Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
“TONGUES,” THEOLOGY, AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES:
A PENTECOSTAL-THEOLOGICAL READING OF
GEERTZ’S INTERPRETIVE THEORY OF RELIGION
Amos Yong
Whereas Paul Tillich maintained that “the form of religion is culture” (Tillich 1959:47),
sociologists of religion in the tradition of Durkheim and Weber have generally held religion to be
but a form of culture and therefore seen culture or society as the all embracing concept which
give rise to forms of religious life.[1] The question of who is correct--Tillich or the Durkheimian
tradition--is a theoretical one of utmost import for the student of theology. The presumption of
methodological atheism in the social sciences is a given at least insofar as the sociologist of
religion is supposed to approach her subject impartially. The result, however, has been less than
satisfactory for theology. While the theological task necessitates that the theologian engage the
empirical data presented by the social sciences, the question of how such an encounter takes
place is a difficult one since the methodological premise of the sociologist of religion--that of
religion as human projection--does not fit well with those of the theologian’s. Sociologists with
theological concerns such as Peter Berger, however, have argued that “to say that religion is a
human projection does not logically preclude the possibility that the projected meanings may
have an ultimate status independent of man” (1969:180). The expressed purpose of this paper is
to explore how social scientific methods can benefit the task of theology, and to do so, I will
limit the scope of inquiry and resort to the work of Clifford Geertz.[2]
Geertz is a contemporary cultural anthropologist who seeks to extend the original insights
of the tradition of Durkheim and Weber, and in doing so, offers us an interpretive theory of
culture. I want to propose that while one reading of Geertz--that seen as an extension of the
methodological premises of the social sciences--may disqualify his anthropological method as a
legitimate approach to theological inquiry, on another reading, it does not and actually even turns
out to sustain the effort of theological argumentation. The difference between the two readings
is, for purposes of this paper, that between open and closed. The latter refers primarily to the
methodological presumption of the social scientific tradition as one that is closed regarding
religion and its symbols referring to any transcendent reality. Since, however, it is difficult to
determine where methodological presuppositions turn into metaphysical aprioris and it is almost
impossible even to stop this process of unwitting transformation, a closed reading of Geertz will
not on the whole pay theological dividends. In this case, religion and its symbols are always
bound within the social reality and can never be interpreted regarding any transcendent. In
contrast, however, an open reading will follow Berger’s suggestion and refrain from drawing
metaphysical conclusions too quickly. In this way, both religion and its symbols will be
approached in a way which at least allows for the discovery of transcendental reference. As
Robert Neville has argued regarding religious symbols, while they could be “thoroughly spurious
insofar as they refer to the infinite or divine . . . , let that be a conclusion, not a premise. A study
of religious symbolism should begin from phenomenologically open premises” (1996:xvii). In
other words, an open reading of Geertz does not initially prohibit the drawing of connections
between social reality and the transcendent, and as such, not only facilitates dialogue between the
sociologist and the theologian but also enriches the theological endeavor.[3]
This essay comprises of three sections. In the first, I will briefly outline the chief features
of Geertz’s anthropological-cultural approach to religion and argue for its superiority over that of
his predecessors. Then in the second section, I will ask about the importance of Geertz’s theory
for theology, investigating specifically the phenomena of Pentecostal glossolalia. I will apply his
method of “thick description” to speaking in tongues, and seek to unravel the meaning and the
theological implications, not only of the phenomena themselves, but also of the process of
religious interpretation based on Geertz’s theory. However, while this paper is written from the
perspective of a participating Pentecostal, it is far from a theological essay on tongues-speaking.
Rather, it is centrally concerned with the question of the relationship between the social-
scientific study of religion and theology. Geertz’s cultural anthropology, it will be shown, can be
an extremely useful, and at times even normative, tool for the theological interpretation of
religious phenomena.
In the last section, I will briefly suggest one way in which an open reading of Geertz can
be developed in a theological direction, as when complemented by the more recent work of
Robert Neville. Then, I will return once again to the contrast posed between the
theologically open and the social-scientifically closed theories of religion in order to highlight,
from a theological perspective, the dialectical movement that occurs in the interpretation of
religion.
GEERTZ’S INTERPRETIVE THEORY OF RELIGION
Geertz insists that the contemporary sociological study of religion must treat the work of
its pioneers--he names Durkheim, Weber, Freud, and Malinowski--as “starting-points only,” and
“move beyond them” (Geertz 1973:88). In order to see what it is exactly that Geertz deems in
need of improvement in these earlier theories, we can get to the heart of the matter in his concept
of culture. Culture, for Geertz, “denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings
embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means
of which men ommunicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward
life” (1973:89).
In contrast to his predecessors whose focus was specifically on society and the forms of
religious life therein, for Geertz, the object of study for the anthropologist is culture, and it is in
and through this dimension that the study of religion is best approached. Before I explicate his
method, it is important to ask how this shift in emphasis is an advance for the social-scientific
tradition. For purposes of this paper, I will briefly contrast his approach with that of the
sociological model of Durkheim, the socio-economic model of Weber, and the reigning
anthropological model prior to Geertz’s own work.
Durkheim’s central thesis in his founding sociology of religion text was that “religion is
something eminently social” (Durkheim 1965:22), by which he meant that society was, in an
ultimately closed sense, the only reality, and within which the forces of religion could be
assessed and understood. In terms of personal religiosity, Durkheim himself was a rigorous
agnostic. Yet, the reigning paradigm for sociology of religion during the time of the early
twentieth century when Durkheim was writing was undoubtedly that posited by Marx and his
theory of religion as the opiate of the masses and Comtean positivism. Unsurprisingly then,
Durkheim’s understanding was that “the concept of totality is only the abstract form of the
concept of society” and that “at bottom, the concept . . . of society and that of divinity are very
probably only different aspects of the same notion” (1965:490). This notion of society as the all-
embracing reality has now been subsumed by Geertz under what he considers as the even
broader notion of culture. Geertz distinguished between culture and social system by seeing “the
former as an ordered system of meaning and of symbols, in terms of which social interaction
takes place; and . . . the latter as the pattern of social interaction itself” (Geertz 1973:144). In
contrast, Durkheim does not differentiate between the two, and in fact, really shows no
identification of the concept of culture at all.[4]
Geertz does credit Weber with having seen insightfully the problem of humankind as that
of meaning--meaning couched and “suspended in webs of significance.” However, although
Weber did speak of the many forms of cultures in all their varieties, he lacked the more carefully
thought out notion of culture posited by Geertz. In fact, Weber’s understanding of culture was
mediated and interpreted by his theory of economics; for Weber, economics was fundamental,
and culture--if understood at all--a derivative.[5] In contrast, Geertz takes “culture to be those
webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an
interpretive one in search of meaning” (1973:5). Thus, in contrast to Weber whose overarching
task was the discovery of “ideal types” of religious consciousness such as the charismatic
prophet (Weber 1993:46 ff), Geertz foregoes Weber’s more rigorous type of rationalism in favor
of amore wholistic approach to religion and religious meaning within the context of its cultural
framework.
Geertz, however, also considered his interpretive theory an advance over the cultural-
anthropological theories that were influential early in his career. He sets himself against the
layered or what he calls the “stratigraphic” conception of human life which attempted to locate
essential humanity in descending from cultural, to social, to psychological, and finally to
biological factors.
Against this approach which seeks to “peel off,” as it were, successive and
composite/non-reducible levels in order to find connecting anthropological clues to human
meaning, Geertz proposes a more integrated or synthetic approach utilizing his concept of
culture. Culture is then seen as “a set of control mechanisms . . . [which humankind is] most
desperately dependent upon . . . for the governing and ordering of behavior” (1973:44). Thus,
Geertz insists on the fundamental importance of culture for the understanding of human life:
Undirected by culture patterns--organized systems of significant symbols--man’s
behavior would be virtually ungovernable, a mere chaos of pointless acts
and exploding emotions, his experience virtually shapeless. Culture, the accumulated
totality of such patterns, is not just an ornament of human existence
but--the principle basis of its specificity--an essential condition for it (1973:46).
The interpretation of cultures then, would be the intelligible inscription of these patterns, a laying
open of the “interworked systems of construable signs,” and the dissection and re-connection of
he social events, behaviors, institutions and processes which together form the totality of these
patterns; in other words, what Geertz calls “thick description” (1973:14).
It may be here that an aspect of Geertz’s thinking, if enlarged sufficiently, will play an
important role in his interpretation of religion. As central as it is to his
theory, I want to urge that Geertz’s concept of culture does not necessarily have to be
understood as a closed system.
Now although the question of whether or not Geertz’s system is or is not closed is
primarily a theological one which does not arise in his own cultural-anthropological analysis
with the sort of specificity detailed here, it is necessary for us to ask this question of Geertz given
the assumptions of his predecessors in the field and also given our own interests in assessing the
relevance of sociology to religious and theological symbols. How then should Geertz be read on
this issue? In the first place, he is simply saying above that the totality of culture is an essential
condition for human existence, but I do not think by this that Geertz has to be read as saying that
culture is necessarily the sole condition for it. Second, and more importantly, I think to that to
read Geertz in such a way would be to ignore the essential openness of his interpretive
theory. The hermeneutics of culture, he is careful to point out, is “intrinsically incomplete;” this
is because anthropology “is a science whose progress is marked less by a perfection of consensus
than by a refinement of debate” (1973:29). While this may be understood as a hermeneutical
circle within a closed system, I suggest that resisting this temptation will be much more
productive for the purposes of the student of religion, and especially so for the work of the
theologian. I will defend this enlargement of Geertz’s theory in the final section below after
demonstrating its fruitfulness as applied specifically to a religious phenomena.
It should now be fairly clear that Geertz considers his concept of culture to be an
expansion on the Durkheimian society on the one hand and on the Weberian explanatory theory
of economics on the other. Against the reductionism of these social-scientific approaches to
religion, Geertz’s interpretative theory is an attempt to infer from the historical particularities and
the empirical facts, and not an exercise in schematizing the facts to laws arrived at on the basis of
apriori thinking. Further, Geertz appears to have awakened from the rationalistic optimism that
plagued moderns from the previous generations in his acknowledgment of the ambiguities that
beset the interpretation of culture; nevertheless, he proceeds on the hermeneutical path. Finally,
his thick-description is an effort to converse with the other, and to allow their story to be told and
understood in their own terms, rather than to impose a previously formulated theoretical
schemata on the subjects of sociological and anthropological study. All of this is an advance on
the ethnography of his forebears, who proscribed their own theories on the quantitative
amassment of facts and artifacts, thus clouding, with their compilation of data, the human faces
and identities which alone are the reals in the social and cultural world.
Within this framework, then, how does Geertz understand religion, and what does his
theory suggest for an approach to that subject? Geertz defines religion as “(1) a system of
symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations
in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these
conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely
realistic” (1973:90). He suggests that “the anthropological study of religion is therefore a two-
stage operation: first, an analysis of the systems of meanings embodied in the symbols which
make up the religion proper, and, second, the relating of these systems to social-structural and
psychological processes” (1973:125). In other words, rather than seeing the psychological, and
social aspects of human life as “prerequisites” (as indeed they are in the other anthropological
models) to the development and formation of culture, Geertz prefers to view the cultural
dimension--complete with its web of signs and symbols--as illuminating of these
processes. Instead of attempting a summary explication of his definition of religion, I will, in the
section that follows, simply unpack its meaning in applying it to the Pentecostal ritual of
tongues-speaking. The resulting thick-description--which complexities would have been
obscured by the more reductionistic methods of Durkheim and Weber--will then be related, as
suggested by Geertz, to the other human processes. At that point, I will assess the results
attained by Geertz’s cultural-anthropological method from a theological point of view, and will
explain why the improvement on his theory--read openly--as I suggested above is important for a
theological understanding of these phenomena.
TOWARD A THICK DESCRIPTION OF PENTECOSTAL GLOSSOLALIA
The recent explosion of Pentecostalism worldwide in the last two to three decades has
sent a scurrying of sociologists of religion--both those within and without the Pentecostal
community--to examine and explain its global expansion. It should not be surprising, then, that
the hallmark of the movement, the phenomenon of glossolalia--from the Greek, glossa, or tongue
speaking--has been almost incessantly under the spotlight of investigation during this same
period of time. An extremely “thin description” of tongues-speech tells us not much more than
that it is the ecstatic making of verbal sounds, thus leading some who have attempted to define it
by noting it as “a puzzling psychological and religious phenomenon” (Kauffman 1967:211).[6] In
any theological analysis, but even so in the light of the cultural-anthropological interpretive
model before us, there is, of course, much, much more going on than an audio analysis reveals.
A thick description of tongues-speech--a la Clifford Geertz--from the testimony of Frank
Bartleman, one of the revered early Pentecostal pioneer leaders, reveals the complexity, mystery,
and alluring attraction of this religious experience. Bartleman’s glossolalic encounter is
preserved in a classic testimonial[7] that has, in many ways, become representative of the
experience for many Pentecostals, and therefore deserves to be quoted at length:
On the afternoon of August 16 [1906], at Eighth and Maple, the Spirit manifested
Himself through me in “tongues.” There were seven of us present at the
time....After a time of testimony and praise, with everything quiet, I was softly walking
the floor, praising God in my spirit. All at once I seemed to hear in
my soul (not with my natural ears), a rich voice speaking in a language I did not know. I
have later heard something similar to it in India.. It seemed to
ravish and fully satisfy the pent up praises in my being. In a few moments I found
myself, seemingly without volition on my part, enunciating the same sounds
with my own vocal organs. It was an exact continuation of the same expressions that I
had heard in my soul a few moments before. It seemed a perfect
language. I was almost like an outside listener. I was fully yielded to God, and simply
carried by His will, as on a divine stream. I could have hindered the
expression but would not have done so for worlds. A Heaven of conscious bliss
accompanied it. It is impossible to describe the experience accurately. It
must be experienced to be appreciated. There was no effort made to speak on my part,
and not the least possible struggle. The experience was most
sacred, the Holy Spirit playing on my vocal cords, as on an Aoelian harp. The whole
utterance was a complete surprise to me. I had never really been
solicitous to speak in “tongues.” Because I could not understand it with my natural mind
I had rather feared it (Bartleman 1980:71-72).
Any attempt to gain access into the meaning of glossolalia in this narrative will
necessarily have to pierce through the network of symbols that are operative. One way to “make
sense of”this thick-description of glossolalia provided by Bartleman is to assess it in terms of
Geertz’s definition of religion. In the first place then, even a summary identification of some of
the more important symbols, metaphors, and imagery employed here reveals the complexity of
tongues-speech: the praise-and-prayer-meeting; seven of us; praising God in my spirit; in my
soul; a rich voice; perfect language; a divine stream; fully yielded; no effort; complete
surprise. This listing, by no means comprehensive, exemplifies Geertz’s “set of symbols” in
exemplary fashion. There is, in Bartleman’s report, a wholistic dimension to his experience of
glossolalia. The language is replete with biblical allusions and pietist-holiness rhetoric
(Bartleman being a Holiness preacher before his Pentecostal experience). Each in sequence
enrich both the narrative of the experience as well as provide an aesthetic balance to the quality
of the experience itself.
More importantly, however, when fleshed-out according to Geertz’s definition of
“religion,” this set of symbols “acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and
motivations in men.” “Moods” refer to the intensive, qualitative, and conditional character of
religious phenomena, while “motivations” to their consummatory or teleological direction. Both
are plainly discernible in Bartleman’s glossolalic experience. The intensity of “mood” is not in
doubt. Upon later reflection, Bartleman assessed this “mood,” and confessed that “the Spirit had
gradually prepared me for this culmination in my experience, both in prayer for myself, and
others. I had thus drawn nigh to God, my spirit greatly subdued. A place of abandonment of
will had been reached, in absolute consciousness of helplessness, purified from natural self-
activity. This process had been cumulative” (1980:72). Necessarily included in a more complete
assessment of the meaning of Bartleman’s experience would be a full consideration of this
“process”--including his social location, his psychological profile, and other aspects of his
religious history, along with the corollary contextualization of the symbols relative to this
“process.” In a preliminary sense, however, glossolalia in Bartleman’s account has to be seen as
representative of a particular religious mood, the intensity and quality of which are not
discontinuous with the rest of his life and spiritual quest, but is rather an extension of both. In
other words, Bartleman understood his experience of tongues in part to be the defining moment
of a “mood,” as it were, in Geertz’s sense.
Further, that his encounter with the Spirit was indeed motivational can be seen when he
says that
in the experience of ‘speaking in tongues’ I had reached to climax of abandonment. This
opened the channel for a new ministry of the Spirit in service.
From that time the Spirit began to flow through me in a new way. Messages would
come, with anointings, in a way I had never known before, with a
spontaneous inspiration and illumination that was truly wonderful. This was attended
with convincing power. The Pentecostal baptism spells complete
abandonment, possession by the Holy Ghost, of the whole man, with a spirit of instant
obedience (1980:73).
Bartleman thus understood his speaking as a symbolic prelude to the life and ministry which
followed, the meaning of which is traced--in a causal sense in this testimony--to the earlier
charismatic experience. Of course, the import of this effect of glossolalia can only be
measured against the entire range of early Pentecostal life and religiosity. Again, however
preliminarily, it is evident that when examined in the light of Geertz’s “moods” and
“motivations,” a real sense can be discerned in which this initial experience of glossolalia both is
defining for Bartleman’s life and ministry, as well as the reverse, whereby the meaning of
glossolalia itself has to be understood in light of his experiences of the divine both before and
after August 6th. In short, glossolalia both defines the mood as well as its motivations. It is
encompassing, but why not so, given its central place in Pentecostal spirituality?
