unduly critical from the start. Saying this does not mean that one should
not be critical of Pentecostal theology and practice. There is a lot that
one might be critical towards. But criticality is something that should be
developed through sustained and deep engagement rather than because
of a priori hostility toward the research participants. From this perspec-
tive, research should be invited, supported and resourced and the value of
freedom of enquiry upheld. Poorly constructed research that is not meth-
odologically rigorous should be critiqued appropriately. And part of this
critique is in fact the hermeneutics of research and the ways in which data
are interpreted appropriately, given the design, context and fi ndings. We
all view reality through particular lenses and we are all located in particular
times and places. The view from nowhere does not exist. We are shaped by
all sorts of forces as well as individual commitments. Where one is “coming
from” is of huge signifi cance in the outcome of the research, despite vari-
ous academic conventions and disciplinary traditions of enquiry. Without
sensitivity we are going nowhere, which is why “refl exivity” is one of the
most important aspects of the researcher’s posture. Understanding the
theological commitments of researchers is one that should be placed high
on the list of items included in the contents page. Of course, this state-
ment stands in tension with the sociological guild that supports method-
ological atheism or agnosticism. 11 Either one of these postures has also
been maintained by most researchers working in empirical theology. They
have adopted a non-committed position in the work that they do and
how they present their fi ndings. This approach adheres to the “objectiv-
ist” convention in many journals (and I have followed it myself in order to
publish work in certain contexts), but ultimately it can hide or even distort
the infl uence of the researcher’s personal story and theological commit-
ments. It is far better, then, that personal and religious commitments are
transparent from the outset.
The infl uence of this personal factor was brought home to me by
a conversation I had some time ago with the famous sociologist of
Pentecostalism, David Martin. His work on Pentecostalism was deeply
infl uenced by his experience in Latin America and the sheer joy that he
experienced on a fi eld trip. He talked with me once about being invited
to speak at a meeting and he found himself in front of a huge crowd of
excited Pentecostals. He thought he was simply attending a meeting but
they pushed this liberal Anglican sociologist onto the platform and forced
him to preach! Personally, I think it is a very dangerous thing to force soci-
ologists to preach. It is bad enough for non-people-reading theologians to
256 M.J. CARTLEDGE