The 'Evasive' Spirit of Pentecostalism

journal of pentecostal theology 24 (2015) 92-116

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi 10.1163/17455251-02401009

<UN>

brill.com/pent

* Joseph Quayesi-Amakye, (PhD, vu Amsterdam, the Netherlands), is a Senior Lecturer of the School of Theology and Missions, Central University College, Accra, Ghana.

The ‘Evasive’ Spirit of Pentecostalism

Joseph Quayesi-Amakye*Central University College, Dansoman-Accra, Ghana

[email protected]

Abstract

The paper discusses the contribution of Peter Newman Anim to the development of Ghanaian indigenous Pentecostalism. It examines the theological implications of Anim’s spiritual experience and the subsequent outpouring of the Spirit upon his organisation against the backdrop of the debate surrounding Spirit baptism. The Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism has generated lots of debate between Evangel icals and Pentecostals. While the one contends that the baptism is a once for all time conversion-initiative expe-rience for the Church universal, the other thinks otherwise. This paper takes up the debate from a Ghanaian Pentecostal stable by appealing to the first pneumatic experi-ence that occurred in a secluded village that ignited the Pentecostal fire nationally. This phenomenon occurred outside the expectant Anim’s group, thus raising incisive theological questions concerning the plausible context and condition for Spirit baptism. By means of historical analysis, critical examination, and practical illustration the paper attempts to evaluate the various positions on Spirit baptism.

Keywords

Spirit baptism – speaking in tongues – Pentecost – Lucan pneumatology – Pauline pneumatology

Introduction

In discussing Ghanaian Pentecostalism, R.W. Wyllie maintains that the works of two highly dedicated and forceful men, Peter Newman Anim and James

93The ‘evasive’ Spirit Of Pentecostalism


<UN>

1 R.W. Wyllie, ‘Pioneers of Ghanaian Pentecostalism: Peter Anim and James McKeown’, Journal of Religion in Africa 6.2 (1974), p. 109.

2 Dan Shieffield, ‘Herbert E. Randall: A Canadian Holiness Missionary in Egypt and his Quest for More of the Holy Spirit’, Canadian Journal of Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity 2 (2011), pp. 2–3.

3 E.K. Larbi, Pentecostalism: Eddies of Ghanaian Christianity (Accra: cpcs, 2001), p. 99.

McKeown, have profoundly influenced the independent Pentecostal move-ment in Ghana. He traces Ghanaian Pentecostalism to the initial work of Apostle Peter Anim.1 Anim is clearly a doyen of Ghanaian Pentecostalism whose spiritual search resulted in the evolution of Pentecostalism in the coun-try. When we look at the ministries of these servants of God we cannot help but to apply what Dan Sheffield says of the missionary enterprise of Herbert E. Randall and his later missionary colleagues to Anim and McKeown: they were men with ‘a profound belief in the power of God to bring lives from darkness to light, and of the Holy Spirit to provide the resources to sustain that light’.2 In this paper I will examine Peter Anim’s contribution to the emergence and development of Ghanaian Pentecostalism, and also evaluate its implications on the Pentecostal theology of Spirit baptism. First, I will describe Anim’s spiri-tual journey and the initial Spirit baptism that ‘subverted’ his organisation. Second, I will examine the theological implications of this ‘Spirit evasion’. Third, I will assess the debate that the Pentecostal experience is paradigmatic for all church ages. Fourth, I will draw practical inferences from the Bible read-ing of a local ‘evangelical’ church in Accra, Ghana, on Spirit baptism. Then I will reflect on a few points, and finally conclude.

In Search of Spiritual Reality

Anim’s parents, Mr. Simon Appiagyei and Madam Hannah Lartebea, hailed from Boso near Anum in the Volta Region of Ghana. Born on 4 February, 1890 Anim was the third of six children. He lived longest. He died in 1984 being 94 years. He completed his elementary education at the Basel Mission Schools at Anum and Boso in 1908.3 Anim joined his brother at Akuapem Amanokrom in 1911 in the latter’s carpentry trade. Later in the same year he left to work with the Basel Mission Factory at Pakro as a weighing clerk. Due to ill health he left this job in 1912 and later became a brick layer in 1914. He left this job also and returned to Pakro. He married one Madam Dora Sakyibea in 1916 when he eventually returned to his hometown. They had four daughters but three of them died in rapid succession during their infancy. Unfortunately, his wife also

94 Quayesi-Amakye


<UN>

4 Interview with Apostle J.S Gyimah of the Church of Pentecost by my student Otchere-Gyasi. 7 July, 2013

5 Interview with Elder Kwasi Owusu of the Christ Apostolic Church by my student Otchere-Gyasi. 14 March, 2013.

6 Johnson Asamoah-Gyadu, ‘Renewal within African Christianity: A Study of Some Current Historical and Theological Developments within Independent Indigenous Pentecostalism in Ghana’, PhD Thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham, uk (2000), p. 23.

died in 1920 after a short illness, and the remaining daughter died not long afterwards. Thereafter he married one Madam Esther Osimpo with whom Moses Appiah Anim was born, the only son and surviving child of Anim. This woman also died in 1967.

Anim’s spiritual turnabout began when he started receiving a Faith Tabernacle magazine, ‘Sword of the Spirit’. Anim’s faith in divine healing started when he himself got healed after he had taken directives from the ‘Sword of the Spirit’, and had prayed fervently for his healing. He came to believe that healing could be attained by prayers so he began the process of his own divine healing. Anim subsequently relocated to Asamankese in the Eastern Region of Ghana. By the time Anim arrived at Asamankese, there was already a nascent group of like interest and conviction, the Unity Prayer Group, who believed that prevailing prayer and faith were critical to Christian living.4 Beyond this same time, a similar group had started at nearby Akroso, about ten kilometres from Asamankese.5 The Unity Prayer Group started when some local readers of the ‘Sword of the Spirit’ decided to band together to pray. The editor, one Pastor A. Clark, of the Faith Tabernacle Church, Philadelphia, taught among many things ‘holiness,’ ‘prevailing prayer’, and ‘faith healing’ without medication.6

The Unity Prayer Group embarked on an uncompromising and aggressive evangelism, and many converts were won for Christ. Many miracles abounded in their ministry. Anim was made the leader of the group and under his leader-ship the group adopted the name Faith Tabernacle, thus becoming affiliated to the usa based movement in 1922. Anim’s group saw a massive increase in their numbers due to the experiences and testimonies of healing among the partici-pants. The tremendous participation and patronage led to an extension of the group’s influence through the establishment of branches outside Asamankese. According to some respondents, the first person Anim and his group prayed to receive divine healing, after Anim’s own healing, was David Osei. Osei was stricken with an illness and after prayers by Anim and the Unity Prayer Group, was healed. Like in Mk 1.28–34, the good news of his recovery spread far and near so that several sick persons went to the group for divine healing.



<UN>

7 Yaw Bredwa-Mensah, ‘The Church of Pentecost in Retrospect: 1937–1960’ in Opoku Onyinah (ed.), James McKeown Memorial Lectures: 50 Years of Sustainable Growth of the Church of Pentecost (Accra: Pentecost Press, 2004), pp. 6, 114.

