Contents

Introduction

Method and Context:

The Effective Function of Spirit Baptism in Early Pentecostalism:

Shifting Eschatology:

Spirit Baptism and Social Action:

Changes in Effective Meaning:

The Effective Function of Spirit Baptism Today:

An Outpouring of Divine Love:

A Broader Concept of Empowerment:

Concluding Remarks:

Bibliography

Introduction

Spirit baptism as an experience and as a doctrine has been, for many years, crucial to the constitution and self-identity of the Pentecostal community.  Historically, this powerful experience was usually interpreted eschatologically as a sign that Pentecostals were living in the last days and Christ’s return was imminent.  Spirit baptism was thus viewed as the necessary source of empowerment for the church’s urgent mission, and this eschatological interpretation provided the impetus for the evangelistic and missionary work of early Pentecostals.[1]  However, this dependence on eschatology for missional and social motivation poses some challenges in light of recent eschatological shifts within Pentecostalism and concomitant changes in effective meaning.  Whereas early Pentecostals lived in earnest expectation of the imminent return of Christ and evangelized accordingly, for the most part contemporary Pentecostalism does not share that eschatological urgency. 

It is my proposition, therefore, that the connection between the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism and the outreaching work of the church needs to be reassessed and refocused for the contemporary Pentecostal context.  While the emphasis on missions remains important, effective meaning grounded in the powerful and transformative experience of the Holy Spirit that is at the core of Pentecostal Spirit baptism also opens up other possibilities.  In particular, I suggest that through the experience of the Holy Spirit that is Spirit baptism we are invited to participate in the divine nature and thus experience an outpouring of the divine love of God.  This divine love, which has Spirit baptism as its source, then provides a strong rationale and functions effectively as a motivating force for both evangelism and social action. 

Method and Context:

This present paper is extracted from my doctoral research into Pentecostal Spirit baptism, and that research is guided by a particular methodology that requires some explanation before we continue.  The primary purpose of my broader research is to undertake a critical analysis of Pentecostal Spirit baptism based on a methodology that will focus particularly on the meaning embodied in the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism.  It seems that the majority of publications on Spirit baptism from the last few decades have been mainly concerned with a biblical assessment or apologetic of particular Pentecostal claims like subsequence[2] and initial evidence[3] rather than theological reflection on the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism.  But after decades of debate on these topics we seem no closer to a consensus on the issue, and it has become increasingly apparent that an understanding of Spirit baptism that relies solely on an exegetical defence of subsequence and initial evidence is far too narrow.[4]  Frank Macchia suggests that such a discussion has “exhausted its usefulness”, and urges that the boundaries of the discussion on Spirit baptism be expanded.[5]  Similar efforts can also be observed in the work of Amos Yong[6], Simon Chan[7], and Shane Clifton[8], among others.  While these authors have, to some extent, anticipated the thrust of my own research, I propose that there is a trajectory that has yet to be comprehensively explored.  

Notwithstanding the considerable attention given to exegetical analysis of Spirit baptism, there has been relatively little theological reflection on the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism and its significance for the Pentecostal community.  The question is not simply whether or not Spirit baptism is a biblically justifiable experience of the Spirit, but also whether Spirit baptism fulfils an important and meaningful function within the Pentecostal community.  Modern scholarship has demonstrated that building a doctrine is not merely a case of following a biblical precedent, nor is it simply a case of finding the ‘correct’ doctrine in any given situation.[9]  Doctrine is essentially an expression of meaning, and meaning is heavily influenced by context and situation.  Therefore, to explicate the meaning of Spirit baptism, we need a methodology that moves beyond simple exegesis and basic doctrinal critique. 

If we acknowledge that Pentecostal Spirit baptism means something, we must then attempt to describe this meaning in an appropriate way.  One set of categories that may provide us with a framework for this reflection are Bernard Lonergan’s fourfold functions of meaning, namely cognitive, effective, constitutive and communicative.[10]  By identifying how Spirit baptism, as a meaningful experience, fulfils each of these functions proper to meaning, we may be able to explicate Spirit baptism in a way that integrates the various hermeneutical and theological approaches without ignoring the significance and meaning inherent in the Pentecostal experience.  Such integration may be helpful in contributing to a more coherent Pentecostal self-understanding and a more intelligent communication of that self-understanding. 

While my doctoral research examines each of these functions of meaning as they relate to Pentecostal Spirit baptism in some detail, our focus here will be limited to the effective function of meaning in relation to Spirit baptism.  It will soon become evident that this function of meaning has particular relevance to the missionary and social activity of the Pentecostal movement.  To clarify what is meant by the effective function of meaning, Lonergan explains that our actions are not mindless, rather they are the result of acts of meaning:

We imagine, we plan, we investigate possibilities, we weigh pros and cons, we enter into contracts, we have countless orders given and executed.  From the beginning to the end of the process, we are engaged in acts of meaning; and without them the process would not occur or the end be achieved.[11]

In this way meaning performs an effective function in human living.  It has the capacity to be productive and effective, or to bring about or initiate change.  In relation to religious experience, where faith is not simply known but must also be lived, this is a particularly important function of meaning.  In simple terms, this could be explained by reference to James 2:17: “So you see, faith by itself isn’t enough.  Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless”.[12]  As Lonergan acknowledges, it is not enough to just mean, rather meaning should encourage and direct doing.[13]  In reference to the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism, the task at hand is to discover how the interpreted meaning derived from the experience has encouraged and continues to produce action within the Pentecostal community.  To this end, we will begin by discussing how Spirit baptism functioned effectively for early Pentecostals, then explore some possibilities for the effective meaning of Spirit baptism in our contemporary context. 

