This post begins a new series on “Current Pentecostal Scholarship.” It also addresses some questions I received for my series, “Questions People ask about the Holy Spirit.”
Contemporary Pentecostal systematic theologians are discussing Spirit baptism in a way that includes, but goes beyond, traditional Pentecostal emphases. Historically most Pentecostals have emphasized that any believer can be baptized in the Spirit, that this experience empowers believers for witness (Acts 1:8), and that the experience is accompanied by speaking in tongues.
The Growth of Pentecostal Scholarship
Many people would say that Pentecostal scholarship did not really come into its own until after 1970, when James Dunn published his critique of Pentecostal theology. Dunn argued that Spirit baptism occurs at conversion. In other words, whenever someone becomes a believer, they receive the Spirit as a Spirit baptism (consider 1 Corinthians 12:13).
Pentecostal biblical scholars, like Roger Stronstad and Robert Menzies, responded to Dunn by focusing on the books of Luke and Acts (both written by Luke). They first argued that even though Luke primarily presents historical narrative, Luke is still a theologian, not just Paul. They continued by arguing that Luke presents Spirit baptism as a post-conversion experience where the Spirit empowers believers for witness.
Pentecostal Systematic Theology Today
As time has passed Pentecostal scholarship has matured as scholars have engaged many topics and disciplines. You can see this in academic book series like Pentecostal Manifestos and the more established Journal for Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series.
At the same time, Pentecostal scholars have continued to think about Spirit baptism. Today, every Pentecostal systematic theologian publishing on the issue is expressing an expansive understanding of Spirit baptism, which includes, but is not limited to, the common classical Pentecostal emphasis on a post-conversion experience of Spirit baptism as expressed by Luke.
Frank Macchia on Spirit Baptism
Frank Macchia, an Assemblies of God theologian, is one of the most influential Pentecostal systematic theologians on this issue. In his book Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology he presents Spirit baptism not as a one-time experience (or even a repeatable experience), but rather as a process identified with the coming of the kingdom of God.
That is, according to Macchia the process of Spirit Baptism began at Pentecost, continues still, and will continue until the full consummation of the kingdom of God. For the individual believer, this means that Spirit baptism encompasses one’s reception of the Spirit at conversion, any post-conversion sanctifying or empowering experience of the Spirit, and even one’s being raised by the Spirit at the return of Christ.
Macchia believes he is justified to integrate the diverse biblical voices (e.g., Luke and Paul) that utilize the metaphor of Spirit baptism on account of the metaphor’s connection to the expansive concept of the kingdom of God. For example, in Acts 1:3 Jesus appeared to the apostles and “spoke about the kingdom of God.” As he did this, Jesus told them, “in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (verse 5). (Consider also Matthew 3:2, 11.)
Tongues?
If Spirit Baptism is, as Macchia proposes, a lengthy process of the coming of the kingdom of God, then what link is there between Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues? Macchia describes tongues as the “characteristic sign of Spirit baptism…because they symbolize God’s people giving themselves abundantly in a way that transcends limitations and creaturely expectations” (p. 281). In this sense, tongues serves as the decisive sign that confirms the experience of being baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Subsequence?
Macchia emphasizes that one cannot divide and fragment the work of the Spirit as though the Holy Spirit only does one thing at a time. This means that Pentecostals cannot claim that non-Pentecostals (in as much as they too have experienced the Holy Spirit) have not been empowered by the Holy Spirit to any extent, as though this only occurs when one speaks in tongues. At the same time, Macchia affirms that Pentecostals are “justified in calling Christians to a Spirit baptism [subsequent to conversion] as a fresh experience of power for witness with charismatic signs following” (p. 60).
Empowerment
Macchia believes Spirit baptism is about more than just receiving power for witness if that only means inspired speech. Instead, the Spirit’s empowerment includes sanctification, as the Spirit enables believers to witness through sanctified lives.
Leave a comment below by clicking here.
You might also be interested in these posts:
- Spirit Baptism in Current Pentecostal Theology: Part 2 – Amos Yong
- “Why do PENTECOSTALS care so much about SPIRIT BAPTISM?”
- 3 Ways People Misunderstand Tongues as “Initial Evidence” of Spirit Baptism
Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author of Touched by God: Experiencing the Holy Spirit (forthcoming) as well as three academic books, including The Lord is the Spirit. He is a theology professor at Horizon College and Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on Twitter.
This was a great article.
I have no problem with thoughts presented in this book. I agree that the work of the Holy Spirit should not be thought of in fragments. Indeed, we are BORN of the Spirit. And, His work in ongoing. That is the same principle that we see in Scripture that “in Him we live, and move, and have our being.”
That being said, the work of the Triune God should be considered in like manner. The mind of Christ and the mind of the Father and mind of the Spirit are ONE and the SAME! Indeed, the purpose of God is brought about by the various “offices” of the Trinity!
Dr. Bob W. Jones, Pastor
CHOSEN GENERATION CHURCH of Saucier, MS.
This book by Macchia opened my eyes. It was the first time I realized that pentecostal scholarship was legitimate and breaking new ground. I’m looking forward to more posts in the “Current Pentecostal Scholarship” series. I’m sure I’ll end up with more books for my “to read” pile!
It is a great book, for certain. My plan is to add to the series in the next couple weeks, but even after that I imagine that I will return to it periodically.
Great article Andrew. As a fourth generation ‘classical Pentecostal’ Macchia’s pneumatology is challenging and refreshing.
I have always believed that Spirit Baptism is a supernatural encounter that somehow is establishing or aligning the believer with the Person of The Spirit.
As a ‘classical’ Pentecostal, the challenge is where and how far to do we go!
Excited for the journey ahead!
A literary, narratological, discourse analysis study of Luke-Acts demonstrates that Spirit reception is not a process itself, but a definitive event occurring during the process of becoming a member of the Early Christian Sect. Spirit reception is unitary, that is, not divided into ‘indwelling’ plus ‘Spirit Baptism’. Spirit reception is liminal, that is, it is not instantaneous at faith, but belongs to the ritual process. Spirit reception is mediated, that is, it is not automatic, but imparted through powerful ritual elders representing the sectarian community.
Narrative tools can be used to identify structures of normativity within a story. Mere narration does not equal normativity, but literary devices such as focalisation, type-scenes, normative spokespeople, narrative asides, didactic peaks, and functional redundancy are used by Luke to prescribe doctrine and ritual practice.
Every initiate to the Early Christian Sect dissociated and spoke in tongues as the climax of their Christian initiation. Tongues speech is understood by Luke to be the new covenant Spirit reception experience required for acceptance into the sectarian community. We must not think of the early Christians as a church, but as a sect.
I would be happy to substantiate these assertions further.
David J. McCollough, PhD
david.j.mccollough@durham.ac.uk
Thanks for commenting, David. My impression is that biblical scholars focus on one section of Scripture in their attempt to define Spirit baptism, whereas Macchia and most Pentecostal systematic theologians are attempting to look at the whole cannon of Scripture in order to take into account the various perspectives on Spirit baptism that one can find in the Bible.
Quite true. However, John and Paul do not provide a different perspective on Spirit reception than Luke does. Scripture presents a unified picture of Christian initiation rather than the diversity that many have supposed. A modern narratological analysis of the Jesus/Nicodemus story supports the traditional view that the Jesus character referenced John’s baptism of repentence and his own baptism of the Spirit, while the gospel author, at the level of the implied reader, referenced Christian baptism and concomitant Spirit reception. At both levels, that’s a two-part initiatory ritual.
Paul assumed ever believer had received the Spirit, but he also assumed every believer had been water baptised. Just as Paul did not discuss the status of initiates in the betwixt and between position of having repented but still standing in the queue to be immersed in water, so too, he did not discuss the liminal position of initiates who in faith had believed the kerygma but had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9, or 1 Cor. 12:13 do not require instantaneous Spirit reception. Rather, Paul’s comments are predictated upon the same ritual process that is taught by Luke.
Not that the book of Acts was necessarily published early, nor that one must claim perfect historicity for Luke’s plot, but rather the rituals of Luke-Acts, belonging to the matter of verisimilitude, go back to the historical milieu of Paul. It is therefore not methodologically inappropriate to use Luke’s ritual prescriptions as background material to interpret Paul’s letters.
And Luke does prescribe. A narratological, discourse analysis, literary analysis of Luke-Acts makes that irrefragable.
Thus, liminality excludes the idea that a believer automatically receives the Spirit at the moment of faith. Spirit reception in John, Luke, and Paul belongs to the process of becoming a Christian. It is not automatic, it is mediated; it is not instantaneous, it is liminal. The minimal diversity that is seen in Luke-Acts is a component of a standard ritual structure that allows for minor variance. Perturbation in a set ritual process is normal for ‘real world’ rituals. We must theologise from the unitary Early Christian ritual process.
Speaking in tongues is commonly a sign of Spirit baptism. The Holy Spirit determines who and when should speaking in tongues should occur. There’re some Christians who’ve never spoken in tongues yet they’re Spirit filled.
Thanks for the overview. Sounds like an interesting read. Nice to note what Jesus had to say about it since John the Baptist identified Jesus as the one who “baptizes.”
I’ve studied this book from Dr. Macchia in a Pentecostal Theology when I was in college and with the Assemblies of God and his theology on spirit baptism changed everything I ever thought or believed about the work of the Holy Spirit both from Luke and Paul. today I can now see how great the effect of both the charismatic and soteriological the baptism of the spirit has on the church and its word outside of the walls of a sanctuary throughout the entire world. This is a great Pentecostal perspective that every Christian needs to study the learn the work and gifting the spirit gives to those who receive its power for service.
Frank Macchia highly influenced my life when I was in college with the Assemblies of God. This book shaped my view of Spirit Baptism to the extent that I can see the global outpouring and its charismatic and soteriological significance in a broader and more ecumenical way than before. Seeing how God is doing this not only for Pentecostals but also for all who have been baptized by the Holy Spirit with the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues.