Abstract
How do Pentecostals go about thinking through their faith? What resources do they turn to and value most? How do maturing Pentecostals decide which early positions to maintain, relegate or jettison? These and related questions of rationality are addressed by Simo Frestadius in his published University of Birmingham doctoral thesis.
Frestadius appreciates (in Part One) existing analyses of Pentecostal theology’s thought processes (especially Amos Yong, James Smith and William Oliverio). However, he finds them somewhat divorced from the lived history of particular movements. Thus, he turns to MacIntyre’s philosophy of rationality (‘there are no “traditionless” arguments … and those that claim such neutral status can be shown to be rooted in a specific tradition’, p. 47) to develop a method that enriches analysis by listening to the expressed thoughts of a particular group of Pentecostals as they have had their thinking challenged. In choosing the Elim Pentecostal Church he finds plentiful results.
Frestadius’s resultant work is partly descriptive (Part Two) and partly constructive (Part Three). The description is not mainly of expressed theological processes of Pentecostal academics. Nor is it a study of the thinking of ‘people in the pew’. Rather, his focus is on the rationale evidenced in the recorded discussions of national conferences of ordained ministers and senior lay people, and letters of key representatives. Highly detailed research into the archives of the Elim Church allows for rich narration.
Among this study’s many strengths is that it is not a ‘freeze-frame’ portrait of Pentecostal thought at one stage of its life. Instead, following MacIntyre’s lead, Frestadius tracks thought processes through Elim’s history, stopping off twice to gaze at its thinking in the 1930s and 1940s (concerning ‘British Israelism’) and then again in the 1970s and 1980s (concerning the rising influence of charismatic and restorationist movements). Thereby, Frestadius discovers a form of rationality that he describes as ‘Pentecostal Biblical Pragmatism’. His analysis of its various elements at work in the movement’s intellectual history is exemplary and highly instructive.
In turn, this prompts the author to offer proposals for future thinking within the denomination. For example, with respect to its use of the Bible, Frestadius not only describes Elim’s reasons for centrally valuing it and its methods for interpreting it, but also proposes ways in which the denomination should approach it: ‘having one ear tuned to the historical sense that is grounded in the text’s humanity, the other ear should be concurrently tuned to the dynamic sense grounded in the text’s divinity’ (p. 184) and ‘Elim’s hermeneutics should appreciate this tension of canonical unity that emanates from the Bible’s divine author and its canonical plurality which is founded in its humanity. This suggests that Elim should read the Bible both as one book with a unified message and as many books with particular messages’ (p. 186).
Throughout, the book is clearly written, with excellent summarizing of its content and signposting of its useful, sequential structure. With content and structure of this calibre, William Kay is right to call the book ‘an intellectual feast’ (quoted on the back cover).