Towards a distinct classical Pentecostal method of practical theology

ABSTRACT

It is notable that few Pentecostals have engaged with the discipline of Practical Theology (PT). Whilst those who have often include a helpful emphasis on pneumatology in their methodological work, they generally do not incorporate a fuller range of Pentecostal nuances beyond pneumatology. This paper seeks to address this by considering how Pentecostal theology can more broadly resource a PT method. This is important because Pentecostalism has its own way of generating knowledge, which emerges from these broader theological distinctives. In doing so, it suggests a step-by-step method, framed around the questions posed by the crowd at Pentecost, and draws from theological ideas present in the Acts 2 narrative. Furthermore, it is characterised by the predisposition of the theologian to seek what Christ and the Spirit are saying or doing in the experience.

KEYWORDS:

• Pentecostal
• hermeneutics
• pentecost
• praxis
• practical theology

Introduction

Due to Practical Theology (PT) being ‘rooted … in the material embodied world’ and generally incorporating social scientific ideas in its theological reflections, it has often been viewed as part of ‘the liberal tradition’ (Bennett et al. 2018, 12; Cahalan and Mikoski 2014, 25; Ward 2017, 5). This has resulted in few Pentecostal scholars engaging in PT, as the movement generally reacts against liberal tendencies (Cartledge 2022, 207; C. L. Anderson 2015, 18). However, some have, and their adaptation of PT methods to include a pneumatological emphasis has been helpful. Yet, to date, no PT method has been produced that incorporates a broad range of Pentecostal’s theological distinctives, beyond pneumatology. This is an important gap, as Pentecostals have their own distinct ways of creating knowledge (Frestadius 2019, 1–2) that includes but is broader than pneumatology. This paper seeks to address this gap through developing a method that draws on Pentecostal theology more widely.

Whilst it is not within the remit of this paper to describe all the nuances of Pentecostalism, some important points which shape the development of the method do need to be highlighted. First, is that the movement is immensely and increasingly diverse, incorporating differing theological and ecclesial expressions (Warrington 2008, 12; Vondey 2013, 25–27). Second, despite this wide variety, a consistent theological theme within it is that it ‘reaches deep into the heart of Pentecost’ and is narratively expressed through what is ‘so-called the full-gospel’; with this narrative consisting of four or five elements describing the work of Jesus as saviour, sanctifier (in the five-fold version), baptiser in the Holy Spirit, healer, and coming King (Vondey 2018, 5). This emphasis on Pentecost and the ‘full gospel’, sets it apart from other theological traditions. Third, emerging from this, scholars have observed a variety of additional theological concerns: (1) a high value of the Bible; (2) the importance of critical conversation between experience and Scripture; (3) the necessary presence of the Holy Spirit in interpretive processes; (4) the centrality of Christology; (5) the aim of leading communities into a greater experience of transformation; and (6) the involvement of the whole community (Archer 2009, 225; Thomas 1994, 49; Vondey 2013, 25–27; 2018, 2, 8 & 15; Warrington 2008, 180 & 192–194).¹ However, as well as utilising these Pentecostal nuances, the method suggested in this paper equally embraces PT’s widely accepted emphases in that it remains firmly anchored to exploring human experience, is contextual, and multi-disciplinary.

Overarching principles and predispositions

Before describing the actual steps of the method, some of the principles that guide it are outlined in this section.

Pentecostally anchored

Because the Day of Pentecost is central to Pentecostal theology, this method is developed from a theological reading of the Acts 2 narrative. This type of reading, which is considered appropriate for Pentecostals and is regularly used by them (Philemon 2019; Yong 2022, 155), seeks to identify theological ideas within the narrative which can then be used to fund a PT framework. As such, the method being suggested is framed around the questions posed by the crowd on the Day of Pentecost and the way that Peter responded to them. In employing this approach, the theologian(s) adopts the dual role of asking the crowd’s questions and answering them in a way that is representative of Peter’s replies, in a dialogical fashion.

However, it is acknowledged that, due to employing this theological way of reading, the method may not fit neatly with the details of the narrative – especially when read through a historical-critical lens. Equally, unlike the inerrant narrative of Acts 2 (from the Pentecostal perspective) in which Peter expounded definitive answers, this contemporary method (which does not produce ‘scripture’ as Pentecostals understand it) recognises that it can only articulate provisional answers that are open for revision.

