Pentecostal Higher Education: History, Current Practices, and Future Prospects (Christianity and Renewal - Interdisciplinary Studies) 3030796884, 9783030796884

Citation preview

CHRISTIANITY AND RENEWAL – INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES

Pentecostal Higher Education History, Current Practices, and Future Prospects Daniel Topf

Christianity and Renewal - Interdisciplinary Studies Series Editors Wolfgang Vondey Department of Theology and Religion University of Birmingham Birmingham, UK Amos Yong School of Theology & School of Intercultural Studies Fuller Theological Seminary Pasadena, CA, USA

Christianity and Renewal - Interdisciplinary Studies provides a forum for scholars from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, various global locations, and a range of Christian ecumenical and religious traditions to explore issues at the intersection of the Pentecostal, charismatic, and other renewal movements and related phenomena, including: the transforming and renewing work of the Holy Spirit in Christian traditions, cultures, and creation; the traditions, beliefs, interpretation of sacred texts, and scholarship of the renewal movements; the religious life, including the spirituality, ethics, history, and liturgical and other practices, and spirituality of the renewal movements; the social, economic, political, transnational, and global implications of renewal movements; methodological, analytical, and theoretical concerns at the intersection of Christianity and renewal; intra-Christian and interreligious comparative studies of renewal and revitalization movements; other topics connecting to the theme of Christianity and renewal. Authors are encouraged to examine the broad scope of religious phenomena and their interpretation through the methodological, hermeneutical, and historiographical lens of renewal in contemporary Christianity. Under the general topic of thoughtful reflection on Christianity and renewal, the series includes two different kinds of books: (1) monographs that allow for in-depth pursuit, carefully argued, and meticulously documented research on a particular topic that explores issues in Christianity and renewal; and (2) edited collections that allow scholars from a variety of disciplines to interact under a broad theme related to Christianity and renewal. In both kinds, the series encourages discussion of traditional Pentecostal and charismatic studies, reexamination of established religious doctrine and practice, and explorations into new fields of study related to renewal movements. Interdisciplinarity will feature in the series both in terms of two or more disciplinary approaches deployed in any single volume and in terms of a wide range of disciplinary perspectives found cumulatively in the series. For further information or to submit a proposal for consideration, please contact Amy Invernizzi, [email protected]. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14894

Daniel Topf

Pentecostal Higher Education History, Current Practices, and Future Prospects

Daniel Topf Los Angeles, CA, USA

ISSN 2634-5854     ISSN 2634-5862 (electronic) Christianity and Renewal - Interdisciplinary Studies ISBN 978-3-030-79688-4    ISBN 978-3-030-79689-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the ­publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and ­institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To Annali Dawn Murray Topf, my faithful and supportive wife

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank several people for their support in writing this book. Much of the material in this volume was collected as I wrote my dissertation at Fuller Theological Seminary. During that time I greatly benefited from the support and insights provided by Jeff Hittenberger (who previously taught at Vanguard University), Wonsuk Ma (from Oral Roberts University), and Perry Glanzer (from Baylor University), as well as Kirsteen Kim, Sebastian Kim, Doug McConnell, Oskar Merlo, Mel Robeck, Martin Rodriguez, and Sergio Zapata, who are all connected to Fuller Seminary. I am especially grateful to Amos Yong who, in the midst of juggling many other responsibilities, agreed to be my Doktorvater at that time. Working with Palgrave Macmillan as the publisher for this project has been a real privilege. Special thanks go to Amy Invernizzi (as the associate editor for philosophy and religion) and Tikoji Rao Mega Rao (as the project coordinator for books) whose diligent work helped to make this publication a reality. I am also inspired by the vision and commitment that Wolfgang Vondey and Amos Yong demonstrated as editors of the Christianity and Renewal - Interdisciplinary Studies series. Above all, I praise the living God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—for sustaining me on this journey. Soli Deo gloria.

vii

Praise for Pentecostal Higher Education “This research-grounded, visionary book calls pentecostal churches to devote significant resources to higher education. Hard-hitting and acute cultural and historical analysis implies revised educational methods and new institutions will be vital to the next stage of pentecostalism’s 120-year story. Daniel Topf has written an informed, scholarly, strategic and clear account of a path to the future.” —William K. Kay, Emeritus Professor of Theology, Wrexham Glyndŵr University, UK and Fellow, Institute for Pentecostal Theology, Regents Theological College, USA “This book is a wonderful addition to works in the field, since there is no other history and evaluation of pentecostal higher education like it. Topf provides a realistic and critical overview of the state of pentecostal higher education, its strengths, and the cultural challenges facing it. In addition, he sets forth an engaging and imaginative theological vision for improving it. Readers will be both informed and inspired.” —Perry L. Glanzer, Professor of Educational Foundations and Resident Scholar, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, Baylor University, USA “Daniel Topf combines international experience as a student with the research of a scholar to produce an important understanding of pentecostal higher education. Topf’s analysis makes a compelling argument for the expanding role of Pentecostals building on their dynamic spirituality and scholarship in the globally connected world. This book sets out an exciting vision for education that is worthy of careful study.” —Douglas McConnell, Provost Emeritus and Professor, Fuller Theological Seminary, USA

Contents

1 Introduction  1 Delimitations and Definitions   3 Perspective and Bias   5 Significance and Contribution   7 References   8 Part I Present Realities in Pentecostal Higher Education  11 2 The Historical Background of Pentecostalism and Higher Education 13 Historical Influences: The Nineteenth-Century Roots of Pentecostalism  14 Theological Factors: Eschatology, Escapism, and Experience  17 Socioeconomic Realities: A Movement on the Margins  20 References  27 3 The Gradual Development of Pentecostal Higher Education 31 Stage 1: Bible Schools and Institutes  31 Stage 2: Bible Colleges  35 Stage 3: Liberal Arts Colleges  39 Stage 4: Pentecostal Universities  42 References  46 xi

xii 

Contents

4 A Global Overview of Pentecostal Higher Education 51 Pentecostal Higher Education in Africa  52 Pentecostal Higher Education in Asia and Australia  58 Pentecostal Higher Education in Latin America  62 Pentecostal Higher Education in Europe  64 Pentecostal Higher Education in North America  66 References  68 5 Strengths and Weaknesses of Pentecostal Higher Education  71 Strengths in Pentecostal Higher Education  72 Weaknesses in Pentecostal Higher Education  79 References  86 6 Contested Issues Within Higher Education at Large 89 The Lack of a Unifying Center  90 Secularization and Politicization  94 The Separation of Facts and Values 100 References 104 7 Contemporary Trends in (Post)secular Higher Education109 The Renewed Interest in Spirituality 110 Religious Pluralism in a Pluralistic Environment 114 The Need for Religious Literacy and Dialogue 117 References 121 Part II Future Opportunities in Pentecostal Higher Education 125 8 Inspiring the Mission of Pentecostal Higher Education127 A Pentecostal Spirituality: Christological and Pneumatological 128 A Pentecostal Epistemology: The Spirit of Truth 133 A Pentecostal Witness: Jesus as God’s Spirit-Empowered Servant 137 References 140

 Contents 

xiii

9 Pentecostal Spirituality in Higher Education145 Transforming the Heart: An Experiential Pedagogy 145 Expanding the Mind: Many Tongues, Many Disciplines 149 Training the Hands: Service and Vocation 155 References 160 10 Toward a Pentecostal Missiology of Higher Education165 Motivation for Missions: Eschatological Urgency 166 Empowerment for Missions: Spirit Baptism 168 The Emphasis in Missions: Signs and Wonders 171 Priorities in Missions: Evangelism and Church Planting 173 Recent Developments in Missions: Holistic Ministry 176 References 179 11 Engaging All Areas of Society Through Pentecostal Higher Education183 The Vision of the Seven Mountains: Bringing Transformation to the World 183 Dominion Theology: The Danger of Triumphalism 188 Public Theology: Opportunities and Challenges in a Pluralistic World 192 References 197 12 Defining Characteristics of Future Pentecostal Colleges and Universities201 The Heart: Placing Theology and Prayer at the Center 202 The Head: Learning in a Technology-Driven Environment 206 The Hands: Engaging in Local and Global Missions Based on Acts 1:8 212 References 215 13 Envisioning Different Types of Pentecostal Colleges and Universities221 Accredited Pentecostal Vocational Training Schools 221 Pentecostal Colleges and Universities with a Distinctive Profile 227 Pentecostal Research Universities 232 References 237

xiv 

Contents

14 Conclusion241 Summarizing the Argument 241 Closing Remarks 246 References 250 Index253

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 5.1

Development of selected pentecostal universities 44 Number of programs offered by pentecostal colleges and universities74 Fig. 8.1 A pneumatological epistemology 135 Fig. 12.1 Four mission projects based on Acts 1:8 215

xv

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 11.1 Table 12.1

Pentecostal colleges and universities in Africa Pentecostal colleges and universities in Asia and Australia Pentecostal colleges and universities in Latin America Pentecostal colleges and universities in North America Academic standing of Christian colleges and universities Best national university rankings (2020) Comparison between Type A and Type C theology From the university to the hyperuniversity

54 58 63 67 82 83 194 211

xvii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Christian higher education is of crucial importance for all denominations and traditions, but it holds special opportunities and challenges for pentecostalism. After all, particularly throughout the Majority World, but also in the West, it is especially the Spirit-filled (classical pentecostal, charismatic, and independent) streams of Christianity that display the most robust growth and vitality in their churches (Synan 2001). At the same time, however, pentecostal expressions of Christianity have, at least traditionally, been less strong when it comes to contributing to areas of academic and intellectual engagement. This lack of involvement in academics can also be seen in the fact that, compared to other streams within Christianity, pentecostalism is not as recognized in higher education. The present study seeks to address this potential area for growth and development by examining the theological foundations of pentecostalism as they relate to higher education, and by suggesting a missiologically informed approach that will promote the building-up of high-quality academic institutions needed to have a more profound impact in society than has hitherto been the case. In the following, I include historical and sociological perspectives, but I am primarily making a missiological and theological argument. To formulate this argument, this volume is divided into two main parts. In the first part, I describe the current state of pentecostal higher education, beginning with a brief history and pointing out several current developments and trends. In the second part, I then propose a missiological and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1_1

1

2 

D. TOPF

theological framework that encourages pentecostals to be more engaged in tertiary education by investing in their own colleges and universities as part of their contribution to the missio Dei. The purpose of this study is to describe both the history and the current state of pentecostal higher education in order to propose a missiology of higher education with pentecostal distinctives that enables pentecostals to be influential in society by developing their own colleges and universities. As mentioned above, the primary approach to this research project is theological and missiological in nature. My theological approach here is not primarily based on interpreting biblical texts (hermeneutics), even though this does form part of my argument, for example, when describing a pentecostal spirituality in Chap. 8. More often, however, I utilize theology as a lens for analyzing certain conditions in today’s society, with the aim of presenting an adequate missiology that will encourage pentecostals to become more involved in higher education. Since missiology is an interdisciplinary field of study, a combination of historical, theological, and sociological elements will undergird my argument. More specifically, I present in this project a missiology of pentecostal higher education based on the principles of public theology. Such a public theology approach is in line with Miroslav Volf’s conviction that “faith should be active in all spheres of life: education and arts, business and politics, communication and entertainment, and more” (2011, xv). Public theology is broad because it is based on a theology focused on the kingdom of God and as such goes beyond the concerns of local churches and their ministries (Kim 2011, 7, 83–88). Within the realm of public theology, education has a distinct significance because it influences all other areas of society, especially in the knowledge-based economies that increasingly characterize the twenty-first century. Sebastian C.  H. Kim describes this area of higher education as follows: the academies include universities and other higher education institutions, research centres and schools, which provide research findings, knowledge transfer and training for members of other bodies. All the academic disciplines are formulated and shaped here; also the practical applications in other parts of public life will in turn feed into the formations of academic disciplines. (12)

1 INTRODUCTION 

3

That is to say, the academy is crucial for a missiological vision of public theology because the realm of higher education influences and shapes all other sectors of society. Based on this vision of engaging with public life, the methodological approach for this study is therefore one that engages with the context of contemporary society, especially the context of present-­ day tertiary education in general and pentecostal universities in particular.

Delimitations and Definitions This volume is primarily about university-level education in a Christian context; it touches only briefly on the narrower area of theological education (particularly in the following chapter and the last chapter of this book). Theological education is characterized by a variety of institutions, such as Bible schools, Bible institutes, seminaries, and ministry schools of various kinds, and this is a topic a number of scholars have already addressed, including from a pentecostal perspective (e.g., Yong 2020). By contrast, my focus here is on the kind of broad education as it is offered at (liberal arts) colleges and (research) universities. More specifically, this study focuses on higher education within a pentecostal context. That is to say, I am not describing the various schools that other streams of Christianity have established, such as Jesuit, Baptist, and Reformed colleges and universities—although such institutions are mentioned at times as a point of comparison. Defining terms in a study related to pentecostalism is a challenging task. As several scholars have pointed out, pentecostalism is such a complex and diverse movement that it is probably best to speak of “pentecostalisms” (Hollenweger 2004) or to use a broad term, such as “renewalism” (Kay 2011, 128). In this study, pentecostalism, pentecostals, and pentecostal are all written with a small p; as such these words denote a comprehensive group terminology that reflects today’s global renewal Christianity (Gladwin 2015, 50–51). With these terms I refer to various streams within Protestantism that emphasize the person and power of the Holy Spirit (including classical pentecostal, charismatic, neo-pentecostal, and various independent churches). I admit that, by going beyond classical pentecostal denominations like the Assemblies of God or the Foursquare Church, this definition of pentecostalism is rather broad. However, such an approach can also be observed in the definitions given by other writers, such as Arlene M. Sánchez-Walsh who describes pentecostalism as “a movement within

4 

D. TOPF

Christianity that emphasizes an active presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of its adherents” (2018, 1). Similarly, Julie C. Ma and Wonsuk Ma explain that pentecostalism is referring “to a wide range of Christians who are open to, believe in, and expect the work—particularly a supernatural kind—of the Holy Spirit, often characterized by an emphasis on experiential and emotive dimension of religious life” (2010, 4). Having defined pentecostalism in this way, I now turn to a definition of higher education and university-level education. In this study, higher education is understood as referring to postsecondary (or tertiary) education offered by accredited institutions that self-identify as colleges or universities and offer undergraduate and/or graduate degrees in a variety of disciplines.1 Accordingly, a Bible school offering programs in biblical studies, as well as in music and counseling, would be outside this definition if the degrees it offers are not accredited. On the other hand, a Bible college or seminary with accreditation would also be outside this definition if it only offers degrees related to theology and ministry. In an article entitled “Pentecostal Universities: Theory and History” William K.  Kay and Andrew Davies describe a university as follows: Although there are several types of university, the accepted ideal is of a unified institution, comprising several faculties, that allows for the teaching and renewal of human knowledge in its entirety. It is a university rather than a polytechnic; it is a campus where all the disciplines of human knowledge, each with their own faculty, may rub shoulders and absorb the breadth of what has been discovered in the past and, through research, transmit what the human race needs for the future. Since, in its ideal form the university deals in the currency of all human knowledge and therefore with the sciences and arts together, theology is included; indeed, in the Middle Ages, theology was the architectonic discipline under which all other forms of knowledge were arranged and coordinated, and the university itself was a faith community. (2017, 33, emphasis original)

Especially in the United States, an institution of higher education is usually called a university only if it offers graduate degrees, and as I explain in Chap. 3, many pentecostal colleges have achieved this stage in recent years. The focus will be on this kind of pentecostal universities; however, 1  See also the definition of “higher education” by Merriam-Webster: “education beyond the secondary level; especially: education provided by a college or university” (https://www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/higher%20education).

1 INTRODUCTION 

5

schools like Emmanuel College in Franklin Springs, Georgia (that currently only offers undergraduate degrees), are also mentioned, as long as the institution provides degrees outside the realm of theology. More specifically, I follow Joel A.  Carpenter’s definition of a Christian university when he writes: Given churches’ proclivity to found seminaries or Bible colleges first and the current trend for many of these to evolve into more comprehensive universities, it is especially important to mark a clear line between universities and seminaries. So we defined “university” to include at least two distinct areas of study beyond those related to church vocations. (2014, 4)

Accordingly, pentecostal universities in the United States highlighted in this study include institutions like Vanguard University and Lee University, as well as Oral Roberts University (ORU) and Regent University. International examples consist of pentecostal institutions of higher education like Hansei University in South Korea, Alphacrucis College in Australia, and Redeemer’s University in Nigeria (see also the schools listed in Chap. 4).

Perspective and Bias In the postcolonial, postfoundational, and postmodern age we live in, it is especially important to identify one’s location and point of view. I am writing this project as a European male (half German/half Spanish) who identifies as pentecostal and now lives in the United States. For several reasons, much of what I describe in the following is focused on American pentecostal higher education. First, the United States is where I am situated now; traveling to places on other continents to learn more about the situation there would have been beneficial, but then this would have turned into a different kind of project. Second, this study is based on library research, and many sources describe, in particular, the situation in the United States. Third, in the area of higher education, America continues to be a world leader—something that is true in both the (post)secular world (where universities like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford are still considered to be some of the finest research universities in the world) and in the realm of pentecostal higher education (where institutions like Evangel University, Lee

6 

D. TOPF

University, and Regent University have served as an inspiration to pentecostal leaders in other countries).2 Nonetheless, this study does not exclusively deal with the situation in the United States. In Chap. 4, for instance, I situate pentecostal higher education in its global context, addressing the situation in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Europe before circling back to conditions in North America. Later, in Chap. 10 (on pentecostal missiologies), I include examples from a variety of countries as well since missions is, by definition, a theme with global dimensions. Still, this study is mostly focused on the United States, but it is my hope that readers from other regions of the world will be able to benefit from these descriptions and reflections as well.3 As briefly mentioned above, I identify with the pentecostal movement; in that sense, I do not have a detached point of view as I am researching this topic on pentecostal higher education. In fact, I have greatly benefited from pentecostal theological education myself, considering that I obtained my Master of Arts (MA) from Global University and my Master of Divinity (MDiv) from TCA College in Singapore—both schools which are connected to the Assemblies of God. At the same time, I am currently attending a non-pentecostal church, which is why my point of view could also be described as one of a critical, yet sympathetic, outsider—as one who adheres to “critical loyalty,” as Gordon Fee expressed it so well (quoted in Meyer 2015, 114–115). I also have a particular perspective in terms of my experience and views of higher education. I went to college in Germany, in a secular environment where Christian alternatives hardly existed. Consequently, I appreciate the kind of choices that exist in American higher education, admiring how much evangelical and pentecostal colleges and universities have been able to accomplish. At the same time, I am aware of several weaknesses that characterize parts of Christian higher education (as laid out in Chap. 5);

2  Cf. the statement by Amos Yong that “evangelical colleges and universities in North America set the gold standard for global evangelical higher education” (2013, 394). 3  I see a similarity here with the limitation Bryan Alexander mentions regarding his Academia Next: The Futures of Higher Education: “the vast world of global higher education beyond the United States appears only through a handful of trends, again for reasons of scope. . . . The full span of civilization-wide postsecondary learning would benefit from futures [sic] work as well. I hope to contribute to that work at a later date, either on my own or, better yet, in collaboration with an international team” (2020, 9).

1 INTRODUCTION 

7

nonetheless, I reserve my sharpest criticism for some of the failings I perceive in today’s (post)secular universities (a topic discussed in Chap. 6).

Significance and Contribution The significance of this study lies in that hitherto no entire book has been written about the topic of pentecostal higher education. This may soon change, as Dale M.  Coulter and Amos Yong are currently working on a volume with the (tentative) title Finding the Holy Spirit in the Christian University: Renewing Christian Higher Education (forthcoming). However, at this point, the following assessment by Mark J. Cartledge is probably still accurate: “A full-blown pentecostal theology of education, even of theological education, is lacking and in need of articulation and discussion” (2014, 267). I therefore hope this volume will make a valuable contribution toward a more comprehensive understanding of pentecostal higher education. Pentecostalism is increasingly studied by academics, which includes a scholarly perspective through a variety of lenses, such as sociology or economics (Robeck and Yong 2014, 2). However, pentecostals are often overlooked as a (potential) force in higher education, so this study would enrich the conversation by pointing to a trend that is seldom noticed. Similarly, the phenomenon of Christian higher education has stirred up considerable interest in recent years (Glanzer et al. 2017), but little work has been done in this area that has a specific focus on pentecostalism. Notable contributions to this topic are, among others, articles and chapters written by Jeffrey S. Hittenberger (2004, 2007, 2016), Amos Yong (2011), and William Kay and Andrew Davies (2017). These publications are important because they describe a field of growing significance; however, much more still needs to be done for pentecostals to formulate their own theological and missiological frameworks that will enable them to thrive in their higher education efforts. Besides making a contribution to the literature, I also hope to contribute to how pentecostals engage with the world missiologically. Pentecostals have always been passionate about sharing the gospel and starting new churches (Robeck 2006, 187–280). Pentecostalism also has a noteworthy heritage in the area of social engagement, such as setting up orphanages, caring for drug addicts, and feeding the hungry (Kay 2009, 302–303). However, more recently, pentecostals (especially neo-pentecostals) have developed an interest in influencing all areas of society, including the arts, economics, and politics. In order to be influencers in a healthy way, I

8 

D. TOPF

argue, pentecostals need an education that prepares them for the complexities of the twenty-first century while also nurturing them in their faith and spirituality. With this goal in mind, we now turn to Part I of this volume, which describes the present state of pentecostal higher education.

References Alexander, Bryan. 2020. Academia next: The futures of higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Carpenter, Joel A. 2014. Introduction: Christian universities and the global expansion of higher education. In Christian higher education: A global reconnaissance, ed. Joel Carpenter, Perry L. Glanzer, and Nicholas S. Lantinga, 1–23. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Cartledge, Mark J. 2014. Pentecostal theology. In The Cambridge companion to Pentecostalism, ed. Cecil M. Robeck Jr. and Amos Yong, 254–272. New York: Cambridge University Press. Coulter, Dale M., and Amos Yong. Forthcoming. Finding the Holy Spirit in the Christian university: Renewing Christian higher education. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gladwin, Ryan R. 2015. Toward a transformative Latin American Pentecostalcharismatic social ethics: An Argentine perspective. In Pentecostals and charismatics in Latin America and Latino communities, ed. Néstor Medina and Sammy Alfaro, 49–66. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Glanzer, Perry L., Nathan F. Alleman, and Todd C. Ream. 2017. Restoring the soul of the university: Unifying Christian higher education in a fragmented age. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Hittenberger, Jeffrey S. 2004. Globalization, “marketization,” and the mission of Pentecostal higher education in Africa. Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 26 (2): 182–215. ———. 2007. The future of Pentecostal higher education: The ring, the shire, or the redemption of Middle Earth? In The future of Pentecostalism in the United States, ed. Eric Patterson and Edmund J.  Rybarczyk, 83–104. Lanham: Lexington Books. ———. 2016. Global Pentecostal renaissance? Reflections on Pentecostalism, culture, and higher education. In What’s so liberal about the liberal arts? Integrated approaches to Christian formation, ed. Paul W.  Lewis and Martin William Mittelstadt, 43–64. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Hollenweger, Walter J. 2004. An introduction to Pentecostalisms. Journal of Beliefs and Values: Studies in Religion and Education 25 (2): 125–137. Kay, William K. 2009. Pentecostalism. London: SCM Press.

1 INTRODUCTION 

9

———. 2011. Pentecostalism: A very short introduction. New  York: Oxford University Press. Kay, William K., and Andrew Davies. 2017. Pentecostal universities: Theory and history. Pentecost Journal of Theology and Mission 2 (1): 33–42. Kim, Sebastian C.H. 2011. Theology in the public sphere: Public theology as a catalyst for open debate. London: SCM Press. Ma, Julie C., and Wonsuk Ma. 2010. Mission in the Spirit: Towards a Pentecostal/ charismatic missiology. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Meyer, Donald G. 2015. The distinguishing mark of leadership: An interactive journey that invites you to ask and answer transformational leadership questions. Spring City: Morning Joy Media. Robeck, Cecil M., Jr. 2006. The Azusa Street mission and revival: The birth of the global Pentecostal movement. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Robeck, Cecil M., Jr., and Amos Yong, eds. 2014. The Cambridge companion to Pentecostalism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sánchez-Walsh, Arlene M. 2018. Pentecostals in America. New  York: Columbia University Press. Synan, H. Vinson, ed. 2001. The century of the Holy Spirit: 100 years of Pentecostal and charismatic renewal, 1901–2001. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Volf, Miroslav. 2011. A public faith: How followers of Christ should serve the common good. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press. Yong, Amos. 2011. Finding the Holy Spirit at a Christian university: Renewal and the future of higher education in the Pentecostal-charismatic tradition. In Spirit-empowered Christianity in the 21st century: Insights, analysis, and future trends, ed. H. Vinson Synan, 455–476–577–587. Lake Mary: Charisma House. ———. 2013. Evangelical paideia overlooking the Pacific Rim: On the opportunities and challenges of globalization for Christian higher education. Christian Scholar’s Review 42 (4): 393–409. ———. 2020. Renewing the church by the Spirit: Theological education after Pentecost. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

PART I

Present Realities in Pentecostal Higher Education

By and large we have not dreamed large enough dreams or are confused about the values of liberal education or have forgotten the redemptive impact of faith on culture. —Arthur F. Holmes, The Idea of a Christian College ([1975] 1987, 11)

CHAPTER 2

The Historical Background of Pentecostalism and Higher Education

Pentecostal higher education developed over time and, for much of the twentieth century, did so within a context of marginalization. Consequently, pentecostal higher education encountered several challenges placing these endeavors in a less recognized position compared to what other Christian traditions had to offer in this area. In this chapter, I provide a historical background by examining early pentecostal attitudes and actions related to higher education. This will primarily include the field of theological education with its training institutes and Bible schools—an area that is not the main focus of this project, but which is an important historical antecedent of the colleges and universities that pentecostals would develop later.1 These early developments in pentecostal higher education were hindered by various factors, such as (1) historical influences rooted in nineteenth-­century evangelicalism, like revivalism and fundamentalism; (2) theological issues like an apocalyptic eschatology that emphasized short-term goals; and (3) socioeconomic

1  See also Hittenberger writing in the context of Africa: “Insofar as one defines institutions of higher education (IHEs) as ‘post-secondary institutions,’ these ministerial training institutes, Bible schools, and Bible colleges might be considered ‘proto-IHEs.’ In time, many Bible schools and colleges come to offer Bachelor’s degrees, and, as such, require candidates to have completed secondary education” (2004, 195).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1_2

13

14 

D. TOPF

marginalization that made it difficult for early pentecostals to invest in degree-granting institutions of higher education.2

Historical Influences: The Nineteenth-Century Roots of Pentecostalism Pentecostalism is generally perceived as a twentieth-century phenomenon, but in order to understand this movement and how its adherents viewed higher education, it is essential to examine its nineteenth-century roots (Synan [1971] 1997, 1–67). Particularly in America, these roots and influences included Methodism, the holiness movement, revivalism, the Keswick movement, the healing movement, and fundamentalism (which, in the early twentieth century, became a major force in evangelicalism). All these elements influenced early pentecostalism in both positive and problematic ways. On the positive side, this nineteenth-century heritage contributed to making pentecostalism a movement with a strong missionary emphasis (a theme which will be further developed in Chap. 10). However, many of these nineteenth-century influences fostered an anti-intellectual attitude among early pentecostals, which had a detrimental effect on their ability and willingness to invest in higher education efforts. Methodism is, of course, a movement that predates the nineteenth century in that its founder, John Wesley (1703–1791), was an eighteenth-­ century British minister. However, it was in nineteenth-century America that Methodism developed its full force as an innovative Christian denomination and eventually became one of the major expressions within the American religious landscape (Dayton 1987, 63). Equipped with such a broad base and considerable influence in society, Methodists not only began to build churches, but institutions like hospitals and schools as well. Today, there are over 100 Methodist colleges and universities in the United States, and some of these are well-respected institutions of higher education, notably Duke University, whose roots go back to 1838 (when it was known as Union Institute, an academy that later became Trinity College; cf. Durden and Pyatt 2011, 209).3 2  Large parts of this chapter stem from my article “Fundamentalism, Marginalization, and Eschatology: Historical, Socio-Economic, and Theological Factors Influencing Early Pentecostal Theological Education” (Topf 2020). Used with permission. 3  “Christian/Methodist Universities and Colleges” of the website uniRank lists 103 Methodist institutions for the United States (https://www.4icu.org/religious/Christian-­

2  THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PENTECOSTALISM AND HIGHER… 

15

While Methodism was an active player in the public square, it also emphasized individual piety and a personal conversion experience. Beginning with John Wesley and further emphasized by other trailblazers like Phoebe Palmer (1807–1874), Methodists placed a high value on entire sanctification, a concept that became especially influential through the holiness movement. Similarly, the Keswick movement, which began in England in the late nineteenth century, also influenced pentecostalism by emphasizing sanctification and a second experience after conversion to empower the saints for service (Anderson 1979, 43). In addition, an emphasis on the individual in matters of faith was also reinforced through American revivalism, which reshaped the understanding of religion through major influences such as the Great Awakening (c. 1720–1742) and the Second Great Awakening (c. 1795–1835). Among the characteristics of these awakenings were revival events and camp meetings, at which people were encouraged to undergo a personal and radical conversion experience. As a result of such a conversion or renewal experience, it was expected that believers would henceforth live lives of complete consecration to God and separation from the world, which often led to a strict set of rules to be followed. This kind of legalism was also characteristic of the early pentecostal movement; consequently, rules prohibiting wearing makeup, playing cards, drinking Coca Cola, going to the movies, and so forth were seen as essential elements of living out the faith as a pentecostal (King 2011, 195). Another influence from nineteenth-century revivalism was an emphasis on the emotional and the ecstatic. At the camp meetings of such revival events, manifestations of the Spirit like shaking, shouting, weeping, and speaking in tongues were reported, phenomena also common in pentecostalism (Anderson 1979, 34–35). These kinds of religious experiences had a positive impact on people, enabling them to relate to God in ways that included their emotions. However, the emphasis on emotions also created a downside: less weight was given to the life of the mind, as it seemed Methodist.htm); the National Association of Schools and Colleges of the United Methodist Church (NASCUMC) alone lists 88 colleges and universities (https://www.gbhem.org/ education-leaders/nascumc/). However, most of these institutions have lost their pronounced commitment to orthodox Christianity. In addition, there are universities that have Methodist roots but that have now become (post)secular institutions. A notable example is the University of Southern California (USC) which was founded in 1880 in affiliation with the Methodist Church, but in 1928 USC became “an independent, nonsectarian institution” (Gerber 1998, 621).

16 

D. TOPF

unnecessary to invest in learning and education in order to experience a deeper relationship with God (Hofstadter 1963, 55–116). As William C. Ringenberg recognizes, “The major theological controversy resulting from the Great Awakening was the question of whether experiential and emotional factors or rational factors should play the prominent role in religion” (2006, 40). A passion for the sanctified mind has been part of other Christian traditions, such as among Roman Catholic Jesuits and within the Presbyterian church, which is why both Jesuits and Presbyterians are known for establishing excellent institutions of higher education (Burtchaell 1998, 123–126; Weston 2003, 5). By contrast, pentecostals tended to invest in education based on a pragmatic approach, in order to quickly prepare people for the task of ministry, but not necessarily for advancing the frontiers of knowledge and discovery. Fundamentalism was another crucial development in the religious landscape of the nineteenth century (King 2011, 13, 94). Feeling threatened by the increasing influence of the modern sciences, many evangelicals in the United States developed a corral mentality and proposed a version of the Christian faith in which they largely retreated from society. This led to a certain degree of aversion in addressing academic and intellectual issues, especially when related to the theory of evolution and higher criticism of the Bible (Laats 2018, 78–84, 173–176). In addition, fundamentalism also led to a worldview that separated the natural from the spiritual realm. Consequently, and in contrast to previous reformers like William Wilberforce (1759–1833), evangelicals now exclusively emphasized the preaching of the gospel and the conversion of individuals, thereby neglecting public theology and social concerns. Since, according to the historian Robert Mapes Anderson “the Pentecostal movement should be regarded as part of the Fundamentalist movement,” many challenges and issues characterizing fundamentalism apply to pentecostalism as well (1979, 6; cf. Nel 2017, 57–71). Consequently, pentecostal theological education was, from its start, affected by the shortcomings of fundamentalism. The first pentecostal Bible schools were short-term training centers with a narrow focus; there was no interest in tackling complex theological questions, much less a vision for engaging with other subject matters like psychology, economics, or the natural sciences (Anderson 2013, 132). In addition, some early pentecostals were generally skeptical toward academics, thereby perpetuating anti-intellectual tendencies in the movement—a problem that has

2  THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PENTECOSTALISM AND HIGHER… 

17

been recognized by both pentecostal and non-pentecostal scholars (Noll 1994, 1, 120; Vondey 2013, 133–137). To summarize, early pentecostalism was influenced by various religious expressions of the nineteenth century that often leaned toward legalism, emotionalism, and fundamentalism. These elements all have in common that they tend to discourage the life of the mind and the development of educational institutions. At the beginning of the twentieth century, both evangelicals and pentecostals were inclined to see the Christian faith primarily as a personal matter, with little implications for the public square. This lack of involvement with the world was reinforced by certain theological convictions, such as an apocalyptic view of eschatology and an emphasis on spiritual experiences.

Theological Factors: Eschatology, Escapism, and Experience The significance of eschatology in early pentecostalism and the impact it had on the development of the movement can hardly be exaggerated (Ma 2009, 97). As David W.  Faupel explains in The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought, “American Pentecostalism can best be understood as the emergence of a millenarian belief system that resulted from a paradigm-shift which took place within nineteenth-century Perfectionism” (1996, 18). Consequently, “the second coming of Jesus was the central concern of the initial Pentecostal message” (20). Many pentecostals were convinced they were living in the end times, a conviction which was a principal element in providing the urgency and motivation to spread the gospel, both at home and abroad. This theological conviction that Jesus was about to return soon was nurtured through several sources, such as prophetic utterances announcing the immediacy of the Second Coming. At times, prophetic insights included apocalyptic dimensions; an example is a prophecy uttered by Mary Galmond, who expected “future earthquakes disassembling Chicago and tossing Pasadena into the ocean” (King 2011, 61). Such prophecies and teachings were extremely prevalent, which is why Anderson asserts in Vision of the Disinherited that, especially in its early years, pentecostalism “was first and foremost a millenarian movement” (1979, 80).

18 

D. TOPF

This eschatology highlighting the imminent return of Jesus was not only communicated through ecstatic utterances, but also through the doctrines the leaders of early pentecostalism taught. Influenced by dispensationalism, pentecostal preachers promoted an eschatology that emphasized premillennialism and the secret rapture (Nel 2019, 71–72). For instance, in the January 1907 issue of The Apostolic Faith, William J.  Seymour (1870–1922) wrote about the parable of the ten virgins, teaching that those “not ready at the rapture will be left to go through the awful tribulation that is coming upon the earth,” and subsequent issues also stressed the significance of the rapture in articles like “Type of the Coming of Jesus” and “Notes on the Coming of Jesus” (Azusa Street Papers 2013, 129, 278, 301). The emphasis on premillennialism and the secret rapture were not pentecostal in origin, but were adopted as part of the pessimistic worldview that had developed within the dispensational theology of fundamentalism (Stephens 2010, 161–162, 234–235). That pentecostalism was so strongly influenced by these eschatological views is as astonishing as it is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because the pessimism of dispensational premillennialism often led to escapist attitudes since, in a world doomed to destruction, pentecostals became short-term oriented in their ministerial approach (Yong 2010, 317, 342). Consequently, because pentecostals were so passionate about evangelism and church planting, they started short-term ministry schools to train workers (such as pastors and missionaries) for these specific tasks (Anderson 2007, 261). By contrast, early pentecostals did not have the kind of long-term and comprehensive vision that would have been necessary for building up degree-granting institutions of higher education in order to influence all areas of society (Macchia 1999, 23). Furthermore, it is astonishing that fundamentalism and dispensationalism exercised such a strong influence over early pentecostalism considering fundamentalists and pentecostals vehemently disagreed on topics such as speaking in tongues and divine healing (Archer 2004, 108–109). The dispensational framework that claimed the sign gifts ceased to be operational with the age of the apostles was obviously completely at odds with some of the most treasured beliefs and practices of the pentecostal movement. As the pentecostal scholar Frank D.  Macchia states so well, “Pentecostals tried hard to graft a dispensationalist eschatology onto an incompatible theological tree, creating an ‘uneasy relationship’ with fundamentalist theology fraught with theological inconsistencies and

2  THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PENTECOSTALISM AND HIGHER… 

19

problems” (1999, 24). This makes one wonder: why did early pentecostals rely so heavily on a theological construct that, in promoting cessationism, contradicted important elements of pentecostal thought and practice? As a young movement that emphasized the life of the Spirit, which often was perceived as being opposed to the life of the mind, early pentecostalism did not have its own fully developed theological frameworks yet, and it also failed to cultivate its own scholars and literature. That is why pentecostals “devoured fundamentalist literature and adopted its theology as a framework for their own beliefs” (King 2011, 201). Theological education within pentecostalism also suffered from a lack of genuinely pentecostal foundations. Consequently, pentecostal schools “were patterned after familiar fundamentalist institutions like MBI [Moody Bible Institute], Biola and Nyack. The textbooks most congenial to their needs were fundamentalist in nature, and Scofield enjoyed a prominent place in the education of AG [Assemblies of God] clergy” (120). Despite the marked differences between the two movements, pentecostalism depended on fundamentalism because “a robust pentecostal literature did not yet exist”; consequently, “the most trusted source for conservative, evangelical theology came from fundamentalist pens” (96; see also Kärkkäinen 2012, 257–258). Fundamentalist theological frameworks had a dulling effect on early pentecostal theological education, but certain theological convictions of pentecostal leaders played a decisive role as well. Smith Wigglesworth (1859–1947), for instance, had a remarkable ministry as a preacher and healing evangelist, so much so that he is considered “a legend” and a truly “pentecostal phenomenon” among pentecostals (Gee 1994, 11–12). Wigglesworth accomplished all of this in spite of (or, considering God’s preferential option for the poor, maybe because of?) an extremely humble upbringing in which he was subjected to child labor and therefore received only the most basic education (Hollenweger 1972, 478). Wigglesworth, however, did not see this as a disadvantage—quite the contrary, his “proud boast was that he had never read a book other than the Bible” (Wilson 2003, 374). Another example of an early pentecostal leader expressing skepticism toward formal education is Frank Bartleman (1871–1936) who exclaimed: “We need no more theology or theory! Away with such foolish bondage! Follow your heart! Believe in your own heart’s hunger, and go ahead for God” (quoted in Robins 2010, 58). Early pentecostalism placed a high value on the ecstatic, on speaking in tongues, on visions and prophecies,

20 

D. TOPF

as well as on miraculous healings and deliverance from evil spirits. Pentecostalism did have theological frameworks for facilitating these experiences, particularly a strong pneumatology that invited divine intervention in the lives of individuals. But pursuing the kind of theological or liberal arts education that would encourage addressing complex questions and engaging in the reformation of society was, unfortunately, not part of early pentecostalism (cf. Hollenweger 1972, 417).

Socioeconomic Realities: A Movement on the Margins To understand why pentecostal higher education developed in the way it did, it is crucial to consider the socioeconomic realities of the movement. Typically, pentecostalism is not a religion that attracts the rich and powerful, but is more known for embracing the downtrodden and marginalized (Purdy 2015, 45–47). Women, the poor, people of color—these were the kind of people who shaped pentecostalism in its early days, and still shape the movement in the Majority World today (Anderson 2014, 265, 291, 295). Women were among the marginalized groups that generally had low levels of formal education and who played a significant role in early pentecostalism. Various observers who witnessed the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles emphasized how the Holy Spirit was at work through and in women (Hyatt 2006, 9). Even the leaders of the early pentecostal movement often came from the margins of society, especially as far as formal education and social status were concerned. One of the more influential of these leaders was Charles F. Parham (1873–1929), who was among the first preacher-theologians to identify glossolalia (or, more specifically, xenolalia) as the definite sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Wacker 2001, 5–6). Parham grew up in a middle-class home, so he did not experience poverty growing up. However, in typical pentecostal fashion, Parham ministered in the socioeconomic context of promising “power for the powerless”; he mostly appealed to the lower classes, did not have a regular salary anymore after leaving the Methodist church, and frequently experienced financial problems in his ministry (Goff 1988, 22, 36–37, 49). In addition, he became a marginal figure through some of the eccentric doctrines and viewpoints he developed as an adult, and part of these extreme views might have taken hold in his mind due to the lack of broader

2  THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PENTECOSTALISM AND HIGHER… 

21

education and exposure. Parham was skeptical toward what a formal education had to offer; in the very first paragraph of his book A Voice Crying in the Wilderness (first published in 1902), he criticizes those “modern individuals” who have “chosen the ministry as a profession, either because of its ease and moral atmosphere or from its remunerative value which some have been able to obtain by having reached the upper rounds of the ladder in scholarly attainments” ([1902] 2013, 7). This opinion reflected Parham’s own experience in life. Parham had gone to Southwestern Kansas College, beginning a college education in a Methodist setting, but he never graduated, leaving the school after three years. Apparently, his priorities lay elsewhere, as he “pursued the religious work with more vigor than the studies” (quoted in Goff 1988, 27). In addition, there were “other aspects of college life” (such as the activities of fraternities) that “no doubt disturbed Parham deeply and made him suspicious of the benefits of a formal education” (30). Having rejected formal education, Parham was nonetheless quite eager to develop and dispense his own doctrines and opinions. Problematic points in his teachings include the rejection of medical doctors and of medicine, since Parham viewed medical science as the “octopus-god Moloch” (quoted in Robinson 2014, 32–33); the view that, because of the gift of tongues (understood as xenolalia), missionaries would not have to waste their time anymore in learning foreign languages (Anderson 2014, 182); and a rather confusing eschatology that highlighted the significance of the “Man-Child,” limiting the number of saints who would be raptured to “being 144,000 in number” (quoted in Kay 2009, 289n22). Parham’s insights related to race were especially problematic as he “developed a convoluted Anglo-Israel theology that saw Anglo-Saxons as a superior race descended from the ten tribes of Israel” (Alexander 2011, 115). According to this view, humanity could now be divided into three racial classes, with Anglo-Saxons at the top and various Mediterranean peoples in the middle. Finally, “black, brown, red and yellow races were heathens whom he [Parham] was unsure were redeemable” (115). Over the course of his life, Parham increasingly displayed racist attitudes and in 1927 even “publicly praised the reorganized Ku Klux Klan” (Wacker 2001, 232). Parham was fond of founding Bible schools, but it seems he had trouble bringing about stability and longevity in his ministry. His well-known Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas, where Agnes N.  Ozman (1870–1937) first spoke in tongues, lasted less than a year. When Parham

22 

D. TOPF

then moved to Kansas City to open another Bible institute, the school was closed after just four months, “and Parham was deserted by all but his wife and sister-in-law. Even Agnes Osman [sic] left and repudiated her experience at Bethel” (MacRobert 1988, 46). Parham generally failed to build up a long-lasting institution or movement, which is why Douglas Jacobsen evaluates his legacy as follows: “Rather than becoming the first great organizer of the pentecostal movement, Parham ended his life in relative obscurity, largely shunned by those who had adopted his teaching about tongues and the Spirit” (2006, 10). Parham’s most influential student was probably William Seymour, who would later become the leading preacher of the Azusa Street Revival. Seymour first listened to Parham’s teachings in 1905, at his Bible school in Houston, Texas. However, since the infamous Jim Crow laws were still governing the Southern United States, Seymour had to study while sitting on a chair outside the classroom. Unfortunately, Christian communities such as Parham’s were tainted by the same racism as it was prevalent in American society during that time (Martin 1999, 92–93). Seymour was an African American, a man born to former slaves who grew up under extremely challenging circumstances (Robeck 2006, 4, 12, 17–52). In addition to his economic challenges, “a severe case of smallpox left Seymour blind in his left eye. His face was so scarred by the disease that he wore a beard through the remainder of his life” (Martin 1999, 80). Arthur G.  Osterberg (1885–1970), an eyewitness, acknowledged Seymour as “meek and plain spoken and no orator. He spoke the common language of the uneducated class” (quoted in Owens 2001, 46). Belonging to a racial minority, Seymour had experienced discrimination and marginalization throughout his life. His father died in 1891, when Seymour was 21  years old, leaving his mother Phillis behind as a widow who now had to take care of three children under the age of 16. Their family farm had an assessed value of only 100 dollars, and in 1894 the family’s economic condition was so desperate that Phillis sold half of the farm for just 30 dollars so her family could survive (Martin 1999, 56–58). Seymour left home, and in the following years worked as a porter, driver, waiter, and later as a traveling salesman. Seymour rose to fame during the Azusa Street Revival and had an extensive traveling ministry within the United States at some point, but he “lived and died in near poverty” (75). A few years after the revival, Seymour had to reduce the activity at Azusa mission; by then it only consisted of one weekly meeting and not many people attended anymore.

2  THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PENTECOSTALISM AND HIGHER… 

23

Finances were tight, so much so that Seymour’s wife Jennie Evans Seymour (1874–1936) had to look for a secular job to make ends meet (Alexander 2005, 160). After Seymour died in 1922, the widowed Mrs. Seymour, hard-pressed by financial difficulties, “sold the mortgage on the Azusa Street property to a Los Angeles bank and also mortgaged her home” (Martin 1999, 333). In 1936, the bank foreclosed on the property, and two years later the once famous mission site was turned into a parking lot. These examples illustrate how difficult it was for early pentecostals to establish enduring institutions of higher learning, something that was especially challenging for pentecostals belonging to marginalized minorities. Hispanic pentecostals, for instance, operated mostly on the margins, especially in the area of theological education, as the following example of Francisco Olazábal (1886–1937) demonstrates.4 Olazábal was a Mexican immigrant living in the United States who had been ordained with the Assemblies of God in 1917 and had a successful ministry as a healing evangelist and composer of pentecostal hymns, exercising particular influence in California and in Texas. Olazábal saw the need for a Bible school, but as Daniel Ramírez explains, Olazábal’s “pedagogical aspirations foundered on the shoals of white paternalism” (2015, 46). In 1922, it was decided Olazábal “would stick to evangelism,” while the responsibility for ministerial training for Hispanics was entrusted to white missionaries like Henry C.  Ball (1896–1989) and Alice E.  Luce (1873–1955). In 1926 plans were made for Ball to lead the Latin American Bible Institute (LABI) in Texas, while Luce was to oversee the Berean Bible Institute in San Diego, California.5 In understandable frustration, Ramírez comments on this situation as follows: The conspicuous absence of one of early Latino Pentecostalism’s most notable leaders from the Texas LABI first faculty roster was partially compensated by the inclusion of Ramon Lopez as music instructor. Theological pedagogy would remain the province of missionaries, while converts would be encouraged to develop their virtuosity in musical performance. (46) 4  In telling the history of pentecostalism, Latino/a pentecostals have often been neglected. This includes their participation in the Azusa Street Revival as this “has long been overshadowed by an emphasis on the black and white origins of Pentecostalism” (Espinosa 2014, 23). 5  Confusingly, that Bible school in San Diego was subsequently also called Latin American Bible Institute (http://www.labi.edu/). LABI later moved to La Puente, California, where it continues to this day—often offering theological education to Hispanics on the margins, as also described by Arlene M. Sánchez Walsh (2003).

24 

D. TOPF

As these instances illustrate, issues of race, financial capabilities, and social status loom large when describing the dynamics within early pentecostalism, and especially so when one zooms in on the training of its leaders and their limited access to degree-granting institutions of theological education. Theologically, socially, and economically, early pentecostals often operated on the margins, and this usually also meant they simply did not have the necessary means to build up the kind of theological institutions needed to engage in academic endeavors. By contrast, other Christian denominations that came before pentecostalism quickly made a move toward building well-established institutions of higher education, including the establishment of universities. Many of the first modern universities were founded in various European cities during the Middle Ages, an era that was dominated by the then highly powerful and influential Roman Catholic Church. However, early Protestants getting involved in higher education also benefited from enjoying a strong socioeconomic standing. Among the Protestant Reformers, Martin Luther (1483–1546) was protected by a sympathetic prince, enabling him to become a famous professor at the University of Wittenberg, and John Calvin (1509–1564) exercised almost unlimited power in the city of Geneva, Switzerland, where he was able to establish the Geneva Academy in 1559. Anglicans in England and Presbyterians in Scotland similarly operated out of a position of relative privilege, as did the Puritans, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Anglicans who were able to found well-established schools like Harvard (1636), Yale (1701), Princeton (1746), and Columbia (1754) in what would later become the United States. The example of Harvard warrants special attention because it was the first institution of higher education to be founded on American soil. The Puritans were among the first Protestant settlers to arrive in North America and founded Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630. As George M. Marsden recognizes, “One of the remarkable facts of American history is that only six years after their settlement in the Massachusetts wilderness the Puritans established what soon became a reputable college” (1994, 33). Marsden is referring to the founding of Harvard College in 1636, which only later would develop into Harvard University (Nañez 2005, 69, 148). Nonetheless, this incident demonstrates that, for the Puritans, higher education was “a high priority in civilization building,” which is why “during its early decades New England had one of the highest per capita concentrations of university-educated men [sic] anywhere in the world” (Marsden 1994, 33).

2  THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PENTECOSTALISM AND HIGHER… 

25

Harvard College was founded in particular historical circumstances in which the Puritans saw the need for an institution providing “high, broad and rigid intellectual training” for their ministers and magistrates (Lyttle 1936, 307). Why was the development of early pentecostal theological education so different from what the Puritans envisioned, for example? One crucial factor has to do with the availability of the necessary financial means (or lack thereof). As indicated above, pentecostalism often attracted the poor and uneducated. According to Anderson, the rise of early pentecostalism needs to be understood within the context of socioeconomic developments that the increasing industrialization and urbanization of the United States brought about. These developments left behind entire groups of people in problematic living conditions, be it as impoverished farmers or as an urban proletariat (1979, 240).6 In contrast, John Harvard (1607–1638), growing up in England, earned both a bachelor’s (BA) and a master’s (MA) degree from Emmanuel College at the University of Cambridge, thereby obtaining one of the most excellent educations that was available at that time. Later in life he was able to sell “several inherited properties and with the proceeds purchased a significant scholar’s library of classical and theological texts” (Mitchell 2013, 168). These financial and academic resources then enabled Harvard to make substantial contributions to the founding of the college named after him (Morison [1935] 1995, 210–223). These examples show that the upbringing and legacy of many mainline Protestants was notably different from the life experiences of early pentecostal leaders like Parham, Seymour, and Olazábal who were largely self-­ taught and lived in relative poverty and obscurity. Granted, the life stories of these three figures are unique and cannot necessarily be taken as general standards of what circumstances were like for early pentecostal leaders. However, in studying the lives of 45 early pentecostal leaders, Anderson concludes that most of them came from a farming or blue-collar background, and several among them “were victims of abject poverty” growing up (1979, 100). 6  Robert Anderson writes from a secular/Marxist perspective; I disagree with his overall evaluation of pentecostalism but refer to him several times here because I find his socioeconomic analysis insightful. Additionally, the prominent scholar on pentecostalism Hollenweger also highlights how people on the margins respond to pentecostalism (1972, 457–464). For a more balanced view on marginalization, see Wacker (2001, 199–212); for a critical review of Anderson’s work see, for example, Yong (2011, 49–50).

26 

D. TOPF

Among other things, this meant that these leaders did not have much access to formal education. Some did go to evangelical Bible schools, but attending Moody Bible Institute or the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (Biola) in those days did not mean the same as it would today. In the early twentieth century, these Bible schools “did not require graduation from high school or even grade school, before admission,” and the education offered “was little more than a program of indoctrination in the Holiness ideology by rote memorization of scriptural proof-texts” (101). Admittedly, becoming ministers within the pentecostal movement potentially placed them in a higher social class than their parents had been able to enjoy, but their status as pentecostal ministers could not compare to the prestige a man of the cloth in an established denomination could attain. For pentecostal preachers, “The class character of their congregations, the emotionalism of their services, their meager education, and their employment in secular occupations, often of menial character—all denied them the status accorded other ministers” (107–108). Consequently, pentecostal pastors (and even denominational leaders) “lay in a sort of limbo between working and middle class. Never quite one nor the other, they were marginal men and women” (108). Similar to the leaders of the pentecostal movement, “The Pentecostal faithful everywhere were drawn from the humbler orders of society” (114). These included various ethnic groups, with substantial growth taking place among African Americans and Hispanics (mostly of Mexican descent), as well as among Native Americans and several groups of European ancestry, such as Scandinavians, Germans, and Italians. In light of these conditions, it is appropriate to describe pentecostalism as a marginal movement, which (at least initially) had a minimal impact on the centers of power in society. Many early pentecostals were operating from the margins; as they were building a church of the poor and for the poor, they often had neither the vision nor the means to invest in higher education. Granted, a number of the early pentecostal pioneers had received formal education, but overall the movement’s focus was on ministerial training, not on academic formation.7 In choosing this approach, 7  For instance, Eudorus N.  Bell (1866–1923), “one of the best-trained men to assume leadership in early Pentecostalism . . . had studied at Stetson University in Florida, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, and the University of Chicago Divinity School” (Blumhofer 1993, 82). However, it needs to be noted that Bell acquired this education as a Baptist minister, before he embraced pentecostalism.

2  THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PENTECOSTALISM AND HIGHER… 

27

early pentecostals mirrored the educational efforts of their evangelical counterparts. As Virginia Lieson Brereton, a former professor of history and writing at Harvard University, explains: “Pentecostal Bible schools resembled Bible schools of other fundamentalist traditions in most respects, except that they tended to struggle under scarcer economic resources and lower academic levels” (1990, 13). Operating under these confining circumstances, it would take considerable time until pentecostals went beyond training institutes and Bible schools and decided to have an impact through accredited colleges and universities as well.

References Alexander, Estrelda Y. 2005. The women of Azusa Street. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. ———. 2011. Black fire: One hundred years of African American Pentecostalism. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Anderson, Robert M. 1979. Vision of the disinherited: The making of American Pentecostalism. Peabody: Hendrickson. Anderson, Allan H. 2007. Spreading fires: The missionary nature of early Pentecostalism. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. ———. 2013. To the ends of the earth: Pentecostalism and the transformation of world Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2014. An introduction to Pentecostalism: Global charismatic Christianity. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, Kenneth J. 2004. A Pentecostal hermeneutic for the twenty-first century: Spirit, Scripture and community. London: T&T Clark International. Azusa Street papers, the, 1906–1908: The Apostolic faith, the original 13 issues. 2013. PentecostalBooks.com. Blumhofer, Edith L. 1993. Restoring the faith: The Assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Brereton, Virginia Lieson. 1990. Training God’s army: The American Bible school, 1880–1940. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Burtchaell, James Tunstead. 1998. The dying of the light: The disengagement of colleges and universities from their Christian churches. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Dayton, Donald W. 1987. Theological roots of Pentecostalism. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Durden, Robert F., and Timothy D.  Pyatt. 2011. Duke University. In The new encyclopedia of southern culture, ed. Charles Reagan Wilson, vol. 17, Education, ed. Clarence L. Mohr, 209–212. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Espinosa, Gastón. 2014. Latino Pentecostals in America: Faith and politics in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

28 

D. TOPF

Faupel, David W. 1996. The everlasting gospel: The significance of eschatology in the development of Pentecostal thought. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Gee, Donald. 1994. Foreword: A Pentecostal phenomenon. In The anointing of his Spirit, Smith Wigglesworth, ed. Wayne Warner, 11–14. Ventura: Regal Books. Gerber, Judi. 1998. University of Southern California. In International dictionary of university histories, ed. Carol Summerfield and Mary Elizabeth Devine, 619–622. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. Goff, James R., Jr. 1988. Fields white unto harvest: Charles F. Parham and the missionary origins of Pentecostalism. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press. Hittenberger, Jeffrey S. 2004. Globalization, “marketization,” and the mission of Pentecostal higher education in Africa. Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 26 (2 (Fall)): 182–215. Hofstadter, Richard. 1963. Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York: Vintage. Hollenweger, Walter J. 1972. The Pentecostals: The charismatic movement in the churches. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Holmes, Arthur F. [1975] 1987. The idea of a Christian college. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hyatt, Eddie, ed. 2006. Fire on earth: Eyewitness reports from the Azusa Street revival. Lake Mary: Creation House. Jacobsen, Douglas G., ed. 2006. A reader in Pentecostal theology: Voices from the first generation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. 2012. “Epistemology, ethos, and environment”: In search of a theology of Pentecostal theological education. Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 34 (2): 245–261. Kay, William K. 2009. Pentecostalism. London: SCM Press. King, Gerald W. 2011. Disfellowshiped: Pentecostal responses to fundamentalism in the United States, 1906–1943. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Laats, Adam. 2018. Fundamentalist u: Keeping the faith in American higher education. New York: Oxford University Press. Lyttle, Charles Harold. 1936. A sketch of the theological development of Harvard University, 1636–1805. Church History 5 (4): 301–329. Ma, Wonsuk. 2009. Pentecostal eschatology: What happened when the wave hit the west end of the ocean. Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 12 (1): 95–112. Macchia, Frank D. 1999. The struggle for global witness: Shifting paradigms in Pentecostal theology. In The globalization of Pentecostalism: A religion made to travel, ed. Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, 8–29. Oxford: Regnum Books International. MacRobert, Iain. 1988. The black roots and white racism of early Pentecostalism in the USA. London: Macmillan Press. Marsden, George M. 1994. The soul of the American university: From Protestant establishment to established nonbelief. New York: Oxford University Press.

2  THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PENTECOSTALISM AND HIGHER… 

29

Martin, Larry. 1999. The life and ministry of William J. Seymour and a history of the Azusa Street revival. Joplin: Christian Life Books. Mitchell, Daniel R. 2013. Harvard, John (1607–1638). In The popular encyclopedia of church history: The people, places, and events that shaped Christianity, ed. Edward E. Hindson and Daniel R. Mitchell, 168–169. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers. Morison, Samuel Eliot. [1935] 1995. The founding of Harvard College. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nañez, Rick M. 2005. Full gospel, fractured minds? A call to use God’s gift of the intellect. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Nel, Marius. 2017. Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism: Blood nephews? Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 158 (July): 57–71. ———. 2019. African Pentecostalism and eschatological expectations: He is coming back again! Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Noll, Mark A. 1994. The scandal of the evangelical mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Owens, Robert. 2001. The Azusa Street revival: The Pentecostal movement begins in America. In The century of the Holy Spirit: 100 years of Pentecostal and charismatic renewal, 1901–2001, ed. H.  Vinson Synan, 39–68. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Parham, Charles F. [1902] 2013. A voice crying in the wilderness. PentecostalBooks.com Purdy, Harlyn Graydon. 2015. A distinct twenty-first century Pentecostal hermeneutic. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Ramírez, Daniel. 2015. Migrating faith: Pentecostalism in the United States and Mexico in the twentieth century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Ringenberg, William C. 2006. The Christian college: A history of Protestant higher education in America. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Robeck, Cecil M., Jr. 2006. The Azusa Street mission and revival: The birth of the global Pentecostal movement. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Robins, Roger G. 2010. Pentecostalism in America. Santa Barbara: Praeger. Robinson, James. 2014. Divine healing: The years of expansion, 1906–1930: Theological variation in the transatlantic world. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Sánchez Walsh, Arlene M. 2003. Latino Pentecostal identity: Evangelical faith, self, and society. New York: Columbia University Press. Stephens, Randall J. 2010. The fire spreads: Holiness and Pentecostalism in the American South. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Synan, H. Vinson. [1971] 1997. The Holiness-Pentecostal tradition: Charismatic movements in the twentieth century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Topf, Daniel. 2020. Fundamentalism, marginalization, and eschatology: Historical, socio-economic, and theological factors influencing early Pentecostal theological education. Spiritus 5 (1): 99–119.

30 

D. TOPF

Vondey, Wolfgang. 2013. Pentecostalism: A guide for the perplexed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Wacker, Grant. 2001. Heaven below: Early Pentecostals and American culture. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Weston, William. 2003. The dying light and glowing embers of Presbyterian higher education. In Called to teach: The vocation of the Presbyterian educator, ed. Duncan S. Ferguson and William J. Weston, 3–8. Louisville: Geneva Press. Wilson, Lewis F. 2003. Bible institutes, colleges, universities. In The new international dictionary of Pentecostal and charismatic movements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. Van Der Maas, 372–380, Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Yong, Amos. 2010. In the days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and political theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2011. The Spirit of creation: Modern science and divine action in the Pentecostal-charismatic imagination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

CHAPTER 3

The Gradual Development of Pentecostal Higher Education

Given the limiting circumstances described in the previous chapter, it is understandable that pentecostal higher education developed over time, and that it did so in stages. This is also Lewis F. Wilson’s view when describing a historical development that began with small Bible institutes and later led to the establishment of four-year colleges, liberal arts schools, and universities (2003, 374–380). Accordingly, I distinguish between four major stages in the development of pentecostal higher education in this chapter: (1) the founding of early Bible schools and institutes that were usually unaccredited; (2) the development of Bible colleges as degree-­granting institutions; (3) the embracing of a broader educational vision by expanding into liberal arts colleges; and (4) the establishment of pentecostal universities through the offering of graduate degrees.

Stage 1: Bible Schools and Institutes Early pentecostals may have been skeptical, or even antagonistic, toward formal education, but they certainly were not against providing training opportunities for future ministers. Quite the contrary, short-term Bible schools and ministerial training institutes played a crucial role in the development of the early pentecostal movement (Hollenweger 1997, 31). After

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1_3

31

32 

D. TOPF

all, it was at a Bible school founded by Charles Parham that Agnes Ozman first spoke in tongues on January 1, 1901, an event that is considered of pivotal importance in pentecostal historiography (Wacker 2001, 60, 72, 106, 123). On the other side of the world, in Mukti, India, Pandita Ramabai’s (1858–1922) Bible school students also experienced an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, contributing to the global nature of pentecostalism as it developed in the first decade of the twentieth century (Anderson 2007, 77–89, 98–101, 2013, 25–33, 2014, 37–38, 139–140). Bethel Bible School and Ramabai’s Mukti Mission loom large in the pentecostal imagination, but they were not the only institutions of this kind, and Bible schools continued to play an important role in pentecostalism, particularly in North America (Kay and Davies 2017, 36). These early pentecostal training institutes suffered from a number of limitations. For instance, the Bible school Parham founded later in Houston, Texas, “provided ten weeks of intensive Pentecostal indoctrination” as one author puts it (Martin 1999, 27). This kind of early pentecostal schools was not only small and short-term in focus, but also characterized by a limited outlook. At Parham’s school, “the Bible was the only textbook”; in fact, “virtually all pentecostal educational programs used the Bible as the sole textbook” (Wacker 2001, 71). Unfortunately, by focusing exclusively on spirituality and knowing the Bible, pentecostal educators neglected other areas, such as preparing their students for a complex world in which a variety of theological opinions and philosophical viewpoints compete in the marketplace of ideas. By and large, early pentecostals placed quantity before quality when it came to their engagement in higher education. Training institutes to prepare people for ministry were launched by every major pentecostal denomination “within months or years of their founding,” and by 1930 American pentecostals had established “at least twenty” Bible schools (152). However, as pentecostal educator Paul W. Lewis notes, “after a short period of time many of these schools were closed or merged with others” (2007, 171). In addition, pentecostal missionaries also began to found schools overseas in order to train local believers to take on leadership roles in the various countries and cultures in which the pentecostal message was starting to spread (Anderson 2007, 57, 120, 260–271, 2013, 83, 90, 128–138, 2014, 245). Typically, theological concepts from the West were exported to the mission field, and so pentecostal theological education in the global South suffered from the same shortcomings that were prevalent in American pentecostalism. Despite the prejudice some

3  THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

33

pentecostals had against formal education, much was achieved in nonformal settings, but to tell the story of these efforts of equipping church ministers both at home and abroad would go beyond the scope of this research project (cf. Topf 2021). In the following, the focus is placed on selected schools that later developed into degree-granting colleges and universities. In the United States, one of the first Bible schools in this category was the Church of God Bible Training School (BTS) that began in Cleveland, Tennessee, on January 1, 1918, and which would eventually become Lee University (Crews 1990, 140). This small Bible institute started out with 12 students and 1 teacher who, quite remarkably in those days, was a woman: Nora Chambers (Vaughan 2018, 38). Apparently, Chambers had at first “insisted that a man should be chosen for that position,” but in the end she agreed to carry out this teaching ministry, which she did for six years (Roebuck 2017). Despite its humble beginnings, the school developed rapidly; the first 2 students graduated with their diplomas in April 1919, “and a correspondence program was initiated in September 1919, which increased the school’s overall enrollment to 788 students” (Conn 2017). Similarly, the Assemblies of God started early on with their educational endeavors, opening Southern California Bible School in 1920, which started off in the city of Los Angeles. Seven years later, the school moved to Pasadena and from there to Costa Mesa (in 1950) where today it is known as Vanguard University.1 The initial class had 32 students, and the school remained relatively small for several years (Wilson 1999, 10). It was a typical Bible school that combined study, character formation, and preparation for ministry, and so in 1933 “the school acquired a bus to help students assist in area Sunday schools and church services” (14). Another American pentecostal denomination that invested in theological education early on was the Foursquare Church (also known as the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel). Aimee Semple McPherson (1890–1944), the founder of the movement, opened Angelus Temple, “the Foursquare Church’s first place of assembly,” in Los Angeles on January 1, 1923, and “just five weeks later, about one hundred ministerial students enrolled in classes at the Echo Park Evangelistic and Missionary Training Institute.”2 In 1926, the training institute was moved 1   “History,” on Vanguard University’s website (https://www.vanguard.edu/about/ history). 2  “Heritage,” on Life Pacific University’s website (https://www.lifepacific.edu/heritage).

34 

D. TOPF

to a new building next to Angelus Temple, where it was briefly called International Institute of Foursquare Evangelism (IIFE) before it was renamed L.I.F.E. (Lighthouse of International Foursquare Evangelism)— an institution that would eventually become Life Pacific University in San Dimas, California (Becker 1945, 2). Throughout the Majority World, a few of the Bible schools and institutes also developed into colleges and universities. Compared to the United States, this usually happened at a later stage, and the initial efforts were often initiated by American missionaries. In Asia, for instance, Assemblies of God missionaries established the Full Gospel Bible College in Gunpo near Seoul, South Korea in 1953 (Carpenter 2008, 59). This school is significant for the history of global pentecostalism, because it was here that Jashil Choi (1915–1989) went “for theological training for her future ministry” and where she met David Yonggi Cho, who would later become her son-in-law (Ma 2005, 137). Cho is, of course, well-known for starting Yoido Full Gospel Church (YFGC), which eventually became the largest congregation in the world (Anderson 2014, 136, 152). However, he and his family also demonstrated commitment to pentecostal higher education; eventually, Cho founded Hansei University and his wife, Sunghae Kim, has been serving as the president of this institution for many years (Anderson 2013, 108). In Africa, several pentecostal schools also began as training institutes and Bible colleges that later developed into full-fledged universities. For instance, International Central Gospel Church (ICGC), an evangelical and charismatic church that “was officially inaugurated as a church on the 26th of February 1984, in Accra, Ghana,” began their educational endeavors just a few years later.3 In 1988, the church established a short-term pastoral training institute, which in 1991 was renamed Central Bible College and eventually became Central University.4 As is also the case in other parts of the global South, Latin America is home to a large number of pentecostal Bible schools and training institutes. The first pentecostal Bible school for Latin Americans was probably founded by the Assemblies of God missionary Gerard A.  Bailly, outside Caracas, Venezuela, in 1909 (Anderson 2013, 133). In Mexico, it was Alice Luce who in 1917 “began a night school to train Mexican preachers” in 3  “Our History” on International Central Gospel Church’s website (https://www.centralgospel.com/74). 4  “About CU” on Central University’s website (https://www.central.edu.gh/74).

3  THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

35

Monterrey (Anderson 2007, 195). However, these kinds of theological education institutions generally did not develop into pentecostal colleges and universities. Examples of institutions of pentecostal higher education with that kind of scope include the Faculdade Boas Novas in Brazil and Universidad Cristiana de las Asambleas de Dios in San Salvador (cf. Chap. 4). To summarize, early pentecostals accomplished much in the area of theological education and did so within a relatively brief time (Chai 2014; cf. McGee 2010, 153–156). However, it also needs to be highlighted that early pentecostal theological education remained, by and large, rudimentary. The Bible institutes of early pentecostals had several defining characteristics: they were short-term in nature, limited in scope, often dependent on an overpowering charismatic figure (such as the founder), and many of them closed within a few years. Given these circumstances, it is no surprise these institutions were usually unaccredited—this is something that would only change at a later stage, one characterized by increasing institutionalization.

Stage 2: Bible Colleges At some point, social structures tend to experience a transition away from charismatic leadership, moving instead toward increasing levels of institutionalization. The basic theories describing this development go back to German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920), who wrote about the tension between charisma and institutionalization in various spheres, including the political, legal, economic, social, religious, and cultural realms (Eisenstadt 1968). These dynamics have also influenced pentecostalism, even though the movement traditionally embraced egalitarianism, based on the theological concept of the priesthood of all believers. Wolfgang Vondey is aware of this dilemma and observes, “The unprecedented expansion of the movement around the world, the growth of membership, and the lack of organizational structures at the original revivals soon demanded a higher degree of leadership” (2013, 125). Consequently, the growing pentecostal movement has been characterized by “a high demand for institutionalization and institution-building” (125). As part of this process of institutionalization, adherents try to gain greater respectability in society, and it is expected that the leaders of the movement acquire some degree of formal education (Corey 2016, 68–69). Pentecostalism has been no exception in this regard, even though it remains a spontaneous movement that constantly seems to reinvent itself. As Walter J.  Hollenweger recognizes, things began to shift within

36 

D. TOPF

pentecostalism, in part because of changing eschatological expectations. These changes in eschatology had an effect on theological education as well: “As social conditions improve the fervent expectation of the imminent second coming disappears. It is still taught in theory, but is no longer a matter of experience. Pension funds are set up for pastors, and building and training programs which take years to complete are carried out” (1972, 417). Due to this combination of historical, theological, and social factors, pentecostals began to see the need for degree-granting schools, as the following example from Vanguard University’s history shows. This school had been founded primarily due to the initiative and vision of Harold K. Needham (1884–1952), who also became the institution’s first president.5 Needham “had ample reason to be pleased with the school’s progress and proud of its graduates,” but “he remained committed to providing ‘the finest possible course of study and training,’” and “for nearly a decade that goal had prompted him to consider adding a fourth year to make the school a degree-granting college” (Wilson 1999, 18). Needham had several reasons for considering this next step of institutional growth, as some alumni were continuing their education at other schools, and his three older daughters attended colleges as well. Most importantly, after 19 years of investing in theological education he was convinced “that the most highly trained graduate had become the most useful tool for Christ” (18). So he made the momentous decision to seek authorization from the State of California for the school to grant degrees. When his request was approved in 1939, Southern California Bible School became Southern California Bible College, the world’s first pentecostal college (18). Other schools within the Assemblies of God followed a similar trajectory. Northwest Bible Institute, for instance, became Northwest Bible College in 1949 (Pentecostal Evangel 1952, 7). At North Central Bible Institute, a four-year program was added to the school in 1955, and two years later its name was changed to North Central Bible College. Similarly, South-Eastern Bible Institute, located in Lakeland, Florida, was renamed Southeastern Bible College in 1956.6 5  Besides Harold Needham, D. W. Kerr (1856–1927) and W. C. Peirce (1894–1977) were also involved in the founding of the school. “History,” Vanguard University (https://www. vanguard.edu/about/history). 6   “Our History” on Northwest University’s website (https://www.northwestu.edu/ about/history/); “History” on North Central University’s website (https://www.north-

3  THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

37

The Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), also ventured into the area of degree-granting theological education when their Bible school began to offer four-year degrees in 1953 (Hughes 1966, 24). Similarly, in the Foursquare Church, L.I.F.E. became a four-year institution in the 1940s, and Eastern Bible Institute, “after consolidation with a number of other Bible Institutes in the northeast,” became Northeast Bible Institute in 1962.7 One year later, “the four-year Bible College program was officially inaugurated, in addition to the three-year program.” Similar developments began to take place on the international scene as well. For example, in Nigeria, Africa, Benson Idahosa (1938–1998) started what would become All Nations for Christ Bible Institute International (ANFCBII) in 1968, a school that began with offering just two-week courses. However, in 1971, the institute became a three-month program and was called New Covenant Bible School, while, four years later, nine-­ month courses were offered under the name of Nigeria for Christ Bible Institute. Beginning in 1981, “steps were taken to ensure that the academic credits of the Institute would be recognized abroad” and “a wider spectrum of subjects was introduced.”8 Today, besides various diplomas, ANFCBII also offers (unaccredited) bachelor’s and master’s degrees in theology. ANFCBII remains its own institution with a strong ministerial focus, but it became a stepping-stone for Idahosa to also establish a university, a dream that eventually came to pass in 2002 when Benson Idahosa University received a license from the federal government of Nigeria.9 In Singapore, the Assemblies of God missionary and pastor Naomi Dowdy in 1979 “envisioned a place where formal ministerial training would be available to leaders dedicated to serving churches and

central.edu/about/history/); “History” on Southeastern University’s website (https:// www.seu.edu/about-southeastern-university/history/). 7  “History” on University of Valley Forge’s website (https://valleyforge.edu/about/ history/). 8  “History” on ANFCBII’s website (https://anfcbii.sch.ng/history). 9  As Idahosa reports: “The Lord God woke me up at 4:00 a.m., sat me up in bed and said: I told you that I would build through you, a Bible School for all nations, and I have done so; I told you that I would open up for you avenues to preach my Word on television, and I have done so; I told you that I would open an [sic] hospital for mercy and evangelism, and I have done so; Now [sic], I am telling you to build a University and I will surely see it come to pass.” “History and Philosophy” on Benson Idahosa University’s website (https://www.biu. edu.ng/about-biu/history-and-philosophy/).

38 

D. TOPF

communities . . . in Asia” and founded Trinity School of the Bible.10 In 1983, the school was renamed Theological Centre for Asia (TCA), and five years later it was recognized by Singapore’s Ministry of Education as a religious school. In 1993, TCA received accreditation from the Asia Theological Association (ATA) and one year later from the Asia Pacific Theological Association (APTA). To have this kind of accredited theological institution with a pentecostal identity is especially significant in Singapore, a strategic city in Asia in which pentecostalism plays an important role. As Mathew Mathews observes, “The dramatic increase in Singapore’s Christian population in the last few decades has been greatly attributable to Pentecostal revival movements” (2019, 271). In addition, “All the four well-known mega-­ churches in Singapore, City Harvest Church, New Creation Church, Lighthouse Evangelism, and Faith Community Baptist Church . . . are Pentecostal in theology and practice, although independent of any international Pentecostal organization” (271). Independent megachurches like City Harvest usually have their own, nonaccredited in-house ministerial training (Wagner 2004, 119–140).11 In contrast, TCA College, being associated with Trinity Christian Centre (the largest Assemblies of God church in Singapore), offers a more formal education, and can therefore be classified as a Bible college in the pentecostal tradition. As highlighted above, some pentecostals were skeptical about theological education in general, while others supported it and worked toward building up degree-granting institutions. However, even those supporting such institutions usually saw them exclusively as tools to train future ministers for the church, such as evangelists, pastors, and missionaries. Consequently, the educational institutions of early pentecostalism were primarily training institutes and Bible colleges. Over time, however, pentecostals developed a vision (and acquired the necessary means) to establish liberal arts colleges and universities as well (Yong 2005, 62).

10   “History” on TCA College’s website (http://www.tca.edu.sg/en/why-tca/ why-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhytcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcahistory/). 11  City Harvest Church (CHC), for instance, runs a seven-month course called “School of Theology” (https://sot.chc.org.sg/).

3  THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

39

Stage 3: Liberal Arts Colleges Initially, the educational efforts of early pentecostals were focused on raising up men and women of God who would pastor churches as well as start new ones. By contrast, there was no vision to equip young people for vocations in various fields of society, outside of the church world. However, this began to change in the decades following World War II, the time period in which pentecostals began to establish liberal arts colleges where a wide range of subjects were taught. The theological foundations for such a comprehensive approach to higher education had been laid beforehand, particularly through contributions within the Reformed tradition with its emphasis on the integration of faith and reason and the development of a Christian worldview (Sire [1976] 2020). The term Weltanschauung was first used by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), but a Christian perspective on the subject was developed through Reformed thinkers, such as James Orr (1844–1913) and Abraham Kuyper (1873–1920) (Naugle 2002, 6–25). Both Orr and Kuyper were Europeans (from Scotland and the Netherlands, respectively) born in the nineteenth century, but it was especially in twentiethcentury America that an evangelical worldview applied to education would come to fruition through the development of Christian liberal arts colleges. One of the most influential voices advocating for the value of a Christian liberal arts education was Arthur F. Holmes (1924–2011), a professor of philosophy at Wheaton College. His ideas became particularly widespread when he wrote The Idea of a Christian College in 1975, a book that has since then become a classic in its field. Holmes begins by explaining what the purpose of a Christian college is not—it is not (at least not primarily) designed to defend the faith, to offer religious activities on campus, or to train people for the ministry, nor to help students find Christian friends or “even a life partner” ([1975] 1987, 6). Rather, argues Holmes, “college is for education, the liberal arts college for a liberal education, and the Christian college for a Christian education” (6). The distinctive of a Christian college is “an education that cultivates the creative and active integration of faith and learning, of faith and culture”; it has a constructive task by developing “Christian perspectives in all areas of life and thought” as it retains “a unifying worldview and

40 

D. TOPF

brings it to bear in understanding and participating in the various arts and sciences” (8, 9). More recent voices advocating for the integration of faith and learning include Robert A. Harris (2014), David N. Entwistle (2015), and David S.  Dockery  (the chancellor of Trinity International University) and Christopher W.  Morgan (2018). Traditionally, pentecostal authors have not been well-known for writing about these topics, but this is beginning to change (O’Keefe 2018). For instance, in a volume edited by Paul Lewis and Martin William Mittelstadt (2016) entitled What’s so Liberal About the Liberal Arts?, the various contributors take a multidisciplinary approach to discuss matters related to the integration of faith and learning. In addition, pentecostal scholars have also been pointing out the limitations of a worldview focus in Christian education, arguing for a more holistic approach that emphasizes not only the mind, but the heart as well (Yong 2013, 186–187, 2014, 90–92; 99). Equipped with a more comprehensive vision of preparing students for a variety of vocations, American pentecostals began to further develop their educational institutions. In 1955, the Assemblies of God made the strategic (and then highly controversial) decision to establish a “denominationally sponsored liberal arts college” in Springfield, Missouri, which was called Evangel College and later became Evangel University (Blumhofer 1996, 565; cf. Lewis and Mittelstadt 2016, x). Other institutions with a similar ethos soon followed. For instance, Southern Bible College became Southern California College in 1959, when several liberal arts subjects were added to the curriculum—a process that had already begun in 1950 when “the college effectively recognized that it was also preparing students for careers in areas of service other than the traditional ministry positions” (Wilson 1999, 21–22). Similarly, Lee College (from the Church of God in Cleveland, Tennessee) gained its accreditation as a four-year liberal arts college in 1968.12 In Ghana, Africa, E.  Kingsley Larbi, the director of Central Bible College, went to the University of Edinburgh for doctoral studies in order to advance his own education. After returning from the United Kingdom, Larbi in 1996 initiated a process of expanding the college so that its programs offered would go beyond ministerial training, and the institution was now known as Central Christian College (Hittenberger 2004, 183). 12  “Lee University Set for 100th Birthday,” as reported by the Cleveland Daily Banner (http://clevelandbanner.com/stories/lee-university-centennial,71987).

3  THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

41

The underlying vision for this expansion was to create a pentecostal institution of higher education “that would train leaders for many sectors of Ghanaian society” (183). Three years later, in 1999, a government university approved Central University College as an affiliate, recognizing that it not only had a school of theology and missions, but also a school of business management and administration, along with other programs.13 In Singapore, TCA also took steps toward a wider vision of the education it could offer. In 2005, Dominic Yeo was appointed senior pastor of Trinity Christian Centre and Vice-Chancellor of TCA, and he “expanded the school’s vision from a theological seminary to a multi-disciplinary college” (Cavaness Parks 2016, 106, 137).14 One year later, four different schools were established; besides a School of Theology, the institution now also had a School of Counseling, a School of Creative Arts, and a School of Leadership. Reflecting this new scope, the institution changed its name from Theological Centre for Asia to TCA College.15 Granted, due to its limited number of degree programs, TCA College is still quite far from being a full-fledged liberal arts college or university. However, it is worth noting that the transition from a theological institution to a multidisciplinary college was envisioned by Yeo, a leader who has a secular background (in business), rather than a traditional theological formation—a phenomenon that can be observed in a number of growing pentecostal churches and ministries, including those that start pentecostal universities (Anderson 2014, 242).

13  Today, as Central University, the institution consists of eight schools, including business, architecture, arts and social sciences, law, pharmacy, engineering and technology, medicine, and the school of graduate studies. “About CU,” on Central University’s website (https:// www.central.edu.gh/74). 14   “History” on TCA College’s website (http://www.tca.edu.sg/en/why-tca/ why-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhytcawhy-tcawhy-tcawhy-tcahistory/). 15  As mentioned, TCA College is affiliated with Trinity Christian Centre, the largest Assemblies of God (AG) church in Singapore. However, the official AG Bible school/seminary in Singapore is a separate institution, which was founded in 1977 as Bible Institute of Singapore (BIS) and is now called ACTS College (http://acts.edu.sg/).

42 

D. TOPF

Stage 4: Pentecostal Universities Universities are prestigious institutions of considerable influence and much could be said about their historical, socioeconomic, and political significance, but such an undertaking would go far beyond the scope of this chapter (Kerr 2001, 115). Here my much more modest purpose is to point out some of the differences between (liberal arts) colleges and (research) universities. I do this based on The Idea of a Christian College by Todd C. Ream and Perry L. Glanzer which, as the subtitle reveals, is A Reexamination for Today’s University (2013). While Holmes’s classic from 1975 purposely focuses on undergraduate education and teaching, Ream and Glanzer focus on universities, which “provide the unique institutional home where both the discovery and transmission . . . of complex knowledge takes place” (8). This distinction between colleges and universities has historical roots, for “while Europeans created universities with up to four different faculties (e.g., theology, law, medicine, liberal arts), American higher education started with more narrowly focused institutions called colleges” (9). These colleges typically were operated by Christian communities, “required a standard liberal arts curriculum and residential living, and focused more on the teaching of past knowledge than the discovery of new knowledge” (10). However, without working toward the discovery of new knowledge, the educational task of higher education is incomplete. This situation is especially problematic within Christian higher education, as it forces professors and students to work within non-Christian frameworks. Accordingly, Ream and Glanzer argue, “We also need educational institutions where scholars model the creation and redemption of learning to students and do not merely teach students how to integrate faith into learning produced by the secular academy” (13). Fortunately, things are beginning to change as “something new is occurring. Christian research universities are developing from the few remaining Christian universities and many Christian colleges are now renaming themselves universities in the light of the fact that they offer a number of graduate programs and degrees” (11). These newly emerging Christian universities belong to different denominations, of course, but in the following the focus remains on pentecostal institutions of higher education. Notably, the first universities within the global renewal movement did not grow out of classical pentecostalism, but were established by players from within the charismatic and independent spectrum. In the United

3  THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

43

States, the first pentecostal universities were Oral Roberts University (ORU) and Regent University, established in 1963 and 1977, respectively. While theological institutions within classical pentecostal denominations slowly developed into Bible colleges and then liberal arts colleges, ORU and Regent were established as full-range universities from day one. The charismatic nature of these two universities may at first not be so obvious. Regent’s motto is “Christian Leadership to Change the World,” and on its website it describes itself as a “Christ-centered institution,” which is “committed to an evangelical interpretation and application of the Christian faith.”16 ORU’s self-description is more charismatic in nature, as its mission statement includes the goal to “develop Spirit-empowered leaders.”17 In any case, in an article on North American Pentecostalism, David Daniels III identifies both ORU and Regent as “major charismatic educational institutions” (2014, 86; cf. Ringenberg 2006, 186, 220). As the name indicates, ORU was founded by (Granville) Oral Roberts (1918–2009), a charismatic minister who became well-known as a faith healer and televangelist (Harrell 1985). Regent was founded by M. G. (Pat) Robertson in 1977, then under the name of CBN University, since Robertson’s platform was the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), which he had founded in 1960 (Harrell 2010). Roberts began his ministry with the Pentecostal Holiness Church but became a Methodist later in life, while Robertson has a Southern Baptist background. Both identified with the charismatic movement that began to influence many Christian denominations toward a more Spirit-filled life in the 1960s. It is likely that being associated with large denominations, like the Baptist and the Methodist church, helped these founders to acquire the necessary vision and resources for a project as ambitious as founding a Christian university. Over time, the classical denominations within pentecostalism expanded their higher education efforts toward universities as well (Fig. 3.1). At the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), Lee College was growing continually with Charles Paul Conn as its president, and in 1997 was renamed Lee University, consisting now of four units (College of Liberal Arts and 16  “Vision and Mission” on Regent University’s website (https://www.regent.edu/about-­ regent/vision-mission/). Also, on the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) member list, Regent is listed as “interdenominational” (https://www.cccu.org/ members_and_affiliates/). 17  “Vision and Mission” on ORU’s website (https://oru.edu/about-oru/vision-mission. php). On the CCCU list, no category is shown for ORU under the rubric “denomination” (https://www.cccu.org/members_and_affiliates/).

44 

D. TOPF

Fig. 3.1  Development of selected pentecostal universities

Sciences, School of Music, School of Ministry, and College of Education).18 For the Assemblies of God, Vanguard achieved university status in 1999 “when Southern California College registered with the Secretary of State’s Office as Vanguard University of Southern California,” establishing an institution that “is comprised of the Undergraduate College and the School for Graduate and Professional Studies.”19 Within the Foursquare Church, Life Pacific College became Life Pacific University in 2019 “through the initial development of two schools—a School of Arts & Sciences and a School of Theology & Ministry—with each school offering multiple degree programs at both the undergraduate and graduate level.”20 Outside the United States, pentecostal institutions of higher education have been developing as well, particularly on the African continent 18  For some at Lee, changing from college to university status was a controversial decision, and two faculty members voted against it. Donald (Don) N. Bowdle (1936–2013) explained his decision as follows: “I know a university when I see one, and we are not one.” Cited in: “Hundred Year Journey: The Lee University Story” (https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=7BevPTdSfPg&t=4461s). 19  “History” on Vanguard University’s website (https://www.vanguard.edu/about/history). Wilson summarizes the development as follows, “By the mid-nineties, it was clear that the institution which began in 1920 as a Bible school, had grown into a Bible college by 1939 and a regionally-accredited liberal arts college by 1964 was poised for the move to comprehensive university status” (1999, 58). 20  “Life Pacific College Announces Move to University Status in 2019,” LPU Press Room, May 30, 2017 (https://www.lifepacific.edu/article/life-pacific-college-announces-moveuniversity-status-2019).

3  THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

45

(Carpenter 2012). As Jeff Hittenberger observes regarding the development of pentecostal Bible schools that then turn into colleges and universities, “this pattern is familiar across denominations and across nations” (2004, 198). However, the speed of these developments in Africa is remarkable: “While Southern California Bible School took 79  years to become Vanguard University, Central Bible College of Accra, Ghana, took only 9  years to become Central University College” (198). As highlighted above, the first pentecostal universities in the United States (ORU and Regent) were not founded by classical pentecostals, but by leaders from within the charismatic movement. Similarly, The first three Pentecostal universities established in Africa have been established by neo-Pentecostals, relative late-comers to the Pentecostal experience arising from the worldwide Charismatic movement of the 1960s and ’70s, rather than from classical Pentecostals, who have been working in Africa for more than 80 years. More research is necessary to explore why, but initial reflections include the idea that the “prosperity” orientation of neo-Pentecostals . . . is coupled with a this-worldly concern for engagement with and success in the social, economic, and political systems of a nation. (210)

Occasionally, pentecostal universities in Africa were based on other educational efforts a church or ministry had started, but did not necessarily pertain to the area of theological education. For instance, Rhema University Nigeria began when Emma Okorie, the president of Living Word Ministries, set up several primary and secondary schools in 1987. Given the success of these schools, “it became clear that Living Word Ministries would provide much service to the nation by venturing into the area of tertiary education.”21 Consequently, Okorie founded Rhema University in 2009, “as a way of producing God-fearing leaders and also providing access to University education in Nigeria.”22 More recently, additional pentecostal universities have been founded in various parts of Africa, such as Malawi Assemblies of God University (2013), Anchor 21  “About Rhema University,” on Rhema University’s website (https://rhemauniversity. edu.ng/about.php). 22  “Our President,” on the website of Living Word Ministries (http://lwmng.org/ our-president/).

46 

D. TOPF

University Lagos (2016), and Precious Cornerstone University (2017). Much more could be said about what pentecostal higher education looks like today in Africa and other parts of the world—but that will be the topic of the following chapter.

References Anderson, Allan H. 2007. Spreading fires: The missionary nature of early Pentecostalism. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. ———. 2013. To the ends of the earth: Pentecostalism and the transformation of world Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2014. An introduction to Pentecostalism: Global charismatic Christianity. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Becker, Raymond. 1945. L.I.F.E.  Bible College. The Foursquare Magazine (February): 2, 28. Blumhofer, Edith L. 1996. Pentecostal colleges and seminaries: A selective overview. In Religious higher education in the United States: A source book, ed. Thomas C. Hunt and James C. Carper, 557–569. London: Routledge. Carpenter, Joel A. 2008. New evangelical universities: Cogs in a world system or players in a new game? In Interpreting contemporary Christianity: Global processes and local identities, ed. Ogbu U. Kalu and Alaine Low, 151–186. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2012. New Christian universities and the conversion of cultures. Evangelical Review of Theology 36 (1): 14–30. Cavaness Parks, Barbara. 2016. Pioneering missionary women in Asia and the Pacific Rim. In What’s so liberal about the liberal arts? Integrated approaches to Christian formation, ed. Paul W.  Lewis and Martin William Mittelstadt, 123–140. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Chai, Teresa. 2014. Pentecostal theological education and ministerial formation. In Pentecostal mission and global Christianity, ed. Wonsuk Ma, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, and Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, 343–359. Oxford: Regnum Books International. Conn, D.  Bruce. 2017. Lee University. Tennessee Encyclopedia, October 8. https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entries/lee-­university/. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Corey, Barry. 2016. Liberal arts and the Assemblies of God: A history and analysis of a strained alliance. In What’s so liberal about the liberal arts? Integrated approaches to Christian formation, ed. Paul W.  Lewis and Martin William Mittelstadt, 65–81. Eugene: Pickwick Publications.

3  THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

47

Crews, Mickey. 1990. The Church of God: A social history. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Daniels, David D., III. 2014. North American Pentecostalism. In The Cambridge companion to Pentecostalism, ed. Cecil M. Robeck Jr. and Amos Yong, 73–92. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dockery, David S., and Christopher W. Morgan, eds. 2018. Christian higher education: Faith, teaching, and learning in the evangelical tradition. Wheaton: Crossway. Eisenstadt, S.N., ed. 1968. Max Weber on charisma and institution building: Selected papers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Entwistle, David N. 2015. Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration. 3rd ed. Eugene: Cascade Books. Harrell, David Edwin, Jr. 1985. Oral Roberts: An American life. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ———. 2010. Pat Robertson: A life and legacy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Harris, Robert A. 2014. Faithful mind, thoughtful faith: Integrating faith and learning. Tustin: VirtualSalt. Hittenberger, Jeffrey S. 2004. Globalization, “marketization,” and the mission of Pentecostal higher education in Africa. Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 26 (2): 182–215. Hollenweger, Walter J. 1972. The Pentecostals: The charismatic movement in the churches. Minneapolis: Augsburg. ———. 1997. Pentecostalism: Origins and developments worldwide. Peabody: Hendrickson. Holmes, Arthur F. [1975] 1987. The idea of a Christian college. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hughes, Ray H. 1966. The transition of church-related junior colleges to senior colleges, with implications for Lee College. EdD dissertation, University of Tennessee. Kay, William K., and Andrew Davies. 2017. Pentecostal universities: Theory and history. Pentecost Journal of Theology and Mission 2 (1): 33–42. Kerr, Clark. 2001. The uses of the university. 5th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lewis, Paul W. 2007. Explorations in Pentecostal theological education. Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 10 (2): 161–176. Lewis, Paul W., and Martin William Mittelstadt, eds. 2016. What’s so liberal about the liberal arts? Integrated approaches to Christian formation. Eugene: Pickwick Publications.

48 

D. TOPF

Ma, Julie C. 2005. Asian women and Pentecostal ministry. In Asian and Pentecostal: The charismatic face of Christianity in Asia, ed. Allan Anderson and Edmond Tang. Oxford: Regnum Books International. Martin, Larry. 1999. The life and ministry of William J. Seymour and a history of the Azusa Street revival. Joplin: Christian Life Books. Mathews, Mathew. 2019. Pentecostalism in Singapore: History, adaptation and future. In Asia Pacific Pentecostalism, ed. Denise A. Austin, Jacqueline Grey, and Paul W. Lewis, 271–294. Leiden: Brill. McGee, Gary B. 2010. Miracles, missions, and American Pentecostalism. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Naugle, David K., Jr. 2002. Worldview: The history of a concept. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. O’Keefe, Dean David. 2018. Pentecostal pedagogy: Integrating elements of a Pentecostal worldview in the classroom at Alphacrucis College. DMin dissertation, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. Pentecostal Evangel, The. 1952. They go into all the world. The Pentecostal Evangel (August 17): 7, 10. Ream, Todd C., and Perry L.  Glanzer. 2013. The idea of a Christian college: A reexamination for today’s university. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Ringenberg, William C. 2006. The Christian college: A history of Protestant higher education in America. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Roebuck, David G. 2017. Nora Chambers and the unseen guest. Evangel Magazine, September 19. https://www.evangelmagazine.com/2017/09/ nora-­chambers-­unseen-­guest/. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Sire, James W. [1976] 2020. The universe next door: A basic worldview catalogue. 6th ed. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Topf, Daniel. 2021. Pentecostal theological education in the Majority World: A century of overcoming obstacles and gaining new ground. Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 24 (1): 81–96. Vaughan, Benson. 2018. The influence of music on the development of the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee). Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Vondey, Wolfgang. 2013. Pentecostalism: A guide for the perplexed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Wacker, Grant. 2001. Heaven below: Early Pentecostals and American culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner, C. Peter. 2004. Changing church: How God is leading his church into the future. Ventura: Regal. Wilson, Lewis F. 1999. A vine of his own planting: Vanguard University of Southern California: The first eight years. Costa Mesa: Vanguard University. ———. 2003. Bible institutes, colleges, universities. In The new international dictionary of Pentecostal and charismatic movements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. Van Der Maas, 372–380, Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

3  THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

49

Yong, Amos. 2005. Academic glossolalia? Pentecostal scholarship, multi-­ disciplinarity, and the science-religion conversation. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 14 (1): 61–80. ———. 2013. Whence and whither in evangelical higher education? Dispatches from a shifting frontier—A review essay. Christian Scholar’s Review 42 (2): 179–192. ———. 2014. Beyond the evangelical-ecumenical divide for theological education in the twenty-first century: A Pentecostal assist. Theological Education 49 (1): 87–102.

CHAPTER 4

A Global Overview of Pentecostal Higher Education

Traditionally, the United States has been a strong region for pentecostal higher education, and this continues to be the case. As described above, it was in the United States that some of the earliest pentecostal Bible institutes, Bible colleges, and universities started, and many of these institutions continue to be influential. At the same time, with the general center of gravity of Christianity (and pentecostalism in particular) turning toward the global South, it becomes increasingly important to examine the status of pentecostal higher education in Africa, Asia, and Latin America as well (Anderson 2013, 1–3, 253). In the following, I begin my global overview of pentecostal higher education with Africa, which is now the continent with the largest number of pentecostal universities. Asia (which here includes Australia) and Latin America are important areas of the world in describing global pentecostalism as well, but as this overview will show, their involvement in pentecostal higher education is currently quite limited. The taillight in this regard, however, is clearly Europe, which does not have a single pentecostal university at this point. In European countries, higher education is dominated by public institutions that are mostly funded through the contributions of taxpayers, which makes it difficult for small minorities like evangelicals or pentecostals to compete by establishing their own colleges and universities. In contrast, North America (here understood as the United States and Canada), the last region to be considered in this © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1_4

51

52 

D. TOPF

overview, places greater emphasis on religious liberty and private initiative, which contributes to a more diversified landscape in higher education (Bok 2013, 15–18).

Pentecostal Higher Education in Africa In sub-Saharan Africa, pentecostalism has experienced explosive growth that has often been fueled by the dynamic outreach of various indigenous megachurches and movements that have considerable impact in areas of influence like music, the arts and media, politics, and education (Lindhardt 2015). Impacting the latter is of particular significance in Africa where national governments are often unable to cope with the growing demand for institutions of higher education and where many existing universities are plagued by problems of corruption, chronic strikes, violent cult groups, and lack of resources (Gaiya 2014, 28). Christian churches have stepped up to fill this gap with their own institutions, and this includes several pentecostal universities, particularly in countries like Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya. Some of these pentecostal universities also mentioned in the literature are Benson Idahosa University, Central University, Covenant University, Crawford University, Dominion University College, Joseph Babalola University, Landmark University, Redeemer’s University, and Uganda Pentecostal University (Burgess 2020, 113–125). Several of the pentecostal universities in Africa belong to classical pentecostalism. At times, this orientation is indicated by the name of the institution, such as is the case with Evangel University Akaeze in Nigeria (belonging to the Assemblies of God), Malawi Assemblies of God University, and McPherson University, which is an initiative of the Foursquare Church in Nigeria. Occasionally, the pentecostal background of a particular school is mentioned on its website, such as at Central University, which “is an educational initiative of the International Central Gospel Church (ICGC),” or at Kag East University (in Nairobi, Kenya) that describes itself as a “premier Pentecostal University for training people for relevant ministry.”1 In some cases, the pentecostal or charismatic identity of the institution is not directly highlighted on its website but becomes clear once one looks 1  See the homepages of Central University (https://www.central.edu.gh/74) and Kag East University (https://east.ac.ke/).

4  A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

53

at the founder or the ministry standing behind the university. The proprietor of Anchor University Lagos (in Nigeria), for instance, is Deeper Christian Life Ministry (DCLM), a ministry that is especially known for its megachurch, Deeper Life Bible Church, which started as a Bible study group of 15 people in 1973 and today has over 120,000 members.2 The church’s doctrinal statement includes a section on “Holy Ghost Baptism” and its founding pastor, William Folorunso Kumuyi, grew up as an Anglican but then “became a pentecostal in the Apostolic Faith Church” (Anderson 2013, 236). Covenant University (CU) is another example of a pentecostal school growing out of a Nigerian megachurch; on CU’s website the beginnings of the institution are narrated as follows: Covenant University is a product of the Liberation Commission that God gave to Bishop Oyedepo in a May 1981 vision-encounter. The drive to embark on the process of founding CU came about October of 1999, one month after the dedication of Faith Tabernacle, the largest church auditorium in the world, built in one year with only local resources.3

This kind of visionary language is characteristic of neo-pentecostal endeavors, and David Oyedepo is frequently mentioned in the literature discussing African pentecostalism (Gifford 2015, 115–135). It therefore seems appropriate to identify Central University as a pentecostal institution of higher education in Africa (see Table 4.1, where the institutions are listed in alphabetical order). Several of the pentecostal universities listed here enroll a few thousand students, which is especially remarkable considering how young many of these institutions are. Landmark University in Nigeria, for instance, was founded in 2011 and had 2600 students already in 2014; Pentecost University in Ghana enrolls around 3000 students; and Joseph Ayo Babalola University hosts over 4000 students.4 Other pentecostal schools have been able to achieve remarkable growth as well, notably Covenant University (Ota, Nigeria) that already had 1500 students in its very first 2  “Pastor W.F. Kumuyi” on Deeper Christian Life Ministry’s website (https://dclm.org/ about/w-f-kumuyi/). 3  “Our History” on Covenant University’s website (https://covenantuniversity.edu.ng/ About-Us/Our-History#.Xj9uL0BFzVI). 4   “Student Life” on Landmark University’s website (https://lmu.edu.ng/life-lmu/ student-life).

54 

D. TOPF

Table 4.1  Pentecostal colleges and universities in Africa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Name

Founded in

Location

All Nations University College Anchor University Lagos Benson Idahosa University Central University Christ Apostolic University College Covenant University Crawford University Dominion University

1996 2016 1992 1988 2010 2002 2005 2019

9 Dominion University College 10 Evangel University Akaeze

2009 2012

11 Hezekiah University 12 Joseph Ayo Babalola University

2015 2006

13 Kag East University 14 Kings University

1989 2015

15 Landmark University

2011

16 Malawi Assemblies of God University 17 McPherson University

2013 2012

18 Mountain Top University

2015

19 20 21 22 23

2013 2003 2017 2005 2003

Koforidua, Ghana Lagos, Nigeria Benin City, Nigeria Miotso, Accra, Ghana Kumasi, Ghana Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria Igbesa, Ogun State, Nigeria City of Faith, Oyo State, Nigeria Accra, Ghana Akaeze, Ebonyi State, Nigeria Umudi, Imo State, Nigeria Ikeji Arakeji, Osun S., Nigeria Nairobi, Kenya Ode Omu, Osun State, Nigeria Omu-Aran, Kwara State, Nigeria Lilongwe, Malawi Seriki Sotayo, Ogun State, Nigeria Prayer City, Ogun State, Nigeria Lilongwe, Malawi Kaneshie, Accra, Ghana Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria Ede, Osun State, Nigeria Accra, Ghana

2009 1990 2011 2001 2012

Aba, Abia State, Nigeria Lokoja, Kogi State, Nigeria Ogwa, Edo State, Nigeria Fort Portal, Uganda Bindura, Zimbabwe

24 25 26 27 28

Pentecostal Life University Pentecost University Precious Cornerstone University Redeemer’s University Regent University College of Science and Technology Rhema University Salem University Samuel Adegboyega University Uganda Pentecostal University Zimbabwe Ezekiel Guti University

4  A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

55

year (in 2002), growing to 15,000 students in 2017 (Burgess 2020, 114), and Central University, which had around 8400 undergraduate students in 2014, making it the “largest private University in Ghana.”5 Of course, not all African pentecostal universities have this kind of size; there are also many smaller ones. Samuel Adegboyega University in Nigeria and Kag East University, for instance, both had around 500 students at the time of writing.6 In any case, pentecostal institutions of higher education in sub-Saharan Africa cannot only be characterized in terms of quantity, but are often of exceptional quality as well. For example, Alfred Olwa, a Ugandan scholar, acknowledges that “Pentecostals have excelled in the field of Christian education” (2016, 177), and the Ghanaian theological educator J.  Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu highlights that Covenant University and Central University “are some of the best such private universities in Africa” (2016, xxxiii).7 Although improvements are visible, Africa is currently still the most poverty-stricken continent on earth, and these socioeconomic realities are affecting higher education as well, making sub-Saharan Africa “the most educationally disenfranchised region of the world” (Carpenter 2012, 16; cf. Altbach 2016, x, 174, 176). In response to these challenges, pentecostal universities often place an emphasis on nation-building, something that is also revealed in their vision and mission statements. The vision of Salem University, for instance, “is to be a center of excellence for the production of graduates who are worthy in learning and character as well as sound in mind, body and spirit for outstanding leadership and global impact,” while “the mission of Rhema University is to produce for Nigeria, leaders to help meet the challenges of development in this age of globalization and to cultivate in the students profound professional expertise and high moral character.”8 5  “Our History” on Covenant University’s website (https://covenantuniversity.edu.ng/ About-Us/Our-History#.Xj9TykBFzVI); “Partnerships” on Central University’s website (https://www.central.edu.gh/149). 6   Personal email communication with the registrar’s office of Samuel Adegboyega University, February 8, 2020. 7  See also Ogbu U.  Kalu reporting concerning higher education in Nigeria that “the national Universities’ Commission declared that Covenant University ranked first among twenty-four private universities and enjoyed as many accredited courses/programs as the best among the old-generation of federal government-funded universities” (2008, 131), as well as the rankings mentioned by Richard Burgess (2020, 114). 8  “About Rhema University” on the institution’s website (https://rhemauniversity.edu. ng/about.php); “About Us” on Precious Cornerstone University’s website (https://pcu. edu.ng/about-us).

56 

D. TOPF

Writing about African pentecostalism, the Nigerian scholar Ogbu U.  Kalu (1944–2009) recognizes this phenomenon as well and states: “Many churches, especially Pentecostal, have founded private universities as a means of changing the moral temper of nations through faith-based education” (2008, 125). Driven by the desire to bring transformation to their nation and the world through Spirit-empowered higher education, pentecostal universities in Africa aspire to offer highly relevant majors to their students. Landmark University, for example, focuses on agriculture, thereby addressing the essential challenge of food insecurity that exists in countries like Nigeria. Accordingly, the vision of Landmark University is “to be a leading world class university, by spearheading an agrarian revolution on the African continent through the exploration of hidden treasures in the mother-earth thereby restoring the dignity of the black race.”9 Pentecostal universities in Africa as a whole offer a wide range of undergraduate degrees to their students, including banking, biology, business, computer science, engineering, law, nursing, pharmacy, psychology, sociology, statistics, and tourism.10 Interestingly, not all the pentecostal universities listed above (Table 4.1) offer a degree in theology or ministerial studies. Benson and Covenant are both large universities offering a wide range of undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate programs, but nothing in the area of theology. This phenomenon is also observable at smaller schools; Precious Cornerstone University, for instance, offers 12 Bachelor of Science (BSc) degrees, such as in accounting, computer science, and microbiology—but none directly related to Christian ministry.11 In fact, out of the 26 pentecostal institutions listing their programs on their websites, only 13 offer programs in theology, which are often characterized as “religious studies.”12 9  “Vision and Mission” on Landmark University’s website (https://lmu.edu.ng/about-­ lmu/vision-and-mission). Science and technology are also crucial for a nation’s development, and “Regent University College of Science and Technology in Accra, Ghana, is perhaps the first Pentecostal institution launched specifically to prepare students in the sciences” (Hittenberger 2016, 60). 10  For instance, “Colleges” on Covenant University’s website (https://covenantuniversity. edu.ng/Colleges) and “Academics” on Redeemer’s University’s website (https://run.edu. ng/usite/academics/). 11   “Programs” on Precious Cornerstone University’s website (https://pcu.edu.ng/ undergraduate-programs/). 12  As described on the websites of All Nations University College (https://anuc.edu.gh/ admissions/programmes); Anchor University Lagos (https://aul.edu.ng/index.php/academics/); Central University (https://www.central.edu.gh/program?863); Dominion

4  A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

57

At Kag East University, theology is a prominent feature, so much so that this institution is barely more than a Bible college. The subjects offered in undergraduate studies are counseling psychology, biblical studies, intercultural studies (missions), Christian education, and business. In addition, the school’s graduate program only offers one degree at this point: ministerial studies. Including Kag East, 13 of the institutions listed above (Table 4.1) offer graduate degrees, covering a wide range of possibilities (such as architecture, mass communication, statistics, theology, and theatre). However, at Malawi Assemblies of God University (MAGU), the graduate degrees offered are limited to the areas of ministry and psychology, and doctoral degrees (DMin and PhD) are limited to the area of theology. Currently, only seven African pentecostal universities offer doctoral studies (Benson Idahosa, Central, Covenant, Crawford, MAGU, Redeemer’s, and Regent), which could be an indicator that many African pentecostal institutions of higher education are primarily teaching institutions at this point. Overall, it is impressive how far African pentecostal universities have come in recent years. A ranking of the top global pentecostal universities in 2019 compiled by the organization uniRank even ranks Covenant University (from Nigeria) in first place, before Evangel University and other American pentecostal universities.13 Several other Nigerian University College (https://duc.edu.gh/courses/); Evangel University (https://www. evangeluniversity.edu.ng/#); Hezekiah University (https://www.hezekiah.edu.ng/unihezportfolio/fhum/); Kag East University (https://east.ac.ke/Course+Offered); Kings University (https://www.kingsuniversity.edu.ng/index.php/content/admission-­ requirements.html); Malawi Assemblies of God University (https://magu.ac.mw/courses/); Pentecost University (https://pentvars.edu.gh/academics/programmes/?type=undergradu ate); Regent University College (https://regent.edu.gh/index.php/academics/school-­ departments); Samuel Adegboyega University (https://www.sau.edu.ng/admission/undergraduate.php); Zimbabwe Ezekiel Guti University (https://www.zegu.ac.zw/Admissions/ ProgramsSummary). These websites were also used for the following discussion about graduate programs. Benson Idahosa University (https://www.biu.edu.ng/faculties/); Covenant University (https://covenantuniversity.edu.ng/Colleges/PGS#.XkWpbkBFxMs); Crawford University (https://crawforduniversity.edu.ng/crawford/pgschool/); Joseph Ayo Babalola University (https://jabu.edu.ng/academics/programmes/postgraduate/); Redeemer’s University (https://foh.run.edu.ng/department/); Salem University (https://www.salemuniversity.edu.ng/postgraduate-admission/); Zimbabwe Ezekiel Guti University (https:// www.zegu.ac.zw/Admissions/ProgramsSummary). 13  “Top Pentecostal Universities in the World” on uniRank’s website (https://www.4icu. org/top-religious-universities/pentecostal/). Of course, this ranking cannot be compared to more recognized rankings as provided by US News and World Report, and it has several

58 

D. TOPF

­ niversities, as well as institutions from Ghana, Zimbabwe, and Malawi u also made the list. Granted, rankings can be a problematic and controversial way of measuring educational quality (Davidson 2017, 49–50, 211). Nonetheless, this list is one more indicator that pentecostal higher education in Africa is quite impressive, both in terms of quantity and quality.

Pentecostal Higher Education in Asia and Australia When it comes to Christian universities in Asia and Australia, the strongest player is the Roman Catholic Church, which has numerous well-respected institutions in a variety of countries.14 Among this large number of colleges, there are even a few global top 1500 universities, such as the Australian Catholic University, the Catholic University of Korea, and the Fu Jen Catholic University in Taiwan.15 However, within the world of pentecostalism, there are much fewer options (see also Table  4.2). For Table 4.2  Pentecostal colleges and universities in Asia and Australia

1 2 3 4 5

Name

Founded in

Location

Alphacrucis College Hansei University Karunya Institute of Technology and Science Tabor College TCA College

1948 1953 1986

Parramatta, Australia Gunpo, South Korea Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India Millswood, Australia Singapore

1979 1979

weaknesses: the ranking does not list Regent University and ORU (possibly because it focuses more on classical pentecostalism), while schools like New Hope Christian College are listed despite the limited number of degrees—this institution only offers a BA in Creative Arts and a BA in Ministry Leadership (https://newhope.edu/index.php/programs/ degrees). This means there is only one degree outside the area of ministry/theology, which is why I did not list this institution as a pentecostal college or university. Similarly, Northpoint Bible College only has degrees in Bible and theology (https://northpoint.edu/ academics-programs/). 14  The 2020 ranking for global Roman Catholic universities by uniRank lists 610 institutions, with the top schools located in the United States and Belgium. “Top Catholic Universities in the World” (https://www.4icu.org/top-religious-universities/catholic/). 15  “Global Universities Search” on the website of US News and World Report (https:// www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/search?name=Catholic).

4  A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

59

instance, in an essay on pentecostal theological education in Indonesia, Ekaputra Tupamahu describes how pentecostal Bible schools and seminaries have been established in different parts of the country (2016). Tupamahu recognizes that there has been a tendency in the past few decades “among Pentecostals in America to expand their Bible schools into comprehensive universities” but acknowledges that “Indonesians are not quite there yet” and that, as of now, “there is not one Pentecostal university in Indonesia” (252). Alphacrucis College (AC), associated with the Assemblies of God in Australia, was founded in 1948 under the name of Commonwealth Bible College, when it was primarily known as a training institution for ministry (Clifton 2016, 300). In 1993, it was renamed Southern Cross College and developed toward becoming a multidisciplinary school, and today the vision of AC is “to be a global Christian university, transforming neighborhoods and nations.”16 The school offers several diplomas (such as in music, media, community service, and leadership) as well as bachelor’s degrees in business, applied social science, education, and ministry and theology. Graduate degrees are available in leadership, philosophy, education, teaching, and theology. AC also has a Doctor of Ministry and a PhD program “designed for original investigation of ideas in the broad fields of Theology, Business or Education.”17 The roots of Tabor College in Australia are more recent; it all began in 1978, when Barry Chant received a prophetic word and “had a vision of a Christian education centre where everyday Christians of all denominations would receive teaching from the Word of God and training for ministry in the power of the Holy Spirit.”18 Today, Tabor College continues to equip future ministers, offering degrees in intercultural studies, theology, and ministry, as well as music, social science, and education. Furthermore, Tabor also offers various graduate diplomas, certificates, and master’s degrees in teaching English as a second language (TESOL), counseling

16   “AC History” on Alphacrucis College’s website (https://www.ac.edu.au/about/ history/). 17  “Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)” on Alphacrucis College’s website (https://www.ac.edu. au/awards/doctor-philosophy-phd/); the information on the other degrees is listed under “Courses” (https://www.ac.edu.au/awards/). 18  “Tabor College Australia” as part of Tabor College’s handbook (https://web.archive. org/web/19990508095505/http://www.tabor.edu.au/handbook/handbook_overview.html).

60 

D. TOPF

practice, teaching (for primary or secondary education), and ministry, as well as a Master of Divinity and Doctor of Ministry program.19 Besides these Australian institutions, Hansei University is probably the most prominent example of a pentecostal university in the Asia-Pacific region. This is understandable considering that pentecostalism has become a major force in South Korea, where Hansei is located. In addition, this institution of higher education has the backing of Yoido Full Gospel Church, which has become well-known for being the largest congregation in the world and which exercises considerable influence in various areas of society through its involvement in multiple charity works, the media, creation care, and education (Lee 2014, 119–123, 2018, 276–281). Hansei University is clearly a multidisciplinary school, considering that it consists of nine departments (theology, media and communication arts, business administration, humanities and social science, international language, information technology, art, design, and nursing). A wide variety of subjects is not only available through undergraduate programs in these departments, but also through its various graduate schools.20 Granted, Hansei’s accomplishments are impressive and its future plans are ambitious. However, in evaluating its position in South Korea, one also needs to consider the broader context of Christian higher education in this country. Due to the strong Protestant influence over the past 100 years or so, several notable institutions were founded, among them Yonsei University, which “is recognized as one of Korea’s leading teaching and research institutions” (Ringenberg 2006, 266). Yonsei was started by a Presbyterian missionary, as were Keimyung University and Soongsil University. Ewha Womans University was founded by a Methodist missionary, and William Ringenberg describes its Christian identity (or lack thereof) as follows: “Although now a research-focused, secular institution, Ewha remains committed to promoting Christian morals and values in its teachings” (266). That is to say, some of these Protestant universities in South Korea have an excellent academic reputation, but in terms of spiritual vitality a pentecostal institution like Hansei may be the better choice. In contrast to South Korea, Singapore does not have a long tradition of offering a broad Christian higher education. While there are several 19   “Undergraduate Courses” (https://tabor.edu.au/courses/undergraduate-courses/) and “Postgraduate Courses” (https://tabor.edu.au/courses/postgraduate-courses/) on Tabor’s website. 20  See also Hansei University’s website (http://www.hansei.ac.kr/).

4  A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

61

quality institutions for theological education (such as Trinity Theological College and Singapore Bible College), no Christian liberal arts colleges or universities exist so far in this highly competitive nation.21 As described above (Chap. 3), TCA College has been moving in this direction, since Dominic Yeo envisioned in 2005 that it would become a multidisciplinary college. At that point in time, four different schools were established; however, the School of Creative Arts had to be given up, with only three schools (theology, counseling, and leadership) currently remaining, making TCA a relatively small college. Part of the challenge is that Singapore is an island and a city-state; with a population of 5.6 million people and limited space it might be extremely difficult to build a Christian institution with a university campus that would attract large numbers of students. In India, a nation of over one billion people, the conditions of Christian higher education are notably different. Although the percentage of Christians in India is only around 2 percent (considerably lower than in Australia, South Korea, and Singapore), there is a long history of Christians investing in education, including colleges and universities. According to one survey, there are over 160 Christian colleges and universities in India, the majority of them being Roman Catholic.22 An outstanding example of a Protestant institution is Serampore College, which was founded by William Carey (1761–1834), Joshua Marshman (1768–1837), and William Ward (1769–1823) in 1818, making it the oldest institution of higher education still functional in India today.23 However, the lack of pentecostal universities in India is also acknowledged in the literature; for instance, Thomson K. Mathew writes, regarding the situation in Kerala, India, that pentecostals committed a mistake in “neglecting higher education by not establishing degree-granting regular colleges, not following the example of other Christian traditions” and that, consequently, pentecostals do “not have their own universities in Kerala” (2016, 53, 58). Nonetheless, Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, which was founded in 1986  in the city of Karunya Nagar in the southern part of 21  The websites of these two theological institutions are https://ttc.edu.sg/ (for Trinity Theological College) and https://www.sbc.edu.sg/ (for Singapore Bible College). 22  I am indebted to Professor Perry L. Glanzer from Baylor University who shared his “Asia South 2014” database on Christian colleges and universities with me, which listed 163 institutions for India. He also shared his list of pentecostal institutions, which listed 12 schools (in Australia, El Salvador, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Korea). Personal email communication, January 20, 2020. 23  See also the institution’s website (https://www.seramporecollege.org/).

62 

D. TOPF

India, seems to be an institution of higher education with a pentecostal background.24 As the name indicates, this institution focuses primarily on the natural sciences and is divided into three schools: the School of Engineering; the School of Sciences, Arts, Media, and Management; and the School of Agriculture and Biosciences. Within these schools, students can choose from 20 subjects, including agriculture, civil engineering, robotics engineering, and biotechnology. Remarkably, besides the degrees in commerce and agriculture, all these programs offer master-level studies as well and, with the exception of robotics, all programs with graduate studies also offer doctoral level studies (PhDs).

Pentecostal Higher Education in Latin America In today’s Latin America, Roman Catholicism and pentecostalism are the two major players in the religious realm (Hunt 2016, 15–38). However, regarding higher education, the Catholic Church clearly continues to have an advantage. Several of the best universities in the region are Roman Catholic institutions; for instance, the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile is Chile’s best university, while the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, a Jesuit institution, is the number one university in Colombia.25 In contrast, when it comes to pentecostal educational institutions, there continues to be a lack of opportunities in both the areas of theological education and Christian higher education. Victor Hugo Cuartas, writing from a Colombian perspective, describes the situation regarding pentecostal higher education as follows: In light of the current realities among Pentecostal denominations not only in Colombia but throughout Latin America, there is an urgent need for theological and leadership training . . . . In addition, the overall level of general education needs to be improved drastically so that Pentecostals can have a higher impact in every area of Colombian society. (2016, 154)

24  “Founders” on the website of Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences (https:// www.karunya.edu/founders). The pentecostal identity of Karunya is not explicit, but the institution is connected to “Jesus Calls” (https://www.prayertoweronline.org/), which seems to be a charismatic ministry. 25  “Best Global Universities Rankings” on the website of U.S.  News and World Report (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings?int=a27a09).

4  A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

63

Table 4.3  Pentecostal colleges and universities in Latin America

1 2 3

Name

Founded in

Location

Faculdade Boas Novas Universidad Cristiana, Asambleas de Dios Universidad Unidad

1979 1983 2000

Manaus, Brazil San Salvador, El Salvador Sucre, Bolivia

As Table 4.3 demonstrates, the lack of pentecostal colleges and universities is not only a phenomenon in Colombia, but also in Latin America as a whole. Other Christian traditions have been stronger in this area, at least until recently. A global survey on Christian universities published in 2011 reported 135 such institutions in Latin America; of these, 104 were Catholic, 10 Seventh-day Adventist, 7 Evangelical, 5 Lutheran, 2 Methodist/Wesleyan/Nazarene, 2 Presbyterian, 1 Reformed, 1 Baptist, 1 Pentecostal, and 2 other Protestant universities (Glanzer, Carpenter, and Lantinga 2011, 731). In addition, all three of the pentecostal universities listed above (Table 4.3) seem to operate somewhat on the margins, considering that El Salvador and Bolivia are among the smaller and poorer countries of Latin America. In contrast, Brazil is the largest country in Latin America, but the Faculdade Boas Novas (FBN) is located in Manaus, a city in the remote Amazon region. In any case, FBN is a rather impressive institution initiated by the Assemblies of God that started as a Bible institute offering theology classes, but has more recently expanded into other fields as well. Presently, besides its religious programs, FBN also offers undergraduate degrees in administration, accounting, law, journalism, pedagogy, law, and psychology. In addition, graduate programs are available in administration, theology, communication, education, and history.26 Similarly, the Universidad Cristiana de las Asambleas de Dios (UCAD) of El Salvador is a multidisciplinary school as well, considering that it offers licenciaturas (the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree) in eight different fields, namely business administration, law, education, communication, public accounting, English, computer science, and theology.27 By 26  “Graduação” (https://fbnovas.edu.br/site/graduacao/) and “Pós-Graduação” (https://fbnovas.edu.br/site/pos-graduacao/) on the website of Faculdade Boas Novas. 27  “Universidad Cristiana de las Asambleas de Dios” on the website “Universidades” (https://universidades.sv/universidades/universidad-cristiana-de-las-asambleas-de-dios).

64 

D. TOPF

contrast, Bolivia’s Universidad Unidad, which is also associated with the Assemblies of God, only offers programs in theology, intercultural studies, pastoral counseling, and communications, making it mostly function as a Bible college rather than a liberal arts college or university.28 As in other parts of the Majority World, private higher education in Latin America is growing, and this creates substantial opportunities for Christian colleges and universities as well (Brasil Fonseca and Candido Santos 2014, 209–229). The extent to which neo-pentecostal megachurches and networks like Centro Mundial de Avivamiento in Bogota, Colombia, or the increasingly influential Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus, IURD) in Brazil will step into the realm of higher education by establishing their own universities remains to be seen.29 What seems to be certain is that pentecostal higher education in Latin America will be a growing field for years and decades to come—something that may not be the case in Europe, the region in this global overview to be discussed next.