The Effective Function of Spirit Baptism in Early Pentecostalism:

To understand the effective interpretation of Spirit baptism that encouraged action in early Pentecostals it is necessary to first highlight the relationship between Pentecostal Spirit baptism and eschatology.  That Pentecostalism was birthed in an environment of eschatological expectation is seemingly beyond question.  Larry McQueen has studied early Pentecostal eschatology as expressed in the earliest newsletters published about the Azusa Street Mission.[14]  He states that “eschatology played a major role in the formation and development of early Pentecostal thought”.[15]  While it was not usually a clearly formulated doctrine, eschatology “permeates the personal testimonies, poems, letters, reports of tongues-speech, and articles as a constant reminder that ‘Jesus is coming soon’”.[16]  In a relatively early Pentecostal statement of belief, Sarah Jane Lancaster also declared an “earnest expectation that our Lord will soon return for His church”.[17]  This emphasis has similarly been highlighted by Matthew Thompson, who observes that “Pentecostalism is a movement fired by the eschatological imagination, an apocalyptic revival looking to the soon return of the Lord”.[18]

Given the importance of eschatology in early Pentecostal spirituality, it is perhaps not surprising that some scholars prefer to view eschatology, rather than Spirit baptism, as the central defining characteristic of Pentecostalism.[19] But I believe it would be a mistake to view Spirit baptism as merely the result of a prevailing eschatology and thereby overlook the importance of Spirit baptism as a determinative factor in that eschatology.  To do so would be to underestimate the importance of Spirit baptism in the development of Pentecostal thought in other areas.  I would argue that eschatology and Spirit baptism are in fact mutually reinforcing theological themes, at least within the Pentecostal psyche, and it is not helpful or necessary to preference one over the other. The Pentecostal’s experience of Spirit baptism reinforced their eschatological orientation while their eschatological orientation influenced their understanding of the meaning of the Spirit baptism experience. 

This mutually reinforcing relationship has been consistently recognized by theologians writing in this area.  Simon Chan, for example, highlights the link between the Holy Spirit and eschatology, which he emphasizes as a crucial understanding for Pentecostal ecclesiology and spirituality.[20] Macchia recognizes that Pentecostals have a “radical eschatological orientation in which experiences of empowerment are not viewed as realizations of capacities already possessed – merely welling up from within – but as radically new possibilities called forth by the eschatological Spirit of God”.[21] He has also argued for a strong connection between Spirit baptism and eschatology based on the connection between Spirit baptism and the Kingdom of God.[22]  Through Spirit baptism, “the Spirit liberates creation from within history toward new possibilities for free, eschatological existence”.[23]  Overall, there can be little doubt that Pentecostals have usually viewed their experiences of Spirit baptism as eschatologically significant. 

With the relationship between Spirit baptism and eschatology from a Pentecostal perspective thus established, we can now consider how this experience of Spirit baptism, understood eschatologically, functioned effectively for early Pentecostals.  It is easily demonstrated that the interpreted meaning of Spirit baptism as an eschatological event provided the impetus for the evangelistic and missiological work of early Pentecostals.  In this way the meaning of Spirit baptism functioned effectively.

At the heart of the early Pentecostals’ missiology was their personal experience with the Holy Spirit found around an altar of prayer with fellow seekers.  This profound experience was integrated with an eschatological urgency and a passion for souls.  Apparently, their earliest understandings of the experience that came to be known as the ‘Baptism in the Holy Spirit’ was that it produced a missiological fervor and ministry and it provided the empowerment for the same.[24]

Clearly Spirit baptism functioned effectively as a catalyst for evangelism and missions in early Pentecostalism.[25]

In light of this intimate connection between Spirit baptism and missional or evangelistic efforts, it becomes easy to understand why empowerment for ministry or witness was the motif most commonly identified as the result of Spirit baptism.  As Palmer has recognized, “for Pentecostals the primary function of Spirit baptism is empowerment for witness”.[26]  Veli-Matti Karkkainen goes so far as to describe baptism in the Holy Spirit as empowerment for witness and service as “the primary mission strategy” of Pentecostals.[27]  Finally, Byron Klaus states that “early records of the Pentecostal revival would lead to the observation that a very close relationship was forged between baptism of the Spirit as empowerment for service (Acts 1:8), a keen hope in the soon return of Christ (1 Thess 4:16), and Christ's command to evangelize to the uttermost (Matt 28:19-20).”[28]   While there are numerous other examples available, I believe that for the purposes of this discussion the effective function of the Spirit baptism experience as a catalyst for evangelism and missions has been established.[29] 

Historically, therefore, the primary way in which the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism has functioned effectively can be easily recognized and explained by reference to the countless examples of missionary and evangelistic efforts.  These efforts were given particular urgency by the eschatological belief that Christ could return at any moment, and Spirit baptism was seen as both a validation of the Pentecostal church’s eschatological expectation and an empowerment for the fulfillment of their mission.  While this construct of effective meaning made sense as long as this eschatological expectation endured, the challenge that Pentecostals are now facing is to explicate the effective meaning of Spirit baptism in light of recent eschatological shifts and the concomitant shifts in effective meaning.  Before we proceed further, let us examine these shifts in more detail. 

