New Order of the Latter Rain: A New Perspective

From Pneuma Review Fall 2013.

Introduction

Many people, who are familiar with the history and teachings of the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, have likely heard of the revival known as the New Order of the Latter Rain. Was this a legitimate revival? Was it an authentic move of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps what is most commonly known about the revival was told with a negative emphasis on its fringe doctrines, which include the doctrine of Manifest Sons and personal prophetic words of direction.

There was no new doctrine introduced in the New Order of the Latter Rain. However, the movement is most remembered for its doctrinal controversies. At the center was an interpersonal conflict that became camouflaged by a denominational dispute. Nearsighted presuppositions obstructed objectivity. The sin of pride caused further division in the body of Christ. Yet, the fruit that remains demonstrates that both sides of this issue have proven to be effective in the ministry of the Kingdom of God. The words of David du Plessis are apropos:

There is nothing that can ever take the place of the Holy Spirit in the church. Let us pray for a greater outpouring than ever, and remember when the floods come it will not keep to our well prepared channels but it will overflow and probably cause chaos in our regular programs.¹

General Historical Context
The term “latter rain” must first be defined because it is used in many contexts to refer to several distinct movements of the Holy Spirit. In this essay, it will be referred to as the New Order of the Latter Rain (NOLR) to distinguish it from other “latter rain” revivals. Specifically, NOLR will refer to the movement which began in 1948, in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, Canada, and which spread throughout the world in various attributes and nuances. Several articles and books provide a non-polemical background for this movement.² Many other articles and books are written from an apologetic perspective.³ The term “latter rain” became popular to the Pentecostal Movement.⁴ David W. Myland illustrated this premise, first through the writing of hymns, then through the association of the natural rainfall in Palestine by pointing out the spiritual analogy of it.⁵

Contextually, the movement began one generation after the birth of the Classical Pentecostal Movement of Topeka and Azusa fame. The primary Pentecostal denominations have already been established; specifically, the Assemblies of God (AG) and its sister organization, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC). Socially, it is important to consider the impact of two World Wars. Eschatologically, it is important to ponder the impact of the re-establishment of the nation of Israel, the fear of nuclear destruction, the construction of the Berlin Wall, and the threat of Communism to the Western world in 1948. Ecclesiastically, it is noteworthy that the healing and/or evangelistic ministries of Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, William Branham, and T.L. Osborn begin around this same time.

The nomenclature “new” for the movement was used pejoratively by those who rejected the movement. For them, it reminded them of the “New Issue,”⁶ which had also split the AG denomination. For those that embraced the movement, “new” expressed a prophetic sense of anticipation, a restoration of what God intended. Negatively, the newness is viewed as an innovative doctrine that overemphasized its novel methodologies. It also separates this outpouring of latter rain from that which inaugurated the classical Pentecostal Movement. Proponents of the NOLR accept the nomenclature as a distinction between the former rain―Topeka and Azusa―and the latter rain.

Like a natural rain, the NOLR was appreciated by those who were experiencing spiritual drought but despised by those who were having a picnic, even if the picnickers did not realize how dry it had become. Richard Riss said, “the preceding decade… was described by Pentecostals as a time of spiritual dryness and lack of God’s presence.”⁷ In his article, Riss finds four antecedents to the NOLR: 1) William Branham’s emphasis of the laying on of hands; 2) Franklin Hall’s emphasis on fasting and prayer; 3) the autonomy of the local church emphasized by Independent Assemblies of God; and 4) the emphasis on a “new thing” (Isaiah 43:19). These elements, plus the practice of encouraging the speaking of personal and directive prophetic exhortations, continued to enlarge as the NOLR matured as a movement.

As no essay could deliver the full account of all those involved in the NOLR, this overview will endeavor to unfold the major events and how the movement grew as a result.