Faith Tabernacle was not a Pentecostal church. It did not accept speaking in tongues. Faith Tabernacle shared the prevailing doctrine that the main signifi-cance of the Holy Spirit was that he had inspired the authors of the Bible so that it was infallible; the Bible was the sole criterion. But Faith Tabernacle had strong emphasis on faith healing and personal holiness. It taught that ‘God would answer the prayers of those who had perfect faith in Him’, and would heal the sicknesses of believers without recourse to any medicine. Thus, despite its non-Pentecostal orientation Faith Tabernacle placed much emphasis on faith healing and holiness. These were themes to which Anim’s Presbyterian upbringing had not exposed him. Therefore in 1920, the year his wife died, he embraced Faith Tabernacle teachings. In 1921 he experienced the efficacy of Faith Tabernacle’s teaching on healing when he was cured of his chronic stomach ulcer and guinea worm infestation. He subsequently left his Basel (Presbyterian) mission fold where he was an organist to settle at Asamankese in the present day Eastern Region of Ghana. Here he began a healing ministry which was later to be called Faith Tabernacle Church. In 1923, Pastor A. Clark sent him an ordination certificate that qualified him to pastor a church.

In attempt to define the faith and practice of his organisation, Anim, upon the advice of a similar organisation in Nigeria, sought to affiliate with other Western Pentecostal churches. The first was the Apostolic Faith Church in Portland, usa in 1931, and finally, the Bradford Apostolic Church in 1935. Anim’s relationship with the Apostolic Church, Bradford, began when a Pastor Perfect from that church visited Anim’s group at Asamankese in 1935. Though Pastor Prefect’s visit was brief it made a strong impression on Anim and his organisa-tion such that they decided to affiliate their organisation with Bradford Apostolic Church. They also requested a resident missionary to assist them in the administration of their emerging Pentecostal church. Thus, until 1935 there was no direct personal contact between Anim and Western Pentecostals. On 2 March, 1937 Pastor James McKeown, the first resident missionary of the Apostolic Church arrived in Accra, and on 4 March he arrived at Anim’s head-quarters at Asamankese to begin his work with that organisation.7

In late 1928, Anim began to receive a periodical from the Apostolic Faith Church. Carefully considering the teachings on the Holy Spirit expounded in this magazine, he was inspired by the teachings on speaking in tongues, the defining practice of Pentecostalism. Poised for deeper faith and greater spiri-tual power he began with trepidation to seek to know more about the Holy

96 Quayesi-Amakye


<UN>

8 Paul Elbert, ‘Pentecostal/Charismatic Themes in Luke-Acts at the Evangelical Theological Society: The Battle of Interpretative Method’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 12.2 (2004), p. 189.

9 See my paper, ‘Ghana’s New Prophetism: Antecedents and Some Characteristic Features’ in Journal of Australasian Pentecostal Studies, xv (2013) http://webjournals.ac.edu.au/journals/aps/issue-15/4-ghanas-new-prophetism-antecedents-and-some-chara/.

Ghost. Like Faith Tabernacle, Apostolic Faith practised divine healing, deliv-ered the possessed from malevolent spirits, combated witchcraft, enforced monogamy, and tithed regularly. Unlike Faith Tabernacle, however, as Pente-costals they believed that baptism in the Spirit was evidenced by speaking in tongues (glossolalia). The issue of speaking in tongues became a bone of con-tention between Anim and some of his leaders, but Anim remained resolute to his convictions. By 1930, Anim fully accepted the Pentecostal doctrine, resigned from Faith Tabernacle and affiliated with the Apostolic Faith. He had matured from childish faith to acknowledge the crucial place of Spirit baptism in Christian ministry. This long spiritual trek had come as a result of his study of the Acts of the Apostles.

We can see that Anim, knowingly or unknowingly, appended the prevailing Pentecostal rejection of cessationism. Paul Elbert lambasts the cessationist approach, in which ‘Lukan portrayals of Spirit-reception remain locked in a frozen paleo-Reformed time capsule, dismissed as nothing more than histori-cal oddities, instigating a “once-for-all” process of osmosis that trickles down through time to other Christians’.8 Anim’s organisation finally experienced Spirit baptism in a subversive manner. This was when one Stephen Owiredu, who did not belong to the organisation, had one of his twin children taken ill. That child died and the other twin had the same kind of illness. After desperate efforts to get her cured, he took her to the bush to seek God’s favour for divine healing at Brekumanso, a village near Asamankese, to pray. Whilst praying he was baptized with the Holy Spirit, started speaking in tongues and the sick child received her healing. This was in 1932.9 The survived child is still alive and lives at Kwao-Yeboah. The site of this phenomenal pneumatic experience has since been adopted by Christ Apostolic Church as the Kwao Yeboah Prayer Centre. Again, Owiredu’s experience was the first recorded baptism of the Holy Spirit in Ghana.

Owiredu’s periodic glossolalic outburst was interpreted by his other chil-dren as a sign of their father going mad. So they sent him to Anim’s prayer group at Asamankese. The group had not received the Spirit baptism yet even though they were praying for it. They did not know what was happening to Owiredu. Not knowing what to do, they asked that Owiredu be sent back to his village. However, in the course of one of their prayer sessions, a prophecy came

http://webjournals.ac.edu.au/journals/aps/issue-15/4-ghanas-new-prophetism-antecedents-and-some-chara/

http://webjournals.ac.edu.au/journals/aps/issue-15/4-ghanas-new-prophetism-antecedents-and-some-chara/



<UN>

10 Interview with Elder Kwasi Owusu of the Christ Apostolic Church by my student Otchere-Gyasi, 14 March, 2013.

11 Larbi, Pentecostalism, pp. 57–69; Asamoah-Gyadu, ‘Renewal’, pp. 14–22.12 David A. Shank, Prophet Harris: ‘The Black Elijah’ of West Africa (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), p. 140.

directing the group to go for him who had then had healing gifts and had started healing people. Anim sent a delegation to bring Owiredu and those who went for him also had the baptism in the Holy Spirit in his village. Owiredu joined Anim’s group.10 Since then divine healing became a cardinal event of the emerging church; the group would lay their hands on sick people and heal them of diverse infirmities ranging from skin diseases, barrenness, epilepsy, bone fractures, snake bite, stomach problems, paralysis and exorcism from witchcraft.

Meanwhile Anim was one of the last people to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit in the group. But as a prayer group, he was the leader. They all took directives from him. It appears, however, that Anim may not be the only per-son in the delegation who did not receive the Spirit baptism. In fact, two broth-ers, Danso and Abokyi, who were also members of the entourage, also did not receive the Spirit baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues. What is important to us is that Anim’s Spirit baptism did not happen at that time. It was not until in 1937 that Anim had Spirit baptism after James Mckeown had confronted him. James Mckeown was the resident missionary sent from the Apostolic Church headquarters in Bradford of uk to assist Anim’s work in Ghana as a result of a request made by Anim.

We can see that Ghanaian indigenous Pentecostalism is not an offshoot of Azusa Street revival. Indeed, if we accept the thesis that the earlier ‘Sunsum Sore’ (Spiritual Churches, belonging to the African Initiated Churches) were indigenised Pentecostal-type churches,11 then we may even argue that the Pentecostal experience first occurred in 1914, after the Liberian prophet- evangelist William Wadé Harris visited the Nzema area of the country.12

Pentecost, the Reconstitution of God’s People?

A number of theological questions arise from our discussions. First, if Owiredu did not belong to Anim’s group which was seeking for the outpouring of the Spirit in prayers and fasting, but was the first to experience it, can Spirit bap-tism be treated as an exclusivist phenomenon? Do we have biblical examples for an inclusivist Spirit empowerment? I think the account of the distribution of Moses’ spirit upon the seventy (-two) elders of Israel offer a good case.

98 Quayesi-Amakye


<UN>

13 Roger Stronstad, ‘The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts: A Synthesis of Luke’s Pneumatology’, a series of guest lectures given at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Springfield, mo. http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/top/Holy_Spirit/200611.cfm (accessed 19 July, 2014).

14 Stronstad, ‘The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts’.15 Stronstad, ‘The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts’.

But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tab-ernacle: and they prophesied in the camp. And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. So Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant, one of his choice men, answered and said, ‘Moses my lord, forbid them’! Then Moses said to him, ‘Are you zealous for my sake? Oh, that all the LORD’S people were prophets and that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them!’

Num. 11.26–29, kjv

Roger Stronstad draws our attention to the fact that a ‘complex of complemen-tary Old Testament motifs is echoed in Luke-Acts; primarily (1) the transfer, (2) the sign, and (3) the vocation motifs’.13 He writes:

At strategic points in the advance of Israel’s history, when there is a trans-fer of responsibility from a leader or leaders to others, there is also a com-plementary transfer of the Spirit. For example, when Moses begins to share his leadership responsibilities with the 70 elders, the Lord ‘took of the Spirit who was upon him and placed Him upon the seventy elders’ (Numbers 11:25). There are similar transfers of the Spirit from Moses to Joshua (Numbers 27:18–20; Deuteronomy 34:9), from Saul to David (1 Samuel 16:13, 14), and from Elijah to Elisha (2 Kings 2:9–15). While the transfer of the Spirit from Moses to the elders, which is a transfer from an individual to a group, most closely approximates the transfer of the Holy Spirit from Jesus to the company of disciples on the Day of Pentecost, each of these transfers anticipates the Day of Pentecost.14

Stronstad explains that the sign motif closely complements the transfer motif. ‘The purpose of the sign is twofold: (1) to authenticate to the recipient of the Spirit that his call to leadership is divine in origin, and (2) to witness to others that this man is God’s chosen. The sign is often, though not invariably, an out-burst of prophecy. Thus, for example, when the Spirit rested upon the elders, they prophesied (Numbers 11:25).’15 It is from this perspective that Pentecostals generally insist that Pentecost functionally is paradigmatic of the empowerment

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/top/Holy_Spirit/200611.cfm



<UN>

16 Cf. Mery Kolimon, ‘Empowerment: A New Generative Theme of Christian Mission in a Globalized World’, Exchange 40 (2011), pp. 37–39.

17 Jesse Merritt Philips, ‘Subsequence: a Biblical-theological Defense of Pentecostal Pneumatology’ (Sovereign Grace Ministries, Pastor’s College, 2007), p. 14.

18 Jon Ruthven, On the Cessation of the Charismata: The Protestant Polemic on Postbiblical Miracles ( jptsup 3; Sheffield University Press, 1993), pp. 115–18.

19 See William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians (Bangalore, India: Theological Publications in India, revised edn, 1976), pp. 24–42; 85–108; see also his The Daily Study Bible (Edinburgh: St Andrew Press, revised edn, 1975), pp. 67–69.

of the Spirit to all believers. And this is experientially visible through the speak-ing of new tongues.

Thus, from the Pentecostal position we may derive some instructive lessons from the transfer motif. First, empowerment here is not a socio-economic or political construct.16 It is used in the spiritual sense whereby Christ’s disciples become anointed to perform spiritual tasks.17 Spirit-filled Christians are thus enabled to continue with Jesus’ kingdom mission ‘in word and deed’.18 Second, the giving of the divine Spirit is the sole prerogative of the Sovereign God who chooses to pour his Spirit on whomsoever he wills. One does not have to belong to a select few before God will give him/her his Spirit. Throughout the histori-cal experiences of the church, God has gone out of the way to raise people for himself. The very inclusion of the Gentiles in the community of God is a good case. Paul tells us that Gentiles were undeserving of this inclusion according to the Mosaic Law but due to the grace of God they have become the people of God.19 Peter goes as far as to suggest a replacement theology which interprets the creation of the church in subversive language. That is the inception of the church is actually a subversion of the old order (1 Pet. 2.9). Everyday experi-ences of individual Christians can buttress the point that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. Take for example the visitation of the Spirit on the house-hold of Cornelius (Acts 10). Contrary to the Jewish church’s expectation God decided to call for himself a people from among the Gentiles who did not have to conform to the Jewish laws. We see then that Owiredu’s Spirit baptism is in line with God’s way of doing things: subverting the status quo.

The account of the descent of the Holy Spirit provokes theological examina-tion in terms of the creation of the new people of God. In the Old Testament God accepts and creates Israel as his own special people in a phenomenal specificity. Mount Sinai becomes the site of the cultic creation via covenant relationship with Yahweh who appears amidst elemental eruptions and shut-tling. The volcanic eruptions prelude theophanic manifestations and visitation that resulted in the institution of the covenant imperatives to undergird the divine selection. Here wind and fire become significant for it is in the midst of these that Yahweh enters into dialogue with Moses, who as it were, is baptised

100 Quayesi-Amakye


<UN>

20 See Néstor Medina’s discourse on ‘Discerning the Spirit in Culture: Toward Pentecostal Interculturality’ Canadian Journal of Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity 2 (2011), pp. 131–65;

with the presence and power of God, and so can descend to instruct Israel on how to be God’s people.

According to Luke, the inauguration of the church in Jerusalem shows obvi-ous linkages to the Israelite experience on Sinai. Pentecost is marked by theophanic phenomena akin to Israel’s experience at Mount Sinai. Here, the infant church meeting in an upper room in accord with Jesus’ command to await the Spirit undergoes unexpected experiences when the Holy Spirit finally falls upon them. This happened amidst meteorological occurrences of ‘a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind’ that ‘filled the whole house where they were sitting’ (Acts 2.2) with what ‘appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them’ (Acts 2.3). The result is that ‘they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance’ (Acts 2.4). Reminiscent of the Sinaitic encounter there were astonished spectators of devout men, whose confusion of the theophanic manifestations would lead Peter to offer them pastoral admonishment and instruction about the way of the Lord in becoming a people of God. By this narration Luke hopes to inform us that the church is the new Israel which sup-plants the old nation of Israel with new imperatives and mission in the world. But unlike the exclusivist nature of the old covenant the new covenant was inclusivistic with missiological focus.

It is important to note how Peter interprets the Pentecostal phenomenon in volcanic terminology: wonders in heaven above and signs in the earth beneath: blood and fire and vapour of smoke (Acts 2.19–20). These are reminiscent of old Israel’s experience of God’s manifestations on Sinai. Significantly, Peter departs sharply from Jewish tradition when he insists that Pentecost makes it possible for all who ‘call on the name of the Lord’ to be saved, to be empowered to proph-esy, to see visions, and to dream dreams in fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy. This is of great significance to us in the sense that the original intention for Israel as a covenant people was to be God’s prophetic missionary nation (Ps. 107.20; cf. the story of Jonah). But due to their parochial racial superiority they failed to live up to their calling. Peter now tells us that God has not reneged on his original intention so he has raised for himself a people who will do his will. This is the church made up of all those who call upon his name, that is all those who accept God’s chosen Servant as the way of salvation. This understanding of the church’s place in the divine scheme has serious implications on contemporary ecclesiol-ogy. In the church God cancels out all racial, ethnic, and class differences, which the whole church must embrace.20



<UN>

see also Michael Wilkinson, ‘Canadian Pentecostal Diversity: Incorporating the Many Voices’, Canadian Journal of Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity 2 (2011), pp. 41–82.

