Spirit and “spirits”

at the Canberra Assembly of the World Council of Churches, 19911

Kirsteen Kim

Dr Kirsteen Kim is Tutor and Mission Programme Coordinator at the United

College of the Ascension, Selly Oak, Birmingham, UK. A native of Britain, her
cross-cultural experience is from South Korea (her husband’s home), India, and
the USA. She is the author of Mission in the Spirit (Delhi: ISPCK, 2003).

At the World Council of Churches’ Assembly in Canberra in 1991, the theme of

the Holy Spirit’s presence and activity in creation led to discussion of “spirits”,
stimulated particularly by the plenary presentation of Chung Hyun Kyung. The
term was variously understood to refer to evil spirits in the New Testament
tradition, the spirits of traditional religions, or as a metaphor for socio-political
structures. The discussion caused considerable controversy and was dismissed by
some as syncretistic. At the same time, it suggested a new framework for
missiology in a plural world. In this paradigm discernment of spirits will be
crucial.

The Canberra Assembly of the World Council of Churches in 1991 was the first
WCC assembly to focus on the Third Person of the Trinity and took as its theme,
“Come, Holy Spirit – Renew the Whole Creation”. The theme was a response to
the ecumenical (re)discovery of the Spirit’s work in the world (and not just in the
church or the believer) stimulated by Orthodox pneumatology and Pentecostal-
charismatic experience (Putney 1991: 607-608; Raiser 1989: 381-85), and
popularised especially through the work of Jürgen Moltmann (1992). In the
course of the assembly there was recognition that there are many “spirits” in the
world and discussion as to the relationship of “the Spirit” and “the spirits”. This
paper will examine the debate at and around Canberra, with particular reference to
the plenary presentation of Korean theologian Chung Hyun Kyung, and discuss
what was understood by the “spirits”, the potential of the language of “spirits” for
missiological discourse, and the importance of discerning the spirits in mission.

Chung Hyun Kyung’s presentation

Apart from the events of the Gulf War, which was being waged simultaneously,
the main talking point of the Canberra assembly was the plenary presentation by
Professor Chung, Hyun Kyung – a young woman theologian from Korea
(published in Kinnamon 1991: 37-47). Chung dispensed with lectern, notes, and
even shoes, appearing on stage as a Korean shaman (most Korean shamans are
women) in the midst of Korean and Aboriginal dancers. Drawing on the
symbolism of her shamanist ancestors (see Janelli 1982 and others), Chung led an
 2

exorcist’s dance invoking the Holy Spirit and the spirits of suffering, oppressed
individuals, peoples and created things – ranging from Hagar to Joan of Arc, the
victims of Tiananmen Square, and the Amazon rain forest. These, she said, were
spirits filled with Han – a Korean word meaning resentment, bitterness, and grief.
The spirits that trouble the living in Korea are of those who have died young, in
unhappy circumstances, or with unrealised expectations. The resulting han needs
to be released and the problem solved through the intervention of the shaman. In
her presentation, the Holy Spirit was explained as identifying with these spirits,
weeping with them and actively seeking their liberation in a greedy, divided
world of death. The congregation were called upon to repent and follow the
example of their Korean sisters in order to bring about the Spirit’s “political
economy of life”, which is life-centred (as opposed to anthropo-centric),
interconnected (as opposed to dualistic), and a “culture of life” (as opposed to the
“culture of death” that Chung regarded as dominant in modern societies). Chung
concluded with her intuitive image of the Holy Spirit as Kwan In, goddess of
compassion and wisdom in the popular religiosity of East Asian Buddhism, whom
she sees as a feminine image of Christ. She then called on all to join in the Spirit’s
“wild rhythm of life”.

This presentation was greeted with both rapturous applause from those who
admired Chung’s courage in daring to express her faith in such an unconventional
and, as they saw it, indigenous way and also with immediate condemnation from
others who thought Chung had stepped outside the bounds of Christianity and was
engaging in syncretism. Lesslie Newbigin summed up the latter group’s views
when he warned that “there are many spirits abroad, and when they are invoked,
we are handed over to other powers” (1994: 51-522). Disquiet over Chung’s
presentation was such that a special plenary had to be arranged at which she
defended herself against her critics (Kinnamon 1991: 16).3 Two groups –
Orthodox and Evangelical – voiced their opinions about Chung’s presentation and
other aspects of Canberra’s treatment of the theme in separate responses to the
assembly.

The Orthodox churches had long tried to combat what they termed the “christo-
monism” of the Western church and introduce a more trinitarian approach to the
WCC. The pneumatological theme of the assembly was in part a response to this
pressure but Chung’s approach was entirely contrary to their intentions – so much
so that Orthodox participants called on the WCC to set theological criteria which
would define the limits of diversity and suggested that, unless this was addressed,
they would consider withdrawing from the Council. They expressed “alarm” at a
lack of discernment in affirming the presence of the Spirit in human movements
without regard for sin and error. They stressed the need to “guard against a
 3

tendency to substitute a ‘private’ spirit, the spirit of the world or other spirits for
the Holy Spirit” (italics original). Alluding to Chung’s presentation, the Orthodox
found it impossible to invoke the spirits of “earth, air, water and sea creatures”. 4
Though stressing their respect for local and national cultures, they also
emphasised that pneumatology is inseparable from christology and the theology
of the Trinity (Kinnamon 1991: 279-82).

Evangelicals at Canberra also found it necessary to make a statement and, while

more positive in tone, this echoed the Orthodox concerns. They called for a “high
Christology to serve as the only authentic Christian base for dialogue with persons
of other living faiths” and for clarity about the relationship between the
christological confession of the WCC, the person and work of the Holy Spirit and
the agenda of the WCC (Kinnamon 1991: 282-86). Evangelicals suggested that
Chung was syncretizing Christian faith with paganism, to which she responded
that syncretism was necessary in the interests of the marginalized (Kinnamon
1991, 16). The Protestant churches of Korea, which are largely evangelical, were
dismayed that the first Korean to make a plenary presentation at a WCC assembly
was not a senior pastor or theologian but young and hitherto unknown. The fact
that she was female also indicated her low status in the Korean church hierarchy.
Furthermore, her lack of distinction between the Holy Spirit and the spirits and
her shamanistic invocation of spirits were unacceptable to many who had
converted to Christianity out of shamanistic belief (Ro 1993).

Understanding “spirits”
In the Canberra discussion of Spirit and “spirits” a number of mission concerns
were brought together: the realisation that Christian mission involved a
responsibility toward the earth as well as humanity coupled with a concern to
dialogue with and learn from the cosmic spiritualities of those living close to the
earth; the liberation theological awareness of the “powers” or social structures of
society against which the mission struggle was to be waged; and the belief of
many Evangelicals and Pentecostal-charismatics in the supernatural and the role
of “spiritual warfare” in mission.

The term “creation” in the Canberra theme was given environmental connotations
by the movement for Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation (JPIC). This had
been launched after the sixth assembly. It introduced concern for the environment
onto the mission agenda of the WCC and stimulated ecotheology, which was a
combination of four theological strands: the application of liberation theology to
the ecological crisis, the development of creation theology, the emergence of the
eco-feminist coalition between the concerns of women with the perceived needs
 4

of the earth, and the attempt to learn from the spirituality of groups who live close
to the earth (Kim 1998).

The meeting of the WCC’s Commission for World Mission and Evangelism at
San Antonio in 1989 concluded that “the responsibility of the church towards the
earth is a crucial part of the church’s mission” (Wilson 1990: 54). In a preparatory
article for Canberra, Moltmann called ecumenical attention to the ecological crisis
and urged the broadening of mission to include environmental concerns. He
interpreted the assembly’s theme as a plea for Christian cooperation with the Holy
Spirit in sustaining and renewing the earth (1990). As a result of JPIC, the
assembly was urged to “covenant for the life of all creation” by taking action on
environmental issues (Kinnamon 1991: 67-71). Canberra also inherited from the
San Antonio conference a concern to “listen to the voices” of those who lived
closest to the earth. There was a perception at San Antonio of a common
spirituality of indigenous peoples that was earth-centred and therefore presented
an alternative model to the “destructive” theologies of the traditional churches
(Wilson 1990: 48-49, 55-60). This was carried over into the seventh assembly
through Chung’s presentation and also because the assembly’s location in
Australia, with its Aboriginal population, drew attention to questions of land
rights. The Canberra assembly made several political statements about Aboriginal
rights and recognised the spirituality of Aborigines in its opening ceremony, in
which permission was sort from Aboriginal elders to hold the event on their soil.

Within the JPIC movement, eco-feminist spirituality was extremely influential

and Chung, with her combination of ecology, feminism and the spirituality of
indigenous peoples, was the chief representative of this (Chung 19945). Chung
describes eco-feminist spirituality as eco-feminism and cosmic spirituality
empowering each other in the search for “a spirituality which promotes the
immanence of God, the sacredness of this world and the wholeness of body,
sensuality and sexuality”. Rejecting the spirituality of traditional Western
Christianity as andro-centric, male-dominated, European and dualistic, she put
forward the spirituality of the indigenous people in Asia and Africa as providing a
new resource for a cosmic spirituality because “they capture a cosmic
interwovennness”, a just and mutual relationship between human beings and
nature. Chung and other eco-feminists called for a mission that would work with
creation and natural forces in place of the “masculine” efforts that sought to
dominate the earth. It was a strident critique of colonialist and patriarchal attitudes
in mission and an affirmation of indigenous spiritualities as vehicles of the
mission of the Spirit. The Canberra assembly marked a shift in WCC interest from
“religion” to “spirituality” and from “world religions” to local traditions.6
 5

Canberra’s spirit language also reflected the liberation theological root of eco-
theology with its interest in the “powers”, understood as the social structures
against which the liberation struggle is waged. Particularly influential was the
North American Walter Wink, who applied the biblical terminology of spirits,
demons and angels to liberation theological concern with social and political
powers and systems. In his “powers trilogy”, Wink sought to “name” and
“unmask” the powers in societal structures, that is to address the spiritual
dimension of institutions by “engaging” their spirits – which he understands to be
fallen – through non-violent resistance in order to bring about their redemption
(1984; 1986; 1992). The liberation theological use of the language of “the
powers” was in evidence at the CWME conference at Melbourne in 1980 in a
christological context but it was not connected with the Holy Spirit (CWME
1980: 208-23).

At the CWME meeting at San Antonio, in the wake of “people power

movements” in the Philippines and in Eastern Europe, it was recognised that
“power” had been treated at Melbourne only in a negative sense and that it could
and should be seen more positively and utilised in the liberation struggle (Wilson
1990: 38-40). Some liberation theologians recognised the power of the Holy Spirit
of fire to refine and purify and described the Spirit as the divine agent of social
liberation (for example, Casaldáliga 1990: 1-2; Rayan 1979). In this way a
connection was made between Spirit and “spirits”, as for example in a paper by
M.M. Thomas in anticipation of Canberra which put forward a “spirituality for
combat” for political struggles. He described the Holy Spirit as the power of
resistance against other spirits of destruction, self-righteousness and idolatry in
the decisive battle ultimately won by Christ on the cross (1990).

At the time of Canberra not only were liberation theologians using the biblical
language of “the powers” or “spirits” but so also were many Evangelicals, who
promoted a theology of what had come to be known as “spiritual warfare” (for an
overview, see McAlpine 1991). The notion of mission as “power encounter” was
much in evidence at the second Lausanne Conference in Manila in 1989. At this
event, which was billed as the broadest and most representative gathering of
Evangelicals ever, there were tracks on “spiritual warfare” and “the Holy Spirit in
evangelization”. A plenary video presentation illustrated encounters between the
Holy Spirit and the spirit-world in Ecuador, Nigeria and Korea (Douglas 1990).
“Power encounter” emerged in the 1970s and 80s as some evangelical
missionaries, confronted with the “middle zone” of the spirit world in primal
religious settings – with which they had not been trained to deal – began to
analyse the meeting of the gospel with the local culture in this way (Hiebert 1982;
Kraft 1992).7 At Fuller Theological Seminary, California, Charles Kraft
 6

developed a charismatic evangelical theology of “spiritual warfare”, in which the

power of the Holy Spirit is victorious over other spirits. This was applied to the
1980s United States in what Peter Wagner described as the “Third Wave” (of the
Pentecostal-charismatic movement) by such as John Wimber, who suggested it as
a means of evangelism (Wimber 1985). This broadened the Pentecostal-
charismatic healing ministry to deal not only with demonised individuals but also
with the “territorial spirits” which Wagner believed were “assigned to every
geopolitical unit in the world” (1989).

The leaders of the WCC had hoped that, by choosing a pneumatological theme for
the seventh assembly, they would also be able to liase with the fast-growing
Pentecostal churches, which were hardly represented in the Council membership,
and charismatic movements that were influencing member churches. Despite this,
few “classical” Pentecostals were actually present at Canberra and their voice was
not much heard (Robeck 1993) but the charismatic movement had touched many
member churches and other delegates from the Third World, particularly Africa,
represented or were relating to “spirit-type” churches.8 In a preparatory paper,
Joseph Osei-Bonsu from Ghana drew attention to the fact that many African
Christians were more Spirit-centred than Christ-centred, particularly because of
“the endemic and chronic fear of evil spirits” against which the Holy Spirit
affords protection (1989). Fear of spirits was not just true of Africans: the ease
with which Chung summoned spirits alarmed those participants for whom spirits
were a supernatural reality (Fung 1993). Cecil M. Robeck Jr, a North American
Pentecostal visitor to the assembly, reports another Pentecostal saying to him after
Chung’s presentation, “I was so afraid I sat shaking through the entire
presentation, pleading the blood and interceding in tongues” (1993: 112).

The belief of many Pentecostal and charismatic Christians in supernatural spirits

and their literal application of New Testament descriptions of Jesus’ ministry of
exorcism had not been reflected in WCC study of the movement prior to
Canberra. In Arnold Bittlinger’s report it was referred to in only one article in
which Peter Hocken pointed out that charismatic spirituality had an advantage
over traditional missiologies in parts of the world where people were familiar with
spiritual phenomena and that “the charismatic emphasis on the power of the name
of Jesus Christ and His Spirit” could be used to relate to witchcraft, sorcery and
other forms of the occult (Hocken 1981). In his comprehensive study, The
Pentecostals, Walter Hollenweger did not include exorcism in his characteristics
of Pentecostalism, perhaps because it reflected a face of the movement less
acceptable in the ecumenical and academic circles where he was trying to
encourage sympathy and understanding (Hollenweger 1972). This omission is
recognised but not rectified in his more recent work (Hollenweger 1997).
 7

However, the common language of the powers went some way to overcoming the
gulf between liberal and Pentecostal-charismatic theologies when Third-Wave
theology found support in the work of Wink, and Wink welcomed the insights of
Wagner and others into “spiritual warfare” (1992: 313-14). The difference
between them was not founded on the reality or relevance of a spirit-world but on
the question of whether the spirits were to be understood as supernatural entities.
Shortly after Canberra, Clinton Arnold argued against Wink, whose liberation
theological perspective appears to him to treat spirits only metaphorically, for
giving credibility to the existence of supernatural powers that possess individuals
(1992: 198-205). Arnold’s argument is largely based on an argument for the
universality of such belief historically and even today in most parts of the world,
and the exceptional nature of modern scientific philosophy in this regard.
Therefore he contends that there is no need for Wink and liberation theologians to
“demythologise” the powers, instead modernity should accommodate them (169-
82). Arnold sees Wink’s inclusion of prayer in engaging the powers as indicating
a step in the direction of recognition of a supernatural (201). It is doubtful that this
is the case; it is more likely a recognition of spirituality as a vehicle of liberation.
What Wink is suggesting is that there is an alternative to the natural-supernatural
model. He identifies this as an “integral” or “panentheistic” worldview, which he
sweepingly claims is emerging from such diverse sources as Jungian psychology,
the new physics, Christian mysticism, liberation and feminist theology, process
philosophy, Buddhism and native American religions (1998: 13-36). Wink’s
suggestion is that behind the common language of powers or spirits lies a crucial
difference in cosmology between dualism and holism.

The pneumatology of the Eastern Orthodox churches, in many ways more

developed than that of the Western churches, also includes an awareness of
spiritual powers. Though this was not the focus of their contribution to Canberra,
Orthodox reflections at Crete in 1989 warned against identifying “in an absolute
manner” the Holy Spirit with human movements in view of “awareness that
spirits other than the Holy Spirit may act in the world”, a warning repeated in
their statement of concerns after Canberra. It also stated that, in Orthodox
worship, the work of God in saving and redeeming from political and other forces
is articulated as “a victory over the demonic principalities, forces and powers”
(1990: 92, 95).

There were those at Canberra who felt profoundly uncomfortable with the theme
and even more so with discussion of spirits. A creation theology of the Holy Spirit
was a new departure for many in the Reformed tradition (Putney 1991: 609).9
Robeck recorded that many delegates from other churches told him they were
 8

“frightened” by the idea of invoking the Holy Spirit because it was leading them
into unknown territory (1993: 116). Some Western Christians found the idea of a
spirit-world foreign to them and tended “to label such beliefs ‘psychological’ or
‘superstitious’” (Hollenweger 1997: 383). Allan Anderson, writing from an
African perspective and citing others also, regards Western “seeming indifference
to and unfamiliarity with the spirit world” as a disadvantage because it leads to an
inability to understand the parts of the Bible that use Spirit language (1991: 102).
That the reality and nature of other spirits was in question is reflected in the way
the official report found it necessary to refer to them in quotation marks (for
examples see Kinnamon 1991: 15, 112, 254). However, as the discussion shows,
there were many at Canberra from varied traditions who were using the language
of Spirit and spirits. The difficulty was the wide range in understanding of what
was meant by “spirits”, even by those who accepted such terminology.

Chung’s presentation itself was ambiguous in its spirit-language. At one level she
appeared to use both the Spirit and the spirits as imagery for a socio-political
message in much the same way as Paul Knitter later proposes a “metaphor of a
universal Spirit calling us through the victims of the world” (1995: 81). The use
of “spirits” is not intended to allude to any supernatural powers but to forces that
can be explained in socio-scientific terms. Raymond Fung, looking at Canberra
from the perspective of Chinese traditional religions, accuses Chung of either
“spiritual naïveté” or else “manipulation and cynicism”. He felt her “vague
language” (such as describing the spirits as both “agents and icons” of the Holy
Spirit) and “nonchalant attitude toward the spirit world” were unacceptable in one
who herself knew the experience of fear of the malevolent ancestor spirits, from
which she believed her Christian faith had liberated her (Fung 1993; see also
Chung 1988). The apparent demythologisation of the Spirit and spirits appeared
disrespectful of the very peoples she was trying to represent.