Shifting Eschatology:

While Pentecostalism was birthed in an environment of eschatological urgency and expectation, there have been suggestions more recently that the focus of Pentecostal eschatology may have shifted.  The context of early Pentecostal believers was one of eschatological expectation and this provided a rationale for missionary and social efforts.  It could be argued that this context endured until near the end of the last century or even longer.  However, at least in certain parts of the world, we are no longer living in the same context of eschatological expectation.  Thus Daniel Castelo can write that “contemporary Pentecostals now live in a time when eschatological fervor has diminished…reference is rarely made to Jesus’ Second Coming in today’s Pentecostal contexts.”[30] While there was a spike in eschatological fervour just prior to the turn of the millennium in the late 1990s, arising at least in part from a dispensationalist view of Christian history, several scholars have noted an eschatological shift in the years immediately following this millennial turn.  Speaking of the Assemblies of God in Australia, Clifton believes that, in recent years, the eschatological focus has shifted so that the primary concern is with the manifestation of the Kingdom now, and its material as well as spiritual implications.[31]  Based on these observations, it could be argued that Pentecostalism in general has transitioned from a future-focused eschatology to a “realized” eschatology with a focus on the present. 

There may be several reasons for this shift.  Firstly, it is difficult if not impossible to sustain an urgent expectation of Christ’s imminent return over a long period of time.  Eventually, Pentecostals had to come to terms with the reality that they may have been “mistaken” about their confidence in the closeness of Christ’s return.[32] Simon Chan has suggested that, after a century, classical Pentecostalism began to suffer “spiritual fatigue” and signs attested to “the waning of zeal and missionary vision”.[33]  Castelo writes that “Pentecostal eschatological expectancy is in tatters, especially in those contexts in which Pentecostalism has settled for an extended period of time”.[34]  Secondly, there has been an improvement in the socio-economic situation of many Pentecostals since the beginning of the movement, particularly in the west.  It is generally accepted that the earliest Pentecostals were the “oppressed, marginalized, poor working classes of society”.[35]  Within this sociological context, it is not surprising that Pentecostals embraced a futuristic eschatology characterized by eager expectation for the return of Christ.  For the marginalized and poor in this world the world-to-come represented hope and promise of something better.  But Steven Land observes that “today, upward social mobility is clearly affecting the apocalyptic fervor and urgency as the world looks a little better to contemporary, more affluent North American Pentecostals”.[36]  While some sectors of Pentecostalism in the developing world may still retain this early eschatological expectancy and fervour[37], it is certainly no longer as prominent as it once was.

Obviously the factors mentioned above are only two possible reasons for the aforementioned eschatological shift within Pentecostalism and there could be many others.  Whatever the reason, though, there can be little doubt about the actuality of the shift.  Consequently, we are now faced with an eschatological context that is very different to that of early Pentecostalism.  Thus Brian Houston, the pastor of the largest Pentecostal church in Australia, has stated that “I’ve never been in a particular hurry for a Rapture because I want to live my life to the full”.[38]  This statement certainly represents a stark contrast to the eschatological yearning of early Pentecostals for the return of Christ.  In light of this shift, the challenge for Pentecostals today is to recast their theology accordingly.  How can we develop theology that does not rely on the one-sided eschatology of early Pentecostalism, an eschatology that no longer makes cognitive sense?  Castelo frames the issue well when he asks: “How should Pentecostals live in the “already-not yet” tension now that the sense of the eschatological immediacy has dissipated with time?”[39]

From a theological point of view, the most common concept used to answer this question is the inaugurated eschatology of the Kingdom of God.  While this has been a relatively recent discovery for many Pentecostal theologians, recognizing that the Kingdom of God is both present and future[40] provides a rationale and a theological grounding for the eschatological shift that has occurred within Pentecostalism.  Whereas early Pentecostals exhibited a passion for the Kingdom[41], their view of the Kingdom was apocalyptic and oriented towards what Ladd would call the future Kingdom.  In light of the biblical concept of the Kingdom of God this orientation is one-sided.  Recently, however, several authors have attempted to reframe Pentecostal spirituality by couching it within a more holistic view of the Kingdom of God that takes into account both the present and future aspects. The result is usually a more balanced approach to eschatology. 

