Wheaton College has a conference discussing the work of N.T. Wright. The Evangelical Theological Society made the doctrine of justification the central theme of their annual meeting because of the views of Wright. Now the Society of Pentecostal Studies will be giving Wright’s work an entire plenary session.
On Friday, March 11th, 2011, from 1:30-4:ooPM at the Marriott Memphis Hotel the following presentations are scheduled:
For more, go here.
The Society of Pentecostal Studies sponsored a Trinitarian-Oneness dialog from 2002-2007. When it was all said and done notable religious historian Daniel Ramirez of the University of Michigan (then of Arizona State University) told me he did not think it was very profitable. He gave his reasons publically in “A Historian’s Response: Final Report of the Trinitarian-Oneness Pentecostal Dialogue,”Pneuma, vol. 30, no. 2 (2008): 245-254. As a former Oneness Pentecostal who came to adopt the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodox his arguments were convincing to me. After hearing his thoughts I have rarely engaged Oneness Pentecostals in a conversation about the Trinity because I don’t expect it to go anywhere.
It has been my position that if anyone is going to change views from one side to the other it would be like it was for me. It would come through personal study and discussions with respectable people. It is unlikely that a Trinitarian scholar or a Oneness scholar will go into a “discussion” open to being converted by the other. It is a debate at best but hardly a real dialog.
That being said let me ask a simple question: Do you think Trinitarian-Oneness dialog can be profitable? If so, why? If not, why not? What do you understand to be the greatest differences between the two groups in areas of theology proper, soteriology, ecclesiology, and the likes?
See also:
- Roger Olson’s post on the authentic evangelicalism here.
- Daniel Segraves response to the Oneness-Trinitarian dialog here.
I was informed that George O. Wood, the Superintedent of the Assemblies of God, intended to respond to the controversy regarding his critique of Tony Jones being at the annual meeting for the Society for Pentecostal Studies. He addressed the issue live on MinistryDirect.com so I decided I would listen.
I found his response calm and respectful. He appealed to (1) his responsibility as an “overseer” and (2) the Society of Pentecostal Studies association with the World Pentecostal Fellowship (of which he is an executive board member) as reason for him expressing concern. He says he feels that he spoke as many other global Pentecostal leaders would have spoke.
Wood said the AOG did not threaten to boycott SPS but he did say that such a direction could lead to the AOG deciding not the fund their scholars for SPS (though free to go using their own funds). The problem was not the subject being discussed. The problem was giving Jones, an open advocate of same sex marriage, a platform. He felt that the Apostle Paul would not have given a platform like this to someone in the church of Corinth.
I was unaware of the partnership between the Society for Pentecostal Studies and the World Pentecostal Fellowship (WPF). This partnership makes me think Wood had all the right to question SPS’s decision. Apparently, SPS is not an independent academic society. If there is a relationship between SPS and WPF then the SPS, by default, has the primary purpose of serving the church. Likewise, Sanchez-Walsh and others have the right to form another fellowship free from any associations if they think it will allow them more academic freedom.
Wood did say that academic freedom must work with academic responsibility. He said that for Christian scholars this means Scriptural fidelity. Again, if SPS is for the embetterment of the church then the leadership of the church has a right to express their feelings on the matter. Jones has not labored for the health of the Pentecostal movement. He has less invested in it than Wood and others, nor does he care about their spiritual well-being like Wood. I am inclined to side with the AOG superintendent on this one.
When we have been discussing the Society for Pentecostal Studies this week (here and here) it came to me that I cannot define the center of Pentecostal theology. Is there a center? I would suggest “speaking in tongues” as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism, but many such as Gordon Fee are consider Pentecostal while denying this doctrine. It is not equated with being a continuationist because many Charismatics who are not Pentecostal, as well as an increasing amount of people from various denominations who wouldn’t use the word “Charismatic”, accept the validity of the gifts. So what is it?
If you are a Pentecostal let me know what you think creates the distinctive. If you are not tell me what would make you consider someone Pentecostal.
Some of us have been discussing (here) the decision of Arlene M. Sanchez-Walsh and other to exit the Society of Pentecostal Studies in favor of a new society know as GloPent-Americas (Global Pentecostalisms in the Americas). Sanchez-Walsh is saying that SPS is to restricted by the ecclesiastical heirarchy of denominations like the Assemblies of God. She wants more freedom to discuss matters related to “sexuality, race, gender, politics, hegemony”. She is forming this new society with others to provide that forum.
I think this is good for Pentecostalism. The movement does need to ask questions related to socio-political-economic matters. Furthermore, these discussions should not become a distraction to the subjects that the SPS traditionally discusses as related to the Pentecostal movement. If there are two societies giving even more options for Pentecostal theologians and scholars of Pentecostalism this cannot be a bad thing.
What will be interesting to see is how many scholars are able to engage in both meetings. Also, I wonder if this will create two branches of academic Pentecostalism and what those would look like. Thoughts?