Experientially centred

Pentecost was experiential: the disciples heard, saw, and felt the Holy Spirit, and spoke as enabled by him. The crowd felt the cutting of the heart – a longing for change – followed by a feeling of acceptance into the baptised community. Importantly, these feelings are understood to be stirred by Christ’s actions, who gave the Spirit (Acts 2:33). Therefore, the Pentecost narrative records a reflection on the human experience of Jesus’ work, which both sheds light on the meaning of Old Testament prophecies as well as allowing them to contribute to the interpretation of what was being felt. Therefore, what is described is not a mere application of theory, where the Scriptures or Jesus’ pneumatological teachings were analysed to determine what the experience ought to be. Rather, the affective experience itself provides a key to understanding what the prophets and the Messiah really meant when they spoke about the coming of the Spirit.

It is for these reasons that this method places a high value on human experience, especially that of experiencing Christ’s (or God’s) actions through the Spirit, which is important for Pentecostals (Warrington 2008, 192–194). As such, this method lends itself more naturally to the study of religious experience, both personally and within the ecclesial community, which is something that Cartledge argues for in PT (2015, 168). However, it is recognised that delineating the boundaries between general and divine experiences is itself a highly subjective theological task.

Pneumatologically enabled and ecclesially focussed

Whilst it is notable that Peter took a lead in this reflection it should not distract from the fact that he is accompanied by the ‘eleven’, all of whom had received the Spirit. Therefore, the whole community of disciples, enabled by the Spirit, plays a part in the interpretive process – even if that part is simply to stand in agreement with Peter’s words. As such, this method is undertaken as a Spirit-directed activity that involves the ecclesial community. This, resonates with Cartledge’s assertions that PT ought to recognise the present activity of the Spirit, who mediates Jesus and his work to the ecclesial community (2015, 109).

However, this does not negate the importance of ‘each one’. As Peter’s prominence reveals, there is space within the process for individual(s), who have been trained or have experience, to guide a group of believers in the hermeneutical task. This is not to say that there are two ‘classes’ of theologians: the ‘ordinary’ Christian – to borrow Jeff Astley’s phrase (2017) – and the leader-theologian. Rather it recognises that the discernment process benefits from the insights of a wider ecclesial group, who are Spirit baptised – an essential doctrine for Pentecostals (Archer 2010, 20), consisting of both leaders and followers. As such, this method includes the methodological principles of Harlyn Graydon Purdy, who argues for a ‘leader’ in his Pentecostal hermeneutical process (2015, 141–152).

Christologically funded

As already suggested, Peter’s interpretation of the experience is highly Christological. The Pentecost sermon speaks of Jesus’ life, death, ascension, and pouring out of the Spirit. In response, this method aims to discern what Jesus is doing in the current situation, through the Spirit. Therefore, it incorporates elements of Ray Anderson’s (2001) and Andrew Root’s (2014) idea of Christopraxis, in which they argue that the focus of PT ought to be discerning the practical work of Jesus and considering how one might more faithfully join in it. This Christological component is particularly important for Pentecostals (Vondey 2018, 15), due to their emphasis on the full-gospel which ascribes their experiences of salvation, sanctification, Spirit-baptism, healing, and eschatological hope directly to Jesus’ actions.

Transformationally envisioned

Importantly, the concrete experience of being transformed through Spirit-baptism was located within the ‘house’ where the believers were gathered, and therefore it is they who were the containers of it. Yet, crowd are still important because they asked the questions, prompting the reflection, with those questions being answered in a way that led to their own transformation through which they became integrated into the company of disciples. It is noteworthy that Pentecostal spirituality promotes a similar type of witnessing to unbelievers (Ma and Ma 2022, 281), where believers explain their experience of salvation to those who are prepared to listen in the hope of their transformation and integration into the ecclesial community. However, for Pentecostals, testimony (i.e. witnessing) about experience also has the purpose of encouraging the deepening transformation of other believers (Neumann 2022, 88). It is, therefore, argued that the crowd’s questions and Peter’s testimonial response to them are not just appropriate for engaging with non-Christians, they are also appropriate to ask in any context where people seek to participate further in Christian transformation, regardless of where they are in their spiritual journey.

However, notably, Pentecostalism also looks beyond the individual and towards social transformation. This was historically understood to happen naturally as Spirit-baptised people, who were transformed by Christ, began to take ‘personal responsibility’ for living in a good way in the world, thereby positively impacting wider society (Archer 2009, 16). In the more contemporary era, it has been manifested through social action projects run by Pentecostal churches such as food banks and debt counselling. This desire for social change suggests a clear link between liberation theology, which is prevalent within wider PT methodologies, and Pentecostalism (Johns 2010, 69–70). Yet, there is also a significant difference in that the liberal tendencies of wider PT methodologies often view their aim in terms of promoting practices that lead to human social flourishing (Cahalan and Mikoski 2014, 6). Rather, from a Pentecostal view, social transformation is understood to emerge naturally out of personal transformation by the Spirit, and outworked in ways that draw unbelievers into the transforming work of God that is contained within the ecclesial community (Sanders 2022, 438). All this does not mean that other methods of PT, which emphasise God’s work in the wider world, are invalid (Pentecostals can learn a lot from them). Instead, an authentically Pentecostal method, such as this, has a clear remit of studying and renewing ecclesial praxis, which overspill into positive social transformation which then lead to people joining the ecclesia.

As such, this draws on the methodological insight of Parker (2015, 52), who locates Pentecostal PT within the believing community. It also incorporates Root’s idea that PT should be perceived as ministry (2014, 293–297), as it aims to draw attention to what God is wanting to say and do in the concrete experience in ways that help people align further with his word and will. Furthermore, this also requires that the answers emerging from this process be articulated in ways that can be understood and are actionable by all people, thereby incorporating the broader aim of ‘correlation’ that seeks to explain theology in ways that resonate with wider society (Graham, Walton, and Ward 2005, 138).

These overarching principles – Pentecostally anchored, experientially centred, pneumatologically enabled, ecclesially focused, Christologically funded, and transformationally envisioned – demands four predispositions of practical theologian(s) who would employ this method: They (1) appreciate the historic importance of Pentecost and its ongoing relevance to the contemporary theological task; (2) recognise experience as a legitimate source for theology; (3) acknowledge that Jesus is still directly active in the church and world today, and that his actions and voice are discernible through the Spirit; and (4) envision the PT process as a ministry enterprise that leads to personal and social change. This requires that the practical theologian gives attention to themselves, so that they might be spiritually open to hearing how the Spirit of Pentecost might illuminate the work of Jesus in the church today in order for transformation to ensue.

Pre-step – Reflexively: ‘Are not all these Galileans?’ (Acts 2:7)

It is notable that the crowd observed the context of the disciples through asking ‘Are not all these Galileans?’, with Acts 4.13 adding that they were ‘uneducated, common men’ who had ‘been with Jesus’. The personal, geographical, social, educational, and religious contexts of those who interpreted the event of Pentecost were important enough to be recorded in the narrative. For Luke, the author of the narrative, this personal context, that is shared by the disciples, appears to be important because it gave the disciples authority to explain the events. However, for the purpose of this paper, it is recognised that this gave them a certain lens through which they viewed the event. Afterall, if the speaking in tongues were reflected on by a member of the Sanhedrin there would have been a quite different response!

This recognition of personal contexts shapes the pre-step of the method, in that it asks those who are involved to examine themselves – a common practise in PT (Cahalan and Mikoski 2014, 6–7). Questions around one’s own presuppositions and agendas need to be aired. This is because, as Swinton and Mowat observe, acts of interpretation are inherently shaped by the individual interpreter (2016, 58–59). Equally, one’s own experiences of the Spirit will affect how they ascribe meaning to Biblical passages. For example, one’s ideas of where ecclesial authority lies, which emerges from their own churchmanship, will influence how they interpret experiences surrounding church leadership.

Whilst this step is necessary for the person(s) leading the process, it is also important for other members of the community who contribute. As such, when undertaking the congregational studies part of this method in step two, questions around personal histories and reasons for being involved ought to be included towards the beginning of conversational focus groups. Doing so, will enable them to recognise their own presuppositions and agendas, which, in turn, will help each one to understand why others see things differently and value alternative perspectives as much as their own.

Step 1 – Descriptive Movement: ‘How is it?’ (Acts 2.8)

On the day of Pentecost, the crowd were bewildered (Acts 2.6), as they heard the ‘unlearned’ Galileans declaring ‘mighty works of God’ in their own languages (Acts 2.11). In response, they ask ‘how is it?’ From this, two sub-questions might be implied. This first is ‘what is going on?’: they tried to ascertain whether they were really hearing God’s praises or drunken ramblings (Acts 2.13). The second implied question concerns ‘what has led to this experience?’ In response, Peter initially clarifies that they are not witnessing intoxicated foolishness, thereby implying that they were indeed hearing their own languages. Whilst Peter does not explicitly answer the second sub-question, the wider narrative does. In doing so, Luke describes what had happened to lead to the present experience: the disciples had been waiting together in an upper room in anticipation of Jesus’ final promise (Acts 2.8) and, consequently, had been Spirit-filled.

It is this ‘how is it’ question, and the two sub-questions, which shape this first movement. As with Peter’s clarifying comment and Luke’s storytelling, it aims to describe the experience and identify the background to it. To this end, the descriptive movement begins with simply highlighting an experience that is deemed worthy of further reflection. This could be a wide-ranging experience, such as sung worship, or more specific, such as the ways in which sung worship echoes the style of music prevalent with wider culture. This experience is then described, which can be done in a variety of ways such as: (1) personal reflection on the experience; (2) an original empirical study; or (3) researching what others have written about the experience.

Within this, theological issues that have shaped the experience are noted. Whilst Pentecostal theology and practice will be emphasised here, other theological narratives may also be at work, which are equally highlighted as Pentecostalism does not operate in a theological vacuum. Furthermore, because Pentecostalism does not operate in a social vacuum (Warrington 2008, 137), social issues that have shaped the experience are identified. Importantly, this part of the first movement is not about in-depth analysis, which comes later. Rather, it aims to outline what is happening and the theological and social factors that are present.

From this it will become clear where further reflective work would be beneficial, giving rise to questions that ask what Jesus might be doing through the Spirit within the experience and how he may want practices to be revised. For example, one might ask whether there is scope to consider whether Jesus might be challenging underlying assumptions, affirming present ecclesial activity, or leading a community towards embracing new ways of working and being. Such a task may be described as articulating hypotheses, to be tested in the subsequent movements, in a similar way to other methods of empirically based PT (Ven 1998, 114–116). Notably, this is clearly a subjective exercise, by which the practical theologian relies on the Spirit to draw attention to various elements of the experience that Jesus wants to speak into – which is an emphasis in John Christopher Thomas’ Pentecostal hermeneutical method (Thomas 2012, 125–129).

This movement, then, incorporates several themes present in Pentecostal theology. First, it grounds the whole process on experience (Frestadius 2019, chap. 5). Second, it makes tentative use of Yong’s (2022) idea of ‘multiple tongues’, by recognising that there are different voices influencing the experience. Equally, Yong’s ‘pneumatic imagination’ is employed, albeit with an added Christological emphasis, which imagines what Jesus might be doing through the Spirit. However, this step also draws on the PT method elucidated by John Swinton and Mowat (2016, 50–52) which includes an early identification of research questions and hypotheses.

Step 2 – Hermeneutical Movement: ‘What does it mean?’ (Acts 2.12)

The crowd moves on in their questioning, to ask what meanings are present within the concrete experience. Peter, who had just received the Holy Spirit with the other 120 people, leads a Spirit-inspired explanation of this by drawing on two distinct voices: the Word of God and the Witness of the community. Whilst it is acknowledged that the narrative does not explicitly say that the Spirit was speaking through Peter, it would deny the thrust of the story to argue that Peter’s explanation was formed solely through his human rationality; rather, this was a Spirit-led, Spirit-inspired interpretative exercise that was taking place in the middle of the Spirit-filled events.

In this, Peter appeals to the Word of God, including both the written word – the prophecies of Joel (Acts 2.17-21) and David (Acts 2.25-28) – and the incarnational Word – Jesus Christ (Acts 2.22-24 & 32-33). Peter also appeals to the community’s witness concerning the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 2.32) and the community’s experience of Spirit-baptism which the crowd is now ‘seeing and hearing’ (Acts 2.33). Alongside this, the whole company is joining in the witnessing through the multiple dialectical declarations of the ‘mighty works of God’ (Acts 2.11). It is, through drawing on this witnessing-experiencing community and the written-incarnational word that Peter, inspired by the Spirit, explains that all this means that the end-time Spirit of God has been poured out by Jesus who has been ‘exalted at the right hand of God’ (Acts 2.32 & 36). In doing so, he highlights both the pneumatological and Christological meanings of the experience.

As such, the Spirit-inspired dialogue led by Peter, involving the Word and the witness of the community as well as the multiple tongues, forms the basis of this hermeneutical step. This has echoes of Yong’s (2002), Archer’s (2009), and Frestadius' (2019) Pentecostal hermeneutical schemes. Importantly, it is recognised here that whilst these ‘voices’ intermingle throughout the thought process, with movement back and forth rather than a linear progression, some structure is helpful and therefore they are reflected on one at a time. In this, the Word is considered first due to the high value Pentecostals have for it. Furthermore, as the Spirit is understood to speak through the all the voices considered in this movement (Thomas 1994, 55), there is no specific section to analyse his voice – even though Archer’s hermeneutical scheme does consider his voice separately (2009, 247–252).

The word

Here, one considers what Bible passages might speak most appropriately into the hypotheses developed in step one. This can, initially, involve a high degree of selectivity; choosing Scriptures that affirm the experience just as Peter did by drawing on Joel 2 and Psalm 16 out of the numerous Old Testament passages which speak about the Holy Spirit. Notably, according to Thomas (1994, 50), this approach was characteristic of how the early church used scripture to reflect on Gentile conversions and is very appropriate for Pentecostals to utilise. Similarly, stories and sayings from the gospels that speak appropriately to the experience are identified, just as Peter also appealed to the life of Jesus to explain Pentecost. The guiding question for the selection of these scriptures is: what passages in the gospels and the wider canon does the Holy Spirit bring to mind, when reflecting on the experience? These passages are then read according Cartledge’s guidelines on a PT reading of Scripture (2015, 45–46), which incorporates Archer’s understanding of narrative-criticism (2009, 226–233). In this, the Spirit’s role and the praxis present in the narrative are particularly noted.

However, to ensure that these passages are read as part of the wider canon of scripture, other passages concerning the subject being studied, which do not appear to be as affirming of the experience, also need to be noted (Johnson 1994, 12). Whilst these are not studied in detail – as doing so would make the process too cumbersome and lengthy – tensions between them and the scriptures that have previously been studied need to be noted. Where these tensions can be addressed without deep study, they may be. Alternatively, they can be left ‘hanging’ in recognition that, whilst these scriptures are not as affirming as others in the specific context, differing contexts may draw on them to arrive at different hermeneutical outcomes.

The community

Next, both the trans-local and local witness of the Pentecostal community are examined, due to Pentecostalism’s ‘glocal’ nature (Vondey 2013, 25–27). This, first, involves hearing what the wider Pentecostal movement says concerning the hypotheses developed in step one, and particularly what is said about how the full-gospel might connect with those hypotheses. This is accomplished through a literature review of Pentecostal scholarly writings. In this, due to the breadth of writing available, one might limit which scholars are used to certain geographical or denominational contexts. However, it must be recognised that doing so potentially limits the applicability of this hermeneutical process to the contexts that these trans-local scholars represent.

Second, testimonies relating to the experience that are present within local Pentecostal community/ies are heard. For non-academic contexts, these testimonies can be drawn out through informal conversations and other forms of communication. For scholarly work, Cartledge argues for the use of social scientific empirical and phenomenological research methods (2003, 69–76). However, Collins gives a note of caution by arguing that these methods have agnostic or even atheistic presuppositions. Instead, she posits that spiritual disciplines such as prayer, Bible reading, and worship ‘provide the most trustworthy conditions’ in which to access people’s testimonies and are the surest way to discern and participate in what Jesus is saying and doing. Yet, Collins does not discount the use of empirical research methods completely, suggesting that they can assist in the theological task through describing the complexity and diversity present within ecclesial experiences and practices, as well as providing challenges to currently held theological and practical norms (2020, 128–138 & 160–168).

Importantly, this process ought to include the testimonies of marginalised groups who are perhaps on the ‘fringe’ of a congregation, which Yong argues is important for Pentecostal hermeneutics (2022, 159), such as those of different genders, (dis)abilities, ethnicities, and those who have other characteristics which may hinder their participation in the process. Once these local and trans-local voices have been heard, one asks: ‘how does the community’s insight affirm or differ from the Scriptural and Christological analysis?’