21 Frank Macchia, ‘The Tongues of Pentecost: A Pentecostal Perspective on the Promise and Challenge of Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue’, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 35 (1998), pp. 1–8.

Second, God’s sovereignty does not allow any human dictation. He chooses to do what he deems fit to his will. He does not consult anybody nor seek per-mission from anybody before he does what he does. The fact that he answers our prayers does not in the least mean he bends to our dictates. Even his answers to our prayers are borne out of his sovereign will and grace. Whatever we receive from God is purely the result of his grace, and nobody can question him for what he does or does not do. Paul queries ‘For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?’ (Rom. 11.34, kjv).

Third, we do not have the right to define who should (or should not) be included in the divine scheme of things. We find this clearly in Moses’ reply to Joshua, ‘Are you zealous for my sake? Oh, that all the LORD’S people were prophets and that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them!’ (Num. 11.29, kjv). Sometimes our human finitude makes us think that we can play God by determining what is right or wrong. Alas, often our standard of rightness is faulty. In the case of the Mosaic episode both the young man and Joshua felt they had the right to protect the name and fame of Moses. Or perhaps they were acting purely out of jealousy or were afraid of competition. They could be jealous for being excluded from the privileged number. At least, we can say that the young man was not a beneficiary of the pneumatic phenomenon. And we are not sure Joshua was included despite the fact that we are told he was Moses’ assistant and one of his choicest men (Num. 11.28). The point is that neither jealousy nor outstretched and unbridled zeal can augment God’s pur-poses and actions.

Fourth, from an ecumenical perspective, we may have to be circumspect in criticising or condemning those who do not belong to our group or theological persuasion. The disciples of Jesus were guilty of this when they thought that he forbade a man from using his name to cast out demons (Lk. 9.49–50). The point is that the diversity of Pentecostalism offers a plenitude of unifying potential for ecumenical dialogue. Consequently, any attempt to domesticate the Acts 2 narrative by any movement or branch of the church contradicts the spirit of Pentecost.21 This is what Amos Yong also alerts the church about when he suggests that a Spirit-Christology based on Luke-Acts can provide strong impetus for the church’s ecumenical missiology. Indeed, this ecumenical pneu-matology belongs to his overall submission for the renewal of the world and

102 Quayesi-Amakye


<UN>

22 Amos Yong, ‘Poured out on All Flesh: The Spirit, World Pentecostalism, and the Renewal of Theology and Praxis in the 21st Century’, PentecoStudies 6.1 (2007), pp. 16–46.

23 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, ‘The Church as the Fellowship of Persons: An Emerging Pentecostal Ecclesiology of Koinonia’, PentecoStudies, 6.1, (2007), p. 4.

24 See for example, Shank, Prophet Harris: ‘The Black Elijah’ of West Africa; C.G. Baëta, Prophetism In Ghana: A Study of Some ‘Spiritual’ Churches (London: scm, 1962); Jonathan Hildebrandt, A History of the Church in Africa: A Survey (Achimota, Accra: Africa Christian Press, 1987).

25 See Martin William Mittelstadt, Reading Luke-Acts in the Pentecostal Tradition (Cleveland, cpt Press, 2010), p. 25.

the theological academy.22 That is to say the diversity of spiritual gifts must lead to a charismatic ecclesiology, and a pneumatological theology of inclu-sion. Indeed, acknowledging the individualistic reading of koinonia among western Pentecostals Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, argues for the ecumenical reading of fellowship among Pentecostals.23 We may not understand or appreciate other people’s ministry or practices, but neither are we able to discern the motives behind their actions. Consequently, we play God when we sit in judg-ment over them. Perhaps it is better to allow all to grow till harvest time when the angelic reapers come to perform their task. In African church history a number of prophetic figures had their ministries vilified, and were ostracised or compelled to secede from their parent churches to start their own indepen-dent prophet-led ministries/churches. Unfortunately, without proper pastoral support many ended up deviating completely from biblical Christianity, creat-ing a completely whole syncretistic religion.24 Therefore there must be a delinking of the church’s jealousy for the Lord’s name from parochialism and selfish ignorant interpretation of facts.

Does this suggest an uncritical stance by the church even when there are palpable manifestations of the perpetuity of falsehood or false pretensions? No. In any case, we can listen to Elmer Fisher’s polemic on Spirit baptism that the devil’s counterfeits or human failings must not make us lower biblical stan-dard that those who receive Spirit baptism will speak in tongues always.25 The church must be a disciple church which studiously engages the Scripture with contemporary cultures to understand the prevailing ideas and belief patterns. Some of the so-called spiritual experiences people talk about may have psy-chological or have other explanations to them. For instance, belief in spiritual things cannot be ascribed as wishful thinking or unscientific just because we do not share in them. The church must take time to study the beliefs, fears, worldviews, and so on, of ‘prophetic’ figures to appreciate better the underlin-ing causes and origins of their religious claims, practices, and fears. It is when armed with such information and knowledge that the church can best



<UN>

26 Hans J.D. de Wit, ‘Through the eyes of another: Objectives and Backgrounds’ in Hans de Wit et al. (eds.), Through the Eyes of Another: Intercultural Reading of the Bible (Elkhart, Indiana: Evangel Press, 2004), pp. 8–9.

27 Grant R. Osborn, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, il: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 29.

28 Osborn, The Hermeneutical Spiral, p. 29.

approach their fears from psychological and sociological perspectives and offer acceptable solutions to them.

Indeed, people’s socio-cultural and economic circumstances impinge on their theological hermeneutical reflections. We are advised that in reader-response hermeneutics ‘texts demand a different attitude, an existential one, an attitude focused on appropriation’.26 Of course, such an approach to the reading of the Bible is not without problems. Reading the text with our pre-understandings, ‘easily becomes prejudice, a set of a priori that place a grid over Scripture and make it conform to these preconceived conceptions’.27 Thus, existential appropriation of Scripture may not always correctly lead to a correct interpretation/appropriation of the text’s meaning. The solution to this inherent ‘reader-response’ problem is to ‘“bracket” these ideas to a degree and allow the text to deepen or at times challenge and even change those already established ideas’.28 Consciousness of the inherent dangers of the subjectivity of religious experiences should not pose a threat to us at all. It should be pos-sible for those who think they hold the truth to dialogue with the ‘misfits’ to appreciate their positions and claims so as to dispassionately evaluate them, and if necessary and possible, help them to fall in line with the truth. This should be approached with a win-win mentality, rather than win-lose one, an attitude of dialogical learning and surrender.

The Theological Challenge

In the light of Owiredu’s pneumatic experience, must Spirit baptism necessar-ily precede the reception of what Pentecostals traditionally refer to as the spiri-tual gifts (1 Corinthians 12)? We saw above that prior to Anim’s organization’s Pentecostal experience they had already been carrying out divine healing, and also gave prophecies. Indeed, it was a prophecy which allayed their fears and suspicions of Owiredu’s glossolalic outbursts when they were told that what they witnessed was what they had been praying for. It appears it is possible to receive spiritual gifts pre/post Spirit baptism. Nonetheless, we tread a very pre-carious turf in the sense that it potentially undermines the classical Pentecostal

104 Quayesi-Amakye


<UN>

position that interprets Spirit baptism as access into spiritual empowerment and charismatic endowment by the Spirit.

