Here's how I take issue with that bit of Pentecostal baggage:
1. This is irretrievably a subjective judgment. What one person pronounces dead will be seen by another as appropriately sober-minded.
2. What is the assumed opposite of "dead"? (I'm sorely tempted to reference Mad Max in "Princess Bride" here, and fellow fans already know what I mean.) I get the impression that the adjective/antonym is not "alive," in the sense that the Holy Spirit is actively bringing the life of Jesus to the congregated saints, but something more like "lively," which translates as, "I really feel the presence of the Spirit here today." The former is a matter for us to affirm as God's work in and among us, the latter is about the level of our emotional engagement; which of these two is more in line with the otherwise very helpful tenor of Jeff's usual posts? I attempted to make a similar point in a reply to Andrew Gabriel when he spoke of "a living experience of the Spirit."
With Jeff and Andrew, I recognize the value in a truly Pentecost-shaped theology. At the same time, though, I expect that nothing short of a Pentecostal-type miraculous intervention is what it will take to move the tradition to shed some of this kind of baggage. Sadly, I think, features such as the appetite for emotional stimulation are the sorts of things that 20th-century Pentecostalism has "bequeathed" to the wider church, when the bequest could and should have been--and still can be--so much richer.
So, kudos and blessings to scholars like Jeff who are staying. The tradition needs you and your input. May the positive influence of the tradition in your direction be strong and the negative rub-off be minimized through the gracious work of the Spirit, who is--and who makes the church of the Lord Jesus, including its worship services--most certainly alive!