On the other hand, Tso Man King, also Chinese, perceived that Chung was
respectful of spirits, indeed she had an “Eastern” approach to the spirits in
keeping with her Korean ancestry in that “when Dr Chung called upon the spirits
of the martyred, her intention was to honour them and to stand in solidarity with
them, as well as with the suffering people in the world” (King 1991).10 This
distinction, which King describes as between a “Western” and “Eastern” view of
spirits, is reflected elsewhere in discussion of exorcism by Pentecostal scholars.
Though it is difficult to make generalisations about indigenous spiritualities,
spirits in such traditions tend not to be so neatly divided into good and evil as they
are in Pentecostal-charismatic movements. Both Asian and African theologians
have recognised a significant difference in attitude to spirits in indigenous
religions compared to Pentecostalism. In the former, spirituality and “exorcism”
 9

may involve placating and appeasing spirits rather than simply casting them out
(see, for example, Yong 2000: 209-210, 157, 280-87, 293-97; Anderson 1991:
120-25).11

Discourse on Spirit and spirits

The divisiveness of Chung’s presentation made it difficult for the WCC to
continue with pneumatological discourse after Canberra, and particularly to relate
the Spirit to the spirits of the world – though Hollenweger urged that it should
because “[t]he fact that this issue has produced so much dissension and discussion
shows that it aggravates a weak spot in Western theology” (1997: 383). Since
Canberra, ecumenical interest in the Pentecostal-charismatic movement has
continued to grow. Harvey Cox has drawn attention to the worldwide influence of
Pentecostal movements and purported to show the extent to which they capture
the religious spirit of a post-modern age (1996). It has also become apparent that
Pentecostalism is not only to be reckoned with as an experience but also as a
theology. The Supplement Series of the Journal of Pentecostal Theology (JPT)
published by Sheffield Academic Press, has brought out at least twenty theology
books by Pentecostal and charismatic theologians in the intervening years. The
continued interest in Spirit and spirits in theological circles can be seen in works
as diverse as Michael Welker’s God the Spirit, in which the spirits are represented
as postmodern force-fields and applied to contemporary social pluralism (1994),
and Amos Yong’s Discerning the Spirit(s), which proposes Spirit and spirits as a
model for theology of religions (2000).

The potential of the language of Spirit and spirits for ecumenical endeavour
deserves further exploration for a number of reasons. First, the fact, evident at
Canberra, that spirit language is shared between Christians of very different
theological persuasions makes it a vehicle of ecumenical discussion. Furthermore,
the language of the spirit-world found in the Bible is part of the shared heritage of
all Christians. The twentieth century saw rediscovery of the spirit-world
background of New Testament theology (Arnold 1992: 219-35; 1996: 68) due to
the recognition of this type of religious phenomena (beginning with Gunkel 1888;
Robinson 1928) and the reaction to nineteenth century liberal theology in the
wake of two world wars, which emphasised the reality of evil (Berkhof 1962
[1953]). Wink is one who builds on this; James Dunn is another. Dunn’s sustained
but friendly critique of Pentecostal-charismatic pneumatology from a biblical
perspective has led him repeatedly to draw attention to “the New Testament world
of demons and spirits” and also to Jesus’ reputation as an exorcist. He regards the
spirit-worlds of both Jews and Gentiles as forming a matrix of understanding of
the Holy Spirit and points out the difficulties this poses for liberal Western
interpreters (1998: 5, 49, 66-68, 170-86).
 10

Secondly, not only is it part of the biblical heritage of all Christians, the language
of the spirit-world as it emerged at Canberra would seem to have potential for a
theology of pluralism. This seminal suggestion was made by Justin Ukpong in his
preparatory article, “Pluralism and the Problem of the Discernment of Spirits”.
Coming from a background of spirit religion in Africa, Ukpong, a Nigerian
Catholic, discussed references to “spirits” in the Bible. He took as his definition
not just evil entities but “entities which have separate existence and which can act
on human beings”, either in a good or evil way. He summarised that, in the Old
Testament, broadly speaking, evil spirits come from God and are under God’s
control, while in the New Testament evil spirits are “a kingdom opposed to God’s
kingdom”. In the Old Testament good spirits are sent from God to possess various
people. In the New Testament divine activity is usually attributed to the Holy
Spirit, but angels are described as “ministering spirits” (Hebrews 1.14). Ukpong
went on to apply this theology to a series of contemporary pluralistic situations:
where radically secular ideologies operate, in the context of other religions, and
within the community of Christians. In each case he calls for discernment of
spirits and openness to experiencing the Spirit beyond the boundaries of our
churches in order to perceive where the Holy Spirit is leading his church (1989).

Thirdly, at Canberra the representatives of almost all strands of Christian tradition

applied the language of Spirit and spirits to the full range of ecumenical concerns.
The language of spirits was applied to social, economic and political movements
and forces, both destructive and constructive. Spirits were also connected with
matters of the human heart, giftedness, morality and evangelism. In its emphasis
on the natural world, the JPIC movement drew attention to the forces or spirits of
creation, expressing solidarity with them. The language of Spirit and spirits was
also applied to the theme of unity. Stanley Samartha, founder-director of the
dialogue sub-unit of the WCC argued that dialogue presupposed a willingness on
the part of Christians to recognise the presence and activity of the Spirit in people
of other faiths and to understand spiritual warfare as not so much between
religions as within particular faiths (1990: 60).

The Canberra debates opened up a wide range of applications for pneumatology

and also gave spirit-language a pluralistic character. However it was clear at
Canberra that interest in the Spirit does not necessarily lead to interest in other
spirits or use of spirit-world language. Not all the papers produced around
Canberra had other spirits clearly in view. The other plenary presentation by
Parthenios, Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, made only passing reference
to “the spirit of evil” from whom the Holy Spirit delivers us. From the Catholic
Church, Philip Rosato discussed “The Mission of the Spirit Within and Beyond
 11

the Church” as teacher, unifier, liberator and vivifier without finding it necessary
to use the language of the powers (1989). Nor in his portrayal of the Spirit’s work
in creation did Moltmann show interest in other spiritual forces (1992). Indeed the
chief complaint made by Pentecostal and charismatic theologians about
Moltmann’s Spirit of Life, published to coincide with the assembly, was a lack of
discernment and awareness that there are many (evil) spirits (Journal of
Pentecostal Theology 9 1996). In keeping with their Hindu heritage, many Indian
Christian theologians also have a keen awareness of the Universal Spirit without a
corresponding use of the language of spirits (Thomas 1990; Kim 2003).