While it is not necessary to go on, although we surely could with this testimony, what is
more important is the “witness” which Bartleman’s account gives to Geertz’s view of religion. It
is true that Geertz comes no closer to acknowledging the transcendence of culture than in his
notion of “a general order of existence.” Of course, the “general order of existence” in
Bartleman’s testimony is presupposed in the set of symbols drawn primarily from the Bible, and
promulgated from the pulpits of early Pentecostal preachers both at and prior to the Azusa Street
revival. Thus Spirit, God, and Heaven, and other images such as perfect languages, the sacred,
and natural ears and mind (in contrast to the supernatural) are indicative to some degree of this
order. Be that as it may, Bartleman’s account is an eloquent testimony to the threatening
character of chaos--an important feature of the “generality” of the order of Geertz’s cultural
reality, especially as seen in the limits in the analytic capacities of humankind (Geertz
1973:100). The experience of the Holy Spirit as manifest in speaking in other tongues was one
that strained Bartleman’s cognitive sensibilities and resisted his descriptive capabilities. It was
“impossible to describe,” and a “complete surprise,” both even though he said later that he was
actually “prepared” for this experience. What is important to note here, is Bartleman’s denying
conscious seeking or appropriation of the phenomena. In fact, he admitted his fear of this
unknown.
Glossolalia was significant for Bartleman of both the “generality” as well as the “order”
of ultimate existence. In his experience, speaking in tongues was
both vague (an unknown language) and precise (perhaps Indian in character), both
ambiguous (bliss) and determinative (albeit consciously experienced),
both chaotic and concrete, both unknown and known.
Perhaps in wanting to give concrete expression to this general order of existence, Geertz
moves toward their being clothed in an aura of factuality. He makes this move by positing as
axiomatic a well-known religious perspective: that of faith seeking understanding
(1973:110). Can we detect the “aura of factuality” which Geertz says accompanies this
experience of the general order of existence? Certainly, Bartleman’s experience of glossolalia
was that of being possessed by the Spirit in an utmost sense, the utterance being “without human
mixture” (Bartleman 1980:72). And yet, of course, it was Bartleman himself doing the speaking,
and no one else.
Although the connection was not explicitly drawn in the text by Bartleman, the standard
explanation for most Pentecostals is that glossolalic experiences are simply the replaying of the
paradigmatic instance of tongues-speech, when those in the Upper Room on the Day of
Pentecost “were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit
enabled them.”[8]
Thus, Bartleman also speaks of complete and utter abandonment, an “absolute
consciousness of helplessness,” and a “Heaven of conscious bliss.” Of course, immersed as he
was in the language of the Bible and steeped in the religious world of late nineteenth-century
revivalism, Bartleman thoroughly imbibed in the ethos and spirituality of early
Pentecostalism. He was, undoubtedly, well aware of the role of tongues as well as its real and
symbolic connections with other dimensions of spiritual life, both of which were defined
ideologically and doctrinally by the emerging Pentecostal community.
Geertz concludes his cultural-anthropological approach by seeing the resulting moods
and motivations of religion as “uniquely realistic.” It is certain that Bartleman’s experience had
radically altered “the whole landscape presented to common sense, [...altered] it in such a way
that the moods and motivations induced by religious practice seem themselves supremely
practical, the only sensible ones to adopt given the way things ‘really’ are” (Geertz
1973:122). Whereas before August 6th Bartleman considered himself as just another Holiness
preacher, after that date, he looked upon himself as more fiery than the great missionary to
China, Hudson Taylor (Bartleman 1980:73). Being profoundly affected, Bartleman spoke of
being possessed with a “spirit of instant obedience.” It is an understatement to retell Bartleman’s
story as a renewal or intensification of commitment. It is rather nothing less than a new ministry,
a new way, and a new revelation--as his own words indicate--understood as the result of a total
transformation of soul and its being conformed with the calling of God on his life and
ministry. We have here again the dialectic between the experience and life, between glossolalia
and its proceeding causes and succeeding effects.
With this thicker description before us, what can we say that glossolalia means,
specifically for Bartleman himself, but more importantly, generally for Pentecostals? On the
more personal and psychological level, the experience boils down to an ecstatic encounter with a
dimension of reality on the boundaries of culture that is soul-transforming and world-defining--
Geertz’s “model-of.” This is the process of internalization. Socially and communally, it is an
experience which legitimizes, empowers, and provides spiritual and religious identity--Geertz’s
“model-for.” This is the process of externalization.[9] Let me deal first with the former
For Bartleman, as for most Pentecostals, glossolalia is the primary means of gaining entry
into a religious cult which both advertises the personal encounter with the divine and claims to
elevate the devotee’s spiritual status, neither of which are without social implications. Thus, in
what has since become a foundational study of Pentecostalism, Walter Hollenweger, one of the
premier interpreters of the movement, speaks of tongues in functional terms, as a “tribal
mark.” Its significance, bluntly put, “lies in the experience of being taken into a fellowship
which involves a change in one’s whole way of life, and which develops a scheme of values
which is easier to comprehend and communicate, and the maintenance of which is controlled by
group dynamic processes (services)” (Hollenweger 1973:491). Detailed socio-psychological
studies have, to a some extent, borne out these claims (Richardson 1986:369-80; Mills
1986b:425-438;). It explains, for instance, at least in part the more recent explosion of
Pentecostalism in Latin America (Sepulveda 1989; Wilson 1991:67-97), wherein the
internalization of glossolalia is seen as a functional symbolic-ritual that in turn produces positive
socio-economic results.[10]
It would be easy, given these socio-psychological implications, to understand the
processes and internalization of glossolalia simply as the heavy-hand of society being exerted
upon the individual. This, of course, would not explain why people like Bartleman are drawn to
Pentecostalism in the first place, only that once at the door, their powers of resistance are slowly
incapacitated. Attempts to answer the previous question have led some to connect the
psychological and biological aspects of tongues-speaking (Hutch 1986:381-95). Other
anthropologists, however, have reversed the argument and proposed that part of the attraction of
Pentecostalism is precisely at the sociological level where it provides an invitation into a
community of mutuality and equality that redresses activity, embodies opposition, and empowers
adjustment in the socio-economic arena (Hine 1986:439-462; Alexander 1989). These are, in
part, some of the functional meanings given to the phenomena of glossolalia under Geertz’s
“model for” when seen as a sociological and cultural interpretive instrument.
The value of Geertz’s cultural-anthropological approach for religious studies is in the
flexibility of the model as seen in its ability to incorporate the biological, psychological, and
social dimensions of human existence and to integrate them semiotically. Since what Geertz is
after is meaning, none of these other dimensions are privileged in an apriori manner, and in this
way, he avoids the reductionism which plagued his predecessors. Every instantiation of tongues-
speech would then need to be thickly described, and understood within the network of symbols
wherein it is found operative. Ultimately for Geertz, however, the concept of culture is an elastic
one and serves a double function: it provides an overarching framework of interpretation for
human existence as well as expands insofar as clues to human life are found in all the other
social and sciences. We have seen how applicable this model has been in one representative case
of glossolalia. At the same time, this is, ironically, both the basis upon which Geertz insists on
the ongoing openness of cultural-anthropological interpretation, and its being locked into a
hermeneutical circle. Read in the wake of the Durkheim, Weber, and the social sciences, then,
Geertz is only allowed to explain glossolalic phenomena as mediated in a never-ending fashion
by the dialectical interplay of signs between the cultural-anthropological framework and the
psycho-socio-biological dimensions; it would never be possible, in this model, for us to finally
“touch-down,” either in the experience itself or in any other arena, for each sign would function
as a referent to another, which would in turn possibly point back to itself understood in light a
another variant, and so forth ad infinitum.
From a theological perspective, however, this seems rather “thin” and ultimately
unsatisfying. The explanatory power of Geertz’s model can and should be retained so far as it
goes. However, meaningful theological assertions which theologians need to make cannot, if
Geertz’s culture be read as a closed system, be done in a manner which is not discontinuous with
the explanations given under the model. But it is precisely such theological assertions that are
supplementary to the hermeneutical process, and in a further sense, ultimately important for the
theologian. In short, I believe that Geertz’s project of explanation will fall short so long as
guarded by the masters of the sociological tradition of Durkheim and Weber. Rather than being
locked into the hermeneutic circle of culture and its dimensions, it will be released to fulfill its
promise to provide meaning ultimately (read theologically) if theologians are granted license
within the interpretive theory itself to press the theological questions.
TOWARD A THEOLOGICAL (OPEN) READING OF GEERTZ
My proposal, therefore, is to retain in large part Geertz’s theory of culture and semiotics
for its intrinsic value in its orientation toward meaning in human life, but as a theologian, to read
his sense of incompleteness and openness as one that is ontologically grounded in
transcendence. This move can be defended in a number of ways, perhaps one of the most
promising of which is Robert Neville’s theory of imagination. Imagination, understood as “the
most primary or primitive organization of human experience,” Neville writes, “is religious,
regardless of whether it contains any specifically religious symbols of God or related
matters. By imagination is meant . . . the elementary capacity to experience things as images”
(1996:47). This fundamental human ability is what engages us with and relates us to the beyond,
understood theologically in terms of transcendence, and further explicated by Neville as
represented symbolically by “finite/infinite contrasts.” In the technical sense defined by Neville,
finite/infinite contrasts “mark what is experienced as a special condition defining worldliness or
world construction,” and insofar as their interpretations are true, “they are realities, or structures
of reality . . . [and] have the form of being disclosures of reality, not of being mere images
themselves” (1996:58).
In and of itself, however, the central role of imagination for religion is not peculiar to
Neville but had already been commented on even by Durkheim himself. Even as patriarch for
the sociological study of religion, Durkheim had noted that “the first systems of representations
with which men have pictured to themselves the world and themselves were of religious origin”
(1915:21). Durkheim, however, who was concerned to establish the sociological study of
religion on an equal footing with the then conceived objective inquiries of the hard sciences,
never pushed the larger philosophical and religious questions--not to mention the theological
ones. Therefore, he could not allow the claims of religious adherents regarding the transcendent
to be understood as such, but rather had to confine them to the realm of scientific and therefore
phenomenal and social study. Coming from this lineage, Geertz, who wishes to take the claims
of all religious participants at face value, is unable to do so in a closed cultural system. In
contrast, an open reading of Geertz assisted, for example, by Neville, can and will privilege the
explanation of the insider when understood at their own specific level so long as “qualified by
the biological, cultural, semiotic, and purposive contexts of the interpreters” (Neville 1996:240).
These are extremely important qualifications since they take into account all the
essentials of Geertz’s cultural-anthropological hermeneutical system. Doing theology is now
permissible and, in a very real sense, necessary, insofar as Geertz’s interpretive theory is
extended by Neville’s insights. Neville’s theory of religious symbolism as applied to glossolalia
produces some fascinating results. [11] Bartleman’s claim (and those of countless other
Pentecostals) was to have actually encountered God the Holy Spirit, the sign of which was his
speaking in tongues.
Theologically, tongues can be seen as a finite-infinite contrast: finite insofar as it itself is
a sign set within a network of theological and religious symbols which are overlaid by other
biological, psychological, and sociological networks of symbols--fully cultural in the sense
intended by Geertz, and infinite insofar as it is a divine-human encounter fully qualified by the
finite human cultural context. In this connection then, a psychological-theology of glossolalia
can generalize, in words reminiscent of Bartleman himself, that “glossolalia is a symbol of the
mystery of God, a mystery that can ‘swallow us whole’ and grant us ‘insights beyond words’
(Macchia 1992:58). More important, however, are statements which relate the sign and its
beyond: “In glossolalia is a hidden protest against any attempt to define, manipulate or oppress
humanity. Glossolalia is an unclassifiable, free speech in response to an unclassifiable, free
God. It is the language of the imago Dei” (1992:61). These are theologically meaningful
statements that enable us to further locate the significance of glossolalic experiences like
Bartleman’s which are allowed in Geertz’s theory as complemented by Neville’s but denied by
the more stringent--and, I am arguing, misguided and less valuable--social-scientific reading of
Geertz. In short, Geertz’s interpretive theory is sufficiently comprehensive as a hermeneutics of
culture (totality) to ground the quest for the human encounter with the divine, and sophisticated
enough to be open with regard to the transcendent or divine referent.
My point is that as humans, we strive to “touch down,” as it were, into something
concrete. Tongues itself is only phenomenally so; as a sign, it points beyond itself. This
“beyondness” can be accounted for in Geertz only in a genuine openness to
transcendence. Ironically, the truly transcendent is at the same time the most frustratingly
ambiguous in an existential sense, but the most concretely explanatory in a theological sense. In
point of fact, however, there is a double-movement that occurs in the work of both the
sociologist of religion and the theologian. On the one hand, the theologian benefits from the
empirical work done by the social scientist. Is it not the case that sociological findings possess
explanatory power which allow the theologian to draw and substantiate theological
conclusions? On the other hand, some theological claims, whether or not drawn from the data of
social-scientific research, serve as further hypotheses to be tested for the sociologist. Is it not the
case that theology in part contributes to the intellectual Weltanschauung against which the
disciplines of the social sciences have developed, and which funds the ongoing sociological
quest?
Let us get the most that we can out of Geertz’s model. It is very illuminative at a number
of different levels and able to connect with the various dimensions of human life. But in the
process of interpretation, Geertz’s hermeneutics of religion actually “pushes” the pale of culture
farther and farther in an effort to pierce through to what lies beyond it, finally--if we are to be
genuinely open and respectful of the religious and their experiences--breaking the boundary
which demarcate the finite from the infinite.
In this essay, then, I have provisionally shown how Geertz’s theory is useful for students
of religion. At the very least, my hope is that it has opened a window and shed a glimmer of
light on Pentecostal glossolalia as a cultural-anthropological phenomena. However, if we are to
be concerned with meaning, as Geertz is, we are ultimately--and, as students of religion,
religiously, and as theologians, theologically--concerned. In this latter case, glossolalia is but
one way in which we engage our concerns ultimately. I will therefore close by returning to Paul
Tillich and saying it is better to see that “religion as ultimate concern is the meaning-giving
substance of culture, and culture is the totality of forms in which the basic concern of religion
expresses itself” (1959:42).
REFERENCES
Alexander, Bobby C. “Pentecostal Ritual Reconsidered: Anti-Structural Dimensions of
1989 Possession.” Journal of Ritual Studies 3:109-28.
Bartleman, Frank Azusa Street. Plainfield, NJ: Logos International.
1980
Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of
1969 Religion. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Durkheim, Emile The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Tr. by Joseph W.
Swain.
1965 New York: The Free Press.
Geertz, Clifford The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
1973
Hine, Virginia H. “Pentecostal Glossolalia: Toward a Functional Interpretation.”
1986 In Mills 1986a.
Hollenweger, Walter J. The Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement in the Churches.
1973 Tr. by R. A. Wilson. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing
House.
Hutch, Richard A. “The Personal Ritual of Glossolalia.” In Mills 1986a.
1986
Kauffman, Donald T., ed. Baker’s Pocket Dictionary of Religious Terms. Grand
Rapids:
1967 Baker Book House.
Macchia, Frank D. “Sighs Too Deep for Words: Towards a Theology of Glossolalia.”
1992 Journal of Pentecostal Theology 1:47-73.
Martin, David “Evangelical and Charismatic Christianity in Latin America.”
1994 Charismatic Christianity as Global Culture. Ed. by Karla Poewe.
University of South Carolina Press.
Mills, Watson E., ed. Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research in Glossolalia. Grand
1986a Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
1986b “Glossolalia as a Sociopsychological Experience.” In Mills 1986a.
Neville, Robert C. The Truth of Broken Symbols. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
1996
Nisbet, Robert A. The Sociological Tradition. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
1966 Publishers.
Richardson, James T. “Psychological Interpretations of Glossolalia: A Reexamination
of
1986 the Research.” In Mills 1986a.
Sepulveda, Juan “Pentecostalism as Popular Religiosity.” International Review of
1989 Mission 78:80-88.
Spittler, Russell P. “Glossolalia,” in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic
1988 Movements. Eds. Stanley M. Burgess, Gary B. McGee,
and Patrick
H. Alexander. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 336-
41.
Tillich, Paul Theology of Culture. Ed. by Robert C.
Kimball. London/Oxford/
1959 New York: Oxford University Press.
Weber, Max The Sociology of Religion. Tr. by Ephraim Fischoff. Boston:
1993 Beacon Press.
Wilson, Everett “Passion and Power: A Profile of Emergent Latin American
1991 Pentecostalism.” Called and Empowered: Global Mission in
Pentecostal Perspective. Ed. by Murray W. Dempster,
Byron D.
Klaus, Douglas Peterson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers,
Inc.
[1]
In the chapter on “The Sacred” in his book The Sociological Tradition, Robert Nisbet
identifies the important sociologists and their contributions as Alexis de Toqueville’s analysis of
the relation between the development of doctrine and the intellectual democratic tradition,
Numa-Denys Fustel de Coulanges’ idea of the correlation between religion and the rise-and-fall
of the classical polis, Emile Durkheim’s theory of the sacred and the profane, Max Weber’s
notion of charisma, and Georg Simmel’s concept of piety (Nisbet 1966:221-63). This paper will
build specifically on the contemporary work of Geertz in connection with the work of Durkheim
and Weber.
[2]This paper is Eurocentric to the extent that it seeks to grapple with sociological
approaches to religion and is therefore constrained by the dominance of western actors in the
field. This is not, however, to say that Eurocentrism holds all of the answers for questions raised
in this paper. I quoted Tillich above primarily as a contrast to the Durkheim-Weber tradition and
not because I am going to deal with his own method of correlation. This essay focuses primarily
on whether and how the sociology of religion can benefit the theological enterprise.
[3]
The present continuous and the past tenses used here capture the essential orientations
of both approaches toward that which is socially transcendent. I am not suggesting that these are
the only two options available for reading Geertz, but only that they are in some ways
ultimately theologically. Reading Geertz’s interpretive theory in my open sense will therefore
serve as a heuristic device to determine its fruitfulness for theology.
[4]
There is no entry for “culture” in the Index to Durkheim’s study.
[5]
This is what we find in the chapter on culture--“Religious Ethics, the World Order, and
Culture”-- in Weber’s The Sociology of Religion (1993:207-22).
[6]
“Ecstatic” should be understood in its general phenomenological sense as a mystical
psychological state of mental absorption or rapture accompanied by a somewhat involuntary loss
of control. My focus on this paper will be on the general features of glossolalia as exemplified in
one testimony rather than on adjudicating between its specific varieties such
as xenolalia (documented occurrences of actual languages unlearned by the
speaker), akolalia (the hearing of actual languages even when one may not be spoken) and the
like. For a concise summary of these and glossolalia as a whole, see Spittler 1988.
[7]
Bartleman’s experience took place at the Azusa Street revival in 1906, an extended
event that most Pentecostal historians consider the beginning of the twentieth-century
Pentecostal movement. He kept some record of this in his diary, which was used in the re-telling
of his story and published not long after in testimonial form in a Pentecostal periodical. This
also formed the basis for his autobiographical reflections which appeared in 1925 titled How
“Pentecost” Came to Los Angeles--How It Was in the Beginning. The source I am quoting from
is a reprint of this later book with a new title.
[8]
Acts 2:4, New International Version. Pentecostals have traditionally distinguished
between tongues-speech in Acts, understood as xenolalia and either communicative or evidential,
and in 1 Corinthians, understood traditionally as personal or congregational prayer and prophetic
(with interpretation) language. However, insofar as they are at least phenomenologically similar
(Spittler 1988:338), this distinction is not vital for purposes of this paper.
[9]
For starters, all of the psychological and sociocultural studies of glossolalia in Mills
(Part Four and Part Five of Mills 1986:347-424 and 425-92) are a reliable introductory reference
to other work in the field.
[10]
My qualification of “in part” in the explanatory power of glossolalia is important as
there are undoubtedly many other reasons why Pentecostal varieties of Protestantism are growing
in Latin America (see Martin 1994:73-86).
[11]
This application can be seen in a manuscript I have titled “‘Tongues of Fire’ in the
Pentecostal Imagination: The Truth of Glossolalia in Light of R. C. Neville’s Theory of
Religious Symbolism” which is currently being revised for publication. Geertz’s model plays a
secondary, but important phenomenological role in my argument there.
http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj1/yong.html#_ftn1
Bethany College
INTRODUCTION(1)
What connections exist between Christian spirituality and ecumenism? How might the
elements and dynamics of a particular type of Christian spirituality contribute to the
quest for Christian unity? These questions guide the following investigation.
This paper attempts to address the guiding questions in two main sections. First, we
offer a descriptive interpretation of Pentecostal spirituality rooted in a recent ritual
study informed by ethnographic field research.(2) Hopefully, this descriptive section (by
far the larger of the two) will make Pentecostal spirituality more accessible, raising
questions, stimulating discussion, and assisting dialogue toward a better understanding
of Pentecostal spirituality. The second section of the paper seeks to forge a direct link
between the Pentecostal spirituality, described in the first section, and the quest for
Christian unity. This brief section will attempt to locate the inherent potential for
ecumenism within Pentecostal spirituality and it will address some of the challenges of
ecumenism for Pentecostal spirituality.
PENTECOSTAL SPIRITUALITY
1. "Leadership"
The symbol of leader within the Pentecostal ritual context suggest certain qualities
about the leadership factor and the Pentecostal spirituality in general. In each of our
focus churches leadership functions as a powerful symbol. Here, we will focus on five
characteristics of leadership as experienced in the Pentecostal spirituality: leadership as
spokesman or woman, as lay (non-specialist/expert), as spontaneous and recognized,
as a responsive social dynamic, as boundary for order and ecstacy. Let us begin by
looking at leadership as spokesperson.
But leadership means more than anointed utterances. The boundaries of leadership
include other functions and other types. For example, worship teams in some of our
focus churches are primarily the leaders of the first phase of the ritual process. Members
of the teams do not normally lead by giving verbal directions or announcements.
Rather, they model and facilitate worship and praise.(14) They, as a team, symbolize
leadership in their actions and demeanor during the worship and praise rite.
This social dynamic of leadership also emerges in a quality of responsiveness within the
liturgical ritual. Leadership provides a symbol for the responsive/relational quality of
the Pentecostal spirituality. A dialogical relationship defines the interaction between
leader(s) and followers in the ritual setting.(18) A sense of responsiveness characterizes
the whole ritual.(19) The expressive actions of liturgical leaders almost always, either
explicitly or implicitly, call for and expect a congregational response. For example,
worship teams lead in a manner that will elicit a maximum responsive form of
worshipful singing; the pastoral message seeks a response--often an immediate one;
calls for healing and commissioning rites also invoke congregational responses as do
various charismatic words. Pentecostals use leadership roles to rouse responses from
liturgists to their God. Fundamentally, liturgical leadership metaphorically stands for
the divine leadership. And Pentecostals consciously seek to reply to the voice of the
Spirit, to respond to the "leading of the Spirit" both in the ritual and beyond.
How is this tension of order and ecstasy understood in the leadership symbol? As we
have said, the Pentecostal congregation recognizes the leader as one who follows God's
Spirit. As the follower of God, she or he must be "in tune" with the Spirit. Pentecostals
ardently believe in a divine order (as opposed to a merely human order that is
insensitive to God's design), and they insist that to authentically follow the Spirit one
must participate in the divine order. Thus, leadership must discern order with
sensitivity to the Spirit and the people. The people may be led into ecstasy but it must
reflect the Spirit's order. And most often the established leadership, in Pentecostal
churches functions as a boundary for ecstacy, a symbol of orderliness. In this way the
pastor in the liturgy functions somewhat analogously to the early Rebbes of Hasidism.
(22)
Thus, what may appear as disorder even chaos in the Pentecostal ritual to the non-
Pentecostal or the non-discerning, represents a godly order to the Pentecostal believer,
an order that includes the "interruptions" in the human plan, an order that provides for
ecstacy within its boundaries. For the Pentecostal the symbol of leadership represents
both order and ecstacy. We turn now to consider our other main elemental factors of
Pentecostal spirituality, beginning with "worship."(23)
2. "Worship"
Pentecostals practice worship as both the experiencing (the immediate presence) of God
and as the "techniques," iconic ways into the presence of God.(25) Forms of musical
expressions, including powerfully suggestive symbolic worship choruses and verbal
and kinesthetic praise practices serve to "trigger" a sense of close presence, a
hierophany.(26) Within the milieu of hierophany, the Pentecostals encounter and
experience the divine.(27) The rites then function both as experiences themselves and as
icons into particular forms of experience (e.g., hierophany).
Ministry unto God both differs from and connects with other aspects of "ministry" in
the Pentecostal worship economy. To perform acts directed toward God, is understood
as the ultimate in human expression. All other performance, or ministries, have
secondary importance. According, to a Pentecostal understanding other ministries "flow
from worship." The ministry of worship or attending to God functions as the
foundational ministry. As a result Pentecostals root the other four selected symbols:
word, gifts, ministry and missions, in their understanding of worship.
3. "The Word"
Pentecostals employ the term "the word" to symbolize the belief that God speaks. And
that "God speaks today," as in the past, i.e., that God speaks to God's people even as
God spoke in the biblical days. In the ritual, the symbol of word functions as part of the
divine-human "conversation." If praise and worship symbolize the human half of the
conversation, then the word symbolizes the divine side of the dialogue. Pentecostals
recognize the voice of God, the word, in various forms, e.g., biblical messages, sermons,
teachings, exhortations, testimonial narratives, and charismatic words.
Testimonial narratives. God speaks in other moments of the ritual. The symbol of word
extends to testimonies and narratives that place daily life as well as "spiritual
experiences" within a biblical/faith framework. These "sharings" may occur in speech or
song; they may take on a formal aim or be informally related. But by authentic
testimony which speaks out of human experience, Pentecostals seek to discern the
works of God in the life of the individual, of the faith community, and of the world.
Functioning in this way, testimony narratives provide a way of doing theology. Thus,
the narratives both interpret the works of God and give voice to the words of God. (30)
While charismatic words ideally represent a word from God, the ideal is not always
realized. Pentecostals test the words, they recognize the room for error and the
importance of the human dimension. One Pentecostal told us the story of a brother who
felt he had a word from the Lord, but when he attempted to give it all he could say was,
"Be not ascared, for I am ascared sometimes too saith the Lord." Sympathetic
Pentecostals would neither ridicule this brother, nor would they accept the theology of
his utterance. Charismatic words nonetheless are potentially edifying and at least at
times the Pentecostal spirituality is enriched by the word of God as mediated in
charismatic vocalizations.(32)
4. "The Gifts"
Charismatic utterances are best understood within the symbol word, but the Pentecostal
elemental symbol of "the gifts" discloses charismatic activity. The gifts continue, as they
have historically, to distinguish Pentecostal ritual from other Christian liturgies and to
serve as a trademark of the overall spirituality. The manifestations of the gifts
(especially the Pauline charisms), plays prominently in the liturgies and congregational
life of our focus churches. The gifts symbolize at least three categories of meaning, Spirit
baptism, empowerment, and edification.
Symbol of Spirit baptism. In a classical Pentecostal view the gifts are understood as
incorporated in the Spirit baptism, which is seen as a primary gift of the Spirit. In this
view Spirit baptism or "being filled with the Holy Spirit" represents a "conversion-type"
event subsequent to an initial Christian conversion. Spirit baptism does not symbolize a
salvific, justifying event to Pentecostals. Rather, it represents a confirmation of the
Spirit's presence in the believer's life and an empowerment or gifting. In this view,
speaking in tongues evidences the initial event of baptism in the Spirit. Spirit baptism,
then, occurs initially as an event and continues as the process popularly called the
"spirit-filled life." This process includes an openness to the Spirit's gifts and a
willingness by the believer to operate within these gifts toward the edification of the
body of Christ. Classical Pentecostal ideology continues to view Spirit baptism as the
doorway into the larger more diverse experience and practice of charisms.(33)
Symbol of edification. Apart from the Spirit baptism, the practice of the gifts,
particularly in the ritual, reveals that the gifts function as symbols not only of
empowerment but of edification. In all of the churches we studied, the gifts function in
a variety of ways, as media of edification. These Pentecostals frequently refer to
edification as "ministry." Normally, this type of "ministry" implies an orientation
toward the members of the faith community, an intention to fortify and renew, "to edify
the saints."(35)
Pentecostals believe then, God grants gifts to individual believers for the benefit of the
whole, that the church might be edified, "strengthened and built up." Thus, the term
"the gifts" points to at least three things: Spirit baptism, empowerment of individuals
and edification of or ministry to the faith community. But ministry to the faith
community cannot be restricted to the medium of certain charismatic gifts. We now
turn to our fifth indigenous term, "ministry."
5. "Ministry"
Ministry as opportunity to serve. Ministry "in and to the body" often takes place
during the Pentecostal liturgy. For instance, the pastor will ask for those who have a
need to raise a hand, or come forward to the altar, to indicate their needs so that they
might be prayed for. This not only allows those in need to respond but it provides an
opportunity for friends and co-believers to serve, to minister. Normally, following the
indication of a need, ritualists near those who raised hands, or moved to the altars, will
move from their near by seats in order to "minister" in prayer to those in need. The
"ministers" will typically reach out and touch the one in need. They will take them by
the hand or lay a hand on the shoulder. They may speak to them about their needs, and
then will "enter
into prayer" on behalf of the prayer request. The whole congregation will begin to pray
together, in "concert," all ritualists voicing their prayers simultaneously. Those ritualists
who have moved from their pews now cluster around the believer in need. In their
circles of faith these ministers raise their voices in specific prayers for those in need. In
this kind of prayer ministry, each congregant may become a minister, one who serves
the needs of another. But Pentecostal ministry cannot be restricted to specific microrites
as we have just described, the symbol of ministry provides a lens through which to
understand the primary Pentecostal rites and the liturgy as a whole. (36)
Ministry as a framework for the rites. The symbol of ministry serves as a framing
device for the primary rites of the Pentecostal service, particularly the rite of pastoral
message and the altar/response rite. Certainly, the ministry of the Word, i.e., the
pastoral message is seen by Pentecostals as "ministry" that serves their needs.
Pentecostals speak of being "fed by the Word." The close attention of the members, in
each of our study churches to the teaching or sermon seem to indicate the importance
and sense of relevance to life the ministry of the Word has to the parishioner.
But ministry is seen perhaps in its most salient form around the altars, often as a climax
to the rest of the ritual. Healing rites are most prevalent during this time. Pentecostals
attempt to minister to the "whole person." Physical conditions are dealt with, though
not exclusively. During ministry times around the altars, they pray diligently for any
dimension of felt need. No need is out of bounds or inappropriate. Any need can be
discussed, discerned and dealt with in prayer, council, and action. While each of the
focus churches designs its liturgy to minister to people's needs at some the churches
(especially the Vineyard type) the "ministry time" has become their trademark. (37) At our
Vineyard focus church, the whole service aims toward "the ministry." The ministry time
is their version of the altar/response rite. The first two foundation and processual rites,
the worship and the pastoral message, build upon each other in order to arrive at a
climactic ministry time. Congregants expect the opportunity to be prayed for, cared for,
ministered to at the Vineyard church. The third phase of the service is nearly always the
designated period for "ministry."
6. "Missions"
Ministry beyond the faith community. As we have argued elsewhere, although the
ritual is one of the best windows of insight into Pentecostal spirituality, the Pentecostal
liturgy does not contain the whole of the spirituality. (38) Edified and transformed in and
through their rituals, Pentecostals push past the limits of the liturgy and seek to move
beyond their faith communities. They are, so to speak, "launched" from the community.
Within the faith community Pentecostals train and equip themselves to meet their
mission. They "experiment" with charisms and ministries all with an eye toward
missions. They want effectively to meet and to "minister to the world." Of course such
language seems lofty, but the symbol of missions pervades the consciousness of
Pentecostals.(39)
Gifted service. Their emphasis on the Holy Spirit's role in outreach most distinguishes
the Pentecostal understanding of missions. The Spirit is "the Great Evangelist" in
Pentecostal belief; God's Spirit "is active in the world today," assert the Pentecostals.
And the Spirit "draws men and women to Jesus." It remains then for believers to "work
with the Spirit" in gifted service. Pentecostals regard the charisms of the Spirit as "tools"
for doing the "work of the ministry in the world." This form of gifted service seeks to
take the forms of ministry expressed in the liturgy and within the faith community and
extend them into a broader arena. For most of our focus church congregants this means
using their spiritual gifts in daily life.(41) But for many, it means stepping out into forms
of service overseas.(42)
We have considered six emic symbolic terms that disclose characteristic qualities of
Pentecostal spirituality. Inherent to each of these six selected symbols is the
fundamental binary opposition or distinction of human/divine. In this section of the
paper, we want to address this distinction in Pentecostal spirituality within the
foundational category of the humanexperience of God as understood within Pentecostal
spirituality.(45) The following sketches a general outline of the characteristic qualities of
Pentecostal spirituality under the organizing, symbolic rubric of experiencing God. We
categorize the qualities under main headings: experiencing God mystically as supernatural,
experiencing God in a communal context, experiencing God as an empowering Spirit and
commissioning Lord, and experiencing God as creative.
In our original study, we considered the central ritual and rites of the Pentecostal
churches, we noted highly expressive forms of worship. We discovered practices richly
dramaturgic. We classified, identified, and described the modes of ritual sensibility.
And, we asserted a fundamental supposition that these ritual expressions are rooted in
a spirituality, a spirituality that expresses itself and is nourished by its rituals. We
assumed that the performance of the rites is an encompassing experience, one that
includes the elements of the ritual field, and, according to Pentecostals, one that
grounds itself as a human experience of the divine. Pentecostals assign all that is
ultimately holy and supernatural to the divine One, their God. Here, let us consider this
cluster of qualitative characteristics under two main headings: experiential/mystical
and supernatural.
the direct intuition or experience of God; and the mystic as a person who has, to a
greater or less degree, such a direct experience--one whose religion and life are
centered, not merely on an accepted belief or practice, but on that which he regards as
first-hand personal knowledge.(46)
The Christian mystic, she continues "is one for whom God and Christ are not merely
objects of belief, but living facts experimentally known at first-hand; and mysticism [is
then for the mystic] . . . a life based on this conscious communion with
God."(47) Underhill's definition characterizes well a dimension of Pentecostal
spirituality.
In a very real sense the Sunday services of all of our focus churches are designed to
provide a context for a mystical encounter, an experience with the divine. This encounter
is mediated by the sense of the immediate divine presence. The primary rites of
worship and altar/response are particularly structured to sensitize the congregants to
the presence of the divine and to stimulate conscious experience of God. The worship
and praise rite especially functions as a framing context for certain mystical experiences
of God. At least in part, the apparent goal of the worship service is to allow the
worshippers to have a heightened sense of the presence of the divine. The gestures,
ritual actions, and symbols all function within this context to speak of the manifest
presence.
Within the "contemplative" mode of sensibility that we described in our research, (48) the
Pentecostals seek a mystical sense of the divine presence. When a worship leader says,
"let's enter into the presence of the Lord," it is not heard as mere rhetoric. The
congregation expects to have a keen awareness of divine presence. The ritual mode of
sensibility we have designated "celebration" is frequently used to facilitate the process
of entering into the presence. Its music and ritual actions function as Pentecostal icons,
as windows into the reality of the divine. Often in the overall worship service, the
celebrative mode melts into the mode of contemplation-- in which an even more salient
sense of the divine is felt.
Our field studies support the sense of shared experience among groups with dissimilar
doctrines of charismatic operations. A Vineyard church, for instance, does not even
claim for themselves the terms "Pentecostal" or "Charismatic," but congregants often
speak among themselves about their experiences in the power of the Spirit. They may
even avoid the term "baptism in the Holy Spirit" but they pray and believe for special
infusion of the power of the Spirit to work miracles, to discern spirits, to pray for
healing, to pray in tongues.
On the other hand, some of our focus churches use language that conveys a more
classical Pentecostal tinge. The central category for the experience of overwhelming of
the Spirit is understood in the symbol of Spirit baptism as an event and process in the
Christian life. Other experiences of the overwhelming Spirit are related but for the most
part they are understood within the baptism in the Spirit framework. Thus, Spirit
baptism functions more as a boundary that defines these communities and their
spiritualities. Spirit baptism may functions less as a defining boundary among the
members of the neo-Pentecostal churches. Despite the difference in emphasis on Spirit
baptism, the point remains that in each of our focus churches there is a central belief in
and understanding of their spirituality as one that flows from experiences of
overwhelming by the supernatural, the Holy Spirit. In the section to come we will
consider the pragmatic function, empowerment for life and service, of such
overwhelming. But now, we turn to our second main category, the Pentecostal
communal experience of God.
Communal context. The communal context of the Pentecostal rites provides for both
social and individual experiences. The findings of our field research confirm social
historian Martin Marty's characterization of American Pentecostal worship as
demonstrating distinctly dramatic social behavior.(57) These dramatic social behaviors
we have identified and described as rites.(58) We have also pointed to the social
importance of these rites as symbolic boundaries that shape the Pentecostal ethos and
spirituality, while functioning in the process of communal and individual self-
definition. Such defining occurs within the potent social dynamics of the Pentecostal
ritual process.(59)
The democratic participation involving lay persons has also to some extent been open to
women of the Pentecostal tradition. From the beginning of the Pentecostal movement
women preachers, Bible-teachers, evangelists, and foreign missionaries have had a
prominent role in transmission of the group's life, doctrine, and spirituality in general.
The roles available to women varied among the churches of our study. This in part
seems to have resulted both from the larger cultural influences and the growing impact
of conservative American Protestant Evangelicalism that has maintained a more rigid
perspective concerning women's roles in church leadership. Predictably then, among
our focus churches, those churches rooted more in the American Evangelical tradition,
display the least openness to women's roles in leadership. Women participate in roles of
support with their husbands or work with children in Christian education. On the other
hand, the more traditionally Pentecostal churches seemed to be more open to women in
leadership roles. For example, two of our focus churches had women as staff pastors
and on the board of deacons.
Theoretically, in the classical Pentecostal churches of our study, there are no restricting
limits for women in leadership. Any role is open including that of senior pastor and
preacher. In practice however, the opportunities for women in leadership ministry
appear somewhat more restricted. On the other hand, within the Sunday ritual women
play prominent roles by their participation and leadership in the rites. For example,
women lead worship, participate on worship teams, lead dance expressions, exercise
charismatic speech acts, preach, pray and perform healing rites. The Sunday rites
provide a relatively free context in which women, as well as men, can express their
spirituality within the congregational context in participatory-democratic forms. These
participatory patterns that include women, laity and all groups within the Pentecostal
congregation spring from a communal experience of God, a spirituality that effectively
encourages a participatory communal experience.
If it is true that Pentecostals are people of the book and people of the spoken word, then
it is also true that they are people of music and movement. (66) The third medium
through which Pentecostals transmit their spirituality is the dual dimension
of kinesthetic/musical. The kinesthetic/musical medium for some Pentecostals claims
primacy as the fundamental form of transmission. This is certainly, true among many
Pentecostals of the so-called "third world."(67) But, in our field research we observed the
significance of music and movement to the participatory nature of the communal
experience. Music shapes a large part of the liturgies in each of the focus churches.
Some Pentecostals link forms of kinesthetic movements and dance to the music while
other forms of movement connect to the spoken word or to personal spiritual impulses.
Pentecostals seek to worship their God with their whole being. They have intuitively
presented their bodies, their physicality, as instruments of worship. They seek to move
with the Spirit, but not as incorporeal selves. Pentecostals experience God as embodied
people propelled by the Spirit and by their songs. Thus, the Pentecostal communal
spirituality is born in and conveyed by biblical symbols, oral exchange, and
kinesthetic/musical transactions.
Pentecostals experience God as the commissioning Lord. The One who empowers, they
believe, also calls and sends. Empowerment seeks more than self edification. Instead,
Pentecostals recognize in their sense of empowerment a calling to assist others. They
understand the commission of Jesus to serve the world as their commission. They
believe that their Lord's mission to fulfill the will of God on the earth now includes
them and they believe that the Spirit enables them to accomplish the mission, not in
their "own strength" but "in the power of the Holy Spirit." Thus, Pentecostals experience
God as empowering Spirit and commissioning Lord.
Lastly, Pentecostals experience God as creative; and consequently, they live out a
creative spirituality. "Exuberant creativity" seems intrinsic to Pentecostal spirituality.
More than one Pentecostal observer, has been "struck by Pentecostal self-taught
inventiveness."(68) Elsewhere, we discussed such "exuberant creativity" and
"inventiveness" as revealed in the ritualization, improvisation and spontaneous
inclinations within the rites of Pentecostal churches, the creative impulse extends
beyond the liturgy throughout the Pentecostal spirituality.(69) Pentecostals live out a
creative spirituality because they conceive of their God as creative, and their
engagement with the Spirit confirms this conception experientially. Consequently, a
creative and entrepreneurial form of spirituality emerges from their experience of their
creative God. The emergent spirituality then displays an adaptability, a pioneering
spirit, and an action orientation.
Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. has argued convincingly that Pentecostals are ecumenical although
they do not always fully recognize their own ecumenical dimension. (71) In this section
we would like to suggest a few ways in which Pentecostal spirituality functions as a
force--or potential force--for ecumenism.
1. An Original Vision
Walter Hollenweger may have been the first to call attention to the original ecumenical
dimension of Pentecostal spirituality when he rightly assessed, "The Pentecostal
Movement started as an ecumenical revival movement within the traditional
churches."(72) Others have supported this assertion. Mel Robeck insists that even "a
cursory reading of the earliest Pentecostal publications is sufficient to validate [the]
claim."(73)
Examples of key Pentecostal leaders who voiced the vision of ecumenism include:
William J. Seymour, the African-American pastor of the original "Azusa Street" mission
in Los Angeles; Charles Parham, Seymour's teacher and the earliest Pentecostal
proponent; W. F. Carothers, who helped Charles Parham direct the early Apostolic
Faith Movement during its formative years; and Dr. Amelia Yeomans, a physician,
leading spokeswoman and Pentecostal teacher.(74)
Early Pentecostals believed that Christian unity would mark the culmination of
salvation history. Their ecumenical vision drew upon a restorationist spirituality, which
looked to the New Testament and the early church as its model. They believed that God
was restoring the dynamics and blessings of the early church within the twentieth
century and that their Pentecostal spiritual experience was an expression of that
restoration, a restoration that would help produce the answer to Jesus' prayer in John
17.
Unfortunately, the optimistic vision for Christian unity blurred as early Pentecostals
encountered resistance to their message and to their general experience of spirituality. It
would remain for the Charismatic renewal of the mid-twentieth century to refocus the
vision of the ecumenical dimension of Pentecostal spirituality.(75) That is not to say that
all Pentecostals of the second and third generation lost their ecumenical focus. Notable
exceptions were Donald Gee, a leading British Pentecostal spokesman, and of course,
David du Plessis, whose ecumenical vision (rooted in his own Pentecostal spirituality)
and world-wide work for Christian unity earned him the epitaph "Mr. Pentecost."
2. "Grassroots" Cooperation
While the vision for complete Christian unity may have weakened among the
Pentecostals who followed the founding generation, the original impulse discovered
new expressions. One category of these expressions might be termed "grassroots
cooperation." Throughout much of their history, Pentecostals, most often at the local
(grassroots) level, have sought to cooperate in broadly based Christian endeavors.
"Union meetings" (meetings supported by the churches of different denominations in a
particular town) were often encouraged and supported by the local Pentecostal church.
These meetings frequently focused on evangelism, and Pentecostals found them a
meaningful expression, not only of evangelization but of Christian cooperation and
unity. Of course, large cooperative efforts such as Billy Graham or Luis Palau meetings
have typically received Pentecostal promotion and participation.
Social ministries on the grassroots level have also garnered support among
Pentecostals. For example, Teen Challenge (an outreach to inner-city youth focusing on
drug addictions and other social needs) and similar social programs have often been
conceived by Pentecostals (e.g. David Wilkerson). More importantly, these programs
have actively encouraged a broad base for Christian cooperation toward the meaningful
goal of living out the Gospel amid a society's neediest. Again, a significant "by-product"
of such cooperation has been the stimulation of ecumenical impulses.
3. Ecumenical Organizations
Although the Pentecostal grassroots level of ecumenical endeavor has been quite
significant, another level can be recognized. Pentecostals have founded, co-founded
and/or joined existing national and international organizations seeking to transcend
denominational lines. Among Pentecostals, they have established in 1947 the
Pentecostal World Conference, a triennial, international, ecumenical gathering of
Pentecostals and similar regional ecumenical fellowships. Pentecostals also reached
beyond themselves, when in America they helped to found the National Association of
Evangelicals, an association of American evangelicals, Holiness and Pentecostal
peoples. While many of these organizations have a limited view of ecumenism, they
nonetheless do express a certain interest in Christian unity.(76)
Perhaps because of the growth of Pentecostalism and its attending spirituality around
the world this century, church leaders have begun to pose questions as to what
contributions Pentecostal Christians could and perhaps do make to the Church and the
world.
There are other native impulses toward ecumenism within Pentecostal spirituality. To
conclude this section on Pentecostal spirituality as a force for ecumenism, let us
mention two sensibilities often recognized as inherent to the lived experience of
Pentecostals: a native desire for fellowship,(82) and a propensity for crossing the
boundaries.(83)
From the beginnings of the Pentecostal movement, its adherents have claimed and
generally demonstrated a deep desire for Christian fellowship. Often at the grassroots
level this fellowship has disregarded denominational lines. In fact, at times Pentecostals
have relished the opportunity to cross boundaries, particularly when the barriers were
seen as merely human. In other words, the Pentecostal propensity for crossing the
boundaries symbolizes an aspect of their entrepreneurial spirituality
We spoke above about impulses of Pentecostals for ecumenism, and we noted examples
and expressions of the force of Pentecostal spirituality toward Christian unity. Implied
throughout, however, is that Pentecostals have avoided some forms of ecumenism.
Why have they hesitated if inherently they have such potential and desire for Christian
unity? A number of reasons might be offered. Here, however, let us suggest certain
fears and stereotypes that hinder Pentecostals from functioning more fully in the
ecumenical vocation.
Pentecostals worry about some forms of organization. They are concerned that they
follow the Spirit and not be entrapped in a human system that is out of step with God's
desires and plans. As a result, a certain hesitancy among Pentecostals might be expected
when attempting to engage them in some organizational forms of ecumenism.
Pentecostals fear a pseudo-church. They know that the true Church exists by the Spirit
of God, they are nervous about systems and organization that they perceive as humanly
manufactured and called "church."
2. Respect
One way to address the stereotypes issue is to recognize the need for respect among
Christians from divergent groups. It seems that respect for God's creation--expressed in
humanity and specifically in God's work in and among communities that espouse a
faith in God-- is fundamental to a Christian ethic. It is certainly essential to ecumenical
dialogue.
Pentecostals have need of respect.(84) That is to say, they have desired and sometimes
been denied respect from other Christians. In kind, at times they too have not respected
their sisters and brothers. Sometimes the lack of respect has been connected to the
misunderstood elements of the others' spirituality. Differences in spiritual devotions or
unfamiliar liturgical practices can be excuses for Pentecostal lack of respect.
Our hope is that Pentecostals will be able to build upon their own internal diversity
(which they affirm) and begin to recognize the potential for diversity in the Body of
Christ. With that recognition, respect might emerge.
Another challenge for Pentecostals, as they move into ecumenical streams, is that of
discernment. Glenn Hinson suggests that when Christian groups attempt to relate
ecumenically it is necessary for them to be able to discern the Spirit's work in the history
of the other.(85) If discerning the Spirit's work in the history of the other is fundamental
for Pentecostals, then discerning the Spirit's actions in the contemporary faith
community is essential to a meaningful ecumenical relationship.
In part, the challenge of discernment is the challenge of genre. For Pentecostals, the
genre of choice is often testimony, a narrative telling of the story. Narrative permeates
the spirituality of Pentecostals. It emerges in their sermons, liturgies, Bible studies,
prayer meetings, evangelism, and missions efforts. When Pentecostals talk about their
God (theology) and their experience of God, it most often will be framed in narrative.
To understand them, you must listen to their story, their story: about God and their
story about themselves. The two story-lines are integrally woven together.
The challenge for Pentecostals is to learn to listen. They must have ears to hear the
other's "story." If the dialogue partner is less inclined to use narrative, Pentecostals must
learn to translate, or ask for help in translating. Hearing and discerning the presence of
God in the history of the others and hearing the other's understanding of God's
presence and actions in the contemporary community experience, is important to the
ecumenical process.
While we might locate several areas of orientation that affect a particular Christian
spirituality, we will limit our remarks to only two: orientation to experiencing God and
orientation to the "world" and the Kingdom.
Clearly, to better participate in ecumenical life Pentecostals must face the challenge of
first recognizing that others may perceive and experience God quite differently (and
that difference may be due to their natural orientation to and sensibilities of God). Of
course, with this recognition comes the insight that a particular orientation results in a
particular type of Christian spirituality. These insights need to lead toward a desire to
understand and affirm the other's experience of God.
Geoffrey Wainwright has suggested that Niebuhr's five types provide a useful analysis
of the orientations of particular spiritualities. For Wainwright, the issue turns on the
group's understanding of the eschatological Kingdom of God. For example, in
Niebuhr's first type, "Christ against culture," Wainwright points out that the
eschatology of this type of Christian group is the "most discontinuous kind: the world
to come and this world are direct opposites; the one will simply replace the other. In the
corresponding spirituality, this world is merely a place to be 'out of.'" (91) On the other
end of the spectrum lies Niebuhr's "Christ of culture." Niebuhr has less good to say
about this extreme than he does the first. With this orientation it is difficult to
distinguish the "world" or its culture(s) from the church. In its typical form, Wainwright
suggests, it has no eschatology, for if there was no fall nor need for redemption, then
what can be said of the Kingdom.(92) Such extremes make dialogue difficult.
The three middle types of Niebuhr provide an understanding of orientations that are
less extreme. The "Christ above culture" (synthetic) type affirms numerous elements of
the culture while recognizing some distinction between the roles of the church and the
culture. It does, however, emphasize the "already now" more than the "not yet"
understanding of the eschatological Kingdom. In the "Christ and culture in Paradox"
(dualist) type there remains a more severe separation between the world and the
church. This type is more on the world-denying side of the spectrum, though not as
extreme as the Christ against culture orientation. A certain polarity between law and
gospel, wrath and grace, emerge in this orientation. The corresponding spirituality is
"characteristically one of conflict," a tension between two kingdoms.(93)
Niebuhr's and Wainwright's thought alert us that historically and presently, Christian
groups have revealed a variety of orientations to the world and its host culture(s). A
particular orientation has influenced and been influenced by the group's understanding
of the eschatological Kingdom of God. Our point is that Pentecostals interested in
ecumenical spirituality, must face a two-part challenge. They must work to better
understand the orientation(s) of their own spirituality, its stance toward the culture, and
its view of the eschatological Kingdom. Secondly, they need to better comprehend the
orientations of brothers and sisters,from other traditions, so that they might better
dialogue with them and appreciate their spirituality.
Conclusion
In light of these and other challenges, one final challenge emerges, which is: what is an
appropriate approach or approaches to ecumenism? Or, what are some of the elements
of such approaches? Ecumenist Walter Hollenweger implies that a "one-approach-fits-
all" style may not work. He suggests that sensitivity to the uniqueness, the essence, of a
particular form of Christian spirituality must be employed.(94) Depending on the nature
of the spirituality, Hollenweger believes that we may be called to "invent new forms of
ecumenical encounter if we want to learn . . . and if we want to contribute with our own
spiritual gifts."(95)
We would not attempt to invent new forms within the format of this paper. However,
let us draw from what we have already said, to suggest a few elements foundational to
an authentic approach to ecumenism. First, it would seem that a successful approach
must assess the potential and the gifts within one's own tradition that can be employed
toward Christian unity. Secondly, challenges and impediments must be faced, lest
naively we stumble. Thirdly, as we have noted earlier, authentic ecumenism calls for a
sincere respect for the other's spirituality; an appreciation for their life in Christ and all
that it means to them. Fourthly and fifthly, prayer and research is essential--prayer to
discern and understand the other's spirituality, and research "to put legs" to our prayer.
We might think of such prayer and research as learning a language. Ecumenical
spirituality calls us to learn the language of the other. To learn a foreign language is to
learn another's culture. Learning to speak and hear with new symbolic meaning is
fraught with ecumenical potential. Lastly, let us commend the study of Christian
spirituality--historically, theologically, biblically, phenomenologically, comparatively,
and any way that assists--as an approach to authentic Christian ecumenism. Such
studies surely would produce a harvest of wonderful insights, and opportunities to
better understand, appreciate and affirm the varieties of Christian spiritualities that
relate to one Lord.
May our God assist us as we seek to cooperate with the desire of Jesus' prayer in John
17, that we "may become completely one" (17:23b, NRSV).
------------------------------------------------------------
Pentecostals and ritual. In this paper we maintain that ritual functions as an important
component of Pentecostal spirituality. Consequently, a study of Pentecostal ritual can
assist the analysis and comprehension of Pentecostal spirituality. One might question
whether a ritual study can truly facilitate an understanding of the elements and
dynamics of Pentecostal spirituality. After all, traditionally Pentecostals themselves
have often objected to or reject the term "ritual" and its implied conceptualization. To
them, ritual represents something "dead," meaningless, or even "unscriptural" and
"unspiritual," mechanical religion. At best, many Pentecostals speak of "ritual" as too
restrictive, mechanical, potentially inhibiting the Spirit's moving and therefore not
conducive to the spiritual experiences that they encourage.(96) However, Pentecostals do
in fact, engage in rituals, though they often call them by other names: "worship
services," "spiritual practices," "Pentecostal distinctives," for example.
Ritual and Pentecostal spirituality. Ritual by nature dramatizes and effects the life of a
people.(101) In particular, the Pentecostal rites both dramatize and vitalize the spirituality
of a believing community.(102) Pentecostals often experience their rites as essential, life
giving, and arguably responsible in part for the vitality of their movement, its spread
and the spirituality it encourages. And though it is true that Pentecostal spirituality
does not confine itself to its rituals, the rites of the Pentecostals form an indispensable
component of the spirituality.(103) Thus, we believe that the Pentecostal ritual
performance deserves serious consideration. We assert that looking through the lens of
ritual the deliberate and sensitive participant-observer can access, assess and
comprehend the symbols, qualities, processes, consequences, and general ethos of a
Pentecostal spirituality. With this presupposition, this paper assumes a ritual study of
Pentecostal spirituality based on field research of the ritual performances of three
selected Pentecostal/Charismatic communities.
1. See brief Appendix at the end of the paper for introductory issues and definitions,
"Ritual and Pentecostalism."
2. The research for this paper is largely based on a study of Pentecostalism, Daniel E.
Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit. Sheffield, ENG: Sheffield Academic Press, forthcoming,
1998.
This analysis examined Pentecostal rites and ritual as expressions of and efficacious
dynamics within Pentecostal spirituality. It aimed to describe and interpret Pentecostal
spirituality by means of a ritual study. A team of seven researchers participated in the
early stages of ethnographic fieldwork/research which included the methods of
participant observation and ethnographic interviewing. While the study's initial phase
included at least twelve Pentecostal type churches in North America (referred to as
"study churches" in this paper), it ultimately focused on data collected from three
Northern California congregations (called "focus churches" below). The selection of
these congregations narrowed the scope of the study to three types of
Pentecostal/Charismatic congregations but kept a certain limited diversity for sake of
comparison: one church was of the "classical" Pentecostal type, one was a church more
heavily influenced by "neo-pentecostal" trends, and one was a so-called "Third Wave"
or "Signs and Wonders movement" type. The churches represented three different
denominations.
The focus church phase of the research concentrated on the central Pentecostal ritual,
the Sunday worship service and its attending rites. The phase lasted for a period of
more than two years. The research and its presentation endeavored to understand
Pentecostal/Charismatic spirituality by utilizing both indigenous categories and those
suggested by ritologists, social scientists and theologians, especially Ronald L. Grimes,
Victor Turner, and Donald Gelpi. See also Daniel E. Albrecht, "Pentecostal
Spirituality," Pneuma 14:2 (Fall 1992) 107-125.
3. Anne E. Carr, Transforming Grace, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988) 201-202. For
an understanding of contemporary use of the term "spirituality" see Sandra Schneiders,
"Spirituality in the Academy," Theological Studies 50 (1989); for a survey of definitions
and the development of the term see Jon Alexander, "What Do Recent Writers Mean by
Spirituality?"Spirituality Today 32 (1980): 247-57; Sandra Schneiders, "Theology and
Spirituality: Strangers, Rivals, or Partners?" Horizons 13 (1986) 256-67; and Philip
Sheldrake, Spirituality and History: Questions of Interpretation and Method (New York:
Crossroad Publishing Company, 1992), 32-56.
5. Fredrick Dale Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the
New Testament Witness (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970).
that the Pentecostal "strength does not lie in what they conceptualize but in what
happens to the participants in their liturgies." See Hollenweger, "Pentecostals and the
Charismatic Movement," in Cheslyn Jones et al (eds), The Study of Spirituality (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1986), 549-54.
7. By "sensibilities" we mean embodied attitudes which are the results of abilities to feel
or perceive, as in a receptiveness to impression or an affective responsiveness toward
something. These sensibilities both orient and animate the spirituality's beliefs and
practices.
8. No single treatment can possible claim to encompass all of the varieties of Pentecostal
spiritualities even in North America nor represent in detail the texture of the experience
of each group let alone each individual Pentecostal. We recognize the dilemma of
generalization, but we believe that we can with some clarity focus on the essential,
elemental qualities that represent the core of Pentecostal spirituality (at least within the
churches of our study). As a comparative device, we have also considered the
reflections of numerous scholars of Pentecostalism that bear directly on Pentecostal
spirituality. The following are some of the works that we have consider and drawn
from. Some of these will be specifically cited below. David B. Barrett, "The Twentieth-
Century Pentecostal/Charismatic Renewal in the Holy Spirit," International Bulletin of
Missionary Research 12 (July 1988): 119-124; Edith Blumhofer, The Assemblies of God, vol. I,
141-78; Idem, "'Pentecost in My Soul': Probing the Early Pentecostal Ethos," Assemblies of
God Heritage (Spring 1989): 13-14; Louis Bouyer, "Some Charismatic Movements in the
History of the Church," in The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic Church, ed. Edward D.
O'Connor (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1971), 113-131; Stanley Burgess, Gary
McGee, and Patrick Alexander, "Introduction," in DPCM, 1-6 Charles Farah, "America's
Pentecostals: What They Believe," Christianity Today (October 16, 1987): 22, 24-26;
Donald Gee, Concerning Spiritual Gifts (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House,
1937, 1972); Donald L. Gelpi, The Divine Mother: A Trinitarian Theology of the Holy
Spirit (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984); Experiencing God: A Theology of
Human Emergence (New York: College Theological Society, University Press of America,
1987); Peter D. Hocken, "Charismatic Movement," in DPCM, 130-60; W. J. Hollenweger,
"Pentecostals and the Charismatic Movement," in The Study of Spirituality ed. Cheslyn
Jones, et al., (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 549-51; also idem, The
Pentecostals, especially 291-511; Wayne Kraiss and Barbara Kraiss, "The Changing Face
of Worship," Theology, News and Notes (March 1991): 7-11; Steve Land,Pentecostal
Spirituality (Sheffield, ENG: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993);"Pentecostal Spirituality:
Living in the Spirit," in Christian Spirituality vol. 3, ed. Louis Dupre and Don Saliers
(New York: Crossroad, 1989), 479-499; Kenneth Leech, Soul Friend: The Practice of
Christian Spirituality (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977); Martin E. Marty, A Nation of
Behavers (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976), 106-25; Idem, "Pentecostalism
in the Context of American
10. On "select symbols" of a ritual see Victor Turner, Forest of Symbols, 19-47 and
Margaret Kelleher, "The Communion Rite," , 108-111; Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of
Evil (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967) especially, "the primary symbols," 3-157.
13. For example, in one church the pastor gives most of the "words of knowledge" that
follow the sermon and preceded the rites of healing. In another church the pastor most
often gives the interpretation to a message in tongues.
16. See Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit, especially chapter four, "charismatic criteria." For
questions of Pentecostal discernment in a worship service see Stephen E. Parker, Led by
the Spirit: Toward a Practical Theology of Pentecostal Discernment and Decision
Making (Sheffield, ENG: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
18. Victor Turner, Mary Douglas and other anthropologist consider inherent "binary
oppositions" that often define a symbol. A sampling of biany oppositions within the
ritual leadership symbol, suggests that the variety of the leadership roles each has a
responsive congregational role: pastor/people; prophet/listeners; priestly/needy;
teacher/learners; exhorter/responders; worship leaders/responsive worshippers;
facilitator/congregation; musicians/singing ritualists; word giver/word receivers;
leader of a rite/participants in the rite; charismatic spontaneous leaders/discerning
followers. See Turner, Ritual Process, 106, for an example, and Douglas' Purity and
Danger for extended illustrations.
19. For a study that recognized the unique responsiveness of Pentecostal spirituality see
Salvatore Cucchiari, "The Lords of the Culto: Transcending Time through Place in
Sicilian Pentecostal Ritual," Journal of Ritual Studies, 4 (Winter 1990): 1-14.
21. Though it is not always recognized the Pentecostal ritual leaders are surrounded by
signs of order. See the author's discussion of the "ritual field," especially in chapter
three, Rites in the Spirit. There we identified ritual objects associated with the symbol of
leader: pulpit, platform space, altar space, microphone, musical instruments, and other
technological instruments. These symbolic objects help to create the field in which the
ritual proceeds. These symbolic objects and spaces together with the leader(s) interact to
give shape and order to the ritual experience.
22. The Rebbe, especially in Jewish Hasidism was a very charismatic leader who led his
followers in high states of ecstacy. He functioned, however, as an ordering boundary.
The symbol of the Rebbe (or Zaddik) was a firm boundary, his leadership was absolute
and quite domineering. But within the well defined, firm boundaries of his leadership
the hasidim were granted greater flexibility and freedom in their worship and life-styles
than other contemporary Jewish groups. The Hasidic ecstacy could be approached with
a sense of abandon because their Leader provided such secure and dependable
boundaries. And as long as the group was within his boundary they were free. On
Hasidism and the Zaddik or Rebbe see Louis Jacobs, Hasidic Prayer (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1972); Ada Rapoport-Albert, "God and the Zaddik as the Two Focal
Points of Hasidic Worship," History of Religions 18 (1978): 269-325; Gershom G.
Scholem Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, (New York: Schocken Books, 1941), chapter 9.
See also Mary Douglas conceptualization of boundaries in her categories of "grid" and
"group" in Natural Symbols.
24. We understand hierophany here to mean an earthy manifestation of the scared, the
holy, divine power, or God.
26. See Steven Tipton, Getting Saved from the Sixties for his understanding of a "circle of
reciprocally reinforcing links." According to Tipton's study, the rites "induce
experiences. Experiences prove teachings. Teachings interpret experiences," (237).
Tipton recognized the centrality of experience to the groups he researched and he
rightly notes the "triggering" effect of rites, they "induce experiences." However, he
seems to minimize the experiential dimension of rites themselves. In our treatment we
recognize that while rites may function as a cause of another experience, they are
themselves forms of experience.
27. Of course, Pentecostal believe in encountering and relating to their God outside of
the hierophanic dimension. They often encourage each other with the verse "we walk
by faith and not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7). To the Pentecostals this verse means that
the Christian life is not based on "sight" or manifestations of the divine. It is rather
founded on faith in God. Nonetheless, hierophanies are appreciated as facilitating
worship, particularly within the ritual setting.
29. Such rites point to the creative potential inherent in the Pentecostal practices and
understanding of worship. The potential has both positive and negative possibilities.
Positively, Pentecostal worship allows for enthusiastic, vital participation of all
ritualists. It encourages each person to enter in to a dramatic conversation with God
mediated through a faith community, wherein worshipping Pentecostals become a
people, a family, an interconnected, supportive, transformative community. The
community seeks to reorder itself within its understanding of divine guidance,
guidance from the Holy Spirit as understood in the worship context.
But there are of course potentially negative possibilities inherent in the Pentecostal
practice and understanding of worship, as well. One danger of the Pentecostal
understanding of worship is that it can become too narrow. Pentecostals have in the
past been intolerant to other forms of worship. Or, Pentecostals can become fixated on
their own icons and rites revealing little appreciation for other possible symbolizations
from historic Christianity or contemporary spiritualities. These potentially negative
attitudes may work together to produce a form of Christian elitism (an oxymoron).
Finally, the Pentecostal conception of worship is also ripe with the danger of self-
deception. In the affectively charged dimension that Pentecostals call worship, human
sensations and emotions are encouraged and believed to help in the communicative
process with the divine. The need to rightly discern an authentic "move" of the Spirit is
opposed to self deceiving impulses. The danger of assigning divine origins to neurotic
impulses and behaviors always threatens in the absence of
rigorous discerning practices. The Pentecostals of our study seem aware of these
potentials, positive and negative, and apparently believe the risk is worth the taking.
The benefits outweigh the negative possibilities.
30. See Steven J. Land, "Pentecostal Spirituality," 485; see also his Pentecostal Spirituality:
A Passion for the Kingdom (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).
31. Charismatic words vary in style and function within the same congregation as well
as from congregation to congregation. In some congregations the style of charismatic
words is that of a "sharing:" normally the presentation emerges as "low key"during a
pause in the worship rite. Other congregations reflect a more traditional Pentecostal
style, at times a charismatic word is given in a booming voice declaring "this is the word
of the Lord." The function of charismatic words also varies. For example, they are most
often seen as encouragement, inspiration, or exhortation for the whole congregation at
some churches. But, at other churches ritualists typically direct charismatic words to a
single individual rather than to the congregation in general. This focus on the
individual carries over into the ministry and healing rites that distinguish the Vineyard
churches, for instance. In these churches, "healers" seek to give charismatic words as
insight. Such insight is believed to assist in the healing process. Words are thus
connected to the discerning process and the rites of healing.
35. Gifts are not only oriented to the faith community's edification. The manifestation of
the gifts may at times also direct attention toward God. This second orientation,
manifests in, for instance, an extensive use of the charisms within the worship and
praise rites in all of our focus churches. Pentecostal ritualist believe that their
worshipful adoration, praise and communion are greatly facilitated by the practice of
the gifts as instruments of praise (the prayer language, i.e., tongues prayer is perhaps
most widespread in the "gaps" in the liturgy). A third orientation sees the purpose for
the gifts in part as facilitation for service outside of the church. In a general way, this is
the understanding of Spirit baptism that we have presented.
36. For a list of microrites see Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit, Appendix. Also, for a
discussion of the primary rites, i.e., the foundational/processual rites, see chapter four.
37. For some concrete examples of this rite, see Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit, chapters four
and five.
39. Pentecostals stand within the Protestant missionary movement of the past two
centuries. As other American Evangelicals, Pentecostals seek to reach their world with
the gospel. In fact, according to noted missiological researcher and Vatican consultant
David B. Barrett, Pentecostals as a group have produced one quarter of the world's
4,000,000 "full time Christian workers" and missionaries. And Pentecostal churches have
financially supported missionary efforts around the world at a level disproportionate to
their size. See Barrett, "The Twentieth-Century Pentecostal/Charismatic Renewal in the
Holy Spirit," International Bulletin of Missionary Research 12 (July 1988): 119-124 and
Idem, World Christian Encyclopedia (New York: Oxford Press, 1982).
40. From the beginning of the American Pentecostal movement the Pentecostals have
had a belief that they were "raised up" by God in their time to be a missionary
movement. Drawing on the rich Lucan imagery in the New Testament book of Acts,
Pentecostals apply to themselves Christ's prophecy "you shall receive power when the
Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be my witnesses . . . to the ends of the
earth."(Acts 1:8, RSV) See L.G. McClung, Jr., "Missiology," DPCM, 607-09; G. B. McGee,
"Missions," DPCM, 610-25; idem, "The Azusa Street Revival and Twentieth Century
Missions,"International Bulletin of Missionary Research 10 (April 1988): 58-61; W.
Menzies, Anointed to Serve, 242-54;E. Blumhofer, Assemblies of God, 166-67; R. M.
Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited, 72; W. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals, 63-69.
41. A typical remark linking the gift and ministry follows, "I encourage you to push past
the [Spirit] baptism, push past gifts and move on into the actualization of ministry in
Christ's name, ministering in the world - in his name ." Here Vineyard Ministry leader
prods his congregation to actualize ministry. The gifts function to actualize the
Pentecostal mission. John Wimber, Power Points: A Basic Primer for Christians (Anaheim,
CA: Vineyard Ministries International, 1985) with accompanying tape 2 "Baptism in the
Spirit."
45. Similarly, we might think of the six symbols, explicated above, as ways in which
Pentecostals experience God. For example, they experience God in their leadership,
their worship, the word, the gifts, their forms of ministry and in mission(s).
48. Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit, see chapter five for descriptions of the ritual modes of
sensibilities; also see Albrecht, "Pentecostal Spirituality."
50. The supernatural emphasis has been a hallmark trait from the very beginning of the
Pentecostal movement. See Grant Wacker, "The Functions of Faith in Primitive
Pentecostalism,"Harvard Theological Review 77:3-4 (1984): 353-75, for a discussion on the
"thoroughly supernaturalistic conceptual horizon" that characterized early
Pentecostalism.
51. At one of our focus churches, for example, an "in-breaking of the Spirit in a
'Supernatural way'" occurs when a "word of knowledge" reveals something that
according to the ritualist, was "unknowable" apart from divine insight. At this church
such words of knowledge normally accompany the "ministry times." When people ask
for prayer, a ministering ritualist may receive a word of knowledge about and for the
one requesting healing. This spiritual insight symbolizes to these congregants an in-
breaking of the supernatural.
52. For example in some churches healing rites are quite charged with anxious
anticipation, that is congregants seem to have a very high level of expectation that there
will be supernatural involvement.
