- Posted by: essay
- Category: Free essays
The main point of the author. Discussions with other Pentecostal theologians.
Theologian Koo Dong Yun shows the classical Pentecostal treatment of this dogma as a little more than a historical curiosity. It is historical theology. I always think that the root of Pentecostalism is America and it has been brought into other countries. But the author in his book presents the thought that home-made Asian Pentecostal movements were already developing before the arrival of American classical Pentecostal missionaries related with Azusa Revival. He also emphasizes that Indian native “Pentecostalism” had developed there long before the arrival of American Pentecostalism. Koo Dong Yun shows Pentecostalism in Asia, India and Pentecostalism in North America have many general characteristics, but much dissimilarity subsists too. He gives an instance the early Pentecostal movements in India and Korea didn’t emphasize the significance of talk in tongues and the doctrine the initial physical evidence. Another difference that early Pyongyang Pentecostals in 1907 illustrated an “ecumenical” or “unity” movement insofar as it made a unity of a variety of Christians from various denominations by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Koo Dong Yung affirms Pentecostalism in its roots was a religious for poor, colonized oppressed because at the beginning of the twentieth century, most Asian countries remained colonies of Western countries. For example, India was colonized by Britain, and Korea was colonized by Japan. That’s why Pentecostalism includes minjung movement. He also emphasizes two types of minjung originated: 1) social-political and 2) Pentecostal. It is evident that social-political minjung has worked on social and political justice. The Pentecostal minjung primarily has worked on spiritual, physical, and affective healing. In conclusion twentieth-century Pentecostalism has been consisted of various cultures and worldwide, so it is necessary to include Asian roots in research the Pentecostal movements.
The author shows social problems that early Pentecostals in America and Asia could not afford to go to hospitals, so they were happy to have opportunity to go to churches. They prayed for their healing. Jesus Christ was there to listen to the testimonies and heartaches of these minjung. So as we see at its origins, at its roots, the twentieth-century Pentecostal movement was not originally a white middle-class movement.buy term paper
Today Pentecostalism has become more and more mainly white middle-class movement. I agree with Koo Dong Yun’s idea that that Pentecostals today is not Lukan enough. Luke shows a special interest in the poor. Only in Luke’s Beatitudes does it remark, “Blessed are you poor, for your is the Kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20). Luke says of particular blessing given to the poor, hungry, thirsty, and weeping, while woe is given to the rich. In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus Christ reads a passage from Isaiah 61:1-2: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to ‘the poor’. Acts 2 besides divulges the “revolutionary” feature of the last days between Pentecost and the Second Coming of Christ. Not only will God pour out the Holy Spirit on Israelite kings, priests, and prophets, but God will also pour the Spirit on ‘slaves’ and ‘women’ (Acts 2:18), who were more or less subdued during the first century. The people (minjung) who have been depressed and subdued will get the same or even more of the Spirit’s blessings in these last days. In terms of this revolutionary Lukan aspect, Pentecostals have not been Lukan enough. In general, the Pentecostal movement in the past has
conduced to stress personal, spiritual, emotional features of salvation, while it was not diligent in retrieving these liberationist features of the socio-political gospel.
Pentecostalism continues to be foremost a Christian movement in which the weak, helpless and depressed become the powerful, strong, and freed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
He affirms this ecumenical interest, and he has contributed to it. He has come recently, however to wonder whether or not the displacement of Spirit baptism, the “crown jewel” of Christian experience, is a good idea. Spirit Baptism is the metaphor used by John the Baptist to characterize and inaugurate the person and work of Jesus in the Gospels. We can also note that the metaphor is taken up in Acts to denote what happens at Pentecost as well. Though the metaphor is somewhat ambiguous, is uniquely connected to John the Baptist’s characterization of Jesus’ ministry, and may have wanted somewhat in use over the early decades of Christian proclamation, it has a powerful place in the canon and Christian memory and deserves a greater role in Christian theology than it has gotten in the past. Pentecostalism is a movement that has helped to bring this metaphor back to the center of our understanding of God’s redemptive work of history. I think it is also important to underscore Koo Dong Yun agrees with one of Pentecostals, such as Simon Chan that Spirit Baptism is the dominant theological concern of Pentecostals, nothing that “out of a number of intriguing characteristics of the Pentecostal – charismatic movement, ‘Baptism in the Holy Spirit’ (also known as Spirit Baptism) represents the most distinctive doctrine.”
But Koo Dong Yun prefers, in distinction from Chan’s focus on church tradition, to see the Pentecostal theological concern over Spirit baptism as “pragmatic”, open to a number of horizons of meaning. In reflecting on this situation in the scholarship, it seems to me that theological variety within Pentecostalism, though important, should not be used to obscure what Pentecostals usually hold in common concerning Spirit baptism. There are Pentecostal theologians who want to capture again the Pentecostal focus on Spirit baptism but to evolve it beyond the narrow boundaries of post-conversion empowerment for service. Singaporean theologian Simon Chan, for example, notes that Pentecostals are not in agreement over the details of their distinctive beliefs, but nevertheless, “what comes through over and over again in their discussions and writings is a certain kind of spiritual experience of an intense, direct, and overwhelming nature centering on the person of Christ which they schematize as “baptism” in the Holy Spirit.” Chan believes that an expansion of the boundaries of Spirit baptism to involve the entire life and mission of the church can help Pentecostals develop an ecumenically relevant theology. Chan wishes to see the Spirit as the ecclesial Spirit who comes to us in the life and worship (including the sacraments) of the church.
Even the significant efforts by New Testament scholars Robert Menzies and Roger Stronstad to focus on the unique charismatic Pneumatology of Luke in order to open up fresh possibilities for viewing Spirit Baptism as prophetic or Charismatic inspiration has received no significant response from the politic among contemporary Pentecostal theologians who have focused on broad pneumatological themes toward the construction of an ecumenical Pneumatology.