Nevertheless there were those among the Pentecostals and liberation theologians
who stressed spiritual warfare or socio-political struggle against structural forces
and therefore argued that awareness of other spirits – chiefly evil spirits – added
an essential dimension to the understanding of the Holy Spirit. And there were
others like Chung and Ukpong whose cultural background meant that the
language of spirit was associated with a world of many spirits, both malicious and
divine. Anderson’s study of the Holy Spirit in an African context, also published
in 1991, reveals the extent to which the interpretation of the Holy Spirit in the
“Spirit-type” churches of Southern Africa (i.e. African Independent Churches of
Pentecostal type) is coloured by awareness of spiritual powers and the appeal that
this has to those with an African traditional religious background (1991). Whether
or not awareness of a spirit world is essential for a proper understanding of the
Holy Spirit, Canberra’s use of spirit-language set the Holy Spirit in a pluralistic
context.

From the Canberra discussions, in the context of a spirit-world, the Holy Spirit
emerges as one among many spirits, whose transcendent nature is not
predetermined or assumed but is discerned, experienced and proved in the life of
believers. Crucial to this development was the use of “spirit” to apply to
benevolent (or at least benign) as well as demonic beings so the Holy Spirit was
not just seen negatively as engaged in spiritual warfare but also positively as
affirming truth and goodness in the world. Canberra moved the language of spirits
from exclusivism to pluralism. Those for whom “spirits” were equated with
demons were likely to see their mission as primarily a struggle against opposing
forces, whereas inclusion of providential powers in the definition of spirits
allowed the possibility also of the cooperation of mission with individuals and
other movements, while maintaining the distinctives of Christianity.

Discernment
In the light of the allegations of syncretism made against Chung’s presentation,
the delegates devoted some attention to the question of discernment. Recognising
 12

that “[The Holy Spirit] is distinct from other ‘spirits’ in this world, whether
benign or demonic”, the report of the Canberra assembly, made repeated calls for
a theology of discernment that would enable Christians to recognise the Spirit’s
presence and activity and distinguish the Holy Spirit from other “spirits”, however
defined (Kinnamon 1991: 254). Dunn points out that, if mission is defined as
recognising and cooperating with the missio Spiritûs (as was implicit in the
Canberra theme), then discernment becomes a matter of crucial significance
(1998: 185).

The importance of discernment was also mentioned in preparatory papers. There

was some ambiguity about whether only the Holy Spirit was being discerned or
whether discernment was of many spirits. Though using the heading “On
Distinguishing Between Spirits”, Eduard Schweizer concentrated on describing
the characteristics of the Holy Spirit on the understanding that discernment
consists only in recognising the Spirit of Christ and that other spirits were outside
the Christian concern (1989). Once again Ukpong’s paper anticipated the new
model suggested by the Canberra deliberations. Ukpong found evidence of
discernment of spirits throughout the Bible and described it as “basically an action
of God himself or of the Holy Spirit operating in human beings” and an aspect of
spirituality. Ukpong recognised interest in discernment in three very different
traditions of Catholic church life: the practice of the interior life – especially
Ignatian spirituality, the social involvement of the religious orders and institutes
of the (Catholic) Church adjusting to modernity, and the experience of the modern
charismatic renewal movement (1990). He thus presented discernment as a vital
part of any spirituality for mission.

Pentecostals have been inclined to connect discernment with exorcism because of

the tendency to regard “spirits” as a reference to demons. While drawing attention
to the importance of exorcism in the New Testament, Dunn has challenged this
approach on biblical grounds in two aspects. With Graham Twelftree, he has
broadened its meaning by arguing that “exorcism should not be bound to a
particular conceptuality of demon-possession” but should be understood more
broadly as “treatment of disordered humanity on the spiritual dimension
appropriate to the disorder” (1998: 185). Dunn implies that what is important is
not the nature of spirits – psychological, societal or supernatural – but that the
spirit-world is recognised, that the spirits are rightly discerned and that they are
responded to in an appropriate manner. This therapeutic interpretation of
exorcism appears closer to the Orthodox understanding as expressed in
anticipation of Canberra. Boris Bobrinskoy explained the epiklesis in the
Orthodox liturgy as an act of exorcism of the world, “freeing it from dark forces
hidden in its depth” and “secretly breath[ing] into the whole cosmos its original
 13

glory” (1989: 361). Michael Oleska, referring to Ephesians 6, wrote, “It is the
church’s task to exorcise each person, each ideology, each movement, each
political, social, economic programme or structure, identifying its actual and
potential evil and corruptibility, affirming whatever in it may be good, true, noble,
honest, lovely, beautiful” (1990: 331-33). Furthermore, Dunn points out that in
the New Testament discernment is connected with prophesy (1 Corinthians 12.8-
10) rather than exorcism and thus discernment need not only be thought of as
rooting out evil but as weighing up possibilities (1998: 311-28).

A chief concern at Canberra was to establish criteria for discerning the Spirit
among the many spirits. Two were put forward at the assembly: (i) that the Holy
Spirit “points to the cross and resurrection and witnesses to the Lordship of
Christ”; and (ii) the biblical list of the fruits of the Spirit, especially love, joy and
peace (Kinnamon 1991: 256). The same criteria were suggested in papers before
and afterwards. Emmanuel Clapsis and Schweizer also interpreted the second
criteria as building up the community (Clapsis 1991: 344; Oleska 1990: 331-33;
Schweizer 1989: 411; cf. Dunn 1998: 71, 30-31, 323-27).12 The awareness at
Canberra of the Spirit’s presence and activity in the world meant that the second
took precedence over the first, in other words, the criterion was not belief in
Christ but Christ-likeness (cf. Gorringe 1990: 38). Not everyone subscribed to this
view. For example, Schweizer insisted that the “sole criterion” is belief in Jesus
Christ and that therefore biblical discernment was exclusively exercised within
and by the Christian community (1989).