Perhaps Pentecostals must be cautious to avoid raising exclusivist barriers, and must also revise their theology of Spirit baptism in order to embrace cor-porate and eschatological perspectives of Evangelicals. Mission in the Spirit includes barrier irruption and openness to others.29 We can agree with Pentecostals that spiritual gifts are meant for the edification of the church,30 whereas Spirit baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues is for indi-vidual edification. But the problem still prevails: Which tongues are we refer-ring to? Evangelicals insist that Pauline tongues are inclusive in the spiritual gifts and that Spirit baptism is an eschatological and corporate event with a Universalist meaning,31 being a conversion-initiation event.32 Pentecostals think otherwise, albeit not denying that it is by the Spirit that all believers are incorporated into Christ’s body.33 For Pentecostals, the scriptural data on the baptism in the Holy Spirit is found in Luke/Acts, with the exception of refer-ences attributed to John the Baptist in Matthew and Mark, and Paul’s reference to a baptism of the Spirit in 1 Cor. 12.13. For Luke pneumatology is critical such that he connects it to Christology: Jesus is the anointed Christ of God with anointed ministry. Unlike other writers, Luke not only tells us that Jesus is the anointed Christ, but also when the event occurred. The anointing of Jesus becomes a paradigm for his disciples’ missiological empowerment.34 With this gauge in hand, Roger Stronstad argues:

It is commonplace among many scholars to interpret the gift of the Holy Spirit to the disciples on the Day of Pentecost primarily in initia-tion-incorporation terms and only secondarily in vocational terms. This

29 Raymond R. Pfister, ‘The Ecumenical Challenge of Pentecostal Mission’, a paper presented at the 9th conference of the European Pentecostal Charismatic Research Association Academy of Mission, University of Hamburg, Germany, July 13–17, 1999, pp. 13–16.

30 Amos Yong, ‘Poured Out on All Flesh’, PentecoStudies, 6.1 (2007), pp. 21–22.31 Arie W. Zwiep, ‘Luke’s Understanding of Baptism in the Holy Spirit: An Evangelical Perspective’,

a paper presented at a symposium on the Lucan perspective on the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, organized by the Chair of Theology of the Charismatic Movement and the Chair of Pentecostalism at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, held on 16 February, 2006 on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Azusa Street Revival, in particular response to R.P. Menzies.

32 Veli-Mati Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids, mi: Baker Academic, 2002), p. 32.

33 Frank D. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Grand Rapids, mi: Zondervan, 2006), p. 113.

34 Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1984), p. 24.



<UN>

initiation-incorporation depends upon a restrictive definition of bap-tism arbitrarily imported from the Pauline literature. Luke, however, gives a different meaning to Spirit baptism than does Paul. In the struc-ture of Luke-Acts, the Pentecost narrative stands in the same relation to the mission of the disciples as the inauguration narrative does to the mission of Jesus. Moreover the experience of both Jesus at His anoint-ing and of the disciples on the Day of Pentecost in prayer, etc., is paral-lel. Furthermore, the explicit dominical promise of the empowering of the Spirit for witness (Acts 1:8) is the context by which we must inter-pret the purpose of baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5). Finally, Peter’s ‘poured forth’ language to describe the gift of the Spirit is reminiscent of the anointing oil poured upon the head of Saul.

1 Samuel 10:135

Thus, Pentecostals reject the often touted evangelical initiation-incorporation Spirit baptism but insist on an empowerment paradigm of the Spirit baptism for all believers. Of course, as Martin William Mittelstadt shows, some early classi-cal Pentecostals held some reservations about the paradigmatic nature of speak-ing in tongues. Not insignificant is Joseph William Seymour who denounced a glossolalic experience devoid of the fruit of the Spirit.36 Similarly, Fred Francis Bosworth’s inability to reconcile the separation between tongues as Bible evi-dence and the gift of tongues according to 1 Corinthians 12, eventually forced the upstart Assemblies of God to formulate its position on the issue.37 Nonetheless, generally Pentecostals hold that there is a subsequent baptism/anointing which believers must experience from Christ. What this means is that Pauline pneu-matology in 1Cor. 12.13 differs from Lucan pneumatology in the sense that Paul is interested in maintaining order and unity in the local Corinthian church.

David Petts posits that generally the Pentecostal teaching on subsequence argues that the disciples were already Christians before being baptised in the Spirit with glossolalic experience (Acts 2.4). Similarly, the Samaritans (Acts 8), Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9) and the twelve disciples of Ephesus (Acts 19) all exhibited a clear case of subsequence, implying that they were believers before they received the Spirit baptism with glossolalic manifestations. Hence, Spirit baptism is subsequent to regeneration.38 This is what J. Rodman Williams means when he

35 Stronstad, ‘The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts’.36 Mittelstadt, Reading Luke-Acts, p. 36.37 Mittelstadt, Reading Luke-Acts, pp. 34–36.38 David Petts, ‘The Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Theological Distinctive’ in Keith Warrington

(ed.), Pentecostal Perspectives (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1998), pp. 99–100.

106 Quayesi-Amakye


<UN>

writes, ‘in none of these scriptures (Acts and the epistles of Paul) is the giving of the Spirit said to be for salvation, nor is the receiving for salvation. Romans 5:5 which speaks of “the Holy Spirit who was given to us”, is set against the back-ground of justification and its effects.’39 As Petts shows, many Pentecostals hold a kind of immediate subsequence that is ‘the baptism in the Spirit is seen as ideally taking place as soon after conversion as possible, so much so that it might well be viewed as part of the conversion process, although distinct from regeneration’.40 Also in terms of purpose and timing, Spirit baptism is distinct from regeneration. Spirit baptism is an endowment with power (Acts 1.5, 8).

Petts examines C. Brumback’s expert discourse on the subject. In What Meaneth This? published by the Gospel Publishing House, Springfield in 1947, Brumback had posited that no less than twenty-two evangelical scholars attest that what Simon the sorcerer perceived was nothing but the beautiful expres-sion of glossolalia. He went on to adduce the experience in Cornelius’ house and stressed that the tongues spoken that day was the initial evidence. Petts intimates that the Pentecostal subsequence has received both hermeneutical and exegetical challenges from opponents. The hermeneutical challenge argues that Acts, which serves as foundation for the Pentecostal doctrine of subse-quence, is not suitable for doctrine. The book is historical and narrative but not theological, hence, unsuitable for doctrine. Petts rebuts this by positing that if doctrine means teaching, then Christian doctrine is what the church essen-tially may legitimately teach. ‘And what the church teaches is that which Christians ought to believe and practise. In short, if doctrine relates to faith and practice, there is no self-evident reason why we cannot glean doctrine from Acts. Acts is a revealing account of what the early church believed and how it conducted its affairs and to suggest that the church today may not learn from its example is clearly absurd’.41

Furthermore, Acts enlightens our understanding of the teachings of the epistles about the practices of the primitive church, and yet the epistles them-selves state that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine. For Petts then, as a his-torian Luke presented his message in a narrative form, and that he was not just interested in telling the history of the primitive church, but rather had theo-logical points to make.42 Indeed, Paul Elbert tells us,

39 J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective (Grand Rapids, mi.: Zondervan, 1992), p. 189.

40 Petts, ‘The Baptism in the Holy Spirit’, p. 100.41 Petts, ‘The Baptism in the Holy Spirit’, pp. 104–105.42 Petts, ‘The Baptism in the Holy Spirit’, pp. 105–6.