Other voices

Following on, Yong’s theological idea concerning of the ‘many tongues’ of Pentecost is employed. In this, he argues that academic disciplines can each speak theologically in their own language in a similar way to how the multiple dialects present at Pentecost each told ‘the wonders of God’ (2022, 156–158). As such he, along with Archer (2009, 259), calls for the theologian to engage in inter-disciplinary dialogue. The specific partners which are appropriate for this dialogue can be ascertained by considering the social factors that were identified in step one as being present in the experience. However, two important points need to be made. First, as with the Word and Community voices, one must limit these due to the quantity of information available within the social sciences, which may further restrict the applicability of any interpretation reached. Second, it needs to be remembered, from a Pentecostal perspective, that other spirits may be at work in the experience as well as the Holy Spirit, which might influence what social-science says (Yong 2002, 140–141). Therefore, a critical reading of social-scientific contributions to the process needs to be employed to ensure that their voices do not outweigh or contradict the Word and Community voices. This is not to say that they cannot provide insights that challenge those gained from the Word and Community, only that any underlying assumptions that may undermine a Pentecostal understanding of the experience (e.g. the agnostic or atheistic tendencies of the social sciences, as previously noted) need to be made explicit. From this, one can ask how these insights affirm or differ from the analyses of the Word and community voices?

Alongside this, consideration is given to other ecclesial voices because Pentecostalism does not exist in isolation from other streams of Christianity, as Archer argues for (2009, 259). Here, insights from non-Pentecostal scholars about experiences and the practices within their own traditions, and the impact of them, are analysed, as this may provide pragmatic insight into what seems to work well in ecclesial contexts. Again, the non-Pentecostal ecclesial influences present in the experience, identified in step one, suggest which of these voices would be most beneficial for the study.

Rescripting the meaning of the experience in light of the voices

The hermeneutical movement concludes by considering what fresh understanding of the experience can be gained by bringing together the voices of Word, Community, and other disciplines. Here, Cartledge’s use of the idea of rescripting is helpful (2010, 16–18), where existing understandings are revisioned in light of the insights gained from various sources. Here, one first considers the way that the Word, Community, and other voices affirm or challenge each other. It then creatively asks how it is possible to understand the experience in ways that hold these voices in harmony, even dissonant harmony.

In this, the insights articulated by each voice concerning Christ and the Spirit are particularly noted, which enables one to ask and answer explicit questions around the work of Jesus in the experience – thereby incorporating both a Christological and pneumatological component in this hermeneutical movement, as per Pentecostalism’s focus on both (Vondey 2018, 15). These insights are then applied to the tentative hypotheses developed in the descriptive stage to assess if their claims have been shown to be valid or otherwise. In doing so it may be noted that current experience aligns with the words and actions of Christ – something to be celebrated and built upon. Alternatively, divergence may be observed which prompts a consideration of which theological and practical norms might need to be revised to bring better alignment between the experience and Jesus’ work. Importantly, Frestadius comments that this openness to revision is part of Pentecostalism, with him giving some historic examples of how doctrine within the Elim denomination has been altered in response to lived experiences. However, he also argues that these changes ought not to undermine the ‘hard core’ of the full-gospel as this would compromise the Pentecostal identity of the ecclesial community (2019, 101). Additionally, it is also recognised that tensions may be present that are perceived to be currently unresolvable and need to be held in abeyance until further research and reflection can be undertaken.

Step 3 – Praxis Movement: ‘What shall we do?’ (Acts 2.37)

Finally, after hearing Peter’s explanation concerning what the experience means, the crowd ask: ‘what shall we do?’ (Acts 2.37) It is a question that emerges from their feeling of being cut to the heart. They sense that, having understood the meaning of what is going on, some practical changes need to be made. This opens the opportunity for the renewal of praxis.

Peter’s response is two-fold. First, he takes the ancient Jewish tradition of baptism – perhaps thinking about John’s baptism of repentance – and adds a Christological emphasis to it: it is now ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’. Therefore, the old ways are not completely abandoned but they are revisioned to incorporate more fully the person of Jesus – everything represented by his name: his kindness, goodness, forgiveness, and grace, as well as his holiness, righteousness, and justice. Second, whilst Peter’s phrase ‘receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’ is passive, I would argue that it calls for active expectation. Just as the disciples actively and expectedly waited in the upper room for the Spirit to come, so the crowd is encouraged to expect their own Pentecostal experience. As such, practices are renewed at Pentecost in ways that promote the expectation of Spirit-reception, as well as a greater experience of the person of Christ.