In actual practice it was clear that discernment was a topic fraught with difficulty,
as the heated discussions on the Gulf War at the assembly demonstrated. These
difficulties were not so much with the criteria as with the prior question of power,
the question of who defines the criteria for discerning the Spirit (Castro 1991).
Chung argued in the special plenary that it was time Third-World women had a
chance at discernment instead of white Western men (Kinnamon 1991: 16). The
pneumatology of Canberra supported this contextual approach to theologising
rather than the “classical”. As the report stated: “Surely the Spirit blows where it
wills.... There are new perspectives and new partners in today’s world. We cannot
turn our back on them” (Kinnamon 1991: 241). Chung’s main criterion appeared
to be the life-affirming nature of the Spirit. Similarly Moltmann, motivated to
overcome the “antithesis” between revelation and experience, “theology from
above” and “theology from below”, characterised the Spirit as the Spirit of life,
which, he assumed, is “a universal affirmation” that people of all faiths and
ideologies could share (1992: 5-8, 313 n 19, and subtitle). However, it was very
apparent at Canberra (particularly in the debate on the Gulf War) that there were
 14

many interpretations of what constituted life, not all of which were compatible,
and that difficult decisions needed to be made as to which life was to be saved.

In a recent book, Yong has argued comprehensively from a Pentecostal-

charismatic perspective that the criterion for discerning the Spirit or spirits is the
appearance of Pentecostal-charismatic phenomena. Yong is a North-American
Pentecostal pastor with Malaysian parentage. Both his Pentecostal background
and his Malaysian Buddhist heritage have given him a sense of a spirit-world as
the context of the Holy Spirit. He finds existing pneumatologies unable to cope
with the problem of discernment without christological criteria (which he sees as
divisive) on the one hand or a diminished understanding of the Trinity (which he
wishes to uphold) on the other (2000: 71-95, 96-148). Yong believes he can avoid
christological criteria by taking as his starting point the suggestion of Cox that
Pentecostal spirituality is an emergence in post-modernity of a primal spirituality,
which Yong interprets to mean that the primary criterion for discerning the Spirit
is the manifestation of the phenomena associated with the Pentecostal movement
– as defined by Hollenweger (Yong 2000: 17-21). So Yong begins with the gifts
of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12.1-31; 14.1-40; Rom 12.6-8) rather than the fruit of
the Spirit, that is, the phenomena associated with the Spirit rather than the
transforming effects of the experience of the Spirit and their outworking in
society, an approach for which he can claim the support of Acts 10.44-48.
Ultimately though, for Yong, the spiritual phenomena are only authenticated by
the test of praxis and phenomena that do not result in ethical conduct are rejected
(2000: 307-308).

Yong may be right in emphasising that the experience of the Holy Spirit need not
be christological, but the criteria for Christian discernment of the Spirit cannot be
otherwise. Though there are a number of criteria suggested in Scripture, they
appear to be interdependent. Furthermore, the only one on which Christians can
agree is their characteristic and shared belief that the Spirit they seek to discern is
also the Spirit of Jesus Christ who is revealed in the Bible. This was clearly stated
at Canberra: “The prime criterion for discerning the Holy Spirit is that the Holy
Spirit is the Spirit of Christ” (Kinnamon 1991: 256). From the Christian
perspective, the Spirit’s nature is to testify to Jesus Christ (John 15.26). In this
sense, Jesus is “the face of the Spirit” (Bevans 1998: 103, 108-109) and Christian
mission depends on recognising the characteristics of Jesus Christ. It is the
relationship between this Spirit and the other spirits – to which Chung drew
attention – which needs further clarification.

On the nature of the process of discernment, Schweizer and Hans Hübner pointed
out that, according to 1 Corinthians 12.10, the ability to distinguish the spirits is
 15

itself a gift of the Holy Spirit, therefore it is not a mechanical activity (Schweizer
1989: 406; Hübner 1989: 335). Ukpong suggested that discernment may be “more
a matter of experiencing rather than rationalizing on the action of God” (1990:
424). At the CWME conference in Salvador in 1996 it was emphasised that
discernment is something to be done in community (Duraisingh 1998: 57).
However done, it seems clear that discernment must be a complex process. If the
Holy Spirit is understood as a person, it is reasonable to suppose that it involves
both an intuitive sense of the Spirit’s presence as well as a rational consideration
of the matter. The opening of eyes that happened to the disciples on the Emmaus
road, which involves both heart (their hearts “burned within them”) and mind in
community (they discussed with each other) might provide a suitable model for
what is involved.

Prior to Canberra, Oleska wrote, “The church … knows where the Holy Spirit is,
but can never be sure where the Holy Spirit is not” (1990: 331). While the second
half of this sentence may be true, the first is highly questionable. Though
discernment is hopeful and not judgmental, Christians cannot presume or claim
with certainty that the Spirit is with them. For Samartha, “The claim that God’s
presence is with us is not for us to make. It is for our neighbours to recognise”
(1981: 670). Therefore discernment of the Spirit is “an ecumenical question”, to
be resolved through inter-religious dialogue (1990: 58). Christians can only
believe and call upon the Spirit – with what Miroslav Volf has termed
“provisional certitude” (Volf 1994: 96-106). Yong suggests a further word of
caution: discernment is only ever of concrete situations and never in general and
“[w]hat is discerned as the Holy Spirit or some other spirit in this or that
particular situation today, may be decidedly reversed or no longer applicable
when the situation is examined tomorrow” (2000: 287). This statement would
rather seem to undermine Yong’s own thesis that there are universal criteria for
discernment but, more constructively, it suggests that discernment is always
provisional and also that alliances of Christian mission with other movements will
be temporary and for short-term goals only. The Spirit of Christ cannot be captive
to any of the spirits of the world.

