Theology in Latin American Context: A Look at Soteriology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting, original and smart article. Beginning with the notion of mestizaje as a Latin American reality, the manuscript explores a number of different streams the come together to inform a Latin American soteriology. It is eloquently written, confidently argued and clearly structured, making it a persuasive and enjoyable read. One of the most interesting aspects is the important role assigned to Pentecostalism plays, which is for example not frequently associated with liberation theology. It is not an empirical study but rather a short  There are just a few minor points that I would point to that could improve this concise paper.

Firstly, I was a little surprised at the use of 'Latino' as the modifier to 'theology' - perhaps I am out of date (and not being from the US makes this only more possible), but I've only seen this term used to refer to Hispanic populations in North America. Is 'Latin American soteriology/theology' not a better phrase?

Beyond semantic points, there were a couple of more substantive issues for me. Whilst it is surely valid and valuable to discuss Pentecostalism here, I wasn't entirely convinced by the reasonings (or lack thereof). The first sentence of the second paragraph, for instance, says: 'To analyze this emerging theology, it is important to understand some recent critiques of Pentecostalism in Latin America.' But why? I can't say that the connection is obvious to me.

Then, on mestizaje, the author writes the following on page 2: 

'However, in its most positive sense, mestizaje discusses a mixture of races and the beauty of this mixture, regardless of what phenotype may be dominant. It is through the deep currents of Latin American intermixture, that one may recover a theology that is intercultural, interracial, and can point a way forward beyond our racial and cultural divisions. This can be so because Latin Americans are living, walking, talking miscegenation. In this sense, Latinos must realize that their identity includes different races and cultures. In doing so, Latinos may somehow point the way forward in a walk in solidarity with different races or the irreconcilably other. Latinos are simultaneously African, Amerindian, and European (and for some others more “races”).'

The author then adds: 

'if these different races make up our identity, African, Amerindian and European blood runs through our veins.'

This is nice, but feels rather utopian. The author tries to capture a 'positive sense' of mestizaje, one which is embodied in a sense ('walking, talking miscegenation') - whilst acknowledging that mestizaje has been used in a process of blanqueamiento, even the apparently non-reactionary or progressive forms of mestizaje have served to conceal and marginalise certain groups as somehow not Latin American, or at least served to downplay particular features of ethnic groups. My main point here is that the author doesn't seem to engage with a tendency towards re-ethnization and multiculturalism, which Pentecostal or other linked evangelical groups have actually been in various cases involved with (see for instance Manoela Carpenedo's recent work on Judaizing Evangelicalism). The author says: 'we are ethnically and racially ambiguous, not fitting neatly in categories imposed by the US Census' - but I'm not entirely sure that Latin Americans as a whole fit neatly into the category the author presents Latin Americans from more recent migrant communities for instance. And significant populations, even among Christians, emphasise not the 'sameness' of the author's mestizaje but their group differences (and this is not only the racist white politics of certain elites, but also resisting and anticolonial groups - Negritude, mulataje, Coolitude etc). Perhaps a bit more engagement with the literature on mestizaje/its critiques, or some reflection on how mestizaje and Pentecostalism can align, would make this passage more persuasive.

My final issue is from the following passage on page 5:

'However, the reality is that Latin American Pentecostal spirituality is deeply influenced by a passion for Jesus who saved them. This passion leads them to dedicate their entire lives to holiness and evangelism. Christ demands everything of them, and it is not radical to leave everything to serve Jesus. Just as Hernán Cortés burned his ships, Pentecostals have left their entanglements to this world to passionately serve Jesus Christ.'

I'm not sure if this connection is particularly strong - surely most Christians are driven by a similar passion? Perhaps this is just a parallel, but it's not clear by what mechanism the Catholic passion and dedication of Cortés was inherited by Latin American Pentecostalism.

Overall, this is a valuable contribution and a thought-provoking essay, which is from my perspective is very close to being ready for publication. 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback in this article. I have worked on the manuscript and I highly valued your input to create something more robust. 