The cast of characters developed below is merely representative. Many people who are briefly mentioned are nonetheless important in their contribution and ministry. For example: Reg Layzell⁸ played a significant role in that he invited George Hawtin to his church where there was a powerful outpouring of the Holy Spirit; this is where Myrtle Beall was initiated into the NOLR. Winston Nunes labored successfully to promote the work of the Holy Spirit in the NOLR throughout Canada and the USA.⁹ Much more could be written about the ministry of Milford Kirkpatrick, Dr. Thomas Wyatt, Dr. A. Earl Lee, John and Fred Poole, Demos Shakarian, H. David Edwards, Ralph Mahoney, Kevin Conner, Rob Wheeler, John Owens, R. Edward Miller, George Warnock, Ern Baxter, Joseph Matson-Boze, Gerald Derstine, J. Preston Eby, Bill Britton, John Robert Stevens, Paul Grubb, and many others whom I have failed to notice. Here it is also important to note the significant endorsement from Lewi Petrus, the Swedish Pentecostal pastor and leader―who verified the autonomy of the local church. For the parameters of this essay, it is sufficient to say that the NOLR impacted the Charismatic Movement of the 1960’s in more ways than would be interesting to read about, through innumerable relationships and networks of co-laborers for the Kingdom of God.

Identify Representative Characters

George Hawtin

George Hawtin is the point man for the NOLR in both its origin and controversy. A decade previous to the NOLR outpouring, he helped found a Bible school with the PAOC. His leadership was characterized as maverick. Undoubtedly, this served as a constant source of conflict with the PAOC leadership. After being pressured to resign from the leadership of the Bible school, Hawtin, his co-laborers, and most of the student body relocated at a recently de-commissioned (post WWII) Canadian Air Force base in Battleford, Saskatchewan. Through their earnest seeking of God and their obedience to the urgings of the Holy Spirit, the revival outpouring and aforementioned signs began to emerge. It is noteworthy, that although Hawtin was the point man, he quickly receded, and several others moved forward.

George Hawtin was given a letter of invitation from the AG Archivist to write a brief account of the NOLR from his personal perspective, which he readily answered.¹⁰ He recalled that it began on the morning of February 13, 1948 and that he had perfect recollection of the events. Hawtin wrote with the tone and habit of a long-time preacher, who cannot help but formulate his thoughts in a sermonic format. He insisted that, even as all good things come from God, so also is this NOLR movement from God and was in the mind of God from the foundation of the world. He recollected that the “reproach and envy”¹¹ stemmed from the jealousy of General Executive office of the PAOC and AG, thereby causing him to be dismissed from his previous position. Setting aside this ecclesiastical dynamic, Hawtin proceeded to narrate the events of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. He began by telling about the prophetic calling and instruction, progressed through the school semester with the telling of repeated disruption of normal class schedules, and continued in his narration about invitations to minister in Minnesota and Vancouver, as the news of this outpouring spread. It is to this Vancouver meeting that Myrtle Beall traveled to, from Detroit, Michigan, to receive her special anointing and encounter with the Holy Spirit.

In the midst of this account, Hawtin digressed for a few paragraphs to allude to the Manifest Sons doctrine, which came to the forefront later―as it was not yet clearly articulated in the revival. Here he stated that it was for this purpose that they experienced the persecution and expulsion from the denominations―that God desired to “get the sons out” of the “bondage of the denominations.”¹² The teaching on the Manifest Sons has become the lightning rod for the condemnation of the NOLR movement, even though this doctrine eventually died away. In contrast to this, one can easily recognize the fruits of the oft-ignored aspect of the NOLR, which is the heart of the Charismatic Renewal―missions, evangelism, worship, and various forms of charismata.

From the other side of the table one can read the circulated letter from the General Council of the Assemblies of God, dated April 19, 1949 and signed by the General Superintendent, E. S. Williams and General Secretary, J. R. Flower. This letter describes Hawtin as “a rugged individualist… but with defiance in his attitude…” who was “tolerated for years” and being withdrawn from association with AG, Hawtin is said to have “set out immediately to destroy our school and work.”¹³ The letter continues with the same tone for several paragraphs as a defense and justification for disassociation from Hawtin and as a discrediting of his ministry. Additionally, the letter progressed to Myrtle Beall and her involvement and influence in the NOLR. The indictment against Stanley Frodsham―who was leading the AG Gospel Publishing House at the time―is implicit. Frodsham had endorsed the movement, causing some to be confused as to the official position of the leadership of AG. This led to his eventual resignation.