A prime example of this approach can be found in the work of Frank Macchia.[42]  Macchia expounds a vision of the Kingdom of God that recognizes the other-worldy nature of the Kingdom but also acknowledges that the Kingdom involves “human witness, fellowship, and justice in and through the church and even outside the context of the church”.[43]  Thus the Kingdom of God is a redemptive presence that is “presently liberating and transformative in all dimensions of life”.[44]  In this there is acknowledgement of both the present and future aspects of the Kingdom of God.  With this view of the Kingdom of God as a vision of renewal and life for the world, Macchia then makes a powerful connection between Spirit baptism and the Kingdom.  If the eschatological goal of the Kingdom of God is for creation to become the dwelling place of God’s Holy Spirit, then in Spirit baptism we have a foreshadowing of the divine indwelling in all of creation.[45]  He argues that such an interpretation is best achieved by viewing Spirit baptism within the context of the Kingdom of God. 

Whether he realizes it or not, Macchia uses this concept of Spirit baptism in relation to the Kingdom of God as a foundation for reframing the effective function of Spirit baptism.  His chapter on The Spirit-Baptized Life contains several elements of effective meaning, even though they are not necessarily referred to as such.  He starts with the thesis that “Spirit baptism gave rise to the global church and remains the very substance of the church’s life in the Spirit, including its charismatic life and mission”.[46] There is an obvious link in his thinking between the experience of Spirit baptism and the practical, effective life of the church.  He then sets about developing the effective meaning of Spirit baptism based primarily on a Trinitarian understanding of Spirit baptism, the essence of which is divine love.[47]  Spirit baptism, therefore, is a baptism into divine love.

This recognition of divine love as the substance of Spirit baptism consequently forms the basis of Macchia’s analysis of what Spirit baptism compels us to do.  In technical terms, divine love forms the basis for his explanation of the effective function of Spirit baptism.  In his own words, “the integration of purity and power is facilitated by the Spirit’s role in imparting God’s love as a redemptive force in the world”.[48]  This, then, is the mission for the church and the believer arising from Spirit baptism: to realize the Kingdom of God on earth through the power of the Holy Spirit that fills us to overflowing with the love of God.  It is because of this love that God’s kingdom is “liberating rather than dominating”, and “why mercy cannot tolerate the oppression and indignity caused by injustice”.[49]

God’s people are carried by Spirit baptism on the winds of God’s holy breath to bear witness to Christ.  They come to know that divine freedom as their own when they lay down their limited imaginations and are overtaken by God’s missionary passion for the world.  The self-giving God of Spirit baptism produces a self-giving people in mission.  The God who seeks to save the lost produces a people who do the same.  To love God is to be shaped by that love so as to share its affections and passions.[50]

Thus, through divine love, we arrive at an effective function of Spirit baptism that is still focused towards missions.  But by viewing Spirit baptism as a baptism of divine love Macchia has also provided us with a justification for including social concern in the effective function of Spirit baptism.[51]  Indeed, his acknowledgement that the Kingdom of God is “presently liberating and transformative” carries strong social connotations.  While we will examine the possibilities of divine love as a basis for the effective meaning of Pentecostal Spirit baptism in more detail shortly, the connection between Spirit baptism and social action warrants further comment before we continue. 

Spirit Baptism and Social Action:

Because of their expectation for an imminent return of Christ, Pentecostals have often been accused of neglecting social action and social justice in favour of evangelism and missions.  Shane Clifton has stated that, while a Pentecostal eschatology grounded in premillennial pessimism acts as a motivating force for missional activity, it has also “been blamed for the tendency of twentieth century Pentecostalism to ignore the social responsibility of the church”.[52]  As Dwight Wilson observes of Pentecostals historically, “since the end is near, they are indifferent to social change and have rejected the reformist methods of the optimistic postmillennialists and have concentrated on “snatching brands from the fire” and letting social reforms result from humankind being born again”.[53]

This being said, there are certainly many examples historically of Pentecostal interest in social concern.  For example, the Good News Hall, the first Pentecostal assembly in Australia, “responded to the social needs in Australia” and provided hundreds of free lunches and free clothing every week.[54]              Douglas Petersen points out that Pentecostals are “not on a ‘social strike’ and that a vibrant social dynamic plays an integral part in Pentecostal expressions”.[55]Karkkainen also makes a more general comment about the positive contribution of Pentecostals in areas of social concern:

Theologically, how do the twin themes of Spirit-empowerment and eschatological fervor play into the Pentecostal understanding of mission? Obviously, there is the danger of eschatology removing concern for today’s challenges. Especially with regard to social concern, early Pentecostals could surmise, why bother about the injustices of today when we expect the dawning of the New Day of the eschaton? Many Pentecostals worked with such a mindset, there is no question about that. Yet it is amazing that in the midst of reliance on the supernatural power of the Spirit and enthusiastic expectation of the Day, so much energy was devoted not only to evangelizing but also to working for social improvement. From early on, Pentecostals invested money and energy on building schools, hospitals, orphanages. While giving priority to evangelism and individual conversion, Pentecostals were never oblivious to social concern, even though that myth exists among outside observers of Pentecostalism.[56]

While this recognizes that there was at least some awareness of the social responsibility of the church in early Pentecostalism, the point still has to be made that social work and social action usually took a secondary place to what was considered to be the more urgent task of evangelism and missions.  The situation was almost certainly a reflection of Pentecostal eschatology in that transforming the social condition of this world was seen as less important than preparing people for the imminent return of Christ. 