This is an interesting, original and smart article. Beginning with the notion of mestizaje as a Latin American reality, the manuscript explores a number of different streams the come together to inform a Latin American soteriology. It is eloquently written, confidently argued and clearly structured, making it a persuasive and enjoyable read. One of the most interesting aspects is the important role assigned to Pentecostalism plays, which is for example not frequently associated with liberation theology. It is not an empirical study but rather a short  There are just a few minor points that I would point to that could improve this concise paper. - thank you.

Firstly, I was a little surprised at the use of 'Latino' as the modifier to 'theology' - perhaps I am out of date (and not being from the US makes this only more possible), but I've only seen this term used to refer to Hispanic populations in North America. Is 'Latin American soteriology/theology' not a better phrase? Changed to Latin American.

Beyond semantic points, there were a couple of more substantive issues for me. Whilst it is surely valid and valuable to discuss Pentecostalism here, I wasn't entirely convinced by the reasonings (or lack thereof). The first sentence of the second paragraph, for instance, says: 'To analyze this emerging theology, it is important to understand some recent critiques of Pentecostalism in Latin America.' But why? I can't say that the connection is obvious to me. Eliminated section.

Then, on mestizaje, the author writes the following on page 2: 

'However, in its most positive sense, mestizaje discusses a mixture of races and the beauty of this mixture, regardless of what phenotype may be dominant. It is through the deep currents of Latin American intermixture, that one may recover a theology that is intercultural, interracial, and can point a way forward beyond our racial and cultural divisions. This can be so because Latin Americans are living, walking, talking miscegenation. In this sense, Latinos must realize that their identity includes different races and cultures. In doing so, Latinos may somehow point the way forward in a walk in solidarity with different races or the irreconcilably other. Latinos are simultaneously African, Amerindian, and European (and for some others more “races”).'

The author then adds: 

'if these different races make up our identity, African, Amerindian and European blood runs through our veins.'

This is nice, but feels rather utopian. The author tries to capture a 'positive sense' of mestizaje, one which is embodied in a sense ('walking, talking miscegenation') - whilst acknowledging that mestizaje has been used in a process of blanqueamiento, even the apparently non-reactionary or progressive forms of mestizaje have served to conceal and marginalise certain groups as somehow not Latin American, or at least served to downplay particular features of ethnic groups. My main point here is that the author doesn't seem to engage with a tendency towards re-ethnization and multiculturalism, which Pentecostal or other linked evangelical groups have actually been in various cases involved with (see for instance Manoela Carpenedo's recent work on Judaizing Evangelicalism). The author says: 'we are ethnically and racially ambiguous, not fitting neatly in categories imposed by the US Census' - but I'm not entirely sure that Latin Americans as a whole fit neatly into the category the author presents Latin Americans from more recent migrant communities for instance. And significant populations, even among Christians, emphasise not the 'sameness' of the author's mestizaje but their group differences (and this is not only the racist white politics of certain elites, but also resisting and anticolonial groups - Negritude, mulataje, Coolitude etc). Perhaps a bit more engagement with the literature on mestizaje/its critiques, or some reflection on how mestizaje and Pentecostalism can align, would make this passage more persuasive.

I have added more documentation related to the politics of identity. I hope they are satisfactory.

My final issue is from the following passage on page 5:

'However, the reality is that Latin American Pentecostal spirituality is deeply influenced by a passion for Jesus who saved them. This passion leads them to dedicate their entire lives to holiness and evangelism. Christ demands everything of them, and it is not radical to leave everything to serve Jesus. Just as Hernán Cortés burned his ships, Pentecostals have left their entanglements to this world to passionately serve Jesus Christ.'

I'm not sure if this connection is particularly strong - surely most Christians are driven by a similar passion? Perhaps this is just a parallel, but it's not clear by what mechanism the Catholic passion and dedication of Cortés was inherited by Latin American Pentecostalism.

I have toned the language down and eliminated some parts of Cortés.

Overall, this is a valuable contribution and a thought-provoking essay, which is from my perspective is very close to being ready for publication. 

Thank you! I hope it is ready for publlication soon!