<UN>

It is now suggested by some that the anonymous writer of the Lukan writ-ings at the heart of the New Testament has a theology and a pneumatol-ogy that probably reflects a widespread early tradition totally alien to ‘apostolic age’ hermeneutics, a tradition accepted and understood by Paul, not distinctive from Paul, such thinking has had little formal impact on ministerial training outside of the global Pentecostal movement and the international Charismatic Renewal.43

We can then appreciate why Petts suggests that doctrine may be derived from Acts by seeing the legitimacy of its historical precedent. Therefore, the Pentecostal position is far stronger than is often suggested by opponents. Opponents argue that the Pentecostal position is based on three out of five incidents in Acts. But it is clear that the context of Acts 8 shows that the pas-sage is not a complete description of events. Also, Acts 9 is not a description of Saul’s reception of the Spirit. Again, the fallacy in the opposition is that it con-siders occasions rather than individual baptisms in the Spirit. Therefore the precise numbers are not important. Petts concludes,

This means that in the three passages in Acts where there is a fuller description of people being baptised in the Spirit, some 150 people received the Spirit, and on each occasion, the first phenomenon Luke records is speaking in tongues. In the light of these considerations … we must conclude that tongues is to be viewed as the normative accompani-ment to the baptism in the Spirit.44

In fact, even William Barclay agrees that ‘In the early church converts nearly always received the Holy Spirit in a visible way. The early chapters of Acts show that happening again and again (Acts 8:14–17; 10:44). There came to them a new surge of life and power that anyone could see. That experience had happened to the Galatians …’45 In any case, western Charismatics ‘wisely refrain from identifying the Spirit with any one of his manifestations of the charismata to follow such baptism; they wisely refrain from identifying the Spirit with any one of his manifestations or gifts.’46 In fact, ‘in the Charismatic movement

43 Elbert, ‘Pentecostal/Charismatic Themes in Luke–Acts at the Evangelical Theological Society’, p. 190.

44 Petts, ‘The Baptism in the Holy Spirit’, p. 108.45 Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, pp. 23–24.46 J.A. Baker, Prophecy in the Church (London: Church Literature Associations, 1976).

108 Quayesi-Amakye


<UN>

tongues is not seen as the only sign of the Baptism of the Spirit, but some supernatural manifestation is expected’.47

The exegetical challenge centers about the Samaritans’ faith in Christ, and the epistolary reference in 1 Cor. 12.13, 30. Petts maintains that opponents often claim that the regenerative process of the Samaritans was an exception. Consequently, he resolves this challenge along three lines of thought. First, he rejects the exceptional argument as one fraught with difficulty. He points out that although it is not plainly stated that the Samaritans spoke in tongues, yet the evidence that they spoke in tongues is inferable from what Simon obvi-ously saw. Simon saw something that made him desire that the apostles lay their hands on him to receive the Holy Spirit. The argument that the Samaritans held a mental assent to what Philip preached is unjustifiable since Luke tells us that the Samaritans received the word of the Lord. The second challenge con-cerns the supposed contradictions in Pauline pneumatology (1 Corinthians 12). For Petts, Paul was not referring to conversion experience but rather setting in order the use of spiritual gifts in the church. 1 Cor. 12.13 reads, ‘For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body …’ Petts argues that opponents claim that ‘all’ implies all Christians and ‘by one Spirit’ implies the Spirit as the agent, and ‘into one body’ implies the church. He draws attention to opponents’ refusal to consider the context of the text, which is necessary for a proper interpretation of the text.

For Petts, a consideration of the text will require a retranslation of the Greek ‘ἐν’ as ‘in’ instead of ‘by’, and ‘εἰς’ as ‘for’ instead of ‘to’. Such a proper exegesis will render the phrase ‘For we have all been baptized in one Spirit for one body …’ This translation accords with Paul’s admonition that the use of spiritual gifts must be for the common good. And that this idea of baptism of the Spirit is recognized by all Pentecostals. Finally, concerning Paul’s query, ‘Do all speak in tongues?’, Petts asserts that this is rhetorical which unfortunately opponents have adduced as a case against the Pentecostal pneumatological paradigm. Petts quickly explains that the rhetoric will provide a just explanation: ‘Do all interpret?’. Here Paul is not referring to the private practice of interpretation of tongues, but rather the public practice required for the edification of the entire church.48 According to Petts a retranslation of the text will resolve the sup-posed contradiction.

In ‘Spirit Reception: Luke vis-à-vis Paul’, Charles L. Holman suggests the need to consider the authorial intent of Luke and Paul in order to resolve the

47 Fanning, Don, ‘Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements’, Trends and Issues in Missions (2009), Paper 7, 12. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgm_missions/7.

48 Petts, ‘The Baptism in the Holy Spirit’, pp. 112–15.

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgm_missions/7



<UN>

subsequent problem. Like Petts above, he thinks Luke is the theologian-histo-rian of salvation history who purposes to establish the validity of the tradition of the Jesus mission, and the apostolic mission of the church. By this we may view Luke’s Spirit outpouring/reception narratives as being driven by such key words as ‘upon’, ‘poured out’, and so forth. Paul’s intention is pastoral, seeking to address the needs of the various communities whose letters are ascribed to him. When Spirit reception is referred to it is in the context of affirming or cor-recting how a church experienced or practiced spiritual gifts, and led Paul to naturally connect this to other aspects of coming to faith. Then Holman goes on to state,

We may conclude that Paul relates Spirit reception to various aspects of Christian initiation which are important to recall for maintaining purity of praxis, but he does not really address directly the question we raise whether or not regeneration and empowerment are in some way two separate experiences. Paul’s own authorial intentions do not lead him this way. From what Paul does say, we would have to conclude that there is one basic reception of the Spirit at the start of the Christian life which makes one ‘Christian’.49

Holman’s careful argumentation is that Luke and Paul may not have expressed themselves in terms of two initiating experiences of the Spirit. We may, how-ever, agree with his conclusion that ‘it was normative in the early church to receive the initial regenerative graces of the Spirit in such proximity to an out-pouring that was characteristically “charismatic”, that neither Luke nor Paul expresses himself in terms of two initiating experiences of the Spirit, which many have thought of as two separate experiences’.50 We may add that Anthony D. Palma also recognizes the divergences of nuances in meaning of how Paul and Luke used the term Spirit baptism.51 The point still remains, nevertheless, that Pentecostals reject using Paul’s meaning to determine Luke’s meaning.

It must be stated that Ghanaian Pentecostals find the construction of Lucan understanding of Spirit baptism different from that of Paul. Consequently, they deem it imperative to recognise Luke’s theological independence and desist from reading his corpus through the spectacles of Paul. In this way they

49 Charles L. Holman, ‘Spirit Reception: Luke vis-à-vis Paul’, a paper given at a meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (November, 1998), p. 4.

50 Holman, ‘Spirit Reception: Luke vis-à-vis Paul’, p. 8.51 Anthony D. Palma, ‘The Holy Spirit: A Pentecostal Perspective’ (Springfield, mo: Logion

Press; Gospel Publishing House, 2001), pp. 100–105.