Myrtle Beall

Myrtle Beall, of the Detroit, Michigan church, Bethesda Missionary Tabernacle, was a principle promoter of the NOLR. Many of her sermons and teachings were recorded and broadcast via radio, and some of these are archived with at the AG Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center. Of those who knew her as pastor, she is remembered fondly (referred to as “Ma Beall”) for her ability to nurture pastorally.¹⁴ Of those who knew her as a peer in ministry, she is remembered for her strong leadership and willingness to speak forthrightly.¹⁵

After Pastor Myrtle Beall had been to Vancouver, where she received independent confirmation of the calling to build for the Lord an Armory to equip the saints, she became a catalyst for passing the fire of the NOLR on to others. When Ivan Q. Spencer (Elim Bible Institute of Lima, NY) heard of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Detroit, he immediately changed his itinerary and went with haste to seek out this blessing.¹⁶ This began a long-standing relationship between the Spencers and the Bealls and led to their involvement with the NOLR. In contrast to this emerging association, the AG revoked Beall’s credentials in an attempt to dissociate and distance themselves from the NOLR. Beall and her church, Bethesda Missionary Temple of Detroit, Michigan, continued to enjoy the fruit of authentic Pentecostal/charismatic ministry. The evidence for this―sixty years after the NOLR event―is well noted in their ongoing ministry.

One primary example of the teaching that remains from the NOLR is not that of the Manifested Sons, but that of teaching through catechism. Both James Lee Beall and Patricia D Gruits (Beall), the son and daughter of Rev. Myrtle Beall, have written catechetical textbooks.¹⁷ James Beall’s textbook, Laying the Foundation, continues to enjoy circulation. Patricia Gruits’ textbook, Understanding God, is out of print. Both of these follow a similar straightforward teaching pattern. However, there is no overlap in subject matter. They both provide teaching on orthodox and elementary Christian doctrines. Concerning one of the hot issues of NOLR, James Beall wrote:

Who is qualified to prophesy in the realm of direction?
Personal direction is not the usual realm of the New Testament gift of prophecy. God only entrusts this to the overseers of the flock. These overseers are serving in union with Christ who is the Head of the Church; they are extensions of His ministry to His Body. He is the one to call and to equip; He is also the one to promote and send forth.
In the New Testament, we find overseers gathering in groups for the purpose of laying on hands and prophesying in order to establish people in their ministries. No one pastor or elder attempted to take this upon himself without others to assist. This is for two important reasons: (1) all prophecy must be judged, and (2) since we each prophesy in part, the plurality of ministers insures us a fuller picture.
We call this group of assembled elders―whether from one local church or several, as in a convention―the presbytery. This is because the Greek word for elder is presbuteros. In other words, the Bible does not give license to every believer to prophesy over others in the realm of direction. This is a restricted ministry, reserved for the hands of experienced and proven elders. (1Tim 4:14).¹⁸

As of this writing, Rev. Analee Dunn (Beall)―Myrtle Beall’s granddaughter, the daughter of James Beall―continues as the senior pastor of the Bethesda Tabernacle. This independent charismatic church sees several thousand attendees each week.¹⁹

Ivan Q. Spencer

Ivan Q. Spencer and his son Carlton Spencer represent the genre of key leaders that developed through the events of the NOLR. After he had experienced the blessing of this revival and the elation and increasing success and enrollment in Elim Bible Institute, I.Q. Spencer anticipated further uniting among Pentecostal believers. But it was not to be.

Having been elected to serve on the board of the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America (PFNA) I.Q. Spencer volunteered to resign (1950) because of the division that his association with NOLR caused. Arriving in Memphis for the PFNA convention, and hearing of the upheaval, Spencer stated, “It would seem that for the sake of peace, I should resign from the board, I am very disappointed that this must be so.”²⁰ Without notification PFNA dropped all of the Elim associated ministers, missionaries, and churches, because of the association with NOLR. Ivan Q. Spencer wrote about the upheaval that the Manifest Sons doctrine caused:

There is much teaching today regarding a select company out of the Church, called by various scriptural names, such as “the Bride of Christ,” “the Man-child Company,” and “the Sons of God.” Without question there is clearly presented in the Scripture an overcoming body in the general body of believers as is set forth in the seven messages to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3… Yet we do know from experience that the whole Church has never measured up to the standard and surely there is plenty of evidence that it is not doing so today… While most Christians will agree in principle, there are so many variations of teaching today about an overcoming company that the tendency is to mystify and hide the truth and bring division in the Body. This mistake has been made again and again by indiscrete leaders. We ask the question: Is it necessary to make an issue of a teaching, which is not fundamental to our faith? Can we not hold in the background such teachings that divide the Body of Christ until more of the unity of the Spirit is manifest among us all?²¹

The question has often come up concerning where Spencer stood on this doctrine. This editorial makes it clear that it is not central to his teaching and that―at most―it is a matter of inquiry into eschatological possibilities. Carlton Spencer stated that Ivan Q. Spencer held those who embraced the Manifested Sons doctrine with the utmost respect, while he himself could not fully accept it because of his more conservative hermeneutical philosophy concerning the Bible.²² It is important to note here that Classical Pentecostal doctrine has often been accused of holding an elitist position regarding those who were baptized in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.
Elizabeth V. Duncan Baker, a teacher at Ivan Spencer’s Rochester Bible Training School, wrote,

Rev. 12:1-5—My own mind is very satisfied that this woman who gave birth to the man-child, is the Church, and the birth of the overcoming company. This is after Christ was born and He was not caught up immediately to the throne of God after His birth. Here comes a company who will be caught up, to reign with Christ on His throne. To what company can this apply, but to the overcomers, or Bride.²³

Then notice the preparation of the ones to be taken away. We believe this to be the “overcomers” or the bridal company, and that the woman that gives birth to the bride, is the church universal. Now you notice there is a movement of the Holy Spirit going on in the Church at the present time, towards the formation of a company that He will take out of this world.²⁴

Essentially, Elizabeth V. Duncan Baker taught that the elect, those who were to be taken in the first rapture, were those who spoke in tongues. This elite company was considered as those who were spiritually intimate with the bridegroom. It is noteworthy that many of the early AG leaders attended her Bible school. In a similar fashion to his teachers, Ivan Q. Spencer saw honor and a special identity with the persecuted church. The disdain that they endured was part of the cost of following Christ. Specifically, it was the cost of being yielded and obedient to the Holy Spirit. They did not hold their accusers liable; they did not spitefully regard those who attacked them.

What are the fruits of this ministry? Spencer’s association and embrace of the NOLR is evidenced in the thousands of credentialed missionaries and pastors; moreover, in the untold number of people ministered to through them. His life-calling and mission―Elim Bible Institute―continues to thrive. Three practices that sprang from the NOLR continue today at Elim Bible Institute: first, to receive a personal prophecy through a presbytery of prophetic ministers; second, to receive an impartation through the laying on of hands; and third, to endorse the evidence of an apostolic-like ministry.

Stanley Frodsham

Stanley Frodsham experienced and associated with the Pentecostal Movement from the opening decade of the twentieth century. He was loyal to the Assemblies of God and he served the General Council as Secretary and Missionary Treasurer. He also served as editor over all of the Assembly of God publications for much of his career.²⁵ Through his correspondence with Myrtle Beall, he experienced and embraced the NOLR,²⁶ which eventually brought about his “retirement” as editor for the AG in 1949 and began his association with the Spencers and Elim. He taught at Elim Bible Institute for several of his retirement years of ministry. His reputation as a prophet gave wide credence and publication of a prophetic word he gave in 1965 concerning deception; it is a word that is reflective on the NOLR.²⁷

Frodsham was an eyewitness of the Classical Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the 1906 Azusa Street Mission²⁸ and the 1948 NOLR. He stated there was “the same strong atmosphere of the presence of the Lord in both cases.”²⁹ His perspective and interpretation of these events must become an exemplar and―in my opinion―the template for the contemporary interpreter. The basis for this is his proven character, his denominational leadership, his eyewitness advantage, and his stately conduct while under attack. In ironic juxtaposition to this (Frodsham having just resigned from Gospel Publishing House after publishing his celebrated book With Signs Following), is the remarkable commentary on NOLR, which Brumback notes as a movement that “has practically come to naught.”³⁰ Quite the opposite is true; the fruit of the NOLR continues to multiply. Hollenweger concurs that the Pentecostal denominations unjustly painted the NOLR in a negative light.³¹