As Newbigin correctly saw, the main interest of Canberra was not so much in
pneumatology but in spirituality (1990). The language of Spirit and spirits was
used at the assembly to suggest a model of mission in a pluralistic society. This
model that allows for both good and evil (or neutral or fallen) spirits at work in
the world could perhaps help mission to steer a course between a priori rejection
of other traditions and naïve embrace of movements which do not share the
Christian faith. It would allow for both conflict and cooperation of Christians with
other groups within a pluralist perception of reality. In this scenario, discernment
 16

of spirits is crucial. What is discerned is not necessarily the Spirit of Jesus Christ,
but the affinity or otherwise of a particular spirit with pertinent characteristics of
Christ on the basis of which decisions can be made about whether and to what
extent Christian mission can ally itself with a particular group or movement.
Since discernment is an ongoing process, alliances with others would never be
permanent and the mission would always be changing within the broad
framework of faithfulness to Christ. Such an approach could avoid the implicit
co-option of others into Christian faith and also make clear that, while being
committed to their own mission, Christians recognise other missions and support
those whose temporal aims coincide with theirs. The deliberations of Canberra
suggest that mission is consistent with a pluralist world view and that it is
profoundly a spiritual activity in that it centres around the discernment of and
response to the Spirit amid the spirits of this world.

Notes

1
This paper was originally presented at the meeting of the Yale-Edinburgh Group on the History
of Missionary Movement and Non-Western Christianity in Edinburgh, 11-13 July 2002. Biblical
references are taken from the New International Version.
2
The reference to Canberra is not explicit but the context is WCC paradigms of mission.
3
The debate there is not recorded in the official Canberra reports, except for this very brief
summary. The reports are also limited in that they were not discussed by the whole assembly but
only synthesised by a Report Committee and because they had to satisfy many interest groups. In
the discussion of Canberra that follows, I have referred to commentary on Canberra as well as the
reports.
4
Chung did not in fact refer to “sea creatures”; the Orthodox were handicapped by not yet having
the final texts, as they themselves point out in the same paragraph.
5
This was Chung’s summary of discussions on ecology, which were affirmed by the participants,
at the consultation on African and Asian spirituality (cosmic and indigenous) in Colombo, Sri
Lanka, 1992. It places Chung as leader of the eco-feminist movement within JPIC.
6
It is of interest here to note that the development of eco-feminism as a movement in mission is
not countenanced in David Bosch’s reading of contemporary ecumenical missiology, which was
published in the same year as the Canberra Assembly (Bosch 1991).
7
The missionaries were Paul Hiebert, Alan Tippett and Charles Kraft, all of whom had
backgrounds in anthropology.
8
“Spirit-type churches” is used to distinguish certain African Initiated Churches from others that
are “Zion-type”.
9
Putney gives the example of Heinz-Joachim Held, Moderator of the Central Committee, who
admitted in a meeting of the Central Committee in 1990 that the idea of the Holy Spirit in the
whole of creaturely reality was foreign to his tradition.
10
In Korean shamanism spirits, though potentially dangerous, if treated with honour may be
helped and co-opted to support human life.
11
Yong finds the same difference in Umbanda, an Afro-Brazilian religious movement.
12
Schweizer suggests that the two criteria are actually one and the same if the Christian
community is intended.
References cited
Anderson, Allan
1991 Moya: The Holy Spirit in an African Context. Pretoria: University of
South Africa.
Arnold, Clinton E.
1992 Powers of Darkness: A Thoughtful Biblical Look at an Urgent
Challenge Facing the Church. Leicester: IVP.
1996 “Returning to the Domain of the Powers: Stocheia as Evil Spirits in
Galatians 4.3,9”, Novum Testamentum 38(1): 55-76.
Berkhof, Hendrikus
1962 Christ and the Powers. John Howard Yoder, trans. Scottdale, PA:
Herald Press.
Bevans, Stephen B.
1998 “God Inside Out: Toward a Missionary Theology of the Holy Spirit”,
IBMR 22(3): 102-105.
Bosch, David J.
1991 Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Bobrinskoy, Boris
1989 “The Holy Spirit – in the Bible and the Church”, ER 41(3), 357-362.
Caird, G.B.
1956 Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Casaldáliga, Pedro
1990 “Fire and Ashes in the Wind” in To the Wind of God’s Spirit:
Reflections on the Canberra Theme. Emilio Castro, comp. Pp. 1-2.
Geneva: WCC.
Castro, Emilio
1991 Editorial, ER 43(2): 161-64.
Chung, Hyun Kyung
1988 “‘Han-pu-ri’: Doing Theology from a Korean Women’s Perspective”,
ER 40(1): 27-36.
1991 “Come, Holy Spirit – Renew the Whole Creation” in Signs of the
Spirit. Official Report of the Seventh Assembly of the WCC, Canberra,
1991. Michael Kinnamon, ed. Pp. 37-47. Geneva: WCC.
1994 “Ecology, Feminism and African and Asian Spirituality: Towards a
Spirituality of Eco-Feminism” in Ecotheology: Voices from South and
North. David G. Hallman, ed. Pp. 175-178. Geneva: WCC.
Clapsis, Emmanuel
 18

1991 “What Does the Spirit Say to the Churches? Missiological

Implications of the Seventh Assembly of the Word Council of
Churches”, IRM 80(319-320): 327-37.
Commission on World Mission and Evangelism
1980 Your Kingdom Come: Mission Perspectives. Report on the World
Conference on Mission and Evangelism, Melbourne, Australia, 12-25
May 1980. Geneva: WCC.
Cox, Harvey
1996 Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the
Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century. London: Cassell.
Douglas, J.D., ed.
1990 Proclaim Christ Until He Comes: Calling the Whole Church to Take
the Whole Gospel to the Whole World. Report of Lausanne II in
Manila, International Congress on World Evangelization, 1989.
Minneapolis: World Wide Publications.
Dunn, James D.G.
1998 The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays. Vol. 2: Pneumatology.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Duraisingh, Christopher, ed.
1998 Called to One Hope: The Gospel in Diverse Cultures. Report of the
Conference of the CWME, Salvador, Brazil, 1996. Geneva: WCC.
Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox consultation, Crete, Nov-Dec 1989
1990 “Orthodox Reflections on the Assembly Theme” in To the Wind of
God’s Spirit: Reflections on the Canberra Theme. Emilio Castro,
comp. Pp. 87-98. Geneva: WCC.
Fung, Raymond
1993 “The Spirit World” in Beyond Canberra: Evangelical Responses to
Contemporary Ecumenical Issues. Bong Rin Ro and Bruce J. Nicholls,
eds. Pp. 60-63. Oxford: Regnum.
Gorringe, T.J.
1990 Discerning Spirit: A Theology of Revelation. London: SCM
Press/Philadelphia: Trinity Press International.
Gunkel, Hermann
1979 [1888] The Influence of the Holy Spirit: The Popular View of the
Apostolic Age and the Teaching of the Apostle Paul. Roy A. Harrisville
and Philip A. Quanbeck II, trans. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Hiebert, Paul G.
1982 “The Flaw of the Excluded Middle”, Missiology 10(1): 35-47
Hocken, Peter D.
 19