110 Quayesi-Amakye


<UN>

are able to understand Luke’s message without imposing Pauline ideas on Luke.52 For Pentecostals Luke-Acts is critical.53 From the outset they

have proclaimed that all Christians may, and indeed should, experience a baptism in the Holy Spirit ‘distinct from and subsequent to the experi-ence of new birth.’ There was a time when they taught that without glos-solalic experience one did not belong to Christ. This understanding of Spirit baptism flows naturally from the conviction that the Spirit came upon the disciples at Pentecost (Acts 2), not as the source of new cove-nant existence, but rather as the source of power for effective witness.54

We can see from above that Lucan and Pauline pneumatologies are one subject that has received much attention over the years. It is true that much of this attention can be traced to the magnificent spread of Pentecostal revival since the happenings of Azusa Street. It would seem that the pragmatic nature of the Pentecostal exercise would carve a tradition of experience for the Pentecostal world. The preoccupation with experience would continue until several evan-gelical writers began to question the overwhelming Pentecostal confidence in the veracity of experience over Scripture. The quest to find meaning through the pages of Scripture, to an experience that would take the world by a literal storm, was one that would preoccupy many non-Pentecostal theologians for times to come. This pre-occupation of non-Pentecostal theologians is what would define pneumatology for a greater part of this century. This would con-tinue until the persons of José Míguez Bonino, Gordon Fee, William Menzies, Howard Ervin, F.L. Arlington, Gordon L. Anderson, and Roger Stronstad would rise against the claim that Pentecostals disregard scientific exegesis and care-fully thought out hermeneutics.

It appears that the statement made by Richard D. Israel at the Society of Pentecostal Studies in 1990 would be by far the most poignant of all such criticisms against the Pentecostals, though surprisingly this would come from one partial to the Pentecostal cause. He states that, ‘A Pentecostal ideology is no hermeneutic at all; it is the obliteration of the horizon of the text by the

52 Cf. Dan Morrison, ‘Pentecostal Perspectives on Charismatic Activity of the Spirit’, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics 1 (2010), p. 105.

53 Cf. Petts, ‘The Baptism in the Holy Spirit’, pp. 98–119; also Siegfried S. Schatzmann, ‘The Gifts of the Spirit: Pentecostal Interpretation of Pauline Pneumatology’ in Keith Warrington (ed.), Pentecostal Perspectives (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1998), pp. 80–97.

54 Robert P. Menzies, ‘Luke’s Understanding of Baptism in the Holy Spirit’, PentecoStudies, 6.1 (2007), p. 109.



<UN>

interpreter’.55 By and large the Evangelical position is that Pentecostals place the authority of the Spirit above that of Scripture. Thus, an appeal to the Spirit in interpretative work offers opportunity for Pentecostals to insulate them-selves from correction. This ‘over-reliance’ on the Spirit for illumination becomes suspect to the Evangelical due to the permission it grants the Pentecostal to arrive at truth even without recourse to proper scientific meth-odology. By this approach, all and sundry are allowed to experience Scripture according to how the Holy Spirit has illuminated one’s understanding concern-ing any portion of Scripture. Everyone – whether they rely upon a scientific hermeneutic or a Spirit-driven hermeneutic – come to the Scripture with a cer-tain level of bias. What the Evangelical fails to recognise is that the Pentecostal combines a different but legitimate methodological, personal, historical, and theological approach to gleaning truth from Scripture.

On the whole it would seem it is the ‘personal approach’ that has been the strongest bone of contention between the two fraternities. Whilst personal experience is crucial to the Pentecostal’s full realisation of meaning, Evangel-icals would contend that this approach only introduces a certain subjective lopsidedness to the whole hermeneutical process that often threatens to place experience above Scripture. This assertion would be countered by the Pentecostal with the argument that Scripture as practical and didactic a book as it is and has become to us, can only be fully appreciated when one goes through what Scripture records. After all, we ought to do before we can teach. It may be correct to point out that it is possible that some Evangelicals’ prob-lem with Pentecostals is borne out of personal disappointment. At least, Arie W. Zwiep appears to be a classical case.56

It is here noted that these differences are not some mere traditional biases to be treasured and passed on from one generation to the next. On the con-trary, this scholarly divide has been informed by the perspective from which the subject of the Spirit is perceived in Scripture. Whilst the lot of Evangelicals would read the New Testament from Pauline eyes, Pentecostals would read the New Testament from Lucan eyes. Just how consenting or dissenting is Pauline pneumatology from Lucan pneumatology? Here is the whole mêlée of the sub-ject of the Spirit baptism.

55 Walter J. Hollenweger Pentecostalism: Origins and Development (Peabody, ma: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), p. 312.

56 Zwiep introduces his paper by announcing that he was a former Pentecostal (and now a somewhat distant sympathizer), pupil of James Dunn (whose interest and expertise in the field is undisputed), and biblical scholar with a special interest in Luke-Acts. See Zwiep, ‘Luke’s Understanding of Spirit Baptism’.

112 Quayesi-Amakye


<UN>

I will now proceed to provide a descriptive narrative of a Bible study session with a group of practising believers on the subject under discussion with a focus on the subject of subsequence as a Pentecostal doctrine.

A Bible Study Session

The group consisted of friends from Good News Bible Church, an Evangelical church in the Abeka suburb of Accra, Ghana. Whilst the participants were mainly persons of conservative leaning, all with the exception of one mission-ary of American descent have had extensive training in Charismatic doctrines due to their involvement in ministry within Charismatic churches whilst stu-dents on the various tertiary campuses. The meeting was held in the house of one of them.

The meeting started with a reading of some scriptures on the Spirit and their thoughts on them were recorded as follows:

Matthew 1.20; Lk. 1.35 – The Spirit is creator and he caused Mary to conceive.Matthew 3.11 – Jesus baptises with the Holy Spirit (The Spirit is personi-fied here).Luke 3.16 – The Holy Spirit as fire burns chaff thus purifies. He also takes over.Matthew 4.1; Mk 1.12 – Jesus’s trip to the wilderness was under the leading of the Spirit.

Afterwards the questions were asked with the intent of knowing their percep-tion on Lk. 4.18. Christ’s synagogue homily at Nazareth after his return cited Isa. 61.1 which would mean Christ was consecrated after he returned in the power of the Spirit from the wilderness. The group’s perception of this verse was critical in determining if there is an alignment towards either a Lucan or Pauline pneumatology. Luke’s presentation of the relationship between the believer and the Spirit suggests that the Spirit is clarified as an enabler who, though is involved in salvation, is also required in a special subsequent encounter after the instance of salvation to empower for service. Paul on the other hand by one classic verse from 1 Cor. 12.13 seem to suggest that a subsequent ‘outpour’ of the Spirit is irrelevant since the Spirit’s baptism into the body of Christ naturally affords the believer opportunity to live and serve in any capacity.

The majority of the responses obtained echoed a preference of the Pauline line of thought. Indeed, a not so surprising response since it echoed well with



<UN>

Evangelical thinking.57 Against the doctrine of subsequence and/or the idea of a special encounter with the Holy Spirit for service, one remarked with such poignancy that Jesus had already turned water into wine before the temptation and his return in ‘power of the Spirit’. Thus, this return could not mean it was what made him suddenly one capable of performing miracles or prepared him for service. The same argument would also be made against the disciples’ encounter with the Spirit at Pentecost as a preparation for service. It is true that the experience at Pentecost did indeed mark a pivotal event in their relation-ship with the Father, and whilst it offered them an irrefutable proof that the promise of the Spirit has been fulfilled, it never in anyway offered new capaci-ties for service. It would be recalled that before this experience, the disciples had already been involved in evangelism (Matthew 10) and had also seen God’s power to the effect that ‘even the devils are subject unto us’ (Lk. 10.17). Thus, the conclusion of subsequence as an absolute and necessary requirement for empowerment for service therefore becomes flawed with these accounts.

