The lead article in this edition of APS brings together the responses that formed a symposia discussion of Amos Yong’s The Spirit of Creation at the 2012 Society of Pentecostal Studies meeting. The book explores the relationship between faith and science, proposing a specifically Pentecostal approach that understands the Spirit, not as breaking the laws of nature but, rather, as interacting with the cosmos in and through natural processes. This is not a concession to reductionistic materialism, since it locates the Spirit as both the ground of nature and as supervening in and through natural processes. In particular, Yong utilises the philosophical and scientific theory of emergence, which recognises that complex systems emerge as more than just the sum of their parts (human consciousness being the principal example – our thought patterns cannot be described by physics and chemistry alone, but nor can they be separated from them), so that the infinitely complex systems that make up the cosmos can be said to emerge within the boundless presence and energy of the Spirit.
Now, even assuming that I understand Yong’s proposal, I cannot hope to do justice to it in a couple of sentences - for that purpose you will need to read the book and the symposium essays published here-in. What I can do is highlight what I find to be the central challenge that his work poses a Pentecostal and Charismatic (PC) community, which “all too often spiritualizes ... [its] world in ways that are counter-productive to engaging it” responsibly. What Yong is asking is that we face up to the challenge of the pursuit of truth that (ideally) frames the sciences and which should underpin spirituality and the hunger for God. In practical terms, he is inviting PC scholars to explore the sciences (in all their diversity) and to reflect upon the implications of scientific findings for faith and vice versa – to build upon his own work and, where necessary, identify its inadequacies and propose alternatives.
I would take this challenge further. Behind the tendency to set faith and science in opposition, is a conception of faith that establishes cultures of spiritual credulity that, at their worst, sustain silliness (and sometimes dishonesty). This is readily apparent in the ways in which some PC leaders approach “supernatural” healing and financial provision, and the faith that is supposedly needed to produce them. At rallies, conferences, and on TV, faith preachers insist upon supernatural faith for supernatural results, but almost never put the theology, practices, and consequences of all of this up to scrutiny. So potent is this culture that to question it is to invite exclusion, since questions, doubts, testing hypotheses, evidenced based practices and the like (all of which underlie scientific method) are deemed anti-faith and self-fulfilling - to question the miracle worker is to lack faith and so ensure there is no miracle, in an ingenious piece of circular reasoning.
Of course it is easy to dismiss the extremes, but all of this poses vital questions for so-called “mainstream” Pentecostalism. PC communities have long considered healing to be a central element of their understanding of the good news of Jesus outworked by the Spirit. While it is normally appreciated that healing is a work of God, one that is experienced alongside suffering, very little attention is given to the veracity of claims to the supernatural. Indeed, what do we mean when we use the term? Do we imagine a myriad of instances of the Spirit of God breaking the laws of nature and, if so, what are the theological and scientific implications of such a view? We might ask more practical questions. How often are our prayers for miracles effective (and how might we investigate this) and, if the percentage turns out to be low (or high), what does that mean? In fact, these questions are rarely asked. Even Pentecostal scholars tend to take the supernatural as a given, describing its centrality to Pentecostal culture, but rarely attending to the philosophical, theological, scientific and practical issues that pertain to these beliefs and practices.
With these vital questions in the background, Yong and his interlocutors ask us to think about how we might develop and encourage faith and hope in a God whose creative (and healing) power transcends scientific explanation (but does not contradict it) while, at the same time, not turning that faith into the sort of unthinking nonsense that should be its antithesis. The symposium takes on a dialogue that has been widely addressed by theologians and Christian scientists elsewhere but, precisely because of the claims it makes about healing and the miraculous, needs to be taken up by the PC community. As is apparent in the papers that constitute the symposium, there will be people who will agree with Yong and those that will disagree (as he notes, he will be challenged on both the left and the right). What is certain is that the process of thinking through “modern science and divine action in the Pentecostal-Charismatic imagination” is necessary if we hope to contribute constructively to a globalising culture that is informed, both consciously and unconsciously, by scientific disciplines. To name but one example (in addition to our theology of sickness/healing), the PC influence on issues of the environment and climate change is largely determined by our attitude to science.
As will be apparent in a review of the cover, this issue of APS has two key flavours. The first is the theology/science dialogue that I have discussed above and the second is a series of vignettes into Pentecostal communities throughout Asia and beyond. It is now widely recognised that Pentecostalism is a global and globalising movement. On the one hand PC communities share a “spirituality”, one that is not limited by doctrine or liturgy but that, nevertheless, constitutes a movement that is reshaping Christianity worldwide. On the other hand, Pentecostalism is made up of a radically diverse array of ideas, institutions and practices, much of which is informed by the process of indigenisation (sometimes described as glocalisation).
In this edition of the journal, we are given an insight into the spread and growth of Pentecostal churches in Asia. William K. Kay applies the sort of critical scientific approach we have advocated above to the study of the various factors that have facilitated Pentecostal growth. For those interested in Pentecostal studies, his article is essential reading, even if all one wants is an insight into the various approaches that have been used in scholarly attempts to describe and understand the movement - historical, sociological, psychological, theological and the like. More specifically, Kay draws on all this literature to develop 12 hypotheses that have been used to explain Pentecostal growth, such as; promoting integration, stabilisation and actualisation of personality?, providing free-flowing charismatic experience/worship to replace religious formalism, empowering women, associating with the forces of globalisation and promising personal health and prosperity et cetera. What he goes on to do is to put these hypotheses to the test in Hong Kong, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, centres that are indicative of the sorts of trends that can be seen throughout Asia. Far be it for me to steal his thunder - I shall leave you to review his method and conclusions. In my judgement, his work in this study provides a unique insight, one that will come to inform other studies of Pentecostalism in the region.
After these broader global analyses, indigenised Pentecostalism is represented by the three articles that conclude the journal; a historical study of early Pentecostalism in Hong Kong (Connie Au), an analysis of prophetic movements in Ghana (Joseph Quayesi-Amakye), and our latest next-generation essay, an exploration of the social implications of Pentecostal theology as applied to the ongoing crises in Palestine (Paul Baker). These articles speak for themselves, and stand as evidence of the development of Pentecostal scholarship within Asia and Australasia, emerging as a compliment to the Academy in North America and Europe.