Pentecostal Higher Education in Europe In this global overview of pentecostal higher education, only one continent is without pentecostal colleges and universities: Europe. How is this possible? After all, was it not just around 100 years ago that the Anglo-­ French writer Hilaire Belloc (1870–1953) famously exclaimed, “The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith” (1920, viii)? Belloc wrote as a Roman Catholic apologist, of course, and the Roman Catholic Church continues to be highly influential in Europe, including in the area of higher education. By and large, however, Europe has been strongly impacted by secularization—more so than any other continent. This makes Europe, especially Western Europe, somewhat of an oddball (McCrea 2010, 22). That Christianity is booming throughout the Majority World is now a widely recognized fact, but even the United States as a Western and highly modernized nation remains stubbornly religious (Lechner 2017, 77–124). Consequently, Europe and its ongoing move toward secularization has become the exception rather than the rule, and this becomes particularly  “Carreras” on Universidad Unidad’s website (https://uunidad.edu.bo/#segundo).  Both Centro Mundial de Avivamiento and The Universal Church of the Kingdom of God have a strong media presence, which may become a springboard for engagement in other areas, including higher education (Birman 2006, 52–73). 28 29

4  A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

65

clear when one examines the realm of higher education. As Glanzer, Carpenter, and Lantinga observe in their article “Looking for God in the University,” “Western Europe, the home of numerous secularized universities, proves to be the one geographical region where secularizing trends reign amid the ‘furiously religious world’” (2011, 722). The scarcity of Christian universities in Europe becomes especially obvious when one ventures outside the realm of the established churches that often still enjoy state support in various European countries. For example, Roman Catholic universities (some of them with tens of thousands of students) can be found in Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, Ukraine, and the Vatican. In the free church tradition, however, one encounters a radically different picture. Granted, in Eastern Europe some new developments have taken place since the fall of Communism in 1989; Lithuania now has an evangelical university (LCC International University) and in Russia one finds the Zaoksky Adventist University—but both of these are relatively small institutions, with little influence (Glanzer 2014a, 170, b, 150–151). Within pentecostalism, things look even more meager as far as higher education is concerned. To my knowledge, there is currently not a single pentecostal liberal arts college or university in Europe. This might change in the coming years, of course, with Eastern Europe potentially promising to be a more fertile field than Western Europe, but for now the situation is rather dire. Granted, at several Western European universities, pentecostalism is being studied as an academic subject, such as at the Centre for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies at the University of Birmingham, the Centre for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies at Bangor University in North Wales, and the Hollenweger Centre at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (which was founded by the Reformed theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper).30 However, having a center for the study of pentecostalism within 30  “Centre for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies” on the University of Birmingham’s website (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/ptr/departments/theologyandreligion/ research/pentecostal-charismatic-centre.aspx);” “Centre for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies” on Bangor University’s website (https://www.bangor.ac.uk/history-philosophy-­ and-social-sciences/pentecostal.php.en);“Hollenweger Centre” on VU’s website (https:// www.frt.vu.nl/en/research/institutes-and-centres/hollenweger-centre/index.aspx). However, “The basic philosophy of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam is expressed in three core values: responsible, open and personally engaged”—neither the word “Christ” nor “Kuyper” are mentioned within VU’s “Mission and Profile,” indicating how rapidly this university has

66 

D. TOPF

a secular university is something entirely different from operating a pentecostal university in which professors and students aim to live and study as the Holy Spirit empowers them to be witnesses for Christ, both as individuals and as an institution. The latter is extremely difficult to achieve in Europe, and part of the reason is that evangelicals and pentecostals are insignificant minorities in most European countries—a situation that is notably different in the United States, as the following discussion will show.31

Pentecostal Higher Education in North America In North America, particularly in the United States, Christian higher education has a long and well-respected history. Many of the first and most prestigious universities were founded by various Christian denominations, and in the nineteenth century evangelicals began to establish their own colleges as well (Ringenberg 2006). Wheaton College, for instance, has a history going back to 1860; Calvin College (now Calvin University) was established in 1876, and Goshen College, which is affiliated with the Mennonite Church, was founded in 1894 (then under the name Elkhart Institute of Science, Industry and the Arts).32 Some of the larger Christian universities in Canada (with more than 1000 students) are Tyndale University College, which originated as a Baptist Bible training school in 1894; the Canadian Mennonite University (going back to 1944); and Trinity Western University, which started in 1962 under the name Trinity Junior College.33 By contrast, within Canadian pentecostalism the choices with regard to institutions of higher education are quite limited. For instance, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada founded British Columbia Bible Institute in 1941, which later became Summit Pacific College. This institution offers a bachelor’s in become secularized (https://www.vu.nl/en/about-vu-amsterdam/mission-and-profile/ index.aspx). 31  See also Allan Anderson, “Europe has a very different and numerically less significant Pentecostalism than Latin and North America” (2014, 92). 32  “About Wheaton College” on Wheaton College’s website (https://www.wheaton.edu/ about-wheaton/); “History” on Calvin University’s website (https://calvin.edu/about/ history/); “History of Goshen College” on Goshen College’s website (https://www.goshen.edu/about/history/). 33  “Tyndale’s History Timeline” on Tyndale University’s website (https://www.tyndale. ca/about/timeline); “The Story of CMU” on Canadian Mennonite University’s website (https://www.cmu.ca/about.php?s=cmu); “History” on Trinity Western University’s website (https://www.twu.ca/about/history-traditions).

4  A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

67

Table 4.4  Pentecostal colleges and universities in North America

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Institution’s name

Founded in

Location

Emmanuel College Evangel University Lee University Life Pacific University North Central University Northwest University Oral Roberts University Regent University SAGU American Indian Collegea Southeastern University Southwestern Assemblies of God University Southwestern Christian University Trinity Bible College and Graduate School University of Valley Forge Vanguard University

1919 1955 1918 1923 1930 1934 1963 1977 1957 1935 1927 1946 1948 1939 1920

Franklin Springs, GA Springfield, MO Cleveland, TN San Dimas, CA Minneapolis, MN Kirkland, WA Tulsa, OK Virginia Beach, VA Phoenix, AZ Lakeland, FL Waxahachie, TX Bethany, OK Ellendale, ND Phoenixville, PA Costa Mesa, CA

a The full name is Southwestern Assemblies of God University American Indian College (SAGU AIC), which focuses primarily on serving Native Americans and offers undergraduate degrees in Bible, business, education, and general studies (https://www.aicag.edu/admissions/degree-­programs)

r­ eligion with different majors (including counseling foundations, intercultural studies, and music leadership), but it does not consist of different schools, which is why it is here classified as a Bible college, not a liberal arts college.34 Compared to Canada, pentecostal higher education is much stronger in the United States. Part of this is due to demographics, of course (in 2020, there were 37.6 million people in Canada, while the United States had a population of over 328 million), but there are historical and political reasons as well. In the United States, pentecostal higher education has a long history, and today there are over a dozen colleges and universities offering a broad education from a pentecostal perspective (Table 4.4). In terms of student numbers, some of these institutions are quite small. Trinity Bible College and Graduate School, Southwestern Christian 34  “Undergraduate Studies,” on Summit Pacific College’s website (https://www.summitpacific.ca/undergraduate-programs#certificate-programs). At Canada Christian College, distinct degrees are offered for theology, religious education, and sacred music, so in that sense this school could be seen as a borderline case between a Bible college and a liberal arts college. However, the school seems to mostly identify as an evangelical school (https:// canadachristiancollege.com/50-years-of-excellence/) and is therefore not listed here.

68 

D. TOPF

University, Life Pacific University, University of Valley Forge, and Emmanuel College all have less than 1000 students, while North Central University’s enrollment is just above that number. A few pentecostal schools in the United States have around 2000 students, such as Southwestern Assemblies of God University, Evangel University, and Vanguard University (which has an enrollment of 2500 students).35 Among the larger universities are ORU (with over 4000 students), Lee University (with 5100 students), and Southeastern University, which, with almost 10,000 students, is currently the largest school within the Assemblies of God. Overall, Regent is the largest pentecostal/charismatic university in the United States, with a total enrollment of 10,425 students (as of November 14, 2019).36 Regent has not only grown in size but has also achieved a remarkable academic reputation; however, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of pentecostal institutions of higher education will be the topic of the following chapter.

References Altbach, Philip G. 2016. Global perspectives on higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Anderson, Allan H. 2013. To the ends of the earth: Pentecostalism and the transformation of world Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2014. An introduction to Pentecostalism: Global charismatic Christianity. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Asamoah-Gyadu, J. Kwabena. 2016. “From every nation under heaven”: Africa in world Pentecostalism. In Global renewal Christianity: Spirit-empowered move-

35  As recorded on the institutions’ websites: Southwestern Christian University (https:// swcu.edu/about/University-Statistics), Life Pacific University (https://www.lifepacific. edu/about-life-pacific), Emmanuel College (http://ec.edu/campus-profile/), North Central University (https://www.northcentral.edu/about/facts/), and Evangel University (https://www.evangel.edu/about/university-overview/quick-facts/). Southeastern University is also fast-growing; as it reports on its website, “Student enrollment has increased by 215% since 2010” (https://www.seu.edu/about-southeastern-university/). Data for the University of Valley Forge, Southwestern Assemblies of God University, and Vanguard University from the “2016 Statistics Report” of AG Resources (https://colleges.ag.org/ Resources). 36   “About ORU” (https://oru.edu/about-oru/index.php), “Quick Facts” (https:// www.leeuniversity.edu/about/quick-facts.aspx), “Regent Facts” (https://www.regent. edu/about-regent/regent-facts/).

4  A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

69

ments: Past, present, and future, Africa, ed. H. Vinson Synan, Amos Yong, and J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, vol. 3, xxvii–liv. Lake Mary: Charisma House. Belloc, Hilaire. 1920. Europe and the faith. New York: The Paulist Press. Birman, Patricia. 2006. Future in the mirror: Media, evangelicals, and politics in Rio de Janeiro. In Religion, media, and the public sphere, ed. Birgit Meyer and Annelies Moors, 52–73. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bok, Derek. 2013. Higher education in America. Rev. ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Brasil Fonseca, Alexandre, and Cristiane Candido Santos. 2014. Christian higher education in Brazil and its challenges. In Christian higher education: A global reconnaissance, ed. Joel Carpenter, Perry L. Glanzer, and Nicholas S. Lantinga, 207–229. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Burgess, Richard. 2020. Nigerian Pentecostalism and development: Spirit, power, and transformation. New York: Routledge. Carpenter, Joel A. 2012. New Christian universities and the conversion of cultures. Evangelical Review of Theology 36 (1): 14–30. Clifton, Shane. 2016. Australian Pentecostalism: Origins, developments, and trends. In Global renewal Christianity: Spirit-empowered movements past, present, and future, Asia and Oceania, ed. H. Vinson Synan and Amos Yong, vol. 1, 294–314. Lake Mary: Charisma House. Cuartas, Victor Hugo. 2016. Pentecostalism in Colombia: Hope amongst violence and adversity. In Global renewal Christianity: Spirit-empowered movements: Past, present, and future, Latin America, ed. H.  Vinson Synan, Amos Yong, and Miguel Álvarez, vol. 2, 139–145. Lake Mary: Charisma House. Davidson, Cathy N. 2017. The new education: How to revolutionize the university to prepare students for a world in flux. New York: Basic Books. Gaiya, Musa A.B. 2014. Revolution in higher education in Nigeria: The emergence of private universities. In Christian higher education: A global reconnaissance, ed. Joel Carpenter, Perry L. Glanzer, and Nicholas S. Lantinga, 24–42. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gifford, Paul. 2015. Unity and diversity within African Pentecostalism: Comparison of the Christianities of Daniel Olukoya and David Oyedepo. In Pentecostalism in Africa: Presence and impact of pneumatic Christianity in postcolonial societies, ed. Martin Lindhardt, 115–135. Leiden: Brill. Glanzer, Perry L. 2014a. Resurrecting universities with soul: Christian higher education in post-Communist Europe. In Christian higher education: A global reconnaissance, ed. Joel Carpenter, Perry L. Glanzer, and Nicholas S. Lantinga, 163–190. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2014b. Will the parent abandon the child? The birth, secularization, and survival of Christian higher education in western Europe. In Christian higher education: A global reconnaissance, ed. Joel Carpenter, Perry L. Glanzer, and Nicholas S. Lantinga, 134–162. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

70 

D. TOPF

Glanzer, Perry L., Joel A. Carpenter, and Nicholas S. Lantinga. 2011. Looking for God in the university: Examining trends in Christian higher education. Higher Education 61 (6): 721–755. Hittenberger, Jeffrey S. 2016. Global Pentecostal renaissance? Reflections on Pentecostalism, culture, and higher education. In What’s so liberal about the liberal arts? Integrated approaches to Christian formation, ed. Paul W.  Lewis and Martin William Mittelstadt, 43–64. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Hunt, Stephen. 2016. Glocalization and Protestant and Catholic contestations in the Brazilian religious economy. In New ways of being Pentecostal in Latin America, ed. Martin Lindhardt, 15–38. Lanham: Lexington Books. Kalu, Ogbu U. 2008. African Pentecostalism: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lechner, Frank J. 2017. The American exception. Vol. 1. New  York: Palgrave Macmillan. Lee, Younghoon. 2014. Church growth: Reflections on Yoido Full Gospel Church. In Pentecostal mission and global Christianity, ed. Wonsuk Ma, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, and J.  Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, 107–123. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. ———. 2018. Christian spirituality and the diakonic mission of the Yoido Full Gospel Church. In Pentecostal mission and global Christianity: An Edinburgh centenary reader, ed. Younghoon Lee and Wonsuk Ma, 270–281. Oxford: Regnum Books International. Lindhardt, Martin, ed. 2015. Pentecostalism in Africa: Presence and impact of pneumatic Christianity in postcolonial societies. Leiden: Brill. Mathew, Thomson K. 2016. Indian Pentecostalism in Kerala and the diaspora: Living locally defined holiness in a globalized world. In Global renewal Christianity: Spirit-empowered movements: Past, present and future, Asia and Oceania, ed. H.  Vinson Synan and Amos Yong, vol. 1, 43–63. Lake Mary: Charisma House. McCrea, Ronan. 2010. Religion and the public order of the European Union. New York: Oxford University Press. Olwa, Alfred. 2016. Pentecostalism in Tanzania and Uganda: A historical and theological perspective. In Global renewal Christianity: Spirit-empowered movements: Past, present, and future, Africa, ed. H. Vinson Synan, Amos Yong, and J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, vol. 3, 166–185. Lake Mary: Charisma House. Ringenberg, William C. 2006. The Christian college: A history of Protestant higher education in America. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Tupamahu, Ekaputra. 2016. American missionaries and Pentecostal theological education in Indonesia. In Global renewal Christianity: Spirit-empowered ­movements: Past, present and future, Asia and Oceania, ed. H.  Vinson Synan and Amos Yong, vol. 1, 233–254. Lake Mary: Charisma House.

CHAPTER 5

Strengths and Weaknesses of Pentecostal Higher Education

In the following, my goal is to identify some of the strengths and weaknesses that characterize pentecostal higher education in the United States today. Among its strengths are the experience and quality pentecostal institutions have achieved in teaching certain subjects, notably in the area of theology. Several American pentecostal colleges and universities also feature prominently in specific categories of regional rankings, and they aim to offer a different kind of college experience, one that embraces a holistic sense of spirituality and purpose. On the other hand, American pentecostal institutions of higher education tend to be less strong in the natural sciences, and, so far, no pentecostal university is listed as a top school in national or global rankings. In addition, a number of pentecostal institutions may also face institutional challenges and questions of survival. Finances are, of course, always a sensitive and complex issue in higher education (Johnstone 2016, 310–341), but some pentecostal colleges may simply be too small to be sustainable, thereby facing an uncertain future. In sum, as the following discussion demonstrates, institutions of pentecostal higher education have come a long way, but much work still needs to be done for them to be all that they can be.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1_5

71

72 

D. TOPF

Strengths in Pentecostal Higher Education A notable strength of pentecostal colleges and universities is their commitment to teaching subjects related to theology and ministry. Since many pentecostal institutions of higher education in America started as Bible institutes and colleges, they have decades of experience in this field and a large pool of well-qualified instructors and professors to draw from.1 Granted, some of the most respected scholars connected to pentecostalism are found at seminaries (which are not the focus of this study)—prominent examples in this category include Amos Yong and Cecil M. Robeck Jr. from Fuller Theological Seminary (a non-pentecostal institution), as well as Steven J.  Land and Cheryl Bridges Johns, who both teach at the Pentecostal Theological Seminary in Cleveland, Tennessee.2 At the same time, however, high-quality teaching and research is also taking place within the theological departments of pentecostal universities. ORU’s School of Theology and Ministry, for instance, includes such well-respected academicians like Julie Ma and Wonsuk Ma (authors of the highly acclaimed Mission in the Spirit, which Stephen Bevans describes as a “Summa Missiologiae Pentecostalis”) and Vinson Synan (1934–2020), who is widely recognized as one of the foremost historians of the

1  As Amos Yong explains, scholarly works by pentecostals began to emerge in the “1970s–1980s when the first Pentecostal[s] began to earn Ph.D.’s in the theological disciplines” (2019, 7). Since then, pentecostal theological scholarship has covered a wide ground, including doctrinal textbooks, historical evaluations of pentecostalism, contextual theologies, works on pneumatology, political theology, hermeneutics, systematics, ethics, and practical theology, among others. 2  “Cecil M. Robeck Jr.” (https://www.fuller.edu/faculty/cecil-m-robeck-jr/) and “Amos Yong” (https://www.fuller.edu/faculty/amos-yong/) on the website of Fuller Theological Seminary; “Ranked Faculty” at Pentecostal Theological Seminary’s website (https://www. ptseminary.edu/pt-seminary-faculty.php). Additionally, Fuller has also been home to a number of other scholars with pentecostal inclinations, notably Russell P. Spittler, who is Provost Emeritus and later served as interim provost at Vanguard University (https://www.vanguard.edu/research/lewis-wilson-institute), Charles H.  Kraft, who later in life became known for his work in the areas of spiritual warfare and inner healing (https://www.fuller. edu/faculty-emeriti/), and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, who has a pentecostal background and is now ordained by the Lutheran church (https://www.fuller.edu/faculty/veli-matti-­ karkkainen/). While these examples are impressive, they could also be an indicator that many pentecostal scholars are more comfortable in a non-pentecostal environment, especially as they attempt to achieve recognition within the academic realm (see also Lewis 2008, 69–86).

5  STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

73

pentecostal movement (Moore 2014, 2).3 In addition, institutions like Regent University are also helping to prepare future generations of pentecostal scholars, particularly through programs like the PhD in Renewal Theology that is offered at the university’s School of Divinity.4 Nonetheless, more needs to be done to train the next generation of pentecostal scholars within a distinctively pentecostal setting. At ORU, for instance, 25 professors and instructors are listed under the College of Theology and Ministry.5 Among these, 23 acquired doctoral degrees and did so at institutions as diverse as Auburn University, Baylor University, Denver Seminary, Florida State University, Fuller Theological Seminary, ORU, Regent University, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, University of Aberdeen (UK), University of Manchester (UK), and University of Stirling (UK). What is striking about this list is that even at a charismatic university like ORU, most theology professors did their doctoral work at evangelical seminaries or at public universities, which is an indicator that pentecostal institutions of higher education may have strong undergraduate and graduate programs, but are less recognized in offering opportunities for doing research and earning a terminal degree (Vondey 2013, 149).6 Students attend universities to study with certain professors and to attain degrees in a specific field. The 15 American pentecostal colleges and universities listed in the previous chapter offer a wide variety of subjects, especially in undergraduate programs but also within a number of

3  See the praise by Bevans on the cover and the back cover of this book by Ma and Ma (2010). 4  “PhD in Renewal Theology” on Regent University’s website (https://www.regent.edu/ program/phd-in-renewal-theology/). 5  “Faculty” on Oral Robert University’s website (https://oru.edu/faculty/?search_phras e=&dept=College+of+Theology+%26+Ministry&group=). 6  This is even more the case outside the field of theology, especially in the natural sciences. At Vanguard University, for instance, students can study for a BA in biology, and professors in that field acquired their PhD (or did post-doctoral work) at institutions like the University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Southern California (USC), and the University of California, Irvine. Obviously, nobody received their PhD in biology from a pentecostal university, because such a program does not (yet) exist. “Biological Sciences” on Vanguard University’s website (https://www.vanguard.edu/academics/academic-programs/undergrad/biology).

74 

D. TOPF

Ministry/Theology Education Business Psychology/Counseling Nursing Communications Music/Worship History/Political Science Sports/Athletics Arts/Media 0

5

Undergraduate Degrees

10

15

20

Graduate Degrees

25

30

35

40

Doctoral Degrees

Fig. 5.1  Number of programs offered by pentecostal colleges and universities

graduate programs (Fig. 5.1).7 As this overview shows, pentecostal schools in the United States are strong in offering a wide variety of majors to their prospective students. Among the most common subjects, offered by both small and large schools, are ministry (theology), education, and business. Besides these, at some schools students can also choose from highly specified majors; ORU, for instance, offers over 100 undergraduate programs, and at Regent bachelor’s include such specific fields like cinema-television, gerontology, and cybersecurity.8 However, the situation is notably different in the area of graduate studies, and even more so when one considers postgraduate and doctoral opportunities. The latter are offered only at a few pentecostal universities, and the subjects are limited, typically consisting of ministry and education, as well as (to a lesser degree) psychology and nursing. Of course, it is understandable (and also commendable) that a Christian university will be particularly strong in areas like theology and ministry, as well as in helping  As derived from the degree programs mentioned on the websites of the institutions listed in Table 4.4. 8  “Explore Programs” at ORU’s website (https://oru.edu/academics/explore-programs. php); “Degree Programs” at Regent University’s website (https://www.regent.edu/ programs/#programs-undergrad). 7

5  STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

75

professions like counseling and healthcare. However, considering how important and influential the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects and technological developments are in contemporary times, it would be beneficial for pentecostal universities to venture into these areas as well (Topf 2019). Having said that, the significance of science and technology will be a theme to be further developed in the following chapter, as well as in Chap. 12. Besides contributing to theological reflections and preparing people for ministry, pentecostal higher education is also strong in other areas, as Jeff Hittenberger points out in his essay “Global Pentecostal Renaissance? Reflections on Pentecostalism, Culture, and Higher Education” (2016). Among these areas of strength are the liberal arts programs offered by various pentecostal colleges and universities, especially the contributions pentecostals are making through music and the fine arts. Vanguard University, for instance, has a theatre program which “is one of only two Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) institutions accredited by the National Association of Schools of Theatre” (60). In addition, Vanguard’s department of theatre is well-developed, and its bachelor in theatre arts offers three specializations (in musical theatre, directing, and design).9 Lee University, on the other hand, is well-known for its contributions to music. As Benson Vaughan explains, Lee’s School of Music has enjoyed full membership status with the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), which places the university “on the same level as the finest schools in America, including Indiana University, Florida State University, the universities of Miami and Cincinnati, and the Eastman School of Music” (2018, 64). Such honors have led to several high-profile opportunities for Lee. For example, “the highly regarded Lee University choir” was invited to perform at the inauguration of President Obama on January 21, 2013, thereby “performing on one of the world’s largest stages” (60).10 More recently, Lee University students and alumni also had the opportunity to display their singing talents on national television. In May of 2015, for instance, Clark Beckham (an alumnus) earned runner-up on

9  “Theatre Arts” on Vanguard University’s website (https://www.vanguard.edu/academics/academic-programs/undergrad/theatre-arts). 10   “Inauguration” on Lee University’s website (https://www.leeuniversity.edu/ inauguration/).

76 

D. TOPF

Fox’s show American Idol, and Lee student Jordan Smith won NBC’s popular reality talent show The Voice on December 15, 2015.11 Equipped with such excellent programs and particular strengths in a variety of fields, it comes as no surprise that several pentecostal colleges and universities have been recognized in various rankings (albeit mostly on a regional level).12 The following list shows ten examples of the performance of pentecostal schools in such rankings (listed here in alphabetical order): • The website BestColleges.com ranked Evangel University as #7 on its “Best Online Colleges in Missouri” list for 2017.13 • In the 2020 ranking by U.S. News and World Report, Lee University is ranked #9 in Undergraduate Teaching, a category in which it has performed well consistently.14 • Life Pacific University (LPU) emphasizes that at “nearly half the price of our competitors, LPU is the most affordable private, regionally accredited, Christian college in California.”15 • North Central University ranks #19  in social mobility within the Regional Colleges Midwest category.

11  “Welcome Back, Jordan!” on Lee University’s website (https://www.leeuniversity.edu/ news/welcome-back-jordan/). 12  Rankings are a controversial topic, but I make use of them here partly also because pentecostal schools take advantage of them in order to advertise their strengths. I mostly refer to the rankings published by U.S. News and World Report, which in 1985 “began annual publication of what is now the most influential rankings of America’s colleges” (Blumenstyk 2015, 3). Other influential rankings include those by Times Higher Education (https:// www.timeshighereducation.com/), Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) (https://www.topuniversities.com/), and ShanghaiRanking Consultancy (http://www.shanghairanking.com/). 13   “Evangel University Named One of 10 Best Colleges in Missouri” on Evangel University’s website (https://www.evangel.edu/press_releases/10-best-colleges-inmissouri/). 14  Most of the rankings listed here are found on the website of U.S.  News and World Report: “Lee University,” (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/lee-university-3500); “Northwest University” (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/northwest-­ university-­3783); “Oral Roberts University” (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ oral-roberts-university-3985); “Southwestern Christian University” (https://www.usnews. com/best-colleges/southwestern-christian-university-3180); “University of Valley Forge” (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/valley-forge-christian-3306). 15  “Tuition and Fees” on Life Pacific University’s website (https://www.lifepacific.edu/ tuition-fees).

5  STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

77

• Northwest University is currently ranked #19 in Best Value Schools for Regional Universities West. • Oral Roberts University is ranked as #5 in Regional Colleges West and, more specifically, as #3 in Best Colleges for Veterans and #1 in Best Value Schools. • Regent University is an exception for an American pentecostal university in that it appears in the national ranking (#281); in addition, it “topped the list of Best Online Bachelor’s Programs in Virginia by U.S. News and World Report, 2020, for the eighth year in a row.”16 • Southeastern University reports that it “was recently recognized by The Chronicle of Higher Education among the top 10 fastest-growing private baccalaureate colleges in the nation as enrollment continues to climb for the fourth straight year in a row.”17 • Southwestern Christian University ranks #23  in Regional Colleges West and #7  in Top Performers on Social Mobility (within that regional category). • University of Valley Forge is ranked #32 in Regional Colleges North and #25  in Top Performers on Social Mobility (within that same category). In sum, several pentecostal universities have been able to reach a level that enables them to perform well in various regional rankings. Specifically, pentecostal institutions of higher education tend to be strong in areas such as affordability, social mobility, online education, and undergraduate teaching. In addition, Regent University is also nationally recognized, most likely making it the strongest school currently available within the pentecostal and charismatic spectrum. Last, but certainly not least, pentecostal colleges and universities are to be commended for the Spirit-empowered and Christ-centered education that sets them apart from the many other schools existing in the United States. Hittenberger, for example, believes pentecostal institutions of higher education “offer a unique environment for integrating a passion for 16  “About Regent University” on Regent University’s website (https://www.regent.edu/ about-regent/). 17  “SEU Ranked Among Top 10 Fastest-Growing Private Baccalaureate Colleges” on Southeastern University’s website (https://www.seu.edu/blog/seu-ranked-among-top-10fastest-growing-private-baccalaureate-colleges/).

78 

D. TOPF

God with a passion for learning and creative expression and a passion for redemptive service and mission” (2016, 61). Others have pointed out that a pentecostal pedagogy is both rational and emotional, while at the same time also experiential and vocational—that is to say, “skills-based rather than content-driven” (Austin and Perry 2015, 44). In addition, a more fully trinitarian approach to higher education by placing greater emphasis on the Spirit is suggested by Yong, who anticipates that such “a pneumatologically charged vision of Christian higher education will necessarily involve a fully charismatic life, one that facilitates encountering God, that cultivates the sanctified life, and that inspires a transformational engagement with the world in anticipation of the coming reign of God” (2014, 178). This uniquely pentecostal approach to higher education is often described with a metaphor employing various cities that stand for different educational models, specifically the cities of Jerusalem, Athens, Geneva, Berlin, and Azusa. In this analogy, Jerusalem stands for the mission-driven approach to pentecostal education as exemplified by “early Pentecostal pedagogy, which focused primarily on essentialist training for practical ministry” (Austin and Perry 2015, 45). Athens, on the other hand, “represents the ancient Greek view of education as ‘culturing’ (paideia) of the soul for character formation,” while Berlin characterizes the Wissenschaft model that became prominent in nineteenth-century Germany and led to the modern research university (44). In contrast, in the Azusa model, “the goal of pedagogy is not simply the acquisition of knowledge, but rather the application and appropriation of knowledge and experience for the purpose of personal transformation” (49).18 Similarly, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen sees Jerusalem as a given (considering the strong missionary orientation of pentecostalism), while at the same time encouraging pentecostals to integrate the critical inquiry characteristic of the Berlin model into their educational efforts and to recognize the value of tradition (exemplified by Geneva) as well (2012, 250–256). Cheryl Bridges Johns, on the other hand, perceives potential in “the intersection of Athens, Berlin, and Azusa,” leading to new ways of knowing  As Denise A. Austin and David Perry remind us, the metaphor has been expanded to other cities as well, such as Tranquebar (the first Danish trading post established in India), and New Delhi (standing for the spirituality of the ashram) (2015, 44). 18

5  STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

79

and learning “based upon the proximate relationality of the human spirit, the contingent rationality of physical reality, and ultimately the trinitarian relationality of God’s Spirit” (2005, 144). In her view, pentecostals can offer a critique of traditional models of scholarship, allowing “the paradigm of Azusa” to stand “in judgment of both Athens and Berlin,” as “it babbles the articulate tongues of Athens and confounds the analytical skills of Berlin” (145–146). As this brief overview of strengths demonstrates, pentecostals have been able to make their own distinctive contributions in the realm of higher education. However, this does not mean that all is well in the world of pentecostal colleges and universities. Pentecostalism does have recognizable weaknesses in the areas of formal education, scholarship, and intellectual inquiry, a challenge that has been aptly acknowledged by both pentecostal scholars and practitioners (Lee 2011; Kärkkäinen 2012, 246–247). Some of these weaknesses pertaining specifically to pentecostal higher education will be described in the following section.

Weaknesses in Pentecostal Higher Education While the teaching of theology and a liberal arts tradition are understandably strengths at most American pentecostal universities, engaging with the natural sciences and technology tends to be less strong. There are a variety of reasons for this. Historically, after pentecostals established Bible schools and colleges, introducing subjects like music and history seemed to be the next logical step, compared to offering chemistry and physics, for example. Specifically, studying and teaching biology appeared to be problematic, considering the apprehension many pentecostals felt toward the theory of evolution as introduced by Charles Darwin (1809–1882) when he published his epochal On the Origin of Species in 1859 (Badger and Tenneson 2010, 101–104). In addition, the financial commitment needed to teach a liberal arts curriculum or to open a school of business is limited, compared to offering science and technology degrees, which requires setting up laboratories and buying expensive equipment (Carpenter 2012, 20). This reluctance to engage with the natural sciences is especially challenging as humanity is now entering an age called the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This term was made popular by Klaus Schwab, the founder

80 

D. TOPF

of the World Economic Forum, when he released his book The Fourth Industrial Revolution in 2016. During the First Industrial Revolution that began in the eighteenth century, manufacturing was revolutionized with the arrival of the steam engine, the second major wave came about through the introduction of electricity, and the third stage was reached through the invention of computers (Peters 2017, 2). Now, in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, it is anticipated that the social and economic dimensions of life will once more dramatically change through technological innovations in areas like advanced robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), genetic engineering, biotechnology, nano computers, 3D printing, blockchain technologies, the internet of things (IoT), virtual reality (VR), and autonomous vehicles (Schwab and Davis 2018). These technological developments will have considerable implications for the why, how, and what of higher education (Raman and Rathakrishnan 2019). Joseph E.  Aoun, for instance, the president of Northeastern University, has written a volume entitled Robot-Proof: Higher Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence in which he argues for a new approach to higher education he calls “humanics” (2017, xviii). Aoun proposes an innovative approach to teaching and learning, one that combines new literacies (technological literacy, data literacy, and human literacy) with cognitive capacities like critical thinking, systems thinking, entrepreneurship, and cultural agility (54–75). Others have pointed to the need for training people in specific skills, such as coding, and preparing people for careers in promising fields like cybersecurity (Oppenheimer 2019, 373–374). This focus on technological skills may also be combined with other capabilities, such as understanding foreign languages and cultures. As John Donahoe, the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of eBay expressed it, “If I were eighteen right now, I would major in computer science or engineering, and I’d be taking Mandarin” (quoted in Ross 2016, 244). Tellingly, of the 15 pentecostal schools listed above (Table 4.4), only 4 offer a computer science degree (Evangel, Northwestern, ORU, and Regent), and none of them had a program in Chinese studies at the time of writing. Yong recognizes how vital it is for pentecostal scholars to interact with the sciences, arguing that “at the beginning of the twenty-first century, it is now more important than ever for Christian theology to engage the

5  STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

81

issues raised by life in a world that is dominated by modern science” (2005, 62). However, the existing discussions about the Fourth Industrial Revolution and its implications for higher education are largely taking place within secular circles; for the most part, Christians (whether pentecostal or non-pentecostal) are currently not at the forefront of these crucial conversations.19 Lack of engagement with the sciences may be part of the reason why pentecostal colleges and universities are generally not considered to be among the strongest players in the field of academics. As the overview below (Table  5.1) shows, Ringenberg describes several parameters to identify how well Christian schools are performing, focusing on members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) (2006, 217–218). Within that group, Ringenberg lists Calvin University, Wheaton College, and Gordon College as the leading schools in terms of overall scholarship (217). Using different types of measurements, other top-­ performing schools within the Christian world include Biola University, Westmont College, Pepperdine University, and Baylor University. Notably, Lee University is recognized for its overall quality as well, but generally the listings are dominated by Reformed/Presbyterian, evangelical/interdenominational, and Baptist schools—not by pentecostal institutions.20 Of course, Ringenberg’s book is now over ten years old, and much has changed since it was first published. However, even at the time of writing (in 2020), pentecostal universities continue to be largely absent on a national ranking level, as the following overview (Table  5.2) also illustrates.21 Not surprisingly, one finds the usual suspects at the top of this list—Ivy League schools like Princeton University, Harvard University,  Significantly, there are platforms for Christians to engage with topics related to science, such as BioLogos, which offers information on topics like evolution/creation, pandemics, science and race, genetics, and climate change. However, in searching the website of BioLogos, I only found one article on AI, and none on the Fourth Industrial Revolution https://biologos.org/articles/why-i-signed-the-evangelical-statement-on-artificialintelligence). 20  See also Mark A. Noll who in his groundbreaking book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind acknowledges the high-quality education some evangelical institutions have to offer, mentioning specifically Calvin College, Messiah College, Redeemer University College, Samford University, and Wheaton College (1994, 17). Notably, none of the institutions Noll lists here belong to the pentecostal stream of Christianity. 21  “2020 Best National University Rankings” on U.S. News and World Report’s website (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities). 19

82 

D. TOPF

Table 5.1  Academic standing of Christian colleges and universities Category

Institution

Tradition

Overall quality (CCCU institutions)

1. Union (Jackson, TN)a 2. Lee (Cleveland, TN) 3. Palm Beach Atlantic (FL) 4. Biola (La Mirada, CA) 5. Point Loma (San Diego, CA) 1. Wheaton (Wheaton, IL) 2. Westmont (Santa Barbara, CA) 3. Erskine (Due West, SC) 4. Gordon (Wenham, MA) 5. Goshen (Goshen, IN) 1. Wheaton (Wheaton, IL) 2. Baylor (Waco, TX) 3. St. Olaf (Northfield, MN) 4. Furman (Greenville, SC) 5. Calvin (Grand Rapids, MI) 1. Baylor (Waco, TX) 2. Pepperdine (Malibu, CA) 3. College of the Ozarks (MO) 4. Regent (Virginia Beach, VA) 5. Wheaton (Wheaton, IL)

Baptist Pentecostal Evangelical (inter-denom.) Evangelical (inter-denom.) Nazarene

CCCU schools ranked “Best Colleges”

High numbers of freshmen National Merit Scholars (CCCU/CSR institutions)b High endowments (CCCU/CSR institutions)

Evangelical (inter-denom.) Evangelical (inter-denom.) Reformed Presbyterian Evangelical (inter-denom.) Mennonite Evangelical (inter-denom.) Baptist Evangelical Lutheran Baptist Reformed Baptist Churches of Christ Presbyterian Charismatic Evangelical (inter-denom.)

a Some of the schools listed here, including Union University and Goshen College, are not CCCU members anymore, due to their stand on LGBTQ issues (https://www.uu.edu/news/release.cfm?ID=2363)

Besides members of CCCU, Ringenberg for some parameters also includes institutions recognized by the Christian Scholars Review (CSR) (2006, 218) b

Columbia University, and Yale University, which all began with a Christian heritage that has long been lost. These schools, concentrated in the northeast of the United States, also tend to have multibillion-dollar endowments, and they will probably be able to dominate the national and international higher education scene for decades to come. However, below the top positions, intentionally Christian schools also made the list, and Table 5.2 includes all CCCU institutions on this level. Pepperdine University (#50) and Baylor University (#79) are in the top 100 schools of the nation, and further down one finds Biola University

5  STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

83

Table 5.2  Best national university rankings (2020) Rank

University

Location

1 2 3 3 3 … 50 … 79 … 185 … 228 … 281

Princeton University Harvard University Columbia University Massachusetts Institute of Technology Yale University … Pepperdine University (CCCU member) … Baylor University (CCCU member) … Biola University (CCCU member) … Azusa Pacific University (CCCU member) … Dallas Baptist University (CCCU member) Regent University (CCCU) member

Princeton, NJ Cambridge, MA New York, NY Cambridge, MA New Haven, CT … Malibu, CA … Waco, TX … La Mirada, CA … Azusa, CA … Dallas, TX Virginia Beach, VA

(#185) and Azusa Pacific University (#228). In contrast, no pentecostal institutions are found on this level, except for Regent University, which shares a tie as #281 with Dallas Baptist University (as well as other schools). This lack of pentecostal universities is significant, especially when one considers that Regent University is, at times, more known for its leanings toward political conservatism and less for a pronounced pentecostal heritage (Marley 2007, 265).22 Granted, one could make the argument that this national ranking of universities only provides a limited perspective regarding the quality of pentecostal higher education, because pentecostals focus more on the kind of liberal arts education that a college offers. Since many pentecostal institutions have only recently been renamed as universities, it is indeed likely that most of them are still primarily liberal arts colleges that focus on educating undergraduate students. However, as the current U.S.  News 22  Regent’s strong performance is also related to the funds it has available; early in its history, “Robertson gave his school was what at the time the largest gift in the history of higher education” (Marley 2007, 254). For a description of the importance of the charismatic/ renewal movement at Regent’s School of Divinity, see Yong (2011, 464–476); for a balanced view on Pat Robertson’s political and pentecostal dimensions, see Yong (2010, 221–225).

84 

D. TOPF

and World Report ranking of the best liberal arts colleges in the country reveals, the top schools in this category are non-religious institutions like Williams College and Amherst College (both located in the state of Massachusetts).23 The CCCU members that made the list are schools like Wheaton College (#58) and Westmont College (#117), as well as other evangelical, Reformed/Presbyterian, and Baptist institutions. In contrast, no pentecostal liberal arts college qualified for this ranking of 223 schools, thereby confirming some of Ringenberg’s findings described above. Having said that, for many pentecostals, the academic performance as measured by rankings may not be a crucial factor when they decide to study at a particular college. What they are looking for is primarily an institution that allows them to earn a degree while at the same time being nurtured in their pentecostal faith. However, besides issues related to overall academic quality, some pentecostal colleges and universities may also struggle in terms of institutional viability. As private initiatives with religious convictions, pentecostal schools are limited in what they can expect in terms of government support, which means they are primarily dependent on contributions, such as tuition and donations (Ringenberg 2006, 54–55). How to finance a college education has become a thorny subject in American higher education, and, combined with changing demographics in the United States, this could mean that a number of private schools may have to close in the years ahead (Grawe 2018). In particular danger are small colleges that are only known on a local or regional level and that have a limited number of students (Blumenstyk 2015, 74–76). Generally speaking, a liberal arts college “needs about four hundred new students each year to maintain the enrollment income they require to keep their campuses fully funded” (Docking and Curton 2015, 51). Accordingly, a few pentecostal colleges may be in danger, unless they find creative ways to reduce their expenses and/or increase their sources of income.24 Another institutional weakness of pentecostal colleges and universities is that, at least until recently, they have not been recognized as their own 23  “National Liberal Arts Colleges” on U.S. News and World Report’s website (https:// www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges). 24  Colleges with small enrollment numbers are also a problem in other countries. In India’s higher education system, for example, “the average enrolment per institution is approximately 550,” and “many of these smaller colleges are under-staffed, under-enrolled and poorly-equipped” (Vergis 2014, 91).

5  STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

85

tradition and expression in higher education. The Editors of Models for Christian Higher Education, for instance, decided to examine examples of Christian schools from seven different faith traditions: (1) Roman Catholic, (2) Lutheran, (3) Reformed, (4) Mennonite, (5) E ­vangelical/ Interdenominational, (6) Wesleyan/Holiness, and (7) Baptistic/ Restorationist (Hughes and Adrian 1997, 3).25 The one major Christian tradition that is glaringly absent from this list is pentecostalism. Granted, in some cases, pentecostal schools might be listed under a different heading, such as the Evangelical or Wesleyan tradition—but this is not so in this publication, since the case studies in these rubrics are all non-­ pentecostal schools, namely Seattle Pacific University and Wheaton College (for Evangelicalism) as well as Point Loma Nazarene College and Messiah College (as examples of the Wesleyan/Holiness tradition).26 As I argue in Part II of this volume, pentecostal colleges and universities have their own theological and practical contributions to make in the realm of higher education, and it is quite possible that they will develop an increasingly distinctive profile in the future. By pointing out some of the weaknesses of pentecostal higher education in this last section, it is not my intention to disparage or diminish the many accomplishments that pentecostal colleges and universities have achieved in the past few decades. Rather, my aim is to point to the great potential that pentecostalism possesses in influencing all areas of society through higher education. In 25  Similarly, Robert Benne examines six Christian colleges (Calvin College, Wheaton College, Baylor University, Notre Dame, St. Olaf College, and Valparaiso University) and their respective traditions (the Christian Reformed Church, the evangelical tradition, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Catholic Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod), but no mention is made of any kind of pentecostal institution (2001, 69–95). However, Samuel Schuman’s Seeing the Light includes three Roman Catholic schools, two Baptist institutions (Baylor University and Anderson University), three denominational colleges (New Saint Andrews College, Calvin College, and North Park University), as well as five nondenominational schools (George Fox University, Westmont College, Oral Roberts University, Northwestern College, and Wheaton College)—thereby including, in the case of ORU, a university in the pentecostal/charismatic tradition as well (2010). 26  At the same time, key members of the Wheaton College faculty like Arthur Holmes and Mark Noll “have contributed to Wheaton a distinctly Reformed understanding of the task of Christian higher education” (Hughes and Adrian 1997, 4). However, Noll currently teaches at the University of Notre Dame, a Roman Catholic institution (https://history.nd.edu/ people/mark-noll/).

86 

D. TOPF

addition, it also needs to be emphasized that non-Christian universities have their own set of weaknesses and challenges, which will be the topic to be highlighted in the following chapter.

References Aoun, Joseph E. 2017. Robot-proof: Higher education in the age of artificial intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Austin, Denise A., and David Perry. 2015. From Jerusalem to Athens: A journey of Pentecostal pedagogy in Australia. Journal of Adult Theological Education 12 (1): 43–55. Badger, Steve, and Mike Tenneson. 2010. Does the Spirit create through evolutionary processes? Pentecostals and biological evolution. In Science and the Spirit: A Pentecostal engagement with the sciences, ed. James K.A.  Smith and Amos Yong, 92–116. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Benne, Robert. 2001. Quality with soul: How six premier colleges and universities keep faith with their religious traditions. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Blumenstyk, Goldie. 2015. American higher education in crisis? What everyone needs to know. New York: Oxford University Press. Carpenter, Joel A. 2012. New Christian universities and the conversion of cultures. Evangelical Review of Theology 36 (1): 14–30. Docking, Jeffrey R., and Carman C. Curton. 2015. Crisis in higher education: A plan to save small liberal arts colleges in America. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Grawe, Nathan D. 2018. Demographics and the demand for higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hittenberger, Jeffrey S. 2016. Global Pentecostal renaissance? Reflections on Pentecostalism, culture, and higher education. In What’s so liberal about the liberal arts? Integrated approaches to Christian formation, ed. Paul W.  Lewis and Martin William Mittelstadt, 43–64. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Hughes, Richard T., and William B. Adrian, eds. 1997. Models for Christian higher education: Strategies for success in the twenty-first century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Johns, Cheryl Bridges. 2005. Athens, Berlin, and Azusa: A Pentecostal reflection on scholarship and Christian faith. Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 27 (1): 136–147. Johnstone, D.  Bruce. 2016. Financing American higher education: Reconciling institutional financial viability and student affordability. In American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges, ed. Michael N. Bastedo, Philip G. Altbach, and Patricia J. Gumport, 310–341. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

5  STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

87

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. 2012. “Epistemology, ethos, and environment”: In search of a theology of Pentecostal theological education. Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 34 (2): 245–261. Lee, Samuel. 2011. A new kind of Pentecostalism: Promoting dialogue for change. Amsterdam: Foundation University Press. Lewis, Paul W. 2008. Why have scholars left classical Pentecostal denominations? Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 11 (1–2): 69–86. Ma, Julie C., and Wonsuk Ma. 2010. Mission in the Spirit: Towards a Pentecostal/ charismatic missiology. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Marley, David John. 2007. Pat Robertson: An American life. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Moore, S. David. 2014. Vinson Synan: Pentecostal, historian, bridge builder. In Renewal history and theology: Essays in honor of H. Vinson Synan, ed. S. David Moore and James M. Henderson, 1–29. Cleveland: CPT Press. Noll, Mark A. 1994. The scandal of the evangelical mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Oppenheimer, Andrés. 2019. The robots are coming! The future of jobs in the age of automation. Trans. Ezra E. Fitz. New York: Vintage Books. Peters, Michael A. 2017. Technological unemployment: Educating for the fourth industrial revolution. Educational Philosophy and Theory 49 (1): 1–6. Raman, Arumugam, and Mohan Rathakrishnan. 2019. Redesigning higher education initiatives for industry 4.0. Hershey: IGI Global. Ringenberg, William C. 2006. The Christian college: A history of Protestant higher education in America. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Ross, Alec. 2016. The industries of the future. New York: Simon and Schuster. Schuman, Samuel. 2010. Seeing the light: Religious colleges in twenty-first-century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Schwab, Klaus. 2016. The fourth industrial revolution. New York: Crown Business. Schwab, Klaus, and Nicholas Davis. 2018. Shaping the fourth industrial revolution. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Topf, Daniel. 2019. The fourth industrial revolution and its impact on Pentecostal higher education. Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research 26. http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj26/topf.html. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Vaughan, Benson. 2018. The influence of music on the development of the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee). Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Vergis, Elizabeth. 2014. The challenges facing higher education in India. In A comparative analysis of higher education systems: Issues, challenges and dilemmas, ed. Michael Kariwo, Tatiana Gounko, and Musembi Nungu, 89–110. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Vondey, Wolfgang. 2013. Pentecostalism: A guide for the perplexed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

88 

D. TOPF

Yong, Amos. 2005. Academic glossolalia? Pentecostal scholarship, multi-­ disciplinarity, and the science-religion conversation. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 14 (1): 61–80. ———. 2010. In the days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and political theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2011. Finding the Holy Spirit at a Christian university: Renewal and the future of higher education in the Pentecostal-charismatic tradition. In ­Spirit-­empowered Christianity in the 21st century: Insights, analysis, and future trends, ed. H.  Vinson Synan, 455–476 and 577–587. Lake Mary: Charisma House. ———. 2014. The Holy Spirit and the Christian university: The renewal of evangelical higher education. In Christian scholarship in the twenty-first century: Prospects and perils, ed. Thomas M. Crisp, Steve L. Porter, and Gregg A. Ten Elshof, 163–180. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2019. Pentecostal theology: A North American perspective. Journal of Youngsan Theology 49: 7–43.

CHAPTER 6

Contested Issues Within Higher Education at Large

When discussing American higher education, it has become common to refer to the word “crisis” at some point in the conversation (Staley 2019, 211). This is somewhat surprising, considering that America’s universities continue to be, in many respects, the envy of the world (Blumenstyk 2015, 108–109). Nonetheless, the student loan crisis is a crushing reality for many people in the United States, and questions about the affordability of American higher education abound (Friedman 2020). I make no claims to have a solution for this serious problem and will not address the economic dimension of obtaining a university education in any detail in this study, partly because these financial challenges are also characteristic of Christian higher education. My goal in this chapter is to highlight some of the contested issues characteristic of non-Christian universities in the United States, thereby further arguing the point that pentecostal schools can be an attractive alternative. Throughout the history of Christian higher education, concerned students (and their parents) have often looked for an alternative to what the public education system has to offer. At a public university, so believers feared, young adults might be taught the wrong kind of things by highly secularized professors, spend time with the wrong kind of peers, and consequently abandon the treasured beliefs and ethical standards as laid out by their Christian faith (Schuman 2010, 171). In the following, I point out why this might still be a challenge for some Christians today, as © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1_6

89

90 

D. TOPF

non-Christian universities (despite their many strengths) also display a few weaknesses of which three will be described in some detail here. (1) Non-­ Christian universities lack a unifying center, making it difficult to educate their students in a holistic manner. (2) Due to the forces of secularization and politicization taking place on campuses, some colleges do not offer a liberating education anymore, but are instead leaning toward a kind of ideological persuasion. (3) The separation of facts and values has created a moral vacuum, which is why phenomena like excessive alcohol consumption and casual sex are common on many campuses.

The Lack of a Unifying Center When Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801–1890) published his magisterial The Idea of a University in 1852, two fundamental truths stood out to him: first, that it is inconsistent with the idea of university teaching to exclude theology; and, second, that the liberal studies should not be neglected at a university (Newman [1852] 1999, 19). In other words, Newman was defending the ideal of liberal arts education, of pursuing knowledge for its own sake, and doing so based on a Christian framework (95, 137, 163–164; cf. MacIntyre 2011, 17, 145–150). This educational model was already fading during Newman’s lifetime in the nineteenth century. However, in the twentieth century, the focus in academia switched even more toward useful subjects like science and technology, and a heavy emphasis was placed on original research, on discovering new knowledge (rather than teaching what was already known). Compared to Newman, Clark Kerr (1901–2003), the President Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, operated in a vastly different environment. But despite his highly secularized and progressive context, Kerr nonetheless acknowledges that “‘The Idea of a University’ was, perhaps, never so well expressed as by Cardinal Newman when engaged in the founding of the University of Dublin a little over a century ago” (2001, 2). Newman’s endeavors in Dublin were based on views that “reflected the Oxford of his day whence he had come,” which is why he vehemently took a stand against “useful knowledge” and the increasing emphasis on research (2). As Kerr recognizes, “Newman felt that other institutions should carry on research,” for, so Newman said, “‘if its object were scientific and philosophical discovery, I do not see why a University should have any students’—an observation sardonically echoed by today’s

6  CONTESTED ISSUES WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION AT LARGE 

91

students who often think their professors are not interested in them at all but only in research” (2). Throughout the course of recent history, these developments proved to be unstoppable. In the second half of the nineteenth century, Germany’s Berlin model set the standard for higher education, and in the twentieth century the American model became dominant, leading to what Kerr terms the “multiversity” (5; cf. Antonowicz et al. 2018, 104–124). Kerr acknowledges that something valuable may have been lost along the way, but also emphasizes that the multiversity is a reality of our time that must be accepted, which is why he writes: The university started as a single community—a community of masters and students. It may even be said to have had a soul in the sense of a central animating principle. Today the large American university is, rather, a whole series of communities and activities held together by a common name, a common governing board, and related purposes. This great transformation is regretted by some, accepted by many, gloried in, as yet, by few. But it should be understood by all. (2001, 1)

Since even Kerr here speaks of the “soul” of a university, Christian scholars like Perry L. Glanzer et al. develop an alternative vision around this theme of identifying an all-encompassing center for higher education. In Restoring the Soul of the University: Unifying Christian Higher Education in a Fragmented Age the authors “explore what it means for the soul of the university to be saved” (2017, 5). In their opinion, “saving the soul of the university requires . . . understanding that the soul of the research university is not merely a purpose” (5). Rather, the university needs a central “identity, story, and purpose [that] must connect to the transcendent story of the universe and its Author—the triune God” (13, emphasis original). In contrast, “when an entity loses its core identity, fragmentation abounds and the negative implications of a split personality then become a possibility” (6). Consequently, the fragmentation of the university is a major concern. It is an eroding process that began centuries ago, but which has intensified in recent years, leading to the fragmented multiversity that is often at war with itself (7; cf. Gallagher 2019). This fragmentation in the age of the multiversity can be observed in a variety of key areas. First, professors at modern universities are required to

92 

D. TOPF

engage in highly specialized research, leaving less time for teaching.1 Historically, as the roles of professors changed, “this need for specialization also meant they should no longer be expected to serve as moral guides who could help students live the good life” (Glanzer et al. 2017, 119). Second, curricular coherence has been largely lost. As Mark C. Taylor, a professor of religion at Columbia University, observes, as the interests of “faculty members become more specialized and the subjects of their publications more esoteric, the curriculum becomes increasingly fragmented and the educational process loses its coherence as well as its relevance for the broader society” (2010, 4). Third, the multiversity is fragmenting students due to the “division of labor” that exists between the curricular and the cocurricular spheres (Glanzer et  al. 2017, 147). As professors increasingly focused only on their teaching and research, universities began to hire student life administrators to care for the emotional, social, and moral development of students. However, particularly in a postmodern environment that rejects any kind of overarching metanarrative, cocurricular professionals “are unable to provide a comprehensive understanding of what a developed, whole student should look like” (156). Fourth, universities have turned into sprawling bureaucracies, thereby intensifying the impression that one is attending a soulless institution. In order to manage the modern multiversity, large numbers of administrators are needed, and each one of them is concentrating on increasingly narrow areas of specialization and expertise. Those at the top of the hierarchy— the deans, provosts, and presidents of universities—must carry a substantial administrative burden and as a result have limited opportunity to directly interact with students. Fifth, high-level athletics has become “the multiversity’s religion” and as such is both a “unifying and fragmenting force” (Glanzer et al. 2017, 177). Sport events can have a unifying effect as “football games, in particular, become the place where the whole university community comes together to ‘worship’ and to rail against false gods (the weekly opponent)” 1  In Chap. 12 I propose, among other initiatives, the need for a pentecostal research university and I recognize that, in such an institution, specialization is a necessity. However, despite being specialists in their specific fields, the fragmentation of the professors’ souls could still be avoided because within a pentecostal setting they would be able to operate within a unifying Christian worldview. In addition, one could explore higher education models in which only some professors focus on research while others are primarily pedagogues and teachers, especially when teaching undergraduates (Bok 2013, 331–337; 2020, 166–170).

6  CONTESTED ISSUES WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION AT LARGE 

93

(181). However, particularly in college football, there is so much money and prestige at stake that the academic and moral integrity of the university as an educational institution is put at risk (Lavigne and Schlabach 2017). Unfortunately, greed, corruption, and sexual abuse are at times associated with athletics, which is why universities would do well in looking for a different kind of unifying center.2 In sum, the modern multiversity is characterized by administrators and professors who tend to function within their own silos and therefore offer a fragmented curriculum that gives students an education lacking coherence and meaning. Granted, this critique is presented by evangelical authors like Glanzer et al. who work at Christian institutions like Baylor University and Taylor University. However, even secular academics acknowledge that an overarching theme is missing in American higher education today. In an age dominated by science and technology, this lack of a coherent narrative becomes especially obvious when evaluating the significance of the humanities and the value of a liberal arts degree (Harris 2018). Justin Stover, for instance, a lecturer at the University of Oxford focusing on Platonism and Medieval Latin, wrote an essay entitled “There Is No Case for the Humanities,” followed by the summary statement, “and deep down we know our justifications for it are hollow” (2018). Stover recognizes that discussing the importance or worthlessness of the humanities is a complex matter, with a variety of defenders and critics making their case one way or the other. In his opinion, both conservatives (on the right) and progressives (on the left) fail to make a coherent and convincing case for defending the humanities. Whether it is arguing for creativity, values, ethical training, the discovery of truth, or the development of certain skills, for Stover none of these arguments is ultimately conclusive. Rather, he believes that the “humanities have always been about courtoisie, a constellation of interests, tastes, and prejudices that marks one as a member of a particular class,” and as such the humanities offer “participation in a community in which they can share similar tastes in reading, art, food, travel, music, media, and yes, politics” (2018). Stover thinks the humanities are essential to the university while at the same acknowledging that “the humanities have always been, just as their critics complain, self-­ contained, self-referential, and self-serving” (2018). 2  Regrettably, cases of sexual assault related to athletics/football also affected Baylor, a Christian university, as Glanzer et al. readily acknowledge (2017, 179–181).

94 

D. TOPF

However, if the humanities are ultimately self-serving, how can it be justified that public funds be used to finance this selective class of individuals who enjoy certain types of food and music? Granted, professors produce publications, but in many fields these have neglectable impact. Derek Bok, the former president of Harvard University, recognizes a major issue in this area as well when he points out that 98 percent of “all published articles in the arts and humanities are never cited” (2013, 330). Ultimately, this is not just about the humanities but about the fragmented state of the multiversity, as also the following quote by Stover reveals: In short, the contemporary university is a strange chimera. It has become an institution for teaching undergraduates, a lab for medical and technological development in partnership with industry, a hospital, a museum (or several), a performance hall, a radio station, a landowner, a big-money (or money-­ losing) sports club, a research center competing for government funding— often the biggest employer for a hundred miles around—and, for a few institutions, a hedge fund (“with a small college attached for tax purposes,” adds one wag). (2018)

If the modern university is not able to articulate a comprehensive vision of what it is ultimately about, one would at least hope that the multiversity is a place where intellectual curiosity and freedom of speech reign, and all kinds of different ideas are discussed. However, as I articulate in the following, even this ideal seems to be under threat in some of today’s institutions of higher education.

Secularization and Politicization Universities take pride in being academic powerhouses in which highly gifted minds can pursue new and even controversial ways of looking at the world. Nonetheless, an evangelical or pentecostal student or professor at a non-Christian institution may easily feel that their perspective is neither welcome nor seriously considered (Noll 2011, 153). Historically, encountering such apprehension toward religion on campus has not always been the case, especially in the United States, where most universities and colleges were founded on Christian principles. However, much of this heritage has been lost due to the forces of secularization—a development that has been well documented by a variety of authors (Marsden 1994; Ringenberg 2006).

6  CONTESTED ISSUES WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION AT LARGE 

95

Granted, in the past 20 years or so, religion seems to have experienced a comeback on American campuses, a topic I will discuss in more detail in the following chapter. By and large, however, higher education remains a rather secular environment in which a naturalistic worldview is promoted (Glanzer et al. 2017, 80). This would perhaps be less of an issue if universities were up front about the fact that certain viewpoints are promoted within their halls, while others are often neglected. Public universities, in particular, like to portray themselves as institutions in which a neutral and objective point of view reigns supreme, that they are nonpartisan and nonsectarian schools at which everybody is welcome—as they should be, considering that they are funded by all citizens in the nation who contribute to higher education through their taxes. In reality, however, just like each person has a worldview, so also every institution, including educational institutions, has a particular Weltanschauung—whether they are conscious of this or not (Rosebrough 2002, 280–297). The reason for this is that human thoughts cannot be expressed within a vacuum, but rather only within a system of thought, a plausibility structure that answers the most fundamental questions, questions related to origin (where did we come from?), epistemology (how can we know?), and ethics (how can we differentiate between right and wrong?) (Anderson et al. 2017, 12–28). For many evangelicals, the dominant worldview at most public and private universities is not merely perceived as foreign but even as hostile and therefore damaging to the Christian faith. Consequently, a whole barrage of books has been published in order to prepare young believers for such an antagonistic environment, including University of Destruction: Your Game Plan for Spiritual Victory on Campus (Wheaton 2005); How I Stayed Catholic at Harvard: 40 Tips for Faithful College Students (Griffin 2016); and Walking with Jesus on Campus: How to Care for Your Soul during College (Kellough 2019). These books address practical matters like the prevalence of casual sex and excessive drinking on non-Christian campuses, and these topics will be discussed in the following section (which thematizes the moral vacuum in higher education resulting from the separation of facts and values). However, these evangelical (as well as Catholic) publications also discuss more fundamental issues related to maintaining the Christian faith while attending university. These general themes include secular humanism as a prevailing worldview on campus, which is seen as “the inevitable result of rebellion and rejection of God and the Bible,” or preparing Bible-believing

96 

D. TOPF

college students by stating that many of their professors “will be overtly anti-Christian” (Wheaton 2005, 29; Chediak 2011, 6). Some of these statements might be overblown, but it is still fair to say that a (post)secular university is usually not the kind of place where a young pentecostal’s faith is being nurtured; rather, often quite the contrary occurs. Depending on where students are at in their faith journey when they graduate from high school, they may therefore prefer to opt for a Christian college instead. In addition to their religious beliefs, many evangelicals and pentecostals also have certain social and political convictions that are informed by their faith, such as being pro-life, supporting the state of Israel, and affirming traditional marriage. These positions are usually not appreciated on (post) secular campuses, considering that American universities have become heavily left-leaning in recent years, creating an environment in which conservative voices are hard to find. As Bok acknowledges in Higher Education in America, “conservatives make up only 7.8 percent of the faculty in science departments,” a figure that drops to a mere 3.6 percent in the humanities (2013, 372; cf. 2020, 39). At times, the positions of progressives have become so radical that even classical liberals are not tolerated anymore. Consequently, a growing number of authors have recently highlighted that the idea of free discourse on American universities might be in danger, as those disagreeing with certain progressive positions are increasingly marginalized and silenced. Keith E. Whittington, for instance, a professor at Princeton University, laments in his book Speak Freely: “Universities that should stand as bastions of open dialogue and free speech have too often become sites of intolerance and intimidation” (2018, x). Instead of defending free speech (which used to be a liberal value), campuses now tend to emphasize a different set of ideas centered on concepts such as trigger warnings, safe spaces, the proper use of personal pronouns, and other expressions of identity politics (Prager and Joseph 2019, 77–78). Granted, these concepts were developed with noble goals in mind, such as promoting greater social justice, equity, and inclusivity in an environment characterized by unjust structures (like the patriarchy, white privilege, and structural racism), which have especially affected those demographic groups that have traditionally been marginalized in American higher education, as well as other sectors of society (Chun and Feagin 2020). Presently, the discussions around these themes are almost exclusively perceived as belonging to the left-leaning forces of American politics. However, as the United States is moving toward being a

6  CONTESTED ISSUES WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION AT LARGE 

97

majority-minority country, all sectors of American society and all institutions, including conservatives, will have to grapple with how to become a more hospitable place for minorities, creating a space in which members of all ethnic groups feel welcomed, validated, and empowered.3 One of the problems with left-leaning progressivism is that it often gravitates toward secularization and the marginalization of the Christian faith. This challenge was already noted by William F.  Buckley Jr. (1925–2008) in 1951 when he published God and Man at Yale. Writing from a Roman Catholic perspective, Buckley expressed concern that Yale University was imposing a collectivist and secularist ideology on students. However, as Austin W.  Bramwell observes in the opening essay to the 50th Anniversary edition of the book, “Buckley’s call for Yale alumni to withhold financial support until Yale ceased to undermine her students’ faith in Christianity and the free market went almost entirely unheeded,” so that “today Yale is more secular and left-wing than ever” ([1951] 2002, xi). These tendencies are not only observable at Yale, but at many other American universities as well. In such an environment, university students and staff increasingly refuse to discuss difficult or offensive ideas; those who dare to disagree with the dominant dogmas are frequently simply labeled as racist, sexist, or transphobic, thereby stigmatizing the person instead of engaging with their arguments and concerns (Murray 2019, 7, 59). Colleen Sheehan, a professor of political science, fears that the university then becomes a place: to preach to people a certain set of ideas that are acceptable in a very narrow framework. It’s somewhat akin to despotism, in which you decide there’s a party line, and only those kinds of things can be spoken and promoted. There are all kinds of questions that are off limits . . . . Whatever that is, that is not a genuine university. (Quoted in Prager and Joseph 2019, 104; cf. Furedi 2017, vi)

Significantly, Sheehan is not alone in her opinion. At the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), several cases have been documented demonstrating that freedom of speech is in danger on American campuses today where diversity in all kinds of categories is celebrated, 3  These demographic and cultural shifts have especially important implications for the pentecostal movement and its involvement in higher education—on both the national and global levels, as I explain in Chap. 12 and in the Conclusion (Chap. 14).