54. For Pentecostals, the term supernatural often refers to any perceived action or grace
that goes beyond their understanding of "the natural," or is believed to have a divine
(supernatural) cause or source. When a Pentecostal believer perceives that God has
intervened in some way in the midst of daily life, then the perceived intervention
reveals the supernatural. Supernatural help, for example, comes to the believer in the
form of miraculous works (e.g., dramatic healing) and in the form of divine help to do
mundane tasks (e.g., accomplishing work in one's profession, work that is believed to
be beyond the natural capabilities of the worker).
While such examples reveal the subjective interpretation of Pentecostal believers, the
fact remains for them the "supernatural" penetrates the natural realm.
55. Russell Spittler has used the term "an overwhelming by the Holy Spirit" to describe
the most fundamentally agreed upon theological experience among Pentecostal and
Charismatics. Cited by Edith Blumhofer, Faculty Forum Lecture, Scotts Valley, California,
Spring, 1991.
60. See Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit, chapter six for a discussion of liminality and
communities (communitas). Also see Victor Turner, The Ritual Process.
62. Lay participation is obvious in the churches' programs and their liturgies. This too is
deep in the Pentecostal tradition. As far back as the Azusa Street mission, lay
participation has been a trade mark of the Pentecostal service. See Frank
Bartleman, Azusa Street, (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1980); C. M. Robeck,
"Azusa Street Revival," in DPCM, 31-36; Edith Blumhofer, Restoring the Faith (Chicago:
University of Illinois Press, 1993), especially chapter seven; Roger G. Robins, "The Rule
of the Holy Spirit in Early Pentecostalism: Order in the Courts," an Unpublished paper
presented to the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies,
November 13-15, 1986, at Southern California College, Costa Mesa, California. The early
Azusa meetings allowed for great freedom to its attenders within its own basic
structural rites. While William Seymour functioned as symbolic boundary for the
service, he was not the only leader. In fact, because the Holy Spirit was the recognized
Leader of the services, many and various other human leaders, lay and clergy were
allowed to serve spontaneously. Extemporaneous testimonies sometimes lasting two
hours, were woven into the service. Of course, charismatic utterances and gifts were
freely expressed by people moved of the Spirit. Seymour even permitted anyone to
preach spontaneously, if he believed they were prompted by the Spirit. This heritage of
participatory-democratic spirituality is adapted and more controlled forms persist still
today.
70. Among the many examples of those who have noted the Pentecostal creative,
adaptable, pragmatic, entrepreneurial qualities see David B. Barrett, "The Twentieth-
Century Pentecostal/Charismatic Renewal;" Edith L. Blumhofer, Restoring the
Faith (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1993); Steve Lawson, "The Foursquare
Church Faces the Twenty-First Century," Charisma 18 (March 1993):16-26; Vinson Synan,
"Pentecostalism: Varieties and Contributions," Pneuma 8 (Fall 1986): 31-49; Grant
Wacker, "The Function of Faith in Primitive Pentecostalism." Harvard Theological
Review 77:3-4 (1984): 353-375; C. Peter Wagner, Look Out! The Pentecostals are
Coming (Carol Stream, IL: Creation House, 1969); Everett A. Wilson, "Revival and
Revolution in Latin America," in Modern Christian Revivals, ed. Edith Blumhofer (Urbana
and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1993).
73. Ibid.
75. Kilian McDonnell, O.S.B. is one of the many examples of Christians from historic
churches that recognized the ecumenical dimension and potential of Pentecostal
spirituality within the Charismatic renewal. See The Baptism in the Holy Spirit as an
Ecumenical Problem (South Bend, IN: Charismatic Renewal Services, 1972); see also
his The Charismatic Renewal and Ecumenism(New York: Paulist Press, 1978); and his
edition, Presence, Power, Praise: Documents on the Charismatic Renewal. 3 vols.
(Collegeville, MN.: Liturgical Press, 1980) for a compilation of documents from a wide
variety of Christian denominations concerning Charismatic renewal.
77. See "Women's Aglow Fellowship," and "Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship
International" both in Stanley M. Burgess et al. (eds) Dictionary of Pentecostal and
Charismatic Movements, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988) 899 and 321-2
respectively.
87. Ibid. Robeck illustrates the differences by saying that many groups "take pride in
hearing God speak through the word preached, and who pledge their allegiance to
the Name through the recitation of creeds, and emphasizing the ethical nature of the
Christian life." Others "seem to prefer seeing God act within their midst in worship,
praise, and manifestations of the Spirit. They emphasize the presence of God in
His Glory and the mystical and enthusiastic nature of the Christian life." Robeck insists
that "neither way of meeting with God is wrong." But with ecumenical values, Robeck
challenges us to "consider ways of reaching out to the rest of the church," even to those
whose way of encounter with God is very different from our own.
88. H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1951); Ernst
Troeltsch, The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches, vol. 2, trans. Olive Wyong, (New
York: Macmillan, 1931).
92. Ibid.
93. Wainwright, "Types," 599-600. We have not focused on the most central type, "Christ
the transformer of culture" which seems to be the most central position, and Niebuhr's
favorite. The point of using the four types was to present contrasting positions,
orientations that affect spirituality.
95. Ibid.
96. Pentecostals are not the only modern Westerners to question the value of ritual.
Many view ritual as foreign or pre-modern, i.e., something that has been left behind
from a previous era, culture or religious tradition. Others see ritual as irrelevant, not
really vital, because for them ritual means "a routinized act," merely an external gesture
void of internal engagement and commitment. This view sees all "ritual" as "ritualized
ritual," a barren symbol of empty conformity. See Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols:
Explorations in Cosmology (New York: Pantheon, 1970, 1982). Such views of ritual are too
restrictive, if not wholly inaccurate. Examples of a more adequate perspective on ritual
and a distinction between "ritualized ritual" and authentic, vital ritual see
Douglas, Symbols; Tom F. Driver, The Magic of Ritual: Our Need for Liberating Rites that
Transform Our Lives and Our Communities (San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers,
1991); Ronald L. Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies (Lanham, MD: University Press of
America, 1982), Idem, Ritual Criticism (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press,
1990); Barbara G. Myerhoff, Number Our Days (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978); B.
Myerhoff et al. "Rites of Passage, an Overview," in M. Eliade ed. The Encyclopedia of
Religion, vol. 12 (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987) 380-86; Victor
Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1969, 1977).
98. Examples of Pentecostal rituals (service type) other than the normal weekly
corporate worship service include: prayer meetings, evangelistic meetings, home group
meetings, Bible studies, Sunday School, youth and children's services, camp meetings,
retreats, conferences. See Appendix A for a more complete list of Pentecostal (macro)
rituals.
100. 66See Appendix B for a categorization and listing liturgical rites, foundational and
microrites in the Pentecostal service.
____________________
INTRODUCTION
A lot of work has been done already about Acts, both as a historical document of the ancient church,
and as a theological work. Numerous studies have been done about the function of the speeches in the
narrative. Likewise, Pentecostal scholarship has progressed quickly in the right direction in approaching
Acts. The fruit of the work of the scholars that labored and contributed to the study of Acts, in relation to
the Pentecostal claim, should be used to articulate the author's intent in the use of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts
2. The Lukan intent of depicting the charismatic empowerment of the Spirit is once again considered in
terms of the purpose of the quotation of Joel's oracle in Peter's sermon.
The Pentecostal traditional belief concerning the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2--which is that,
Spirit-baptism is for empowerment in witnessing--is the assumption followed in this essay. An attempt is
made in this presentation to answer the problem of the application of Joel 2:28-32 in Peter's speech and its
purpose in Luke's intent in his narrative. The question of the authenticity of Peter's sermon, however, is at
stake also in understanding Acts 2. The debate centers on the question of whether the sermon is a free
composition of the Gospel writer, or is a summary of what Peter has actually spoken. What would be the
implication of Peter's speech employing Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2 in the light of Luke's uses of the speeches in
Acts?
In the light of the context wherein the disciples received the empowering gift of the Spirit at
Pentecost, the content of the gospel that they will bring to all the world was first announced by Peter in
Acts 2:14-40.[4] Hence, Peter's sermon in Acts 2:14-40[5] is important in knowing the fundamental message
of the early church, which is the context of the quotation of Joel 2:28-32.[6] Luke, in Peter's speech,
connects the two significant events that have transpired; namely, Christ's death and resurrection, and the
outpouring of the eschatological, universal and prophetic Spirit to the church.[7]
Peter articulates the connection of the two events in Acts 2:32-33. The apparent relationship of the
two events indicates that the Spirit was poured out on the believers to equip them with power to testify
with boldness.[8] The Gospel writer describes the experience as the "filling" with the Spirit in Acts 2:4,[9] so
that the recipients can witness boldly to the death and the resurrection of Christ. This is the plain message
of the Gospel that is being proclaimed in the Acts narrative.[10]
The Pentecost event was actually explained by the Gospel writer through the sermon of Peter.[11] In
the speech, Peter explained the event.[12] Through the citation of Joel 2:28-32, Peter, as well as Luke, was
able to portray the charismatic empowering aspect of the coming of the Spirit.[13] The speech of Peter is
appropriately used by Luke to articulate the literary and historical implications of the Pentecost event.
[14]
The authorial intent of the Gospel writer surfaces as he employs Peter's sermon to interpret the event
that he is narrating.
The occurrence of the event mentioned in the passage was during the important Jewish festival of
Pentecost (Acts 2:1). The basis of the Pentecost account of the outpouring of Spirit, as indicated in Acts 2:1-
13, is certainly grounded on traditional material from the apostolic church in Jerusalem. [15] Although there
are several problems in the text's account,[16] the consequences of what occurred as presented is certain.
[17]
Pentecost is celebrated by the Jews fifty days after the Passover celebration. [18] So, by assuming that
Jesus died during the period of Passover celebration, the time that Peter preached was just fifty days after
the death of Jesus on the cross.[19] Perhaps, among Peter's audience were those who had witnessed the
crucifixion of Jesus (cf. Acts 2:23, 36).
Besides the importance of the event, the initial proclamation of the early Christian kerygma by Peter
in the said historical occasion is noteworthy.[20] The analysis of the content of Peter's sermon in Acts 2 will
give a knowledge of the development of early Christian preaching and theology.[21] Accordingly, the pattern
of the apostolic preaching is typified by Peter's preaching in Acts.[22]
The question on the significance of the sermon of Peter in Acts 2 is a vital question to address. L.
Goppelt recognizes that Peter's sermons in Acts 2-5 are the "oldest missionary kerygma."[23] The debate
continues about the real nature of the speeches in Acts, whether they are Lukan inventions or summaries.
[24]
Thus the credibility of Peter's sermon in Acts is at stake.[25]
The antiquities may give some insights about the nature of published public speeches in a
narrative. Thucydides, in The History of the Peloponnesian War (1.1.22), provides an adequate reference
for the integrity of speeches in history:
With reference to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before the war
began, others while it was going on; some I heard myself, others I got from various
quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one's memory, so my
habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by
the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of
what they really said. And with reference to the narrative of events, far from permitting
myself to derive it from the first source that came to hand, I did not even trust my own
impressions, but it rests partly on what I saw myself, partly on what others saw for me, the
accuracy of the report being always tried by the most severe and detailed tests
possible. My conclusions have cost me some labour from the want of coincidence
between accounts of the same occurrences by different eye-witnesses, arising sometimes
from imperfect memory, sometimes from undue partiality for one side or the other. The
absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest; but if it
be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to
the interpretation of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it
does not reflect it, I shall be content. In fine, I have written my work, not as an essay which
is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time.[26]
Thucydides makes it clear that his record of speeches in history heeds "as closely as possible to the general
sense of what they really said." It is evident that the first class Greek historians of the antiquities was
faithful to the original sense of their historical record "as a possession for all time." In fact, another first
class Greek historian criticizes those people who are overstating and inventing historical records to generate
misconception to the readers. Polybius, in The Histories (2.56.10-12), points out that:
A historical author should not try to thrill his readers by such exaggerated pictures, nor
should he, like a tragic poet try to imagine the probable utterances of his characters or
reckon up all the consequences probably incidental to the occurrences with which he deals,
but simply record what really happened and what really was said, however
commonplace. For the object of tragedy is not the same as that of history but quite the
opposite. The tragic poet should thrill and charm his audience for the moment by the
verisimilitude of the words he puts into his character's mouths, but it is the task of the
historian to instruct and convince for all time serious students by the truth of the facts and
the speeches he narrates, since in the one case it is the probable that takes precedence,
even if it be untrue, the purpose being to create illusion in spectators, in the other it is the
truth, the purpose being to confer benefit on learners.[27]
Elsewhere, Polybius, in The Histories (29.7-12), argues for a very high standard of recording events
and speeches in his historical records, stating his belief that he should "simply give a true and unvarnished
account" of "descriptions of battles, the reports of speeches, and the other parts of history."[28] Polybius,
in The Histories (36.1), specifically maintains his high standard in recording the speeches in historical
records:
But on the one hand neither do I think it is the proper part of a politician to display his
ingenuity and indulge in discursive talk on any and every subject of debate that may arise,
but simply to say what the situation demands, nor is it the proper part of a historian to
practice on his readers and make a display of his ability to them, but rather to find out by
the most diligent inquiry and report to them what was actually said, and even of this only
what was most vital and effectual.[29]
Thucydides and Polybius have shown the characteristics of first class historians, by being faithful to
the events that they were recording, whether incidents or speeches. In terms of speeches, it is apparent
that they appropriated the meandering discourse into a synopsis of the truth of the speeches recorded to
be relevant to the event presented. The speeches are taken by the two prominent Greek historians as a
kind of expressing the essential and practical points of the circumstance of the historical facts.
Two other important resources in the usage of speeches in antiquities are the Roman historian,
Tacitus, and the Jewish historian, Josephus. Although Tacitus is questioned about the way he reproduced
the speech of Emperor Claudius, in The Annals (11.24),[30]--which is also recorded in an inscription[31] that
probably contains the original wording of the speech--the conclusions of both C. Gempf[32] and W.
Gasque[33] suggest that Tacitus was faithful to the content in a methodical and pertinent manner.
In the case of Josephus, his reporting of speeches is questioned in terms of its validity in comparison
to the record of the Old Testament. An example is Josephus, in The Antiquities (1.13.3),[34] placing extended
speech in the mouth of Abraham on the scenario of Isaac's sacrifice in Genesis 22. Another illustration of an
obvious problem in Josephus' record of speeches is that of the speech of Herod the Great, recorded both
in The Antiquities (15.5.3), and in The Wars (1.19.4), in two different versions.[35] Josephus, however, should
be taken as presenting an accurate record in his own right. Josephus, in The Wars (Preamble, 1.5), claims:
The ancient historians had set themselves exclusively to record the history of their own
times. Their connections with contemporary events added clarity to their writings, and any
misrepresentations on their part could have been detected and denounced by their
contemporaries. . . . A diligent writer is not one who edits the material and arrangement of
other authors, but who contributes fresh data and constructs a historical edifice of his own.
. . . Let us then honor historical truth, since it is disregarded by the Greeks.[36]
Josephus has shown his own standard of recording history and his commitment to the
truth. Whereas his record differs from that of the Old Testament speech of the Patriarch, showing freedom
than what is allowed in the narrative, his style is considered different from that of the Old Testament writers
with a literary ambition.[37] Josephus' approach is to relate a Hebrew tradition to a Greco-Roman style.
[38]
Although his two records of Herod's speech are different, they have the same essence.[39]
Thus, regarded in its totality, the work of Josephus may follow the Greek historiography, but cannot
be considered a typical Greek historical work, such as that of Thucydides and Polybius.[40] Nevertheless, the
faithfulness of the speeches in the historical event is clearly appropriated in Josephus as exemplified above.
[41]
While the speeches in Josephus can be criticized as tactless, they do express the meaning of the event in
an applicable way.
Thus, the Jewish historian Josephus, together with the Roman Tacitus, and the Greeks Thucydides
and Polybius, are in the similar notion that the published speeches in the antiquities allocate the incidents
and circumstances in the entire context of the historical event.
As a consequence of what I have said up to now, in this modern period of scholarship regarding the
contents of Acts--whether one is arguing with M. Dibelius,[42] who maintains that the speeches in Acts as
compositions of the writer, or with F. F. Bruce, [43] who contends that they are digested records of speeches
generated in reality--the use of Peter's sermon in Acts 2 shows that it is indeed used appropriately by Luke
to express the meaning of the event.[44]
It has been suggested that speeches in Acts are actually literary, historiographic, or theological
devices of Luke.[45] In all of the interpretation given to the speeches in Acts, there is a reasonable basis to
think that the speeches are used by Luke for "literary and historical appropriateness."[46] C. Gempf
summarizes his studies on the speeches that are published in the ancient world relating his findings to
Luke's speeches in Acts:
In ancient world, rhetoric was power and speech was a type of action. Ancient historians, in
their recording speeches in their works, were giving records of event rather than
transcripts of words. Their statements of method indicate that they took this task
seriously. The modern categories of `accurate' versus `invention' for these accounts are
the wrong conceptual tools, judging the accounts as a transcript. These accounts should be
regarded as either `faithful' or `unfaithful' to the historical event. A public speech included
in an ancient history should be seen as having a two-pronged goal: being appropriate to
the historical event and being appropriate to the historical work as a whole. These goals
were pursued in tandem by the best of the historians, and probably also by the author of
Luke-Acts.[47]
It is of great importance that recognition be given to the close connection between the Pentecost
event and Peter's speech, which shows how the phenomenon of the Spirit is interpreted in the sermon.
