{"id":21661,"date":"2013-12-26T05:26:07","date_gmt":"2013-12-26T05:26:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/john-macarthurs-strange-fire-reviewed-by-monte-lee-rice\/"},"modified":"2013-12-26T05:26:07","modified_gmt":"2013-12-26T05:26:07","slug":"john-macarthurs-strange-fire-reviewed-by-monte-lee-rice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/john-macarthurs-strange-fire-reviewed-by-monte-lee-rice\/","title":{"rendered":"John MacArthur\u2019s Strange Fire, reviewed by Monte Lee Rice"},"content":{"rendered":"Are Pentecostals offering Strange Fire? (Panel Discussion)<\/a>\n

\"MacArthur<\/a>John MacArthur, Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship<\/i> (Nashville, TN: Nelson Books, 2013), 333 pages, ISBN 9781400206414.<\/b><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/b><\/p>\n

In this highly polemical book, John MacArthur argues that as an aggressive though \u201ccounterfeit\u201d form of Christian spirituality, the global Pentecostal-Charismatic movement is neither founded on nor representative of orthodox Christian doctrine. He claims it has infiltrated and is undermining orthodox Christianity with \u201ccounterfeit\u201d theologies, worship beliefs, and practices\u2014all emerging from its heretical doctrine of the Holy Spirit. MacArthur\u2019s stated purpose for writing this book is to therefore galvanize the \u201cevangelical church\u201d in concerted condemnation against its existence, and honour the Holy Spirit by ridding the evangelical church of the movement\u2019s influence, thus leading to the recovery of correct doctrines of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n

Having read some highly constructive reviews and responses emerging on MacArthur\u2019s book, in this review, I will hopefully avoid covering matters already well addressed, and provide critique on issues perhaps not adequately touched. I will begin first however with a thematic survey on the book\u2019s content.<\/p>\n

Survey<\/b><\/p>\n

In sermonic style, MacArthur begins his treatise by setting forth the Pentateuchal narrative on Nadab and Abihu\u2019s priestly offering of \u201cstrange fire\u201d and God\u2019s judgement against them, as his controlling metaphor for exposing the demonically sourced errors of Pentecostal\/Charismatic spirituality that have infiltrated Evangelical Christianity. MacArthur then structures his book into three parts. In Part One (\u201cConfronting a Counterfeit Revival\u201d), MacArthur pursues two basic objectives. First (chapter 1) is to establish that the \u201csystemic\u201d reason for the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement\u2019s existence as a false form of Christian spirituality, is its elevation of \u201creligious experience over biblical truth.\u201d (pp. 16-17). He then argues that at the heart of this aberration is the movement\u2019s historical foundation upon a \u201cdeficient soteriology,\u201d which conversely fosters this elevation of experience. Here, MacArthur directly blames the soteriological themes of 19th century Holiness Movement teachings (p. 27).<\/p>\n

MacArthur moreover charges that this deficient soteriology under girded the preaching of early Pentecostal leaders, particularly that of Charles Parham. While stressing the dubious nature of Parham\u2019s life and ministry, MacArthur argues that we acknowledge him as the originating founder of the Pentecostal\/Charismatic movement\u2014in order to jeopardize the theological \u201clegitimacy\u201d of the whole movement (p. 26-28). MacArthur moreover argues that equally responsible for the \u201ctheological foundations\u201d of the movement is E.W. Kenyon, whose seminal Word of Faith doctrine MacArthur stresses, is rooted in a synthesis of various early 20th century \u201cNew Thought\u201d metaphysical teachings (pp. 28-31). Hence, in MacArthur\u2019s construal of Pentecostal historiography, Parham and Kenyon together \u201care responsible for the theological foundations upon which the entire charismatic system is built,\u201d and together represent its dubious \u201chistorical roots.\u201d Hence, in MacArthur\u2019s construal of Pentecostal historiography, the doctrinal and moral errors of Parham and Kenyon together establish the dubious theological underpinnings of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement (p. 31).<\/p>\n

MacArthur\u2019s second pursued objective of Part One (chapters 3 and 4) is to critique Pentecostal-Charismatic spirituality via Jonathan Edwards\u2019 \u201cdistinguishing marks\u201d of genuine spiritual renewal (e.g., \u201cThe Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God\u201d). MacArthur thereby argues that Pentecostal-Charismatic spirituality is neither birthed by nor honouring to the Holy Spirit. To argue this MacArthur alleges that the movement shifts people away from Christ by its false doctrines, worship practices and experiences wrongly attributed to the Holy Spirit (pp. 53), and through its fostering of immorality via its emphasis on miracles and prosperity gospel teaching. (pp. 60, 65-66). Crucial also to this critique, is MacArthur\u2019s allegations that Pentecostal\/Charismatic spirituality moreover undermines Scriptural authority by encouraging believers to seek extra biblical revelation (pp. 67-68), thus elevating false experiences of God over Scriptural and doctrinal truth (pp. 71-72). Finally, MacArthur charges that Pentecostal-Charismatic spirituality fails to produce genuine love amongst believers (pp. 74-76), which MacArthur roots to the movement\u2019s narcissistic blending of \u201cmysticism<\/i>\u201d (via charismatic worship practices) to the \u201cmaterialism<\/i> of prosperity theology\u201d (p. 78). MacArthur concluding verdict is that Pentecostals and Charismatics are \u201cplaying with strange fire\u201d (p. 81).<\/p>\n

In the Part 2 (\u201cExposing the Counterfeit Gifts\u201d) MacArthur repudiates as fraudulent \u201capostolic\u201d and \u201cprophetic\u201d roles or categories, prophetic utterances, spiritual gifts and miraculous phenomena, tongues speech, and alleged healings that all together characterize Pentecostal-Charismatic spirituality. Grounded upon his firm cessationist position, MacArthur contends that biblical narrative points to an understanding of tongues speech as translatable human languages (thus xenolalia<\/i> rather than glossolalia<\/i>, unknown languages; pp. 138, 143-144, 154). MacArthur then uses this premise to dismiss the Pentecostal-Charismatic practice of tongues speech as mere gibberish, analogous to similar phenomena observed in pagan religious practices and heretical Christian groups (pp. 134-136, 143, 154). Finally, MacArthur dismisses most contemporary healing experiences as counterfeit hoaxes, primarily popularized through of Pentecostal-Charismatic healing evangelists (pp. 155, 176). He does however affirm that \u201caccording to His sovereign purposes,\u201d God may heal people in response to answered prayer (p. 176).<\/p>\n

In Part 3 (\u201cRediscovering the Spirit\u2019s True Work\u201d), MacArthur outlines a true biblical portrayal of the Holy Spirit\u2019s role and activity in human salvation (chapter 9), sanctification (chapter 10), and empowering the meaning to Scripture (chapter 11). He concludes his book with \u201cAn Open Letter\u201d (chapter 12), to conservative Reformed evangelicals, who identify themselves as \u201cContinuationists.\u201d Here MacArthur urges them to recognize the \u201cdangerous ramifications\u201d of their continuationist position, given its link to the counterfeit Pentecostal-Charismatic movement (pp. 234-235), finally warning that failure to do so shall further pollute the evangelical tradition with heresies, wickedness and theological error (p. 247).<\/p>\n

Critique<\/b><\/p>\n

Inflammatory defamation guised as pastoral correction<\/i><\/p>\n

MacArthur\u2019s Strange Fire<\/i> book generally reiterates themes first propagated in his 1978 book, The\u00a0Charismatics:\u00a0A\u00a0Doctrinal Perspective<\/i>, and his 1993 book, Charismatic Chaos<\/i>. Writing from a Calvinistic fundamentalist perspective, MacArthur has distinguished himself as a highly prolific popular writer, conference speaker, and senior pastor of the 8,000 member plus Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, USA.<\/p>\n