98 

D. TOPF

while at the same time neglecting diversity of thought (Moreland 2007, 68). On a typical campus, it is difficult to hear a set of voices that disagrees with the progressive ideas that have become the new party line, partly because speakers with a conservative worldview are frequently excluded— even if they have been invited by a student group. At Cornell University, for instance, Rick Santorum was invited by a Republican student group in 2016 but was unable to bring his points across because he was shouted down by student protesters—despite the 5000 dollars in security fees that had been paid for this event. By contrast, one year before, in 2015, Bernie Sanders had been able to speak freely at the convocation of Liberty University, a Baptist school known for its conservative outlook (Yancey et al. 2019, 1–3). Similarly, Alan Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat and well-known civil libertarian, spoke during Liberty’s convocation in 2019. In a recent interview, Dershowitz acknowledged that he received “polite applause” even when addressing topics that are controversial for evangelicals, such as abortion rights and gay marriage (2020). However, when it comes to the higher education scene in general, Dershowitz is deeply concerned and explains why some voices are being suppressed as follows: “The left knows the truth—with a capital T. And if you know the Truth, why do you need dissent, why do you need opposing points of views? . . . That is what is happening on campuses today . . . universities are no longer places where teachers teach you how to think; they teach you what to think” (Dershowitz 2020, emphasis original in the spoken interview). Even if this statement by Dershowitz cannot be applied to all universities, his words should nonetheless serve as a warning that things might currently be moving in the wrong direction. Besides Dershowitz, other scholars with impeccable academic credentials are ringing the alarm bell as well. Among them is Cornel R. West, a highly respected African American scholar teaching (at the time of writing) at Harvard University, who is well-known for speaking out on racial and social issues. Despite clearly leaning toward the political left, West is also concerned about what is happening at the American university when it comes to the suppression of free speech because he is aware that “there’s a long history in this country of universities having dogmatic forms of censorship” (quoted in Prager and Joseph 2019, 222). Historically, that censorship was directed toward different kinds of groups, such as targeting pacifists who opposed the United States’ participation in the First World

6  CONTESTED ISSUES WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION AT LARGE 

99

War (1914–1918), or people sympathizing with communism in the McCarthy era during the 1950s. Accordingly, West warns, “We have to be suspicious of all forms of hegemony, all forms of dogmatism in universities across the board” (222). By listing liberals like Dershowitz and West I hope to make clear that it is not my intention to make a partisan political argument—defending free speech on campus is a value that people on both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on. The reason I have been mostly critiquing progressive policies and viewpoints is because most American (postsecular) universities are currently largely dominated by ideas from the left. Pentecostal institutions of higher education will therefore have to embrace an alternative set of values if they wish to offer their students a different kind of experience. However, it would be a mistake to simply suggest that pentecostal colleges and universities therefore need to embrace the talking points of the political right. One example for a vision transcending the political divide is the pentecostal minister Johnny Enlow. Enlow emphasizes the eschatological end goal of the whole earth being covered with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord (Hab. 2:14). In doing so, he critically engages with topics that are often emphasized by the Religious Right (such as advocating for prayer in public schools and opposing gay marriage), while encouraging reform in areas like incarceration and immigration instead (2015, 150–184, 206–216).4 Enlow discusses these themes in the context of the vision of impacting every sphere in society for Christ, a topic that will be further discussed in Chap. 11. At this point, suffice it to say that pentecostal colleges and universities offer an opportunity to present a prophetic alternative in the area of higher education. If what some (post)secular schools offer today more closely resembles ideological persuasion than liberating education, more and more responsible parents will ask themselves if they really want to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year for such an experience. In addition to these concerns, pentecostal parents may also want to consider what kind of moral standards are prevalent on American campuses today— unfortunately, the developments in this area are quite problematic as well. 4  Enlow believes that the United States needs to be a welcoming place for immigrants and that it could “easily hold and provide for three billion people” (2015, 206). That number may seem out of place (at least for the foreseeable future), but it might point in the right direction—also so that the United States can compete with a rising China, an argument made in One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger (Yglesias 2020).

100 

D. TOPF

The Separation of Facts and Values When universities were first founded, they provided a comprehensive framework for scholars and students to pursue truth. Since the first universities were built on Christian principles, it was assumed that truth could be discovered because God had created a physical universe based on natural laws (Trasancos 2014). In the same way, the world was also seen as being governed by moral laws, which God had revealed to humanity—in general ways, such as through human conscience, as well as through more specific ways, namely the revelation contained in Scripture. In The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality, Julie A. Reuben describes this development as follows: “The term truth encompassed all ‘correct’ knowledge; religious doctrines, common-sense beliefs, and scientific theories were all judged by the same cognitive standards” (1996, 2, emphasis original). However, while scientific knowledge is considered the supreme way of knowing in a secular age, the order was the reverse for a society deeply steeped in the Christian faith in which “religious truth was the most important and valuable form of knowledge because it gave meaning to mundane knowledge” (2). This emphasis on religious truth was not just the view of the common people; rather, this comprehensive perspective about truth “represented the beliefs of the most educated Americans at that time” (2). Remarkably, things shifted within a relatively brief period: In the late nineteenth century intellectuals assumed that truth had spiritual, moral, and cognitive dimensions. By 1930, however, intellectuals had abandoned this broad conception of truth. They embraced, instead, a view of knowledge that drew a sharp distinction between “facts” and “values.” They associated cognitive truth with empirically verified knowledge and maintained that by this standard moral values could not be validated as “true.” (2)

This separation of facts and values, or “fact-value split,” is deeply ingrained in Western philosophy, going back to the influence of David Hume (1711–1776) and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) (Smith 2014, 11). This philosophical development was a major concern for Lesslie Newbigin (1909–1998) in his missiological reflections on what role the church could and should play in modern society. As Newbigin recognized, “It is one of the key features of our culture . . . that we make a sharp distinction between

6  CONTESTED ISSUES WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION AT LARGE 

101

. . . ‘values’ and . . . ‘facts.’ In the former world we are pluralists; values are a matter of choice. In the latter we are not; facts are facts, whether you like them or not” (quoted in Kärkkäinen and Karim 2015, 79). This kind of thinking penetrates both modernity and postmodernism, even though there is a difference between the two: “while the culture of modernity really believed that there are facts—and thus indubitable certainty—to be distinguished from personal, noncognitive values, postmodernism regards both ‘facts’ and ‘values’ as personal opinions” (79). Consequently, students at the (post)modern university are left with a moral vacuum, forced to construct their own identities and ethical standards. The moral vacuum in contemporary American higher education, which is here understood as a morality independent of Christian values, is especially visible in the area of human sexuality. Particularly since the 1960s, secular university campuses have been at the forefront of promoting a sexual revolution that often directly contradicts Christian values and morality (Eberstadt 2019, 9, 68). What started as a revolution among students embracing “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll” has now established itself as a widespread hookup culture on non-Christian campuses, where casual sex is seen as the norm, as long as it is performed between consenting adults (Mac Donald 2018, 117). In recent years, such promiscuity has been expanded from heterosexual to homosexual relations, with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning or queer (LGBTQ) communities being openly celebrated (Coley 2018). Of greater concern is how widespread promiscuity, in combination with irresponsible alcohol abuse, has led to what is often described as a “rape culture” on campus (Minister 2018). Apparently one in four female students experiences rape or attempted rape while in college—a number first introduced into public discourse in 1985, based on a study conducted by Mary Koss (Hirsch and Khan 2020, xxiii). Conservative critics like Heather Mac Donald have pointed out that these numbers must be unrealistic, considering that Detroit, for instance, one of the most violent cities in America, had 2000 violent crimes (including murder, rape, and robbery) per 100,000 inhabitants in 2016, which translates into a rate of 2 percent (2018, 118). If, indeed, 25 percent of females were raped on campus, then this would make attending college more than ten times more dangerous than living in Detroit. In fact, college would be such a high-risk environment for young women that no responsible parent would send their daughter to such an institution (118–119).

102 

D. TOPF

Writers like Mac Donald are concerned that the emphasis on rape culture can lead to “kangaroo courts” and “rape tribunals” on campuses, in which legal accomplishment like due process and the assumption of innocence are neglected and male students are vilified without being able to properly defend themselves (Johnson and Taylor 2018, 27, 54, 253). Rather than a rape culture, Mac Donald identifies “a booze-fueled hookup culture of one-night, or sometimes just partial-night, stands” that is responsible for the unhealthy sexual encounters many students experience while in college (2018, 125). Jennifer S. Hirsch and Shamus Khan agree that alcohol is a major factor in the experience of unwanted sex on campus, but overall their assessment of rape culture is more nuanced (2020). Hirsch and Khan’s findings are based on the Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation (SHIFT), a landmark study they conducted over a period of five years during which they engaged in ethnographic research with hundreds of students at their university, Columbia (ix–xi). One of the helpful distinctions the authors make is that they not only speak of rape, but rather prefer the more encompassing term “sexual assault,” which often refers to a situation in which one partner is unable to clearly formulate consent (xii–xxxiv, 113–145). Most of the examples of sexual assault described in their volume Sexual Citizens: A Landmark Study of Sex, Power, and Assault on Campus involve alcohol, usually consumed by both the man and the woman involved in the incident. Many women report they had unwanted sexual encounters after drinking so much that they did not quite know what was happening to them and had difficulty remembering what exactly unfolded the night before. Overall, Hirsch and Khan, just like Columbia University, offer no guidance for young students in terms of sex and alcohol. They emphasize how problematic it is to have sex with somebody who is intoxicated, because that person then is not able to give consent. At the same time, they also believe “that many students (and likely many of our readers) have been drunk and had sex to which they agreed and did not regret” (84). In their opinion, “The coupling of alcohol and sex means that for those students who do drink as part of their anticipation for meeting a sexual partner, prevention messages that discourage drunk sex are effectively like saying, ‘Don’t have sex’” (84). Regrettably, to protect the sanctity of sex as something confined to the intimacy found in marriage is not on the minds of researchers like Hirsch and Khan. After all, the authors begin their first chapter with this report of

6  CONTESTED ISSUES WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION AT LARGE 

103

a female student, defining her “sexual project” as follows, “I wanted to make out with a ton of boys, I wanted to lose my virginity, and I wanted a boyfriend, in that order” (1). The authors give no ethical evaluation of such statements, but they emphasize that, besides alcohol consumption, there are a variety of factors causing situations that can lead to sexual assault. Among these factors are power disparities, differences in age and sexual experience, peer pressure and social expectations, loneliness, and differences in access to geographical spaces where sexual encounters may take place (xii, 247–251). However, in spite of their nuanced research covering the problem from so many angles, the authors never come to a point of questioning the practice of casual sex. In this kind of context, pentecostal students (and their parents) who have a different set of values may wonder if a non-Christian campus is the right choice for them. Granted, many of the examples listed above highlight extreme cases and are not necessarily representative of non-Christian higher education as a whole. It also needs to be acknowledged that students at Christian schools may struggle with some of the issues described here as well (Glanzer et al. 2020, 207–208). Nonetheless, I argue that a Christian college or university might be the better choice for young pentecostals if studying in a largely secularized environment for several years puts their faith life in danger. At a pentecostal institution of higher education there may be individual students who get drunk and then engage in irresponsible or even nonconsensual sex. However, the point is that, at an institutional level, a pentecostal school offers an alternative compared to a non-Christian institution. At a pentecostal college or university, a comprehensive narrative is presented that consistently emphasizes the empowering and sanctifying role of the Holy Spirit, while staff and faculty set an example in both their teaching and conduct by displaying values like abstinence and purity in their own lives.5 5  A biblical basis for emphasizing the Christian testimony of both individuals and institutions may be found in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus uses two different images for telling his followers that they are “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14a, NRSV). The disciples are to place their light on a lampstand so that “it gives light to all in the house” (v. 15), but Jesus also compares them to “a city built on a hill [that] cannot be hid” (v. 14b). While the former image speaks of the personal life as it is lived out in the context of the home, the latter seems to point to institutional realities in which an entire community of believers is a living and shining witness for Christ. In the context of higher education, this means that we not only need pentecostals who, as individuals, are a light for Christ at non-Christian schools, but

104 

D. TOPF

Despite these important institutional differences, there will still always be a large number of pentecostal students who will decide to attend a non-­ Christian college or university, a choice they will make for a variety of reasons. These institutions (whether public or private) have many strengths to offer, such as world-famous scholars, magnificent libraries, and a diverse student body that all contribute to an outstanding educational experience. In addition, as I point out in the following chapter, Christian organizations are alive and well on non-Christian campuses today, and this might provide a healthy counterweight to the kind of influences dominating colleges and universities that are otherwise largely secularized. The presence of religious organizations on secular campuses is part of an overall trend in higher education that seems to point to a (post)secular age in which religion and spirituality are, once more, recognized as an important topic in higher education.6

References Anderson, Tawa J., W. Michael Clark, and David K. Naugle. 2017. An introduction to Christian worldview: Pursuing God’s perspective in a pluralistic world. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Antonowicz, Dominik, Brendan Cantwell, Isak Froumin, Glen A. Jones, Simon Marginson, and Rómulo Pinheiro. 2018. Horizontal diversity. In High participation systems of higher education, ed. Brendan Cantwell, Simon Marginson, and Anna Smolentseva, 94–124. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blumenstyk, Goldie. 2015. American higher education in crisis? What everyone needs to know. New York: Oxford University Press. Bok, Derek. 2013. Higher education in America. Rev. ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ———. 2020. Higher expectations: Can colleges teach students what they need to know in the twenty-first century? Princeton: Princeton University Press. Buckley, William F., Jr. [1951] 2002. God and man at Yale. 50th anniversary ed. Washington, DC: Regnery. Chediak, J.  Alexander. 2011. Thriving at college: Make great friends, keep your faith, and get ready for the real world! Carol Streams: Tyndale House. Chun, Edna B., and Joe R. Feagin. 2020. Rethinking diversity frameworks in higher education. New York: Routledge. we also need pentecostal colleges and universities that are a witness in their entirety, as institutions. 6  Several authors employ the term “postsecular” in discussing contemporary higher education (e.g., Subbiondo 2011, 30–32).

6  CONTESTED ISSUES WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION AT LARGE 

105

Coley, Jonathan S. 2018. Gay on God’s campus: Mobilizing for LGBT equality at Christian colleges and universities. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Dershowitz, Alan. 2020. The Ben Shapiro show Sunday special. March 8. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhmQ1QMTml0. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Eberstadt, Mary. 2019. Primal screams: How the sexual revolution created identity politics. West Conshohocken: Templeton Press. Enlow, Johnny. 2015. The seven mountain renaissance: Vision and strategy through 2050. New Kensington: Whitaker House. Friedman, Zack. 2020. Student loan debt statistics in 2020: A record $1.6 trillion. Forbes, February 3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2020/ 02/03/student-­loan-­debt-­statistics/#18de40cb281f. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Furedi, Frank. 2017. What’s happened to the university? A sociological exploration of its infantilisation. London: Routledge. Gallagher, Chris W. 2019. College made whole: Integrative learning for a divided world. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Glanzer, Perry L., Nathan F. Alleman, and Todd C. Ream. 2017. Restoring the soul of the university: Unifying Christian higher education in a fragmented age. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Glanzer, Perry L., Theodore F. Cockle, Elijah G. Jeong, and Britney N. Graber. 2020. Christ-enlivened student affairs: A guide to Christian thinking and practice in the field. Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press. Griffin, Aurora. 2016. How I stayed Catholic at Harvard: 40 tips for faithful college students. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Harris, Adam. 2018. The liberal arts may not survive the 21st century. The Atlantic, December 13. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/12/ the-­liberal-­arts-­may-­not-­survive-­the-­21st-­century/577876/. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Hirsch, Jennifer S., and Shamus Khan. 2020. Sexual citizens: A landmark study of sex, power, and assault on campus. New York: W. W. Norton. Johnson, K.C., and Stuart Taylor Jr. 2018. The campus rape frenzy: The attack on due process at America’s universities. New York: Encounter Books. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti, and Michael Karim. 2015. Community and witness in transition: Newbigin’s ecclesiology between modernity and postmodernity. In The gospel and pluralism today: Reassessing Lesslie Newbigin in the 21st century, ed. Scott W.  Sunquist and Amos Yong, 71–100. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Kellough, Stephen. 2019. Walking with Jesus on campus: How to care for your soul during college. Chicago: Moody Publishers. Kerr, Clark. 2001. The uses of the university. 5th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

106 

D. TOPF

Lavigne, Paula, and Mark Schlabach. 2017. Violated: Exposing rape at Baylor University amid college football’s sexual assault crisis. New York: Center Street. Mac Donald, Heather. 2018. The diversity delusion: How race and gender pandering corrupt the university and undermine our culture. New  York: St. Martin’s Press. MacIntyre, Alasdair. 2011. God, philosophy, universities: A selective history of the Catholic philosophical tradition. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Marsden, George M. 1994. The soul of the American university: From Protestant establishment to established nonbelief. New York: Oxford University Press. Minister, Meredith. 2018. Rape culture on campus. Lanham: Lexington Books. Moreland, J.P. 2007. Kingdom triangle: Recover the Christian mind, renovate the soul, restore the Spirit’s power. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Murray, Douglas. 2019. The madness of crowds: Gender, race and identity. London: Bloomsbury Continuum. Newman, John Henry. [1852] 1999. The idea of a university: Defined and illustrated. Washington, DC: Regnery. Noll, Mark A. 2011. Jesus Christ and the life of the mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Prager, Dennis, and Mark Joseph, eds. 2019. No safe spaces. Washington, DC: Regnery. Reuben, Julie A. 1996. The making of the modern university: Intellectual transformation and the marginalization of morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ringenberg, William C. 2006. The Christian college: A history of Protestant higher education in America. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Rosebrough, Thomas R. 2002. Christian worldview and teaching. In Shaping a Christian worldview: The foundations of Christian higher education, ed. David S. Dockery and Gregory Alan Thornbury, 280–297. Nashville: B&H Academic. Schuman, Samuel. 2010. Seeing the light: Religious colleges in twenty-first-century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Smith, R.  Scott. 2014. In search of moral knowledge: Overcoming the fact-value dichotomy. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Staley, David J. 2019. Alternative universities: Speculative design for innovation in higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Stover, Justin. 2018. There is no case for the humanities: And deep down we know our justifications for it are hollow. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 4. https://www.chronicle.com/article/There-­I s-­N o-­C ase-­f or-­t he/242724. Accessed 24 March 2021. Subbiondo, Joseph L. 2011. Spirituality on campus: The emergence of a postsecular age in American higher education. About Campus 16 (5): 30–32. Taylor, Mark C. 2010. Crisis on campus: A bold plan for reforming our colleges and universities. New York: Knopf.

6  CONTESTED ISSUES WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION AT LARGE 

107

Trasancos, Stacy A. 2014. Science was born of Christianity: The teaching of Father Stanley L. Jaki. Titusville: Habitation of Chimham Publishing. Wheaton, David. 2005. University of destruction: Your game plan for spiritual victory on campus. Minneapolis: Bethany House. Whittington, Keith E. 2018. Speak freely: Why universities must defend free speech. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Yancey, George, Laurel Shaler, and Jerald H. Walz. 2019. Investigating political tolerance at conservative protestant colleges and universities. New  York: Routledge. Yglesias, Matthew. 2020. One billion Americans: The case for thinking bigger. New York: Portfolio.

CHAPTER 7

Contemporary Trends in (Post)secular Higher Education

In the early 1980s Harvey G. Cox Jr. began teaching his class “Jesus and the Moral Life” at Harvard University, a course that soon became widely popular (2004, 2). In the founding days of Harvard there would, of course, have been nothing unusual about teaching on such a topic. After all, when Puritans founded the school in 1636, the declared purpose of the college was “to advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministery [sic] to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall lie in the Dust” (quoted in Delbanco 2001, 203, emphasis original). However, as Cox reports, 1912 had been the last time a course with the word “Jesus” in its title had been offered at Harvard (2004, 5). What followed were several decades of a thorough secularization process, culminating in the 1960s and 1970s when it was widely acknowledged that religion did not have a place in the modern world (certainly not in the academy). Cox was part of these intellectual currents as well, considering he published his highly influential book The Secular City in 1965.1 1  Despite his (mainline) Protestant roots, Harvey Cox at that time fully embraced the reality of secularism, which included a biting critique of Christian higher education when he wrote: “The whole idea of a ‘Christian’ college or university after the breaking apart of the medieval synthesis has little meaning. The term Christian is not one that can be used to refer to universities any more than to observatories or laboratories” ([1965] 2013, 262, emphasis original; cf. Burtchaell 1998, 483).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1_7

109

110 

D. TOPF

Things have changed dramatically since then; nowadays religion is, once more, a major topic in public discourse, not least since the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Several recent studies suggest religion is significant in higher education as well, especially when the definition is expanded to include broader issues related to spirituality, such as the search for meaning in life and a longing for community. In the following, I present some of the current trends as they relate to this renewed interest in spirituality and its role in higher education, focusing mostly on the American context. Within this new intellectual climate, experts studying the field of higher education emphasize specific developments, such as the reality of pluralism and the necessity for students to develop religious literacy.

The Renewed Interest in Spirituality Due to the profound impact of secularization, America’s universities certainly are no longer the Christ-centered institutions they once professed to be. However, as several more recent studies have highlighted, American institutions of higher education are not entirely secular either, at least not as far as their student bodies are concerned (Stamm 2006b, 66–91). Because the secularization narrative was so deeply imbedded in society and the academy, it took some time for people to realize things had shifted (Marsden 2014, 257–276). In particular, it took the groundbreaking study Cultivating the Spirit (Astin et al. 2011) for people to acknowledge that religion does play a role in a multipolar and multicultural world and that American campuses are no exception to this rule. However, especially for many young people, their faith expressions often do not fit well into traditional categories of religion, which is why many researchers have begun to use the term “spirituality” instead. The renewed interest in religion and spirituality that was being discovered in the context of higher education did not transpire in a vacuum. Religion in general was having a comeback in a variety of contexts, as the following examples show: • In the 1970s, the so-called Religious Right (also known as Christian Right or New Christian Right) emerged in the United States, and

7  CONTEMPORARY TRENDS IN (POST)SECULAR HIGHER EDUCATION 

111

Newsweek pronounced 1976 as the “Year of the Evangelical” (cf. FitzGerald 2017, 1).2 • In 1979, the relatively secular monarch of Iran (also known as the Shah) was overthrown and Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1902–1989) set up an Islamic republic instead. • Ten years later, in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Throughout Eastern Europe and former parts of the Soviet Union, many people returned to the faith traditions they had known before the atheistic ideology of Communism had been imposed on them. • While Francis Fukuyama in The End of History and the Last Man (1992) anticipated the triumph of liberal democracies, Samuel P. Huntington gave a lecture in 1992 on the “clash of civilizations,” anticipating that future conflicts would develop along cultural and (especially in the case of Islam) religious lines.3 • On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists attacked several sites in the United States by flying passenger airplanes into them. What previously for some had merely been a discussion among experts and academics was now plain for all to see: for better or worse, religion was back on the world stage as a major factor in the political and social realities of life. Despite these influential developments pointing to a revival of the significance of religion in the public square, the secularization theory was so firmly entrenched in academia that challenging it was extremely difficult. To argue for the significance of spirituality in higher education somebody with unquestionable credentials was needed, and that somebody was Alexander W. Astin, the Allan M. Cartter Professor of Higher Education, emeritus, at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). According to a study in the Journal of Higher Education, Astin is the most frequently cited author in the higher education field, and as the founder of the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), he had both the credibility and the

2  Time magazine followed soon after, in 1977, with a cover story entitled: “The Evangelicals: New Empire of Faith” (http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19771226,00.html). 3  Samuel Huntington later developed his thoughts further in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996).

112 

D. TOPF

resources to conduct a far-reaching study on the topic of spirituality in higher education (Schuman 2010, 7).4 The study covered a time period of seven years and made use of several surveys, including one that “was completed by 112,232 entering first-year students” (Astin et al. 2011, 19). In order to be as inclusive as possible, Astin and his colleagues defined spirituality in broad terms, as pointing to “our inner, subjective life,” having to do “with the values that we most hold dear, our sense of who we are and where we come from, our beliefs about why we are here . . . and our sense of connectedness to one another and to the world around us” (4). The main findings of the study were that “while students’ degree of religious engagement declines somewhat during college, their spirituality shows substantial growth” and that “spiritual growth enhances other college outcomes, such as academic performance, psychological well-being, leadership development, and satisfaction with college” (10; see also Kneipp et al. 2009, 190, 193). Some of the major takeaways of this HERI study include the following five observations. First, students deeply care about questions like “Who am I?,” “What is the meaning of life?,” and “What is my purpose?” (Astin et al. 2011, 27). A variety of activities on and off campus can aid students in their spiritual quests, such as engaging in self-reflection or meditation, having professors that encourage them to explore questions of meaning and purpose, charitable involvement, “various forms of ‘religious engagement,’ working while attending college, as well as reading literature and having discussions” (48). Second, students who are on spiritual quests develop a number of qualities, such as an “ethic of caring” (with values like helping others, working to reduce suffering in the world, and making the world a better place), an “ecumenical worldview” (demonstrating an interest and understanding of different religions, countries, and cultures), and “equanimity” (feeling a sense of peace, being able to find meaning in times of hardship, and a sense of being connected to all of humanity) (48). Third, while the study identifies mostly positive factors, it also mentions several negative factors that hinder the spiritual and religious development of students—for example, spending too much time playing video or computer games, watching a lot of television, as well as partying and drinking (60–61, 99). Fourth, factors exercising a positive effect on religiosity include giving money to charity, reading sacred texts and other religious 4  On the institute’s website, Alexander Astin is still mentioned as the Founding Director (https://heri.ucla.edu/research-directors-and-staff/).

7  CONTEMPORARY TRENDS IN (POST)SECULAR HIGHER EDUCATION 

113

material, going on a mission trip, “praying, attending religious services, religious singing/chanting, and participating in a campus religious organization” (100). Fifth, growing in spiritual qualities like equanimity has positive effects on students in general, such as better grades, leadership skills, psychological well-being, and self-rated ability to get along with other races and cultures (135). As this brief overview demonstrates, spirituality is a crucial topic for students and, considering it has such a positive effect on learning outcomes in general, the authors of the study urge colleges and universities to look for ways to invest in the inner lives of students. From this perspective, institutions of higher education will benefit as they invest in study abroad opportunities, interdisciplinarity in the curricula, opportunities for community service and racial interaction, leadership trainings, and contemplative practices (like meditation). In addition, having faculty who are willing to discuss spiritual matters with their students is also extremely valuable (145–152). Besides this highly influential HERI study, other surveys and publications have pointed to similar findings and concerns.5 For instance, Robert J. Nash and Monique Swaby from the University of Vermont write, “The truth is that spirituality matters a great deal to millennial students in America today. In fact, we would argue that along with the internet, the social media, friendships, physical and emotional intimacy, credit cards, and sports, nothing matters as much” (2011, 111). Accordingly, the researchers believe that, “in the name of liberal education, fairness, and multiculturalism, the study (not necessarily the practice) of spirituality needs to find a permanent place in college curricula” (118). While most studies on spirituality in higher education address the American context, this is becoming a global topic as well. For instance, besides discussing developments in the United States and Canada, the volume Religion and Higher Education in Europe and North America describes the religious situations of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs in the United Kingdom and France (Aune and Stevenson 2017). A study of Chinese students acknowledges an “escalating popularity of religion among student populations in China’s higher education settings,” which also creates opportunities for Christianity (Zhao 2017, 635). As one assistant professor reported to the researcher, “some of the Christian home 5  This includes studies published before 2011, such as documented by Liesa Stamm (2006a, 37–65) as well as Damon Mayrl and Freeden Oeur (2019).

114 

D. TOPF

churches near the campus were quite attractive to the university students,” who “had a variety of motivations for attending these types of religious activities, such as satisfying their curiosity, social interaction, searching for a group identity, having fun and finding comfort during emotional difficulties” (641). Another study of 475 students at Pondicherry University, India, examined the role of spirituality among this student population, with most of them being either Hindus, Christians, or Muslims (Deb et al. 2016). As I highlight in the following section, this kind of religious diversity is not only characteristic of Asian countries like India, but increasingly is found in the United States as well.

Religious Pluralism in a Pluralistic Environment When discussing the pluralistic environment in contemporary universities, it first needs to be acknowledged that one now finds Christians, as well as Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and independent thinkers, on American campuses. This diversity in terms of religions and worldviews represented is part of the phenomenon of pluralism, but even before (mostly because of changing immigration patterns) students from diverse religious backgrounds started to arrive, the modern American university had already moved toward becoming a multiversity. While the medieval university pursued the ideal of unified knowledge (based on Christian theology), it became obvious that the modern research university consists of diverse groups of people who pursue a variety of interests—and may therefore best be described as a multiversity (Ringenberg 2006, xvi). While the historical foundations of the multiversity are found in the ever-increasing specialization of knowledge driven by scientific inquiry, which is a product of modernity, postmodern ways of thinking have added to the fragmentation of viewpoints that are now being articulated in institutions of higher education. In postmodernity, domineering and one-­ dimensional metanarratives are rejected, while alternative voices emerging from the margins are encouraged and increasingly being heard. In universities, this emphasis on minority voices manifested itself in the establishment of, for example, ethnic studies and gender studies (Slattery 2013). As groups like African Americans, women, and sexual minorities were increasingly being heard and acknowledged on campus, it seemed logical to give spaces to religious voices as well. The impact of postmodern thinking is one of the main reasons why some scholars are observing a comeback of spirituality and religion in American higher education. Nonetheless,

7  CONTEMPORARY TRENDS IN (POST)SECULAR HIGHER EDUCATION 

115

the picture is more complex than it may first seem, for at least two reasons. First, when one looks at the religiosity of professors, substantial numbers continue to have a secular outlook on life, especially as they climb up the ladder of academic achievement. A study conducted in 2008 showed that, overall, 35.7 percent of professors firmly believed in God (Gross and Simmons 2008, 25). In community and four-year colleges, the orientation toward faith was more common; here 40 percent had “no doubt God exists” (25). By contrast, one finds less of a faith commitment at research universities and even less of it at elite universities—at the latter, only 20.4 percent had the same belief. Overall, 18.8 percent of professors said the term “born-again Christian” described them fairly well, but at elite doctoral institutions the number was only about 1 percent (25). Second, and related to the previous point, a scientific and objective way of looking at the world remains dominant in those departments that matter the most in today’s society and economy. Religion may be discussed in a literature or anthropology class, subjects that are often seen as relatively insignificant and that, in times of budget constraints, may be reduced to a minimum or even disappear completely. By contrast, subjects like biology, business, and engineering attract not only large numbers of students, but also large sums of money—both through government grants and through donations from wealthy alumni. This pattern will continue as novel technologies like AI, advanced robotics, and nanotechnology will increasingly determine which economies and what kind of companies will dominate the twenty-first century (Wuthnow 2008, 36). In such a technology-driven environment, a substantial number of professors and students may choose to adhere to a materialist worldview and describe themselves as agnostics or atheists. At the same time, one can observe a renaissance of religious activity on American campuses. While the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) and the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) provided a spiritual haven for students interested in the Christian faith in previous generations, more recently evangelical campus ministries like Cru and InterVarsity have made their presence felt. For instance, InterVarsity started in 1939–1940 with 22 chapters, but by 1980 had grown to 859 chapters, and in 2016–2017 the organization ministered to tens of thousands of students in around 1000 chapters. Cru, the organization founded by Bill Bright in 1951, is even larger and has over 2400 chapters today (Schmalzbauer 2018, 456). However, in the pluralistic context of the twenty-first century, it is not only Christians who are organizing themselves. The Jewish organization

116 

D. TOPF

Hillel “is currently active on 550 North American campuses”; the more traditional Chabad movement (rooted in eighteenth-century Hasidic Judaism) opened its first Chabad House in 1967 at UCLA, and now there are over 100 Chabad centers in the United States (Schmalzbauer and Mahoney 2018, 116–117). In addition, “the number of Muslim Students’ Associations in North America has risen from 10 in 1963 to 500 today” (96). Hindus are less numerous on American campuses (“in 2016, just under 1 percent of freshmen identified as Hindu”), but the Hindu Students Council (HSU) was founded in 1990 and now has over 50 chapters on university campuses across the country (120). Similarly, Sikh student associations “can be found on at least fifty campuses,” and Sikh studies chairs have been established at a variety of universities (including the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of Michigan) (121). In addition, Buddhist groups, neo-pagan groups, Mormon Institutes of Religion, Unitarian Universalist (UU) campus ministries, as well as the Center for Inquiry on Campus (catering to agnostics and atheists), and the nontheistic Secular Student Alliance also form part of the spiritual mix that is available on American campuses today (121–123).6 Because of this wide range of organizations, religious pluralism on American campuses is also manifesting through the presence of chaplains and religious buildings. At Yale University, where Roman Catholic students are now the largest Christian group on campus, “the Thomas E. Golden Jr. Catholic Center includes space for offices, as well as a lecture hall, music room, volunteer center, dining room, meditation chapel, and library” (149). Things have certainly changed since the time when three chapels were built at Brandeis University, symbolizing the “tri-faith America” of the time (referring to Protestants, Catholics, and Jews) (149). In contrast, more contemporary buildings point to the context of religious diversity found at today’s universities, as made manifest in the “multifaith facilities at Penn State University and Wellesley College” (149). In terms of religious workers (such as chaplains), the reality of pluralism is obvious as well. The Jewish Chabad organization, for example, is known for creating a haimish feel on campus, which is accomplished through the presence of a rabbi and rebbetzin (the wife of a rabbi) (117). At the University of Southern California (USC), a school with Methodist roots, the previous Dean of Religious Life was Rabbi Susan Laemmle, and she 6   See also Yong recognizing that “the ‘spiritual but not religious’ come in many types” (2020).

7  CONTEMPORARY TRENDS IN (POST)SECULAR HIGHER EDUCATION 

117

was replaced by Varun Soni, a Hindu chaplain (118). Georgetown University hired a Muslim chaplain in 1999, the first major American University to do so (120). At universities like Harvard, Rutgers, and Adelphi humanist chaplains have been appointed—just one more example indicating that, in the university of the twenty-first century, a chaplain does not necessarily have to be a Christian (anymore) (123). In the age of secularism, the university took pride in being nonsectarian but tended to be not truly pluralistic because religious views were often ignored or excluded. By contrast, in the pluralist university of a dawning (post)secular age, there needs to be a place for religious voices. Nicholas Wolterstorff, a theology professor at Yale University, contends in Religion in the University that the argument “for the inclusion of religious orientations and voices in the pluralist university of the modern world that aims to be representative, is an argument from justice and consistency” (2019, 149). Therefore, Wolterstorff goes on to say, “the only option that is fair and consistent for a university of that sort, in a pluralistic society such as ours, is that it include religious orientations and voices within the dialogic pluralism that it promotes” (149). This kind of pluralistic environment on campus creates a chance for Christian voices to be heard, in a way that previously simply was not the case. During the secularization era, many universities became hyper-­ secular, and a significant number of professors were indifferent or even hostile toward Christianity. In the (post)secular university, however, it is more difficult to ignore believers, and they might now have more opportunities to communicate their convictions. Nonetheless, because of the reality of pluralism, there will always be a multitude of voices existing side by side. Accordingly, those wishing to be heard will have to grant the same privilege to others as well.

The Need for Religious Literacy and Dialogue Historically speaking, the United States has struggled with being a welcoming place to people of various cultures and creeds. Even when focusing on immigration from European countries, the preference was for Protestants from places like England, Scotland, and Germany to come to America; Roman Catholics (from Italy and Ireland, for instance) were seen with suspicion, and so were Jews. At times, even legal action was taken to exclude certain groups of people, such as with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 that prohibited Chinese people from becoming American citizens

118 

D. TOPF

(Eck and Randall 2018, 44). In the aftermath of the American Civil War (1861–1865), the understanding was that American citizenship was limited to “aliens being free white persons and aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent” (46). Things began to change dramatically with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which altered the former quota arrangement favoring European countries toward a truly global immigration system (43–44). Since then, people have come to the United States from every continent, creating an extremely diverse society, something that is especially obvious throughout the nation’s large urban centers. This cultural and ethnic diversity has increased religious diversity as well, so much so that “in terms of multiple traditions and beliefs, the United States is perhaps the most religiously diverse country in the world today” (42). Besides the presence of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, and besides a growing number of the religiously unaffiliated, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists are now among our neighbors and fellow students. How are people supposed to live together in the context of such religious diversity? In Stephen Prothero’s book Religious Literacy, he suggests “colleges and universities ought to help students become sufficiently informed about religion so that they can ‘participate fully in social, political, and economic life in a nation and a world in which religion counts’” (quoted in Jacobsen and Jacobsen 2008, 228). In Prothero’s view, students therefore need to be taught about “the seven great religious traditions of the world” (which for him are Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) as well as other religions like Sikhism, Santería, and Native American religions (228). Such a comprehensive approach to religious literacy is certainly praiseworthy, but not without challenges. To begin with, there is not one “Hinduism,” just as there is not one “Christianity” (certainly not within the Protestant world with its now over 40,000 denominations). To truly study just one major faith tradition would already be a massive undertaking; to become knowledgeable in all seven major traditions seems virtually impossible, and to choose only a few out of the less prominent religions can seem like an arbitrary process. In addition, despite all the conversations and the numerous studies about spirituality in higher education, the theme is not as prominent as one might be tempted to think. For example, in the comprehensive reader American Higher Education in the 21st Century (now in its fourth edition), terms like “Christianity,” “religion,” and “spirituality” are not even

7  CONTEMPORARY TRENDS IN (POST)SECULAR HIGHER EDUCATION 

119

listed in the index (Bastedo et al. 2016). Instead, the authors of the book’s 17 chapters find plenty of other topics to discuss, such as academic freedom, graduate education and research, legal, financial, and administrative issues, the impact of technology, and the role of community colleges. Similarly, Higher Education in America (authored by Derek Bok, the highly respected president of Harvard University from 1971 to 1991), touches on governance, undergraduate education, professional education, research, and the purposes of the university—all this without making religion or spirituality a major theme (2013).7 Nonetheless, there certainly is value for colleges and universities to promote religious literacy, especially if it is one that considers the significance of both “verbal communication and nonverbal experience” in the construction of religious identities (Marcus 2018, 61). For such a comprehensive approach, Benjamin P.  Marcus, the Religious Literacy Specialist with the Religious Freedom Center of the Freedom Forum Institute, proposes the “3B Framework” that “focuses on belief, behavior, and belonging” (63). The “belief” category, for instance, consists of doctrines and sacred narratives, and encompasses social values and ethics as well. “Behavior,” on the other hand deals with holy rites and rituals that then form habits and daily practices. Last but not least, a sense of “belonging” is created through a social structure consisting of those who have the same religion, and this community also shapes the other identities (such as ethnic, familial, and gender identities) an individual may have (63–64). Given the complexity of this framework, a word of caution is in order here. As Marcus explains, “too often Americans assume that they understand a religion when they learn about belief via doctrines and scriptural narrative” (65). This kind of thinking is rooted in the Enlightenment which assumes that a particular belief will lead to a certain behavior. In reality, however, a person’s religious experience may actually begin with belonging, or with certain practices (behavior) which then, over time, shape the person’s beliefs as well. As Marcus explains, this kind of

7  In the index, the only references to “religion” and “religious denomination” point to the founding days of American higher education, while the one reference to “religious affiliation” states: “Some private colleges and universities are connected to religious denominations but most are not” (Bok 2013, 29). Similarly, Philip G. Altbach only has a few references acknowledging the religious roots of some universities (whether Catholic or Protestant), but the major themes he focuses on are internationalization, privatization, disparities and inequalities, and academic freedom—not spirituality or religiosity (2016, 225, 228, 257).

120 

D. TOPF

complexity needs to influence the way universities teach about religion and practice interreligious dialogue because interreligious dialogue often utilizes a predetermined vocabulary and grammar that overlooks the aspects of religious identity most important to the interlocutors. For example, “interfaith” dialogue that compares and contrasts beliefs might inadvertently preclude meaningful conversations by ignoring the religious identities of participants who value primarily experiences of behavior or belonging. This is especially important to keep in mind when designing interreligious dialogue opportunities for students. By not connecting with those aspects of religious life most important to young people, interreligious dialogue and engagement miss an opportunity to tap into those aspects of religion that might motivate or sustain them in daily life. (66)

Both Americans and outside observers recognize that the United States is, in many ways, a divided country. The political divide has been visible for some time now, but “this polarization is even more apparent after the 2016 presidential election” (Schmalzbauer and Mahoney 2018, 137). In such an environment, religious literacy and interreligious dialogue can help to cultivate “a climate of civility” (137).8 Preparing students to interact with people divided by profound differences is therefore an important educational goal, also in view of what graduates can expect once they enter the workforce. In professional fields such as business, law, medicine, social work, and diplomacy “practitioners must deal with the challenge of religious pluralism and the boundary between church and state” (137). Douglas G.  Jacobsen and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen also highlight the importance for students to develop the ability to have a “constructive and effective dialogue” between “people from different religious traditions and between people who are religious and those who are not” because “this is not only a matter of neighbors relating to neighbors, it is also a prerequisite for effective civic and political life” (2008, 231). Since so much is at stake when discussing religion and spirituality in higher education, it is crucial to identify what these developments might mean for pentecostals—which will be the theme of Part II of this project, beginning in the following chapter.

8  This challenge continues at the time of writing, as the November 2020 election has demonstrated.

7  CONTEMPORARY TRENDS IN (POST)SECULAR HIGHER EDUCATION 

121

References Altbach, Philip G. 2016. Global perspectives on higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Astin, Alexander W., Helen S. Astin, and Jennifer A. Lindholm. 2011. Cultivating the spirit: How college can enhance students’ inner lives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Aune, Kristin, and Jacqueline Stevenson, eds. 2017. Religion and higher education in Europe and North America. London: Routledge. Bastedo, Michael N., Philip G. Altbach, and Patricia J. Gumport, eds. 2016. American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges. 4th ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bok, Derek. 2013. Higher education in America. Rev. ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Burtchaell, James Tunstead. 1998. The dying of the light: The disengagement of colleges and universities from their Christian churches. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Cox, Harvey G., Jr. 2004. When Jesus came to Harvard: Making moral choices today. New York: Houghton Mifflin. ———. [1965] 2013. The secular city: Secularization and urbanization in theological perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Deb, Sibnath, Kevin McGirr, and Jiandong Sun. 2016. Spirituality in Indian university students and its associations with socioeconomic status, religious background, social support, and mental health. Journal of Religious Health 55 (5): 1623–1641. Delbanco, Andrew, ed. 2001. Writing New England: An anthology from the Puritans to the present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Eck, Diana L., and Brandan W. Randall. 2018. Pluralism in religion and American education. In The Oxford handbook of religion and American education, ed. Michael D. Waggoner and Nathan C. Walker, 43–55. New York: Oxford University Press. FitzGerald, Frances. 2017. The evangelicals: The struggle to shape America. New York: Simon and Schuster. Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The end of history and the last man. New  York: HarperCollins. Gross, Neil, and Solon Simmons. 2008. The religious convictions of college and university professors. In The American university in a postsecular age, ed. Douglas G. Jacobsen and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen, 19–30. New York: Oxford University Press. Huntington, Samuel P. 1996. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon and Schuster.

122 

D. TOPF

Jacobsen, Douglas G., and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen, eds. 2008. The American university in a postsecular age: Religion and higher education. New York: Oxford University Press. Kneipp, Lee B., Kathryn E. Kelly, and Benita Cyphers. 2009. Feeling at peace with college: Religiosity, spiritual well-being, and college adjustment. Individual Differences Research 7 (3): 188–196. Marcus, Benjamin P. 2018. Religious literacy in American education. In The Oxford handbook of religion and American education, ed. Michael D. Waggoner and Nathan C. Walker, 56–72. New York: Oxford University Press. Marsden, George M. 2014. A renaissance of Christian higher education in the United States. In Christian higher education: A global reconnaissance, ed. Joel Carpenter, Perry L.  Glanzer, and Nicholas S.  Lantinga, 257–276. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Mayrl, Damon, and Freeden Oeur. 2009. Religion and higher education: Current knowledge and directions for future research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48 (2): 260–275. Nash, Robert J., and Monique Swaby. 2011. Helping college students discover meaning through spirituality. In Spirituality in higher education: Autoethnographies, ed. Heewon Chang and Drick Boyd, 111–126. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Ringenberg, William C. 2006. The Christian college: A history of Protestant higher education in America. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Schmalzbauer, John A. 2018. Campus ministry. In The Oxford handbook of religion and American education, ed. Michael D.  Waggoner and Nathan C.  Walker, 453–465. New York: Oxford University Press. Schmalzbauer, John A., and Kathleen A. Mahoney. 2018. The resilience of religion in American higher education. Waco: Baylor University Press. Schuman, Samuel. 2010. Seeing the light: Religious colleges in twenty-first-century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slattery, Patrick. 2013. Curriculum development in the postmodern era: Teaching and learning in an age of accountability. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge. Stamm, Liesa. 2006a. The dynamics of spirituality and the religious experience. In Encouraging authenticity and spirituality in higher education, ed. Arthur W.  Chickering, Jon C.  Dalton, and Liesa Stamm, 37–65. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ———. 2006b. The influence of religion and spirituality in shaping American higher education. In Encouraging authenticity and spirituality in higher education, ed. Arthur W. Chickering, Jon C. Dalton, and Liesa Stamm, 66–91. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 2019. Religion in the university. New Haven: Yale University Press.

7  CONTEMPORARY TRENDS IN (POST)SECULAR HIGHER EDUCATION 

123

Wuthnow, Robert. 2008. Can faith be more than a sideshow in the contemporary academy? In The American university in a postsecular age, ed. Douglas G.  Jacobsen and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen, 31–44. New  York: Oxford University Press. Yong, Amos. 2020. Renewing the church by the Spirit: Theological education after Pentecost. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Zhao, Zhenzhou. 2017. Religion and the cultivation of citizenship in Chinese higher education. Higher Education 74 (4): 635–649.

PART II

Future Opportunities in Pentecostal Higher Education

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth. —John Paul II, Fides et Ratio (1998)

CHAPTER 8

Inspiring the Mission of Pentecostal Higher Education

As highlighted in Chap. 6, the (post)secular university can be a challenging place for pentecostals. And while there is a renewed interest in spirituality on American campuses (as described in Chap. 7), it would be a mistake to conclude that there is no more need for faith-based institutions, such as pentecostal colleges and universities. Granted, (post)secular higher education is not necessarily as deconstructive to the faith of young Christians as was once thought. It is true that, especially among young people, the percentage of Christians has decreased, while the number of “nones” (those without religious affiliation) has increased substantially.1 However, recent research indicates that this is generally true for young adults—not only for those who attend university. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case: nowadays, attending college increases chances for a person to become or remain religious.2 In other words, “undergraduates are less likely than other young adults to lose their religion” (Schmalzbauer and Mahoney 2018, 131). One study even indicates that “for each year of

1  According to the Religious Landscape Study of 2014, among Younger Millennials (born 1990–1996) only 19 percent are evangelical, while 36 percent are religiously unaffiliated (Lipka 2015). 2  In England, however, church attendance generally drops after people attend university, with evangelicals and pentecostals being a notable exception (Guest et al. 2013).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1_8

127

128 

D. TOPF

college and graduate school, attendance [at religious services] increases by 15 percent. So do Bible reading and prayer” (131). To a large extent, this positive commitment to the faith American students experience is due to the offers made by religious campus organizations. The largest of these (Cru and InterVarsity, as well as the presence of mainline denominations such as PCUSA), are non-pentecostal, but pentecostals are present on campuses as well. Certainly, the work of organizations like Chi Alpha, the campus ministry of the Assemblies of God, is to be commended and needs to continue.3 Nonetheless, I believe that the current interest in spirituality creates missiological opportunities for Christian higher education and that pentecostal colleges and universities have unique contributions to make in this kind of (post)secular environment. In the following, I highlight three foundational elements related to spirituality that can serve as characteristics of pentecostal higher education: (1) a pentecostal spirituality characterized by Christological and pneumatological elements; (2) a pentecostal epistemology based on the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of truth; and (3) the example of Jesus, who was anointed by the Spirit to be God’s servant.

A Pentecostal Spirituality: Christological and Pneumatological As mentioned above, more recent research seems to indicate that religion is alive and well on American campuses. However, this does not necessarily mean students maintain their evangelical or pentecostal convictions; rather, often the opposite takes place. When discussing the need for a faith-based education, such as by maintaining (or expanding) pentecostal colleges and universities, the following four points need to be considered. First, while it is good news that fewer young people today lose their faith in college than outside of college, it is still true that many young men and women are turning away from the faith while they are in their twenties.4 Second, although spirituality is a major theme on (post)secular campuses, 3  According to the ministry’s website, Chi Alpha is present “on more than 300 campuses throughout the U.S. and around the world today” (https://chialpha.com/about/ our-story/). 4  For a more optimistic view, emphasizing that Christianity (especially its more conservative, evangelical expressions) remains strong, including among young people, see Glenn T. Stanton (2019).

8  INSPIRING THE MISSION OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

129

the commitment to religion at faith-based schools is (not surprisingly) even stronger, which is why the case can be made that a pentecostal college is the better choice for young pentecostals wanting to grow in their faith.5 Third, the current interest in spirituality does not necessarily translate into clear behavioral guidelines; pentecostal colleges and universities requiring a higher standard in terms of personal conduct can therefore be an attractive alternative for young people (and their parents) who value a lifestyle informed by Christian morality and ethics (Corey 2016, 78–80). Fourth, even though college-educated Americans have a higher chance of being religious, this may not be the kind of religiosity pentecostals value, considering that research has “uncovered a positive correlation between higher education and religious liberalism,” as “college-educated Americans tend to switch to mainline denominations and hold more liberal views of the Bible” (Schmalzbauer and Mahoney 2018, 131). What researchers here describe as a “positive correlation” is, of course, alarming news for pentecostals. Pentecostals have a high view of Scripture; therefore, having their young people explore a general sense of spirituality as it is often promoted on American campuses is not enough for upholding pentecostal convictions and practices throughout their higher education experience. In addition, pentecostalism is, by its very nature, a missionary movement; having a strong commitment to evangelism, pentecostals envision consistent numeric growth for their movement (Kärkkäinen 2014, 26–27). Therefore, if people in college tend to gravitate toward mainline denominations and a liberal view of the Bible, then this means that (post)secular schools may not be ideal for a growing number of pentecostal students. In such an environment, it is more important than ever for pentecostals to have their own institutions of higher education that propagate a distinctive spirituality based on the person and the power of the Holy Spirit. For pentecostals, the most foundational text to describe their movement and the work of the Spirit is probably the account of the Day of Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 2 (Gunda and Obvious 2018, 50). In this account, the Holy Spirit is portrayed as both a transcendent and an 5  For example, in terms of religious engagement, “by far the most engaged students are those who enroll in evangelical colleges, where 90 percent of the entering freshmen have frequently attended religious services in the year prior to enrolling in college (only 1.5% are nonattendees)” (Astin, et al. 2011, 97; cf. Schmalzbauer and Mahoney 2018, 93).

130 

D. TOPF

immanent expression of divine presence. The Spirit is transcendent in that the Spirit comes from above, from God (Acts 2:17). Humans have no means to acquire the Spirit for themselves—the Holy Spirit comes as a gift that is now available because Jesus has returned to the Father (John 7:39; Acts 1:4–5, 2:33). Accordingly, the Spirit’s transcendence is demonstrated through cosmic signs, as the Spirit descends accompanied by a mighty wind and tongues of fire—manifestations that are beyond the control of human beings (2:2–3, 19–20). At the same time, the coming of the Spirit is also immanent and personal, yes, even intimate. Flames of fire descend upon the disciples, and somehow the Spirit must have taken control of their vocal cords, because they now speak in other tongues, in languages people from other cultures and geographical regions can understand (2:3–12). The intimacy brought about by the Holy Spirit is also highlighted in other biblical passages, as Jesus promised his disciples that they would receive the Paraclete—the divine Helper or Advocate who would take residence in them (John 14:16–18, 26, 15:26, 16:7). In addition, Paul declares that “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 5:5), and that believers are God’s temple because the Holy Spirit dwells in them (1 Cor. 3:16–17, 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:19–22).6 Through the Spirit, the God who “dwells in unapproachable light” (1 Tim. 6:16b) draws near, so that God’s power and presence can be experienced by sinful and imperfect humans in the here and now. This immanent and intimate experience of a transcendent God stands at the very core of pentecostal spirituality (Courey 2019, 68–82). Through the Holy Spirit, the dynamics of the future kingdom of God become realities in the present, at least to some extent (Cox 2001, 81–122). Jesus declared that the kingdom of God was coming to people as he was casting out demons in the power of the Spirit (Matt. 12:28), and for Paul the kingdom of God could be experienced as “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). Steven J.  Land, who wrote what is now considered a classic on the subject of pentecostal spirituality, acknowledges the importance of experience, but his central motif is what he calls a passion for the kingdom (which became the subtitle of his book). Accordingly, for Land, “the heart of Pentecostal spirituality is love.

6  Unless indicated otherwise, Bible quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

8  INSPIRING THE MISSION OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

131

A passion for the kingdom is a passion for the king; it is a longing . . . to see God and to be at home” ([1993] 2010, 175). Despite its rich emphasis on the Holy Spirit, pentecostal spirituality is not impoverished either when it comes to Christology. On the contrary, pentecostals see Jesus as the Messiah, the one anointed by the Spirit, who, in his very person, brings near the kingdom of God.7 While many evangelicals see Christ primarily as the one who saves from sin and death, for pentecostals this identity is only the starting point. Besides recognizing Christ as Savior, pentecostals also highlight his function as Sanctifier, Baptizer in the Holy Spirit, Healer, and soon coming King (52, 57; Lee 2018, 114–118).8 Through this five-fold portrait of Jesus, pentecostals have access to what they call the “full gospel,” which allows them to experience forgiveness of sin, sanctification, Spirit-empowerment, physical and emotional healing, and a transformative hope in their lives (Archer 2011, 14–15, 68–69). In addition, Jesus invites his followers to love God not only with all of their hearts and souls, but with all of their minds as well (Matt. 22:37/Luke 10:27), thereby addressing the emotive, spiritual, and intellectual dimensions of the human existence in a holistic way (Yong 2018, 148–160). To see Jesus Christ in this way has important implications for higher education, which, in its (post)secular expressions, lacks any such all-­ encompassing and unifying figure. Given the complexities of the modern world and the specialization of knowledge that has occurred in modernity, it is understandable that higher education has turned to the model of the multiversity in order to reflect these realities. The multiversity also fits well into late modernity and postmodernity, which rejects any kind of dominating metanarrative and instead emphasizes the importance of a diverse range of voices coming from the margins (Howley and Howley 2011, 294). Any center or narrative claiming to be able to unify the ­(post) 7  By utilizing a pneumatology that emphasizes both the Spirit and the person of Jesus, pentecostals have the opportunity to formulate a more fully trinitarian theology. By contrast, traditional theologies have tended to neglect the third person of the Trinity, thereby leading to something more akin to a binitarian expression of the faith (Yong 2002, 9, 14, 73–75, 115–118). 8  A variation is the fourfold gospel, in which Christ is Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, and coming King. This view goes back to A.  B. Simpson (1843–1919), founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA). Later, under the leadership of Aimee Semple McPherson, these four characteristics became the Leitmotif of the Foursquare Church (Robinson 2014, 115).

132 

D. TOPF

modern university would therefore have to be able to encompass not only every academic discipline, but also the entire history of humanity with all the different viewpoints and cultures that make up the human experience—a project so complex and ambitious that it seems like an impossible task, at least humanly speaking. However, for Christians, including pentecostals, the unifying center able to heal the fragmentation of the multiversity is found in the person of Jesus Christ, who is both fully human and fully God. Biblically speaking, Jesus Christ is not only a historical, but also a cosmic figure: for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible . . . . He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. . . . For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. (Col. 1:16–20)

In light of passages like these, Mark A. Noll states in Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind, “Since the reality of Jesus Christ sustains the world and all that is in it, so too should the reality of Jesus Christ sustain the most wholehearted, unabashed, and unembarrassed efforts to understand the world and all that is in it” (2011, 22).9 Historically, evangelical scholars (like Noll) have primarily emphasized the person of Jesus, while the Roman Catholic tradition has often found a unifying center for its schools in God as revealed in both Scripture and nature. Hugh of Saint-Victor (1096–1141), for instance, an eminent scholastic theologian and prolific writer, “believed that the coherence of the liberal arts was not found within the arts themselves but outside of them in God” (Glanzer et al. 2017, 133). For a pentecostal perspective that highlights the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity, a unifying center for the university might therefore be found in the “Spirit of Christ,” a phrase employed by both Paul (Rom. 8:9) and Peter (1 Peter 1:11). Both evangelicals and pentecostals love Jesus, making him central in their higher education efforts, but in pentecostalism there is a more intentional emphasis on Jesus the Messiah, the one anointed with the Spirit of God who, in turn, is also the one baptizing his followers with the Holy 9  For a Christ-centered vision for higher education from an Eastern-Orthodox perspective, see Charles H. Malik (1906–1987) and his Christian Critique of the University (1982).

8  INSPIRING THE MISSION OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

133

Spirit (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5, 11:16; cf. Macchia 2018). Through Spirit baptism, believers participate in the same Spirit that empowered Jesus, “the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord” (Isa. 11:2). As a transmitter of wisdom and knowledge, the Spirit of Christ calls pentecostals to be engaged in intellectual and academic endeavors. At the same time, pentecostals are also invited to join in the redemptive work of Jesus with its practical and ethical dimensions, as highlighted by the Nazareth Manifesto where Jesus proclaimed: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18–19/Isa. 61:1–2). When these passages about the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are applied to higher education, a biblical and theological basis for pentecostal universities can be developed. Based on such a pneumatologically informed imagination, pentecostal institutions of higher education can become places in which the hearts of students are transformed, their minds are renewed, and their hands are equipped for empowered and compassionate service to humankind.

A Pentecostal Epistemology: The Spirit of Truth While a pneumatological theology and spirituality encompasses a variety of elements, questions related to epistemology are probably the most critical in the context of discussing pentecostal higher education. After all, the very purpose of a university is to discover, document, and disseminate knowledge—something that is especially true of the modern research university, which is now the most important and prestigious institution in the landscape of American higher education. One area in which pentecostals with their emphasis on pneumatology can contribute is through a critique of modernistic and reductionist epistemologies. With all the emphasis the Enlightenment has placed on rationality, it is, in fact, highly irrational to denounce a priori phenomena like dreams, visions, and prophecy. Once one acknowledges the possibility of the existence of God, then it is also possible (and maybe even probable) that this God would start communicating with people in ways they can understand. Accordingly, the case can be made for a distinctive pentecostal rationality, for constructing “a Pentecostal epistemology that is grounded on

134 

D. TOPF

Pentecostal intuitions,” as Simo Frestadius puts it (2020, 3). Frestadius belongs to the Elim Pentecostal Church tradition (which is part of the Foursquare movement), and this historical and ecclesiastic positioning is crucial because, following Alasdair MacIntyre, Frestadius acknowledges “that all substantive rationalities are ‘tradition-dependent’ and ‘tradition-­ constituted,’” which is why it makes sense to construct a “‘tradition-­ specific’ Pentecostal rationality” (3). This pentecostal rationality is founded on several elements, such as a theological realism that acknowledges God as the ultimate reality, a biblical hermeneutic in which the truths of Scripture are discerned within a community, and a pragmatic justification as people experience an awareness of God and signs of God’s presence. Informed by such a historical-theological framework, there are both objective and subjective ways of knowing for pentecostals, including cognitive, affective, intuitive, and transcendent ways of knowing. In a postmodern intellectual climate, it is increasingly acknowledged that complete objectivity does not exist in the realm of learning and teaching, because with each human involved an element of subjectivity is introduced into the process (Markham 2004, 8). As George F. Thomas, a former professor of religion at Princeton University observes, “The idea of teaching without presuppositions is an illusion,” because every professor teaches their subject based upon presuppositions derived from a particular perspective (quoted in Sloan 1994, 48). “In other words, ‘the cult of objectivity’ really was a cloak for the introduction into the classroom of ‘concealed religions’—naturalism, scientism, positivism, rationalism, humanism, and so forth” (48; cf. Yong 2014, 75). Postmodernism acknowledges that all epistemologies are biased, and its critique of dominating metanarratives has made it easier for minority voices (such as pentecostals) to be heard. However, even though pentecostalism is potentially being helped by postmodernism, pentecostals still have the liberty and the duty to critique it. For example, in postmodernism there is no space for objective (or absolute) truth, a proposition that is unacceptable for pentecostals. In a pneumatological approach of looking at the world, the cosmos consists of both seen and unseen realities, of material things (which are subject to decay) and spiritual beings (who are eternal and will remain forever). A pentecostal epistemology is not simply following postmodern sensibilities; in fact, with its emphasis on personal testimony and affective knowledge, pentecostalism offers “a kind of proto-­ postmodern intuition” that “constitutes a performative critique of

8  INSPIRING THE MISSION OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

135

modern criteria for knowledge,” such as a one-sided rationalism, cognitivism, or intellectualism (Smith 2010, 52). A pneumatologically informed epistemology acknowledges the limitations of knowledge as it can be acquired by humans who live within the confinements of time and space. At the same time, however, truth can be at least partially discovered because the Spirit of God breaks into this present world. In the distant past, God’s Spirit was part of the creation process, thereby creating an orderly universe, which can be explored and whose underlying laws and principles can be discovered by humans. In this present age, people can, to some extent, connect with the divine through the Holy Spirit, and in the eschatological future, God’s reality will be more fully accessible on earth, thereby leading to new levels of knowledge and discovery going far beyond anything humans are able to think or imagine at this point (Fig. 8.1).10 Described in this way, the Spirit not only enables access to cognitive truths but, in a more comprehensive way, encompasses moral truths and the ability to engage with different voices, including those on the margins. In that sense, the “Spirit of Truth” that Jesus describes in John (14:17, The Eternal Spirit (Breath) of God …

Eternity unfolding

Eternity past ongoing

The Spirit co-creates an orderly and knowable universe

revelation

… interacting with the physical world and the human spirit

Beginning of space-time (Genesis 1:1)

The eschatological Spirit breaks into this present world

End of space-time (Revelation 21:1)

Fig. 8.1  A pneumatological epistemology 10  This figure is based on a variety of theological insights, such as that “pneumatology is the divine point of entry into the world and church as God reaches out to history” and that “the person and work of the Holy Spirit must be understood as intrinsic to the eschatological in-­ breaking of the rule and reign of God” (McDonnell 2003, 216; Cartledge 2015, 72).

136 

D. TOPF

15:26, 16:13) is also the Spirit of justice. Because of the Spirit, students can have access to moral and ethical truths, while at the same time also making discoveries in the natural realm. Granted, in this discourse recorded in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus was primarily speaking about how the Holy Spirit would enable the disciples to relate to him and the Father, and that the Spirit would reveal matters related to sin, righteousness, and judgment (16:8–11). Given this context, it might seem a bit of a stretch to see the Holy Spirit as also revealing truths related to other subject matters, such as astronomy or psychology. However, the Spirit of truth is also the Spirit intimately involved in this physical world, being part of both the process of creation (Gen. 1:2) and the fullness of redemption that awaits the created order in the eschatological future (Rom. 8:19–23). Accordingly, there is a divine presence in all of reality, which makes discovering truths within the natural realm a Spirit-led task, at least potentially. Even if it may not be entirely clear how exactly the Holy Spirit is at work in the world and what role the third person of the Trinity plays in revealing general truths, it is certainly fair to say that truth is a major biblical value. Isaiah speaks of the God of truth (Isa. 65:15); Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6); and one of the ways the Spirit is described is as the Spirit of truth (16:13). Since believers are to be imitators of God, it makes sense that this would entail the search for truth—not only by affirming biblical truths, but also by discovering previously unknown treasures of knowledge that are hidden within a universe created by an all-powerful and all-knowing God. These convictions have led to the understanding that “all truth is God’s truth,” which has become a widely used phrase in Christian higher education (Mitchell 2014, 131–134). As Richard J. Neuhaus (1936–2009) explains, “A Christian university has at its premise the knowledge that all truth is one and all ways to truth are one because the Author and the End of truth is One” (quoted in Holmes 2001, 114). Pentecostals have an advantage here because, in their emphasis on the Holy Spirit, they highlight the person of the Trinity through whom believers have access to the redemptive and revealing works of God. All Christian traditions agree that God is omniscient, but how can sinful humans gain access to a holy God and all that God knows and wants to reveal (Archer 2011, 89–91)? Essentially, approaching God becomes possible through

8  INSPIRING THE MISSION OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

137

Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, but this redemptive work of God is mediated and becomes real and tangible through the Holy Spirit.11

A Pentecostal Witness: Jesus as God’s Spirit-Empowered Servant While the elaborations above included both pneumatological and Christological elements of a pentecostal spirituality, I now focus on the servanthood demonstrated by Jesus because his example serves as a foundation for the importance of witness and service in higher education to be discussed later. One of the most vital passages for the pentecostal understanding of Jesus’s ministry and the mission of God’s people is the Nazareth Manifesto recorded in Luke 4 (Gabaitse 2017). In this key passage, Jesus makes clear that he is the promised Messiah, describing what he would do, in the power of the Spirit, by referring to a prophecy based on Isaiah 61:1–2. With these words, Jesus introduces himself not as a conqueror, not as a king, but rather as a person of compassion who is committed to making a difference in the lives of those who have been most marginalized. In essence, Jesus says, his ministry would be a Spirit-­ empowered undertaking in which he brings “good news to the poor,” proclaims “release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind,” and lets “the oppressed go free” (Luke 4:18–19).12 Following these statements, the Gospel presents Jesus as a tireless worker who serves his fellow human beings by healing the sick, cleansing lepers, and delivering people from demons. In choosing a text from Isaiah 61 as his manifesto, Jesus connected his servant leadership to other prophecies in Isaiah as well, particularly passages that introduce the promised Messiah as God’s servant. In biblical studies, these passages are known as the “servant songs,” of which there are four (Hays 2010, 124–132). In the first song (Isa. 42:1–7), God announces regarding his servant that God’s Spirit is upon him, which will enable him to “bring forth justice to the nations” (v. 1b). Remarkably, however, in spite of being entrusted with such a momentous task, God’s anointed servant will accomplish all 11  For more details on this principle, see also Frank D. Macchia in publications like Baptized in the Spirit and Justified in the Spirit, where he explains how essential elements of salvation (such as justification and sanctification) are mediated through the Holy Spirit (2006, 2010). 12  For some of the textual details in this passage, including an insertion from Isaiah 58:6, see Robert P. Menzies (1994, 146–156).

138 

D. TOPF

this with great gentleness and humility: “He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice” (vv. 2–3). Perhaps even more remarkably, this does not mean that the servant will fail, or that he will be taken advantage of. Rather, the servant’s mission will be universal in scope and crowned with great success, as “he will not grow faint or be crushed until he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his teaching” (v. 4). In the second song (49:1–6), God makes it even clearer that the servant’s ministry will go beyond the Jewish people, ultimately touching the whole earth: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (v. 6). The third song (50:4–10) makes explicit that the servant’s mission will also include humiliation: “I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I did not hide my face from insult and spitting” (v. 6). The theme of suffering is then more fully developed in the fourth song (52:13–53:12), where God’s servant is “despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity” (v. 3b); he is wounded, crushed (v. 5), and ultimately even has to die, “like a lamb that is led to the slaughter” (v. 7b). The portrayal of the suffering servant provides pentecostals with important insights about what kind of characteristics should be prominent in their spirituality. Granted, these passages speak primarily about the ministry of the Messiah, but they can also be applied to his followers, especially considering that some of the principles displayed here are highlighted in other biblical passages as well. First of all, with regards to the Holy Spirit, the Bible teaches that God’s Spirit is a gift that God gives for the sake of others. In the Old Testament, the Spirit was given to priests, prophets, and kings—not primarily so that they would have a rewarding spiritual experience, but so that they could serve God’s people as anointed leaders. This principle is carried into the New Testament as well: the gifts of the Spirit are given not for entertainment, but for building up the body of Christ, for the benefit of others (1 Cor. 12:7). Furthermore, everything related to the gifts of the Spirit is to be exercised in love, as Paul reminds his readers by placing his great chapter on love right in the middle of the discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14. Second, the Spirit is given for a universal mission; prejudice and ethnocentrism must be put aside, because God is king over all the earth, and

8  INSPIRING THE MISSION OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

139

therefore God’s salvation needs to be proclaimed to all nations. Consequently, Jesus connected the power of the Spirit to a global task; his disciples were to be witnesses not only in Jerusalem, but also in Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Third, the power of the Spirit does not mean that there will be no suffering, quite the contrary: just as Jesus is the suffering servant, so his disciples will also suffer and be persecuted (Matt. 10:16–39, 24:9; John 15:18–21; 2 Tim. 3:12). Consequently, exaggerations and any kind of triumphalism are entirely out of place. However, there is no reason to despair, either: God’s mission cannot fail and, just like Jesus was raised from the dead, so his followers will also be ultimately vindicated, even if this may only become obvious within the eschatological framework of the Second Coming. Besides these biblical foundations, pentecostals also have historical reasons for developing a witness-oriented spirituality that includes action and service. At least in the United States, pentecostalism has Pietist roots, which is why it will be beneficial to briefly shed light on this early renewal movement within Protestantism. Pietism is “a movement that arose in the late seventeenth century German Empire within both Reformed and Lutheran Protestantism,” and from there soon spread to other geographical regions, such as Russia, the West Indies, South India, and North America, particularly Pennsylvania (Shantz 2015, 1). Unsatisfied with the stiff religiosity of the established churches, the German Pietists longed for a different kind of spirituality, one that emphasized “personal renewal and new birth, conventicle gatherings for Bible study and mutual encouragement, an emphasis on practical Christianity and social activism, and millennialism” (1). The practical dimension of this movement is not to be underestimated, because “for Pietism, piety (pietas) is the practice of faith (praxis fidei)” (Matthias 2015, 40). This practice-orientation also influenced efforts in higher education in the United States, as publications like The Pietist Vision of Christian Higher Education: Forming Whole and Holy Persons demonstrate (Gehrz 2014). Like other streams within evangelicalism, Pietism had some anti-intellectual tendencies, but nonetheless showed commitment toward efforts in higher education, demonstrating “how a ‘religion of the heart’ can sustain the life of the mind within the modern-­ day American university” (25). Given this background, the “pietist model is integrative, requiring engagement of the whole person in not only right thinking but also in right worship, right behavior, and, indeed, right formation for all aspects of life” (Coulter and Yong, forthcoming). Thus,

140 

D. TOPF

Pietism “promotes an education for the head, heart, and hands—one which does not reduce the educational task to the shaping of worldviews, but emphasizes formation of the whole person” (Peterson and Snell 2011, 217; cf. Smith 2009). Since Pietism has been one of the influences on pentecostalism (Dayton 1987, 23, 37–38, 118–121), the holistic approach of educating the heart, head, and hands (and I am placing heart first on purpose here) can become a useful framework for pentecostal colleges and universities as well. As for the practical category of the hands, an emphasis on the Spirit-empowered servanthood of Jesus Christ invites and empowers scholars and students to not only discuss social issues and current affairs on a theoretical level, but also to live out the studied principles by committing themselves to a life of service. Since Christ is the servant king (Isa. 41:1–9, 49:1–6, 52:13–53:12; Matt. 20:20–28/Mark 10:35–45; John 13:1–17; Acts 4:27–30; Phil. 2:5–11), a pentecostal university’s community is invited to imitate Jesus by dedicating their lives to serving others and making a tangible difference in society. Such an approach to academics that combines the study of knowledge and its application in real life stands in contrast to the idea of the self-­ serving humanities described by Stover above, in Chap. 6 (2018). However, even within (post)secular higher education, not everybody agrees with such a vision of higher education that seems to be of little benefit to the wider population. David J.  Staley, for instance, the director of the Humanities Institute at the Ohio State University, recognizes that “humanists at traditional universities typically produce research intended for other humanists in a scholarly conversation between academics” (2019, 60). Instead, as a viable alternative for the twenty-first century, he envisions a “Humanities Think Tank,” which is “action-oriented” so that “the knowledge it produces is intended to provoke change in the real world” (60). Pentecostals can be part of these conversations and envision a different kind of education for the twenty-first century as the Spirit of Christ not only invites them to pursue truth and knowledge, but to live lives of service as well.

References Archer, Kenneth J. 2011. The gospel revisited: Towards a Pentecostal theology of worship and witness. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Astin, Alexander W., Helen S. Astin, and Jennifer A. Lindholm. 2011. Cultivating the spirit: How college can enhance students’ inner lives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

8  INSPIRING THE MISSION OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

141

Cartledge, Mark J. 2015. The mediation of the Spirit: Interventions in practical theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Corey, Barry. 2016. Liberal arts and the Assemblies of God: A history and analysis of a strained alliance. In What’s so liberal about the liberal arts? Integrated approaches to Christian formation, ed. Paul W.  Lewis and Martin William Mittelstadt, 65–81. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Coulter, Dale M., and Amos Yong. [Forthcoming]. Finding the Holy Spirit in the Christian university: Renewing Christian higher education. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. Courey, David J. 2019. Discerning the signs of the Spirit: Pentecostal experience engages Edwardsean religious affections. In Pentecostal theology and Jonathan Edwards, ed. Steven M.  Studebaker and Amos Yong, 68–82. London: T&T Clark. Cox, Harvey G., Jr. 2001. Fire from heaven: The rise of Pentecostal spirituality and the reshaping of religion in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Dayton, Donald W. 1987. Theological roots of Pentecostalism. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Frestadius, Simo. 2020. Pentecostal rationality: Epistemology and Pentecostal hermeneutics in the Foursquare tradition. London: Bloomsbury. Gabaitse, Rosinah Mmannana. 2017. Luke 4:18–19 and salvation: Marginalization of women in the Pentecostal church in Botswana. In So great a salvation: Soteriology in the Majority World, ed. Gene L. Green, Stephen T. Pardue, and K.K. Yeo, 59–76. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gehrz, Christopher, ed. 2014. The Pietist vision of Christian higher education: Forming whole and holy persons. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Glanzer, Perry L., Nathan F. Alleman, and Todd C. Ream. 2017. Restoring the soul of the university: Unifying Christian higher education in a fragmented age. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Guest, Mathew, Kristin Aune, Sonya Sharma, and Rob Warner. 2013. Christianity and the university experience: Understanding student faith. London: Bloomsbury. Gunda, Masiiwa Ragies, and Vengeyi Obvious. 2018. The primacy of the Spirit: The case of African Initiated Churches as Pentecostals. In Aspects of Pentecostal Christianity in Zimbabwe, ed. Lovemore Togarasei, 49–62. Cham: Springer. Hays, J.  Daniel. 2010. The message of the prophets: A survey of the prophetic and apocalyptic books of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Holmes, Arthur F. 2001. Building the Christian academy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Howley, Aimee, and Craig Howley. 2011. Thinking about schools: New theories and innovative practice. New York: Routledge.

142 

D. TOPF

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. 2014. The Pentecostal understanding of mission. In Pentecostal mission and global Christianity, ed. Wonsuk Ma, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, and J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, 26–44. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Land, Steven J. [1993] 2010. Pentecostal spirituality: A passion for the kingdom. Cleveland: CPT Press. Lee, Sang Yun. 2018. A theology of hope: Contextual perspectives in Korean Pentecostalism. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Lipka, Michael. 2015. Millennials increasingly are driving growth of “nones”. Pew Research Center, May 12. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-­ tank/2015/05/12/millennials-­increasingly-­are-­driving-­growth-­of-­nones/. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Macchia, Frank D. 2006. Baptized in the Spirit: A global Pentecostal theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ———. 2010. Justified in the Spirit: Creation, redemption, and the triune God. Grand, Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2018. Jesus the Spirit baptizer: Christology in light of Pentecost. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Malik, Charles H. 1982. A Christian critique of the university. Downers Grove: IVP Books. Markham, Ian S. 2004. The idea of a Christian university. In The idea of a Christian university: Essays on theology and higher education, ed. Jeff Astley, Leslie J. Francis, John Sullivan, and Andrew Walker, 3–13. Milton Keynes: Paternoster. Matthias, Markus. 2015. Pietism and protestant orthodoxy. In A companion to German Pietism, ed. Douglas H. Shantz, 17–49. Leiden: Brill. McDonnell, Kilian. 2003. The other hand of God: The Holy Spirit as the universal touch and goal. Collegeville: Michael Glazier. Menzies, Robert P. 1994. Empowered for witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Mitchell, Keith. 2014. Truth, traditional teaching, and constructivism. In Foundations of education: A Christian vision, ed. Matthew Etherington, 131–142. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Noll, Mark A. 2011. Jesus Christ and the life of the mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Paul, John, II. 1998. Encyclical letter: Fides et ratio. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-­paul-­ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-­ii_enc_14091998_fides-­ et-­ratio.html. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Peterson, Kurt W., and R.J. Snell. 2011. “Faith forms the intellectual task”: The Pietist option in Christian higher education. In The Pietist impulse in Christianity, ed. Christian T. Collins Winn, Christopher Gehrz, G. William Carlson, and Eric Holst, 215–230. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Robinson, James. 2014. Divine healing: The years of expansion, 1906–1930: Theological variation in the transatlantic world. Eugene: Pickwick Publications.

8  INSPIRING THE MISSION OF PENTECOSTAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

143

Schmalzbauer, John A., and Kathleen A. Mahoney. 2018. The resilience of religion in American higher education. Waco: Baylor University Press. Shantz, Douglas H., ed. 2015. A companion to German Pietism, 1660–1800. Leiden: Brill. Sloan, Douglas. 1994. Faith and knowledge: Mainline Protestantism and American higher education. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Smith, James K.A. 2009. Desiring the kingdom: Worship, worldview, and cultural formation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. ———. 2010. Thinking in tongues: Pentecostal contributions to Christian philosophy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Staley, David J. 2019. Alternative universities: Speculative design for innovation in higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Stanton, Glenn T. 2019. The myth of the dying church: How Christianity is actually thriving in America and the World. New York: Hachette Book Group. Stover, Justin. 2018. There is no case for the humanities: And deep down we know our justifications for it are hollow. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 4. https://www.chronicle.com/article/There-­I s-­N o-­C ase-­f or-­t he/242724. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Yong, Amos. 2002. Spirit-word-community: Theological hermeneutics in trinitarian perspective. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. ———. 2014. The dialogical Spirit: Christian reason and theological method in the third millennium. Eugene: Cascade Books. ———. 2018. The kerygmatic Spirit: Apostolic preaching in the 21st century. Eugene: Cascade Books.

CHAPTER 9

Pentecostal Spirituality in Higher Education

In the previous chapter, I laid the theological foundations for a pentecostal education guided by a spirituality that touches both the hearts and the heads of students, while at the same time also providing a framework for the hands, by serving in the power of the Spirit, following the example of Jesus. In the following, these three themes are explored further, focusing on practical applications in the higher education task, such as: (1) an experiential approach to pedagogy, through which students can experience personal transformation; (2) an open mind as students learn to engage with different cultures and a variety of disciplines (exemplified by the many tongues of Acts 2); and (3) a spirituality of action, which invites students to contribute through service projects while studying and through the vocation they pursue upon graduation.

Transforming the Heart: An Experiential Pedagogy As discussed above, pentecostal spirituality is centered on experiencing the divine within the concrete circumstances of life. Specifically, pentecostals experience Jesus not only as Savior, but also as Sanctifier, Baptizer in the Holy Spirit, Healer, and soon coming King. In the context of pentecostal higher education, this means that students might have certain milestone

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1_9

145

146 

D. TOPF

experiences in their spiritual journey—such as salvation, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, or healing—while attending college or university. These lifechanging experiences are mediated through the Holy Spirit for, as Cartledge explains, “the central motif of the charismatic tradition is ‘the encounter with the Spirit’ both corporately within the worshipping life of the Church and individually through personal devotion and ongoing work and witness in the world” (2007, 16). Besides the church, a pentecostal institution of higher education can function as such a worshipping community as well, a community through which God is calling people to himself, to follow Jesus, and to live lives transformed by the Holy Spirit dwelling in them (Johns 1998, 100–101, 124, 136). For some, the call to believe in Jesus is a dramatic event, a radical conversion experience, comparable to what Paul experienced on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1–19; 22:1–21; 26:1–23). For others, especially those who grew up in Christian homes, it may be a less dramatic experience but, in any case, the call to conversion is a call to a lifelong journey of sanctification and of committing one’s life to God’s purposes. Ultimately, the raison d’être of pentecostal colleges and universities is to help people discover God’s purposes for their lives so that they can more fully participate in the missio Dei. Some students may have a conversion experience while on campus, while others may experience a deepening of their already existing faith in Christ. Whether students are recent or seasoned believers, they are all entering a period of growth during which God desires for them to undergo a more thorough sanctification. Here pentecostal colleges and universities have the opportunity to assist in the formation of their students; to help them overcome addictions, hurts of the past, and feelings of inadequacy or loneliness; to encourage them to experiment with a variety of spiritual disciplines, challenging them to grow in their character, so that they will embark on a lifelong journey of becoming more loving, more courageous, more faithful, and more caring members of society (cf. Macchia 2006, 11–13). Traditional students come to these institutions in a critical time of their lives, in their early twenties when people make far-reaching decisions about who they are as a person and what they are going to do with their lives. Institutions of higher education therefore have a unique opportunity

9  PENTECOSTAL SPIRITUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

147

to shape young people in profound ways (Thiessen 1996, 45). This is especially critical considering that the time spent in college can be described as “the real formative years,” since “this is a time when students are figuring out who they are, separating from their parents, preparing for the real world, [and] forging friendships that will last a lifetime” (Konrad 2019, 102). Being surrounded by Spirit-filled staff, professors, and peers can make a tangible difference in the development of students, including their moral and ethical progression. As young people live away from their parents for the first time, they have to start making their own decisions, and offering an education that forms the heart therefore needs to help students to make wise and responsible decisions, both while they are at college as well as later, when many of them will pursue a career and start a family of their own. Growing in morality and personal sanctification while being part of a pentecostal community means drawing near to God while, at the same time, rejecting values and lifestyles that are incompatible with what the Bible teaches. There are countless topics that could be discussed in this regard, but considering the discussion above (Chap. 6), the area of human sexuality may serve as a fitting example of how different biblical and worldly standards are. From a (post)secular point of view, the only moral guideline that seems to remain standing is that sex should occur between consenting adults—anything else is permissible, in any kind of combination and frequency. However, as the “Me Too” movement has revealed, consent can be a tricky issue. It not only requires that the participants are sober, but also that there are no major power distances between them— but since two human beings are never completely equal (considering differences in physical strength, age, experience, and socioeconomic status), it follows that there is always the potential for abuse, in any kind of sexual encounter. In contrast to these limiting attempts of defining sexuality in purely social or legal terms, Paul takes a theological approach in passages like 1 Corinthians 6: christologically speaking, believers are members of the body of Christ and their bodies, therefore, belong to the Lord Jesus. Pneumatologically speaking, the human body becomes a temple because, through the Holy Spirit, God now lives inside those who are

148 

D. TOPF

united to Christ (1 Cor. 6:12–20; cf. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:22). As Frank Macchia explains, through Spirit baptism the people of God “become a holy temple indwelled by the very breath of God” (2006, 100). From an eschatological perspective, this glorious reality will develop even further, since the ultimate goal is that one day “all of creation becomes the temple of God’s presence to the glory of God” (156, cf. Richter 2015, 34–35). Consequently, what people do with their physical bodies is not merely a matter of preference, sexual orientation, or any other anthropocentric category, but is of profound theological significance. Empowered by the Spirit of holiness, pentecostal colleges and universities are called to maintain this standard of sexual ethics in the twenty-first century, no matter how great the temptation or pressure may be to compromise. As pentecostal theological ethicist Daniel Castelo affirms in Holiness as a Liberal Art, those who are called to follow Jesus “are called to be disciples/followers/students of the Holy One of Israel” in order to “demonstrate and embody God’s holiness before a profane world” (2012, 10; cf. Glanzer et al. 2020, 115–116). The price to pay for such a stand may be high and affect crucial areas like accreditation and public funding, but such a commitment will be worth it if pentecostal schools can thereby establish themselves as a true alternative by being a prophetic voice in society (Murakami 2020).1 Accreditation is a key issue in higher education, not only in terms of having the necessary credentials but also because of the accountability afforded by peer assessment in the process of accrediting a college or university (Kelchen 2018). Significantly, “higher education accreditation arises from the requirement that institutions and programs must be accredited by an agency or association recognized by the USDE if their students are to be eligible for federal financial aid” (Gaston 2014, 37). 1  Of particular significance may be the case the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in 2019 to address the question, “Whether sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to sexual orientation or gender identity” (https://www.supremecourt.gov/ DocketPDF/17/17-1618/113464/20190823152930018_17-1618%2017-1623%20 18-­107bsacCouncilForChristianCollegesUniversities.pdf). In Canada, “Efforts to open what would be Canada’s first private law school and first Christian law school” are facing similar challenges (Kellner 2018, 17).

9  PENTECOSTAL SPIRITUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

149

Currently, the nonprofit status in the United States allows for tax exemptions that are tied to religious institutions, which at present are not aligned with Title IX.2 Another example of a helpful exemption is the provision for codes of sexual conduct under Footnote 4 provided by the American Psychological Association (APA).3 This provision impacts graduate studies in psychology and counseling, which are both popular disciplines at pentecostal universities. Whether these accommodations will be maintained as the culture in the United States continues to shift (particularly in the area of human sexuality and identity) remains to be seen. The recognition that comes through accreditation directly impacts potential funding sources, whether in the form of student loans, grants, or research funds. Standing firm in the midst of possibly losing considerable sources of revenue may therefore be the toughest test yet ahead for those called to be leaders in pentecostal higher education.4

Expanding the Mind: Many Tongues, Many Disciplines According to the pentecostal theologian Amos Yong, the “many tongues” of Pentecost are a major theological and missiological theme (2014a, 112–117; 2014b, 15, 61, 194). Yong believes the biblical framework of Acts 2 can become a catalyst for Christians to engage with a variety of people from different cultures and religions, as well as to participate in a dialogue with many different disciplines, including the sciences (2011, 28–29; 2015, 176–178). Understandably, such a disposition is especially important for pentecostal endeavors in higher  See also the U.S. Department of Education on Title IX (https://www2.ed.gov/about/ offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-rel-exempt/index.html). 3  See also the APA’s Standards of Accreditation (SoA) on “footnote 4” (https://www.apa. org/ed/accreditation/newsletter/2014/08/standards-accreditation). 4  One source of inspiration could be Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, which “for more than 170 years . . . has promoted ‘the diffusion of sound learning’ as the best means of preserving ‘the blessings of civil and religious liberty and intellectual piety.’” In order to maintain its independence, “Hillsdale does not accept one penny of state or federal taxpayer funding—even indirectly in the form of student grants and loans” (https://www.hillsdale.edu). 2

150 

D. TOPF

education, considering that the university is, by its very nature, a multidisciplinary and multifaceted platform of engagement (Coulter and Yong, forthcoming). In addition, pentecostalism has a long history of engaging with different kinds of people. From their early days, pentecostals reached out to the poor, to people living on the margins (cf. Chap. 2), which should make it natural for a pentecostal university to embrace students from within the lower socioeconomic spectrum of society. Pentecostalism has also always been a global and transcultural movement, making it relatively easy for pentecostals to welcome people from different ethnicities and cultures (Anderson 2013a, 25–41; 2013b, 1). With this kind of outlook and heritage, pentecostal schools can function as prophetic alternatives to the well-­ established colleges and universities that currently dominate the American higher education scene. Since the Spirit of God is poured out on all flesh (Acts 2:17–18/Joel 2:28–29), pentecostals are interested in questions related to gender, race, and class, but their primary perspective is found in a biblical worldview, rather than in a particular ideology that is currently in vogue. While pentecostal institutions of higher education are straightforward about their ideological bend, one could argue that (post)secular universities have a sacred core, too, even if they may not openly acknowledge it. Within the current political climate and a progressive system like the University of California (UC), that sacred core presently seems to be diversity. Evidence for this can be seen in the kind of positions the university creates in order to promote its core values. Just like a Christian university will employ theology professors and chaplains to promote the Christian faith on campus, so institutions like UC San Diego have a vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion (with a starting salary of $250,000), an associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, an assistant vice chancellor for diversity, a chief diversity officer, as well as the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Women’s Center—inter alia (Mac Donald 2018, 174).5 5  The UC system is not an isolated case in this regard: The University of Michigan employs nearly 100 diversity administrators, with “more than 25 of them earning over $100,000 a year” (Vedder 2018).

9  PENTECOSTAL SPIRITUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

151

Similarly, just like Christian universities may require all students to take a theology class, irrespective of their majors, so UC Berkeley has only one curricular requirement for all students at this point. Within the current cultural climate, the university sees it as essential that students learn about “how racial and ethnic groups interact in America” (180). Consequently, “every undergraduate must take a course that addresses ‘theoretical or analytical issues relevant to understanding race, culture, and ethnicity in American society’” (180). Of course, it is crucial to look at society and various fields of study through the lenses of race, class, and gender. But the point is that, in a free and pluralistic society that emphasizes diversity, there should be a variety of approaches available in higher education to discuss these issues, including approaches based on a Christian point of view (Wolterstorff 2019, 51, 149). Unfortunately, despite all the rhetoric emphasizing diversity and inclusion, many schools fall short of their self-identified goals of creating a more equal society. John King Jr., who is of African American and Puerto Rican descent and who became the Obama’s administration last secretary for education (beginning in January 2016), gave the following evaluation when he spoke to a group of leaders in higher education: When it comes to student access, we need to acknowledge the ways in which we are becoming a caste system of colleges and universities . . . . It is unjustifiable that students from the richest families make up a whopping 72 percent of the student bodies at our top colleges, whereas students from the poorest make up just 3 percent of the enrollments there. That is an embarrassment. It is a death sentence for our historic promise of social mobility. (Quoted in Alexander 2020, 9)

Significantly, King is not alone in his assessment. A substantial number of authors discussing recent developments in American higher education point to the challenge of stratification, the phenomenon that colleges and universities, instead of narrowing the gap between the privileged and the less fortunate, are, in fact, exacerbating the problem of growing inequality in society (e.g., Taylor and Cantwell 2019). Granted, in light of the past injustices that taint America’s history, much progress has been made, but historical inequality tends to project itself into the present and the future. As Hirsch and Khan describe

152 

D. TOPF

it in the context of their own institution, Columbia University, colleges have to ask themselves “how the descendants of slaveholders can study and live alongside the descendants of slaves” and “how women can thrive on a campus where they have only been able to matriculate as Columbia students since 1983” (2020, 40). Pentecostal colleges and universities may have an advantage here, considering that they started from a less privileged position and continue to be on the margins, rather than in the centers of power, wealth, and status. Will this position enable pentecostal schools to offer students a different kind of learning environment, one in which each individual feels validated and empowered? For Yong, a commitment to pluralism and diversity is not something Christians simply accept because such values are part of the twenty-first century landscape; rather, these principles are already found in Scripture, specifically in the Pentecost narrative of Acts 2. In this biblical vision of the many tongues brought forth by the one Spirit of God, Yong discovers “a pneumatological grounding of identity in diversity, and of unity in plurality” (2014b, 43). Yes, there is “an eruption of a diversity of tongues,” but at the same time “there is a harmony of testimonies, each witnessing in their own way to God’s deeds of power” (113). This work of the Holy Spirit brings together people from different languages, cultures, and religions. However, the biblical vision for this kind of diversity is different from what one finds in the postmodern university. Over the years, numerous authors have pointed to the dangers of phenomena like political correctness and affirmative action in higher education (e.g., Marranto et al. 2009). 6 One of the dangers is that these approaches to diversity create division, as students identify primarily with a particular group, the group they belong to as defined by a specific identity marker (such as their race or sexual orientation).

6  For a balanced (and more current) view on affirmative action and political correctness emphasizing the necessity of intellectual diversity, see Michael S. Roth (2019), and the distinction Amos Yong makes regarding the many tongues: “This is not a politically correct multiculturalism but a theologically and missiologically funded pluralism for the sake of the justice of the coming reign of God” (2020).

9  PENTECOSTAL SPIRITUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

153

Another potential problem is that this dividing into subgroups creates a victimhood culture that leads to censorship and new forms of discrimination against individuals who dare to disagree with any dogma of the dominant culture on campus (Campbell and Manning 2018, 213–248). By contrast, the kingdom of God vision as revealed in Scripture affirms both unity and diversity. The New Testament vision for the church is the body of Christ, where each member is unique and yet united under one head, Christ. Similarly, the student body at a pentecostal university can be diverse because the Spirit equips each individual with particular gifts, and yet there is a unified vision as people are united by one Spirit, one hope, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:4–6, NIV). Within this framework of unity, pentecostal universities can benefit from pneumatologically oriented theologies that emphasize a variety of viewpoints, thereby making diverse student populations feel welcome and empowered. Examples of such diversified and contextual pneumatologies include: • A pneumatological theology of religions signaling a new openness toward seeing God at work in other faiths (as explored by Karl Rahner, for example), while at the same time recognizing the need for discernment, as emphasized by Amos Yong (2014b, 114–115). • A pluralistic pneumatology that, as Michael Welker puts it, differentiates between “individually disintegrative pluralism” (which increasingly characterizes (post)secular universities) and “the life-enhancing, invigorating pluralism of the Spirit” (quoted in Kärkkäinen 2002, 134). • A pneumatology of liberation working “in various ways among diverse peoples and groups to set the captives free,” as “one of the main forms of the ministry of the Spirit is his work for liberation, be it related to minorities, women, the poor, or any other group that thirsts for freedom” (136). • An ecological pneumatology that emphasizes the “immanent transcendence” (so Jürgen Moltmann) of God in the world; since the life-giving Spirit of God continues to be at work in the world, this creates a theological argument to care for all creatures and the planet as a whole (1992, 7, 9–10, 31–38; cf. Kärkkäinen 2002, 169).

154 

D. TOPF

• In addition, Majority World pneumatologies make valuable contributions for an increasingly postcolonial and post-Western Christianity—such as in Africa where pentecostal theologies with their affirmation of the traditional African worldview and their emphasis on healing and deliverance have brought tangible liberation to large numbers of people (Onyinah 2009, 181–202). Some of these pneumatologies may seem closely related to liberation theology, a theological and political framework with which many pentecostals (particularly those in Latin America) are not comfortable with.7 Mark Cartledge rightfully critiques liberation theology because “very often its advocates appear to replace one oppressed group with another in a kind of circularity according to dominant ideologies” (2015, 160). Pentecostals within the Protestant spectrum therefore need to develop a pneumatology of liberation that operates within biblical parameters (such as focusing on the kingdom of God), without relying on human ideologies like Marxism and political systems like socialism/communism. On (post)secular campuses, one frequently finds an ideology-driven culture of protest, which is often based on a mix of human emotions consisting of genuine compassion, selective outrage, and youthful exuberance. What these eager students likely underestimate is the amount of time and effort it may take to bring about the kind of social change that leads to a more just society. Social change, says the historian and political scientist James MacGregor Burns (1918–2014), means “real change— that is, a transformation to a marked degree in the attitudes, norms, institutions, and behaviors that structure our daily lives” (1978, 414, emphasis original). Within “the vast literature on change,” he notices “the absence of a clear concept of the role of artistic or intellectual or political or social leadership in the processes of change . . . as though change took place mechanically, apart from human volition or participation” (415). One of the tasks of higher education is to form future 7  On the other hand, in Nigerian pentecostalism, “the liberationist version of kingdom theology” proposed by pentecostal pastor Tunde Bakare “has closer affinities to Latin American liberation theology than it does to the American brand of dominion theology” (Burgess 2020, 99).

9  PENTECOSTAL SPIRITUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

155

leaders, who are well-­equipped for the difficult task of defining what greater degrees of justice would look like in a particular context and how the necessary changes can be accomplished in a sustainable and ethical manner. Compared to non-Christian institutions, pentecostal colleges and universities base their commitment to peace and justice on a broader framework, one with theological foundations. In the process of being transformed on a personal level so that they can become transformational leaders in society, pentecostal students are empowered by an “eschatological boldness,” which enables them to “courageously resist oppressive forces in the world with full knowledge that the final triumph of God’s kingdom is only a matter of time” (Macchia 2006, 278). Such a theological and eschatological framework is not an excuse to retreat from this planet; quite the contrary, it is an invitation for students at pentecostal schools to engage with the world, be it through engaging in service projects while studying or, after graduation, by serving society through a particular vocation.

Training the Hands: Service and Vocation While pentecostals need to pay attention to the epistemological and theological foundations of their institutions of higher learning, these will also be characterized by a practical dimension, inviting students to become a blessing to others in tangible ways, for example, by taking advantage of service learning opportunities. As Coulter and Yong affirm in Finding the Holy Spirit in the Christian University, such “service learning opportunities are essential for the Christian university not only for the learning that is provided but for the outworking of a moral vision” (forthcoming). Since modern universities usually “operate more in the theoretical than the practical domain,” pentecostal institutions of higher education can benefit from a dynamic in which theory and practice inform and challenge each other (forthcoming). While (post)secular universities tend to form their students primarily in the realm of the intellect, more and more institutions recognize the importance of practical involvement as well. From a Christian perspective, one of the most remarkable findings of the 2011 HERI study is what a

156 

D. TOPF

beneficial effect service opportunities have on the spirituality and the overall development of students. It is especially noteworthy that Astin et al. chose the expression “mission trip” to describe one possible service activity, certainly not something one would expect coming out of an environment as (post)secular and progressive as UCLA (2011, 59). Mission trips are, of course, a prominent service opportunity offered by many Christian colleges and universities, but pentecostals have a distinctive advantage here because pentecostalism is, at its very core, a missionary movement (Anderson 2015, 115). Passion for missions is something that characterized the pioneering days of the pentecostal movement, and this commitment to reach the unreached continues to be fueled through the emphasis pentecostals place on the power and presence of the Holy Spirit (a topic to be discussed further in Chap. 10). Pentecostal mission is characterized by several elements, such as exuberant worship, an emphasis on signs and wonders, and a radical belief in the priesthood of all believers. This empowerment of the laity is particularly important in the context of higher education settings, as it gives students the confidence that they can make a real difference during a mission trip, even if they do not see ministry as their primary vocation in life. It therefore comes as no surprise that missional service opportunities, both global and local, are common at pentecostal colleges and universities. At Oral Roberts University, for example, “Healing Teams” carry on the torch passed on by healing evangelist Oral Roberts, and these teams are meant as an avenue for missions to affect more than just the spiritual side of the world’s needs, as they “address physical, economic, sociological, and developmental needs in the communities” they visit.8 Besides offering concrete opportunities to contribute, service is also a general value emphasized by pentecostal institutions of higher education. Vanguard University, for instance, is guided by three core values: truth, virtue, and service. The latter is understood as a commitment to develop students’ “talents to their

8  “ORU Healing Teams” on Oral Roberts University’s website (https://oruhealingteams. oru.edu/).

9  PENTECOSTAL SPIRITUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

157

potential and discern God’s purpose” for their lives. 9 More specifically, the members of the Vanguard community work to “strengthen the skills necessary for effective communication of ideas and for a productive place in society; prepare students for diverse vocations, graduate programs, and leadership roles; and exercise civic responsibility, respect cultural and individual differences, and care for others.” Emmanuel College, which was founded in 1919 by the International Pentecostal Holiness Church, also emphasizes service, declaring, “We believe education based on these principles is the best possible method of preparing students for and involving them in lasting service to God and others—service noted for integrity, intelligence and devotion.” 10 Equipped with such a vision for service and by promoting concrete service opportunities, pentecostal colleges and universities can offer students a different kind of education, one that not only educates the head but engages heart and hands as well.11 While (post)secular universities tend to (over)emphasize the intellect and the acquiring of knowledge, Christian institutions of higher education advocate for a more holistic approach by investing in the spiritual, emotional, mental, social, moral, and physical development of the student. Crucially, such a holistic development is not self-centered; rather, the idea is that Spirit-empowered and transformed students will look for ways to pursue justice and to promote God’s shalom in the world (Wolterstorff 1984, 111–116). However, as James K. A. Smith reminds us, “Shalom is not biblical language for progressivist social amelioration. Shalom is a Christ-haunted call to long for kingdom come” (2017, 89). It is within such an eschatological framework that pentecostals can bring about transformation to their communities— not only as part of their educational experience while attending college or university, but hopefully also for the rest of their lives as they discover a   “Mission” on Vanguard University’s website (https://www.vanguard.edu/about/ mission). 10  “Statement of Faith” on Emmanuel College’s website (https://ec.edu/statementof-faith/). 11  At the same time, it also needs to be acknowledged that “renewalists are well known for their having warm hearts and hot hands (an affective, if not infective, spirituality and an intense commitment to mission and evangelism) but not for what is arguably at the center of the educational task, cool heads (effective minds)” (Coulter and Yong, forthcoming). 9

158 

D. TOPF

sense of calling and vocation that will shape their contributions to society in God-centered and Spirit-empowered ways.12 Whenever Christians address a practical element of higher education (such as service and vocation), the danger for them is to focus on activity, on the many things that could and should be done. In the process, believers might lose sight of the big picture, getting so entangled with the what and the how that they forget the why of higher education. Therefore, in taking a step back, the question needs to be asked: Why even have a college or university in the first place? What is the ultimate rationale for such a massive undertaking? From a Christian perspective, these kinds of ultimate questions can only be answered by looking outside ourselves, by turning to an ultimate reality that transcends the time-space continuum of the physical universe as we know it. In the great drama of redemption, the Creator of the universe loved the cosmos (John 3:16) and revealed Godself in Jesus, who is God incarnate. Since then, God’s redemptive purposes are at work on this earth in a new chapter of the missio Dei, which includes making disciples of all nations as a manifestation of the inbreaking and transformative reality of the kingdom of God (McConnell 2018, 2–3, 7–11). Beyond calling students into a process of salvation and sanctification, pentecostal institutions of higher education also have the specific task of preparing their graduates to succeed in the professional world. For (post)secular institutions, this often basically means enabling students to find gainful employment. This is a truncated perspective of the university which has been vehemently criticized by some, especially by those who nostalgically long for the days when (mostly well-to-do) students went to liberal arts colleges in order to acquire education and knowledge for their own sake. In the current era of massification of higher education, making students job-ready certainly is a major 12  As Douglas Jacobsen and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen affirm, “The goal of college and university learning at its best is to transform students as persons,” but they also recognize that, at many universities, what really seems to count is prestige and money (2012, 143, 155). Pentecostal schools have a great opportunity in this regard because, beyond mere rhetoric, they can point to the Holy Spirit as an empowering agent bringing about lasting transformation.

9  PENTECOSTAL SPIRITUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

159

responsibility of any university. Pentecostals, however, have the opportunity to equip students not only with a specific set of marketable skills, but to prepare them for a vocation through which they may participate in the missio Dei. Traditionally, pentecostals have been strong in offering praxis-oriented forms of theological education, in order to prepare people to become pastors, evangelists, and missionaries (Kay and Davies 2017, 33–42). By working within comprehensive frameworks like the mission of God and the kingdom of God, a broader perspective becomes possible, one that goes beyond what is happening inside the church. As Kirsteen Kim explains, “since the kingdom is holistic and transformative—socially as well as personally, understanding it involves social and political sciences as well as traditional theological disciplines and the humanities” (2019, 8). By covering a wide range of subjects including the sciences and the humanities, pentecostal colleges and universities can do something the many pentecostal Bible schools and seminaries already in existence cannot do; they can prepare students to be ambassadors of Christ’s kingdom through their work in specific fields—be it as engineers, managers, teachers, scientists, lawyers, nurses, or software developers. Pentecostal colleges and universities have a unique contribution to make in this regard because: A pneumatologically charged project of higher education can revive the hands of inquiry in accordance with the eschatological shape of the impending reign of God, and can empower transformative service and practice with the power to impact and change the world in accordance with the ethical shape of Jesus’ Spirit-empowered mission and ministry. (Coulter and Yong, forthcoming)

This anticipation of the coming rule of God is essential because any vocation exercised here on earth can ultimately only have purpose within such an eschatological perspective. By operating within the framework of an eschatology of continuity, pentecostal educators can inspire their students with the vision that the good they “do in this era will have continuing

160 

D. TOPF

value in the age to come” (Kim 2019, 6). (Post)secular universities produce graduates who will (hopefully) be able to find a job that matches their qualification, but the vision of a pentecostal school goes far beyond career preparation, equipping their students for both this life and the age to come. With such a vision, engaging in higher education becomes a deeply missional undertaking for pentecostals—and, as I assert in the following chapter, missions has always been one of the main characteristics of the pentecostal movement.

References Alexander, Bryan. 2020. Academia next: The futures of higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Anderson, Allan H. 2013a. The emergence of a multidimensional global missionary movement: Trends, patterns, and expressions. In Spirit and power: The growth and global impact of Pentecostalism, ed. Donald E.  Miller, Kimon H.  Sargeant, and Richard Flory, 25–41. New  York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2013b. To the ends of the earth: Pentecostalism and the transformation of world Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2015. The dynamics of global Pentecostalism: Origins, motivations and future. In Spirit of God: Christian renewal in the community of the faith, ed. Jeffrey W.  Barbeau and Beth Felker Jones, 110–127. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Astin, Alexander W., Helen S. Astin, and Jennifer A. Lindholm. 2011. Cultivating the spirit: How college can enhance students’ inner lives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Burgess, Richard. 2020. Nigerian Pentecostalism and development: Spirit, power, and transformation. London: Routledge. Burns, James M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Campbell, Bradley, and Jason Manning. 2018. The rise of victimhood culture: Microaggressions, safe spaces, and the new culture wars. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Cartledge, Mark J. 2007. Encountering the Spirit: The charismatic tradition. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. ———. 2015. The mediation of the Spirit: Interventions in practical theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Castelo, Daniel, ed. 2012. Holiness as a liberal art. Eugene: Pickwick Publications.

9  PENTECOSTAL SPIRITUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

161

Coulter, Dale M., and Amos Yong. Forthcoming. Finding the Holy Spirit in the Christian university: Renewing Christian higher education. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Mac Donald, Heather. 2018. The diversity delusion: How race and gender pandering corrupt the university and undermine our culture. New  York: St. Martin’s Press. Gaston, Paul L. 2014. Higher education accreditation: How it’s changing, why it must. Sterling: Stylus Publishing. Glanzer, Perry L., Theodore F. Cockle, Elijah G. Jeong, and Britney N. Graber. 2020. Christ-enlivened student affairs: A guide to Christian thinking and practice in the field. Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press. Hirsch, Jennifer S., and Shamus Khan. 2020. Sexual citizens: A landmark study of sex, power, and assault on campus. New York: W. W. Norton. Jacobsen, Douglas G., and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen. 2012. No longer invisible: Religion in university education. New York: Oxford University Press. Johns, Cheryl Bridges. 1998. Pentecostal formation: A pedagogy among the oppressed. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. 2002. Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in ecumenical, international, and contextual perspective. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Kay, William K., and Andrew Davies. 2017. Pentecostal universities: Theory and history. Pentecost Journal of Theology and Mission 2 (1): 33–42. Kelchen, Robert. 2018. Higher education accountability. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kellner, Mark A. 2018. Canadian court rules against accreditation bid by Christian law school. Christian Century 1 (August): 17–18. Kim, Kirsteen. 2019. Vocation as missionary discipleship: Reading Matthew’s Gospel from the back. Submitted manuscript, personal communication 18: 1–11. Konrad, Angela. 2019. Word made flesh: The transformational power of theatre. In Where wisdom may be found: The eternal purpose of Christian higher education, ed. Edward P. Meadors, 98–110. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Macchia, Frank D. 2006. Baptized in the Spirit: A global Pentecostal theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Marranto, Robert, Richard E.  Redding, and Fredrick M.  Hess, eds. 2009. The politically correct university: Problems, scope, and reforms. Washington, DC: AEI Press. McConnell, C.  Douglas. 2018. Cultural insights for Christian leaders: New directions for organizations serving God’s mission. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Moltmann, Jürgen. 1992. The Spirit of life: A universal affirmation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

162 

D. TOPF

Murakami, Kery. 2020. Tying grant eligibility to religious freedom. Inside Higher Ed, February 7. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/02/07/ colleges-­worry-­about-­implications-­religious-­freedom-­rule. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Onyinah, Opoku. 2009. Deliverance as a way of confronting witchcraft in contemporary Africa: Ghana as a case study. In The Spirit in the world: Emerging Pentecostal theologies in global contexts, ed. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, 181–202. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Richter, Sandra. 2015. What do I know of holy? On the person and work of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Spirit of God: Christian renewal in the community of faith, ed. Jeffrey W. Barbeau and Beth Felker Jones, 23–38. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Roth, Michael S. 2019. Safe enough spaces: A pragmatist’s approach to inclusion, free speech, and political correctness on college campuses. New Haven: Yale University Press. Smith, James K.A. 2017. Awaiting the king: Reforming public theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Taylor, Barrett J., and Brendan Cantwell. 2019. Unequal higher education: Wealth, status, and student opportunity. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Thiessen, Elmer John. 1996. Objections to the idea of a Christian university. In The idea of a Christian university: Essays in theology and higher education, ed. Jeff Astley, Leslie J. Francis, John Sullivan, and Andrew Walker, 35–55. Milton Keynes: Paternoster. Vedder, Richard. 2018. Diversity and other administrative monstrosities: The case of the University of Michigan. Forbes, July 23. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ richardvedder/2018/07/23/diversity-and-other-administrative-monstrousities-the-case-of-the-university-of-michigan/#6673ba1068ec. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 1984. Reason within the bounds of religion. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2019. Religion in the university. New Haven: Yale University Press. Yong, Amos. 2011. The Spirit of creation: Modern science and divine action in the Pentecostal-charismatic imagination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2014a. The dialogical Spirit: Christian reason and theological method in the third millennium. Eugene: Cascade Books. ———. 2014b. The missiological Spirit: Christian mission theology in the third millennium global context. Eugene: Cascade Books.

9  PENTECOSTAL SPIRITUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

163

———. 2015. Creatio Spiritus and the Spirit of Christ: Toward a trinitarian theology of creation. In Spirit of God: Christian renewal in the community of faith, ed. Jeffrey W.  Barbeau and Beth Felker Jones, 168–182. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. ———. 2020. Renewing the church by the Spirit: Theological education after Pentecost. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

CHAPTER 10

Toward a Pentecostal Missiology of Higher Education

In the previous chapter, I explained how pentecostal universities have a distinct advantage because they can promote a holistic spirituality on campus, something that an increasing number of students might be interested in as the twenty-first century continues to unfold. This present chapter highlights another key strength of the pentecostal movement: its pronounced commitment to missions. Pentecostals want to reach the world for Christ, a passion that began with proclaiming the gospel to all nations and has more recently developed toward impacting all spheres of society. My argument is that, for several reasons, higher education may be one of the most promising vehicles for such a holistic engagement. In the following, I describe five major themes that are characteristic of pentecostal missiologies, namely (1) eschatological urgency, (2) Spirit baptism, (3) evangelism and church planting, (4) signs and wonders, (5) and holistic ministry. On various occasions, I highlight specific pentecostal churches and ministries that have demonstrated a strong commitment in these areas, while also calling attention to their engagement in higher education (or lack thereof). My intention is to describe how the movement’s commitment to missions has developed over time, with the goal of pointing to the necessity for pentecostals to invest more in their own colleges and universities as a crucial missional opportunity in the twenty-first century to bring transformation to society as a whole.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1_10

165

166 

D. TOPF

Motivation for Missions: Eschatological Urgency From a strategic point of view, it is often beneficial to begin with the end in mind, and that is precisely what early pentecostals did: they were convinced Jesus was coming back soon, and this perspective shaped their approach to life and ministry in profound ways. The biblical and theological framework fueling this eschatological fervor was that of the “latter rain” (Vondey 2017, 133–143). For pentecostals, it was obvious that, at Azusa Street and other locations around the world, the Holy Spirit was being poured out in a new measure, with an intensity that had not been witnessed since the Pentecost event recorded in Acts 2. In this understanding, what the disciples had experienced that day in Jerusalem had been the “early rain,” which—with parallels to the typical weather and agricultural cycles in the Near East—was then followed by a long period of drought (standing for much of church history). Spiritual gifts like tongues and healings had largely been absent from the church for centuries, but now these powerful demonstrations of the Spirit were being restored, thereby enabling believers to bring in a mighty end-time harvest, so pentecostals believed. Apart from the theological framework of the latter rain, the message of Christ’s imminent return was also reinforced through a significant number of prophetic messages. These messages pointing to the Parousia were expressed in various forms; at times, pentecostals reported to have visions about this theme, others gave a message in tongues that was then interpreted, and many also expressed this Naherwartung in their sermons and letters (Azusa Street Papers 2013, 26, 240, 370). On other occasions, pointing to Jesus coming back soon was something pentecostals just briefly mentioned, in a matter-of-fact sort of way. For instance, G. A. Cook wrote a letter talking about different aspects of his ministry and then ended by saying, “Our dear Lord is certainly coming soon, and we must be busy spreading this wonderful salvation to hungry people” (172). Presented with such evidence, several scholars studying pentecostalism agree: in order to understand the pentecostal movement and its missiology, it is essential to recognize the eschatological fervor that was driving it. One of the first academics to identify this was the historian Robert Anderson when he described pentecostalism as a millenarian movement (1979, 195, 199, 229–232). Similarly, Peter Althouse believes, “it was the Azusa revival and its quest for spiritual and social renewal of the church in preparation for the imminent return of Jesus Christ that gave birth to the

10  TOWARD A PENTECOSTAL MISSIOLOGY OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

167

Pentecostal movement” (2003, 9). Furthermore, as “many early Pentecostals believed that Jesus’ return was imminent,” they also became convinced “that their evangelistic practices could in fact hasten his return” and “that Christ’s return would be preceded by the preaching of the gospel unto the ends of the earth” (Nel 2019, 107). Apart from their own convictions, pentecostals were also shaped by the evangelical movement in the United States, particularly by its fundamentalist expressions with its dispensational framework that was largely adopted by many pentecostals (Frost 2019, 40). As discussed in Chap. 2, this particular view of the end times also influenced the way early pentecostals approached theological education. Pentecostals had a pragmatic view of education, establishing numerous relatively small Bible institutes and ministerial training centers that typically lasted only a few months. The idea was to get people to the field quickly, which is why there seemed to be no time for extensive studies and for building up lasting institutions (Corey 2016, 71–72). Over time, however, the eschatological fervor cooled, and today different views exist among pentecostals regarding the end times. Especially among neo-pentecostals, a more optimistic eschatology is taking hold, and several scholars have urged pentecostals to move beyond the dispensational model (Frost 2019, 43–44).1 Nonetheless, a fascination with the end times still plays a crucial role for some pentecostals, such as for instance at the International House of Prayer of Kansas City (IHOPKC), a ministry established by Mike Bickle (Christerson and Flory 2017, 37–42). The primary focus of IHOPKC is 24/7 prayer (and, more recently, an emphasis on deeds of justice as well), based on having an intimate relationship with Jesus. The ministry is strongly influenced by Bickle’s preaching and teaching ministry; according to his website, his teaching library now encompasses over “2,600 audio and video files of Mike’s rich teaching history, including links to handouts and study notes.”2 One of Bickle’s primary teaching categories is “Intimacy with God,” a topic he has written several books about. However, another crucial teaching category of his is “End Times and Eternity,” which includes teachings on the Second 1  See also John Weaver who, in his discussion of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), states: “Traditional dispensationalist eschatology is defeatist; NAR eschatology is triumphalist” (2016, 208). 2  IHOPKC’s website (https://www.ihopkc.org/) includes a link to the Mike Bickle teaching library (https://mikebickle.org/).

168 

D. TOPF

Coming, the end times, historic premillennialism, and Israel. By emphasizing that Jesus is coming soon, Bickle creates an excitement, especially among young people, encouraging them to live a holy lifestyle and to dedicate themselves to the ministries and schools offered by IHOPKC. The training arm of IHOPKC is called International House of Prayer University (IHOPU), which provides “ministry training in the context of night-and-day prayer.”3 IHOPU offers two-year certificates and four-year diplomas in three areas: ministry, music, and media. However, none of these programs are accredited and the emphasis is rather narrow, focusing mostly on the needs of the church world. In that sense, IHOPU is a contemporary version of the theological training made available by early pentecostals, focusing on an affordable education within the context of a vibrant spiritual community. IHOPU is not a degree-granting university and it may never achieve that status, given its particular focus and limitations. Pentecostal higher education efforts have often been hampered by an apocalyptic eschatology, but this does not have to be the case moving forward. For instance, pentecostals might be able to channel their fascination with the end times toward an inaugurated eschatology that does not need to be otherworldly but focuses instead on embodying the realities of the kingdom of God, as proclaimed and embodied by Jesus (Gladd and Harmon 2016, 38–58). In addition, even an eschatology that energizes believers by emphasizing premillennialism and the imminent return of Jesus could lead to an investment in pentecostal colleges and universities by developing an eschatology of continuity. In such a view, institutions of higher education would continue to play a role in the millennium: just like Jesus promised his faithful followers that they would rule over five or ten cities in his coming kingdom, it is also conceivable that those who committed themselves to investing in pentecostal higher education in this age will continue working in this area after the Second Coming, albeit on a greater scale (Luke 19:12–19).

Empowerment for Missions: Spirit Baptism Next to pentecostalism’s eschatological fervor, Spirit baptism is the most characteristic theological distinctive of pentecostals, which also exercises a profound influence on its missiology. As Macchia asserts, “the dominant 3  “International House of Prayer University,” on IHOPKC’s website (https://www. ihopkc.org/ihopu/).

10  TOWARD A PENTECOSTAL MISSIOLOGY OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

169

theological concern of Pentecostalism in the early decades of the movement was an experience called the ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit,’ especially as accompanied by speaking in tongues and other extraordinary gifts of the Spirit” (2009, 4). This doctrine was influenced by the holiness movement, specifically the idea that there was a crucial spiritual experience to be had after a person’s conversion. For John Wesley and his followers, this second experience was entire sanctification, and pentecostals later added the experience of Spirit baptism as an additional step toward spiritual maturity. For some, Spirit baptism would become a third crisis experience, as entire sanctification (the second experience) was essential for being able to receive the fullness of the Spirit. For other pentecostals, however, Spirit baptism became the crucial second experience after conversion. Whether working in two or in three stages, the emphasis was on receiving the Holy Spirit in greater measure, an event that was usually accompanied by speaking in tongues (Kay 2011, 23). For the community of early pentecostals at Azusa Street, Spirit baptism in combination with tongues had a particular significance with missiological implications; after all, “Many are speaking in new tongues, and some are on their way to the foreign fields, with the gift of the language” (Azusa Street Papers 2013, 9; cf. Robeck 2013). With this gift they were not referring to a devotional prayer language (or the language of angels, cf. 1 Cor. 13:1) but to concrete languages as they were spoken in other parts of the world. Consequently, early pentecostals demonstrated great eagerness in sharing their faith, both at home and abroad—even after they realized that the gift of “missionary tongues” did not manifest itself quite as they had at first expected (Keener 2020, 228–231, 244–245). In the charismatic renewal that began in the 1960s, the fullness of the Holy Spirit was also associated with speaking in tongues, while later, in the so-called Third Wave of the movement and among neo-pentecostals, there would be more of an emphasis on a variety of spiritual gifts, such as prophecy and healing. As Allan Anderson explains regarding Third Wave churches like Vineyard and Calvary Chapel, these “usually conflate Spirit baptism with conversion and see spiritual gifts as available to every believer” (2010, 19). In any case, many pentecostals and charismatics saw the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a path toward greater authority in life and ministry, empowering the saints for missions and service (Hart 2011, 262). The idea was that ordinary believers, empowered by the Holy Spirit, would be able to boldly preach the gospel, and that God would confirm

170 

D. TOPF

the message with signs and wonders. By placing such an emphasis on the ministerial capabilities of everyday believers, pentecostals took the concept of the priesthood of all believers to a new level (Anderson 2013b, 93). While in the Protestant reformation the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers largely meant church members were now able to approach God directly (without the need of a priest), in pentecostalism the priesthood of all believers meant ordinary church members could now do something for God, which included playing an active role in missions.4 One more recent example of this approach to ministry is Youth With A Mission (YWAM), the mission agency founded by Loren Cunningham in 1960 (Ma 2005, 17–18; 2009, 45–46). Cunningham was associated with the Assemblies of God, but then started his own organization, as his vision did not quite fit into the traditional structures of a denomination (Cunningham 2001, 23, 39, 77–80). While traditionally missionaries had been sent out by denominations after a considerable time of preparation and training, Cunningham believed in the potential of young people. Following a vision God had given him, he longed to see waves of young people going to every country on earth in missions, even if these individuals did not necessarily see themselves as career missionaries. As has so often been the case in the history of pentecostalism, the idea spread rapidly, and the ministry experienced extraordinary growth. Today, YWAM has some 18,000 workers on staff in over 180 countries, making it one of the largest and most influential mission organizations in the world.5 Besides engaging in evangelism and mercy ministries, YWAM also values education and training. Based on his vision of impacting the seven spheres of society, Cunningham founded the University of the Nations (UofN), an innovative model of Christian higher education at which students would not only be learning about theology but would be able to study in seven different colleges, namely (1) arts and sports, (2) Christian ministries, (3) communications, (4) counseling and healthcare, (5) education, (6) humanities and international studies, and (7) science and technology.6 However, the University of the Nations is not accredited, and as 4  Because of the emphasis on speaking out and doing things for God, the concept of “the priesthood of all believers” has also been expanded into “the prophethood of all believers” by pentecostals (Stronstad 2003). 5  “YWAM History” on the organization’s website (https://www.ywam.org/about-us/ history/). 6  As listed on the website of the University of the Nations (https://uofn.edu/).

