Thanks for the reflections. I do think you are correct about the need to “drink from our own wells” first. Dan attempts to place sacramentality within the larger framework of encounter, which I think is Pentecostal. As with other traditions before us, we have tended to shun all forms of sacramental mediation when speaking of encounter. Pentecostals prefer a direct and immediate encounter with God. And yet, as Dan’s analysis correctly points out, Pentecostals have always embraced the mediation of grace through created realities. This is the tension he wishes to exploit.

Now, as to his use of Palamas to explain how created realities can be suffused with the divine presence, I think you have a point about whether such forms are “up to the task.” One thing I will say is that in general Pentecostals have all too readily adopted other perspectives in an uncritical manner that have actually been detrimental to Pentecostalism. So, again, your point is an important caution. You’ll need to read Dan’s book to determine whether you think he has done this with Palamas.