However, in view of the eschatological shift mentioned in the previous section, it is to be expected that such a shift would have implications for a Pentecostal view of social work and social justice and that already seems to be the case.  Very recently, Murray Dempster has argued extensively that Spirit baptism, understood in relationship to the Kingdom of God, can provide a rationale for a social and moral mission as well as an evangelistic mission.[57]  He explores the relationship between Spirit baptism and eschatology with a view to developing a holistic Pentecostal rationale for ministry.[58]  After acknowledging that evangelization is still seen by many Pentecostals as the church’s primary task, he argues that the mission of the Pentecostal church should involve “blending together the tasks of evangelism, strengthening the church’s own congregational life in worship and koinonia, and creating social ministries for people both inside and outside the church, which promote human welfare, social justice, and personal dignity”.[59]

Spirit baptism empowered the believing community to walk its talk, to put creed into conduct, to confirm proclamation with practice. Spirit baptism, for Luke, did not simply empower individual disciples to witness in verbal proclamation. Spirit baptism empowered the church in its corporate life to witness to the moral dynamic of the gospel to transform people, change deep-seated prejudices, and restructure relationships so the participants incorporated into the inclusive believing community possessed an equally valued status in Christ.[60]

While Dempster has argued effectively from a biblical concept of Spirit baptism, his treatment of the actual Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism is limited to a couple of paragraphs.  As with Macchia, his theological rationale for a social ethic relies heavily on a broad concept of Spirit baptism interpreted within the inaugurated eschatology of the Kingdom of God.  While this is useful as a theological and biblical foundation, the limited attention given to the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism itself raises some concerns.  Our next section will detail these concerns and suggest a way forward.

Changes in Effective Meaning:

Something that should be fairly obvious from this paper thus far is that the effective function of the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism has usually been derived from an eschatological interpretation of the experience.  This is true firstly of early Pentecostals who interpreted their experience in light of their belief in an imminent return of Christ and, therefore, derived an eschatological significance from the experience which gave impetus to evangelism and other missional efforts.  But this is also true of more recent attempts to develop a holistic approach to outreach in terms of a balance between evangelism and social action.  In the case of both Dempster and Macchia above, the rationale for a focus on social action is provided by a broad interpretation of Spirit baptism within the inaugurated eschatology of the Kingdom of God.  In either case, therefore, eschatology is key to understanding the effective function of Spirit baptism.  Furthermore, where Dempster and Macchia are concerned, their concept of Spirit baptism relies heavily on the biblical concept with only occasional references to the Pentecostal experience.  I believe this poses two challenges that have not been adequately addressed. 

Firstly, while I appreciate the contribution of both Macchia and Dempster towards explicating an effective meaning of Spirit baptism that makes sense within our contemporary context, I would suggest that the basis for their effective meaning relies too heavily on eschatology.  This presents a challenge in relation to the changeable and contextual nature of eschatological thought.  Not only has our current eschatological perspective shifted since the early days of Pentecostalism, but the eschatological perspective of Pentecostals worldwide is not always consistent.  The challenge then is to understand how the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism may function effectively in view of these changes and inconsistencies.  When we refer to a change or a shift in effective meaning, we are suggesting that what is moving people and how they are being moved has changed.  For Pentecostals, the sense of eschatological urgency that propelled them into the world with an urgent gospel message has been replaced by other motivating factors.  We quoted Castelo earlier when he asked: “How should Pentecostals live in the “already-not yet” tension now that the sense of the eschatological immediacy has dissipated with time?”[61]  I believe that this question, slightly modified, captures the challenge of the effective meaning of the experience of Spirit baptism.  Given that the effective meaning of Spirit baptism was so intricately linked to missions within the context of eschatological urgency, how should Pentecostals interpret the effective meaning of Spirit baptism now that the sense of the eschatological immediacy has dissipated with time?

Secondly, there is also a challenge presented by the fact that an effective function of Spirit baptism grounded in Kingdom eschatology is usually derived almost entirely from the biblical concept of Spirit baptism with very little reference to the actual Pentecostal experience.  Thus the Pentecostal experience itself is not allowed to function effectively without a strong dependence on other, much broader, theological categories.  While we do not wish to separate Pentecostal Spirit baptism from a biblical foundation, a theological explanation of the Pentecostal experience with little reference to the actual experience makes little sense.  One could ask the question whether there is any effective meaning that can be derived from the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism itself?  If we recognize that Spirit baptism is first and foremost an experience of the Holy Spirit, can Spirit baptism carry its own effective meaning apart from eschatology? 

The Effective Function of Spirit Baptism Today:

In light of this there are basically two options available for understanding how the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism may function effectively today.  Either we attempt to reconstruct the Pentecostal concept of Spirit baptism to preserve effective meaning in light of recent eschatological changes, or we attempt to derive effective meaning from the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism without direct reference to or dependence upon a particular eschatological orientation.  Whereas Macchia and Dempster have chosen the first trajectory, in this paper I am particularly interested in this second possibility and exploring how the experience of Spirit baptism may still be able to function effectively as a catalyst for evangelism and social action independent of eschatology. 