Notwithstanding my disconcertion with the emotive and strong inflammatory rhetoric that peppers every aspect of his Strange Fire<\/i> book, I sense that MacArthur believes he is discharging an urgently needful pastoral correction to what he remains convinced to be a demonically charged spirituality that is undermining the spiritual integrity of contemporary evangelicalism (pp. xvii, 113, 128, 247-248). On the other hand, MacArthur\u2019s wonton proclamation of anathema upon a global block of Christianity may well belie any well-intentioned motives. In his own review, Craig Keener provides excellent reflection on how MacArthur\u2019s book may provide necessary rebuke for where we have lacked effective processes towards restraining extremities within the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements.[1]<\/a><\/sup> I think that his concession to this one redeeming role of MacArthur\u2019s message places him on high moral ground as he demonstrates MacArthur\u2019s logical fallacies and his gross misconstruing of Pentecostal history.<\/p>\n

Apparent intentional misconstrual of information<\/i><\/p>\n

What I shall foremost stress is that MacArthur\u2019s research and scholarship is at best shoddy, and at worst\u2014intentionally<\/i> misconstruing, misrepresenting, and misleading, all for the purpose of maliciously maligning all Pentecostal-Charismatic traditions, movements, spiritualities, and resulting past and on-going theological constructions. MacArthur\u2019s ultimate purpose is to stem their influence within the Reformed tradition via Reformed Continuationists, by exhorting them towards cessationist doctrine and ideology. Here we are perhaps touching on a deeper root to MacArthur\u2019s inflammatory rhetoric, which is his dismissal of any soteriological doctrine other than that of Reformed doctrine. This is why he titles the beginning chapter to the book\u2019s final part, \u201cThe Holy Spirit and Salvation.\u201d As I earlier mentioned, this is also why MacArthur argues at book\u2019s beginning, that the foundational root to the systemic Pentecostal-Charismatic theologically flawed nuance on experience, is the movement\u2019s \u201cdeficient soteriology\u201d which he roots in 19th century Holiness soteriology (p. 27).<\/p>\n

MacArthur therefore ardently stresses the Wesleyan roots of Pentecostalism, while I suspect deliberately, refraining from engaging any recognition of the Reformed influence on early Pentecostalism (chapter 2). I find it important therefore to recall the Reformed influences on the broader 19th and early 20th century holiness movements, such as early 19th century Oberlin second work theology (e.g., Charles G. Finney, Asa Mahan), and later 19th century Keswick \u201chigher life\u201d teaching. All of this is well known, but MacArthur conveniently sidesteps established historiography obviously detrimental to his project. This trajectory accounts for why MacArthur dismisses any credence or relevancy to how the Pentecostal-Charismatic movements have substantially fostered ecumenical bridges with Roman Catholicism or to the spiritual renewal evidenced by Roman Catholic Charismatics. For in MacArthur\u2019s mind, the Pentecostal-Charismatic movements, together with Roman Catholicism altogether represent false forms of Christianity, which he also lumps together with all other identified aberrant groups such as Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals (pp. 48-47, 52, 72-73, 102, 217, 244).<\/p>\n

Another important area where I believe MacArthur intentionally<\/i> misleads readers towards a grossly inaccurate portrayal of global Pentecostal-Charismatic history, is his subsuming of all observed varieties, families, streams, traditions, definitions and historiographies of Pentecostal and Charismatics worldwide under his chosen umbrella term, \u201cCharismatic Movement\u201d (pp. xii, see footnote 2 [p. 263]). By doing so, MacArthur evidently seeks to affirm attempts by Reformed \u201cContinuationists\u201d to distance themselves from the Charismatic movement (chapter 12). Yet on the other hand, he does so to undermine legitimacy to their positions by arguing that their \u201ccontinuationist position\u201d still endorses the \u201cCharismatic Movement\u201d in its entirety (pp. 234-248).<\/p>\n