[48]
The Gospel writer utilized the speech of Peter as the explanation to the Pentecost event that he
portrays. Consequently, the speech of Peter in Acts 2 is a faithful abstract [49] of his real speech, which is the
expression of the actual event that was presented by Luke.[50] Thus, it can be maintained that the Lukan
representation of Peter's speech is authentic, because it encompasses the true essence of what the apostle
actually spoke at Pentecost.
E. Hilgert evaluates the mechanism of Luke in terms of meeting the standard of ancient
historiography:
When Luke's speeches are evaluated in terms of the Hellenistic canons of "appropriateness"
(Î X) and "genuine contests" (•'Â •), it is clear that they meet both
standards. Luke presents speeches reflective of situations of tension and is concerned to
relate his speeches to their contexts both in terms of general situation and of inner
thematic ties.[51]
The quotation of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2, as the main text of Peter's sermon, becomes pivotal in
understanding the Pentecost event and its meaning as a theological agenda of the Gospel writer in Acts.
[52]
The Pentecost event is strategically placed by Luke in the outset of his Acts narrative, in order to show
that the task of evangelization started with the empowering of the disciples by the Spirit in Acts 2. Luke's
theological intent becomes very obvious: the narration of the Pentecost event, and the quotation of Joel's
prophecy in relation to the event, point to the charismatic empowering of the church to become Christ's
witness, as a fulfillment of the promise of the Father which was reiterated by Christ before he ascended.[53]
CONCLUSION
The reception by the disciples of the gift of the Spirit in Acts 2 indicates that they received the
prophetic gift. The missiological significance of the experience of the Spirit is underscored, and the
prediction of Jesus was fulfilled, when the early church was filled and empowered by the Spirit. The motif
of empowerment to witness underlies the main theme of Luke in portraying the expansion of the Gospel
into all the world through the empowered church as the prophetic witness of Christ, who sent the gift of the
Spirit.
The Gospel writer dramatically depicts the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost in his narrative. The
appropriateness of his use of Peter's speech at Pentecost is made clear by the recognition of how it meets
the writer's dual purpose. First, the sermon of Peter represents the historical circumstance of the Pentecost
event itself. Secondly, the quotation of Joel's oracle in Peter's sermon is used by Luke as a means of
explaining the historical significance of the event by equating it with the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 in the
Pentecost event of Acts 2 narrative.
[2] Richard D. Israel, "Joel 2:28-32 (3:1-5 MT): Prism for Pentecost," in Charismatic Experiences
in History, ed. Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1985), p. 12,
notes that the deletion of Joel 3:5b [2:32b] in Acts 2 that talks about the Lord calling from Jerusalem
is prescribed by Acts 1:8. Israel regards that "Luke is careful to strip all vestiges of Jerusalemite
particularism from the universal scope of his proclamation." Nevertheless, the "divine call" in Joel
3:5b [2:32b] though omitted in the quote reappears in Acts 2:39 in relation to the universal promise
of the Spirit.
[4] It appears that the climax of Peter's proclamation is stated in Acts 2:24: "But God raised him
from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its
hold on him." It is important to recognize this point since the climax of Peter's sermon, that started
in Acts 2:14 explaining the phenomenon of the Spirit, suddenly shifted as it picked up the Christ
event and highlighted verse 24 that emphasizes Jesus' resurrection that was done by the
Father. David J. Williams, Acts, New International Biblical Commentary, ed. W. Ward Gasque
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1990), p. 51, concurs that: "With the declaration of
verse 24, the speech had reached its climax. It only remained now to show that a resurrection had
been foretold in Scripture, that its reference was to the Messiah, and that by fulfilling the prophecy,
Jesus 'was declared with power' to be the Messiah."
[5] Marion L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville,
KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), p. 31, perceives that verses 14-40 contains the sermon of
Peter ("with some interaction with the crowd"). Soards further notes that verse 41 recapitulates the
speech scenario by giving a conclusion, and then Luke comes up with a synopsis of the church's
beginning days at Jerusalem.
[6] Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, trans. B. Noble and G. Shinn, rev.
and updated R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1971), p. 178, argues correctly
that basically the citation of Joel is to explain the prophesying.
[7] Ralph P. Martin, New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christians Students, vol. 2, The
Acts, The Letters, The Apocalypse, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1978), p. 75, notes the two main purposes of Luke in citing the Pentecostal experience of the
disciples: (1) the "universal" coming of the Holy Spirit as a "divine gift" which is linked to the
"exaltation" of Christ (2:33) wherein "the new age begun by Spirit's presence and power;" and (2)
the focus on Peter's message that the messianic age is confirmed by God through signs and that he is
"acting in a new way and in decisive power."
[8] The issue of the transfer motif of Luke is very crucial at this point. It states in Acts 2:32-33:
"This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right
hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out
this that you both see and hear." (NRSV) Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p. 49,
points out that the explanation of Peter is utilized by Luke to describe "the charismatic Spirit from
Jesus to the disciples." It is logical then to maintain with Stronstad that "having become the
exclusive bearer of the Holy Spirit at His baptism, Jesus becomes the giver of the Spirit at
Pentecost." Stronstad further explains that "this transfer of the Spirit, the disciples become the heirs
and successors to the earthly charismatic ministry of Jesus; that is, because Jesus has poured out the
charismatic Spirit upon them the disciples will continue to do and teach those things which Jesus
began to do and teach (Acts 1:1)." See also Richard F. Zehnle, Peter's Pentecost Discourse:
Tradition and Lukan Reinterpretation in Peter's Speeches of Acts 2 and 3, Society of Biblical
Literature Monograph Series, ed. Robert A. Kraft, vol. 15 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1971),
p. 123.
[9] James B. Shelton, Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-
Acts (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991), p. 128, observes that since it is notable
that Luke emphasizes the empowerment aspect of the gift of the Spirit in the ascension scenes in
Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8: "Clearly, in the fulfillment of the promise Luke
emphasizes not repentance, initial confession of Jesus as Lord, or baptism of the disciples,
but witness inspired by the Holy Spirit." Shelton further notes that the infilling with the Spirit in
Luke-Acts consistently represents "inspired witness." Cf. Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of
St. Luke, pp. 50-52. For an additional discourse on the synonymous Lukan expressions of the
"filling" and "baptism" with the Spirit see C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
The Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols., The International Critical Commentary, eds. J. A. Emerton, C. E.
B. Cranfield and G. N. Stanton (Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, 1994), vol. 1, pp. 115 ff. See
also French L. Arrington, "The Indwelling, Baptism, and Infilling With the Holy Spirit: A
Differentiation of Terms," Pneuma 3 (Fall 1981): 1-10.
[10] So also James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic
Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Philadelphia, PA:
Westminster Press, 1975), p. 155, who concludes that the disciples' experience of the Spirit of God
on Pentecost after Jesus death gave them "both impulse and urgency to testify for him." The
"impulse" and "urgency" to be a witness for Christ as Dunn describes is correct. Nevertheless it
should be appreciated in terms of the empowering aspect of the gift of the Spirit which is the stress
of Luke's pneumatology. See also Barrett, pp. 78 ff.; and Stronstad,The Charismatic Theology of
St. Luke, pp. 49 ff. Cf. Robert Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts, Studies of the New Testament
and Its World, ed. John Riches (Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, 1982), p. 106, in his contention
of the kingdom of God as the concern of Jesus and not the kingdom of Israel emphasizes the
empowering of the disciples to be witnesses for him.
[11] Israel, pp. 10-11, observes that Luke shows consideration in the short account of the Pentecost
event and illuminates the significance of the event by using Peter's reply to the response of the
public.
[12] E. Earle Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light
of Modern Research (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991), p. 100, comments that the
development of Peter's sermon is from midrash to testimonia. Ellis points that explicit midrash was
"a means to establish a particular interpretation of Scripture while isolated proof-texts did not." He
suggests further that it is plausible that "a midrash of a given text preceded its use as an isolated
'testimony' in which a Christian understanding of the text is assumed."
[13] Zehnle, p. 123, remarks the with the aid of the quote from Joel, Peter distinguishes the
phenomenon as "the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit."
[14] Menzies, p. 215, asserts that "Luke has placed his unique stamp on the text." Here the pesher
of Joel 2:28-32 represents "Luke's understanding of the Pentecostal bestowal of the Spirit."
[16] See Zehnle, pp. 111-112, e.g. in his survey of some of the "difficulties to historicity" of the
Pentecost event.
[17] See Dunn, pp. 135-156; and I. Howard Marshall, "The Significance of Pentecost," Scottish
Journal of Theology 30 (1977): 360-65, who both persuasively argue for the historicity of the
account that creates a marvelous relevance for the growth of the church in Acts. Contra Haenchen,
pp. 172-175, who maintains that the description of the Pentecost event is a fictional literary
construction made by Luke. Lincoln, p. 209, contends that Luke appropriated the traditions and
"reworked and reinterpreted them to create his own history-like narrative."
[18] See Exodus 23:16; 34:22; Leviticus 23:15-16; Numbers 28:26; and Deuteronomy 16:9-12; cf.
Acts 20:16; and 1 Corinthians 16:8.
[19] A good discussion on the reckoning of the Jewish and Christian view of Pentecost in Acts 2 is
given by Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 4, The Beginnings of
Christianity, part 1, eds. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (London, England: Macmillan,
1933; reprint ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 16-17.
[20] It appears that Peter's discourse is Luke's "keynote address" which defines the theological
position explaining the following acts of the apostles on missions that led to the growth of the
church on which Luke and his contemporaries are accustomed. See Zehnle, pp. 130-131.
[21] The concept of Peter's preaching in Acts 2 obviously corresponds to the situation and the
moment of conveying. However, similar pattern can be sketched in the kerygmatic discourses of
Acts 3:12-26; 5:30-32; 10:36-43; 13:16-41. See F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek
Text With Introduction and Commentary, 3rd rev. and enl. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), p. 120.
[22] C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development (London, England: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1936; reprint ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980), pp. 20-24, analyzes the
apostolic preaching in Acts according to the following manner: (1) the commencement of the time
of fulfillment of the prophecy (2:16; 3:18, 24); (2) the fulfillment was through the ministry, death
and resurrection of Jesus that was predetermined by God--(a) Davidic descent (2:30-31 from Ps.
132:11); (b) ministry (2:22; 3:22); (c) death (2:23; 3:13-14); (d) resurrection (2:24-31; 3:15; 4:10);
(3) the resurrection exalted Jesus as Christ placed at God's right hand and head of the new Israel (Ps.
110:1; 2:33:36; 3:13: 4:11 from Ps. 118:22, cf. 31); (4) the Holy Spirit as sign of Christ's present
glory and power is in the church (2:17-21 from Joel 2:28-32 [3:1-5], 32, 33); (5) the consummation
of the Messianic era will be on Christ's imminent return (3:21; 10:42); and (6) the appeal to
repentance for forgiveness of sins and promise of salvation and the offer of the Holy Spirit (2:38-39
citing Joel 2:32 [3:5] and Isa. 57:19; 3:19, 25-26 quoting Gen. 12:3; 4:12; 5:31; 10:43).
[23] "The design of the sermons, however, offers an astonishing congruence with the earliest
kerygma in I Cor. 15:3-5 and turns out to be, therefore, historical at its base." See the discussion of
Leonhard Goppelt,Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols., The Variety and Unity of the Apostolic
Witness to Christ, vol. 2, trans. John E. Alsup, ed. Jürgen Roloff (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), p. 6.
[24] E.g. Henry J. Cadbury, F. J. Foakes Jackson, and Kirsopp Lake, "The Greek and Jewish
Traditions of Writing History," in The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 2, The Beginnings of Christianity,
part 1, eds. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (London, England: Macmillan, 1933; reprint
ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 13, maintains that: "From Thucydides
downwards, speeches reported by the historians are confessedly pure imagination. They belong to
the final literary stage. If they have any nucleus of fact behind them, it would be the nearest outline
in ßZ." For more thorough discussion on the relation between Thucydides and the
speeches in Acts see T. Francis Glasson, "The Speeches in Acts and Thucydides," The Expository
Times 76 (February 1965): 165. See also Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of
Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 415-427, for
the answer to the issues raised on the reliability of Lukan summaries of the speeches.
[25] For more discussion on the credibility of Peter's sermon in Acts 2 see Jerry Horner, "The
Credibility and the Eschatology of Peter's Speech at Pentecost," Pneuma 1 (Spring 1980): 22-
31. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. Donald A. Hagner (Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993), p. 349, argues that although "a basic pattern
can be detected in the speeches in Acts, there is also considerable variety, which lends them
historical verisimilitude." Ladd, p. 350, further points out that Luke apparently gave a reliable
portrayal of the primitive theology of the early church showing the historical authenticity of the
speeches in Acts.
[26] "Thucydides: The History of the Peloponnesian War," in The Great Books of the Western
World, eds. Robert Maynard Hutchins et al., Herodotus Thucydides, vol. 6 (Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago, 1952), p. 354.
[27] Polybius, The Histories, 6 vols., trans. W. R. Paton, The Loeb Classical Library, ed. T. E.
Page et al (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967-68), vol. 1, pp. 377-379.
[28] Ibid., vol. 6, pp. 66-69, describes his ideals in recording history as follows: "For those
authors, when in the course of their work they describe, for instance . . . adding inventions of their
own; and they by no means approve of me, when I simply give a true and unvarnished account of
such matters. The same remarks apply to descriptions of battles, the reports of speeches, and the
other parts of history. In all these--I include also subsequent portions of my works--I may be justly
pardoned if I am found to be using the same style, or the same disposition and treatment, or even
actually the same words as on previous occasion; or again should I happen to be mistaken in the
names of mountains and rivers or in my statements about the characteristics of places. For in all
such matters the large scale of my work is a sufficient excuse. It is only if I am found guilty of
deliberate mendacity or if it be for the sake of some profit, that I do not ask to be excused, as I have
already stated several times in the course of this work when speaking on this subject."
[30] See the complete speech of Claudius in Tacitus, The Annals, in The Complete Works of
Tacitus, trans. Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb, ed. Moses Hadas, The Modern
Library (New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 1942), pp. 240-242.
[31] The inscription was found in early sixteenth century is a bronze tablet discovered in Lyons
known as Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum xiii, 1668. The published version of the inscription
compared to that of Tacitus is in Cornelii Taciti Annalium, ed. with intro. and notes by H.
Furneaux, 2nd ed. rev. by H. F. Pelham and C. C. Fisher (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1907),
pp. 55-60. Furneaux, pp. 54-55, claims: "On the whole, the substance of the existing portions [of
the inscribed speech] may be said to have been given [by Tacitus], and the fact that they are
represented by but a few sentences would go to prove that the whole speech (as indeed the
fragments themselves suggest) was long and discursive, and could only be brought into a space
proportionate to the narrative of the Annals by much omission and abridgement." As quoted by W.
Ward Gasque, "The Speeches of Acts: Dibelius Reconsidered," in New Dimensions in New
Testament Study, eds. R. N. Longnecker and M. C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1974), p. 244.
[32] Conrad Gempf, "Public Speaking and Published Accounts," in The Book of Acts in Its First
Century Setting, vol. 1, eds. Bruce W. Winter, I. Howard Marshall, and David Gill, The Book of
Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, eds. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993), pp. 284-285, comments: "Overall, we may say that
although the historian used considerable freedom in reporting the text of the speech, it is yet evident
that quite a lot of effort must have been put in to understand Claudius' original and reproduce its
main points in an orderly fashion. Tacitus conveyed the general sense of the original speech and
something of the character of the speaker."
[33] Gasque, p. 245, remarks: "Thus the style and expression of the speech as found in
the Annals belong (with the exception of a few verbal parallels) to Tacitus. The matter of the
speech has been condensed, re-arranged, and adapted. But the ancient historian has remained true
to the essential ideas of the original."
[34] See Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, in The Life and Works of Flavius
Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Philadelphia, PA: David McKay Co., n.d.), p. 49.
[36] Josephus, The Jewish War, ed. Gaalya Cornfeld (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1982), p. 10. Cf. Josephus as translated by Whiston, p. 605.
[38] Gempf, p. 291.
[39] So with Cornfeld, p. 70, who observes that: "Josephus provides a different speech
in Antiquities XV, 127-146, with echoes of classical Greek rhetoric; but both versions of Josephus
contain similar themes of hope for victory, with the help of God, and harsh condemnation of the
Nabateans' ritual atrocity."
[41] The fabrication of speeches may be an accepted practice at that time but it is not
prevalent. Thucydides and Polybius were against it. Regardless, the speech should be timely and
relevant to the incident. Cf. Gasque, pp. 245-246.
[42] Martin Dibelius, Studies in Acts of the Apostles, ed. Heinrich Greeven, trans. M. Ling and P.
Schubert (London, England: SCM Press Ltd., 1956), pp. 138-185. Dibelius, p. 139, insinuates that
"ancient historian was not aware of any obligation to reproduce only, or even preferably, the text of
a speech which was actually made." Dibelius, p. 175, further points out that the speeches execute
their role in cultivating the theme of the book of Acts. Finally, Dibelius, p. 183, concludes that
Luke "made new use of the traditional art of composing speeches." Luke utilized this method to
explain the circumstances and "to make clear the ways of God." The work of Dibelius is followed
by a few other scholars such as Haenchen (1965), e.g. pp. 104, 185; Zehnle (1971), e.g. pp. 60, 136
ff.; H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, trans. J. Limburg, A. T. Kraabel, and D. H. Juel, ed. E. J.
Epp and C. R. Matthews, Hermeneia, NT ed. H. Koester et al (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press,
1987, German ed. 1972), e.g. p. xliv; and Goppelt (1976), e.g. p. 6. See also the latest work of C. K.
Barrett (1994), e.g. vol. 1, p. 133.
[43] F. F. Bruce, "The Speeches in Acts: Thirty Years After," in Reconciliation and Hope, ed.