Reviewer 2 Report

This article is about Latin American Pentecostalism (the title should reflect this). It uses one of the key categories of US Latino theology—mestizaje—as a methodological lens of analysis for both assessing the roots of Latin American Pentecostalism and for suggesting areas for further research. The core of the article contains brief analyses of Indigenous, Spanish, and African spirituality and how features from these traditions have influenced Latin America. The last two areas of focus (liberation theology and Pentecostalism) represent not so much historical influences but rather ways of doing theology and of thinking about the relationship between salvation and the socio-political and historical realities of Latin America. The authors are attempting to bridge these approaches toward the end of the article, although Pentecostalism seems to subsume liberation theology unto itself without sufficient acknowledgement of gaps or limits that may exist.

 

The abstract and introduction lack clarity about the argument of the article. I suggest focusing it from the beginning on a “Latin American Pentecostal soteriology.” In the introduction the authors can go deeper into some critiques of Latin American Pentecostalism (they already begin to do that), especially regarding questions of salvation. Toward the end of the introduction explain that the rest of the article responds to such critiques through an examination of the historical, cultural, and theological features of Pentecostalism in Latin America. Then, at the end of the introduction, restate your argument, which if I understand correctly, claims that a Latin American Pentecostal soteriology is intersectional and comprehensive (these categories can also be unpacked further).

 

Section 2 (Crucible of Races): This is the section that provides an explanation of mestizaje. On line 63, it is not clear what is meant by “marked and transcendent way.” On 66-67, the authors seem to refer to Elizondo as a Latin American theologian based in North America, which is incorrect. In lines 71-77 the authors may want to provide other citations to support the “blanqueamiento” argument. In line 89 the authors speak of African, Amerindian, and European blood—is this meant literally or metaphorically? Recent works on the role of “blood” in the construction of racism require that we interrogate how categories such as “blood” are used. In lines 123-129 the authors speak of Pentecostalism as a turn to “the underdogs (los de abajo).” More explanation is needed on why Pentecostalism implies such a turn, especially in light of the critiques acknowledged in the introduction. In lines 144-147 the authors emphasize the Spirit’s role in soteriology, but toward the end of the article the emphasis is Christological. While there is no contradiction here, there could be greater explanation of how pneumatology and Christology are deployed in a Pentecostal soteriology, especially in Latin America.

 

Section 3 (An Indigenous spirituality): This is a general introduction that could be improved by taking out the long sweeping statements about ancient civilizations and instead focusing on how Indigenous roots may be in tension with notions of “modernity.” The authors can begin on line 174 and then expand their example of how a pastor is also a shaman. This is a concrete example of the mestizaje that the authors have already introduced. However, based on lines 195-202, do the authors (and Pentecostalism) subsume Indigenous spirituality into Christianity? One could ask about the degree to which mestizaje or conquest are taking place.

 

Section 4 (Spanish Spirituality): This section would benefit from a greater focus on a particular argument of how Spanish spirituality has influenced (or contrasts) with Latin American Pentecostalism. The general information provided about Spanish spirituality does not strengthen the overall argument of the article. Lines 229-242 provide a possible area of focus that can be expanded--the tension between Latin American Pentecostalism and North American Protestantism and how the influence of Spanish spirituality can help us understand that difference. On lines 260-261 the authors repeat a well know sentence and assume it as a given. Does such a statement need more analysis? Also, the claim is made that Pentecostals “are the poor.” While this may in fact be true, greater nuance is important so that totalizing arguments are avoided (e.g. that all Pentecostals are poor). On line 266 the authors claim that Bartolome de las Casas came as a “conqueror.” This is a generalization that needs to be explained and historically supported, or simply avoided. There is no doubt that Las Casas evolved in his theological understanding of the injustices taking place in the lands the Europeans were appropriating but reducing his initial position to “conqueror” requires more arguments in support of this categorization. Overall, the later part of this section on Spanish spirituality focuses on the hopes for a more just world. How do you distinguish the emphasis in this section from the emphasis on liberation theology later on?