In spite of these arguments the group was inclined to believe that a close relationship with the Spirit is a necessity to live the Christian life. According to them, after conversion and thus baptism into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12.13), the believer is furnished with all the power and might of heaven to accomplish whatever task God would have for him/her. It is important also to note that this power is mediated through a relationship with the Holy Spirit. Subsequently, whilst one is afforded opportunity to be useful after conversion, there must be a dawning on an individual, or the perception through observation, or the inti-mations of close believers that indeed the believer does in fact have a particu-lar gift. This awareness or realisation is, however, not a one-time event. If our walk with Christ is to be an exciting journey, then there must be space for numerous such encounters with the Holy Spirit where we are made to receive of the good graces he bestows daily on us.

Thus, subsequence does not become a one-time event where a ‘burst’ of the sacred language designates a person as having being baptised in the Spirit. Rather, ‘subsequence continues through the life of the believer as he journeys with the Spirit and discovers day by day the surpassing ‘glory of His riches in Christ Jesus’.

Inclusivity of Pentecost

In bringing this discussion to a close I will say the author of Acts presents us with detailed accounts of events on the day of Pentecost. It was a day that Jesus

57 Cf. Charles L. Holman, ‘Spirit Reception: Luke vis-à-vis Paul’, p. 4.

114 Quayesi-Amakye


<UN>

fulfilled his promise of sending down the Holy Spirit upon his people. Consequently, a new movement, the church of Jesus Christ was birthed. Other significant events on this day were the first message preached by this new Spirit empowered group and the first and massive salvation sweep in church history. Now we ask: How important is the day of Pentecost to the church uni-versal? And should events of this day be anything worthwhile? I do not intend to answer these questions. I intend to raise an awareness of how important this day is to the church. It is the church’s root base and everything about the church can be traced to this very day – Pentecost Day. Events on this epic day cannot be ignored or taken lightly because such events form not just the begin-ning of the church but its foundations as well. It was a day that set forth in plain words the focus of the church: the salvation message of Jesus Christ. In my view it was a day that marked the beginning of the Spirit’s active work in humankind. Acts 2 does not record only the first reception of the Spirit, but also the empowerment of the Spirit with gifts (tongues speaking), the inspira-tion of the Spirit to preach the cross, and saving grace of Jesus Christ, and the Spirit’s conviction and regeneration of sinners.

From Acts 1.15, we are informed of the total number of disciples in the upper room – estimated at one hundred and twenty. Acts 2.1 makes it clear that the total number were all present and in one accord. Then the Spirit was poured out and filled all who were there. The repetition of ‘all’ in both verses 1 and 4 gives an indication that none were exempt. Again, in verse 3 there appeared something like ‘divided tongues as of fire’ and sat upon each of them. Here again there is an emphasis that each and every one experienced this baptism. Comparing verse 2 and 3 of Acts 2 brings out something signifi-cant. In verse 2 the ‘wind filled the whole house’ whereas in verse 3 the ‘fire sat upon each of them’. The conclusion from the above analysis is that the experience of baptism in the Holy Spirit was both individual and corporate. The author’s careful description suggests that he does not want his readers to miss this point. This conclusion is very important in that it supports indi-vidual baptism in the Holy Spirit, a notion that Evangelicals like Arie W. Zwiep object. Again, the import of this conclusion is that the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues is an experience available to every Christian. It is a paradigm for all church ages. If salvation cannot be experienced on anybody’s behalf, how can baptism in the Holy Spirit be?

God promised to pour out His Spirit on all flesh, and not even on the covenant nation alone. This was the response made by Peter on the day of Pentecost to the surprised crowd who were fascinated about the disciples’ new experience. According to Peter their glossolalic experience was a fulfilment of prophecy



<UN>

from the prophet Joel (Joel 2.30) with missiological focus.58 This prophecy detailed its recipients. They include: ‘all flesh’; ‘sons and daughters’; ‘young men and old men’; ‘menservants and maidservants’. The above detailed description of recipients obviously disproves the idea that the promise is for selected few of a certain age. Cleary, God desires all flesh or humankind to partake of this expe-rience. Further, ‘all flesh’ can indicate all race of people; ‘sons and daughters’ indicate all gender; ‘young men and old men’ indicate all generations; and ‘men-servants and maidservants’ indicate all classes of people. Why did God ensure that this is well detailed? Certainly God knows many will not be able to believe it. In Isaiah God declares, ‘Behold, I do a new thing’ (Isa. 43.19). The pouring of the Spirit is a new thing for all flesh. We may gather that a relevant pneumatol-ogy must be willing to collide with, and superimpose classism, gender disparity, economic disparity, religio-cultural superiority and racism, and in the African context ethnocentricism.

Finally, I would say that tongue speaking as a paradigm for all church ages hinges on Peter’s statement in verse Acts 2.39. Here Peter was emphatic to state that what they had experienced was a promise from God to the disciples as well as to the crowd. He states: ‘For the promise is to you and your children and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord will call’ (v. 39). Here again the descrip-tion of recipients for the promise includes generations yet unborn, a clear indi-cation that the promise is not for only one age or generation. The above response from Peter to the crowd implies that God would do same for all people including generations after them. Again, it implies that what they saw happen-ing with the disciples was exactly what God would do for them. Thus, the crowd should expect a similar experience, making it a paradigm for others (church ages).59 I will now proceed to present the conclusion to the discussion.

Conclusion

In this paper I have attempted to examine Peter Anim’s contribution to the emergence and development of Ghanaian Pentecostalism and also to evaluate its implications on the Pentecostal theology of Spirit baptism. We went over several issues including Anim’s role in the emergence of Pentecostalism in Ghana, the initial pneumatic experience among Ghanaians, analysed the pos-sibility of Pentecost being a paradigm of the reconstitution of God’s people, and examined the debate surrounding Spirit baptism from both the Evangelical

58 Holman, ‘Spirit Reception’, p. 3.59 Stronstad, ‘The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts’.

116 Quayesi-Amakye


<UN>

and Pentecostal perspectives. Then I highlighted the outcome of a Bible read-ing class on Spirit baptism, and reflected on the paradigmatic of Spirit baptism for the church. We may say that the existence of two strands of pneumatologi-cal tradition in the nt enables the construction of a more complete nt pneu-matology. With a third strand (the Johannine), the picture can be fuller still. The concurrence of Paul and Luke on the distinction of Christ and the Spirit, their belief in the Spirit’s functional expression in not only the life of the indi-vidual believer but also on the community, their agreement on the Spirit’s ini-tial and ongoing soteriological role, and their affirmation of the Spirit as eschatological amongst others clearly attests to the beautiful unity of Scripture. Divergence occurs when Luke is inclined towards liberalising the Spirit and Paul towards localising Him. Even here, two new perspectives are offered for readers to reflect on a multifaceted operation of the Spirit which would other-wise have been lost in eternity if only one perspective was ever known.

Documents

The 'Evasive' Spirit of Pentecostalism