I must also point out that MacArthur\u2019s skewered use of the few scholarly sources utilised, demonstrates an intentional refusal towards responsibly engaging Pentecostal and Charismatic theological and historiographical scholarship. I have discerned this irresponsibility by skimming through his endnotes, categorizing his sources, and then noting how he appropriates this information towards sweeping condemnatory indictments and generalisations on the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements in their entirety. A rough breakdown of MacArthur\u2019s sources shows about 25 scholarly books representative of Pentecostal (not Charismatic) tradition, with nine of these works written by scholars sympathetic to Pentecostalism. However, most of these works are introductions and readers, or focused on historiographical issues. Besides these, I noted about 20 more popularly written books, primarily representative of Charismatic literature, particularly third-wave type literature. Authors of these books are people such as C. Peter Wagner, Jack Deere, and Wayne Grudem, or people associated with the Toronto Revival. Then there are about seven more popular books representative of Classical Pentecostalism, albeit mostly written by controversial individuals such as Kenneth Hagin or Benny Hinn.<\/p>\n

At this point, I will provide some specific examples on how MacArthur misrepresents data, largely from his more scholarly sources. One of MacArthur\u2019s most relied on sources is Allan Anderson\u2019s An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity <\/i>(Cambridge University Press, 2004). To some extent, MacArthur may have found Anderson\u2019s title helpful towards his vast umbrella term \u201cCharismatic.\u201d However, he obviously ignored Anderson\u2019s analysis and intention towards the relevant terminology, whereby he maintains a distinction between Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement, stresses Classical Pentecostalism as one branch of this broader global block.[2]<\/a><\/sup> MacArthur also ignored another crucial theme to Anderson\u2019s work, which was to correct past uni-linear, \u201cAmerico-European\u201d centered historiographies of world Pentecostalism, alongside with the Americo-centric construing of the Azusa Street Revival as the original \u201cJerusalem\u201d fountain for world Pentecostalism. Hence, Anderson stressed the polycentric Majority World origins of world Pentecostalism emerging from countless and spontaneous 20th century Pentecostal outpourings of the Spirit worldwide, quite often independent of Azusa Street.[3]<\/a><\/sup> Anderson thus reiterated the consensus in Pentecostal scholarship that in many ways it is more appropriate to speak of many \u201cPentecostalisms\u201d rather than Pentecostalism per say.[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Another way MacArthur misconstrues his more scholarly sources, is to extrapolate their own critical expos\u00e9s on Pentecostal and Charismatic moral failures towards defaming Pentecostal-Charismatic spirituality in its entirety. MacArthur thus translates these internal critiques into broad sweeping indictments, which in virtually every chapter, he then substantiates by drawing attention to some of the most well known controversial past and current figures within Pentecostal and Charismatic history. The individuals MacArthur thus focuses on are Parham, Kenyon, Aimee Semple McPherson, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, and Benny Hinn. Moreover, most of MacArthur\u2019s research on these individuals comes from general readership-oriented, online news sites.[5]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Also noteworthy is MacArthur\u2019s misconstrued use of Margaret Poloma\u2019s research on the Toronto Blessing laughter phenomena, which he sourced from her book Main Street Mystics: The Toronto Blessing and Reviving Pentecostalism<\/i>. MacArthur called this a notable example of false worship and then charges that such mystical phenomena only produce a \u201ccounterfeit form of love\u201d (pp. 76-79). The irony here is that as a well-respected sociologist, Poloma researched the Toronto Blessing to assess its capacity towards effecting behaviour change on participants. From her empirical research, Poloma demonstrates that the Toronto Revival generally provided participants profound experiences of God\u2019s love, which resulted in desires for behavioural change and ministry or missionary involvement.[6]<\/a><\/sup> It is also pertinent to note that Poloma\u2019s research at Toronto soon sparked off several other similar interdisciplinary research projects by her and many others elsewhere on Pentecostal and Charismatic renewal experiences.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, in 2007 similar studies (in which Poloma also participated) emerged known as \u201cThe Flame of Love: Scientific Research on the Experience and Expression of Godly Love in the Pentecostal Tradition.\u201d Researchers coined the term \u201cgodly love\u201d as a conceptual premise to guide the project\u2019s research, defining this as \u201cthe dynamic interaction between divine and human love that enlivens and expands benevolence,\u201d primarily focusing on how this interaction fosters in people, altruistic behaviour.[7]<\/a><\/sup> The hard research has broadly confirmed that within many localities representative of Pentecostal and Charismatic spirituality, that coinciding with experiences of spiritual renewal generally are encounters with \u201cgodly love\u201d which subsequently causes movement towards altruistic behaviour. Particularly relevant is Candy Gunther Brown\u2019s empirical study on healing practices within the varied networks that developed out of the Toronto Revival over the following decade or so. Brown discovered a close link between experiences of healing within the post Toronto Blessing albeit sprouted ministry networks, and movement towards altruistic concern and behaviour.[8]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

