What do you think?
Rate this book
Pentecostal Healing: Models in Theology and Practice
This detailed historical study of the formative years of Pentecostal healing shows with abundant examples how many early Pentecostals were grappling with questions of great importance for the Christian understanding of healing and its relationship to soteriology. This is essential reading for an understanding of the background to Pentecostal thinking and will inform theological reflection on issues associated with the healing ministry of the Christian church.
276 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
1 person is currently reading
19 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
Read
April 18, 2012Well,,,,,I wrote it!
January 1, 2014
Alexander, Kimberly Ervin. Pentecostal Healing: Models in Theology and Practice. Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2006.
From examining beliefs and practices of healing ministry within early North American Pentecostal Wesleyan and Finished Work streams, Kimberly Ervin Alexander identifies each stream as representing a distinct soteriological model of Pentecostal healing belief and ministry practices. Hence, their differences in healing ministry practice emerged from two different soteriological theologies, since each stream recognised healing as a soteriological category.
Reflecting the earlier Wesleyan soteriological stress on the salvation experience as a salvific journey and therapeutic healing process, Wesleyan Pentecostals developed a model of healing that also appreciated healing in more process terms. This thereby granted them greater appreciation towards healing as a therapeutic process that thus involved discernment of root causes of sickness, as well as a greater usage of sacramental practices in healing ministry. Examples of these practices would be the use of prayer cloths, laying on of hands, and anointing oil, which were thus also appreciated as comprising efficacious power. Within this model, Pentecostals perceived the practice of “tarrying” for healing not as a lack of faith or rest in God’s promises, but rather as an efficacious and transformative practice of posturing oneself in a mode of worship before God. Finally, Wesleyan Pentecostals tended to interpret Christ’s atonement in more therapeutic rather than simply juridical terms.
Meanwhile, reflecting more of a Reformed soteriological stress on the salvation experience as juridical pardoning of guilt and a forensic view of the atonement, Finished Work Pentecostals developed a model of healing that appreciated healing as a more definitive and punctiliar action received through faith. Hence, Finished Work Pentecost healing practices stressed need for believing faith and resting in the finished work of Christ on the cross, in order to receive and experience healing. While Finished Work Pentecostals stressed “growing in grace,” they tended to interpret this in terms of growing in awareness of what it means to identify with Christ and one’s positional status in Christ. Early Finished Work Pentecostals thus also tended to put greater stress on the need for prayer “in the name of Jesus,” albeit as a “faith-claim.”
Alexander, who represents the Wesleyan Pentecostal stream, affirms Assemblies of God Bible exegete Robert Menzies past proposals for embracing a more therapeutic rather than forensic understanding of the atonement, in order to better theologically ground a doctrine and ministry of healing. Alexander also argues from this study, for greater appreciation and recovery of sacramental nuances in early Pentecostalism.
To conclude, I believe that appropriating Alexander’s study to current Pentecostal understandings and practices of healing, should in good ecumenical fashion, critically recognise relative strengths and weaknesses to both early Pentecostal models, and reflect on how we might foster an eclectic understanding and ministry practice that draws from the enduring strengths of both streams.
From examining beliefs and practices of healing ministry within early North American Pentecostal Wesleyan and Finished Work streams, Kimberly Ervin Alexander identifies each stream as representing a distinct soteriological model of Pentecostal healing belief and ministry practices. Hence, their differences in healing ministry practice emerged from two different soteriological theologies, since each stream recognised healing as a soteriological category.
Reflecting the earlier Wesleyan soteriological stress on the salvation experience as a salvific journey and therapeutic healing process, Wesleyan Pentecostals developed a model of healing that also appreciated healing in more process terms. This thereby granted them greater appreciation towards healing as a therapeutic process that thus involved discernment of root causes of sickness, as well as a greater usage of sacramental practices in healing ministry. Examples of these practices would be the use of prayer cloths, laying on of hands, and anointing oil, which were thus also appreciated as comprising efficacious power. Within this model, Pentecostals perceived the practice of “tarrying” for healing not as a lack of faith or rest in God’s promises, but rather as an efficacious and transformative practice of posturing oneself in a mode of worship before God. Finally, Wesleyan Pentecostals tended to interpret Christ’s atonement in more therapeutic rather than simply juridical terms.
Meanwhile, reflecting more of a Reformed soteriological stress on the salvation experience as juridical pardoning of guilt and a forensic view of the atonement, Finished Work Pentecostals developed a model of healing that appreciated healing as a more definitive and punctiliar action received through faith. Hence, Finished Work Pentecost healing practices stressed need for believing faith and resting in the finished work of Christ on the cross, in order to receive and experience healing. While Finished Work Pentecostals stressed “growing in grace,” they tended to interpret this in terms of growing in awareness of what it means to identify with Christ and one’s positional status in Christ. Early Finished Work Pentecostals thus also tended to put greater stress on the need for prayer “in the name of Jesus,” albeit as a “faith-claim.”
Alexander, who represents the Wesleyan Pentecostal stream, affirms Assemblies of God Bible exegete Robert Menzies past proposals for embracing a more therapeutic rather than forensic understanding of the atonement, in order to better theologically ground a doctrine and ministry of healing. Alexander also argues from this study, for greater appreciation and recovery of sacramental nuances in early Pentecostalism.
To conclude, I believe that appropriating Alexander’s study to current Pentecostal understandings and practices of healing, should in good ecumenical fashion, critically recognise relative strengths and weaknesses to both early Pentecostal models, and reflect on how we might foster an eclectic understanding and ministry practice that draws from the enduring strengths of both streams.
February 19, 2014
While helpful in terms of Pentecostal denomination formation, as well as various theologies on the subject of healing, I must admit the book was a bit dry at times. It felt unnecessarily long. However, this is a dissertation and so it needed to be thorough, its just that there are enough similar stories that it frequently felt like I was rereading things.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews