Harder and Louis D. Amezaga, Jr., Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1996), 45, 50.

[37] Hart, Truth Aflame, 199. Original italics.

[38] S.M. Burgess and G.B. McGee, “Signs and Wonders,” 1063-68, The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (NIDPCM), ed. Stanley M. Burgess, assoc. ed. Eduard M. Van Der Maas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002, 2003).

[39] F.D. Macchia, “Theology, Pentecostal,” 1120-41, NIDPCM, 1137.

[40] Macchia, “Theology, Pentecostal,” 1138.

[41] Manuscript dispute over the “longer ending” of Mark certainly does not becloud the supposition that it nevertheless bears witness to early Christian ideas. Nevertheless, Jerry Camery-Hoggatt, “Mark,” 255-374, Full Life Bible Commentary to the New Testament: An International Commentary for Spirit-Filled Christians, eds. French L. Arrington and Roger Stronstad (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), oddly argues that attention to miraculous signs in the longer ending diverts attention from Christ’s resurrection and describes a deficient faith, 373.

[42] I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 85.

[43] F. Martin, “Miracles, Gift of,” 875-76, NIDPCM, 876.

[44] Martin, “Miracles, Gift of,” 876.

[45] Duffield/Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, 213.

[46] Ruthven, “Miracle,” 547-48. There are many great works out on cessationism. Among the best are Jon Mark Ruthven, On the Cessation of the Charismata: the Protestant Polemic on Post-Biblical Miracles, revised and expanded (Tulsa, OK: Word & Spirit, 1993, 2011), and Craig S. Keener, Miracles: the Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011). Most recently, ed. Robert W. Graves, Strangers to Fire: When Tradition Trumps Scripture (Woodstock, GA: Foundations for Pentecostal Scholarship, Inc. 2014), has gathered under a single cover a mass of helpful apologetic material for continuationism vis-à-vis cessationism.

[47] Ruthven, “Miracle,” 548.

[48] Cp. Duffield/Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, 405-07.

[49] Ruthven, “Miracle,” 548-49.

[50] See Jon Ruthven, On the Cessation of the Charismata: The Protestant Polemic on Post-Biblical Miracles, Revised Edition (Tulsa: Word & Spirit Press, 2011).

[51] Ruthven, “Miracle,” 549.

[52] See Tony Richie. “Spiritual Transformation through Pentecostal Testimony,” Chapter Nine, Knowing God in the Ordinary Practices of the Christian Life, eds. Jackie David Johns and David S.E. Han (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, forthcoming).

[53] Shane Clifton, “The Dark Side of Prayer for Healing: Toward a Theology of Well-Being,” Pneuma 36:2 (2014), 204-225 (205-09).

[54] R. Solomon, “Healing and Deliverance,” 361-68, GDT, 361.

[55] J.C. Ma, “Animism and Pentecostalism: A Case Study,” 315-18, NIDPCM.

[56] This writing was initially prepared as part of a lecture series on Systematic Theology in Haiti for a large group of pastors pursuing theological training. In their context, healing and deliverance are pressing concerns calling for careful but uncompromising consideration. It was my privilege to be invited to participate in the M.A. degree program offered by the Theological Seminary of the Church of God in Haiti (le Séminaire Théologique de l’Église de Dieu en Haïti – STEDH).

[57] See French L. Arrington, Christian Doctrine: A Pentecostal Perspective, vol. 2 (Cleveland, TN: Pathway, 1993), 253-69 (267-68), and John Christopher Thomas, “The Devil, Disease, and Deliverance,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 2 (1993): 25-50 (25-27).

[58] Admittedly, the realm of the demonic in particular is an area given to extremes. It is wise to remember these well known words of warning: “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.” C.S. Lewis, “Preface,” The Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillian, 1976 [originally published 1941]).

[59] Kimberly Ervin Alexander, “The Pentecostal Healing Community,” 183-206, ed. John Christopher Thomas, Towards a Pentecostal Ecclesiology: The Church and the Fivefold Gospel (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2010.

[60][60] Opoku Onyinah, “Pentecostal Healing Communities,” 207-224, ed. John Christopher Thomas, Towards a Pentecostal Ecclesiology: The Church and the Fivefold Gospel (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2010.

[61] This is all Christologically centered because, as Robert P. Pope, “Why the Church Needs a Full Gospel: A Review and Reaction to Pentecostal Ecclesiology,” 272-84, ed. John Christopher Thomas, Towards a Pentecostal Ecclesiology: The Church and the Fivefold Gospel (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2010), has said, “the Church is the Church only because Jesus redeems, sanctifies, empowers, heals, and instills in us the hope for his return,” 283 (italics are original).

[62] Solomon, “Healing and Deliverance,” 364-66.

[63] F. Martin, “Healing, Gift of,” 694-98, NIDPCM.

[64] R.A.N. Kydd, “Healing in the Christian Church,” 698-711, NIDPCM.

[65] L.G. McClung, Jr., “Exorcism,” 624-28, NIDPCM.

[66] Although I here highlight my own faith tradition, I deeply appreciate the invaluable contributions of the larger body of Christ.