 

Section 5 (African spirituality): This section can do away with the broad statements in the beginning two paragraphs. The more substantial contributions begin on line 309. Lines 317 to 323 are the heart of the section that can be expanded to show how Pentecostalism builds upon these cosmological insights. 

 

Section 6 (Liberation Theology): The sections touches on some key aspects of the methodology of liberation theology. However, unlike the previous sections, the link to Pentecostalism is not made. I suggest taking this section and the one that follows in order to combine them. Alternatively, the authors may consider turning to a Pentecostal theologian that already incorporates liberation theology into her or his writings to demonstrate how this theological current has influenced Pentecostalism.

 

Section 7 (A Pentecostal Soteriology): This is where the constructive argument of the whole article need to be. The working definition of salvation is provided in lines 393-396. The article, it seems to me, has been building up to a Pentecostal Soteriology. However, the section is rather brief and instead some of the important claims about a Pentecostal Soteriology are placed in the conclusion. I suggest moving some of the conclusion to this section in order to make the normative claims that you seek to make about a Pentecostal soteriology in Latin America and how it is influenced by the mestizaje of the previously examined categories and historical realities.

 

Conclusion: The conclusion makes strong normative claims that need greater scholarly support. For example, in lines 433-433, the authors claim that “for many nominal Catholics, the reality was that they knew about Jesus, but were not doing what Jesus indicated.” This is a sweeping statement that not only lacks citations but that also continues a history of tension between the two traditions in Latin America. In lines 439-443, what is meant when the authors say that the “Pentecostal feels different, lives differently, enjoys differently….” How can the authors both acknowledge the desire or reality of/for conversion, which not implying a dualism between Pentecostals and the rest? In some ways, the authors address the possible dualism in the next paragraph (444-452), but there is still a dismissal of other traditions and/or of persons who are not perceived as embodying that “difference.” For example, a “sinverguenza” is used as a category for all that is rejected—but here could we not make the argument that in Christianity salvation comes from those who are rejected? Could salvation come from sinverguenzas? Perhaps the authors need to unpack what they mean when they use this category of “sinverguenza.” Other generalizations and dismissive statements can be found in line 461, where the authors speak of church no longer as a “boring place” but as “fiesta.” Again, there are undercurrents here that point to a tension with Roman Catholicism in Latin America. It would be good for the authors to address this tension more directly in their article. Lastly, the conclusion reads like an apology (a defense) of Pentecostalism in Latin America, which itself is not a problem, but the authors may want to acknowledge with more academic nuance any limits or areas of growth (specially theologically speaking) that Pentecostalism in Latin America is facing. For example, based on the very last sentences of the article (479-483), one could ask if soup kitchens for the poor are in fact representative of structural change from previous centuries of Christian charity and domination/supremacy. How does or can Pentecostal soteriology move Christianity beyond these limits?

 

 

Author Response

I read through the article and realized that I needed to nuance things better and not provide sweeping statements. Your feedback has been very valuable to me. Thank you! Please see my comments below.

This article is about Latin American Pentecostalism (the title should reflect this). It uses one of the key categories of US Latino theology—mestizaje—as a methodological lens of analysis for both assessing the roots of Latin American Pentecostalism and for suggesting areas for further research. The core of the article contains brief analyses of Indigenous, Spanish, and African spirituality and how features from these traditions have influenced Latin America. The last two areas of focus (liberation theology and Pentecostalism) represent not so much historical influences but rather ways of doing theology and of thinking about the relationship between salvation and the socio-political and historical realities of Latin America. The authors are attempting to bridge these approaches toward the end of the article, although Pentecostalism seems to subsume liberation theology unto itself without sufficient acknowledgement of gaps or limits that may exist.

I have acknowledged the gaps and limits  and have provided more of a comparison and contrast between liberation and pentecostalism. I appreciate this feedback. 