MacArthur’s caricature of Pentecostals is theologically and intellectually defective<\/div>Poloma\u2019s research and ongoing research such as demonstrated in the \u201cFlame of Love\u201d projects, not only undermines MacArthur\u2019s allegation that Pentecostalism is loveless, but also his charge that it lacks an inherent nuance on personal holiness. From the beginnings of Pentecostalism to the present day, Holiness as a stressed nuance particularly towards concerns of personal purity and conduct, has remained doctrinally and culturally embedded within Pentecostal testimony and congregational ethos, though in varied manners. In fact, far too often Pentecostals have erred towards establishing legalistic construals of holiness evidenced by outward appearance and internal behavioural conformity through abiding by prohibitive norms, while too often ignoring the greater social-justice nuances of holiness towards manifesting an inclusive community in manners visible counter to prevailing social norms. Yet on the other hand\u2014despite our failings and there are many, the missiological fruit of Pentecostal spirituality worldwide has testified to this innate Pentecostal social construal of holiness primarily evidenced through holistic ministry approaches and the planting of healing communities within the context of socially fragmented cultural norms.[9]<\/a><\/sup> By default, this ethos of personal holiness coupled with an innate vision towards holiness as a socially transforming witness\u2014exists by virtue of Pentecostalism\u2019s roots in the holiness tradition. Meanwhile, both past and an increasing pool of current Pentecostal scholarship has sought to re-appropriate to contemporary Pentecostal spirituality, these roots coupled with how they dovetail with the early Azusa Street theological stress on Spirit baptism as a baptism of love.[10]<\/a><\/sup> So to reiterate, MacArthur\u2019s careless, irresponsible use of Pentecostal scholarship along with his refusal to engage the broader established and ecumenically recognized fields of Pentecostal theological, philosophical and biblical scholarship and their welcomed integration into the broader Christian theological traditions, indelibly demonstrates his theological and intellectual ignorance, and betrays his caricature of Pentecostals as being theologically and intellectually defective.<\/p>\n

Assessing probable impact in non-western Majority World<\/i> <\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

I shall now briefly assess the relevancy, impact MacArthur\u2019s book may have and evoke from within the non-western Majority World. Knowledgeable observers may quickly deduce that MacArthur\u2019s message would largely fail to resonate with the interests of Southern Hemisphere and non-Western Pentecostal and Charismatics as well as with the non-Pentecostal\/Charismatic world. This probable disinterest would arise from how MacArthur\u2019s Western Enlightenment-steeped fundamentalist worldview, incongruously contrasts with Southern Hemisphere\/Majority World religious supernaturalism\u2014which takes for granted efficacious links between religious practices and miraculous occurrences, both within and outside the Christian faith.<\/p>\n

A good illustration that demonstrates this incongruence is West Malaysian Methodist Bishop Hwa Yung\u2019s attempts to reinterpret the impact of Pentecostal and Charismatic movements in Asia, in manners that take more seriously affirm the indigenous nature of these movements within the Asian continent. He thus faults the \u201cthree-wave\u201d theory (e.g., Pentecostalism \u2192 Charismatic Renewal \u2192 Third Wave) for its biased western and particularly North American historiography, \u201cwhich see everything flowing out of American Pentecostalism.\u201d[11]<\/a><\/sup> Yung thus contends that the Asian Pentecostal\/Charismatic movements primarily emerged because of the sacralistic Asian worldview, and that these movements are thus wholly indigenous without dependence upon the \u201cthree wave\u201d historical development of Charismatic movements in the Western world.[12]<\/a><\/sup> Hence, Yung believes that \u201ca truly indigenous Christianity in Asia,\u201d will always be \u201csupernaturalistic, and therefore Pentecostal-Charismatic!\u201d[13]<\/a><\/sup> While I differ from Yung\u2019s strict contention that Asian Pentecostal\/Charismatic historiography is wholly independent of Western connections, I believe his analysis points to a definitive epistemological incongruence between MacArthur\u2019s message and Southern hemisphere Christianity.<\/p>\n