In my view, there is certainly potential inherent within the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism, understood primarily as a powerful experience of the Holy Spirit, for developing an effective meaning for the contemporary Pentecostal context. If we view Spirit baptism as first and foremost a powerful experience of the Holy Spirit, this paves the way for explaining our experience of Spirit baptism in Trinitarian terms as participation in the life of God.[62]  In line with Macchia’s approach mentioned earlier, and building on a Trinitarian understanding of Spirit baptism, we will now explore a basis for effective meaning that Pentecostals should be able to easily identify in their experiences of Spirit baptism, namely an outpouring of divine love.

An Outpouring of Divine Love:

If, as Augustine’s psychological analogy of the Trinity suggests,[63] the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as an act of love, in Spirit baptism it could be said that we are encountering the perfect love of the Father and the Son.  This resonates with Romans 5:5 which tells us that “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit”.[64]  It is interesting to note that early Pentecostal leaders like Alexander Boddy and Gerrit Polman believed that love was the evidence of Spirit baptism rather than tongues.[65]  Furthermore, William Seymour came to the conclusion that tongues could only be viewed as the evidence of Spirit baptism if they were accompanied by “divinely-given” love.[66]  His newsletter, The Apostolic Faith, contains the following testimony:

A Nazarene brother who received the baptism with the Holy Ghost in his own home in family worship, in trying to tell about it, said, "It was a baptism of love. Such abounding love! Such compassion seemed to almost kill me with its sweetness! People do not know what they are doing when they stand out against it. The devil never gave me a sweet thing; he was always trying to get me to censuring people. This baptism fills us with divine love".[67]

Along similar lines, another early testimony asserts that “He baptized me with love”.[68]  All of this suggests that Spirit baptism as an outpouring of divine love fits well with the Pentecostal understanding of their experience. 

With this in mind, it behoves us to consider what implications this understanding may have for the effective meaning of Pentecostal Spirit baptism.  In relation to the primary outworking of effective meaning discussed in this chapter, namely mission and social action, the obvious question to ask is in what way divine love can function as a foundation for these tasks?  J. Roswell Flower, writing in his newsletter The Pentecost in 1908, demonstrated this interpretive framework when he used love, rather than eschatology, as a motivation for missions:

The baptism in the Holy Ghost does not consist in simply speaking in tongues. No, it has much more grand and deeper meaning than that. It fills our souls with the love of God for lost humanity. When the Holy Spirit comes into our hearts, the missionary spirit comes in with it: they are inseparable. Carrying the gospel to hungry souls in this and other lands is but a natural result of being baptized in the Holy Spirit.[69]

It seems natural, therefore, to state that divine love can function effectively as a catalyst for missions and social action.  Insomuch as Spirit baptism may be viewed as an outpouring of God’s divine love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, Spirit baptism has an important part to play in the missionary zeal and socially motivated impulse of Pentecostals. 

As was mentioned earlier, this connection between Pentecostal Spirit baptism and divine love has already been thoroughly explored by Frank Macchia.  He has argued that divine love must be at the essence of Spirit baptism because “Spirit baptism involves God’s love rising up within in fresh and renewed passion”.[70]  Furthermore, “the Trinitarian structure of Spirit baptism is the structure of the love mediated by the Spirit between the Father and the Son”.[71]  While I prefer to view the love poured out in Spirit baptism as the love generated by the Father and the Son (rather than the love between the Father and the Son), we nevertheless agree that Spirit baptism is a baptism into divine love.  Macchia boldly states that “there is nothing more important to theological reflection on Spirit baptism than divine love”.[72]

He then builds upon this foundation of divine love to develop a picture of a Spirit-baptized life.  In his view, divine love is essential for focusing the empowerment of Spirit baptism towards Kingdom ends.

Spirit baptism is not mere empowerment for mission in Pentecostal interpretation, even though it definitely has that focus.  If it were, there would be no way of accounting for the equally important Pentecostal stress on the greater intimacy with God and fervency in eschatological expectation that characterize Pentecostal testimonies of Spirit baptism.  Spirit baptism is akin to a prophetic call that draws believers close to his heart in deeper love and empathy in order to help them catch a glimpse of the divine love for the world.  It is this love that is at the substance of the power for mission.[73]

He describes the flame of revival as “the flame of love rekindled and enhanced, for both God and the world”.[74]  Spirit baptism, therefore, functions for Pentecostals “as a renewal in the experience and power of God’s love in our lives so that the fires of hope and faithfulness might burn more brightly”.[75]

While we may take different paths to arrive at our conclusion, both Macchia and myself agree that there is great potential for developing the effective meaning of Pentecostal Spirit baptism in terms of divine love.  From my perspective, viewing Pentecostal Spirit baptism as an experience of the Holy Spirit in which the divine love of God is poured into our hearts is a very reasonable view that may be derived from the experience itself.  The strength of this view as a basis for the effective function of the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism is that it does not rely on a particular eschatological orientation or context.  Divine love can be equally as compelling in our contemporary context as it was for the early Pentecostals in their context of eschatological expectation.  Macchia captures this beautifully:

It is in the realm of the Spirit that I participate in the koinonia of divine love with others…It is in the realm of the Spirit that I join my heart with the one who so loves the world and sent the divine Son to seek and to save the lost.  It is on the winds of the Spirit that we are consecrated and called for a holy task and empowered to go forth as a vessel for the salvation of others, burning with the love of God for them.  It is in the Spirit and the love of Christ that we confront injustice with a passion for the liberty and dignity of those who are oppressed as well as the transformation of those who benefit intentionally or blindly from that oppression.[76]

This appeal to divine love as a motivating factor for both evangelism and social justice could provide a solid rationale for a balanced Pentecostal approach to mission. 

A Broader Concept of Empowerment:

Finally, if we argue for divine love as the key that unlocks and explains the effective meaning of Pentecostal Spirit baptism, how might this relate to the historical explanation of the effective meaning of Spirit baptism, namely empowerment for mission?  While I may have been critical of this empowerment aspect as a sole or primary facet of meaning to be derived from the experience of Spirit baptism, this does not mean it should be dismissed altogether.  Rather, I would argue that empowerment for mission is a valuable and meaningful concept when it is grounded by and builds upon the primary assertion that Spirit baptism is an experience of the Holy Spirit resulting in an outpouring of divine love. 

While many Pentecostals would acknowledge that we are all dependent on the Holy Spirit for empowerment for mission, the question is how do we understand that empowerment?  In a classical Pentecostal sense, I suggest that empowerment for mission has been narrowly viewed on two fronts.  Firstly, it has been narrowly construed as the primary purpose of Spirit baptism. But, as Chan recognizes, explaining Spirit baptism primarily in terms of power for service “is manifestly inadequate as it does not encompass the actual experience of Pentecostals themselves”.[77]  There was and is much more to the experience than simply empowerment for mission.  Secondly, the nature of this empowerment has been narrowly construed in terms of charismatic empowerment for mission.  In fact, often empowerment for mission is viewed almost exclusively in charismatic terms.  But, as Macchia argues in the previous section, there is great potential in understanding divine love as the substance of this divine empowerment that comes through Spirit baptism. 

Such a view of empowerment would certainly allow us to broaden our understanding to incorporate a more holistic view of missions and ministry.  Empowerment understood exclusively in charismatic terms tends to restrict our view of the Spirit’s work to dramatic, remarkable, or miraculous instances of salvation or social change.  But is there potential for understanding Spirit-given empowerment for mission in more practical terms?  Douglas Petersen, for example, discusses a definition of empowerment that is much broader than the traditional Pentecostal understanding:

I define empowerment on the first level as the acquisition of personal and interpersonal skills that equip a person to function effectively and have capacity to access available resources in civil society…On a second and more corporate level, when addressing unjust social and structural dimensions, agencies, participants, or networks are empowered not only when they are able to take advantage of existing structures, but also when they demonstrate the capacity to change or transform those structures or create new alternatives to them.[78]

His is basically a practical challenge to Pentecostals to demonstrate how their understanding of empowerment relates to moral and ethical responsibility.  In his own words, “if the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism is basically one for empowerment, then, the task of a Pentecostal theology is to demonstrate the centrality of the experience as a key pattern to open the way to discuss how these ethical demands are actualized and become operative in the power of the Spirit”.[79]  I believe that a concept of empowerment undergirded by an emphasis on divine love could provide the practical connection that Petersen is looking for. 

Positively, then, the relationship between Spirit baptism and empowerment for mission may still be preserved if that empowerment is understood more broadly within the context of a balanced and practical concept of outreach and social responsibility.  In this sense, “Spirit baptism as an experience of empowerment is not just renewed energy to do things for God...It is rather the self-transcending, self-giving love”.[80]  Such a concept of empowerment is not beholden to a particular eschatological orientation, but draws its rationale from the eternal love of God.  Thus divine love provides a powerful link between the experience of Pentecostal Spirit baptism and empowerment for mission:

Spirit baptism fills us with the love of God so that we transcend ourselves and cross boundaries.  We find the power to transcend limitations through divine infilling to pour ourselves out for others ... Jesus pours out the Spirit so that the Spirit may pour forth in our empowered love for others.[81]

Concluding Remarks:

The goal of this paper has been to suggest how the experience of Pentecostal Spirit baptism may carry effective meaning for contemporary Pentecostals and provide a rationale for social action and mission.  For early Pentecostals, the effective meaning of Spirit baptism as a catalyst for evangelism and missions was tied to their eschatological expectation that the return of Christ was imminent.  However, as the eschatological perspective of many Pentecostals has shifted in recent years, the effective meaning of Spirit baptism understood in this way no longer makes sense.  Furthermore, the changing and contextual nature of eschatology in general presents some challenges when constructing effective meaning with an eschatological foundation.  With this in mind, we focused our attention on the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism in an effort to reframe the effective meaning of the experience without reference to a particular eschatological orientation. 