The abstract and introduction lack clarity about the argument of the article. I suggest focusing it from the beginning on a “Latin American Pentecostal soteriology.” In the introduction the authors can go deeper into some critiques of Latin American Pentecostalism (they already begin to do that), especially regarding questions of salvation. Toward the end of the introduction explain that the rest of the article responds to such critiques through an examination of the historical, cultural, and theological features of Pentecostalism in Latin America. Then, at the end of the introduction, restate your argument, which if I understand correctly, claims that a Latin American Pentecostal soteriology is intersectional and comprehensive (these categories can also be unpacked further).

I have reworked the abstract and introduction. I hope it is more satisfactory.

Section 2 (Crucible of Races): This is the section that provides an explanation of mestizaje. On line 63, it is not clear what is meant by “marked and transcendent way.” On 66-67, the authors seem to refer to Elizondo as a Latin American theologian based in North America, which is incorrect. In lines 71-77 the authors may want to provide other citations to support the “blanqueamiento” argument.

I have worked through this citation issue. Thank you.

In line 89 the authors speak of African, Amerindian, and European blood—is this meant literally or metaphorically? Recent works on the role of “blood” in the construction of racism require that we interrogate how categories such as “blood” are used.

Eliminated the use of blood.

In lines 123-129 the authors speak of Pentecostalism as a turn to “the underdogs (los de abajo).” More explanation is needed on why Pentecostalism implies such a turn, especially in light of the critiques acknowledged in the introduction. In lines 144-147 the authors emphasize the Spirit’s role in soteriology, but toward the end of the article the emphasis is Christological. While there is no contradiction here, there could be greater explanation of how pneumatology and Christology are deployed in a Pentecostal soteriology, especially in Latin America.

I have reworked these sections providing more documentation and a deeper argument.

Section 3 (An Indigenous spirituality): This is a general introduction that could be improved by taking out the long sweeping statements about ancient civilizations and instead focusing on how Indigenous roots may be in tension with notions of “modernity.” The authors can begin on line 174 and then expand their example of how a pastor is also a shaman. This is a concrete example of the mestizaje that the authors have already introduced. However, based on lines 195-202, do the authors (and Pentecostalism) subsume Indigenous spirituality into Christianity? One could ask about the degree to which mestizaje or conquest are taking place.

I have made it clear I do not wish to subsume spirituality into Christianity nor that I wish to be syncretistic. 

Section 4 (Spanish Spirituality): This section would benefit from a greater focus on a particular argument of how Spanish spirituality has influenced (or contrasts) with Latin American Pentecostalism. The general information provided about Spanish spirituality does not strengthen the overall argument of the article. Lines 229-242 provide a possible area of focus that can be expanded--the tension between Latin American Pentecostalism and North American Protestantism and how the influence of Spanish spirituality can help us understand that difference.

I reworked this section. 

On lines 260-261 the authors repeat a well know sentence and assume it as a given. Does such a statement need more analysis? Also, the claim is made that Pentecostals “are the poor.” While this may in fact be true, greater nuance is important so that totalizing arguments are avoided (e.g. that all Pentecostals are poor).

Eliminated these references.

On line 266 the authors claim that Bartolome de las Casas came as a “conqueror.” This is a generalization that needs to be explained and historically supported, or simply avoided.

Deleted.

There is no doubt that Las Casas evolved in his theological understanding of the injustices taking place in the lands the Europeans were appropriating but reducing his initial position to “conqueror” requires more arguments in support of this categorization. Overall, the later part of this section on Spanish spirituality focuses on the hopes for a more just world. How do you distinguish the emphasis in this section from the emphasis on liberation theology later on?

Documentation added.

Section 5 (African spirituality): This section can do away with the broad statements in the beginning two paragraphs. The more substantial contributions begin on line 309. Lines 317 to 323 are the heart of the section that can be expanded to show how Pentecostalism builds upon these cosmological insights. 

Reworked this section.

Section 6 (Liberation Theology): The sections touches on some key aspects of the methodology of liberation theology. However, unlike the previous sections, the link to Pentecostalism is not made. I suggest taking this section and the one that follows in order to combine them. Alternatively, the authors may consider turning to a Pentecostal theologian that already incorporates liberation theology into her or his writings to demonstrate how this theological current has influenced Pentecostalism.

I have worked this section.

Section 7 (A Pentecostal Soteriology): This is where the constructive argument of the whole article need to be. The working definition of salvation is provided in lines 393-396. The article, it seems to me, has been building up to a Pentecostal Soteriology. However, the section is rather brief and instead some of the important claims about a Pentecostal Soteriology are placed in the conclusion. I suggest moving some of the conclusion to this section in order to make the normative claims that you seek to make about a Pentecostal soteriology in Latin America and how it is influenced by the mestizaje of the previously examined categories and historical realities.

Reworked the section.

Conclusion: The conclusion makes strong normative claims that need greater scholarly support. For example, in lines 433-433, the authors claim that “for many nominal Catholics, the reality was that they knew about Jesus, but were not doing what Jesus indicated.”

Eliminated.

This is a sweeping statement that not only lacks citations but that also continues a history of tension between the two traditions in Latin America. In lines 439-443, what is meant when the authors say that the “Pentecostal feels different, lives differently, enjoys differently….”

Reworked this section.

How can the authors both acknowledge the desire or reality of/for conversion, which not implying a dualism between Pentecostals and the rest? In some ways, the authors address the possible dualism in the next paragraph (444-452), but there is still a dismissal of other traditions and/or of persons who are not perceived as embodying that “difference.” For example, a “sinverguenza” is used as a category for all that is rejected—but here could we not make the argument that in Christianity salvation comes from those who are rejected? Could salvation come from sinverguenzas? Perhaps the authors need to unpack what they mean when they use this category of “sinverguenza.”

Eliminated this section.

Other generalizations and dismissive statements can be found in line 461, where the authors speak of church no longer as a “boring place” but as “fiesta.” Again, there are undercurrents here that point to a tension with Roman Catholicism in Latin America. It would be good for the authors to address this tension more directly in their article. Lastly, the conclusion reads like an apology (a defense) of Pentecostalism in Latin America, which itself is not a problem, but the authors may want to acknowledge with more academic nuance any limits or areas of growth (specially theologically speaking) that Pentecostalism in Latin America is facing. For example, based on the very last sentences of the article (479-483), one could ask if soup kitchens for the poor are in fact representative of structural change from previous centuries of Christian charity and domination/supremacy. How does or can Pentecostal soteriology move Christianity beyond these limits?

Eliminated references to the poor.

 

I hope that my edits are satisfactory.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article deals with a relevant topic, widely debated and controversial both among theologians of Christian origin and in the social sciences of religions. That said, the contribution that the author offers to the research and debate on the various trends that we are accustomed to classifying under the two rubrics of Pentecostalism and Neo-Pentecostalism, shows evident limits. First:  the author does not problematize the possible differences (both diachronic and of theological and liturgical profiles) between "historical" Pentecostalism and Neo-Pentecostalism. Likewise, in turn, Neo-Pentecostalism is not unique; there is a New-Neo-Pentecostalism (modeled more on the charism as a market-oriented enterprise) which the author should take into account in a "practical" theological perspective reflecting on the social reality in which "the thousand and thousand voices that invoke charisms in the name of Christ and of the Holy Spirit" generate in those who listen to them not so much the sensation of polyphony, but rather cacophony (theologically speaking). Second: the idea that Pentecostal theology is able to interpret pre-Christian spiritualities (of the traditional religions of African peoples, of Amerindian conceptions and of all magical forms survived despite modernization) better than other theologies of Christian matrix (Reformed or Catholic or Orthodox) is desputable. It may be that it can be affirmed for the severe Lutheran and Calvinist theologies, but it is difficult to affirm it both for Catholic theology which has managed to absorb pre-existing forms of magical-sacral spirituality by converting them into what for brevity has been called "popular" religiosity. And also for the Orthodox one which leaves ample space for forms of "personalized" devotion in the cult of icons  as manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, for the Protestant world, perhaps, it would be important to recall in the article and insert in the bibliography some references to the developments of African theology both in the Reformed environment and among the new generation of Catholic priests and missionaries who live or work in Africa or India. Third: the arguments put forward by the author to support the proximity of Pentecostalism to the religions of spirits of African origin, transplanted via the slave trade and still vital today in some areas of Latin America, do not seem convincing, since some neo- Pentecostals are  condemning and preaching against the survival of African-American cults.         