10  TOWARD A PENTECOSTAL MISSIOLOGY OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

171

such it is more of an in-house ministerial training school that has limited credibility and impact outside of YWAM (Ream 2012, 133). Insufficient models of pentecostal higher education like the UofN underscore the importance of pentecostals expanding their degree-­ granting colleges and universities. The Holy Spirit empowered early pentecostals to become effective witnesses for Christ, even to the ends of the earth. In the twenty-first century, pentecostals will increasingly be called to bring transformation to all the sectors and spheres within society. Spirit baptism is a call to greater intimacy with God, considering that God’s love has been poured into the hearts of believers through the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5). In response, pentecostals have been passionate about loving the Lord with all their heart and soul but have sometimes neglected the life of the mind. However, through the setting of higher education, pentecostals have a unique opportunity to bear a Spirit-filled witness to the world by loving God with their mind as they dedicate themselves to teaching and researching the untapped wonders of God’s bountiful creation.

The Emphasis in Missions: Signs and Wonders The significance of the supernatural in the spread and success of the pentecostal movement can hardly be overestimated. As Anderson elucidates, “a prominent aspect of Pentecostal and Charismatic faith is that the coming of the Spirit brings the ability to perform ‘signs and wonders’ . . . to accompany and authenticate the gospel message” (2013b, 202; cf. Pomerville  [1985] 2016, 249). Pentecostals believe the spiritual gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12 are still (or once again) operational in the church, and consequently tongues, prophecies, and healings have played an important role in pentecostalism, a phenomenon that manifested itself in the early revivals and continues to this day (Wadkins 2013, 147). Among the various manifestations like deliverance from demons, being slain in the Spirit, and receiving dreams and visions, physical healings are of particular significance in spreading the pentecostal message. As Veli-­ Matti Kärkkäinen explains, “Gifts of the Spirit such as prophesying, prayer for healing, and works of miracles are enthusiastically embraced and sought by Pentecostals. Belief in the capacity of the Spirit to bring healing, whether physical or emotional/mental, is one of the hallmarks of Pentecostalism” (2014a, 300). Anderson even goes as far as to say that divine healing “is perhaps the most universal characteristic . . . and perhaps the main reason for its growth in the developing world” (2014, 30).

172 

D. TOPF

Historically, the theme of healing as one of the elements of the Christian faith had already captured people’s attention (and imagination) in the nineteenth century, when ministries like the healing houses were founded (Poloma 2009, 21–39). Theologically, pentecostals not only saw healing as a gift granted by the Holy Spirit, but also as a manifestation of the person and work of Jesus Christ, thereby combining pneumatological and Christological elements. As explained in Chap. 8, in pentecostal theology Christ is not only perceived as Savior (from sin), but also as Sanctifier, Baptizer in the Holy Spirit, Healer, and soon coming King (Anderson 2014, 225–31). Accordingly, pentecostals have the expectation that, when Christ is preached, people not only receive forgiveness of sins but also experience salvation in tangible ways in the here and now. While many people in the Majority World are turning to the Christian faith after witnessing healings, other signs and wonders are significant as well (Keener 2011). For instance, it is now well-documented that Muslims today often become followers of Jesus after receiving a dream or a vision with a life-changing message. In animistic cultures, conversions are frequently taking place after people recognize that the power of the Holy Spirit is greater than anything they believed in before, and that people can receive deliverance from evil spirits as a free gift (Onyinah 2009, 181–202). In addition, even in Western countries, spiritual gifts can play a role in bringing people to the faith, such as argued by John Wimber (1934–1997) who promoted the concept of “power evangelism” and who started the Vineyard movement, which continues to thrive today (Wimber and Springer 2009). Julie Ma and Wonsuk Ma are outstanding scholars in their analysis of the significance of healing for pentecostal missions. While they recognize the significance of physical healing in missions, they also acknowledge that: what has been seriously overlooked is the creation role of the Holy Spirit, and also in restoration, be it material, physical, relational, communal, ethical or spiritual (e.g., Isa. 32:15ff.). This not only appropriates healing to the Pentecostal framework of theology, it opens vast territory for the Spirit’s creative and restorative potential, and this will definitely enlarge the potential of Pentecostal mission thinking and practice. (2010, 282)

Inspired by such a comprehensive approach to missions, Ma and Ma express a desire to invest in theological education and mission studies, highlighting that “Asia has already seen more than a dozen Pentecostal graduate schools, many national Pentecostal societies, academic journals

10  TOWARD A PENTECOSTAL MISSIOLOGY OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

173

and publications; and this is the time that scholars can begin to produce materials that are pastor-friendly in language and subject matter” (241). Notably, even though Ma and Ma emphasize theological education and cast a holistic vision for pentecostal mission, a wider discussion of higher education (in terms of developing pentecostal liberal arts colleges and research universities) is not part of their missiology as developed in Mission in the Spirit (2010). That is precisely the lacuna I intend to address with the pentecostal missiology of higher education I am proposing in this volume. The vision of bringing about healing not only in the physical but also in the social realm calls for a comprehensive approach to ministry and missions, which could be accomplished through pentecostal liberal arts colleges and research universities. For pentecostals, the metaphor of healing is rooted in the miraculous, something that in the modernist perspective has been perceived as nonrational or even anti-rational. However, in a postmodern context, rationality is not reducible to modernist bifurcations, which creates new opportunities for pentecostals to impact society with the gospel. The pentecostal openness to signs and wonders and the commitment to “a universe open to surprise” could prompt the kind of curiosity that can sustain inquiry and even research in the pentecostal university, thereby serving as a channel to discover and facilitate hitherto unknown solutions for a variety of ailments and challenges that are affecting people in the twenty-first century (Smith 2010, 87).

Priorities in Missions: Evangelism and Church Planting Propelled by an eschatological urgency and empowered by the Holy Spirit to perform signs and wonders, pentecostals have stressed preaching the good news and starting new churches all around the world. As Ma and Ma observe, “evangelism and church planting are two distinct features of Pentecostal mission from the early stages of its mission movement” (2010, 117). As indicated above, this work of witnessing to Christ has been largely shouldered by ordinary believers, since pentecostalism is a highly participatory expression of the Christian faith. As pentecostals experienced the living God in often dramatic ways, it was only natural for them to share this good news with their friends and neighbors. In fact, pentecostals love to give testimony about their religious experiences, be it in an informal setting or during a worship service, and testimonies have been one of the

174 

D. TOPF

main channels for spreading the pentecostal message (Engelbert 2019, 82–85). In cross-cultural settings, pentecostals soon showed extraordinary success in allowing local leaders to take charge of their own churches, an approach masterfully described by Melvin L. Hodges (1909–1988) in The Indigenous Church, which is considered a classic in pentecostal literature today (McClung 2017, 9). Hodges relies on the missiological principle of having self-governing, self-supporting, and self-propagating churches as proposed by Henry Venn (1796–1873) and Rufus Anderson (1796–1880) when he writes, The New Testament church then was first, self-propagating; that is, it had within it sufficient vitality so that it could extend throughout the region and neighboring regions by its own efforts. . . . Second, it was self-governing; that is, it was governed by men [sic] who were raised up by the Holy Spirit from among the converts in the locality. Third, it was self-supporting; it did not depend on foreign money in order to meet the expenses of the work. ([1953] 1976, 12)

These principles might have been known already, but the point is that pentecostal missionaries raised up national leaders  to establish independent churches “much quicker than older mission churches” had (Anderson 2007, 271). Over the past few decades, pentecostal missionaries and ministers have planted so many growing churches that there are hundreds of millions of pentecostals spread throughout the world today, a number that could grow to over one billion adherents by the year 2050 (Lee 2018b, 1–2). Granted, in Anderson’s opinion, these estimates are “often-quoted, controversial, and undoubtedly inflated” (2014, 1), but even if precise numbers are hard to come by, it cannot be denied that pentecostalism has displayed astonishing growth, turning small groups of believers into a major force within global Christianity in the relatively short time span of just over 100 years. This remarkable growth of pentecostalism is strongly connected to missions; without a pronounced emphasis on evangelism and church planting on a global scale, pentecostalism could not have spread the way it did. As Anderson acknowledges, pentecostalism is “the most successful Christian missionary movement of the twentieth century,” and it “has always been a missionary movement in foundation and essence” (2013a, 26, 39; cf. Kärkkäinen 2014b, 26).

10  TOWARD A PENTECOSTAL MISSIOLOGY OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

175

Although pentecostalism emphasizes the priesthood of all believers, it also gives prominence to outstanding leaders, and one of these leaders who must not be neglected when discussing evangelism and church growth is David Yonggi Cho.7 Cho is the founding pastor of Yoido Full Gospel Church (YFGC), which “began in a makeshift tent with five members in the suburban slum area of Seoul in 1958, and grew to be the largest church in the world in 2008 with a membership of 780,000 in just fifty years” (Lee 2014, 107). This astonishing success story is often mentioned in the literature and has been covered in considerable detail. At this point, highlighting the following five factors leading to such growth must suffice: (1) Cho, led by the Spirit, prayed for various practical needs people had, especially healing; (2) theologically, Cho focused on a positive message, which was based on the threefold blessing as indicated in 3 John 2 (Ma 2011, 140–159); (3) Jashil Choi (1915–1989), Cho’s mother-in-law, diligently labored in fasting and prayer, and elements such as “praying in unison” during the service and visiting prayer mountains became characteristic of YFGC; (4) Cho emphasized cell-groups that met at people’s homes and were often led by women, thereby creating powerful channels of spiritual growth and multiplication; (5) as the church grew, it used its resources to be more engaged in public life, starting publications as well as numerous social services to serve the needy in society (Lee 2018a, 276–281). One of the areas of social engagement for YFGC has been education, including higher education, as the establishment of Hansei University demonstrates (see also the discussion in Chap. 4). Throughout the Majority World, a growing number of megachurches is starting to invest in higher education by establishing their own universities. This trend has been observed by Joel Carpenter, who connects such developments with churches facing a “now what?” moment in missions (2012, 22–23). In countries with a high percentage of pentecostals in the population (such as South Korea or Nigeria), pentecostal megachurches have established a wide network of congregations, fed the poor, and built schools—leading them to ask, what might be the next step to have a kingdom-impact in society.

7  Since 2014, the story of Cho unfortunately also needs to include that he was sentenced to prison time because of an embezzlement scandal, an occurrence not often discussed in pentecostal circles but briefly mentioned by Marion Maddox (2014, 255).

176 

D. TOPF

For some of these megachurches, the answer is higher education because, despite the high costs of starting and running a university, they see this as a promising tool to engage in nation-building (or “what Walls calls the conversion of cultures,” 24) by raising up the next generation of leaders in their country. Historically, pentecostal pastors have prioritized the significance of evangelism by preaching the gospel from the pulpit and encouraging their church members to share their personal testimony with their friends and neighbors. Increasingly, however, pentecostals see the need toward a greater social witness—and given the complexities of contemporary society, church members could be appropriately equipped for such a task by attending pentecostal colleges and universities that engage with a wide range of questions and disciplines in a Spirit-filled environment.

Recent Developments in Missions: Holistic Ministry Traditionally, pentecostalism has been perceived as a faith movement lacking in the area of social involvement (Hollenweger 1972, 470). It is true that early pentecostals were primarily concerned with saving souls and were less interested in addressing broader issues in society, but there were exceptions. One prominent example is Lillian Hunt Trasher (1887–1961) who, inspired by the Azusa Street Revival, went to Egypt as one of the first pentecostal missionaries (Baron 2011, 32). While other Azusa Street missionaries returned after a relatively brief period of time, Trasher committed herself to serving the Egyptian people with extraordinary dedication, laboring in Egypt her entire life, where “she founded the very first orphanage in the entire country and once cared for 1,200 orphans, widows, single mothers, and blind women” (Ma 2009, 45; cf. Ma and Ma 2010, 39). Another example of a pentecostal serving the disadvantaged of society is David R. Wilkerson (1931–2011), who began a ministry among gang members and drug addicts in New York City (Ma 2018, 291). Wilkerson became convinced that drug addicts could be delivered from their addiction through the power of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, he introduced rather unorthodox therapy methods, such as letting drug addicts quit cold turkey while intensely interceding for them and trusting God to radically change people’s lives. Many found freedom through this approach, and so the ministry called Teen Challenge was established, which soon became successful outside New York City as well. Today, Teen Challenge “has over 1,400 affiliate centers in over 125 nations around the globe.”8 8

 As recorded on the website of Global Teen Challenge (https://globaltc.org/).

10  TOWARD A PENTECOSTAL MISSIOLOGY OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

177

Through such initiatives, early pentecostals followed the example of Jesus, who explained that the kingdom of God was being fulfilled as “in his own ministry the time of God’s favor toward ‘the poor’ had come. In his healing the sick, casting out of demons, and eating with sinners—and thereby showing them God’s unlimited mercy—the people were to understand that God’s great eschatological day had finally arrived” (Fee 1991, 10, emphasis original). Within such a framework, Gordon D. Fee affirms, “our gospel is not simply that of ‘saving souls’; it is, rather, as with Jesus, the bringing of wholeness to broken people in every kind of distress” (17). The emphasis on holistic missions is also based on a variety of theoretical frameworks. For example, inspired by Orlando E.  Costas and his kingdom-­oriented vision for mission, Murray W. Dempster states regarding pentecostal mission: “A kerygmatic ministry of evangelism, a koinoniac ministry of social witness, and a diakonic ministry of social service are all needed” so that missions is “carried out in the memory of Jesus . . . who was anointed by the Holy Spirit to inaugurate God’s reign of love, justice, and shalom” (1991, 39). A remarkable shift within classical pentecostalism occurred in 2009, when the Assemblies of God, besides the already existing three categories of evangelism, worship, and building up believers, added “compassion” as their fourth “reason for being” (Mostert 2014, 175). While pentecostals have always been known for their vibrant and growing churches, more recently they have also invested in “Christian schools, feeding programs, literacy training, sponsorship of refugees, aid for disaster victims, and medical programs” (McGee 1991, 217). This shift toward a more communal and holistic approach to missions is also visible in various pentecostal theologies of mission, which are currently being formulated. Among these innovative pentecostal missiologies are liberationist and feminist approaches. Angel D. Santiago-Vendrell, for instance, argues for “mujerista and Pentecostal missiologies of liberation from the Latina/o margins” that not only address gang violence and drug addiction but other social problems as well (2009, 298). Other pentecostal scholars, such as Michael Wilkinson and Steven M. Studebaker, are also calling for a more comprehensive approach to missional engagement that addresses issues of race and ethnicity, social class, gender, ecology, education, fiscal justice, and foreign policy (2010; cf. Studebaker 2016).9 9  Central to Studebaker’s argument is a political theology he calls “pneumatological realism” in which the Spirit of Pentecost (“the source of life and diversity”) is seen as a transfor-

178 

D. TOPF

Accordingly, pentecostals have begun a wide variety of social initiatives, many of which have been started by ministers in different parts of the Majority World. The groundbreaking study to shed light on this kind of holistic engagement by pentecostals was conducted by Donald E. Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori, from the University of Southern California (Klaus 2011, 135–136). In Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement, Miller and Yamamori coin the term “Progressive Pentecostals” to describe “Christians who claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and the life of Jesus and seek to holistically address the spiritual, physical, and social needs of people in their community” (2007, 2). The researchers summarize the ministries and initiatives they encountered into eight major categories10: . Mercy ministries (providing food, clothing, shelter) 1 2. Emergency services (responding to floods, famine, earthquakes) 3. Education (providing day care, schools, tuition assistance) 4. Counseling services (helping with addiction, divorce, depression) 5. Medical assistance (establishing health clinics, dental clinics, psychological services) 6. Economic development (providing microenterprise loans, job training, affordable housing) 7. The arts (training in music, dance, drama) 8. Policy change (opposing corruption, monitoring elections, advocating a living wage) (42) Considering the diversity of missiological frameworks and initiatives among pentecostals today, one can conclude that, a century after its humble beginnings, the pentecostal movement has come full circle in regard to missions. Nonetheless, as also point number three in the list above shows, most of the pentecostal engagement in education has been in the area of day cares and schools. As pentecostals venture into the twenty-first century, I argue that they need to increasingly invest in higher education as part of their missional engagement because this will enable them to exercise a more sustainable influence in every sphere of society. mative force in the world (2016, 4–5, 246). 10  See also the church historian David D. Daniels who identifies three main categories of pentecostal social engagement: (I) relief: charities and mercy ministries; (II) reform to bring about moral, social, and communal reform; and (III) restructuring, which addresses “particular societal structures in need of transformation” (2011, 344–349).

10  TOWARD A PENTECOSTAL MISSIOLOGY OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

179

References Althouse, Peter. 2003. Spirit of the last days: Pentecostal eschatology in conversation with Jürgen Moltmann. London: T&T Clark International. Anderson, Robert M. 1979. Vision of the disinherited: The making of American Pentecostalism. Peabody: Hendrickson. Anderson, Allan H. 2007. Spreading fires: The missionary nature of early Pentecostalism. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. ———. 2010. Varieties, taxonomies, and definitions. In Studying global Pentecostalism: Theories and methods, ed. Allan Anderson, Michael Bergunder, André Droogers, and Cornelis Van Der Laan, 13–29. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 2013a. The emergence of a multidimensional global missionary movement: Trends, patterns, and expressions. In Spirit and power: The growth and global impact of Pentecostalism, ed. Donald E. Miller, Kimon H. Sargeant, and Richard Flory, 25–41. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2013b. To the ends of the earth: Pentecostalism and the transformation of world Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2014. An introduction to Pentecostalism: Global charismatic Christianity. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Azusa Street papers, the, 1906–1908: The Apostolic faith, the original 13 issues. 2013. PentecostalBooks.com. Baron, Beth. 2011. Nile Mother: Lillian Trasher and Egypt’s orphans. Assemblies of God Heritage 31 (30–39): 66. Carpenter, Joel A. 2012. New Christian universities and the conversion of cultures. Evangelical Review of Theology 36 (1): 14–30. Christerson, Brad, and Richard Flory. 2017. The rise of network Christianity: How independent leaders are changing the religious landscape. New  York: Oxford University Press. Corey, Barry. 2016. Liberal arts and the Assemblies of God: A history and analysis of a strained alliance. In What’s so liberal about the liberal arts? Integrated approaches to Christian formation, ed. Paul W.  Lewis and Martin William Mittelstadt, 65–81. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Cunningham, Loren. 2001. Is that really you, God? Hearing the voice of God. 2nd ed. Seattle: YWAM Publishing. Daniels, David D., III. 2011. Future issues in social and economic justice: The social engagement of Pentecostals and Charismatics. In Spirit-empowered Christianity in the 21st century: Insights, analysis, and future trends, ed. H. Vinson Synan, 339–356. Lake Mary: Charisma House. Dempster, Murray W. 1991. Evangelism, social concern, and the kingdom of God. In Called and empowered: Global mission in Pentecostal perspective, ed. Murray A.  Dempster, Byron D.  Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, 22–43. Peabody: Hendrickson.

180 

D. TOPF

Engelbert, Pamela F. 2019. Who is present in absence? A Pentecostal theological praxis of suffering and healing. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Fee, Gordon D. 1991. The kingdom of God and the church’s global mission. In Called and empowered: Global mission in Pentecostal perspective, ed. Murray A.  Dempster, Byron D.  Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, 7–21. Peabody: Hendrickson. Frost, Michael J. 2019. The Spirit, indigenous peoples and social change: Māori and a Pentecostal theology of social engagement. Leiden: Brill. Gladd, Benjamin L., and Matthew S.  Harmon. 2016. Making all things new: Inaugurated eschatology for the life of the church. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Hart, Larry. 2011. Spirit baptism: A bridge-building biblical metaphor for all churches and all generations. In Spirit-empowered Christianity in the 21st century: Insights, analysis, and future trends, ed. H. Vinson Synan, 261–286. Lake Mary: Charisma House. Hodges, Melvin L. [1953] 1976. The indigenous church. Springfield: Gospel Publishing House. Hollenweger, Walter J. 1972. The Pentecostals: The charismatic movement in the churches. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. 2014a. Pentecostal mission and encounter with religions. In The Cambridge companion to Pentecostalism, ed. Cecil M.  Robeck Jr. and Amos Yong, 294–312. New York: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2014b. The Pentecostal understanding of mission. In Pentecostal mission and Global Christianity, ed. Wonsuk Ma, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, and J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, 26–44. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Kay, William K. 2011. Pentecostalism: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Keener, Craig S. 2011. Miracles: The credibility of the New Testament accounts. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. ———. 2020. Between history and Spirit: The apostolic witness of the book of Acts. Eugene: Cascade Books. Klaus, Byron D. 2011. Reflection on Pentecostal mission for the twenty-first century. In Spirit-empowered Christianity in the 21st century: Insights, analysis, and future trends, ed. H. Vinson Synan, 129–140. Lake Mary: Charisma House. Lee, Yonghoon. 2014. Church growth: Reflections on Yoido Full Gospel Church. In Pentecostal mission and Global Christianity, ed. Wonsuk Ma, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, and J.  Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, 107–123. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. ———. 2018a. Christian spirituality and the diakonic mission of the Yoido Full Gospel Church. In Pentecostal mission and Global Christianity: An Edinburgh centenary reader, ed. Younghoon Lee and Wonsuk Ma, 270–281. Oxford, UK: Regnum Books International. ———. 2018b. Pentecostal mission in the third Christian millennium: An introduction. In Pentecostal mission and Global Christianity: An Edinburgh cente-

10  TOWARD A PENTECOSTAL MISSIOLOGY OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

181

nary reader, ed. Younghoon Lee and Wonsuk Ma, 1–9. Oxford, UK: Regnum Books International. Ma, Wonsuk. 2005. Full circle mission: A possibility of Pentecostal missiology. Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 8 (1): 5–27. ———. 2009. “When the poor are fired up”: The role of pneumatology in Pentecostal/charismatic mission. In The Spirit in the world: Emerging Pentecostal theologies in global contexts, ed. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, 40–52. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2011. David Yonggi Cho’s theology of blessing: Basis, legitimacy, and limitations. Evangelical Review of Theology 35 (2): 140–159. Ma, Julie C. 2018. Holistic ministry of the Pentecostal church. In Pentecostal mission and Global Christianity: An Edinburgh centenary reader, ed. Younghoon Lee and Wonsuk Ma, 282–293. Oxford, UK: Regnum Books International. Ma, Julie C., and Wonsuk Ma. 2010. Mission in the Spirit: Towards a Pentecostal/ charismatic missiology. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Macchia, Frank D. 2009. Baptized in the Spirit: Towards a global theology of Spirit baptism. In The Spirit in the world: Emerging Pentecostal theologies in global contexts, ed. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, 3–20. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Maddox, Marion. 2014. Scandals. In Controversies in contemporary religion: Education, law, politics, society, and spirituality. Vol. 3, Specific issues and case studies, ed. Paul Hedges, 249–275. Santa Barbara: Praeger. McClung, L. Grant, Jr. 2017. Missional focus in a milieu of multiplicity: A mental map for Pentecostal leaders. International Journal of Pentecostal Missiology 5 (2017): 1–37. McGee, Gary B. 1991. Pentecostal strategies for global mission: A historical assessment. In Called and empowered: Global mission in Pentecostal perspective, ed. Murray A.  Dempster, Byron D.  Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, 203–224. Peabody: Hendrickson. Miller, Donald E., and Tetsunao Yamamori. 2007. Global Pentecostalism: The new face of Christian social engagement. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mostert, Johan. 2014. Ministry of mercy and justice. In Pentecostal mission and Global Christianity, ed. Wonsuk Ma, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, and J.  Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, 162–181. Oxford, UK: Regnum Books International. Nel, Marius. 2019. African Pentecostalism and eschatological expectations: He is coming back again! Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Onyinah, Opoku. 2009. Deliverance as a way of confronting witchcraft in contemporary Africa: Ghana as a case study. In The Spirit in the world: Emerging Pentecostal theologies in global contexts, ed. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, 181–202. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Poloma, Margaret M. 2009. Divine healing, religious revivals, and contemporary Pentecostalism: A North American perspective. In The Spirit in the world: Emerging Pentecostal theologies in global contexts, ed. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, 21–39. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

182 

D. TOPF

Pomerville, Paul A. [1985] 2016. The third force in missions: A Pentecostal contribution to contemporary mission theology. Peabody: Hendrickson. Ream, Todd. 2012. Protestant Bible institutes in the United States. In International handbook of Protestant education, ed. William Janes and David W. Robinson, 123–136. New York: Springer. Robeck, Cecil M., Jr. 2013. Launching a global movement: The role of Azusa Street in Pentecostalism’s growth and expansion. In Spirit and power: The growth and global impact of Pentecostalism, ed. Donald E.  Miller, Kimon H. Sargeant, and Richard Flory, 42–64. New York: Oxford University Press. Santiago-Vendrell, Angel D. 2009. Not by words alone! Mujerista and Pentecostal missiologies of liberation from the Latina/o margins. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2): 285–300. Smith, James K.A. 2010. Thinking in tongues: Pentecostal contributions to Christian philosophy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Stronstad, Roger. 2003. The prophethood of all believers: A study in Luke’s charismatic theology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Studebaker, Steven M. 2016. A Pentecostal political theology for American renewal: Spirit of the kingdoms, citizens of the cities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Vondey, Wolfgang. 2017. Pentecostal theology: Living the full gospel. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Wadkins, Timothy H. 2013. Pentecostals and the new world order in El Salvador: Separating, consuming, and engaging. In Spirit and power: The growth and global impact of Pentecostalism, ed. Donald E. Miller, Kimon H. Sargeant, and Richard Flory, 143–159. New York: Oxford University Press. Weaver, John. 2016. The New Apostolic Reformation: History of a modern charismatic movement. Jefferson: McFarland. Wilkinson, Michael, and Steven M.  Studebaker, eds. 2010. A liberating Spirit: Pentecostals and social action in North America. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Wimber, John, and Kevin Springer. 2009. Power evangelism. Rev. ed. Bloomington: Chosen Books.

CHAPTER 11

Engaging All Areas of Society Through Pentecostal Higher Education

As described above, pentecostals have traditionally been strong in areas like evangelism and church planting. More recently, pentecostals have also demonstrated an increasing concern for the poor and downtrodden of society by engaging in a variety of mercy ministries. The next milestone in pentecostal missions therefore will have to go beyond initiatives like starting churches and building orphanages, aiming instead to make a difference in all areas of society. One of the ways pentecostals talk about such a vision is to speak of seven spheres that are influencing society, also known as the “seven mountains” (Femrite 2011). However, one of the dangers in emphasizing the importance of exercising influence (or dominion) in all areas of society is an unwarranted triumphalism. As an alternative, I end this chapter by proposing a public theology approach that emphasizes the significance of higher education, thereby leading to a more balanced and informed approach of exercising influence in a variety of fields.

The Vision of the Seven Mountains: Bringing Transformation to the World In order to understand how pentecostals (especially neo-pentecostals) think about being a godly influence in society, it is crucial to recognize the significance of the vision of the seven mountains. This vision goes back to © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1_11

183

184 

D. TOPF

a prophetic word that Loren Cunningham, the founder of YWAM, received in 1975. As Cunningham recalls, God spoke to him about seven areas (or spheres) that determine the course of any society, namely (1) the home (or family), (2) the church (or religion), (3) the schools (or education), (4) government and politics, (5) the media, (6) arts, entertainment, and sports, and (7) commerce (or business), science, and technology (Cunningham and Rogers 1988, 134; cf. Low 2016, xxiii).1 Loren Cunningham wrote down these seven spheres of influence and the next day met with Bill Bright (1921–2003), the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ (Cru). Bright told Cunningham that he had received a similar insight from the Lord, which is why these two influential missions leaders concluded that this was a major revelation that would be crucial for the body of Christ in the years to come (Wallnau 2013, 53–54). In the Bible, mountains stand for places of authority, and part of the eschatological vision of Isaiah 2 is the prophecy that, “In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as the highest of the mountains” (v. 2a, NIV), with nations streaming to the mountain of the Lord, looking for divine instruction (vv. 2b–3; cf. Maiden 2011, 28–30). By contrast, in the present reality, the seven mountains are seen as mostly dominated by dark forces, as also described in Revelation 17 where Babylon the Great is seated on seven mountains (v. 9; cf. Enlow 2008, 9). However, Christians are called to take dominion, to exercise their godly influence within those seven realms, which might include activities like: 1. breaking ancestral curses in the home and contending for family members, so that they will come to know the Lord and be a light for Christ; 2. equipping the saints in such a way that believers take on an active role in society, rather than seeing church as a place designed to provide religious entertainment for them; 3. bringing about changes in schools and universities in order to diminish the influence of humanism, the ideology that is currently dominating the realm of education; 1  Bill Johnson suggests a variation, listing the following seven areas: (1) business, (2) education, (3) the church, (4) family, (5) arts and entertainment, (6) science and medicine, and (7) government (2013, 28). Authors like Johnson write popular (nonacademic) books; nonetheless, I am utilizing their sources here in order to let proponents of these views speak with their own voice.

11  ENGAGING ALL AREAS OF SOCIETY THROUGH PENTECOSTAL HIGHER… 

185

4. praying for those in authority and motivating believers to pursue a career in politics in such a way that they can exercise influence in government without falling prey to corruption; 5. influencing the news media in ways that are consistent with Christian values; 6. playing a role in the arts in order to produce wholesome entertainment, in contrast to the immorality that characterizes much of what comes out of Hollywood; 7. being engaged in business with integrity and the desire to create wealth that will then be used for kingdom purposes (Enlow 2008, 2015; Maiden 2011). The vision of the seven mountains has become especially popular among neo-pentecostals and is promoted by several well-known leaders belonging to apostolic networks, such as C. Peter Wagner (1930–2016), Ché Ahn, and Bill Johnson. These leaders emphasize that there is a biblical basis for the mandate of influencing entire societies for Christ, particularly through the Great Commission as recorded in Matthew 28:18–20 (Ahn 2019, 27, 152). In this passage, Jesus commissioned his followers to “make disciples of all nations” (v. 19a)—in contrast to merely preaching the gospel to individuals, as the Great Commission has often been understood. Granted, it may not be entirely clear what exactly the “nations” in Matthew 28:19 refer to (whether to ethnic people groups, cultural entities, or clans), but what seems to be certain is that these words refer to a group of people, thereby requiring transformation on the communal level (Stier, Poor, and Orvis 2008). Since Matthew 28:19 is so crucial for understanding the vision of the seven mountains, here two examples of how neo-pentecostal authors describe such a mandate to disciple entire nations are provided. Ché Ahn, for instance, believes that, “The expression of Christianity has shifted from individual salvation to discipling nations, which includes social transformation” (2019, 39). Similarly, Michael Maiden states in Turn the World Upside Down: Discipling the Nations with the Seven Mountain Strategy, “After two millennia, the Church has made disciples in nations but not of nations” (2011, 17, emphasis original). The author also reminds his readers that Jesus said, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) and told his followers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19)—leading Maiden to ask the provocative question, “Could we have traded jobs and expected Him to disciple nations while we build churches” (22)?

186 

D. TOPF

Dexter Low, an apostolic leader from Malaysia also has such a comprehensive vision for transformation and affirms, “Until He comes, Jesus will not only free people from demons, heal the sick, and save the lost, but He also desires to see communities transformed and set free from poverty, oppression, injustice, and corruption” (2016, 16). Such societal transformation is connected to the restoration of all the offices listed in Ephesians 4:11, including the office of the apostle.2 Low expects that marketplace apostles will play a crucial role since they exercise influence outside the church—similar to biblical role models like Joseph, Daniel, and Esther (26, 42, 120; cf. Maiden 2011, 90–91, 108–109, 155). This focus on socioeconomic and political realities is remarkable, especially considering that Low is a pastor and as such used to be primarily concerned about his church and how to make it grow. Now, however, Low asserts, “God is speaking to us about moving toward nation transformation and linking with marketplace apostles” (2016, 37). How are these extensive transformations of entire sectors of society going to be accomplished? Various approaches have been suggested. For Ahn, similar to Low, the restoration of the apostolic office is “key to discipling nations” (2019, 33). Ahn then goes on to define apostles as follows: “An apostle is a Christlike ambassador with extraordinary authority called and sent out by Jesus Christ with a specific assignment to align the Church to bring Heaven’s culture to earth and fulfill the mandate to disciple nations” (39, emphasis original). A crucial concept in this context is the kingdom of God that Jesus announced and brought near. Since Jesus is a king, he sends out his ambassadors (or apostles) to institute his kingdom’s culture throughout his conquered territories. The end goal of such endeavors is that God’s kingdom will become as real on earth as it is in heaven—in accordance with the prayer Jesus taught his disciples in Matthew 6:10 (cf. Low 2016, 15). For Johnson, the senior pastor of the influential Bethel church in Redding, California, believers gain authority to change things in the realm of the seven mountains by acting in accordance with certain principles and values. Christians may have the desire to do good in a particular realm, but then occasionally end up pushing a faulty agenda. For instance, regarding the area of education, Johnson admits:

2  Concepts like the five-fold ministry of Ephesians 4:11 and the restoration of modern-day apostles are highly controversial topics (Resane 2016).

11  ENGAGING ALL AREAS OF SOCIETY THROUGH PENTECOSTAL HIGHER… 

187

School districts are accustomed to Christians seeking positions on local school boards. Sometimes Christian parents will work together to get a principal to change a particular curriculum or to fire a teacher because he or she is an atheist. But what would happen if we actually invaded the system of the world to give honor where it is due, instead of dishonoring those whom we think deserve expulsion? The former brings transformation through favor. The latter is a self-fulfilling prophecy of rejection, as the world has few options but to protect what they are stewards over from the outside group (us) that wants to be in control. Christians are notorious for trying to take over schools through political maneuvering. It may work from time to time, but it is neither the way of the Kingdom, nor will it prevail. There is a better way. (2013, 26–27)

For Johnson, this better way is built on a number of principles, such as cultivating a culture of honor, wanting to come alongside in order to serve (instead of taking over), displaying integrity, wisdom, authentic love, compassion, humility, and creativity, maintaining passion and discipline, and pursuing excellence, which means “doing our best for the sake of others,” but without falling into the trap of an unhealthy perfectionism (42, 46; cf. Suh 2018, 63, 142–143). When it comes to theological education and ministerial training, how to balance spirituality and academics has always been a challenging topic for pentecostals, since “from its beginning, Pentecostalism has had a tenuous relationship with theological training” (Klaus and Triplett 1991, 226; cf. Lim 2014, 85–93). This dilemma is complicated by the fact that many of the most successful and respected ministers within pentecostalism have had little or no formal theological education.3 However, in many societal spheres outside the church world, formal academic credentials and specific competencies are indispensable. In today’s knowledge-based economies, one needs to go to medical school in order to become a doctor, study engineering to work as an engineer, and countless other employment opportunities require applicants to at least have a bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution. It is therefore essential for pentecostals to expand what their colleges and universities have to offer, so that their graduates can become influential in areas like business, government, and science. At 3  Already in the 1960s, the Swiss sociologist Christian Lalive d’Epinay “contrasted the remarkably successful Pentecostal pastors in Chile with little or no education and what he called the ‘complete stagnation’ of the Methodist and Presbyterian churches with their highly educated ministers” (Anderson 2014, 242).

188 

D. TOPF

the same time, pentecostals will have to be careful not to fall into the trap of triumphalism while pursuing this vision, a tension that will be addressed in the following.

Dominion Theology: The Danger of Triumphalism Those who have a vision to disciple entire nations may also have a dream to bring the kingdom of God to a particular country.4 Identifying (or rejecting) the United States as a Christian nation is a common (and highly controversial) theme (Seidel 2019), but this idea is sometimes applied to other countries as well. Low, for instance, has an apostolic and prophetic vision for countries in South-East Asia, even going beyond his home country of Malaysia. Specifically, he believes “the Philippines has the potential to be the first nation in Asia to become a Christian nation where Christ is Lord and where His kingdom principles can fully operate” (2016, 6). Low freely acknowledges the corruption and the many socioeconomic problems currently plaguing the Philippines, but nonetheless hopes that, “The Philippines will once again be a beacon to other nations, showing them what Christ can do for a nation when its leaders and people make Him the Lord of their lives and when they allow kingdom principles and values to operate in their sphere of influence” (9). In order to achieve this goal, Low explains, one does not “need to win every soul in a country to disciple a nation. In fact, it may be more effective to occupy the most influential seats of power, as they are what govern and dictate the morality and course of events in a country” (157). This kind of strategic focus on the rich and powerful in society is quite a remarkable departure from embracing the poor and disenfranchised, the approach that has been characteristic of pentecostals historically. Understandably, not everybody is comfortable with the language of powerful apostles making sure that Christians become influential in all sectors of society. Such an approach is also known as dominion theology, which is based on the original cultural mandate God gave to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:26–28. Neo-pentecostals pursue the transformation of entire nations because they believe that humans, due to the fall, lost 4  While such expectations may seem excessive, it is worth noting that the kingdom or reign of God theme plays a crucial role in recent theologies of mission, which includes the work of such respectable figures like Kenneth Scott Latourette (1884–1968), Lesslie Newbigin (1909–1998), and David Bosch (1929–1992) (Reppenhagen and Guder 2011, 549–550).

11  ENGAGING ALL AREAS OF SOCIETY THROUGH PENTECOSTAL HIGHER… 

189

domain over the planet to Satan, but that through Christ all things are going to be restored to God’s original intention (Wagner 2008, 2013, 102–103). However, where neo-pentecostals see a framework encompassing classical theological tenets like creation, fall, and redemption, others are expressing considerable concern when it comes to dominion theology. In the United States, a number of secular critics see dominion theology connected to the Christian Right, Christian Reconstructionism, and the Christian Coalition—religious and political movements driven by “the theocratic idea that Christian men [sic] are called upon by God to exercise dominion over sinful society by taking control of political and cultural institutions” (Berlet and Lyons 2000, 247; cf. Perry 2020, 63–88).5 Similarly, Sara Diamond writes in Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States that dominion theology promotes the idea “that America was ordained as a Christian nation and that Christians, exclusively, were to rule and reign” (1995, 248). These ambitions by Christians are seen as highly dangerous, putting at risk the liberties guaranteed by the American constitution, especially when concepts like dominion theology are associated with such unacceptable developments like fascism and white supremacy (256). In addition, an emphasis on exercising dominion over creation is seen as an invitation to use (and abuse) the resources of nature, thereby neglecting ecological concerns and taking an anti-environmentalist stand (Village 2015). Whether these critiques of dominion theology are fully justified or not, it would be wise for Christians to be extra cautious whenever it comes to exercising power in society—be that in political, military, judicial, or economic terms. Historically, things have gone wrong before when Christians ascended to the seats of power, as is well-known. The Crusades and the Spanish inquisition are infamous examples of the unhealthy mix between power and religion. Granted, these two instances transpired within the Roman Catholic Church, which is a hierarchical institution with a long history of combining civil and ecclesial authority in a variety of ways. However, Protestants have their baggage in this area as well. John Calvin’s Geneva was no earthly paradise, at least not by today’s standards of human rights and freedom of religion—certainly not for the Spanish theologian Michael Servetus (1511?–1553) who was burned at the stake as a heretic 5  James Smith is more balanced in his political outlook when he acknowledges that “both the Religious Right and the Christian Left are evidence that evangelical Protestants have shed their otherworldly quietism” (2017, 214).

190 

D. TOPF

in 1553, due to his divergent views on the Trinity and on infant baptism (Estep 1986, 243). For historical and socioeconomic reasons, pentecostals hitherto have not been in a position where they would be able to exercise the power of the sword. However, they have recently begun to enter the political realm, particularly in several Latin American and African countries in which large segments of the population are pentecostal (Kaunda 2018). So far, this kind of pentecostal engagement in governmental circles has often been problematic. For instance, in describing a political scandal that occurred in Brazil in 2006, it was observed that pentecostal politicians had an “above-­ average susceptibility to corruption” (Freston 2013, 103). On the other hand, in Robert D. Woodberry’s estimation, pentecostalism “has a moderate positive impact on the spread and stability of democracy,” particularly through its contributions in the areas of volunteerism and civil society, education, and economic development (2013, 135; cf. 2006, 29–35; Anderson 2020). As pentecostals venture into the realm of politics and other expressions of public life, the danger is that overblown expectations of success can lead to a triumphalism characterized by exaggerations, speculation, and manipulation, tempting pentecostals to rely more on their own strength than on the genuine power of the Holy Spirit (Lee 2011).6 Historically, an unwarranted triumphalism has been one of the weaknesses within pentecostalism, a problem that could get worse as pentecostals acquire more influence in society (Courey 2015). As an alternative I propose the theological framework of pentecostals as a pilgrim people, of a community that walks in humility while at the same time having a profound impact in the very environment which is not their true home. As the pentecostal scholar Frank Macchia explains, the church is on an “eschatological journey as a pilgrim people”; believers are therefore a people who are “on the way,” commissioned “to discover authentic meaning through insertion in and confrontation with the world” (2006, 192, 194, 241). The pilgrim metaphor is helpful because it can give a sanctified confidence to pentecostals that they are a people with a purpose, 6  In the context of the anticipating influence throughout the seven mountains, triumphalism can sound as follows: “An on-fire, loving church that has a hopeful perspective on life will be globally advancing by [the year] 2050, walking in unprecedented signs, wonders and supernatural manifestations of power. . . . There will be at least fifty nations that will be walking in a high level of national transformation” (Enlow 2015, 99).

11  ENGAGING ALL AREAS OF SOCIETY THROUGH PENTECOSTAL HIGHER… 

191

independently of whether they are a group on the margins (as has been the case traditionally) or are moving toward the centers of power. Furthermore, pilgrims are, by definition, a future-oriented people; they are constantly on the move, in search for a better future, and this outlook empowers the way pentecostals live in the here and now. Influenced by an apocalyptic dispensationalism, pentecostals too often have lived and worked under a pessimistic eschatology, which has prevented them from bringing transformation to the world with a long-term perspective, such as by establishing colleges and universities. By contrast, as a pilgrim people, pentecostals can develop an eschatology of continuity (Waddell 2010, 103–104). The idea of continuity guards against both triumphalism and pessimism because it is based on the assurance that it truly does matter what Christians do in this life and what legacy they leave behind in this world––believing that, when Jesus returns, everything that was done in his name and in the power of the Spirit will become part of God’s eternal purposes. This eschatological continuity can be applied to investments in higher education as well.7 In Revelation, the New Jerusalem is pictured as a place of activity (Rev. 21:24–26), which is why it is likely that learning and teaching will continue in the eschaton as well. In the meantime, pentecostal colleges and universities are called to be an expression of God’s kingdom in this world—not in an absolute sense, by dominating all of higher education, but by being a city on a hill that displays an attractive alternative compared to what is available through (post)secular institutions (cf. Matt. 5:14). Based on this understanding, pentecostal schools can act as a missiological tool by pursuing their endeavors in “bold humility,” as David Bosch (1929–1992) famously put it (2011, 430, 501). Part of such humility will entail acknowledging that pentecostals first need to acquire the required competencies before they can aspire to reform a particular realm of society. After all, one of the problems with dominion theology is pointed out by Bruce Barron as follows:

7  As J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu writes in an essay about pentecostalism and higher education in sub-Saharan Africa, “The new pentecostal churches covered in this essay have moved away from the classical eschatological agenda for a new message centering on empowerment, success, promotion, and prosperity in this life. This could not be made clearer than by the establishment of new evangelical universities in Africa by pentecostal leaders. . . . Higher education is seen as the key to extending evangelical influence in the public square” (2013, 9).

192 

D. TOPF

to call on Christians to transform every area of life may be the pride that precedes a fall, as it encourages Christians to speak where they lack competence . . . . many areas of modern life require technical skills unrelated to questions of spiritual regeneration or ethical judgment. Christians have no clear edge over unbelievers in determining the nation's defense needs or in assessing the dangers of global warming. (1992, 166–167)

In order to have a credible testimony in the public square, pentecostals will have to display high levels of competency while at the same time maintaining a posture of humility. As I further argue in the following, an excellent platform to accomplish both of these goals is to establish and expand institutions of higher education.

Public Theology: Opportunities and Challenges in a Pluralistic World While it is appropriate to highlight the dangers of triumphalism within pentecostalism, it is also crucial to recognize that other Christian traditions have emphasized influencing all areas of society as well, long before pentecostals or neo-pentecostals did.8 Abraham Kuyper, for instance, spoke of the importance of societal spheres, which for him included government, the church, commerce, schools, the arts, the sciences, and families (Smith 2017, 126, 135–136, 145). Kuyper embodied such a comprehensive vision of the kingdom of God in his own life: besides being a minister and establishing a new denomination (the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands), he also served as prime minister and founded the Vrije Universiteit (VU) in Amsterdam (Bratt 2013, xiii, 122, 130). His theological understanding led Kuyper to make the statement he is probably most famous for—“there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine’” (quoted in Bratt 1998, 488)! Given the theme of this present volume, it is important to highlight that Kuyper made this statement in the context of promoting higher education, as part of his public

8  So also Mel Robeck during my Research Proposal Defense (RPD) in Pasadena, California (personal communication, December 14, 2018). One example would be Stanley Hauerwas who is deeply committed to “anti-Constantinianism” but nonetheless believes that the church must be “a material reality shaping the equally material realities of politics, recreation, art, buying and selling, ‘personal’ relations, in short, the whole of our lives” (2007, 52).

11  ENGAGING ALL AREAS OF SOCIETY THROUGH PENTECOSTAL HIGHER… 

193

address delivered at the inauguration of the Free University on October 20, 1880 (461). James K. A. Smith belongs to this Kuyperian stream of the Reformed tradition, but he worries that, based on such an emphasis of being engaged for Christ here on earth, recently an “antiheaven” evangelicalism has emerged (2017, 213).9 Yes, traditionally evangelicals (and pentecostals) may have been too otherworldly, but now the problem might be that “the pendulum has already swung the other way: that heaven has been eclipsed” (213). To find a healthy balance, both perspectives are needed; for Smith “it is precisely our citizenship in the heavenly city that guides our commingling with the earthly city; it is our pilgrimage toward the heavenly city that helps us navigate the terrain of a fallen-but-redeemed creation” (213; cf. Yong 2019, 230, 283). Eschatologically speaking, this balance is found in recognizing the age of tension humanity is currently in, living “between the now and the not-yet” of God’s kingdom (Smith 2017, 161–162)—a kingdom that has already been inaugurated through Christ’s first coming but will only be established in fullness when he returns (Suh 2018, 24–25, 39–40). Within such a framework of tension, Smith calls for “an eschatological tempering of our political expectations” because “the kingdom is something we await, not create” (2017, 220). Accordingly, formulating a healthy political or public theology will depend on well-balanced theological frameworks. Within eschatology, this would mean to avoid a fatalistic premillennialism on the one side, as well as a triumphalist postmillennialism on the other side of the extreme. Such a middle way could be a historic premillennialism that rejects dispensationalism and its secret rapture of the church, while at the same time affirming that God’s kingdom will only become fully visible on earth after Christ returns as King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).10 In this view, believers can expect both an intensifying darkness and greater manifestations of God’s glory (cf. Isa. 60:1–3), with both wheat and tares growing and maturing side by side as the harvest, the end of the age, approaches (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43). Even though eschatology is essential in formulating a future-oriented missiology that informs and inspires transformative action in the present, 9  Smith is quoting Hans Boersma here, who belongs to the Reformed tradition as well (2011, 187). 10  See also Yong’s “via media” in discussing his eschatological proposal for a pentecostal political theology (2010, 332n39).

194 

D. TOPF

other theological categories are needed as well. In Constants in Context: A Theology of Mission for Today the authors work with a framework of three basic types of theology (Type A = “orthodox” or “conservative”; Type B = “liberal”; Type C = “radical” or “liberation theology”), with each of these having particular views on broad theological themes, such as Christology, ecclesiology, eschatology, salvation, anthropology, and culture (Bevans and Schroeder 2004, 35–37). As the overview below shows (Table 11.1), there is an opportunity for pentecostals to hold fast to some of the conservative theology characteristic of Type A, such as affirming a high view of Scripture and the supremacy of the person of Jesus Christ.11 At the same time, pentecostals may also want to explore some of the elements of Type C theology, thereby leading to a missiology that is more inclusive, more holistic, more communal, more affirming of culture, and more geared toward transformation. As described above, pentecostals have come a long way in embracing social engagement as part of their missiological understanding. The desire Table 11.1  Comparison between Type A and Type C theology

Christology Ecclesiology Eschatology Salvation Anthropology Culture Goal of mission Approach to mission

Type A theology

Type C theology

Person: high; substitutionary atonement; exclusive Free association of members; missional Futurist; individual Spiritual Negative; hierarchical Negative; translation and counter-cultural model Mission as saving souls and extending the church Mission as proclamation of Jesus Christ as universal Savior

Person: low; liberation; inclusive Herald/servant; people of God; pilgrim people Inaugurated; historical Holistic Positive; equality; communal Primarily positive or critically positive Mission as commitment to liberation and transformation Mission as liberating service of the reign of God

11  This table is based on a combination of various charts and descriptions developed by Bevans and Schroeder (2004, 36–37, 61, 277, 318, 341). I am limiting myself to adding Type C to Type A theology because this approach seems more helpful to me for pentecostalism than Type B theology—in fact, a combination of A/C is listed for key figures in mission like Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg (1682–1719) and Nicolaus Zinzendorf (1700–1760), as well as theologians like Martin Luther (1483–1546) and John Wesley (1703–1791), who are important influences for pentecostals within the Protestant spectrum (199).

11  ENGAGING ALL AREAS OF SOCIETY THROUGH PENTECOSTAL HIGHER… 

195

to engage with different spheres of society tends to be particularly strong in countries where pentecostal churches are relatively influential. In Nigeria, for instance, pentecostals have moved from an initial emphasis on personal salvation, healing, and prosperity to more kingdom-oriented themes like poverty alleviation, economic empowerment, and national transformation (McCain 2013, 160–181). However, even in more secularized societies, pentecostals are looking for ways to break new ground for Christ as they are empowered and led by the Holy Spirit. For example, in Spirit-Shaped Mission: A Holistic Charismatic Missiology Andrew Lord, an Anglican charismatic from Great Britain, highlights “the five marks of mission” as they have been identified by the Anglican Communion: (1) “to proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God”; (2) “to teach, baptize and nurture new believers”; (3) “to respond to human need by loving service”; (4) “to seek to transform the unjust structures of society”; and (5) “to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation” (2005, 32; cf. Burghardt and Gibaut 2020, 110–111). In Lord’s estimation, charismatics in Britain have so far emphasized the first three elements of mission and now “still need a challenge to implement the last two” (2005, 32). This then leads to the question, how can this kind of societal engagement with complex issues, such as economics and ecology, be accomplished? As pentecostals move forward, they will do well in avoiding the extremes of escapism as well as the potential dangers of dominion theology that is often associated with the desire of establishing a theocracy. In contrast, theologians like Miroslav Volf (2011), Sebastian Kim (2011), and Daniela C. Augustine (2019) have suggested to promote the common good by working within frameworks as they are provided by public theology. For Kim, public theology speaks to different spheres, including the state, media, religious communities, academics, civil society, and markets—but in a way that encourages dialogue, open debate, and a multiplicity of perspectives (2011, ix, 12–13, 230).12 Public theology may suggest a middle way for societal engagement that could be attractive for pentecostals. As discussed above, the dominion theology model can be problematic due to its reactionary tendencies. On the other side of the spectrum, Kim c­ ritiques 12  Kim differentiates between political theology and public theology (a term first introduced by Martin E. Marty in 1974), with the latter being broader, as it engages all major aspects of civil society (2011, 3, 9, 22–23). For the interplay between public theology and the common good, see Cartledge et al. (2019, 85–88).

196 

D. TOPF

liberation theologies with their revolutionary approach that aims for a “radical change” of the system (24). As an alternative, public theology is characterized by a reforming approach that promotes society’s “gradual reformation through advocacy and debate” (24). Equipped with such a balanced framework, Kim is able to address a wide range of complex topics, including issues related to eco-theology, sociopolitical reconciliation, global economic justice, peace-building, and freedom of expression. Similarly, Augustine also addresses several complex societal issues, including exercising economic responsibility, caring for all of creation, and practicing forgiveness in the context of violence and war. She does so by offering “a theological vision of the common good based on the Spirit’s Christoforming agency in the life of redeemed and ontologically renewed humanity” (2019, 11), focusing primarily “on the Spirit’s redemptive transformation of the horizontal relationship between human beings as well as between humanity and the rest of creation” (11n44). Pursuing peaceful relationships between various human groups is particularly critical in an age in which religion often contributes to tensions and conflicts, both big and small. Accordingly, a pentecostal public theology seeking the common good will have to engage issues related to faith-based conflicts, addressing themes like religious pluralism, religious literacy, and interreligious dialogue (as described in Chap. 7). Pentecostalism has the potential to make a distinctive contribution in this realm, not only due to the significant size of the movement (particularly in the Majority World) but also because of its unique theological underpinnings. The already mentioned framework of the many tongues of Pentecost can create a genuine appreciation for other cultures, languages, and religions. Writing in the context of Singapore as a multiethnic and multireligious society, May Ling Tan-­ Chow from TCA College affirms: “The purpose of dialogue is to achieve mutual understanding (which may or may not lead to consensus). Mutual understanding means a willingness to learn from, listen to, and assess the other religious traditions on their terms, and in the process also be transformed by what one learns from the other” (2016, 163). This approach “requires a stance of epistemological openness, which, as Amos Yong maintains, is ‘intrinsic to a genuine pneumatological orientation’” (163). Equipped with such a pneumatologically informed approach to public theology, how can pentecostals ensure that they benefit society as they attempt to offer solutions to complicated problems, whether it be peace-­ building, climate change, or genetic engineering? Addressing complex

11  ENGAGING ALL AREAS OF SOCIETY THROUGH PENTECOSTAL HIGHER… 

197

matters like these within their own universities may be a promising path forward for pentecostals because, at its best, academia provides nuanced perspectives on a variety of issues, while encouraging careful critique and analysis of any subject under discussion. In addition, higher education can also protect against the tendency of pentecostals toward triumphalism and encourage humility instead, because those who devote themselves to learning and research realize how much there is that they still do not know. A renewed commitment to establishing pentecostal colleges and universities may therefore help pentecostals to gain credibility as they intend to have an impact on society within a public theology framework (Petersen 1991, 55). The challenges of the twenty-first century are many, and they call for a broader engagement in pentecostal academia than has hitherto been the case. As Mel Robeck affirms: What I would suggest is that Pentecostal/Charismatic scholars have an unprecedented opportunity to address the moral, ethical, spiritual, and practical challenges that are part of the world in which we live, and they can do so legitimately by working out the core beliefs and values that we bring to the table. Until now, however, Pentecostal scholars have been slow to pick up many of these challenges. It is time for them to do so. (2007, 35)

I agree with Robeck’s assessment. Having affirmed why pentecostal higher education is essential, I make a few suggestions regarding what future pentecostal colleges and universities may look like in the last two chapters of this project.

References Ahn, Ché. 2019. Modern-day apostles: Operating in your apostolic office and anointing. Shippensburg: Destiny Image. Anderson, Allan H. 2014. An introduction to Pentecostalism: Global charismatic Christianity. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2020. Pentecostalism and social, political, and economic development. Spiritus: ORU Journal of Theology 5 (1): 121–136. Asamoah-Gyadu, J. Kwabena. 2013. “Enlarging Christian coasts”: Pentecostalism and higher education in sub-Saharan Africa. In Communities of faith in Africa and the African diaspora: In honor of Dr. Tite Tiénou with additional essays on world Christianity, ed. Casely B.  Essamuah and David K.  Ngaruiya, 8–15. Eugene: Pickwick Publications.

198 

D. TOPF

Augustine, Daniela C. 2019. The Spirit and the common good: Shared flourishing in the image of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Barron, Bruce. 1992. Heaven on earth? The social and political agendas of dominion theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Berlet, Chip, and Matthew N. Lyons. 2000. Right-wing populism in America: Too close for comfort. New York: The Guilford Press. Bevans, Stephen B., and Roger P. Schroeder. 2004. Constants in context: A theology of mission for today. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Boersma, Hans. 2011. Heavenly participation: The weaving of a sacramental tapestry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bosch, David J. 2011. Transforming mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission. 20th anniversary edition. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Bratt, James D., ed. 1998. Abraham Kuyper: A centennial reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———., ed. 2013. Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian democrat. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Burghardt, Anne, and John Gibaut. 2020. Communion and ecumenical questions. In God’s church for God’s world: A practical approach to partnership in mission, ed. Robert S. Heaney, John Kafwanka K, and Hilda Kabia, 105–126. New York: Church Publishing. Cartledge, Mark J., Sarah L.B.  Dunlop, Heather Buckingham, and Sophie Bremner. 2019. Megachurches and social engagement: Public theology in practice. Leiden: Brill. Courey, David J. 2015. What has Wittenberg to do with Azusa? Luther's theology of the cross and Pentecostal triumphalism. London: Bloomsbury. Cunningham, Loren, and Janice Rogers. 1988. Making Jesus Lord: The dynamic power of laying down your rights. Seattle: YWAM Publishing. Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to dominion: Right-wing movements and political power in the United States. New York: The Guilford Press. Enlow, Johnny. 2008. The seven mountain prophecy: Unveiling the coming Elijah revolution. Lake Mary: Creation House. ———. 2015. The seven mountain renaissance: Vision and strategy through 2050. New Kensington: Whitaker House. Estep, William R. 1986. Renaissance and reformation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Femrite, Tommi. 2011. Invading the seven mountains with intercession: How to reclaim society through prayer. Lake Mary: Creation House. Freston, Paul. 2013. Pentecostals and politics in Latin America: Compromise or prophetic witness? In Spirit and power: The growth and global impact of Pentecostalism, ed. Donald E. Miller, Kimon H. Sargeant, and Richard Flory, 101–118. New York: Oxford University Press. Hauerwas, Stanley. 2007. The state of the university: Academic knowledges and the knowledge of God. Malden: Blackwell.

11  ENGAGING ALL AREAS OF SOCIETY THROUGH PENTECOSTAL HIGHER… 

199

Johnson, Bill. 2013. Invading Babylon—An excerpt from Dreaming with God. In Invading Babylon: The 7 mountain mandate, ed. Lance Wallnau and Bill Johnson, 21–49. Shippensburg: Destiny Image. Kaunda, Chammah J. 2018. The nation that fears God prospers: A critique of Zambian Pentecostal theopolitical imaginations. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Kim, Sebastian C.H. 2011. Theology in the public sphere: Public theology as a catalyst for open debate. London: SCM Press. Klaus, Byron D., and Loren O. Triplett. 1991. National leadership in Pentecostal missions. In Called and empowered: Global mission in Pentecostal perspective, ed. Murray W.  Dempster, Byron D.  Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, 225–241. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Lee, Samuel. 2011. A new kind of Pentecostalism: Promoting dialogue for change. Amsterdam: Foundation University Press. Lim, David. 2014. The challenge of balancing Spirit and academics in Asian Pentecostal theological institutions. Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 17 (1): 85–93. Lord, Andrew. 2005. Spirit-shaped mission: A holistic charismatic missiology. Milton Keynes: Paternoster. Low, Dexter. 2016. God’s mandate for transforming your nation: Touching heaven, changing earth. Lake Mary: Creation House. Macchia, Frank D. 2006. Baptized in the Spirit: A global Pentecostal theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Maiden, Michael. 2011. Turn the world upside down: Discipling the nations with the seven mountain strategy. Shippensburg: Destiny Image. McCain, Danny. 2013. The metamorphosis of Nigerian Pentecostalism: From signs and wonders in the church to service and influence in society. In Spirit and power: The growth and global impact of Pentecostalism, ed. Donald E. Miller, Kimon H.  Sargeant, and Richard Flory, 160–181. New  York: Oxford University Press. Perry, Samuel P. 2020. Rhetorics of race and religion on the Christian Right: Barack Obama and the war on terror. Lanham: Lexington Books. Petersen, Douglas. 1991. The kingdom of God and the hermeneutical circle: Pentecostal praxis in the Third World. In Called and empowered: Global mission in Pentecostal perspective, ed. Murray W.  Dempster, Byron D.  Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, 44–58. Peabody: Hendrickson. Reppenhagen, Martin, and Darrell L. Guder. 2011. Conclusion to the anniversary edition: The continuing transformation of mission: David J.  Bosch’s living legacy: 1991–2011. In Transforming mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission, David J. Bosch, 533–555. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Resane, Kelebogile Thomas. 2016. The New Apostolic Reformation: The critical reflections of the ecclesiology of Charles Peter Wagner. Hervormde Teologiese Studies 72 (3): 1–11.