Consequently, this last step acknowledges the affective dimensions that arise when the current reality of the ecclesial community is recognised for what it is in comparison to what it can be. To do this, it carefully compares the vision presented by rescripted meaning to the description of the current experience articulated in step one. In doing so, it brings into the open the current theological norms and practices that have been perpetuated in the past which now hinder that vision from becoming a present reality. This prompts a powerful desire for change – a feeling of being ‘cutting of the heart’. On this point, there are clear connections with Cheryl Bridges Johns’ use of the liberational idea of ‘conscientization’, which she adopts to develop a Pentecostal liberational theology (2010). Here Johns argues that Pentecostalism, particularly in its early twentieth century form, enabled people to recognise the limitations placed upon them by ecclesial and social norms and work to subvert them.

Following on, questions are asked concerning what practical revisions can be made to practices so that the rescripted meaning might become the new lived experience. This involves asking how character of Jesus and the presence of the Spirit might fully pervade ecclesial practices, just as Peter and the community did at Pentecost. By doing so, it moves from describing what Christ and the Spirit are doing to a place of asking how the ecclesial community can participate more in what Christ and the Spirit want to do.

However, three important points need to be made about these suggested changes. First, they must emerge having taken the voices of the ecclesial community seriously, and therefore promote a movement of the people rather than being a requirement dictated from higher up the social or ecclesial ladder. Second, these new practices may require a significant break from the past – almost a rebellion against current social and ecclesial order. This again concurs with Johns' (2010, 65–71) understanding of the early twentieth century Pentecostal community, which she argues embodied a communal and subversive stance through being a movement of everyday people who embraced the radical inclusion of all races. Whilst this is something that has been largely lost, Johns further argues that it remains in the ‘corporate memory’ of the movement and is something that this method would hope to stir. Third, just as Johns argues that Pentecostal liberational theology is always ‘initiated and maintained by the Holy Spirit’ (2010, 62), any effective implementation of revisions to experience and practice, suggested through using this method, are ultimately understood to be a work of God and not brought about merely by a human desire for change. This step then concludes with considering how such revisions to practices might be communicated effectively to all people, just as Peter communicated to the crowd in ways that they understood and actioned.

Conclusion

This paper has noted that, whilst there are a few Pentecostal scholars who have engaged in the discipline of PT, their methodological work generally adds a pneumatological aspect to existing PT methods rather than incorporating a breadth of Pentecostal theology. To address that, a method of PT has been presented that arguably pays attention to a wider range of Pentecostal nuances. In this, it challenges the theologian to be predisposed to seeking what Christ is saying and doing through the Spirit in an experience. It then utilises theological ideas emerging from the questions posed by the Pentecost crowd and Peter’s response to them to develop a framework for reflection, which leads to a revision of praxis. As such, it is argued that this method is authentically practical and Pentecostal in that it is grounded in human experience and takes seriously the symbol of Pentecost and other aspects of Pentecostalism.

However, it is notable that this method has strong similarities with other PT methods such as Osmer’s four-question approach (2008) and the Pastoral Cycle. This is not surprising given that the author has been shaped through previous work using the Pastoral Cycle (Seager 2022). Equally, Johns’ observation noted above, that Pentecostalism has strong points of connection with liberational theology, indicates that a Pentecostal method of PT would naturally have echoes of other PT methods that are shaped by that theological stream, which include the Pastoral Cycle. However, this method is still considered to be different to existing PT methods due to it incorporating a broader range of Pentecostal distinctives, and therefore potentially offers the discipline an additional and distinct Pentecostal methodological approach. Furthermore, it is accepted that there limits to this paper and the generic method it suggests as (1) the subject matter in some ways influence what methods are most appropriate and (2) no worked example being offered of how it might be used. Therefore, further PT research projects undertaken by Pentecostals may wish to use and evaluate this method as an overarching framework to critique and refine it.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

James Seager

James Seager MA is a PhD student, studying with Bangor University and based at Regent’s Theological College, Malvern. His research reflects on the experience and practice of Pentecostal Church Leadership, in relation to the movements’ distinct theology, and works within a Practical Theology framework.

Notes

1 Notably, some scholars argue that the Pentecostal theology described here is broadly reflective of Pentecostal churches and denominations that emerged in the first half of the twentieth century and in a Western context (what is known as classical Pentecostalism), with later and non-Western Pentecostalism developing their own theological nuances. As such, for clarity, this paper is classically Pentecostal in its theological perspective.