1981 “A Survey of the Worldwide Charismatic Movement” in The Church

is Charismatic: The World Council of Churches and the Charismatic
Renewal. Arnold Bittlinger, ed. Pp. 117-47. Geneva: WCC.
Hollenweger, Walter
1972 The Pentecostals. R. W. Wilson trans. London: SCM Press.
1997 Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers.
Hübner, Hans
1989 “The Holy Spirit in Holy Scripture”, ER 41(3): 324-38.
Janelli, Roger L. and Dawnhee Yim Janelli
1982 Ancestor Worship and Korean Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Journal of Pentecostal Theology
1996 Volume 9
Kim, Kirsteen
2000 “Post-Modern Mission: A Paradigm Shift in David Bosch’s Theology
of Mission?” IRM 89(353): 172-79.
2003 Mission in the Spirit: The Holy Spirit in Indian Christian Theologies.
Delhi: ISPCK.
Kim, Sebastian C.H.
1998 “Eco-theology and Mission” in Ecological Challenge and Christian
Mission. Papers of CMS Consultation, Union Biblical Seminary, Pune,
1997. Krickwin C. Marak and Atul Y. Aghamkar, eds. Pp. 211-31.
Delhi: ISPCK and CMS.
King, Tso Man
1991 “Theological Controversy in Canberra: A Reflection”, IRM 80(319-
320): 355-60.
Kinnamon, Michael, ed.
1991 Signs of the Spirit. Official Report of the Seventh Assembly of the
WCC, Canberra, 1991. Geneva: WCC.
Knitter, Paul F.
1995 One Earth Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue and Global
Responsibility. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Kraft, Charles H.
1992 “Allegiance, Truth and Power Encounters in Christian Witness” in
Pentecost, Mission and Ecumenism: Essays on Intercultural Theology.
Festschrift in honour of Prof. Walter J. Hollenweger. Jan A.B.
Jongeneel. Pp. 215-30. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
McAlpine, Thomas H.
1991 Facing the Powers: What Are the Options? Monrovia, CA: MARC.
Moltmann, Jürgen
 20

1990 “The Scope of Renewal in the Spirit” in To the Wind of God’s Spirit:
Reflections on the Canberra Theme. Emilio Castro, comp. Pp. 31-39.
Geneva: WCC.
1992 The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation. Margaret Kohl, trans.
London: SCM Press.
Newbigin, Lesslie
1990 Come Holy Spirit Renew the Whole Creation. Selly Oak Colleges
Occasional Paper No. 6. Birmingham: Selly Oak Colleges.
1994 “Reply to Konrad Raiser”, IBMR 18(3): 51-52.
Oleska, Michael J.
1990 “The Holy Spirit’s Action in Human Society: An Orthodox
Perspective”, IRM 79(515): 311-37.
Osei-Bonsu, Joseph
1989 “The Spirit as Agent of Renewal: the New Testament Testimony”, ER
41(3): 454-60.
Putney, Michael E.
1991 “Come, Holy Spirit, Renew the Whole Creation: Seventh Assembly of
the World Council of Churches”, Theological Studies 52 (Dec): 607-
635.
Raiser, Konrad
1989 “The Holy Spirit in Modern Ecumenical Thought”, ER 41(3): 375-87.
Rayan, Samuel
1979 Breath of Fire – The Holy Spirit: Heart of the Christian Gospel.
London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Ro, Bong Rin
1993 “Theological Debates in Korea after Canberra” in Beyond Canberra:
Evangelical Responses to Contemporary Ecumenical Issues. Bong Rin
Ro and Bruce J. Nicholls, eds. Pp. 53-59. Oxford: Regnum.
Robeck, Cecil M.
1993 A Pentecostal Reflects on Canberra” in Beyond Canberra: Evangelical
Responses to Contemporary Ecumenical Issues. Bong Rin Ro and
Bruce J. Nicholls, eds. Pp. 108-20. Oxford: Regnum.
Robinson, H. Wheeler
1928 The Christian Experience of the Holy Spirit. Digswell Place, Welwyn,
Herts: James Nisbet & Co.
Rosato, Philip J.
1989 “The Mission of the Spirit Within and Beyond the Church”, ER (41/3):
388-97.
Samartha, S.J.
1981 “Milk and Honey - Without the Lord?”, NCCR 101(12): 662-671.
 21

1990 “The Holy Spirit and People of Other Faiths” in To the Wind of God’s
Spirit: Reflections on the Canberra Theme. Emilio Castro, comp. Pp.
50-63. Geneva: WCC.
Schweizer, Eduard
1989 “On Distinguishing Between Spirits”, ER 41(3): 406-15.
Thomas, M.M.
1990 “The Holy Spirit and the Spirituality for Political Struggles”, ER 42(3-
4): 216-224.
Ukpong, Justin
1989 “Pluralism and the Problem of the Discernment of Spirits”, ER 41(3):
416-425.
Volf, Miroslav
1994 “The Unique Christ in the Challenge of Modernity” in The Unique
Christ in Our Pluralist World. Bruce J. Nicholls, ed. Pp. 96-106.
Carlisle: Paternoster Press for World Evangelical Fellowship.
Wagner, C. Peter
1989 “Territorial Spirits and World Missions”, Evangelical Missions
Quarterly 25(3): 278-88.
Welker, Michael
1994 God the Spirit. John F. Hoffmeyer, trans. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Wilson, Frederick R., ed.
1990 The San Antonio Report: Your Will Be Done – Mission in Christ’s
Way. Geneva: WCC.
Wimber, John
1985 Power Evangelism. New York: Harper and Row.
Wink, Walter
1984 Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
1986 Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces that Determine Human
Existence. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
1992 Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of
Domination. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
1998 The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium. London:
Doubleday.
Yong, Amos
2000 Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to
Christian Theology of Religions. JPT Supplement Series 20. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.