Yet notwithstanding the incorrigible quality I have described between MacArthur\u2019s underlying epistemology and Majority World sacralistic sensibilities, I am concerned his inflammatory rhetoric against Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement can negatively influence<\/i> Southern Hemisphere non-Pentecostal\/Charismatic believers at the grassroots level<\/i>, away from healthy ecumenical appreciation towards and with Pentecostal\/Charismatic spirituality, practices, and theological scholarship. I say this contending that popular caricatures of Pentecostal and Charismatic spiritualities and practices as devoid of biblical authority and mature theological reflection, do substantially exists within more mainline and Reformed albeit conservative Evangelical communities in the Southern as well as Northern hemispheres. Hence, I would caution that MacArthur\u2019s broad sweeping tactics and ideological caricaturizing is detrimental at the grassroots level, because it is there that its rhetorical power demonstrates its influential effectiveness.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n

I shall therefore conclude by suggesting that Reformed networks indeed reflect on the viable impact MacArthur\u2019s message may pose towards impeding healthy ecumenical fruit at the grass-roots level within both Reformed and non-Reformed communities. Relevant here is Assemblies of God theologian Frank Macchia\u2019s reflection on his participation involvement in an international dialogue between the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and Pentecostals. In that dialogue, Reformed and Pentecostal participants issued a formal statement granting theological and hence legitimate space to one another\u2019s differing views on spiritual gifts, the ongoing reality of gifts from the Holy Spirit, and need for expanding one another\u2019s horizons on our understandings of the Holy Spirit and gifts, through ecumenical dialogue.[14]<\/a><\/sup> Perhaps for the sake of fostering the ongoing fruit of worldwide ecumenical sharing between the Reformed and Pentecostal theological traditions, a formal censure may be order\u2014by Reformed bodies against MacArthur\u2019s defamation campaign.<\/p>\n