Our suggestion along these lines relies heavily on the key assertion that Pentecostal Spirit baptism is first and foremost an experience of the Holy Spirit.  If the Holy Spirit is understood in Trinitarian terms as the love generated by the Father and the Son, this suggests that in Spirit baptism that love of God is poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5).  The divine love of God that is central to the experience of Spirit baptism can then function as a basis for deriving effective meaning from the experience.  The love of God both motivates and empowers us to join with the Holy Spirit in God’s work of building the Kingdom of God through missions, evangelism, and social action.  This theological connection between the divine love poured out in Spirit baptism and the mission of the church provides an effective understanding of Pentecostal Spirit baptism that does not rely on a particular context to make cognitive sense.  People from any time and any place can be compelled by the love of God to reach out to their fellow human beings.  If, in Spirit baptism, Pentecostals experience a powerful outpouring of God’s divine love, outreach focused action is precisely what we should expect the result of such an experience to be.

Bibliography

Archer, Kenneth. A Pentecostal Hermeneutic. Cleveland: CPT Press, 2005.

Castelo, Daniel. "Patience as a Theological Virtue - a Challenge to Pentecostal Eschatology." In Perspectives in Pentecostal Eschatologies, edited by Peter Althouse and Robby Waddell. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2010.

Cettolin, Angelo Ulisse. "Aog Pentecostal Spirituality in Australia." Australian College of Theology, 2006.

Chan, Simon. "The Language Game of Glossolalia." In Pentecostalism in Context, edited by Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1997.

________. "Evidential Glossolalia and the Doctrine of Subsequence." Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2, no. 2 (1999): 195-211.

________. Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition Jpts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Clifton, Shane. "An Analysis of the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia." Australian Catholic University, 2005.

________. "The Spirit and Doctrinal Development: A Functional Analysis of the Traditional Pentecostal Doctrine of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit." Pneuma 29, no. 1 (2007): 5-23.

Dempster, Murray W. "Eschatology, Spirit Baptism, and Inclusiveness." In Perspectives in Pentecostal Eschatologies, edited by Peter Althouse and Robby Waddell. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2010.

Flower, J. Roswell. "The Pentecost." 1, no. 1 (1908).

Houston, Brian. You Can Change the Future. Castle Hill: Maximized Leadership, 2000.

Hudson, Neil. "Strange Words and Their Impact on Early Pentecostals." In Speaking in Tongues, edited by Mark J. Cartledge. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006.

Karkkainen, Veli-Matti. "Pentecostal Theology of Mission in the Making." Journal of Beliefs and Values 25, no. 2 (2004): 167-176.

Klaus, Byron. "The Holy Spirit and Mission in Eschatological Perspective." Pneuma 27, no. 2 (2005): 322-342.

L. Grant McClung, Jr. "'Try to Get People Saved'." In The Globalization of Pentecostalism, edited by Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus and Douglas Peterson. Oxford: Regnum Books International, 1999.

Ladd, George Eldon. The Gospel of the Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.

Lancaster, Sarah Jane. "What We Believe." Good News1924, 24.

Land, Steven. Pentecostal Spirituality Jpts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

Lonergan, Bernard. Method in Theology. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1975.

________. Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan: Philosophical and Theological Papers, 1965-1980. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.

Macchia, Frank. Baptized in the Spirit. Michigan: Zondervan, 2006.

Macchia, Frank D. "The Struggle for Global Witness." In The Globalization of Pentecostalism, edited by Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus and Douglas Peterson. Oxford: Regnum Books International, 1999.

McQueen, Larry. "Early Pentecostal Eschatology in the Light of the Apostolic Faith, 1906-1908." In Perspectives in Pentecostal Eschatologies, edited by Peter Althouse and Robby Waddell. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2010.

Onyinah, Opoku. "Pneumatological Foundations for Mission." International Review of Mission 101, no. 2 (2012): 331-335.

Ormerod, Neil. The Trinity: Retrieving the Western Tradition Marquette Studies in Theology. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2005.

Palmer, Christopher. "Mission: The True Pentecostal Heritage as Illustrated in Early British Aog Thinking." The Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 2 (2010): 39-50.

"Pentecost Has Come." The Apostolic Faith 1, no. 1 (1906).

"The Pentecostal Baptism Restored." The Apostolic Faith 1, no. 2 (1906).

Petersen, Douglas. "A Moral Imagination." Vanguard University.

"Redemption Tidings." 1, no. 4 (1925).

Robeck, Cecil M. Azusa Street Mission & Revival. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006.

Stronstad, Roger. "Forty Years On: An Appreciation and Assessment of Baptism in the Holy Spirit by James D.G. Dunn." Journal of Pentecostal Theology 19, no. 1 (2010): 3-11.

Thompson, Matthew K. "Eschatology as Soteriology." In Perspectives in Pentecostal Eschatologies, edited by Peter Althouse and Robby Waddell, 189-204. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2010.

Various. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 19, no. 1 (2010): 3-43.

Wilson, Dwight J. "Pentecostal Perspectives on Eschatology." In The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, edited by Stanley Burgess. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

Yong, Amos. The Spirit Poured out on All Flesh. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.