200 

D. TOPF

Robeck, Cecil M., Jr. 2007. Future trajectories for Pentecostal research. Unpublished paper presented at the European Pentecostal/Charismatic Research Association at the University of Uppsala, Sweden, September 12: 1–38. Seidel, Andrew L. 2019. The founding myth: Why Christian nationalism is un-­ American. New York: Sterling. Smith, James K.A. 2017. Awaiting the king: Reforming public theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Stier, Jim, Richlyn Poor, and Lisa Orvis, eds. 2008. His kingdom come: An integrative approach to discipling the nations and fulfilling the Great Commission. Seattle: YWAM Publishing. Suh, Edward Y. 2018. The empowering God: Redeeming the prosperity movement and overcoming victim trauma in the poor. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Tan-Chow, May Ling. 2016. Pentecostal theology for the twenty-first century: Engaging with multi-faith Singapore. London: Routledge. Village, Andrew. 2015. Was White right? Biblical interpretation, theological stance and environmental attitudes among a sample of UK churchgoers. Journal of Empirical Theology 28 (1): 23–48. Volf, Miroslav. 2011. A public faith: How followers of Christ should serve the common good. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press. Waddell, Robby. 2010. Apocalyptic sustainability: The future of Pentecostal ecology. In Perspectives in Pentecostal eschatologies: World without end, ed. Peter Althouse and Robby Waddell, 95–110. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Wagner, C.  Peter. 2008. Dominion! How kingdom action can change the world. Grand Rapids: Chosen Books. ———. 2013. Stewarding for reformation—An excerpt from The reformer’s pledge. In Invading Babylon: The 7 mountain mandate, ed. Lance Wallnau and Bill Johnson, 99–120. Shippensburg: Destiny Image. Wallnau, Lance. 2013. The seven mountain mandate: An excerpt from The reformer’s pledge. In Invading Babylon: The 7 mountain mandate, ed. Lance Wallnau and Bill Johnson, 53–73. Shippensburg: Destiny Image. Woodberry, Robert D. 2006. The economic consequences of Pentecostal belief. Society 44 (1): 29–35. ———. 2013. Pentecostalism and democracy: Is there a relationship? In Spirit and power: The growth and global impact of Pentecostalism, ed. Donald E.  Miller, Kimon H.  Sargeant, and Richard Flory, 119–137. New  York: Oxford University Press. Yong, Amos. 2010. In the days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and political theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2019. Mission after Pentecost: The witness of the Spirit from Genesis to Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

CHAPTER 12

Defining Characteristics of Future Pentecostal Colleges and Universities

In The State of the University renowned theologian Stanley Hauerwas asserts, “If Christians are a people with an alternative history of judgments about what is true and good they cannot help but produce an alternative university” (2007, 91). Hauerwas then immediately follows up with explaining what this practically means; it means that “Christians must be those who are ready to match their convictions with their money” (91). I believe these two basic principles apply to pentecostals as well. In the previous chapters, I explained why it is essential for pentecostals to have their own colleges and universities. Now, in the final two chapter of this study, I make proposals regarding what such an engagement in pentecostal higher education could look like. I begin by describing possible characteristics of future pentecostal colleges and universities, as they endeavor to teach and train the hearts, heads, and hands of their students. For pentecostal colleges and universities to be relevant and competitive, there are a variety of defining characteristics that every pentecostal institution of higher education needs to wrestle with. In the following, I limit myself to three key issues, which fall into the categories of the heart, the head, and the hands in pentecostal higher education. First, the heart of pentecostal higher education is shaped by theology, and theology, in turn, shapes the hearts of the students. I therefore propose some ideas regarding teaching theology at a pentecostal college or university, as well as regarding chapel, which traditionally has been a key element in Christian © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1_12

201

202 

D. TOPF

higher education. Second, I address the head (or the mind) of students and how they learn, an area in which technology plays an increasingly important role. Third, speaking of the hands in pentecostal higher education, I suggest using Acts 1:8 as an outline to emphasize the importance of ministry and missions for all students attending the institution.

The Heart: Placing Theology and Prayer at the Center For obvious reasons, the significance of theology in Christian higher education can hardly be overestimated. Historically, Christian thought and practice are deeply ingrained in the roots of Western universities and, due to their Christian heritage, universities traditionally placed a premium on the study of theology (Campbell 2019, 7–13). In fact, for a long time, theology was considered the “queen of the sciences,” while philosophy was to be her “handmaiden”—a conviction famously postulated by Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), whom many consider to be the greatest theologian of all time (Reddish 2016, 5). This tradition was carried over to North America, where the first colleges were founded primarily with the idea of training future ministers. Consequently, it was obvious that students would have to learn Greek and Hebrew, and they also were required to participate in daily chapel, as well as Sunday services (Grubiak 2014, 16–19). Things changed dramatically in the nineteenth century, with forces like the Industrial Revolution placing greater emphasis on the natural sciences and on practical skills. Theology as the queen of the sciences was dethroned and, due to the forces of secularization, at times even expelled from certain universities altogether (Wengert 2014, 8). Even within Christian higher education circles it has recently been accepted that theology cannot operate as the queen of the sciences anymore; instead, theology needs to find a new role, such as functioning as a servant (Coulter and Yong, forthcoming). In this view, theology is still essential because “it facilitates the intellectual co-ordination (and sometimes questioning) of the methods and findings of the disciplines, while never questioning the legitimate autonomy of any” (D’Costa 2005, 194). What might these developments mean for pentecostal institutions of higher education? I agree with the assessment that theology cannot dominate all other fields of inquiry anymore—as history has shown, the

12  DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF FUTURE PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

203

potential danger is that theologians with insufficient knowledge of other academic areas become dogmatic and therefore hinder the discovery of new knowledge that might have produced essential benefits for humanity. However, one could also argue that theology is needed as a basis for a “scientific realism” that is the foundation for discoveries in the natural sciences in the first place (DiDonato 2015, 409–424). In addition, theology can also serve as a corrective in the social sciences, for example, in the discipline of economics, as argued by the theologian and ethicist D. Stephen Long (cf. Yong 2010, 230–231). In light of these complexities, I argue that, while theologians need to operate in humility, theology must nonetheless play a central role at a pentecostal college or university—in the lives of all students (and faculty), and as an overarching framework to understand all the other disciplines (D’Costa 2011, 195–196). In fact, it is conceivable that a pentecostal university would not offer a degree in theology at all, for instance because the decision has been made to solely focus on technology-related subjects.1 However, such a pentecostal school would still need a large and vibrant theology department because all students would nonetheless be required to take theology classes. Most Christian institutions have required theology classes for all their students, but the general trend has been one of decline, with Christian colleges and universities requiring between six to twelve credit hours in biblical and theological studies (Ream 2012, 128). I believe this trend needs to be reversed if a school wants to maintain its distinct Christian identity (Litfin 2004, 17). While some Christian schools now only require students to take one or two theology classes (Burtchaell 1998, 477, 494, 650), I am suggesting that at a pentecostal college or university every student has to take a mandatory theology course during each semester, so that Christian instruction is integrated into their entire degree program, from start to finish. Of course, this does not mean that every student must become an expert in systematic theology or biblical Hebrew. Rather, I am proposing that a large theology department at a pentecostal institution of higher education offers a wide range of subjects, so that students can choose 1  This can particularly be the case in the Majority World, such as at Benson Idahosa University in Nigeria and the Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences in India (cf. Chap. 4). For the possible challenges of having a Christian university without having a faculty of theologians, see Joel A. Carpenter (2012, 26).

204 

D. TOPF

something that interests them, either on a personal level or because it is related to the major they are studying. The first mandatory class, however, is the same for everybody, a kind of foundational cornerstone course that communicates the specific spiritual, intellectual, and ethical DNA that defines the institution. This class would ideally be taught by the president of the school and could include guest speakers who all teach on subjects that help students to more fully understand what the institution stands for.2 In fact, newly hired staff and faculty would have to join the class as well, thereby creating a campus-wide sense of belonging, with every member of the community benefiting from a shared understanding regarding the history, heritage, values, convictions, and vision of the school. Apart from the cornerstone course in the first semester, every student also will take a capstone class in their last semester. In this capstone project the student would work closely with a professor in order to formulate in broad strokes what they have learned during their degree and how they intend to make a difference for Christ after graduation. In between the cornerstone class and the capstone project, students will be able to choose from a wide range of electives within the world of theology, thereby creating a Christian framework for the entire duration of their studies. Taking eight classes from within the theology department would amount to 24 credit hours—considerably more than what is common in many evangelical colleges today. However, in the 1950s students at Boston College (a Jesuit institution) had to enroll in 10 courses (or 28 credits) in philosophy, all of which were taken during the last two years of their studies. Understandably, “to students on other campuses this would seem like a massive intrusion upon their chosen major,” as James Tunstead Burtchaell observes (1998, 577). Remarkably, the graduates of Boston College had a different take on this requirement: they often remembered those classes “as a time to make sense of all they had learned” (577). Pentecostal students who dive deep into their theology classes may discover through them an overarching framework through which they can not only make sense of their studies, but also experience transformation in their lives. Apart from theology classes, the heart of students at a pentecostal school will also be formed as they live out their faith and spirituality in the context of a worshipping community. Traditionally, Christian colleges 2  Historically, many early colleges featured a moral philosophy course “as a required capstone course,” which was “typically taught by none other than the college president” (Meriwether 2007, 78; cf. Ringenberg 2006, 61, 82).

12  DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF FUTURE PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

205

have achieved this communal expression of worship through offering chapel on campus—an event that, historically, was often conducted several times a week (or even daily) and was usually compulsory (Ringenberg 2006, 124, 135). More recently, Christian colleges and universities have given more choices to students, often making chapel a voluntary event. Nonetheless, chapel is still considered a key element in helping Christian higher education to remain Christian (Coulter and Yong, forthcoming). I agree with the concept that the way students live out their faith should be voluntary, not coerced. However, I do not believe that chapel is the best way of promoting a lived spirituality on campus; instead, I am suggesting a house of prayer model for pentecostal colleges and universities. To begin with, even the word chapel may not be particularly attractive to pentecostals, when one considers its religious and etymological roots. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, chapel is defined as a “subordinate place of worship added to or forming part of a large church or cathedral, separately dedicated and devoted to special services,” as the word derives from the Old French chapele and from the Medieval Latin capella, meaning “chapel, sanctuary for relics.”3 Since pentecostals usually relate neither to cathedrals nor to relics, and considering that the format of chapel tends to be somewhat formal and predictable, it may be worth thinking about alternatives that are better suited to touch the hearts of pentecostal students. As an alternative to the traditional chapel model, I propose setting up a house of prayer at pentecostal colleges and universities instead.4 In recent years, houses of prayer (or prayer furnaces) have been established throughout the United States and many countries around the world, so this seems to be a theme that the Holy Spirit is emphasizing (Ridings and Ridings 2019, 7). Houses of prayer are inspired by the worship arrangements made by King David, “who organized and paid 4,000 musicians and 288 singers to worship God night and day (1 Chr. 23:1–25:31).”5 At houses of prayer, worshipers combine praise and thanksgiving, intercessory prayer, and prophetic declarations in a spontaneous manner, relying on the 3  “Chapel (n.),” Online Etymology Dictionary (https://www.etymonline.com/word/ chapel). 4  In contrast to “chapel,” the term “house of prayer” is a phrase used by Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels (Matt. 21:13/Mark 11:17). 5  See the explanation given on IHOPKC’s website (https://www.ihopkc.org/about/). Similar to my discussion about the vision of the seven mountains in Chap. 11, I am here making use of nonacademic sources to explain the concept of a house of prayer as well.

206 

D. TOPF

­ uidance of the Holy Spirit. One way to describe this approach is called g “harp and bowl,” which is derived from Revelation 5:8, where both music (the “harp”) and the prayers of the saints (contained in the “golden bowls full of incense”) ascend to God’s throne (Murphy 2018). The vision of the house of prayer movement is to establish a continual acknowledgment of God’s presence here on earth, just as it is in heaven. Some ministries have therefore moved toward not only praying every day, but around the clock, 24–7. Notable examples of this commitment are the already mentioned IHOPKC in Kansas City, Missouri (cf. Chap. 10), as well as Succat Hallel in Jerusalem, Israel and Radiance International in Los Angeles, California.6 Of course, it may not be realistic to establish 24–7 prayer at a pentecostal college or university, but neither is this the main point of the global house of prayer movement. The main point is to create a prayer room in which students can soak in God’s presence, while also signing up for any day or night shift to lead worship, as they feel prompted by the Holy Spirit. Such an environment might have the potential to change the atmosphere on campus, establishing a solid foundation in terms of orthopathy (transforming the heart, a person’s emotions), which then would also lead to a healthy orthodoxy (a renewal of the mind, through correct doctrine), and orthopraxis (empowering the hands for right living and missional service).7

The Head: Learning in a Technology-Driven Environment Technology has become a major game changer in higher education, which is a mega trend that will most likely continue, and even accelerate, in the future (Jukes and Schaaf 2019). Unprecedented change in higher education has come, in particular, through the internet and the possibilities that learning management systems (LMS) bring about (Kim and Maloney 2020, 31–34). Even more dramatic shifts in higher education (and society as a whole) can be expected as novel technologies and applications like 6  See also the website of these ministries: Succat Hallel in Jerusalem (https://succathallel. com/) and Hollywood House of Prayer in Los Angeles (https://www.radianceinternational. org/). The prayer room of IHOPKC is streamed live, 24–7, on: https://www.ihopkc.org/ prayerroom/. 7  Combining orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and orthopathy is a common theme in Christian formation and pentecostal spirituality (Olson 2014, 100).

12  DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF FUTURE PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

207

virtual and augmented reality, gamification, and AI mature and become more broadly accessible (Martin 2019). Many students and professors are already familiar with platforms like Blackboard, Moodle, Canvas, Sakai, Populi, Brightspace (by Desire2Learn), and Jenzabar. Within these web-based platforms, a variety of features are commonly used to present content and to interact with each other, such as videos, email, webinars, online tests and quizzes, threaded discussions, and synchronized meetings made possible through video conference systems like Zoom and WebEx. These tools can be used for classes that are completely online, but also in hybrid models that create a “flipped classroom” (Talbert 2017). In the latter, students engage with most of the content on their own using their computers, tablets, or smartphones and then primarily come together in the physical classroom in order to ask questions, discuss what they have learned, and share their views and creative ideas with both their peers and the instructor. One form of online instruction that created quite a hype a few years ago is the Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC). MOOCs are online classes that are made available to large numbers of students, even if they are not enrolled in a particular university or program. These online courses are offered by providers like Coursera, edX, and FutureLearn, often in cooperation with organizations (like Amnesty International), companies (like Boston Consulting Group), and institutions of higher education (such as Boston University, Caltech, Columbia University, Duke University, Harvard University, and many others).8 MOOCs started in 2011 at Stanford University, and initial progress created so much excitement that The New York Times declared 2012 the year of the MOOC (Ford 2015, 123). Some even developed the expectation that through MOOCs a high-­ level education could be offered to anybody in the world at low or no cost, including to people in developing countries (Davidson 2017, 101–104). Despite these high hopes, a certain amount of disillusionment started to settle in after a few years. The main problem with MOOCs seems to be the low completion rate of classes, as large numbers of users start a course without ever finishing it. In that sense the MOOC for them is more like acquiring some interesting information (similar to what one might experience watching a series of TED talks), but there is no thorough learning experience and students do not earn any credentials, since they are unable or not motivated enough to finish the class (122–123). 8  As of June 2020, the website MOOC List enumerates around 1500 institutions related to higher education that currently offer MOOCs (https://www.mooc-list.com/).

208 

D. TOPF

However, MOOC providers are aware of these challenges and are working on improving their product, placing more emphasis on elements like social learning. As of 2020, MOOCs have grown into “a global phenomenon with 110 million learners, 13.5 thousand courses, 900+ universities, and 50 online degrees,” so, at least for now, it looks like MOOCs are here to stay (Shah 2020). This may be even more the case since the outbreak of COVID-19, a virus that began to spread in Wuhan, China in 2019 and then hit the entire world in 2020. COVID-19 has had a massive impact on higher education, and numerous articles and opinion pieces have been published emphasizing how the pandemic shows that the switch to technology-based education is inevitable (Bao 2020, 113–115). Since colleges and universities were not able to offer live classes through much of 2020, they focused on the online programs they had already established beforehand. Institutions or professors that previously had avoided internet-based education suddenly had to go through a steep learning curve as they were now forced to offer their classes online—or not at all. However, in the midst of pointing to the importance and even the inevitability of online education, critical voices are rising as well, particularly among students. For instance, students at New York University (NYU) were dissatisfied with the switch to online education due to COVID-19, and more than 11,500 of them started a petition for NYU to provide partial tuition refunds. As one student succinctly phrased it, “Zoom university is not worth 50k a year” (Kerr 2020). Coming from a customer satisfaction perspective, “students say they are not getting what they paid for” and “describe frustration with the limitations of Zoom and infrequent online classes; classes that were paid for but canceled without refunds; and classes missing critical elements like mock trials, art projects or clinical experience” (2020). The dissatisfaction students are experiencing through the switch to online classes is not only understandable, it may have legal consequences for institutions of higher education as well. At dozens of schools, such as at the University of Miami, Drexel University in Philadelphia, and the University of Colorado, students have filed class-action lawsuits, asking for a refund in tuition as well as for certain fees, arguing that charges “like athletics and activities fees should be reimbursed” as students are not able to use these services during the pandemic (2020). In June 2020, Abraham Barkhordar, a second-year student at Harvard Law School, sued his institution “for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion” (Zaretsky 2020). Barkhordar explains how not being on campus anymore

12  DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF FUTURE PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

209

has led to tangible disadvantages for him, since “without the student spaces like the library and the study groups that usually come with a Harvard Law School education—in addition to the difficulty of learning online—he began to fall behind in class” (Lantry 2020). Remarkably, it is not only students who emphasize the importance of coming together on a physical campus. As Jason Owen-Smith from the University of Michigan observes in the context of discussing the (often expensive) facilities of research universities: “the relative position of buildings and their architecture . . . shape how people move through their workdays and thus whom they will have contact with, how easily they can consult one another, and how likely they are to work together” (2018, 80). Physical proximity and the brief, unplanned encounters it facilitates leads to increased collaboration, so much so that “for every additional 100 feet of overlap in the walking paths of two scientists who have not collaborated before, there is about a 17 percent increase in the chance they will start a new project together” (81). Given these observations, I believe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates both the inevitability and the limitations of technology in higher education. The use of technology is inevitable, because those schools or professors that are not sufficiently prepared to offer online classes are clearly at a disadvantage during a pandemic, for example. On the other hand, the shift toward online classes also has shown that many students are dissatisfied with them, preferring the traditional campus environment that colleges and universities used to offer. This dilemma may serve as an invitation for pentecostal schools and educators to think more deeply about how students learn and what makes for a supreme learning experience. Rather than placing their hope in technology in an uncritical manner, pentecostals should turn to the discoveries of neuroscience and other disciplines in order to identify what it truly means to learn and teach. An excellent starting point in this regard is the findings of Joshua R.  Eyler, the director of the Center for Teaching Excellence at Rice University. In How Humans Learn: The Science and Stories Behind Effective College Teaching, Eyler identifies five major elements that empower students to learn: (1) curiosity (“as teachers, it is our job to help students reconnect with their curiosity and to use our courses as laboratories for discovery”); (2) sociality (being together in the same place, and developing a sense of belonging through elements like games and stories, greatly aids learning); (3) emotion (“positive emotions such as happiness, joy, and humor are beneficial for student learning”); (4) authenticity (humans

210 

D. TOPF

learn best when the material seems relevant to their lives, which can be achieved through activities like research projects and service-­ learning opportunities); and (5) failure (“failure-based pedagogies help students to confront the limits of their knowledge and then provide tools for learning from these moments of difficulty in order to develop better understanding”) (2018, 39, 99–112, 148, 170, 217). While these five elements highlighted by Eyler do not directly address the usage of technology in higher education, they do point to the limitations of online classes and programs. Granted, the internet can spark curiosity in a student, but what about experiencing a learning community and positive emotions like joy and happiness? Pentecostal educators have an opportunity to shape the learning experiences of their students by relying less on technology and more on interpersonal relationships. In doing so, pentecostal colleges and universities may also be able to offer an alternative in the context of socioeconomic developments in higher education. Due to the impact of digital technologies, it looks like “more people than ever will have access to a solid education, albeit one that is delivered mostly over the internet,” as one writer for the New York Magazine puts it (Walsh 2020). Faced with such disruptions, “hundreds, if not thousands, of brick-­and-­mortar universities will go out of business and those that remain will have student bodies composed primarily of the children of the one percent” (2020). In other words, for most people, education will become a commodity that can be consumed via the internet, while a campus experience with personal attention will increasingly become a luxury. Due to technological advances like the internet, the university will increasingly turn into a “hyperuniversity” as Carl A. Raschke explains in The Digital Revolution and the Coming of the Postmodern University (2003). Thanks to the virtually infinite knowledge offered on the internet, students will increasingly pick and choose their own pathway toward learning, acquiring competencies, and achieving success, thereby revolutionizing the educational process. Accordingly, professors will not function as sages and saints anymore (as they did in the premodern university), neither will they necessarily be recognized as experts and authorities in their field (a characteristic of specialization in the modern multiversity). Rather, teachers and instructors will primarily function as mentors (Table 12.1).9

9  Apart from professors, professionals working in the field of student affairs can also play a crucial role when it comes to discipling students through their engagement in initiatives such as athletics, diversity and inclusion, and career planning (cf. Glanzer et al., 2020). However, doing justice to this element of higher education would go beyond the scope of this volume.

12  DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF FUTURE PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

211

Table 12.1  From the university to the hyperuniversity

Era Location Learning process Teacher’s role Ideological center Christianity’s place

University

Multiversity

Hyperuniversity

premodernity building teacher-centered sage religion center

modernity campus institution-centered expert nation margins

postmodernity network student-centered mentor individual niche

At the postmodern hyperuniversity, Christianity (or any other faith) will be found neither at the center nor at the margins; rather, various religious groups will carve out their own niches in which they are operating. These developments may offer pentecostals a platform to offer a counter-­cultural alternative through their own colleges and universities: they can reduce costs by avoiding unnecessary expenses (such as expensive facilities and high salaries) and offer an affordable education instead by focusing on the essential learning experience that is facilitated as students and professors come together in an environment saturated by the Holy Spirit.10 For pentecostals, all learning experiences are embodied experiences, and this includes the head of students. Non-Christian futurists like Ray Kurzweil may be tempted to see the human mind as a network of neurons that processes information in much the same way as a computer does (2005, 71, 137–138, 147–153). Consequently, it is conceivable that people may be able to achieve immortality if scientists are able to completely decipher the human brain and to upload all the information it contains to the internet (166, 198–203). However, such a utopian vision sounds rather dystopian to pentecostals who value the human body as a profound gift from God and therefore reject any disembodied approach to life and learning. The mind, or the head, is just as much part of the embodied existence as other parts of the body, which is why whatever technologies are used at pentecostal colleges and universities will have to engage embodied learners who benefit from a holistic approach to education that touches on every element of human existence.

10  Having said that, it may also be possible to create a Spirit-filled and formative community in an online environment (Campbell and Stephen Garner 2016, 79–96).

212 

D. TOPF

The Hands: Engaging in Local and Global Missions Based on Acts 1:8 Having touched on matters related to the heart and the head, I now turn to the subject of the hands, of students getting practically involved for the sake of others. In the United States, international mission trips and local service opportunities are a common element within pentecostal higher education, so much so that one would be hard pressed to find a pentecostal college or university that does not offer anything in this area to its students.11 It is worth highlighting that pentecostals not only display activism in this area; they also have a solid theological, historical, and missiological heritage that informs their efforts (cf. Chap. 10). For this reason, pentecostal institutions of higher education could become a source of inspiration for other colleges and universities in this regard, be they (post) secular or belonging to a different Christian tradition. At the same time, pentecostals will benefit from learning from others as well, especially from those who have considerable experience in exposing students to cross-cultural service and learning opportunities. Within the realm of Christian higher education, one of the strongest players in this regard is Goshen College in Goshen, Indiana, which belongs to the Mennonite tradition. Goshen College’s Study-Service Program was started in 1968, and as such is “one of the oldest and largest international service-learning abroad programs” (Kraft 2002, 310). As Merrimon Cunningim observes, “their program in international education is one of their gems, and around 90 percent of the faculty have lived abroad” (quoted in Schlabach 1997, 201). Today, international engagement at Goshen College is offered through the Study-Service Term (SST), in which about 80 percent of students participate.12 The program is designed to develop people “with the ability to be multicultural in a diverse world of multiple, overlapping communities and interwoven stories,” and it is something that not only involves students, but professors as well, considering that around half of the faculty at Goshen College have led SST groups (Graber Miller 2002, 236, 238). The program is carefully designed and generally considered to be a great 11  All of the 15 pentecostal colleges and universities in the United States (listed in Table 4.4) highlight their local and/or global outreach opportunities on their websites—including smaller institutions, such as SAGU American Indian College (https://www.aicag.edu/ campus-­life/outreach). 12  “SST” on Goshen College’s website (https://www.goshen.edu/sst/).

12  DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF FUTURE PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

213

success; so much so that “over the years, SST has garnered national recognition for the college” (227). A variety of factors and characteristics have contributed to the success of SST, of which five will be briefly mentioned here. First, the program lasts several months (13–15 weeks), which means it is considerably longer than typical short-term mission trips. Second, the program “seeks to place students in settings which are significantly different from the U.S. in culture, economic or political terms,” thereby allowing for more pronounced learning experiences (Kraft 2002, 310). Third, “groups of 15–22 students are supervised by a Goshen College professor in residence at each location, but live with local families, typically lower middle class, who speak little or no English” (310). Fourth, the program emphasizes the student as learner, as students “participate in language and cultural studies” during “the initial six to seven weeks” (310). Only after such preparation, the students are then “relocated outside the capital city to a second host family and given a service assignment” (310, cf. Meyers 2010, 220–223). Fifth, after the service assignment, students process their experience by writing a project paper and by participating in debriefing activities (Graber Miller 2002, 235–236). While the global engagement at Goshen College has been an important part of the school for several decades now, international service assignments have also grown in significance within the non-Christian world of higher education in recent years. One notable example is Michigan State University (MSU), whose international work is so substantial that it represents “a comparative advantage for MSU as it competes with peer institutions for national-global standing and prestige” (Fear and McKnight Casey 2020, 7). However, even at MSU, efforts to engage a large percentage of the population have been relatively recent. By 1970, when MSU had nearly 40,000 students (among them more than 30,000 undergraduates), “only about two hundred students participated in overseas study that year” (5). In contrast, by 1993, there were about 1200 students benefiting from study abroad experiences in over 20 countries (5). Today, at the time of writing, MSU not only has a “storied history of education abroad,” but possibly also “the nation’s largest group of faculty program leaders” (Berquist and Milano 2020, 25). Some of the noteworthy features of the study abroad program at MSU are listed here as follows:

214 

D. TOPF

• Instead of the traditional focus on benefit to the student, the program now emphasizes benefits for both sides through the building of reciprocal relationships with community-based partners (18–21). • Within these partnerships, instead of seeing the university as expert, the community is acknowledged as expert (14). • There is an emphasis on foreign language acquisition and on learning about the host culture (Delgado and Yoder 2020, 131, 133). • Longer engagements—lasting several months—are encouraged, because these are more likely to lead to a truly immersive experience. However, even for short-term assignments (such as outreaches by medical students), the learning horizon is extended through continuous predeparture and postreturn interaction “to ten to eighteen months or longer” (Dutkiewicz and Dutkiewicz 2020, 37). The emphasis MSU places on the agency of the community is so crucial that “service” might not even be the best word to describe these activities abroad. As Rae Schnuth and Cheryl Celestin explain, “The term ‘service’ in service learning . . . has received criticism from some; an array of other terms, also with their detractors, have become common, such as community-­ based teaching or learning, civic education, civic engagement, and public scholarship. Increasingly the term ‘community engagement’ appears the privileged concept to refer to these pedagogies” (2020, 130). These observations go beyond semantics; the point is to arrive at a paradigm shift so that Western students and scholars going abroad see themselves primarily as learners, especially when operating in a non-Western context. Keeping in mind best practices from Christian institutions like Goshen College as well as from (post)secular universities like MSU, I am proposing that pentecostal schools would benefit from introducing a community-­ based approach to missions that develops in four steps. These four steps draw their inspiration from Jesus’s words in Acts 1:8 and would make sure that all students have an integrated service or missions project for every year of their undergraduate study experience. As Fig. 12.1 demonstrates, through these four projects students would rely on the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome both geographical and cultural barriers, for the sake of the gospel. Specifically, this would mean that, in the first year, students need to complete an assignment in their “Jerusalem,” the city where they are now studying, for example, by volunteering at a local food bank. Then, in the second year, students would work through a project back in their

12  DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF FUTURE PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

215

Geographical Distance near near Cultural Distance far

far

“Jerusalem”

“Judea”

(1st year)

(2nd year)

“Samaria”

“the ends of the earth”

(3rd year)

(4th year)

Fig. 12.1  Four mission projects based on Acts 1:8

hometown, for instance by helping in their home church during the summer. In the third year, students would have a cross-cultural experience within the United States, such as serving at a community center in a multiethnic neighborhood. Finally, in the fourth year, all students would be required to go overseas (to “the ends of the earth”) for an entire semester, thereby having an experience similar to what Goshen College has accomplished through their widely acclaimed SST program. Ideally, this service assignment in a different country would not only serve as a cross-cultural experience for students, but also as one which helps them to reflect on their entire time in college, while at the same time inviting them to look ahead as well. Through the capstone class mentioned above pentecostal students are encouraged to discern the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives in a holistic way, which would include their course work, their extracurricular activities, and their local and global service engagements (Fig. 12.1). In this way, the kind of pentecostal institution of higher education I am envisioning here offers a uniquely comprehensive educational experience, one in which theology, pedagogy, and missiology work together toward transforming the heart, expanding the mind, and training the hands of each student (cf. Toms Smedley 2010, 21–22).

References Bao, Wei. 2020. COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2 (2): 113–115. Berquist, Brett, and Joy Milano. 2020. Intersections between service learning and study abroad: A framework for community engagement abroad. In Community

216 

D. TOPF

engagement abroad: Perspectives and practices on service, engagement, and learning overseas, ed. Pat Crawford and Brett Berquist, 13–27. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Burtchaell, James Tunstead. 1998. The dying of the light: The disengagement of colleges and universities from their Christian churches. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Campbell, Joshua. 2019. Sociology and education. Waltham Abbey: ED-Tech Press. Campbell, Heidi A., and Stephen Garner. 2016. Networked theology: Negotiating faith in digital culture. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Carpenter, Joel A. 2012. New Christian universities and the conversion of cultures. Evangelical Review of Theology. 36 (1): 14–30. Coulter, Dale M., and Amos Yong. Forthcoming. Finding the Holy Spirit in the Christian university: Renewing Christian higher education. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. D’Costa, Gavin. 2005. Theology in the public square: Church, academy, and nation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ———. 2011. On theology, the humanities, and the university. In Theology, university, humanities: Initium sapientiae timor Domini, ed. Christopher Craig Brittain and Francesca Ara Murphy, 194–212. Eugene: Cascade. Davidson, Cathy N. 2017. The new education: How to revolutionize the university to prepare students for a world in flux. New York: Basic Books. Delgado, Vincent, and Scot Yoder. 2020. Reexamining university–community partnerships in a civic engagement study-abroad program. In Community engagement abroad: Perspectives and practices on service, engagement, and learning overseas, ed. Pat Crawford and Brett Berquist, 131–144. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. DiDonato, Nicholas C. 2015. Theology as “queen of science” reconsidered: A basis for scientific realism. Theology and Science 13 (4): 409–424. Dutkiewicz, Keri, and Daniel Dutkiewicz. 2020. Transforming conventional short-term, faculty-led study-abroad programs into broader platforms for increased community engagement and internationalization. In Community engagement abroad: Perspectives and practices on service, engagement, and learning overseas, ed. Pat Crawford and Brett Berquist, 29–49. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Eyler, Joshua R. 2018. How humans learn: The science and stories behind effective college teaching. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press. Fear, Frank A., and Karen McKnight Casey. 2020. The story of place: What we learned about engaged study-abroad work. In Community engagement abroad: Perspectives and practices on service, engagement, and learning overseas, ed. Pat Crawford and Brett Berquist, 1–12. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Ford, Martin. 2015. Rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of a jobless future. New York: Basic Books.

12  DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF FUTURE PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

217

Glanzer, Perry L., Theodore F. Cockle, Elijah G. Jeong, and Britney N. Graber. 2020. Christ-enlivened student affairs: A guide to Christian thinking and practice in the field. Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press. Grubiak, Margaret M. 2014. White elephants on campus: The decline of the university chapel in America, 1920–1960. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Hauerwas, Stanley. 2007. The state of the university: Academic knowledges and the knowledge of God. Malden: Blackwell. Jukes, Ian, and Ryan L.  Schaaf. 2019. A brief history of the future of education: Learning in the age of disruption. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Kerr, Emma. 2020. Why students are seeking refunds during COVID-19. U.S. News and World Report, April 22. https://www.usnews.com/education/ best-­colleges/paying-­for-­college/articles/college-­tuition-­refunds-­discounts-­ an-­uphill-­battle-­amid-­coronavirus. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Kim, Joshua, and Edward Maloney. 2020. Learning innovation and the future of higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kraft, Richard J. 2002. International service learning, University of Colorado, Boulder. In Learning to serve: Promoting civil society through service learning, ed. Maureen E. Kenny, Lou Anna K. Simon, Karen Kiley-Brabeck, and Richard M. Lerner, 297–314. New York: Springer. Kurzweil, Ray. 2005. The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York: Penguin Books. Lantry, Lauren. 2020. ABC News exclusive: Harvard law student sues university over tuition prices as classes remain online. ABC News, June 22. https://abcnews.go.com/US/abc-­news-­exclusive-­harvard-­law-­student-­sues-­university/ story?id=71345292. Accessed 24 March 2021. Litfin, Duane. 2004. Conceiving the Christian college. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Martin, Scott M. 2019. Artificial intelligence, mixed reality, and the redefinition of the classroom. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Meriwether, Nicholas K. 2007. Returning moral philosophy to American higher education. In The schooled heart: Moral formation in American higher education, ed. Douglas V.  Henry and Michael R.  Beaty, 73–102. Waco: Baylor University Press. Meyers, Thomas J. 2010. The study service term: An alignment of a religious tradition with an academic program. In Transformations at the edge of the world: Forming global Christians through the study abroad experience, 219–232. Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press. Graber Miller, Keith. 2002. A one-armed embrace of postmodernity: International education and church-related colleges. In Professing in the postmodern academy: Faculty and the future of church-related colleges, ed. Stephen R.  Haynes, 217–245. Waco: Baylor University Press.

218 

D. TOPF

Murphy, William H., Jr. 2018. The ministry of the harp and the bowl: The connection between prayer and worship. Independently published. Olson, Roger E. 2014. Reconceiving the Christ-centered college: Convertive piety and life together. In The Pietist vision of Christian higher education: Forming whole and holy persons, ed. Christopher Gehrz, 100–107. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Owen-Smith, Jason. 2018. Research universities and the public good: Discovery for an uncertain future. Stanford: Stanford Business Books. Raschke, Carl A. 2003. The digital revolution and the coming of the postmodern university. London: RoutledgeFarmer. Ream, Todd. 2012. Protestant Bible institutes in the United States. In International handbook of Protestant education, ed. William Janes and David W. Robinson, 123–136. New York: Springer. Reddish, Tim. 2016. Science and Christianity: Foundations and frameworks for moving forward in faith. Eugene: Cascade Books. Ridings, Rick, and Patricia Ridings. 2019. Shifting nations through houses of prayer. Brisbane: CHI Books. Ringenberg, William C. 2006. The Christian college: A history of Protestant higher education in America. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Schlabach, Theron F. 1997. Goshen College and its church relations: History and reflections. In Models for Christian higher education: Strategies for success in the twenty-first century, ed. Richard T. Hughes and William B. Adrian, 200–221. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Schnuth, Rae, and Cheryl Celestin. 2020. Leadership in medicine for the underserved: Making it real. In Community engagement abroad: Perspectives and practices on service, engagement, and learning overseas, ed. Pat Crawford and Brett Berquist, 85–100. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Shah, Dhawal. 2020. Capturing the hype: Year of the MOOC timeline explained. Class Central, February 4. https://www.classcentral.com/report/mooc-­hype-­ year-­1/. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Toms Smedley, Cynthia. 2010. Introduction. In Transformations at the edge of the world: Forming global Christians through the study abroad experience, eds. Ronald J.  Morgan and Cynthia Toms Smedley, 19–30. Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press. Talbert, Robert. 2017. Flipped learning: A guide for higher education faculty. Sterling: Stylus Publishing. Walsh, James D. 2020. The coming disruption: Scott Galloway predicts a handful of elite cyborg universities will soon monopolize higher education. New York Magazine, May 11. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/scott-­ galloway-­future-­of-­college.html. Accessed 24 Mar 2021.

12  DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF FUTURE PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

219

Wengert, Timothy J. 2014. The Reformation and education. In Renewing Church and university: The twenty-seventh annual Reformation Day at Emory, ed. M. Patrick Graham, 7–18. Atlanta: Pitts Theology Library. Yong, Amos. 2010. In the days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and political theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Zaretsky, Staci. 2020. Harvard law school student sues over “outrageous tuition” for online classes. Above the Law, June 24. https://abovethelaw. com/2020/06/harvard-­law-­school-­student-­sues-­over-­outrageous-­tuition-­for-­ online-­classes/. Accessed 24 Mar 2021.

CHAPTER 13

Envisioning Different Types of Pentecostal Colleges and Universities

In the following, I propose different types of pentecostal colleges and universities that could emerge in the future. Part of my argument is that pentecostal institutions of higher education may want to consider moving to the next stage in their development. For instance, a pentecostal Bible institute may want to seek accreditation, so that its graduates will be able to pursue a master’s degree at a university one day. Or, a pentecostal university that already offers various undergraduate and graduate degree programs might envision becoming a research university, in order to contribute to the discovery of new knowledge. The three types of institutions that I consider in this chapter are: (1) accredited pentecostal vocational training schools; (2) pentecostal colleges and universities with a distinctive profile; and (3) pentecostal research universities offering a wide range of doctoral programs.

Accredited Pentecostal Vocational Training Schools Historically, many pentecostal institutions of theological education began as unaccredited Bible institutes; however, over time, some of these schools developed into Bible colleges, liberal arts colleges, and even universities

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1_13

221

222 

D. TOPF

(cf. Chap. 3).1 Nevertheless, throughout the global renewal movement there is such a strong emphasis on training people for ministry, often in a nonformal setting, that a wide variety of ministerial training schools continue to exist. Many of these schools are intentionally narrow in focusing on the Bible and practical ministry, which, for instance, the Christ for the Nations Institute in Dallas, Texas, is famous for.2 Some of these programs, which often belong to the neo-pentecostal and charismatic spectrum, even apply the term “university” to themselves in order to promote the different degree programs they offer.3 For example, Rick Joyner founded MorningStar University (MSU) in Fort Mill, South Carolina, an institution which offers a bachelor’s (of three years) in transformational leadership as well as a master’s in leadership ministry, which “is a 12 month, or three-term, weekend immersion program.”4 As already mentioned in Chap. 10, Mike Bickle’s International House of Prayer University (IHOPU) in Kansas City, Missouri, and the University of the Nations (UofN) founded by Loren Cunningham with its main base in Kona, Hawaii, have a similar approach to preparing people for ministry.5

1  This process is still under way today: The United Pentecostal Church International, for instance, currently runs Urshan College in Wentzville, Missouri, which fairly recently “has expanded beyond the Bible college model to offer an apostolic education that prepares students for both ministerial and professional vocations” and “is in the process of seeking accreditation” (Coltharp and Russell 2020, 8). 2  See also the website of Christ for the Nations Institute (https://cfni.org/). 3  In the United States, the term “university” is not protected, so any institution can call itself a university if they so wish. By contrast, things are stricter in Europe: the pentecostal scholar Samuel Lee founded the “Foundation University” in 2006, in order to offer “tuition fee-free education for citizens of the majority world, migrants, refugees, and persecuted minorities.” However, since the programs are not accredited by the Dutch Accreditation Organization (NVAO), the institution had to be renamed into “Foundation Academy of Amsterdam” (see also its website: https://www.foundation.eu.com/). 4  “College of Leadership Masters Program” on the website of MorningStar University (https://www.morningstaruniversity.com/col-masters-home/). 5  Other schools of this type include Bethany Bible Training Center (“a school of the Spirit”) in Virginia Beach, Virginia (https://www.bethanybtc.org/); Calvary Bible College (which is currently pursuing accreditation) in Murrieta, California (https://calvarychapelbiblecollege.com/home/); Charis Bible College in Woodland Park, Colorado, which was founded by Andrew Wommack (https://www.charisbiblecollege.org/); Elim Bible Institute and College in Lima, New York, which achieved accreditation in 2018 (https://www.elim. edu/); Jimmy Swaggart Bible College in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (https://jsbc.edu/); and Rhema Bible Training College in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma (https://www.rbtc.org/).

13  ENVISIONING DIFFERENT TYPES OF PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

223

Programs like MSU, IHOPU, and UofN can be quite successful in training, equipping, and releasing the next generation of ministers, such as preachers or worship leaders. Within the world of theology and ministry, graduates of these schools may even be able to study at an accredited institution for their graduate degrees—Fuller Theological Seminary, for instance, admits a certain percentage of students every year who do not have an accredited undergraduate degree but who show promise based on their life and ministry experience.6 However, if somebody wants to study a subject like business, law, or nursing at a university, these kinds of exceptions will not be made. If neo-pentecostals are serious about their vision of influencing all areas of society (the “seven mountains”), they will need to think about strategies that will allow committed believers to have access to these areas. One of the ways to do that would be to take some of these ministerial training schools and turn them into accredited degree programs, so that they can become a steppingstone toward a graduate degree or toward gainful employment in areas outside of ministry. Understandably, pentecostals and neo-pentecostals are passionate about topics like intimacy with God and intercessory prayer, and building up an accredited degree program can seem like a hindrance to pursuing these kinds of priorities. However, is there a middle way forward, one in which spiritual vibrancy and formal education can be combined in successful ways? An example for this approach may currently be under way in Pasadena, California, through the undergraduate program that is being developed by William Carey International University (WCIU). This effort is spearheaded by Todd and Junia Pokrifka, who were full-time professors at Azusa Pacific University (APU) before, but then started Commission Training, an unaccredited program for training cross-cultural workers.7 Now, by seeking to offer an accredited bachelor’s degree in community transformation, their goal is to have the best of both worlds, by combining academic and practical preparation in a Spirit-filled environment.

6  See also the explanation on Fuller ‘s website: “Applicants whose gifts and calling have been verified by the church but who have not earned an accredited bachelor’s or master’s degree may be considered for admission to a Fuller degree or certificate program as Special Students” (https://www.fuller.edu/admissions/requirements-and-deadlines/ special-student-admission-requirements/). 7  See also the website of Frontier Ventures (https://give.frontierventures.org/project/ commission-training) and of the newly founded Institute for Community Transformation (https://www.communitytransformation.org/).

224 

D. TOPF

Such an approach might serve as an example for pentecostal Bible schools that are currently unaccredited—possibly there is a way forward for them to pursue accreditation, while at the same time maintaining their spiritual vibrancy. Once students graduate with an accredited degree, God may then lead them to become influencers in various kingdom vocations, even outside of traditional ministry positions. Having said that, seeking full accreditation for entire degree programs may not be the only way forward for praxis- and skills-oriented institutions of pentecostal higher education. In some areas, traditional forms of accreditation may decrease in importance in the years to come, particularly in rapidly changing fields, such as information technology. In areas like computer science and coding, concrete credentials proving that someone has certain skills may be sufficient in order to be employed by a technology company (Rimland and Raish 2019). Focusing on these kinds of micro credentials might create new opportunities for pentecostal schools, something that Bethel Church in Redding, California, has begun to explore through their Bethel School of Technology. According to the school’s website, Bethel Tech is “the first faith-based tech boot camp in the world,” offering programs in UI/UX design, full stack development, and data science.8 Bethel Tech highlights that there is great demand for tech-savvy workers, and that the average starting salary for a junior developer is $66,000 per year. Promising job security and a lucrative career is an important element of how Bethel Tech markets itself, but it is also clear that this is not what the school is ultimately about. Rather, Bethel Tech explains, their “greatest desire is to see our students serve companies with excellence, in both skill and character by representing the love of Christ to everyone, everywhere.”9 The necessity to acquire skills such as coding has been a subject not only for Bethel Church, but also for those writing about the intersection of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and education (Gleason 2018, 163). Educational institutions need to prepare people for the jobs of the future, for employment in areas like data analysis, robot maintenance, and design (Oppenheimer 2019, 372–379). Apart from skills in areas like coding and cybersecurity, promising jobs in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution may also be found in learning a trade, such as welding, HVAC repair, and plumbing (Staat 2019, 51, 53). The kind of creativity, flexibility, and 8 9

 “About,” Bethel School of Technology’s website (https://betheltech.net/about).  “About,” Bethel School of Technology’s website (https://betheltech.net/about).

13  ENVISIONING DIFFERENT TYPES OF PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

225

dexterity necessary for these types of jobs is difficult to master for machines, even for highly sophisticated robots, which is why these occupations will most likely offer job security for many years to come (Brown 2020, 150–151). These kinds of skills and trades could be taught at a pentecostal institution of theological education that so far only offers theology and ministry-­ related degrees.10 Ministerial schools that offer Associate of Arts (AA) degrees could expand their offer to teach certain trades as well, many of which can be learned within two years. This might become an attractive option for those who will be working as bi-vocational pastors—an increasing reality in the post-Christendom world one finds in the West today (Felsburg 2018, v). Technical skills like coding as well as the trades may open up possibilities for pastors to serve as bi-vocational ministers. Students who do not have the funds and/or the academic skills to obtain a bachelor’s plus a graduate degree could study theology for two years (preparing them to serve as a pastor) while also learning a trade (enabling them to earn a living wage, e.g., even while pastoring within a low-income community). The key to this educational experience would be that students would be studying both theology and the trade in a Spirit-filled environment, bridging a false distinction between the sacred and the secular, and learning within a setting that matches their pentecostal values and convictions. Upgrading pentecostal educational efforts in this area will be of particular importance in the context of empowering minorities in the United States, such as Native Americans, Hispanics, and African Americans.11 It is well documented that pentecostals were ahead of their time when they made interracial worship a reality during the days of the Azusa Street Revival. As Frank Bartleman, an eyewitness of these historical events, famously reported: “The ‘color line’ was washed away in the blood of 10  An example of this category would be the King’s University in Southlake, Texas, which offers several degrees related to ministry (https://www.tku.edu/); see also the comments made about the Assemblies of God school, Northpoint College, and Graduate School in Chap. 4 (where it is listed as Northpoint Bible College). 11  This topic has become all the more urgent considering the murder of George Floyd (1973–2020), an African American who became a victim of police brutality. Floyd, who was unarmed, lost his life on May 25, 2020, an event that triggered nationwide as well as international protests in the context of discussing systemic racism in the United States, both past and present. The protests gained particular momentum through the contributions of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement (Richeson 2020, 9–12).

226 

D. TOPF

Christ” ([1925] 1982, 51; cf. Alexander 2011, 26, 110). However, it is also true that this kind of welcoming kingdom community only lasted a short time, and that painful divisions among racial lines became apparent relatively soon. Accordingly, Iain MacRobert reports in The Black Roots and White Racism of Early Pentecostalism in the USA, soon a “re-drawing of the color line” took place (1988, 60–62). Some of these past injustices have been addressed, famously so during the “Memphis Miracle” on October 18, 1994, when European American and African American pentecostal leaders washed each other’s feet, asked for forgiveness, and the next day formed the integrated Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches of North America (PCCNA) (Brathwaite 2010, 65–87). Nonetheless, more remains to be done for pentecostals to pursue reconciliation, justice, and equality for people from every ethnicity and background. In the context of pentecostal higher education, this leads to the question to what degree and under what circumstances people of color within the pentecostal movement are receiving training and education. African Americans, for instance, have built up their own institutions of theological education, such as the Charles H. Mason Theological Seminary in Atlanta, Georgia.12 In addition, the Assemblies of God has theological institutions that focus on Native Americans (specifically, the SAGU American Indian College in Phoenix, Arizona) and on Hispanics (such as LABI College in La Puente, California). What these institutions have accomplished is remarkable, and yet it is painfully obvious that these schools cater to groups on the margins and that their institutions cannot be compared to what is available in the Anglo-American mainstream culture.13 This marginalization is especially challenging considering that the future of the pentecostal movement lies with people of color. The Assemblies of God, for instance, “consistently report that much of the growth in their church planting comes from non-Anglo churches, with a large number of them being planted by Hispanics and among Hispanic communities” (Yang 2019). This discrepancy leads to the question: is the 12  According to the seminary’s website, the “Charles H. Mason Theological Seminary is the only fully accredited, African American Pentecostal Seminary in the world” (https:// www.itc.edu/seminaries/charles-h-mason-theological-seminary/). 13  Personally, I am particularly familiar with LABI College, considering that I taught two classes in Spanish at LABI Extension in 2016 and 2018. Both the efforts and the marginalization at LABI College are also described in the literature (Aponte and De La Torre 2020, 126–127).

13  ENVISIONING DIFFERENT TYPES OF PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

227

pentecostal community in America doing enough to invest in educational initiatives for minorities in order to empower them toward a more prosperous future? Hopefully, some of the ideas discussed here can be implemented soon, so that educational and vocational opportunities are made available to those who need them the most.

Pentecostal Colleges and Universities with a Distinctive Profile There are many Christian colleges and universities in the United States, but most of them have a relatively small number of students. Pentecostal institutions of higher education operate within this environment as well, which means there is intense competition, because students have many different options to choose from. However, considering that only a small percentage of pentecostal high school graduates goes on to study at a pentecostal college or university, there is definitely still room for growth.14 In this kind of environment, the important strategic step for pentecostal colleges and universities may have to do with differentiation, with developing a more distinctive profile. To begin with, all pentecostal institutions of higher education should be known for their pentecostal distinctives, rather than just being a copy of their evangelical counterparts. Some of these distinctives will draw from the spirituality and mission-mindedness that is characteristic of the pentecostal movement, as I briefly elucidated in Chaps. 8, 9, 10, and 11. In addition, I believe it will be beneficial for pentecostal colleges and universities to develop a particular profile, to find their specific niche, rather than trying to be all things to all people. In the following, I propose three different models for pentecostal higher education with a distinctive profile: (1) the university that has a campus but attracts primarily online students; (2) the traditional residential college that is intentionally and completely offline; and (3) the partnership (or co-op) model in which students spend half of their time working at a company or organization as part of their studies.

14  Based on the Fall 2016 Statistics Report of The Alliance for AG Higher Education (available via: https://colleges.ag.org/Resources), Hittenberger estimates that only around 3.6 percent of Assemblies of God (AG) graduating seniors enrolled at AG endorsed institutions of higher education. Personal communication by email, June 30, 2020.

228 

D. TOPF

(1) The Online University: While not every pentecostal college or university needs to focus on having large numbers of students, the most promising avenue to achieve this goal is to capitalize on online education. With a focus on distance education, it is astonishing to see how large certain evangelical institutions, notably Grand Canyon University and Liberty University, have become—each of these schools now has over 100,000 students, the vast majority studying online (Jenkins 2018).15 Achieving something similar within the pentecostal spectrum might be a goal worth pursuing, especially considering that online classes radically increase the accessibility of education, which is something pentecostals are passionate about. Historically, pentecostals have been interested in making theological education and ministerial training accessible to a wide range of populations. That is why the Assemblies of God started the International Correspondence Institute (ICI), which was officially launched in 1967 and today is known as Global University. From its inception, “the school was deeply rooted in world missions,” aiming to “provide evangelism, discipleship, workers’ training, and bachelor’s degrees to unreached corners of the globe” (Kozak 2017). What has been accomplished since then is remarkable: “As of 2017, 225 enrollment locations in more than 166 countries and 126 languages are reaching roughly 500,000 students both directly and indirectly” (2017).16 However, most of these students study to grow in their faith, not to obtain a degree, and all of Global University’s programs are exclusively ministerial in nature—programs such as Bible and Theology, Intercultural Studies, Christian Education, and Christian Ministry. What if pentecostals were to take the Global University model and apply it to teach subjects beyond ministry and theology by offering an online education for a wide variety of disciplines? This kind of expansion may be the next step forward for Global University. However, if Global University wishes to remain exclusively ministerial in its focus and vision, then another pentecostal university could venture into this territory. As mentioned in Chap. 5, several pentecostal universities have strong online 15  See also the facts and figures on the websites of Grand Canyon University (https:// www.gcu.edu/why-gcu/history-of-gcu) and Liberty University (https://www.liberty.edu/ aboutliberty/index.cfm?PID=6925). 16  Of course, most of these students are reached through the evangelistic courses of Global University and are not pursuing a degree. In 2018, Global University had 1014 new graduates—coming from 49 different countries (Kozak 2018).

13  ENVISIONING DIFFERENT TYPES OF PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

229

programs already, so these could be expanded in order to enroll not just thousands, but eventually tens of thousands of students. Such an endeavor would require making substantial investments into the information technology (IT) infrastructure and producing high-­ quality online content, but it would be worth it, both from a strategic and from a financial point of view, as the examples of Liberty University and Grand Canyon University demonstrate: both of these schools were able to turn their financial situation around after massively expanding their online reach (Magruder 2014). A pentecostal institution that already has a strong online program in place may be able to achieve similar breakthroughs— this may be an attractive option for Evangel University in Springfield, Missouri, which could possibly pursue such institutional growth in combination with the lessons learned at Global University. (2) The Offline Residential College: Since I just proposed an online pentecostal university, I believe it should be clear that I am not a Luddite or suffering from technophobia. However, as I have argued above, one size does not fit all, especially not in the twenty-first century, when consumers are increasingly demanding customized and personalized products and experiences. It is therefore, in my mind, no contradiction to propose the existence of a pentecostal online university, while at the same time also imagining a pentecostal college that offers a contrasting retro-experience by being completely offline.17 This offline school does not offer any online classes; rather, students are required to stay on campus for the entire four years. Consequently, in this kind of college the physical environment is essential, which means that it would have to be a campus in a beautiful location, characterized by an attractive architecture and the celebration of various art forms. As such, the offline college provides a kind of monastic experience, of retreating into a seclusive place in order to focus on God and to devote oneself to study the Bible, as well as other subjects. Not only does the offline college stay away from online classes, but it also creates a largely screen-free environment. There is no Wi-Fi, and neither laptops nor smartphones are allowed on campus.18 Computers are only available in the  For the idea of a “Retro Campus” I am indebted to Bryan Alexander (2020, 196–201).  Radius International, a missionary training school that is located in Tijuana, Mexico, and lasts for ten months, also limits the access its students have to electronics and communication (https://www.radiusinternational.org/). I was able to witness this approach myself, as I visited the school twice, for my ministry with the mission agency World Team—my last visit to Radius International was on February 27–28, 2020. 17 18

230 

D. TOPF

offices of the administrative buildings, the library, and a separate technology center, where students can experiment with novel technologies, such as virtual reality and 3D-printing.19 Outside of these locations, students remain offline and screen-free whenever they are on campus, thereby creating a prolonged Sabbath from technology that many may find liberating and invigorating. By creating this kind of environment, the pentecostal offline college could also create additional revenue streams by offering offline retreats for churches, businesses, and families who want to unplug for a season or go through a digital detox, as well as by becoming a rehabilitation center for those struggling with various internet-­related addictions (Vercillo 2020). Young pentecostals may choose this college because they want to receive a broad education in theology and the humanities, or maybe because they have not decided yet what they want to do with their lives.20 However, if this college were to develop a reputation for excellence, for teaching its students how to think and how to live in community, earning a degree there could serve as a strong foundation to then move on to any kind of graduate program. In addition, the environment created at the offline college also prepares students for a labor market defined by the changes that the Fourth Industrial Revolution is bringing about. As robots and AIs become more sophisticated, humans will only be able to compete by capitalizing on characteristics that distinguish them from these high-performance machines. Consequently, jobs that “involve high levels of creativity, empathy, human interaction, collaboration, adaptation, cultural understanding, systems thinking, complex problem solving, or that involve a high variety 19  This access to technology and the internet is crucial, also considering that information literacy might be required by accreditation agencies. The Accrediting Commission for Schools Western Association of Schools and Colleges (ACS WASC), for instance, expects that undergraduate programs “ensure the development of core competencies including, but not limited to, written and oral communication, quantitative reasoning, information literacy, and critical thinking” (https://www.wscuc.org/resources/handbook-accreditation-2013/ part-ii-core-commitments-and-standards-accreditation/wasc-standards-accreditation­2013/standard-2-achieving-educational-objectives-through-core-functions). 20  See also the “Great Books” programs that several American colleges offer, such as the Torrey Honors Institute of Biola University in La Mirada, California (https://www.biola. edu/torrey); Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan (https://www.hillsdale.edu/); New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho (https://www.nsa.edu/); and Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, California (https://thomasaquinas.edu/). For a brief historical description of the Great Books tradition, see Bok (2020, 13–15, 87–88).

13  ENVISIONING DIFFERENT TYPES OF PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

231

of nonroutine tasks will remain safe from automation” (Brown 2020, 156). A pentecostal offline college in the liberal arts tradition would help students to develop these kinds of qualities, as the learning experience is geared toward elements like creativity, entrepreneurship, and social interaction (Penprase 2018, 225). (3) The Co-op School: This type of education envisions an educational model in which students spend half of their time at their pentecostal college or university, while working at an institution related to their studies for the other half. The Berufsakademie in Germany, which allows students to obtain a bachelor’s degree within three years, could serve as inspiration for this innovative educational model. Historically, the Berufsakademie developed in the state of Baden-Württemberg, a region that is home to many successful companies, including car manufacturers like Mercedes-­ Benz and Porsche. Mercedes-Benz wanted to win more qualified workers with Abitur (the German high school diploma enabling students to attend university), and so it proposed a dual system of education, similar to that of the Lehre, in which students without a high school degree can learn a trade within three years, while being paid a stipend by the company at which they are completing their apprenticeship.21 In the Berufsakademie model, students not only have to apply to the school, but also find a company or organization that will sign a contract with them for the duration of their education. The students then study for three months, which is followed by three months of work at the employer’s facility. Throughout the three years, the student-worker receives a trainee allowance, which amounts to 400–1600 euros per month (450–1800 dollars), depending on the employer, the industry sector, and the year of training. Given these parameters, there are several convincing advantages in this system. Students gain a decidedly praxis-oriented education, they earn income while they are studying, and there is a high probability that the company will offer them long-term employment once they graduate. Conversely, the arrangement is attractive for employers as well because it allows them to attract talent at an early stage, training their future engineers and managers in cooperation with an academic institution (Cordes 2008, 114–116). 21  However, since the year 2006, the Berufskademien in Baden-Württemberg have been converted into a new system, the Duale Hochschule Baden-Württemberg, a state institution with locations in various cities which resembles the American state university system (https:// www.dhbw.de/english/home.html).

232 

D. TOPF

Pentecostal educators interested in this model would have to investigate to what degree the German Berufsakademie is feasible in the United States, and what kind of changes would have to be made to adapt it to the American context. Fortunately, higher education models with a strong co-­ op component already exist in the United States (Bayerlein 2020, 872–874). Kettering University in Flint, Michigan, for instance, was formerly known as the General Motors Institute of Technology, since the giant car maker acquired the former School of Automotive Trades in 1926. In 1982, the school became independent, and it now offers possible collaborations with more than 500 co-op partner organizations, which translates into “2.5 years of meaningful professional experience” and “$40 K–65 K average co-op earnings over 4 years.”22 Given how praxis-oriented pentecostal higher education tends to be, the co-op model would be an attractive option for pentecostal colleges and universities as well. For example, Northwest University in Kirkland, Washington (near Seattle) emphasizes on its website that it is “located in one of the most vibrant economies in the United States,” and that students therefore have access to companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Nordstrom, and Starbucks.23 If Northwest University were to expand these partnerships to the point that the companies would offer paid co-ops to its students, this would turn it into a pentecostal university with a decisively competitive advantage.24

Pentecostal Research Universities The research university is the unrivaled pinnacle of the American higher education system. Among the thousands of colleges and universities in the United States, the research university operates in a class of its own in terms of funding, prestige, and impact on society (Graham and Diamond 1997, 22  “Co-op at Kettering is Different,” on Kettering University’s website (https://www.kettering.edu/undergraduate-admissions/co-op). 23  “Our Campus and Location” on Northwest University’s website (https://www.northwestu.edu//). 24  Of course, the co-op model could also be applied to studying ministry while working in churches. Northwest University is offering this through the Northwest Partnership Program (NPP), which “blends the best of what Northwest does, accredited academics, with what local churches do best, practical leadership training, all in the environment of life-changing relationships found in  local churches and non-profit organizations” (https://www.northwestu.edu/partnership/).