Lasting Fruit

An evidence of lasting fruit is the phenomena of congregations spontaneously singing together in tongues as a response to God in worship. This has been described as a “heavenly choir”. First in the Azusa revival:

Many have received the gift of singing as well as speaking in the inspiration of the Spirit. The Lord is giving new voices, he translates old songs into new tongues, he gives the music that is being sung by the angels and has a heavenly choir all singing the same heavenly song in harmony. It is beautiful music, no instruments are needed in the meetings.³²
I remember having heard about the “heavenly choir” as is termed the marvelous singing in the Spirit, such as has since broken out amongst us…³³

Then also in the NOLR:

It has been the conviction of some that the present anthems of the [Roman] Catholic church are copies of those originally sung in the Spirit… No sooner had this teaching been given, than God confirmed His Word and singing in the Spirit with the understanding commenced. By the next day the heavenly choir came into full power, and the heavens’ very strains filled the whole church.³⁴

The same spontaneous song in tongues is unmistakable in the Charismatic Movement. Vinson Synan stated that the Catholic Charismatic Movement experienced the same heavenly choir phenomena, resulting from its earliest interaction with the Bealls of Detroit, Michigan.³⁵ Students from Duquesne University (a private Catholic university in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania) and the University of Michigan (a public university in Ann Arbor, Michigan) encountered the Holy Spirit at the Bethesda Tabernacle, and later experienced similar expressions of the heavenly choir in the Catholic Charismatic Movement.

Personality Conflict or Doctrinal Orthodoxy?

In a 2006 interview, Carlton Spencer alluded to the role that the wounded egos played in the controversy of the NOLR, a factor that may have been more significant than the doctrinal questions that circulated against it.³⁶ He suggested that the disapproval from the denominations was perhaps rooted in their presupposition of spiritual leadership. The contention was that the revival did not start from the denominational headquarters; it started in the hinterland. The same was said of the Azusa revival; “No church or organization is back of it.”³⁷ This is not to diminish the effect of the strong, independent, and pioneering personalities of Hawtin, and others; beyond doubt this contributed to the distance between many who also embraced the NOLR.

Some historians found William Durham as setting precedence for the anti-denominational philosophy within the NOLR.³⁸ Durham wrote, “that no religious awakening or revival from Pentecost till now has ever been able to retain its spiritual life and power after man had organized it and gotten it under his control.”³⁹ Blumhofer claimed that Durham was selected by the leaders of the NOLR to demonstrate the authenticity of its propensity to avoid the organizational dynamic of denominations. They sought to provide a platform for the autonomy of every local congregation, which would follow the ecclesiastical structure and authority of an apostolic leader.

Manifest Sons

Linda Andrews wrote her Master’s thesis on the Manifest Sons.⁴⁰ She posited three dynamics at the core of doctrine: first, God is bringing the remnant to perfection; second, upon perfection Christ will manifest himself in these people; finally, embodying Christ, these will become His literal body and rule and reign on earth. She also concisely described the five things that are common in the experience of becoming a Manifest Son: First, they pursue a deeper walk in the Spirit. Second, they experience suffering. Third, they teach and apply the ascension gifts of Ephesians 4:11. Fourth, they follow the prophetic ministry of these last days. Fifth, they leave denominations.

Unfortunately, much of Andrews’ source material is from various Internet sites that feed off one another and are thereby somewhat circular in their research. More importantly, many of these websites are unabashedly anti-charismatic and anti-pentecostal in their orientation. Her bibliography does little to expand on the search for solid primary sources, perhaps because there are none yet discovered. To her credit, Andrews has pieced together the primary fragments and has thereby given her readers the much-needed summation of the theories of the Manifest Sons concepts. In like manner, Blumhofer discredited the whole of the NOLR movement by selectively emphasizing the fringe-of-the-fringe element of the Manifest Sons doctrine.⁴¹ Essentially, the doctrine of Manifest Sons was under construction early in the NOLR but did not ever receive a definitive or authoritative articulation.

