This morning as I was reading through Gordon D. Fee’s God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul something he wrote summed up my own feelings (understanding?) regarding how Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals understand the Holy Spirit. Before I expound on this let me provide you with the quote. Fee writes,
As with my commentary on 1 Corinthians, it seemed fitting that one such book at least be written by a New Testament scholar who is also Pentecostal both by confession and by experience. In his watershed exegetical study of “The Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” J.D.G. Dunn observed that for traditional Pentecostalism, which bases its theology primarily on Acts, “Paul need not have written anything. Indeed Paul seems to be more of an embarrassment than an asset.” Conversely, it might be observed that most non-Pentecostals, of both the sacramental and nonsacramental variety, find Paul to be most covenient to their theologies, while Acts is determined to be decidedly nontheological. Therefore, in evaluating the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer (especially on the matter of “conversion-initiation” to borrow Dunn’s term), both groups tend to find a canon within the canon. [1]
Let me comment here before I present what Fee writes next. Whenever I struggle with Pentecostals regarding the Holy Spirit I often find myself appealing to the Apostle Paul, especially emphasizing conversion comes through faith in Christ. Equally, whenever I struggle with non-Pentecostals regarding the Holy Spirit I often find myself appealing to the Book of Acts and back to the Apostle in 1 Corinthians to show that the Holy Spirit is active in the life of the Christian and therefore faith should result in the “infilling”, empowering presence of the Holy Spirit. It is very hard to find Christians who understand the Holy Spirit both as empowering and sanctifying. Let me continue quoting Fee:
The same holds true for their respective emphasis on the ongoing life of the Spirit. But here there is a “canon within the Pauline canon.” Pentecostals, on the one hand, at times could be rightly accused of neglecting most of Paul for 1 Corinthians 12 to 14. Here they find biblical justification for the ongoing exercise of the spiritual gifts in their midst, especially the more extraordinary gifts. Non-Pentecostals, on the other hand, tend to regard 1 Corinthians as an embarrassment, both to Paul and to the later church (or else they use it as a negative paradigm). Their “canon within the canon” is Galatians 5 and Romans 7-8; for them the key to Pauline Spirit language resides in ethical life (the fruit of the Spirit). I find both forms of truncated canon less than satisfactory, hence part of the reason for this study. [2]
Again, I cannot agree with Fee more. As I talk to Pentecostals about Paul’s understanding of the Spirit it is often as if he said nothing else but what he said in 1 Corinthians 12-14. For others there is an attempt to speak of 1 Corinthians 12-14 as part of some “apostolic age” than ended with “formation of the canon” which is one of the worst arguments I have ever heard in response to anything.
I said all this not to provide my own solution. As of now I do not have one. All I know is that when I read Fee and I worship in non-Pentecostal settings I often feel like a Pentecostal. [3] Equally, when I worship in Pentecostal settings I suddenly feel Catholic or Baptist! I am convinced that part of the problem is that non-Pentecostals are frequently closed to the idea of a tangible presence of the Holy Spirit while Pentecostals are usually driven toward the excessive, orderless nature of which Paul had to correct the Corinthian church.
___________________________________________
[1] Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 10. Quotes from J.D.G. Dunn are from Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 103.
[2] Ibid.
[3] When I say “Pentecostal” I want to be clear that I mean Trinitarian Pentecostal and not Oneness Pentecostal. I am convinced that the doctrine of the Trinity is the correct understanding and unfolding of the theology of the early church into the later centuries. I believe the Holy Spirit guided the early church into correct doctrine regarding God as Trinity just like the Holy Spirit guided the church past the Arians, Ebionites, Nestorians, and other groups. While I do not believe Oneness Pentecostals (as a whole) are heretical I do think they are heterodox.
the archives near Emmaus 
As Chelsea and I have been looking for a church we have made almost the same comments. In a Pentecostal setting I feel very baptist and find the disorder very frustrating and counter productive to true life change. On the other I hand I feel Pentecostal when I am in a non-Pentecostal setting. The middle ground is what we are looking for if it is out there.
You are right that while some look to Paul for answers about the Holy Spirit, others look to Luke. But like you I don’t see them as being mutally exclusive. Rather, I see them working in tandem (like a tandem bike – it takes two to make it go). If we look to Paul only we get unbalanced. Yet, if we look to Luke only, we get unbalanced. But if we look at both, there is a balance (and equal force to push the tandem bike along).
I guess I must be the abnormal Pentecostal, since I tend to act more like a Bapticostal! (though we really are more Wesleyan, than baptistic in our theology – I also believe in women pastors/elders). I see both the savlvific (sanctifying) and empowering work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer and in the people of God.
One other thing, if I can use the Assemblies of God as an example, I think within this movement, you’ll find a spectrum of practice with regard to being Pentecostal. On one end there are churches that go over the top thinking the Spirit should move in every service every time and they try to force it (tongues, prophecy, etc), and on the other end, there are AG churches that you would think were your basic non-denominational church with charismatic style worship but rarely if ever any move of the Spirit (no tongues, no prophecy, no nothing).
@ Brian,
I agree, it takes a Pauline and Lukan perspective to make sense of the breadth of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. From Paul I think we begin to understand the ethical implications as well as the empowerment implications, as well as order, and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. From Luke we gain a salvific understanding as well as another variation on the empowerment side of things.
For many years I have thought about the AOG and whether or not it would be a good place to land. I have my reservations, but I tend to dislike the idea of being “non-denominational”. Its seems a bit too individualistic and disconnected.
Speaking of Fee, is he still AOG?
so far as I know – though with the Canadian AG.
Another option to consider is the Foursquare churches (ICFG) (ie: Jack Hayford) – they are Pentecotal (came out of the AG) but can tend to be a little more theologically balanced and flexible.
I guess I see Luke as addressing empowerment issues, which you see a lot of in Acts (starting with Ac 1:8), and Paul on the savific, ethical issues.
Why do we not go by what it says in Acts 1:8? If this were scripture, we should not witness or do anything until Baptized in the Holy Ghost?
Too many times in scripture I read of how we are to speak in tongues and not forbid it but in churches today it is wrong and sometimes considered demonic to do so. I am confused.
My personal opinion based on experience is that when someone wants to know God and asks for the Baptism they can have it according to Acts 2:4 (with tongues). Would anyone that went down in water at their baptism come up anything other than wet?
Why would tongues not be the evidence?
@Joseph,
I have written several post on my understanding of how glossolalia functions literarily in Luke-Acts that you can find here: https://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/the-holy-spirit-in-luke-acts/
While I do think speaking in tongues is a evidence of Spirit infilling I do not think it is the one and only evidence, nor am I all that convinced that there must be an immediate evidence, although I do think it is better to expect the Holy Spirit to do something visible.
Acts 1.8, as I see it, is more about the global spread of Christianity and once we get to Acts 2 the speaking in tongues narratives begin to link previous disjointed groups such as Jew, Samaritans, Gentiles, and those who still followed John the Baptist. Interestingly enough none of the individual conversion accounts even allude to glossolalia (the Eunuch, the jailer, and the Apostle Paul himself).
Great article! Right on the money!