13  ENVISIONING DIFFERENT TYPES OF PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

233

9–10). Historically, the American research university was profoundly influenced by the Berlin model developed by Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835), with its emphasis on Lehrfreiheit, Lernfreiheit, Bildung, and Wissenschaft (Bhattacharya 2019, 1–9). Within the United States, the Land-Grant College Act of 1862 (also known as the Morrill Act) had already laid a foundation in moving away from the traditional liberal arts education that had been at the center of higher education until then. Instead, the activities of the university were now primarily to advance progress in areas related “to agriculture and the mechanic arts” (Gavazzi and Gee 2018, 37). In the twentieth century, it soon became obvious how valuable research was, especially when it led to advances in technology, which gave the United States a competitive edge during World War II, as well as in competing with the Soviet Union during the Cold War (Wolfe 2013, 40–54, 88–104). In combination with the GI Bill (officially called the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944), this era became known as the golden age of American higher education, partly because both federal and state funds were made available for investment in the university system that was seen as an integral part of ensuring American dominance in the world (Brint 2018, 9, 215–216, 371). Things have changed somewhat in recent years, as higher education has become prohibitively expensive and public policymakers are increasingly asking questions about the affordability and ultimate goals of higher education. Nonetheless, the case for the research university remains strong. As Jason Owen-Smith argues in Research Universities and the Public Good, these institutions fulfill a triple role in society (2018). First, they form collaborative networks of skilled people, thereby becoming sources for the discovery of new knowledge and innovation. Second, considering their longevity, research universities function as anchors for their communities, enriching their historical, social, cultural, and economic dimensions. Third, research universities function as hubs that facilitate the movement of ideas and people, as points of contact “between many different parts of society that helps the whole to move forward” (119). Considering the many strengths of research universities, one would assume that they would play an important role in Christian higher education as well. There certainly are streams within Christianity that have placed an emphasis on research, on pursuing knowledge for knowledge’s sake, such as the Roman Catholic tradition. However, even within that tradition, venturing into the area of the sciences has been challenging. As

234 

D. TOPF

the Jesuit and cofounder of the Institute for Theological Encounter with Science and Technology (ITEST) Robert A.  Brungs (1931–2006) acknowledges, “The sciences seem to have been an aside to the essence of Jesuit education. Ours were liberal arts colleges and universities; seemingly there was little place for science and technology” (1989, 91).25 Within the evangelical community, things have been even more difficult. Partly because of lack of interest and partly for lack of funds, evangelicals for decades have focused on building colleges, on teaching, rather than on the discovery of knowledge that a research university would bring. The first institution within the evangelical spectrum to achieve research university status was Baylor University in Waco, Texas (Ringenberg 2006, 184, 210). Understandably, such a feat did not come about by coincidence. Rather, it took intentional planning and strategizing, particularly by Robert B. Sloan Jr., the president of Baylor University from 1995 to 2005, who in 2002 announced “Baylor 2012,” a ten-year vision to move the institution into “Tier One status among American universities as judged by U.S. News and World Report” (Hankins 2007, 4).26 This initiative was not without controversy, as a significant number of faculty opposed Sloan’s plans, for fear that the evangelical character of Baylor University might be lost—even though the Baylor 2012 vision included “a recommitment to the university’s Christian mission,” particularly by paying “increased attention to the faith commitment of prospective faculty, not only in their private lives, but in the integration of faith and learning as well, both in the classroom and in research and writing” (4–5). In terms of rankings, Baylor University did not make it into U.S. News and World Report’s top 50 (the current ranking is #79, similar to what it was in 2002), but according to the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, the school is categorized as an “R2,” a “Doctoral University” with “high research activity.”27 Since this achievement by  See also the website of ITEST (https://faithscience.org/).  See also “About 2012” on Baylor University’s website (https://www.baylor.edu/ about/baylor2012/index.php?id=62629). 27  According to this definition, “Doctoral Universities” include only those “institutions that awarded at least 20 research/scholarship doctoral degrees and had at least $5 million in total research expenditures (as reported through the National Science Foundation (NSF) Higher Education Research & Development Survey (HERD))” (as described on the website of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education: https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/classification_descriptions/basic.php). The more prestigious classification of 25 26

13  ENVISIONING DIFFERENT TYPES OF PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

235

Baylor University, Azusa Pacific University is the only other evangelical institution that so far has been characterized as a research university within this category as well.28 By contrast, no pentecostal institution has been able to achieve this important milestone yet. In fact, some pentecostals might shy away from taking such a step, even if the necessary funds and faculty were readily available. There are certainly risks associated with achieving research university status. For one, the very concept of research is based upon the idea to discover truth wherever it may lead, a process in which any authority can and must be questioned, whether it is based on tradition or a set of canonical texts (Bligh et al. 1999, 16–22). In addition, the prestige and wealth that comes with achieving research university status may prove to become a snare for a Christian institution, which might consequently win the whole world but lose its evangelical/pentecostal soul. As Hauerwas states wryly, “As soon as a university begins to talk about excellence, you can kiss Christianity goodbye” (2007, 134). These objections certainly have to be taken seriously; they cannot be easily brushed aside. After all, history is full of warning examples of Christian institutions of higher education losing their core identity as soon as they attempted to become more prestigious and more accepted in influential circles. Why would a pentecostal research university be any different? For one, considering the example of Baylor University (and possibly also of Brigham Young University, which has achieved research university status as well), it seems to be possible to maintain a strong religious identity, as long as one operates in a geographical region in which the influence of the sponsoring tradition continues to be strong. In addition, a pentecostal research university would be able to draw on the rich resources that pentecostalism provides. As discussed above, among these resources are a vibrant spirituality, an unwavering commitment to missions, and a practical orientation toward service. It is quite possible that God is calling

“R1” is reserved for those doctoral universities that display “very high research activity”—in this category, currently 131 institutions are listed, including both public and private schools, but none of them with an evangelical identity, so far. 28  The next category (“Doctoral/Professional Universities”) includes a larger number of evangelical institutions, such as Biola University, Grand Canyon University, Liberty University, and Pepperdine University, as well as Regent University from within the pentecostal spectrum. (https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/srp.php?clq=%7B%22basic2005_ ids%22%3A%2217%22%7D&start_page=standard.php&backurl=standard.php&limit=0,50).

236 

D. TOPF

pentecostals at this juncture of their history to maintain these distinctives while at the same time pursuing something new in higher education. Having a pentecostal research university must not be a matter of prestige and pride. Ideally, the desire to have a research university would be born out of a desire to make a difference in the world, to solve problems for society as an expression of God’s inbreaking kingdom. Challenges like global poverty, climate change, the dangers and promises related to AI, humans becoming a multiplanetary species, pandemics like COVID-19— these are issues that colleges and universities that focus on teaching cannot even begin to address. If these problems will be solved at all, they will be solved in an interdisciplinary setting, with government agencies, businesses, and research universities working together. In order to be truly interdisciplinary, pentecostals need to recognize the significance of science and technology in the twenty-first century. As Brungs explains, “Science and technology—especially now bioscience and biotechnology—are significant (perhaps the most significant) engines for changing the course of human history. To be weak in science is, these days, simply to be divorced from the real world” (1989, 88). Consequently, there is a need for those in higher education to increase their “commitment to both research and teaching in science and technology. Until we do, how can we call ourselves universities? Until science and technology are a significant component of the intellectual air we breathe on our campuses, the church will not be able to have an intellectual presence in the modern world” (92). New discoveries in areas like biotechnology may be related to advances in the medical field, an area many pentecostals are passionate about, considering their interest in physical healing.29 For example, let us consider cancer and the devastating effects it has on many people’s lives. Particularly in developing countries, cancer is one of the main causes of untimely death. Where will a cure for cancer be found? Certainly not at a Bible school or liberal arts college. However, at a research university this might be possible, and this exciting possibility should spur pentecostals on to work toward the next level in pentecostal higher education. Just as pentecostals historically developed from short-term training institutes to Bible colleges, with 29  I explore some of the promises and perils of new discoveries in areas like biotechnology in my article “‘Useless Class’ or Uniquely Human?” (Topf 2020). For the significance of biology-related science and technology in the twenty-first century, see The Age of Living Machines: How Biology Will Build the Next Technology Revolution by Susan Hockfield (2019).

13  ENVISIONING DIFFERENT TYPES OF PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

237

some of them later becoming liberal arts colleges and universities—could this possibly be the time for one or two pentecostal universities to reach the next stage and become a full-fledged research university? Ultimately, this advancement toward the next stage in higher education is not about what pentecostals may perceive as realistic. It is not even exclusively about what benefits this might bring for humanity, such as if a pentecostal research university were to contribute to a cure for cancer. Ultimately, this endeavor is about God’s glory, about making discoveries in a universe that still holds countless mysteries. Since this world was created by God, we can assume that God’s children are called to discover as much as they can about it. In making discoveries pentecostals can bring joy to God’s heart, while at the same time also learning more about God, because creation, like any piece of art, reveals partially what its Creator is like. Historically, pentecostals have always been a people of the book who hold the Bible in high esteem. It is now time for pentecostals to start reading the second book of God’s revelation as well, the book of nature—and one of the best places to so do would be a pentecostal research university. For the Indian Christian mystic Sundar Singh (1889–1929) “the common authorship of the Holy Spirit ensured continuity between the message of the ‘Book of Nature’ and the Bible” (Satyavrata 2012, 34). Granted, Singh was referring to observing the beauty of creation and seeing God’s hand in it, even without the use of scientific tools. However, a research university may inspire pentecostals to contemplate the book of nature with unprecedented depth and detail—in that sense, a pentecostal research university may be the most challenging but also the most rewarding endeavor in pentecostal higher education yet.

References Alexander, Estrelda Y. 2011. Black fire: One hundred years of African American Pentecostalism. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Alexander, Bryan. 2020. Academia next: The futures of higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Aponte, Edwin David, and Miguel A. De La Torre. 2020. Introducing Latinx theologies. Rev. ed. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Bartleman, Frank. [1925] 1982. Azusa Street. New Kensington: Whitaker House. Bayerlein, Leopold. 2020. Internships and co-ops. In The SAGE encyclopedia of higher education, ed. Miriam A. David and Marilyn J. Amey, vol. 2, 872–874. London: SAGE Publications. Bhattacharya, Debaditya, ed. 2019. The idea of the university: Histories and contexts. London: Routledge.

238 

D. TOPF

Bligh, Donald, Harold Thomas, and Ian McNay. 1999. Understanding higher education: An introduction for parents, staff, employers and students. Exeter: Intellect Books. Bok, Derek. 2020. Higher expectations: Can colleges teach students what they need to know in the twenty-first century? Princeton: Princeton University Press. Brathwaite, Renea. 2010. The Azusa Street revival and racial reconciliation: An Afro-Pentecostal perspective. In Forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration: Multidisciplinary studies from a Pentecostal perspective, ed. Martin William Mittelstadt and Geoffrey W. Sutton, 65–88. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Brint, Steven. 2018. Two cheers for higher education: Why American universities are stronger than ever—And how to meet the challenges they face. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Brown, Steve. 2020. The innovation ultimatum: How six strategic technologies will reshape every business in the 2020s. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons. Brungs, Robert A. 1989. Science and technology in Jesuit education. In Jesuit higher education: Essays on an American tradition of excellence, ed. Rolando E. Bonachea, 82–93. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. Coltharp, Brent, and Jennie Russell. 2020. Welcome from the President and Executive Vice President. Urshan College Academic Catalogue 2019–2020. Revised July 8. Cordes, Antje. 2008. Die Relevanz dualer Studiengänge an Berufsakademien im strategischen Personalmanagement. Hamburg: Diplomica. Felsburg, David F. 2018. Bivocational: Today’s tentmaking ministries. Bloomington: WestBow Press. Gavazzi, Stephen M., and E. Gordon Gee. 2018. Land-grant universities for the future: Higher education for the public good. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gleason, Nancy W., ed. 2018. Higher education in the era of the fourth industrial revolution. Singapore: Springer. Graham, Hugh Davis, and Nancy Diamond. 1997. The rise of American research universities: Elites and challengers in the postwar era. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hankins, Barry G. 2007. Introduction: Baylor 2012 in the context of Southern Baptist higher education. In The Baylor project: Taking Christian higher education to the next level, ed. Barry G. Hankins and Donald D. Schmeltekopf, 1–20. South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press. Hauerwas, Stanley. 2007. The state of the university: Academic knowledges and the knowledge of God. Malden: Blackwell. Hockfield, Susan. 2019. The age of living machines: How biology will build the next technology revolution. New York: W. W. Norton. Jenkins, Jack. 2018. Liberty University is no longer the largest Christian university. Religion News Service, April 27. https://religionnews.com/2018/04/27/

13  ENVISIONING DIFFERENT TYPES OF PENTECOSTAL COLLEGES… 

239

liberty-­university-­is-­no-­longer-­the-­largest-­christian-­university/. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Kozak, Aaron. 2017. Global University marks 50 years of faithful ministry. Assemblies of God News, September 13. https://news.ag.org/en/News/ Global-­University-­Marks-­50-­Years-­of-­Faithful-­Ministry. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. ———. 2018. Transformed and equipped: Global University’s 16th commencement. Assemblies of God News, July 9. https://news.ag.org/en/News/ Transformed-­a nd-­E quipped-­G lobal-­U niversity-­s -­1 6th-­C ommencement. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. MacRobert, Iain. 1988. The black roots and white racism of early Pentecostalism in the USA. London: Macmillan Press. Magruder, Janie. 2014. One grand story: How GCU began rewriting its destiny 10 years ago. GCU Today, April 16. https://news.gcu.edu/2014/04/one-­ grand-­story-­how-­gcu-­began-­rewriting-­its-­destiny-­10-­years-­ago/. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Oppenheimer, Andrés. 2019. The robots are coming! The future of jobs in the age of automation. Trans. Ezra E. Fitz. New York: Vintage Books. Owen-Smith, Jason. 2018. Research universities and the public good: Discovery for an uncertain future. Stanford: Stanford Business Books. Penprase, Bryan Edward. 2018. The fourth industrial revolution and higher education. In Higher education in the era of the fourth industrial revolution, ed. Nancy W. Gleason, 207–228. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Richeson, Jennifer A. 2020. The mythology of racial progress. The Atlantic 326 (2): 9–12. Rimland, Emily, and Victoria Raish. 2019. Micro-credentials and digital badges. Library Technology Reports 55 (3): 1–34. Ringenberg, William C. 2006. The Christian college: A history of Protestant higher education in America. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Satyavrata, Ivan M. 2012. The Holy Spirit: Lord and life-giver. Carlisle: Langham Global Library. Staat, Darrel W. 2019. Exponential technologies: Higher education in an era of serial disruptions. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Topf, Daniel. 2020. “Useless class” or uniquely human? The challenge of artificial intelligence. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. 32 (1–2): 17–38. Vercillo, Kathryn. 2020. Internet addiction. Santa Barbara: Greenwood. Wolfe, Audra J. 2013. Competing with the Soviets: Science, technology, and the state in Cold War America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Yang, Daniel. 2019. Four ways new Hispanic churches are challenging church planting in America: We are witnessing the de-Europeanization of American Christianity. Christianity Today, September 12. https://www.christianitytoday. com/edstetzer/2019/september/four-­w ays-­n ew-­h ispanic-­c hurches-­a re-­ challenging-­church-­plan.html. Accessed 24 Mar 2021.

CHAPTER 14

Conclusion

My goal with this book is to invite pentecostals to perceive a renewed and strengthened engagement in higher education as a unique missional opportunity. In the history of missions, there were always obstacles that needed to be overcome before the gospel could advance into new geographical territory. Similarly, advancing into new areas of societal influence, such as higher education, will not be possible without encountering opposition and difficulties. But no matter how foreboding the challenges may be, the university has become such an influential factor in society that it is essential for pentecostals to keep investing in higher education. In the following, I begin by providing a summary of the argument I have built in the past 13 chapters and then end with a few closing remarks.

Summarizing the Argument I began this research project with the purpose statement that I aim “to describe both the history and the current state of pentecostal higher education in order to propose a missiology of higher education with pentecostal distinctives that enables pentecostals to be influential in society by developing their own colleges and universities” (Chap. 1). I then developed my argument in 12 subsequent chapters, which can be summarized as follows.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1_14

241

242 

D. TOPF

In Chap. 2, I made a historical argument, describing what higher education looked like for early pentecostals. In the first half of the twentieth century, these efforts were rudimentary and limited to theological education but, contrary to popular opinion, it was not just because pentecostals had an anti-intellectual bias—other factors were at play as well, including historical, theological, and socioeconomic factors. Historically, early pentecostals were influenced by various religious streams that characterized the nineteenth century (such as revivalism and the holiness movement), and, for the most part, these movements did not place much emphasis on the life of the mind. Theologically, early pentecostals emphasized an apocalyptic eschatology and the experiential dimensions of their faith, and so they lacked a long-term vision for building up enduring institutions, such as colleges and universities. In addition, early pentecostals belonged to the lower ranks of society, which is why, as a marginalized group, they had limited access to educational opportunities. Given these circumstances, pentecostal efforts in higher education had humble beginnings and only developed over time. In my third chapter, I identified four stages in this gradual development of pentecostal higher education: (1) Bible schools and institutes that focused exclusively on ministerial preparation; (2) accredited and degree-granting Bible colleges; (3) liberal arts colleges that began to offer majors and programs beyond the realm of theology and ministry; and (4) full-fledged universities offering both undergraduate and graduate degrees in a variety of disciplines. The latter only began with the founding of Oral Roberts University and Regent University in the 1960s and 1970s, indicating that pentecostal universities are a relatively recent phenomenon. In Chap. 4, I presented a global overview of the current condition of pentecostal higher education by describing what types of institutions exist today in different parts of the world (namely Africa, Asia and Australia, Latin America, Europe, and North America). Africa has the largest number of pentecostal universities, a phenomenon that is particularly obvious in Nigeria. Second is the region of North America, mostly because of the highly diverse educational landscape in the United States, which also has a large number of pentecostal institutions of higher education, many of them of considerable reputation. By contrast, only a few such institutions can currently be found in Asian and Latin American countries, while Europe is the clear tale light in this regard, due to its high levels of secularization.

14 CONCLUSION 

243

Focusing once more on the situation in the United States, I then described both strengths and weaknesses of the current pentecostal higher education scene. Among the notable strengths within pentecostal higher education are the teaching of theology and other ministry-related subjects, as well as commendable performances on various regional rankings—especially in categories like affordability, social mobility, and online education. In addition, pentecostal schools offer their students a holistic education, one that invites them to be transformed by the power of the Spirit so that they can then, in turn, become agents of transformation. However, pentecostal colleges and universities in America are less strong in teaching subjects like the natural sciences, and their academic performance as measured by various rankings is consistently below that of their (post)secular and evangelical counterparts. In addition, due to a lack of funds, institutional sustainability may be difficult to achieve, especially for some of the smaller pentecostal schools. While pentecostal higher education undeniably has weaknesses, non-­ Christian universities are struggling with a few contentious issues as well, as highlighted in Chap. 6. Among these are the lack of a coherent center, which leads to a fragmented educational experience, the pervasiveness of secularist and progressive ideas, and the separation of facts and values, which is causing a moral vacuum on campus. At the same time, there recently has been a renewed interest in matters related to religion and spirituality on American campuses. These new developments have created the need for those in higher education to engage with certain themes that come to the forefront in a pluralistic society, such as religious pluralism, religious literacy, and interreligious dialogue. The Christian faith is also represented in colleges and universities throughout the United States, particularly through the ministries of organizations like Cru and InterVarsity. In such a (post)secular environment, pentecostal colleges and universities have a unique contribution to make by offering an alternative kind of higher education centered on the power and personhood of the Holy Spirit, rather than some vague form of spirituality. Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 make up Part I of this project, in which I focused on the past and present conditions of pentecostal higher education. I summarized this description of the current state of pentecostal higher education through the following quote by Arthur Holmes: “By and large we have not dreamed large enough dreams or are confused about the values of liberal education or have forgotten the redemptive

244 

D. TOPF

impact of faith on culture” ([1975] 1987, 11). As a professor at Wheaton College, Holmes was primarily referring to the evangelical context with this quote, of course, but I believe his assessment is even more true of pentecostal higher education: by and large, we pentecostals have not dreamed large enough dreams in this area, thereby neglecting the missional opportunities that a commitment to building excellent pentecostal colleges and universities can bring about. Accordingly, in Part II of this project I turned toward the future opportunities of pentecostal higher education. Such a vision to soar higher, to go beyond what has hitherto been achieved is exemplified through the quote by John Paul II: “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth” (1998). Pentecostals have traditionally been exemplarily strong in the area of faith; if henceforth they can combine this strength with a passion for the life of the mind and for groundbreaking research, then their best days in higher education are yet to come. This hopeful vision is what I presented in Chaps. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, arguing for an engagement that includes building up a pentecostal research university, a crucial institution to exercise influence in the knowledge-based societies and economies that will dominate the twenty-first century. In Chap. 8, I emphasized how spirituality, one of the main strengths within the pentecostal movement, can become a missional opportunity in higher education, especially considering the rediscovered interest in spiritual matters that has developed in recent years. I developed three main elements of a pentecostal spirituality: (1) a pentecostal spirituality is both christologically and pneumatologically informed; (2) the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, which opens up the path for a pentecostal epistemology; and (3) Jesus is God’s Spirit-empowered servant, who sets a tangible example for the action-oriented aspects of a pentecostal spirituality. Equipped with these theological foundations and based on the triad of the heart, the head, and the hands, I then developed the practical considerations that follow from a pentecostal spirituality. Pentecostal institutions of higher education that put a pentecostal spirituality at the forefront of all they do have the opportunity to shape their students in a holistic manner. First, pentecostal colleges and universities can transform the hearts of their students by making room for an experiential spirituality on campus. Second, based on the biblical principle of the many tongues (as recorded in Acts 2), pentecostal schools can expand the mind of their students by letting them engage with different voices and a variety of disciplines.

14 CONCLUSION 

245

Third, pentecostal institutions of higher education can train the hands of their students by providing them with service opportunities while they are studying, as well as by equipping them with skills and a sense of vocation through which students will serve society after they graduate. In Chap. 10 I highlighted an unwavering commitment to missions as another key strength that is characteristic of the pentecostal movement. Specifically, I introduced the following main themes one can observe in pentecostal missiologies: (1) an eschatological urgency, (2) empowerment through Spirit baptism, (3) evangelism and church planting, (4) signs and wonders, and (5) a growing interest in a holistic approach to missions. In roughly chronological progression, these emphases demonstrate how the pentecostal understanding of missions has evolved over time, leading to a more holistic, more ecumenical, and more open-minded missiology. Specifically, an emphasis on inaugurated eschatology, on the importance of loving God with one’s mind and on displaying a social witness in the world, as well as a radical openness and curiosity are elements of pentecostal missiologies that encourage a pentecostal engagement in higher education. In light of this historical development toward a more holistic approach, I suggested that the next major milestone in pentecostal missions will center on the challenge and opportunity to engage all areas of society in the power of the Spirit. In the twenty-first century, pentecostals need to go beyond church planting and mercy ministries, and engage with questions related to government, business, science, and the arts as well—an approach often described as the vision of the seven mountains. In order to avoid an unwarranted triumphalism (as is often associated with dominion theology), I proposed a public theology approach that invites pentecostals to serve the common good. Given the prominent role that religions play in the twenty-first century, this commitment to serving the common good will include advocating for religious literacy and interreligious dialogue— something pentecostals are well-equipped for as they operate within a framework that celebrates the many tongues of Pentecost. In addition, since solving today’s most complex and pressing problems will require an interdisciplinary approach, I argued that the university is one of the best platforms for pentecostals to exercise a godly influence in society in a responsible and sustainable manner. In Chap. 12 I suggested a number of innovations that could be considered when envisioning future colleges and universities within the pentecostal movement. One of these innovations has to do with placing the

246 

D. TOPF

Holy Spirit at the center of the educational experience, by introducing theology classes for all semesters and by establishing a house of prayer model on campus. With regard to technology, pentecostals will do well in preparing students for an age that will be dominated by innovative technologies, which includes highlighting both the promises and perils of such developments. Besides shaping the heart and the head of students, pentecostal schools also aim to train their graduates for service, which is why I am proposing a service model based on Acts 1:8 enabling students to have a variety of cross-cultural and international experiences while attending college. In this volume’s last chapter I envisioned different models (or types) of pentecostal higher education, beginning with schools that focus on ministerial preparation but nonetheless encourage students to explore other areas of engagement as well. Another possibility for pentecostal institutions would be to offer an education within a certain niche, such as affordable online education, a largely screen-free experience at an offline college, or a co-op model in which students study and work at the same time. Most importantly, some of the strongest pentecostal universities should aim to become research universities, thereby enabling pentecostals to serve society not only by teaching what is already known, but also through the discovery of new truths.

Closing Remarks By establishing new colleges and universities while also expanding their existing institutions of higher education, pentecostals can create crucial missional opportunities. Pentecostal missiologies have now developed to a point in which pentecostals desire to impact all areas of society—and one of the most responsible and sustainable ways to accomplish this is by investing in higher education. Historically, the idea of Christian higher education was promoted by those streams of Christianity that were experiencing renewal and growth, such as happened in the context of the Protestant Reformation in the northern parts of Europe or after the Great Awakenings in the United States. Today, the global renewal movement encompasses the largest number of Christians in the world, second only to the Roman Catholic Church; writing the next chapter in Protestant higher education is therefore increasingly a task pentecostals will have to shoulder—after all, noblesse oblige.

14 CONCLUSION 

247

While now is an appropriate time for pentecostals to establish their own distinctive profile on how they approach higher education, they will benefit from doing so in conversation with other traditions that have been successful in this area. As described above, a variety of Christian denominations, including Roman Catholics (particularly Jesuits), Lutherans, those belonging to the Reformed tradition, Methodists, Baptists, and Mennonites have all been able to establish noteworthy colleges and universities in the United States. How might a closer examination of these traditions that identifies some of the strengths and weaknesses of their faith-based colleges and universities inform the formulation of a pentecostal missiology of higher education for the twenty-first century? This kind of ecumenical reflection could also include a wider range of traditions, such as the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which “represents one of the largest denominational school systems in North America, with 837 elementary schools, 109 secondary schools and 15 colleges and universities” (Pawluk and Bietz 2012). This commitment to invest in educational efforts partially goes back to Ellen G. White (1827–1915), one of the founders of the movement, who wrote extensively on the topic of Christian education ([1923] 1977). Building on such foundations, Seventh-day Adventists have been able to establish a considerable number of institutions of higher education, including excellent universities, such as Loma Linda University in Loma Linda, California (Fortin 2006, 289–304). These accomplishments are all the more remarkable considering that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is relatively young (it was only formally established in 1863) and that it has been characterized by a strong eschatological bend. In addition, it has remained a relatively small movement and is often not considered to be part of mainstream Christianity. In all these respects, Seventh-day Adventists resemble the early pentecostal movement and yet they have accomplished much in the area of higher education—how and why they were able to achieve this would therefore make for an interesting field of inquiry. Similarly, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded in the nineteenth century and, “Since their beginnings, the Latter-day Saints [LDS] have placed tremendous stress on the value of education” (Millet 1996, 59). Consequently, both LDS males and females have a higher percentage of some post-high school education than the American average (59). While Seventh-day Adventists are generally seen as a marginal movement within Christianity, Mormonism is usually not considered to be part of the orthodox Christian faith. Nonetheless, LDS have been

248 

D. TOPF

able to accomplish remarkable achievements, including in the area of higher education. This is especially apparent in the establishment of Brigham Young University (BYU) in Provo, Utah.1 BYU is generally recognized for both “its deep commitments to inspired religious values” and “rigorous intellectual learning”2—and as such this school would make a thought-provoking case study on how pentecostals might achieve academic excellence in their universities, while at the same time maintaining their unique religious identity (Hancock 2014). Another consideration inviting further research relates to the geographical scope of this project. As I explained in the Introduction (Chap. 1), one of the more obvious limitations of this study is that it focuses primarily on the United States in its attempt to propose a pentecostal missiology of higher education. However, as has been emphasized by both missiologists and theologians in recent years, Christianity’s center of gravity has moved toward the global South, which is why perspectives from Latin America, Africa, and Asia have become essential (Johnson 2016, 709–718). Within this acknowledgment of the significance of the Majority World, the continent of Africa is of particular importance, because it is especially in Africa that Christianity has been growing at astonishing rates—something that was observed early on by the church historian Andrew F. Walls (1972, 161–162; 1996; 2002). The significance of Africa for global Christianity is also applicable to the area of Christian higher education. While new Christian universities have been established throughout the global South in recent years, the numbers are most astonishing in Africa, where dozens such institutions have been founded since the 1990s (Carpenter 2012, 14, 21; 2014, 16–17; 2017, 25). Specifically, Africa plays a crucial role in pentecostal higher education as well. As I highlighted in Chap. 4, North America is not the region with the largest number of pentecostal universities anymore—this honor (and responsibility) now belongs to sub-Saharan Africa.3 1  The 2020 national ranking of U.S. News and World Report for BYU is #77; as such, its academic level is comparable to the top Christian schools in the country, such as Baylor University (#79) and Pepperdine University (#50) (https://www.usnews.com/best-­ colleges/rankingsnational-universities?schoolName=Brigham+Young+University%2D%2DP rovo). 2  “Mission and Aims of BYU” on the institution’s website (https://aims.byu.edu/). 3  Remarkably, Nigeria may soon have more pentecostal universities than the United States, as a number of new educational endeavors are currently in the planning or construction

14 CONCLUSION 

249

In higher education, much depends on the development of demographics. Africa is “already on track to be the source of more than one-half of global population growth until 2050” (Alexander 2020, 214). Considering the low birth rates in the United States and the substantial population growth on the African continent, the futurist and scholar Bryan Alexander estimates that “the future of American higher education may well be found in Africa” (215). Alexander writes from a (post)secular perspective, simply describing demographics and trends. From a Christian point of view, it will be essential to recognize what God is doing in different parts of the world, and this might include examples of reverse mission, as African students come to study in the United States, bringing their vibrant expressions of the faith into an increasingly secularized society (Kwiyani 2014). Whether in America, Brazil, Ghana, or South Korea—as the pentecostal movement continues to grow and mature, it can be expected that efforts in pentecostal higher education will multiply as well. Such an engagement is crucial because higher education is such an influential force in today’s societies and in people’s lives. After all: students on university campuses do much more than simply sit in classes. In addition to developing skills and knowledge through coursework and co-­ curricular activities, students also gain and lose religious and political convictions, personal habits, career aspirations, friendships, sexual partners and mates, avocations, opportunities for economic mobility, social capital, and even sports allegiances. (Owen-Smith 2018, 140)

The years people spend at college or university are extremely formative, which is why it is essential that pentecostals (as well as non-pentecostals) have the opportunity to study within a pentecostal environment, if that is their preference. Given the importance of higher education in our day and age, it will be fascinating to see how pentecostal colleges and universities can become a missiological tool to express God’s kingdom more fully in this world. Come, Holy Spirit, and renew the face of pentecostal higher education on every continent!

phase—such as Moses Orimolade University, which is associated with the Cherubim and Seraphim Church (https://mouomuaran.org/) and Pacesetters University, an endeavor envisioned by David Ibiyeomie, the founder of Salvation Ministries (https://smhos.org/ david-ibiyeomie/).

250 

D. TOPF

References Alexander, Bryan. 2020. Academia next: The futures of higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Carpenter, Joel A. 2012. New Christian universities and the conversion of cultures. Evangelical Review of Theology 36 (1): 14–30. ———. 2014. Introduction: Christian universities and the global expansion of higher education. In Christian higher education: A global reconnaissance, ed. Joel Carpenter, Perry L.  Glanzer, and Nicholas S.  Lantinga, 1–23. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2017. Christian universities grow in Africa. International Higher Education 88 (January): 25–26. Fortin, Denis. 2006. Seventh-day Adventist perspective on eschatology and mission. In Ancient faith and American-born churches: Dialogues between Christian traditions, ed. Ted A.  Campbell, Ann K.  Riggs, and Gilbert W.  Stafford, 298–304. New York: Paulist Press. Hancock, Ralph C. 2014. Keeping faith in provo: Ralph Hancock warns of the dangers of secularism for Brigham Young University. First Things 241 (March): 47–52. Holmes, Arthur F. [1975] 1987. The idea of a Christian college. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Johnson, Todd M. 2016. The demographics and dynamics of the World Christian Movement. In The Wiley Blackwell companion to World Christianity, ed. Lamin Sanneh and Michael J.  McClymond, 699–718. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Kwiyani, Harvey C. 2014. Sent forth: African missionary work in the West. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Millet, Robert L. 1996. The educational system of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In Religious higher education in the United States: A source book, ed. Thomas C.  Hunt and James C.  Carper, 49–68. London: Routledge. Owen-Smith, Jason. 2018. Research universities and the public good: Discovery for an uncertain future. Stanford: Stanford Business Books. Paul, John, II. 1998. Encyclical letter: Fides et ratio. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-­paul-­ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-­ii_enc_14091998_fides-­ et-­ratio.html. Accessed 24 Mar 2021. Pawluk, Steve, and Gordon Bietz. 2012. Seventh-day Adventist higher education in North America: Theological perspectives and current issues. Nampa: Pacific Press. Walls, Andrew F. 1972. African church history: Some recent studies. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 23 (2): 161–169.

14 CONCLUSION 

251

———. 1996. The missionary movement in Christian history: Studies in the transmission of faith. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. ———. 2002. The cross-cultural process in Christian history: Studies in the transmission and appropriation of faith. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. White, Ellen G. [1923] 1977. Fundamentals of Christian education: Instruction for the home, the school, and the church. Hagerstown: Review and Herald.

Index1

A Accreditation, 4, 27, 38, 44n19, 55n7, 75, 76, 148, 168, 170, 187, 221, 222n3, 223, 223n6, 224, 226n12, 232n24, 242 non-accredited schools, 31, 35, 37, 38, 40, 148, 149, 221, 222n1, 222n5, 223, 224, 230n19 ACTS College, 41n15 Bible Institute of Singapore (BIS), 41n15 Adelphi University, 117 Africa, 6, 13n1, 34, 37, 40, 44, 45, 51–58, 154, 190, 191n7, 242, 248, 249 Ahn, Ché, 185, 186 Alexander, Bryan, 6n3, 229n17, 249 All Nations for Christ Bible Institute International (ANFCBII), 37, 37n8 New Covenant Bible School, 37 Nigeria for Christ Bible Institute, 37

All Nations University College (ANUC), 54, 56n12 Alphacrucis College (AC), 5, 58, 59, 59n16, 59n17 Commonwealth Bible College, 59 Southern Cross College, 59 Althouse, Peter, 166 Amherst College, 84 Anchor University Lagos (AUL), 46, 53, 54, 56n12 Anderson, Allan H., 18, 20, 21, 32, 34, 35, 41, 51, 53, 95, 150, 156, 169–172, 174, 190 Anderson, Robert Mapes, 15–17, 25, 25n6, 66n31, 166, 187n3 Anderson University, 85n25 Anglican, 24 Artificial intelligence (AI), 80, 81n19, 115, 207, 236

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 D. Topf, Pentecostal Higher Education, Christianity and Renewal Interdisciplinary Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79689-1

253

254 

INDEX

Asia and Australia, 5, 6, 34, 38, 51, 58–62, 59n18, 61n22, 114, 172, 188, 242, 248 Assemblies of God, 3, 6, 19, 23, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, 44, 45, 52, 57n12, 59, 63, 64, 67, 68, 68n35, 128, 170, 177, 225n10, 226, 227n14, 228 Astin, Alexander W., 110–112, 112n4, 129n5, 156 Athletics, 92, 93n2, 208, 210n9 Augustine, Daniela C., 195, 196 Australian Catholic University, 58 Azusa Pacific University (APU), 83, 223, 235 Azusa Street Revival, 18, 20, 22, 23, 23n4, 166, 169, 176, 225 B Baptist, 3, 26n7, 38, 43, 66, 81–85, 85n25, 98, 247 Bartleman, Frank, 19, 225 Baylor University (BU), 61n22, 73, 81–83, 85n25, 93, 93n2, 234, 234n26, 235, 248n1 Benson Idahosa University (BIU), 37, 37n9, 52, 54, 56, 57, 57n12, 203n1 Berean Bible Institute (San Diego), 23 Bethany Bible Training Center, 222n5 Bethel Bible School, 21, 32 Bethel Church, 224 Bethel School of Technology, 224, 224n8, 224n9 Bible, biblical, 2, 4, 16, 19, 32, 53, 57, 58n13, 67, 95, 103n5, 128–130, 130n6, 133, 134, 136–139, 147, 149, 150, 152, 154, 157, 166, 184–186, 203, 222, 228, 229, 237, 244

Bible college, 4, 5, 13n1, 31, 34–38, 43, 44n19, 51, 57, 61n21, 64, 67, 67n34, 221, 222n1, 236, 242 Bible school, Bible institute, 3, 4, 13, 13n1, 16, 21–23, 23n5, 26, 27, 31–35, 37, 37n9, 38, 44n19, 45, 51, 59, 63, 66, 72, 79, 159, 167, 221, 224, 236, 242 Bickle, Mike, 167, 167n2, 168, 222 Biola University, 81–83, 230n20, 235n28 Bible Institute of Los Angeles (Biola), 19, 26 Bok, Derek, 52, 92n1, 94, 96, 119, 119n7, 230n20 Boston University, 207 Brandeis University, 116 Brazil, 35, 63, 64, 190, 249 Bridges Johns, Cheryl, 72, 78, 146 Brigham Young University (BYU), 235, 248, 248n2 Buddhist, 114, 118 Burtchaell, James Tunstead, 16, 109n1, 203, 204 C Caltech (California Institute of Technology), 207 Calvary Bible College, 222n5 Calvin University, 66, 66n32, 81, 82 Calvin College, 66, 81n20, 85n25 Canadian Mennonite University, 66, 66n33 Capstone class, 204, 215 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 234, 234n27 Carpenter, Joel A., 5, 34, 45, 55, 63, 65, 79, 175, 203n1, 248 Cartledge, Mark J., 7, 135n10, 146, 154, 195n12

 INDEX 

Catholic University of Korea, 58 Central University, 34, 34n4, 36n6, 41n13, 45, 52–55, 52n1, 55n5, 56n12, 57, 67, 68, 68n35, 76 Central Bible College, 34, 40, 45 Central Christian College, 40 Central University College, 41 Chambers, Nora, 33 Chapel, 116, 201, 202, 205, 205n3 Charis Bible College, 222n5 Charismatic, 1, 3, 34, 42, 43, 45, 52, 62n24, 73, 77, 78, 83n22, 85n25, 146, 169, 195, 222 Charles H. Mason Theological Seminary, 226, 226n12 Chi Alpha, 128, 128n3 Cho, David Yonggi, 34, 175, 175n7 Christ Apostolic University College, 54 Christ for the Nations Institute, 222, 222n2 Church of God in Cleveland, Tennessee, 40 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), 247 Church planting, 18, 165, 173, 183, 226, 245 City Harvest Church, 38 Cocurricular, 92, 210n9 College of the Ozarks, 82 Columbia University, 24, 82, 83, 92, 102, 152, 207 Confucianism, 118 Congregationalist, 24 Conn, Charles Paul, 43 Co-op model, 227, 232, 232n22, 232n24, 246 Cornell University, 98 Cost (of American higher education), 71, 79, 84, 89, 149, 233 Costas, Orlando E., 177

255

Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), 43n16, 75, 81, 148n1 Covenant University, 52–57, 53n3, 55n5, 55n7, 56n10, 57n12 COVID-19, 208, 209, 236 Cox, Harvey G., Jr., 109, 109n1, 130 Crawford University, 52, 54, 57, 57n12 Cru, 115, 128, 184, 243 Cunningham, Loren, 170, 184, 222 Curriculum, 40, 42, 79, 92, 93, 187 D Dallas Baptist University, 83 Davies, Andrew, 4, 7, 32, 159 Deeper Life Bible Church, 53 Dempster, Murray W., 177 Denver Seminary, 73 Dershowitz, Alan, 98, 99 Dispensationalism, 18, 167n1, 191, 193 Diversity, 97, 114, 116, 118, 150–153, 150n5, 152n6, 177n9, 178, 210n9 Dominion theology, 154n7, 188, 189, 191, 195, 245 Dominion University, 52, 54, 56n12 Dowdy, Naomi, 37 Drexel University, 208 Duke University, 14, 207 Trinity College, 14 Union Institute, 14 E Eastman School of Music, 75 Elim Bible Institute and College, 222n5 Emmanuel College, 5, 67, 68, 68n35, 157, 157n10

256 

INDEX

Epistemology, 95, 128, 133–135, 244 Erskine College, 82 Eschatology, 13, 17, 18, 21, 36, 99, 135, 135n10, 136, 139, 148, 155, 157, 159, 165–168, 167n1, 173, 177, 184, 190, 191, 191n7, 193, 193n10, 242, 245, 247 Europe, 6, 51, 64–66, 66n31, 111, 113, 222n3, 242, 246 Evangelical, 6, 6n2, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 26, 27, 34, 39, 43, 51, 63, 65, 66, 67n34, 73, 81, 81n19, 81n20, 82, 84, 85, 85n25, 93–96, 98, 111, 115, 127n1, 127n2, 128, 128n4, 129n5, 131, 132, 139, 167, 189n5, 191n7, 193, 204, 227, 228, 234, 235, 235n27, 235n28, 243, 244 Evangelism, 18, 23, 37n9, 129, 157n11, 165, 170, 172–177, 183, 228, 245 Evangel University, 5, 40, 54, 57, 57n12, 67, 68, 68n35, 76, 76n13, 229 Evangel College, 40 Evangel University Akaeze, 52, 54 Ewha Womans University, 60 F Faculdade Boas Novas (FBN), 35, 63, 63n26 Faith, 4, 8, 15–17, 39, 40, 42, 43, 56, 85, 89, 95–97, 100, 103, 110, 111, 115, 116, 118, 127, 128, 131n7, 139, 146, 150, 153, 169, 171–173, 176, 196, 204, 205, 211, 224, 228, 234, 242–244, 247, 249 Faupel, David W., 17 Fee, Gordon D., 6, 177 Florida State University, 75

Formation, 26, 33, 41, 78, 139, 146, 206n7 Foundation Academy of Amsterdam, 222n3 Foundation University, 222n3 Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), 97 Foursquare Church, 3, 33, 37, 44, 52, 131n8, 134 Fourth Industrial Revolution, the, 79–81, 81n19, 224, 230 Fragmentation, 91, 92n1, 114, 132 Free speech, 96, 98, 99 Frestadius, Simo, 134 Fu Jen Catholic University, 58 Fuller Theological Seminary, 72, 72n2, 223, 223n6 Full Gospel Bible College, 34 Fundamentalism, 13, 14, 16–19, 27, 167 Furman University, 82 G George Fox University, 85n25 Georgetown University, 117 Ghana, 34, 40, 45, 52–54, 56n9, 61n22, 249 Glanzer, Perry L., 7, 42, 61n22, 63, 65, 91–93, 93n2, 95, 103, 132, 148, 210n9 Global University, 6, 228, 228n16, 229 International Correspondence Institute (ICI), 228 Gordon College, 81, 82 Goshen College, 66, 66n32, 82, 212–215, 212n12 Elkhart Institute of Science, Industry and the Arts, 66 Grand Canyon University (GCU), 228, 228n15, 229, 235n28 Great Awakening, 15, 16

 INDEX 

H Hansei University, 5, 34, 58, 60, 60n20, 175 Harvard University, 5, 24, 27, 81, 83, 94, 95, 98, 109, 117, 119, 207–209 Harvard College, 24, 25 Hauerwas, Stanley, 192n8, 201, 235 Healing, 14, 18–20, 23, 72n2, 131, 137, 146, 154, 156, 166, 169, 171–173, 175, 177, 195, 236 Heart, head, and hands (holistic approach to education), 40, 130, 139, 140, 147, 157, 171, 201, 204, 206, 212, 215, 237, 244, 246 Hezekiah University, 54, 57n12 Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), 111–113, 155 Hillsdale College, 149n4, 230n20 Hindu, 114, 116, 118 Hirsch, Jennifer S., 101, 102, 151 Hittenberger, Jeffrey S., 7, 13n1, 40, 45, 56n9, 75, 77, 227n14 Hodges, Melvin L., 174 Holistic, 40, 71, 131, 140, 157, 159, 165, 173, 177, 178, 194, 211, 215, 243–245 Hollenweger, Walter J., 3, 19, 20, 25n6, 31, 35, 65, 65n30, 176 Holmes, Arthur F., 39, 42, 85n26, 136, 243, 244 Holy Spirit, 1, 3, 4, 15, 19, 20, 22, 32, 43, 56, 59, 66, 77–79, 103, 128–140, 131n7, 135n10, 137n11, 145–148, 150, 152, 153, 156–159, 158n12, 166, 169, 171–178, 177n9, 190, 191, 195, 196, 205, 206, 211, 211n10, 214, 215, 222n5, 223, 225, 237, 243–246, 249

257

baptism of the Holy Spirit, 20, 131–133, 145, 146, 148, 165, 168–172, 245 Human sexuality, 101, 147–149 casual sex, 95, 101, 103 rape culture, 101, 102 Hyperuniversity, 210, 211 I Idahosa, Benson, 37, 37n9 Indiana University, 75 Indoctrination, 90, 243 Institute for Community Transformation, 223n7 International House of Prayer of Kansas City (IHOPKC), 167, 167n2, 168, 168n3, 205n5, 206, 206n6 International House of Prayer University (IHOPU), 168, 222, 223 International Pentecostal Holiness Church, 157 Interreligious dialogue, 120, 245 InterVarsity, 115, 128, 243 Islamic, 111, 113, 114, 116–118, 172 J Jain, 118 Jesuit, 3, 16, 62, 204, 234, 247 Jewish, 113, 115–118, 138 Jimmy Swaggart Bible College, 222n5 Johnson, Bill, 184n1, 185–187 Joseph Ayo Babalola University, 53, 54, 57n12 Justice, 96, 117, 136, 137, 152n6, 155, 157, 167, 177, 196, 210n9, 226

258 

INDEX

K Kag East University, 52, 52n1, 54, 55, 57, 57n12 Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti, 19, 72n2, 78, 79, 101, 129, 153, 171, 174 Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, 58, 61, 62n24 Kay, William K., 3, 4, 7, 21, 32, 159, 169 Keimyung University, 60 Kerr, Clark, 42, 90, 91 Kettering University, 232, 232n22 General Motors Institute of Technology, 232 School of Automotive Trades, 232 Kim, Kirsteen, 159 Kim, Sebastian C. H., 2, 195, 195n12, 196 Kingdom of God, 2, 130, 131, 153–155, 154n7, 157–159, 168, 175, 177, 185, 186, 188, 188n4, 191–193, 195, 224, 226, 236, 249 Kings University (Ode Omu, Nigeria), 54, 57n12 King’s University (Southlake, Texas), 225n10 Kumuyi, William Folorunso, 53 Kuyper, Abraham, 39, 65, 65n30, 192 L LABI College, 226, 226n13 Land, Steven J., 72, 130 Land-Grant College Act of 1862 (Morrill Act), 233 Landmark University, 52–54, 53n4, 56, 56n9 Latin America, 6, 34, 51, 62–64, 154, 154n7, 190, 242, 248 Latin American Bible Institute (LABI), 23, 23n5

LCC International University, 65 Lee University, 5–6, 33, 40n12, 43, 44n18, 67, 68, 75, 75n10, 76, 76n11, 76n14, 81, 82 Church of God Bible Training School (BTS), 33 Lee College, 40, 43 Left-leaning, 96, 97 Lewis, Paul W., 32, 40, 72n2 Liberal arts, 3, 20, 31, 38–43, 44n19, 61, 64, 65, 67, 67n34, 75, 79, 83, 84, 90, 93, 132, 158, 173, 221, 231, 233, 234, 236, 242 Liberation theology, 154, 154n7, 194 Liberty University, 98, 228, 228n15, 229, 235n28 Life Pacific University, 33n2, 34, 44, 67, 68, 68n35, 76, 76n15 Echo Park Evangelistic and Missionary Training Institute, 33 International Institute of Foursquare Evangelism (IIFE), 34 Life Pacific College, 44, 44n20 Lighthouse of International Foursquare Evangelism (L.I.F.E.), 34 Loma Linda University, 247 Lord, Andrew, 195 Low, Dexter, 184, 186, 188 Luce, Alice E., 23, 34 Lutheran, 63, 72n2, 82, 85, 85n25, 139, 247 M Ma, Julie C., 4, 72, 172, 173, 176 Ma, Wonsuk, 4, 17, 72, 73n3, 170, 172, 173, 175, 176 Macchia, Frank D., 18, 133, 137n11, 146, 148, 155, 168, 190 MacIntyre, Alasdair, 90, 134

 INDEX 

Maiden, Michael, 184–186 Majority World, 1, 20, 34, 64, 154, 172, 175, 178, 196, 203n1, 248 Malawi Assemblies of God University, 45, 52, 54, 57, 57n12 Marginalization, margins, 13, 14, 20, 22–26, 23n5, 25n6, 63, 96, 97, 114, 131, 135, 137, 150, 152, 177, 188, 191, 211, 226, 226n13, 242 Marketplace apostles, 186 Marsden, George M., 24, 94, 110 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 83 Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), 207, 207n8, 208 McPherson University, 52, 54 Mennonite, 66, 66n33, 82, 85, 212, 247 Messiah College, 81n20, 85 Methodist, 14, 14–15n3, 15, 20, 21, 43, 60, 63, 116, 187n3, 247 Michigan State University (MSU), 213, 214 Missio Dei, 2, 146, 158, 159 Missiology, 1–3, 7, 100, 128, 149, 152n6, 166, 168, 169, 173, 174, 178, 191, 193, 194, 212, 215, 241, 245, 248, 249 Missional, 156, 160, 165, 177, 178, 194, 206, 241, 244, 246 Modernity, 101, 114, 131, 211 Moltmann, Jürgen, 153 Moody Bible Institute, 19, 26 Moral vacuum, 90, 95, 101, 243 MorningStar University (MSU), 222, 222n4, 223 Moses Orimolade University, 249n3 Mountain Top University, 54 Multiversity, 91–94, 114, 131, 132, 210

259

N Natural sciences, 16, 62, 71, 73n6, 79, 202, 203, 243 Nazareth Manifesto, 133, 137 Needham, Harold K., 36 Neo-pentecostalism, 45 Newman, John Henry, 90 New Hope Christian College, 58n13 New Saint Andrews College, 85n25, 230n20 New York University (NYU), 208 Nigeria, 5, 37, 45, 52–57, 55n7, 61n22, 175, 195, 203n1, 242, 248n3 Noll, Mark A., 17, 81n20, 85n26, 94, 132 North America, 6, 6n2, 24, 32, 51, 66–68, 66n31, 113, 116, 139, 202, 242, 247, 248 North Central University North Central Bible College, 36 North Central Bible Institute, 36 Northeastern University, 80 North Park University, 85n25 Northpoint Bible College, 58n13 Northpoint College and Graduate School, 225n10 Northwestern College, 85n25 Northwest University, 36n6, 67, 76n14, 77, 232, 232n23, 232n24 Northwest Bible College, 36 Northwest Bible Institute, 36 Nyack College, 19 O Offline college, 229, 230, 246 Ohio State University, The, 140 Olazábal, Francisco, 23, 25 Online education, 77, 208, 228, 243, 246

260 

INDEX

Oral Roberts University (ORU), 5, 43, 43n17, 45, 58n13, 67, 68, 68n36, 72–74, 74n8, 76n14, 77, 80, 85n25, 156, 156n8, 242 Oyedepo, David, 53 Ozman, Agnes N., 21, 32 P Pacesetters University, 249n3 Palm Beach Atlantic University, 82 Parham, Charles F., 20–22, 25, 32 Peace, shalom, 112, 130, 132, 155, 196 Pedagogy, 23, 63, 78, 145, 215 Pennsylvania State University, The (Penn State), 116 Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches of North America (PCCNA), 226 Pentecostal colleges and universities, 35, 63, 64, 71–73, 75–77, 79, 81, 84, 85, 99, 104n5, 127–129, 140, 146, 148, 155–157, 159, 168, 176, 191, 197, 201, 205, 210, 211, 212n11, 221, 227, 232, 243, 244, 249 Pentecostalism, 1, 3, 4, 7, 14–20, 23n4, 24–26, 25n6, 26n7, 32, 34–36, 38, 42, 43, 51–53, 56, 58, 58n13, 60, 62, 65, 66, 72, 72n1, 78, 85, 129, 132, 134, 139, 140, 150, 154n7, 156, 166, 168, 170, 171, 173–177, 187, 190, 191n7, 192, 194n11, 235 early pentecostalism, 14, 16–19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 32, 35, 38, 39, 166–169, 171, 176, 177, 242 as a missionary movement, 129, 156, 174 nineteenth-century roots, 14 in the twentieth century, 13, 14

in the twenty-first century, 8, 80, 140, 148, 152, 165, 171, 173, 178, 197, 236, 244, 245 Pentecostal Life University, 54 Pentecostal Theological Seminary, 72, 72n2 Pentecost University, 53, 54, 57n12 Pepperdine University, 81–83, 235n28, 248n1 Pietist, 139, 140 Pluralism, 110, 114–117, 120, 151–153, 152n6, 196, 243 Pneumatological, 128, 133, 134, 152, 153, 172, 177n9, 196 Point Loma Nazarene University (PLNU), 82 Point Loma Nazarene College, 85 Pondicherry University, 114 Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, 62 Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, 62 Postmodernism, postmodernity, 5, 92, 101, 114, 131, 134, 152, 173, 211 Postsecular, (post)secular, 5, 7, 15n3, 96, 99, 104, 117, 127–129, 131, 140, 147, 150, 153–158, 160, 191, 212, 214, 243, 249 Prayer, 99, 128, 167–169, 171, 175, 186, 205, 205n4, 205n5, 206, 223, 246 Precious Cornerstone University, 46, 54, 55n8, 56, 56n11 Presbyterian, 16, 24, 60, 63, 81, 82, 84, 128, 187n3 Princeton University, 24, 81, 83, 96, 134 Progressive, 90, 96, 98, 99, 150, 156, 243 Protestant, 3, 24, 25, 116–118, 139, 189, 189n5 Protestant Reformation, 24, 246

 INDEX 

Public theology, 2, 3, 16, 183, 193, 195–197, 195n12, 245 Puritan, 24, 25, 109 R Racism, 22, 96, 225n11 Radius International, 229n18 Ramabai, Pandita (Ramabai Dongre Medhavi), 32 Rankings, 55n7, 57, 57–58n13, 58n14, 71, 76, 76n12, 76n14, 77, 81, 81n21, 83, 84, 84n23, 234, 243, 248n1 Redeemer’s University, 5, 52, 54, 56n10, 57, 57n12 Redeemer University College, 81n20 Reformed, 3, 63, 65, 81, 82, 84, 85, 85n25, 85n26, 139, 192, 193, 193n9, 247 Regent University, 5, 6, 43, 43n16, 45, 54, 56n9, 57n12, 58n13, 67, 68, 73, 73n4, 74n8, 77, 77n16, 82, 83, 235n28, 242 CBN University, 43 Regent University College of Science and Technology, 54, 56n9, 57 Religion, 15, 16, 20, 67, 92, 94, 95, 104, 109–111, 113–120, 119n7, 127, 128, 134, 139, 184, 189, 196, 211, 243 Religious literacy, 110, 118–120, 196, 243, 245 Religious Right, 99, 110, 189n5 Research university, 5, 42, 78, 91, 92n1, 114, 115, 133, 173, 209, 221, 232–237, 244, 246 Rhema Bible Training College, 222n5 Rhema University, 45, 54, 55, 55n8 Ringenberg, William C., 16, 43, 60, 66, 81, 82, 84, 94, 114, 204n2, 205, 234

261

Robeck, Cecil M. Jr., 7, 22, 72, 72n2, 192n8, 197 Roberts, Granville Oral, 43, 156 Robertson, Marion Gordon (Pat), 43, 83n22 Roman Catholic, 16, 24, 58, 58n14, 61–65, 85, 85n25, 85n26, 95, 97, 116–118, 119n7, 132, 189, 233, 246, 247 Rutgers University, 117 S SAGU American Indian College, 67, 212n11, 226 St. Olaf College, 82, 85n25 Salem University, 54, 55, 57n12 Samford University, 81n20 Samuel Adegboyega University, 54, 55, 55n6, 57n12 Santiago-Vendrell, Angel D., 177 Science and technology, 75, 79, 90, 93, 170, 234, 236, 236n29 Secularization, 64, 90, 94, 97, 109–111, 117, 202, 242 Semple McPherson, Aimee, 33, 131n8 Separation of facts and values, 90, 95, 100, 243 Serampore College, 61 Servant (example of Jesus Christ), 128, 137–140, 194, 202, 244 Service, 15, 40, 45, 59, 78, 113, 133, 137, 139, 140, 145, 155–159, 169, 175, 177, 194, 195, 206, 210, 212–215, 235, 245, 246 Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (GI Bill), 233 Seven mountains, 183–186, 190n6, 205n5, 223, 245 Seventh-day Adventist, 63, 247 Seymour, William J., 18, 22, 23, 25

262 

INDEX

Signs and wonders, 156, 165, 170–173, 245 Sikh, 113, 118 Singapore, 6, 37, 38, 41, 41n15, 58, 60, 61, 61n21, 196 Singapore Bible College (SBC), 61 Smith, James K. A., 100, 135, 140, 157, 173, 189n5, 192, 193, 193n9, 209, 233 Soongsil University, 60 Southeastern University, 37n6, 67, 68, 68n35, 77, 77n17 Southeastern Bible College, 36 South-Eastern Bible Institute, 36 Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 26n7 South Korea, 5, 34, 58, 60, 61, 61n22, 175, 249 Southwestern Assemblies of God University, 67 Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 73 Southwestern Christian University, 67–68, 68n35, 76n14, 77 Southwestern Kansas College, 21 Spirituality, 2, 8, 32, 71, 78n18, 128–131, 133, 137–139, 145, 156, 157n11, 165, 187, 204, 205, 206n7, 227, 235, 244 spirituality in a (post)secular context, 104, 110–114, 118, 119n7, 120, 127–129, 243 Stanford University, 5, 207 Stetson University, 26n7 Studebaker, Steven M., 177, 177n9 Summit Pacific College, 66, 67n34 British Colombia Bible Institute, 66 Sundar Singh, 237 Synan, H. Vinson, 1, 14, 72

T Tabor College, 58, 59, 59n18 Taoist, 118 Taylor University, 93 TCA College, 6, 38, 38n10, 41, 41n14, 41n15, 58, 61, 196 Theological Centre for Asia (TCA), 38, 41 Trinity School of the Bible, 38 Technology, 41n13, 56n9, 60, 62, 79, 115, 119, 184, 202, 203, 208–210, 224, 229, 230, 230n19, 233, 236, 246 Theological education, 3, 6, 7, 13, 16, 19, 23–25, 23n5, 32, 33, 35–38, 45, 59, 61, 62, 159, 167, 172, 187, 221, 225, 226, 228, 242 ministerial training, 23, 26, 31, 34, 37, 38, 40, 59, 62, 78, 168, 171, 187, 222, 223, 228, 232n24 Theology, 1, 2, 5, 13, 16, 18–21, 24, 25, 32, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 55, 57, 58n13, 61n21, 72n1, 73, 73n6, 75, 80, 85, 114, 117, 133, 135n10, 147, 148, 150, 153, 154, 154n7, 170, 189, 192, 194, 194n11, 195, 195n12, 201–203, 212, 215, 223, 230, 242 theological classes, programs, and degrees, 4, 37, 41, 44, 56, 57, 59–61, 63, 67n34, 71, 72, 73n4, 74, 79, 90, 151, 159, 203, 204, 225, 228, 242, 243, 246 theological frameworks of pentecostals, 2, 7, 17–20, 35, 72n1, 131n7, 133, 134, 145, 149, 153–155, 166, 168, 169, 172, 175, 177, 177n9, 190, 193, 193n10, 196, 242, 244 Thomas Aquinas College, 230n20

 INDEX 

Tongues, glossolalia, 15, 18–22, 32, 79, 130, 145, 149, 152, 152n6, 166, 169, 171, 196, 244, 245 Transformation, 56, 78, 91, 145, 154, 157, 158n12, 165, 171, 178n10, 185–188, 190n6, 191, 194–196, 204, 243 Trasher, Lillian Hunt, 176 Trinity Bible College, 67 Trinity Christian Centre, 38, 41, 41n15 Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 73 Trinity International University, 40 Trinity Theological College, 61 Trinity Western University, 66, 66n33 Trinity Junior College, 66 Triumphalism, 139, 167n1, 183, 188, 190–193, 190n6, 197, 245 Tyndale University College, 66 U Uganda Pentecostal University, 52, 54 Union University, 82 United Pentecostal Church International, 222n1 United States, 4–6, 6n3, 14, 14n3, 16, 22–25, 33, 34, 42–45, 51, 58n14, 64, 66–68, 71, 74, 77, 82, 84, 89, 94, 98, 99n4, 110, 111, 113, 116, 118, 139, 148n1, 149, 167, 188, 189, 205, 212, 212n11, 215, 222n3, 225n11, 227, 232, 233, 242, 243, 246–249, 248n3 Christian heritage of higher education, 66, 82, 94 a divided country, 120 focus on the United States, 4–6, 248 immigration, minorities, 22, 23, 26, 97, 99, 114, 117, 225–227

263

Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus, IURD), 64 Universidad Cristiana de las Asambleas de Dios (UCAD), 35, 63 Universidad Unidad, 63, 64, 64n28 University of Aberdeen, 73 University of Birmingham, 65, 65n30 University of California (UC), 150 University of California, Berkeley, 90, 151 University of California, Irvine (UCI), 73n6 University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), 111, 116, 156 University of California, San Diego (UCSD), 150 University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), 116 University of Cambridge, 25 University of Chicago, 26n7 University of Cincinnati, 75 University of Colorado, 208 University of Dublin, 90 University of Edinburgh, 40 University of Illinois at Chicago, 73n6 University of Manchester, 73 University of Miami, 75, 208 University of Michigan, 116, 150n5, 209 University of Notre Dame, 85n25, 85n26 University of Oxford, 90, 93 University of Southern California (USC), 15n3, 44, 73n6, 116, 178 University of Stirling, 73 University of the Nations (UofN), 170, 171, 222, 223 University of Valley Forge, 37n7, 67, 68, 68n35, 76n14, 77 Eastern Bible Institute, 37 Northeast Bible Institute, 37 University of Vermont, 113 Urshan College, 222n1

264 

INDEX

V Valparaiso University, 85n25 Vanguard University, 5, 33, 33n1, 36, 36n5, 44, 44n19, 45, 67, 68, 68n35, 72n2, 73n6, 75, 75n9, 156, 157n9 Southern Bible College, 40 Southern California Bible College, 36 Southern California Bible School, 33 Southern California College, 40, 44 Vocation, 145, 155, 156, 158, 159, 245 Volf, Miroslav, 2, 195 Vondey, Wolfgang, 17, 35, 73, 166 Vrije Universiteit, 65, 65n30, 192, 193 W Wagner, C. Peter, 38, 185, 189 Walls, Andrew F., 176, 248 Wellesley College, 116 Wesley, John, 14, 15, 169, 194n11 Wesleyan, 63, 85 West, Cornel R., 77, 82, 98, 99, 139 Westmont College, 81, 82, 84, 85n25 Wheaton College, 39, 66, 66n32, 81, 81n20, 82, 84, 85, 85n25, 85n26, 95, 96, 244 Wigglesworth, Smith, 19 Wilkerson, David R., 176

William Carey International University (WCIU), 223 Williams College, 84 Wilson, Lewis F., 19, 31, 33, 36, 40, 44n19 Wimber, John, 172 Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 117, 151, 157 Worldview, 16, 18, 39, 40, 92n1, 95, 98, 112, 115, 150, 154 Y Yale University, 5, 24, 82, 83, 97, 116, 117 Yoido Full Gospel Church (YFGC), 34, 60, 175 Yong, Amos, 3, 6n2, 7, 18, 25n6, 38, 40, 72, 72n1, 72n2, 78, 80, 83n22, 116n6, 131, 131n7, 134, 139, 149, 150, 152, 152n6, 153, 155, 157n11, 159, 193, 196, 202, 203, 205 Yonsei University, 60 Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), 115 Youth With A Mission (YWAM), 170, 184 Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA), 115 Z Zaoksky Adventist University, 65 Zimbabwe Ezekiel Guti University, 54, 57n12