Robert Banks (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), pp. 53-68. See
Gasque, pp. 232-250; cf. W. Ward Gasque, "The Book of Acts and History," in Unity and Diversity
in New Testament Theology, ed. R. A. Guelich (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1978), pp. 58-63. See also Hemer, pp. 415-427.
[45] For a thorough survey on these differing views see Soards, pp. 1-11.
[47] Ibid., p. 259.
[48] See footnote number 86 of Ellis, p. 100, who notes the sermon pattern in Acts as typified by
Peter's sermon in Acts 2: "Acts 2:14-36: Theme and initial text (14-21; Joel 2:28-32 = 3:1-5) +
Exposition (22-24) + Supplementary text (25-28; Ps 16:8-11) + Exposition (29-34) + Final text and
application (34 ff.; Ps 110:1)."
[49] Gasque, "The Speeches of Acts," p. 249, claims that the speeches in Acts are "more
probably--and this would be likely even in terms of the view that they are the author's own
composition--they are intended to be regarded by the reader as the author's synopses of actual
addresses."
[50] Soards, p. 31, claims that: "Whatever the original form or forms of this story, Luke offers an
account of the spread of the gospel as the result of an eschatological (miraculous) act of
God. Verses 14-40 are the speech by Peter on Pentecost." See also Menzies, pp. 214-215, who
acknowledges that Luke's "unique stamp on the text" is noteworthy and that "understanding of the
Pentecostal bestowal of the Spirit" in Luke's pneumatology cannot be bypassed in the way Joel text
is cited.
[51] Earle Hilgert, "Speeches in Acts and Hellenistic Canons of Historiography and Rhetoric,"
in Good News in History: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, ed. Ed. L. Miller (Atlanta, GA: Scholars
Press, 1993), p. 107.
[52] Here the Lukan understanding of the eschatological bestowal of the Spirit comes into
surface. Barrett, vol. 1, pp. 132-133, hints that the speech is very much related to Pentecost
event. The use of Joel in Acts 17-21 "which is little more than a proof text intended to bring out the
eschatological significance of the event, are probably Luke's own work and go with his narrative of
a creative event which makes possible, in several senses, the universal testimony which believers
are to bear."
[53] Horner, p. 24, proposes that each of the Acts speeches has a function in the geographical
progress of the gospel. The Spirit empowered servants continued the ministry of the Lord. Horner,
pp. 24-25, continues to suggest that: "Throughout the book of Acts Luke depicts the confirmation of
the gospel in the deeds and in the preaching of the apostles. Hence the content of the preaching and
the manner in which it was done were of equal importance to its geographical extension."
http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj4/cruz.html
------------------------------
Unmasking Prejudice
It is important for Trinitarians and Oneness believers to communicate with each other
and to develop a greater understanding of one another's beliefs. The back cover of
Beisner's booklet promises to provide "essential and reliable information and insights"
on Oneness Pentecostalism. Unfortunately, the booklet fails in this purpose and actually
creates significant obstacles for understanding and communication. The prejudicial
slant does not foster dialogue, much of the information is simply wrong, the
presentation of Oneness Pentecostal doctrinal views is seriously flawed, and the
presentation of "historic, orthodox understanding" is surprisingly narrow and
controversial.
Strident Polemics
The title itself provide an indication of problems to come, for it uses a derogatory and
misleading label to characterize the movement it seeks to understand. This branch of
Pentecostalism uses the designations of Apostolic, Jesus Name, and Oneness to identify
itself. The label "Jesus Only" arose as a description of its baptismal formula, but soon
opponents began using it against Oneness adherents, erroneously claiming that they
denied the Father and the Holy Spirit. As a result Oneness Pentecostals today do not
designate themselves by the term "Jesus Only" and generally consider it misleading and
offensive. Similarly, the booklet's use of three theatrical masks to symbolize the Oneness
doctrine is inaccurate and inappropriate.
It is evident that the author and publisher wish to portray Oneness Pentecostals as
cultists and false religionists. The booklet is one of the newest in a series by various
authors entitledZondervan Guide to Cults and Religious Movements. On the cover, the most
prominent word in this series title is Cults. The introductory booklet to the series
is Unmasking the Cults. The last booklet in the series summarizes all the movements
studied, and its title is Truth and Error: Comparative Charts of Cults and Christianity. The
other twelve titles in the series are Jehovah's Witnesses; Masonic Lodge; Mormonism; New
Age Movement; Satanism; Unification Church; Mind Sciences; Astrology and Psychic
Phenomena; Buddhism, Taoism and Other Far Eastern Religions; Goddess Worship, Witchcraft
and Neo-Paganism; Hinduism, TM and Hare Krishna; and Unitarian Universalism.
Classifying Oneness Pentecostals with these groups implies a spiritual similarity and a
common satanic origin. At the least, it seems that the author and publisher discredit all
Oneness Pentecostal experiences with God. But how can they venture to make such a
judgment with no indication that they have ever attended Oneness Pentecostal worship
services or interacted significantly with Oneness Pentecostals on a personal level?
How can they seemingly denigrate all faith, repentance, reception of the Holy Spirit,
spiritual gifts, and spiritual fruit among Oneness Pentecostals while apparently
accepting the same manifestations among Trinitarian Pentecostals? Have they no
concern that they could be ascribing works of the Holy Spirit to Satan, something Jesus
warned strongly against in Matthew 12:22-32? In this connection, it is noteworthy that
many Oneness Pentecostals first believed on the Lord, repented, or received the Holy
Spirit in Trinitarian churches and then continued serving the Lord in Oneness churches.
The author's willingness to excoriate Oneness Pentecostals for their doctrine of God is
particularly surprising in light of views expressed in his book God in Three Persons:
The booklet begins with historical background and statistics. Here we find many
egregious errors, such as these examples from pages 8 and 9:
· Claim: There have been two "recent schisms" in the United Pentecostal Church
International (UPCI). First, in 1986 a "3,000-member" church left. Response: The church
in question had about one-fifth this number at the time, and there was no schism.
· Claim: In 1993 "over 200 pastors" left the UPCI rather than "pledge conformity with
the UPCI's 'Holiness Standard.'" The booklet repeats a 1993 prediction that "800
ministers would leave the denomination soon" and comments, "It is not yet disclosed
how many defected." Response: In the spring of 1993, the UPCI reported that 50 pastors
withdrew by missing the final deadline to sign an annual reaffirmation of two sections
of the UPCI's Articles of Faith entitled "Fundamental Doctrine" and "Holiness." A total
of 120 ministers did not sign the affirmation, representing 1.6 percent of the total of
7,668 in the United States and Canada in 1992.(2)
· Claim: "About 75 percent (1.03 million) were affiliated with the UPCI." Response: In
1997, the UPCI published the following statistics as of midyear: In the U.S. and Canada,
there were 8,091 ministers; 3,821 churches (not including daughter works); and a
reported Easter attendance of 428,513. In the rest of the world, there were 14,588
ministers; 20,348 churches and preaching points; and 1,908,943 constituents. (7) If we
estimate total constituency in the U.S. and Canada to be approximately twice the
reported Sunday attendance, as does the Assemblies of God, then as of 1998 the total
worldwide constituency is about 3 million.
· Claim: "The schism of 1993 throws membership figures in doubt from that year
forward. Before the schism [1992], worldwide membership was about 1.1 million.
About two years later [1994], it decreased to about 1.02 million." Response: The booklet
provides no source for these erroneous statistics or the mythical decrease. In 1992
reported Easter attendance in the U.S. and Canada was 384,610, and total foreign
constituency was 1,050,973.(8) In 1994 Easter attendance was 400,991, and foreign
constituency was 1,623,030.(9) The respective growth rates for this two-year period are
4.3 percent and 54.4 percent.
Numerous other errors exist in the booklet, but these will suffice to demonstrate the
extent of the problem. The research is careless, to say the least. The booklet consistently
uses outdated and false information that puts Oneness Pentecostals in an unfavorable
light when accurate, current information is readily available, thereby revealing that
prejudice has significantly compromised the scholarship. The seriousness of the errors
calls into question the integrity and trustworthiness of the entire enterprise.
The bulk of the booklet is devoted to three theological topics: the doctrines of Christ,
Trinity, and salvation. It contains numerous quotations from various Oneness authors,
but never when it gives the "basic statement of the Oneness position" on each topic
(pages 11, 25, and 51). In each case, it significantly distorts the Oneness position and
thus argues against a straw man.
On the doctrine of Christ, it reduces the Oneness teaching concerning the relation of
Jesus to the Father and Holy Spirit as follows: "Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit."
On the doctrine of God, the booklet represents Oneness believers as saying "Jesus = the
Father = the Holy Spirit." As they stand, these statements are simplistic, incomplete, out
of context, and therefore distortions. Here are more accurate statements, the first one
from the UPCI Articles of Faith:
Before the incarnation, this one true God manifested Himself in divers ways. In the
incarnation, He manifests Himself in the
Son, who walked among men. As He works in the lives of believers, He manifests
Himself as the Holy Spirit. . . . This one
true God was manifest in the flesh, that is, in His Son Jesus Christ. (10)
The doctrine known as Oneness can be stated in two affirmations: (1) There is one
God with no distinction of persons; (2)
Jesus Christ is all the fullness of the Godhead incarnate. . . . Jesus is the one God
incarnate. . . . Jesus is the Father incarnate.
. . . The Holy Spirit is literally the Spirit that was in Jesus Christ. . . . The UPCI teaches
that the one God existed as Father
and Holy Spirit before his incarnation as Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and that while
Jesus walked on earth as God Himself
incarnate, the Spirit of God continued to be omnipresent. (11)
We do not believe that the Father is the Son, [but] we do believe that the Father
is in the Son (John 14:10). Since Jesus is
the name of the Son of God, both as to His deity as Father and as to His humanity as
Son, it is the name of both the Father
and the Son.(12)
The booklet says the true view is that "God, the agent of regeneration and remission,
may elect to use it [baptism] or not. . . . Christ's blood, not water, washes away sins"
(pages 57-58). Oneness Pentecostals accept this view. They would argue, however, that
while God is sovereign in establishing a plan of salvation and then in judging an
individual's fulfillment of that plan, from the human perspective water baptism is not
an option but a divine command to obey and a necessary act of faith. The following
statements summarize their true views:
Water baptism is not a magical act; it is without spiritual value unless accompanied
by conscious faith and repentance.
Baptism is important only because God has ordained it to be so. God could have
chosen to remit sin without baptism, but in
the New Testament church He has chosen to do so at the moment of baptism. Our
actions at baptism do not provide
salvation or earn it from God; God alone remits sins based on Christ's atoning death.
When we submit to water baptism
according to God's plan, God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin.
The Bible describes water and Spirit baptism as two distinct events. . . .
The New Testament particularly associates the Holy Spirit with God's work of
regeneration and His dwelling in man. . . .
God could have chosen to remit sins without water baptism, but we exceed our
authority if we assert that He will or list
circumstances under which He will. . . . We should obey the full gospel to the utmost
of our understanding and capacity,
encourage everyone else to do the same, and leave eternal judgment to God. (13)
For a detailed discussion of the various doctrinal and historical points that the booklet
raises, see the following books by David K. Bernard, published by Word Aflame
Press: The Oneness of God, The Oneness View of Jesus Christ, The New Birth, and Oneness
and Trinity: A.D. 100-300.
· It relies heavily on postbiblical tradition to support the doctrine of the Trinity and Trinitarian
baptism, when Scripture alone should be our doctrinal authority, in practice as well as in theory.
For the "basic statement of the doctrine of the Trinity" it quotes the Athanasian Creed
instead of Scripture (pages 42-43). It asserts, "The proper formula for water baptism is
triune," and as proof it cites the following authorities: Matthew 28:19, the Didache,
Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and the church historians Sozomen and
Socrates (pages 71-72).
· Ironically, on other subjects the booklet ignores prominent and even majority teachings in
church history, thereby falsely portraying its views as the only "historic, orthodox" ones. For
instance, most of the writers it cites as authorities for the baptismal formula taught that
baptism effects the remission of sins and is part of the new birth. So taught Justin,
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and many more. (14) It vehemently denounces
as cultic the teaching that baptism is part of the experience of salvation, yet it
conveniently omits that throughout history and even today most professing Christians
have affirmed this very doctrine, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and
Lutherans (the first Protestants). The Nicene Creed affirms "one baptism for the
remission of sins," and the framers clearly meant that in the ceremony of water baptism
God washes away sins.
If the creeds and the ancient writers known as the church fathers represent so-called
historic orthodoxy on the doctrine of God, why do they not equally represent historic
orthodoxy on the doctrine of water baptism? The truth is that the author is highly
selective in what he deems orthodoxy. To support the doctrine of the Trinity he invokes
the creeds and fathers and denounces anyone who would deviate from their supposed
authority, yet he renounces their authority when it comes to water baptism.
Similarly, the booklet says that the holiness teachings of the UPCI "are strange and
legalistic and lack biblical ground" (page 74), yet it ignores the strong teachings of
ancient writers such as Tertullian and Cyprian on this very subject. While embracing
John Calvin's doctrine of predestination, the booklet says nothing about Calvin's
teachings on practical holiness and the laws he promulgated on this subject in Geneva,
which were stricter than the voluntary disciplines that the UPCI has adopted in
obedience to the Scriptures.
· The presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity suffers from the classic weaknesses of the
doctrine, namely tendencies toward tritheism and subordinationism. Many Trinitarians will
have problems affirming his views in this area.
For instance, the booklet argues strongly that the Godhead is a substance that subsists
in three centers of consciousness. "The term person can properly denote self-conscious
things other than human beings, such as angels, demons, imaginary self-conscious
beings, and each of the three persons of God" (page 47). Interestingly, A Handbook of
Theological Terms asserts, "No important Christian theologian has argued that there are
three self-conscious beings in the godhead,"(15) but this booklet certainly comes close to
doing so.
One passage of Scripture seems to give the author particular trouble: "Now the Lord is
that Spirit" (II Corinthians 3:17). To avoid saying that "the Spirit" here is the Holy Spirit,
he argues that there are at least two divine Spirits, "the Holy Spirit" and "the spirit that
is God's substance": "There are many spirits other than the Holy Spirit, both literal (e.g.,
angels, demons, the spirits of men, and the spirit that is God's substance [John 4:24])
and metaphorical" (page 34).
To avoid saying that "the Lord" in II Corinthians 3:17 is Jesus, he indicates that Jesus
and Jehovah are not the same being and that there is more than one divine Lord: "The
word Lord in 1 Corinthians 8:6 denotes Jesus, while in 2 Corinthians 3:17 it may instead
denote Jehovah. . . . 1 Cor. 8:6 teaches only that one Lord is in special relationship to
believers, not that there is only one lord at all" (page 35, text and note 91).
The admits a certain subordination in the Godhead, using terms that one could apply to
children or to subjects of an absolute monarch: "Although it affirms their equality of
nature, Trinitarianism acknowledges a subordination of will by the Son to the Father
and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son" (p. 39).
· When presenting the "historic, orthodox" view of salvation, the booklet advocates a strict, five-
point Calvinism, including unconditional election and unconditional eternal security. The
implication is that all who do not adhere to this view--and the vast majority of
professing Christians do not--are heretical. Here are some surprising statements based
on this view:
"New birth is a gift of God's sovereign grace, independent of the sinner's actions"
(page 64).
"Faith and repentance follow new birth" (page 65).
"Acts 2:1-4 does not report the disciples' receiving the Spirit" (page 62).
Conclusion
In summary, it appears that the purpose of the booklet is not to engage in serious,
respectful dialogue with the goal of ascertaining biblical truth, but to prejudice readers
against Oneness Pentecostals by labeling them a cult, presenting a superficial caricature
of their teachings, and leaving a false impression that many are abandoning this
message while only a few are embracing it. These seem to be desperate tactics
motivated by a fear that if people indeed give careful consideration to the message of
Oneness Pentecostals, then many will embrace it.
When sinners on the Day of Pentecost cried out to the apostles, "Men and brethren,
what shall we do?" the apostle Peter responded, "Repent, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:37-38).
By contrast, the author of this booklet would have responded, in effect, "You can do
nothing but hope that God has already chosen you for salvation. If He has, you will be
born again before you believe on Jesus Christ and before you repent of your sins.
Assuming you are regenerated, then you will automatically believe and repent, and
afterwards if you wish you may be baptized, although it is not necessary for the
remission of sins. If you do get baptized, you do not need to use the name of Jesus, but
you should invoke three divine persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--in
accordance with the doctrine of the Trinity that will be developed over the next three
centuries. Finally, the Spirit will have filled you, although not according to the
experience that we have just received and you have just witnessed, for after all, we
already had the Spirit anyway. One day you too will realize that you already received
the Spirit, and then you may wish to seek for an optional baptism of the Spirit."
The contrast is stark. Let us embrace the message and experience of the apostles.
Notes
1. i.E. Calvin Beisner, God in Three Persons (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1984), 18.
2. ii."Ministers Who Have Not Signed Affirmation," unpublished list compiled by UPCI Church
Administration, 20 May 1993. See also Financial Reports, United Pentecostal Church International, Year
Ending June 30, 1992, vi.
6. vi.Talmadge L. French, "Oneness Pentecostalism in Global Perspective: The Worldwide Growth and
Organizational Expansion of the Oneness Pentecostal Movement in Historical and Theological Context,"
M.A. Thesis, Wheaton College Graduate School, Wheaton, IL, 1998.
11.xi.David K. Bernard, The Oneness View of Jesus Christ (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1994), 9 12-
13, 141.
12.xii.David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1983), 127.
13.xiii. David K. Bernard, The New Birth (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1984), 131, 152, 187, 307.
http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj4/bernard.html
____________________