Reviewed by Monte Lee Rice<\/i><\/p>\n

\n
\n
[1]<\/a> Craig S. Keener, \u201cJohn MacArthur\u2019s Strange Fire,\u201d Book Review, The Pneuma Review: Journal of Ministry Resources and Theology for Pentecostal and Charismatic Ministries & Leaders <\/i>(November 15, 2013). <\/i>\/john-macarthurs-strange-fire-reviewed-by-craig-s-keener<\/a> [Accessed December 12, 2013].<\/div>\n
[2]<\/a> Allan H. Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity <\/i>(Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 1-15, 144f. See also idem, \u201cSigns and Blunders: Pentecostal Mission Issues at \u2018Home and Abroad\u2019 in the Twentieth Century.\u201d Journal of Asian Mission <\/i>2. No. 2 (2000): pp. 193-210.<\/div>\n
[3]<\/a> Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism<\/i>, pp. 170-183. See also idem, \u201cThe Origins of Pentecostalism and its Global Spread in the Early Twentieth Century,\u201d Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies <\/i>22, no. 3 (2005): 175-185 (183-184); idem, “Revising Pentecost History in Global Perspective,” in Asian and Pentecostal: The Charismatic Face of Christianity in Asia<\/i>, eds. Allan Anderson and Edmond Tang (Oxford, UK: Regnum; Baguio City, Philippines: Asia Pacific Theological Seminary Pres, 2005), 153.<\/div>\n
[4]<\/a> Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism<\/i>, pp. 170-172.<\/div>\n
[5]<\/a> MacArthur does provide a sobering survey of both confirmed and alleged scandals that genuinely comprise a dark shadow over the history of North American Pentecostal and Charismatic ministry (pp. 59-66). While these allegations provide cause for alarm, internal historiographies over the past three decades do address them, though MacArthur misconstrues their analysis for his broad sweeping indictments.<\/div>\n
[6]<\/a> Margaret M. Poloma, Main Street Mystics: The Toronto Blessing and Reviving Pentecostalism <\/i>(Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2003), pp. 26-27, 30-31, 51-54, 90-96, 138-141, 149, 217-218).<\/div>\n
[7]<\/a> Margaret M. Poloma and Ralph W. Hood, Blood and Fire: Godly Love in a Pentecostal Emerging Church <\/i>(New York, NY: New York University Press, 2008), 4; quoted in Matthew T. Lee and Margaret M. Poloma, \u201cEditorial: Special Issue on Godly Love,\u201d PentecoStudies: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Research on the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements <\/i>11, no. 1 (2012): 5-8.<\/div>\n
[8]<\/a> Candy Gunther Brown, \u201cStudying Divine Healing Practices: Empirical and Theological Lenses, and the Theory of Godly Love,\u201d PentecoStudies: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Research on the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements 11<\/i>, no. 1 (2012): pp. 48-66 (pp. 56, 61, 64-65).<\/div>\n
[9]<\/a> For another empirical research based study focused on global examples of Pentecost socially transforming ministries, see Donald E. Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori, Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement<\/i> (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 2007), note pp. 126-128.<\/div>\n
[10]<\/a> Also reflecting these themes and research on Pentecostalism and \u201cgodly love,\u201d is Amos Yong\u2019s Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace<\/i> (Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2012); note especially pp. 59-74.<\/div>\n
[11]<\/a> Hwa Yung, \u201cEndued With Power: The Pentecostal-Charismatic Renewal and the Asian Church in the 21st Century,\u201d Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies <\/i>6, no. 1 (January 2003): 63-82 (p. 68).<\/div>\n
[12]<\/a> Yung, \u201cEndued With Power,\u201d Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies<\/i>, 63, 65, 71. Yung does not use the term \u201csacral,\u201d but rather he identifies the western Enlightenment worldview as \u201canti-supernaturalistic\u201d and the Asian worldview as \u201csupernaturalistic\u201d (p. 63). However, I think the term \u201csacral perception,\u201d is a better description. See also Yung\u2019s book, Hwa Yung, Mangoes or Bananas? The Quest for an Authentic Asian Christian Theology<\/i>, Regnum Studies in Mission (Oxford, UK: Regnum Books International, 1997).<\/div>\n
[13]<\/a> Yung, \u201cEndued With Power,\u201d Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies<\/i>, 64.<\/div>\n
[14]<\/a> Frank Macchia, \u201cPentecostals and Reformed Affirming the Value of All of the New Testament Gifts,\u201d The Pneuma Review: Journal of Ministry Resources and Theology for Pentecostal and Charismatic Ministries & Leaders<\/i> (November 6, 2013). \/frank-macchia-on-the-gifts-of-god-to-the-church<\/a> [Accessed December 12, 2013].<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

John MacArthur, Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship (Nashville, TN: Nelson Books, 2013), 333 pages, ISBN 9781400206414. Introduction In this highly polemical book, John MacArthur argues that as an aggressive though \u201ccounterfeit\u201d form of Christian spirituality, the global Pentecostal-Charismatic movement is neither founded on nor representative of orthodox Christian…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2867,"featured_media":21662,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[15,3474],"tags":[3520,3551,3552,3755,3553,3554,3555,3556],"ppma_author":[4675],"class_list":["post-21661","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-thespirit","category-summer-2014","tag-cessationism","tag-charismatic-movement","tag-continuationism","tag-craig-s-keener","tag-john-macarthur","tag-majority-world","tag-monte-lee-rice","tag-strange-fire","author-montelrice"],"authors":[{"term_id":4675,"user_id":2867,"is_guest":0,"slug":"montelrice","display_name":"Monte Rice","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/MonteRice201512-187x187-150x150.jpg","url2x":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/MonteRice201512-187x187-150x150.jpg"},"0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21661","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2867"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21661"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21661\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/21662"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21661"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21661"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21661"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=21661"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}