Book Reviews / Pneuma 35 (2013) 87-156
143
Simon Chan, Pentecostal Ecclesiology: An Essay on the Development of Doctrine (Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2011). x + 144 pp., $29.95 paper.
In this volume, Simon Chan returns to his abiding concerns about ecclesiology in order to consider the inevitability of doctrinal development. He argues that pentecostals should acknowledge such development and that in order to judge the (il)legitimacy of doctrinal developments they need a more robust ecclesiology. This requires acknowledging that the church is closely related to the kingdom of God and that the church defines creation more than creation defines the church. The church completes the story of the triune God’s eco- nomic activity, since the Father sends, first, the Son and, second, the Holy Spirit, who then indwells the church. Drawing especially on Orthodoxy’s emphasis on the monarchy of the Father and the ensuing asymmetrical trinitarian relationships, Chan urges pentecostals to follow their occasional impulses towards episcopal ecclesiastical structures by understand- ing the church as a communion of persons in which hierarchy and reciprocity work together and qualify each other. The book stands in continuity with his earlier attempts to encourage evangelicals to adopt a more robust ecclesiology, but this time addressed specifically to pen- tecostals. Chan feels the need for a separate address in part because he feels pentecostals have more resources from within their own traditions of spirituality for thinking ecclesio- logically than do evangelicals. When pentecostals need to look beyond their own theological borders, Chan suggests that they look to older Christian traditions that share many common experiences of the Spirit. He states that the book is not an ecclesiology as such, but sugges- tions towards the emergence of a pentecostal ecclesiology within an Orthodox framework. What Chan finds most appealing about Orthodox ecclesiology is its strong link between the Holy Spirit and the church — the book’s theme — which corrects creation-centered pneu- matologies that follow the soteriological schema of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. While there are differences among these three, each subordinates the church to the king- dom of God by making creation the more fundamental category through which the church must discern its identity and mission. Church-centered pneumatology, however, acknowl- edges the church as the primary locus of the Spirit’s activity, without bifurcating the Spirit’s work in the church and in creation.
Perhaps the most creative and important portions of the book are Chan’s discussions of pentecostal liturgy. Although relatively brief, the suggestions advance beyond the limits of Chan’s Liturgical Theology (Intervarsity, 2006) by proposing concrete ways pentecostals might merge the liturgical ordo of older Christian traditions with elements of their own wor- ship tendencies. For example, they could incorporate expanded dimensions of concert praise with the Gloria Patri. Also, pentecostals could conclude the liturgy of the word with an altar call for extended times of prayer and reflection. Rather than ending the service there, however, they would then transition to the liturgy of the sacrament. Finally, they might accompany celebration of the Lord’s supper with anointing with oil and prayers for healing. All of this to say, there is no reason that pentecostals cannot integrate the gifts of the Spirit with a traditional liturgical structure of Word and sacrament. Chan’s specific recom- mendations on this score surpass general platitudes and laments about pentecostals “need- ing to be more liturgical” and propose ways pentecostals can begin to integrate traditional liturgy with their own worship immediately.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15700747-12341303
1
144
Book Reviews / Pneuma 35 (2013) 87-156
The only significant difficulty with the book is that it is not always clear what Orthodox theology has to offer pentecostals that Roman Catholic theology could not also offer. Chan himself even refers sometimes to a “Catholic-Orthodox” understanding of the relationship between the Spirit and the church. One might well doubt that the Roman Catholic tradition has any less to offer pentecostals on the issues that concern Chan, but he sometimes seems convinced it does. This is directly to the related matter of the particular Orthodox thinkers Chan engages. Most of them bring constructive insight, but not all. For example, his employ- ment of Sergius Bulgakov and Alexander Schmemann is fruitful, while his reliance on John Zizioulas is less helpful. Zizioulas’s claims about a so-called Western preoccupation with “substance” over “communion” may help explain Chan’s preference for Orthodoxy, but they are not a step forward for pentecostal theology. Pentecostals should steer clear of exagger- ated differences between Western and Eastern patristic trinitarian theology and ensuing ideas of personhood and individualism. Chan wisely does not affirm any such statement himself, but lurking behind the ideas he draws from Zizioulas is the trite notion that “every- thing in the West went wrong with Augustine.” However, pentecostals do not need to bas- tardize Western theology to learn from Eastern theology. Future works along these lines could benefit from a more balanced dependence on both Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions. At the same time, it is somewhat of a credit to Chan that the strongest criticism of a review is leveled at one of his prominent sources rather than directly at him.
This book compliments the rest of Chan’s corpus, which is the most extensive and articu- late expression of a postliberal pentecostal theology to date. Note his debts to Alasdair MacIntyre and Stanley Hauerwas, in addition to Orthodoxy, on community. For Chan, the emphasis on community takes a decidedly ecclesiological shape. In this respect, Chan is also the first significant example of a pentecostal theologian to make ecclesiology first theology. The time has come for Chan’s corpus to receive detailed attention and sustained critical response. Pentecostals can learn much from his general emphasis on spirituality, reflections on the centrality of a normative liturgy to discipleship, and his attempts to understand pen- tecostal experience within a wider Christian context. More investigation is needed of his ideas about the public nature of Christian truth and identity, the possible overlap among the various communities of discourse in which Christians participate, and the relationships among creation, the church, and the kingdom of God. Pentecostal Ecclesiology is an accessi- ble entry point into such an investigation.
Reviewed by Christopher A. Stephenson Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology Lee University, Cleveland, Tennessee [email protected]
2
Leave a Reply