Negotiating the non-negotiable: the Elim Pentecostal movement and theological normativity

ABSTRACT

In light of the Elim Pentecostal movement’s pneumatological heritage and commitment to a ‘non-negotiable’ doctrinal statement founded on biblical certainties, this study attends to three key questions. First, what, if any, is the theological value of conducting empirical enquiry from a seemingly fixed starting point underpinned by an infallible view of Scripture? Second, where, does theological normativity lie within the research process? And, third, who, in practice, has the power to decide what counts as theologically normative within any empirical enquiry? This study argues that since, for the Elim movement, theological normativity is located in the experienced reality of Scripture, empirical enquiry has the potential to both constructively challenge and evoke a deeper understanding of those doctrines that form its basis. Given Elim’s emphasis on the availability of Spirit encounter for all believers, it suggests that it is not for the researcher alone to decide what is theologically normative, but that this should be collectively discerned with members within Elim congregations. Whilst this study concerns itself with the more peculiar nuances of the Elim movement, and therefore dialogues most explicitly with the work of other charismatic/Pentecostal writers such as Mark Cartledge and Ray Anderson, it contributes to the wider discourse within practical theology regarding the place of theological normativity within the empirical research process.

KEYWORDS:

• Bible
• Elim
• normativity
• pneumatology
• Holy Spirit

Disclosure statement

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

Notes on contributor

Sheryl Joanne Arthur is a doctoral student in Practical Theology at the University of Roehampton. She works in a London secondary school where she teaches Religious Studies and is a member of the senior leadership team.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 Classical Pentecostalism can be defined as those Pentecostal movements that ‘can be shown to have originated in the evangelical revival and missionary movements of the early twentieth century’. See Anderson (2013, 5).

2 The Conference are a body comprised of every Elim minister and a member from each Elim fellowship. See Elim (no date-d).

3 The ‘Truths’ as they are today consist of statements on: The Bible; The Trinity; Jesus – the Saviour; The Holy Spirit; Humanity and Sin; Salvation; The Church; The Ministry of the Church; The Ordinances; The Commission; Jesus, the Coming King and The Future State. The origins of these Truths can be dated back to 1923 when they were written more as a statement of distinctives rather than a statement of faith ‘to define the movement’s boundaries against evangelical, as well as modernist churches’. Today, the Truths reflect the much fuller and revised statement of faith that was accepted in 1934 when a constitution for the denomination was established (Hathaway 1998, 34).

4 This is short book that explains the core beliefs of the Elim Pentecostal Movement.

5 I use the term Spirit baptism/baptised in the Spirit to refer to an experience distinct from conversion whereby believers expect to receive an ‘enduement of power’ to equip them for ‘fuller participation in the ministry of the Church, its worship, evangelism and service’. See Elim (no date-a).

6 Clearly, within the contemporary practical theology field, postmodern perspectives are diverse, but include approaches such as social constructivism and pragmatism. Social constructivist epistemology ‘embraces relativism’ and therefore the Christian tradition is ‘seen as offering insights rather than a normative basis for discerning right action’ (Cameron and Duce 2013, 32). Pragmatic epistemology, in contrast, views knowledge as negotiable ‘between participants and researchers’. This means that if there is not a ‘widely accepted understanding of normativity’, the Christian tradition is in danger of being completely by-passed (Cameron and Duce 2013, 33).

7 Correlative methodologies are varied but include mutual approaches such as those put forward by Tracy (1996, 43–63); Browning (2000, 89–103) and Pattison (2000a, 135–145). They also include asymmetrical approached such as those put forth by Swinton and Mowat (2006, 91–94) and van Deusen Hunsinger (1995, 61–104).

8 Indeed, historically for Elim, the central role that the Bible has been given, particularly when the movement has experienced times of epistemological crisis, has been evidenced by Frestadius in his philosophical and historical theology of the Elim movement (2016, 2019).

9 The reasons for the lack of attentiveness to Scripture are too numerous and complex to do justice to in this short study. It is, nevertheless, particularly noteworthy that the advancement of contextual theologies (whether they be liberation, feminist, black, post-colonial etc.) have given rise to a more focused consideration of how the realities of everyday life are brought into critical engagement with the Bible and Christian tradition. See Bennett and Rowland (2005, 174–175).

10 Bennett refers to Stephen Pattison, A Critique of Pastoral Care (2000b, chapter 6).

11 As in my earlier discussion on signs other than tongues as initial evidence of Spirit baptism.

12 This is taken from the fourth Foundational Truth. The full wording is: ‘We believe in the deity of the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son and the necessity of His work in conviction of sin, repentance, regeneration and sanctification, and the believer is also promised an enduement of power as the gift of Christ through the baptism in the Holy Spirit with signs following. Through this enduement, the believer is empowered for fuller participation in the ministry of the Church, its worship, evangelism and service.’

13 Those are Anderson (2001), Poling (2011), Purves (2004) and Conde-Frazier (2012).