Implicit in the Manifest Sons concept is the subtle elitism of the last days apostles to be successors of Christ. Here the reader is cautioned not to conceive of this doctrine as being solidly established, or clearly articulated, as it continued to morph and modify until its few adherents passed away. Therefore, the presentation of its teachings becomes subjective as to the choosing and chronology within its position. Eschatologically, the idea is embedded with a remnant within a remnant concept. These are the Manifested Sons (women included), who would do the work of Christ and would literally be Christ-on-earth at the second coming, and who would thereby do the Kingdom of God work. Part of this design found them being able to heal all who come to them (like Jesus) and to confer spiritual gifts upon whomever they lay their hands. These Manifested Sons would not die and would rule the earth in the millennial reign of Christ.

Regrettably, the teaching discredited and distracted from the heart of the NOLR. It has received exaggerated attention, perhaps rightly so, but ultimately it has come to naught. Critics of the NOLR have found the teaching on Manifest Sons to be an insurmountable obstacle and tend to present it as representative of the whole. This type of documentation follows a gestalt of emphasizing a fringe element of the revival, while minimizing or ignoring its primary fruit. In like manner, the criticism of the NOLR rested on the anecdotal evidence―of destructive personal and false prophetic instruction―is presented as the essence of the movement, while at the same time ignoring the many that were blessed, encouraged, and launched into effective Kingdom of God work. In many ways, the critique of the NOLR mirrors the critique of the Azusa revival; established denominations discredited it and yet it continues to bear fruit.

Historical Precedence within Classical Pentecostalism

The General Council of the Assemblies of God recognized that the NOLR “in reality gives us nothing that is new.”⁴² Essentially, every doctrine that the NOLR freshly emphasized is found in the beginning of the Pentecostal Movement of either Topeka or Azusa. Personal prophecy, the laying on of hands, and apostle-like authority were a regular occurrence in the Pentecostal Movement but now they are combined in such a way as to give the uninitiated the impression that such gifts were only given through the elite leaders of the NOLR movement.⁴³

Richard Riss pointed to the similarities of the NOLR and the revival of the early Pentecostal Movement. He found seven phenomena: 1) heavenly singing;⁴⁴ 2) the laying on of hands;⁴⁵ 3) the recognition of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers; 4) the imminent eschatology; 5) the overarching affect of repentance and brokenness; 6) the general evangelical emphasis, and 7) the severe criticism from their parent organizations.⁴⁶

Charles Chappell noticed, in an essay he wrote on the NOLR, “Most if not all of the doctrines of the Movement [NOLR] had to some degree been embraced by the earlier Azusa Revival and had been rejected [i.e. xenoglossolalia by AG].”⁴⁷ Chappell cites “three strikes” against the movement from the start: 1) George Hawtin was too individualistic; 2) the attacks against denominationalism were hitting a sensitive nerve; and 3) they employed excessive use of doctrines, such as of laying on of hands for the impartation of spiritual gifts. Chappell effectively noted the disparity between the AG official position of “no minister had been disfellowshipped for accepting”⁴⁸ NOLR views, and the less than gentle resignations of the same. Additionally, he denoted four lessons that we should recognize: first, worship encouraged wholehearted involvement; second, vocal gifts were emphasized; third, visionary leadership broke off the restraints of authority; and finally, the role of the Bible school was heightened.

There is indeed nothing new under the sun. Organizational structure inhibits―for the good and the bad―the maverick expression of ideas. Mysteriously, God utilizes all of this, and His imperfect ministers, to build His Kingdom. The fruit that remains is the barometer of authenticity―both sides of this issue continue to bring souls into God’s Kingdom.

Conclusion

The advice of Gamaliel in Acts 5:34―to let the fledgling movement mature and then to see what is born out of it―perhaps is appropriate to guide our evaluation of the NOLR. If indeed there was no new doctrine introduced in the NOLR, then one must question the negative light cast upon the movement. If the conflict that emerged is an interpersonal one, obscured by doctrinal dispute, then we must allow this information to modify our evaluation. The fruit that has remained continues to demonstrate that both sides of this issue have proven to be effective in the ministry of the Kingdom of God. The blossoms that have fallen to the ground, producing no fruit, are nearly forgotten. Somehow, the need for checks and balances in church leadership must not inhibit the fresh movement of the Holy Spirit. We are challenged to recognize that the Holy Spirit does indeed cause chaos in our organizational programs.

PR

Footnotes and bibliography appear in the full digital issue of Pneuma Review Fall 2013.