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have reworked the article to address the concerns. I hope it is satisfactory upon further review.

The article deals with a relevant topic, widely debated and controversial both among theologians of Christian origin and in the social sciences of religions. That said, the contribution that the author offers to the research and debate on the various trends that we are accustomed to classifying under the two rubrics of Pentecostalism and Neo-Pentecostalism, shows evident limits. First:  the author does not problematize the possible differences (both diachronic and of theological and liturgical profiles) between "historical" Pentecostalism and Neo-Pentecostalism. Likewise, in turn, Neo-Pentecostalism is not unique; there is a New-Neo-Pentecostalism (modeled more on the charism as a market-oriented enterprise) which the author should take into account in a "practical" theological perspective reflecting on the social reality in which "the thousand and thousand voices that invoke charisms in the name of Christ and of the Holy Spirit" generate in those who listen to them not so much the sensation of polyphony, but rather cacophony (theologically speaking). 

I have eliminated Neo-Pentecostalism but added phrasing that Pentecostalism in and of itself is diverese. 

Second: the idea that Pentecostal theology is able to interpret pre-Christian spiritualities (of the traditional religions of African peoples, of Amerindian conceptions and of all magical forms survived despite modernization) better than other theologies of Christian matrix (Reformed or Catholic or Orthodox) is desputable. It may be that it can be affirmed for the severe Lutheran and Calvinist theologies, but it is difficult to affirm it both for Catholic theology which has managed to absorb pre-existing forms of magical-sacral spirituality by converting them into what for brevity has been called "popular" religiosity. And also for the Orthodox one which leaves ample space for forms of "personalized" devotion in the cult of icons  as manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, for the Protestant world, perhaps, it would be important to recall in the article and insert in the bibliography some references to the developments of African theology both in the Reformed environment and among the new generation of Catholic priests and missionaries who live or work in Africa or India.

I have changed this to describe points of commonality and try not to subsume these into Pentecostalism. This was very important feedback. Thank you!

Third: the arguments put forward by the author to support the proximity of Pentecostalism to the religions of spirits of African origin, transplanted via the slave trade and still vital today in some areas of Latin America, do not seem convincing, since some neo- Pentecostals are  condemning and preaching against the survival of African-American cults.

I politely disagree on the proximity of Africa and spirits. Pentecostals regularly perform exorcisms, dance "in the Spirit." I do agree that Pentecostals condemn and preach against African-American cults. I included a section that states Pentecostals must learn to live with other religious expressions in a pluralistic society. I hope this helps!

Reviewer 4 Report

The theological analysis is good. However, there is need to substantiate information about Pentecostal theologies and experiences with proper citation of sources. For instance, 

Lines 229-248. Needs citations

Lines 405-407. There is no reference for Steve Land. 

While the arguments are well presented, there is need to cite relevant and reliable sources in many places.

Also in a theological discussion, while context is an important framework, I wonder why there is not much biblical discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. It is very valuable in the revision of this article. I hope that the current version is satisfactory. 

The theological analysis is good. However, there is need to substantiate information about Pentecostal theologies and experiences with proper citation of sources. For instance, 

Lines 229-248. Needs citations. I have included more citations. 

Lines 405-407. There is no reference for Steve Land. I have cited Land.

While the arguments are well presented, there is need to cite relevant and reliable sources in many places. I have tried to include more bibliographical material. 

Also in a theological discussion, while context is an important framework, I wonder why there is not much biblical discussion. I have included biblical references throughout. 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The author revised the text in the light of the critical observations I had made, definitely improving its structure: on the one hand, by clarifying the problematic points, which had to be resolved with more precise arguments and on the other, by placing greater distance critical with respect to the object studied. I continue to have some dissent on the thesis of an absolute compatibility of Pentecostalism with the "other" spiritualities, but it is a dissent among scholars that does not affect the quality of the text.