CYBERJOURNAL FOR PENTECOSTAL-CHARISMATIC RESEARCH

 
“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

CYBERJOURNAL FOR PENTECOSTAL-CHARISMATIC RESEARCH

"Pentecostal Spirituality: Ecumenical Potential and Challenge" 

Dr. Daniel E. Albrecht

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. 

Before we proceed it might be helpful to present a working definition of spirituality.

When we speak of spirituality in this paper, we mean the lived experience which
actualizes a fundamental dimension of the human being, the spiritual dimension,
namely "the whole of one's spiritual or religious experience, one's beliefs, convictions,
and patterns of thought, one's emotions and behavior in respect to what is ultimate, or
God."(3) Little distinguishes Pentecostalism other than its spirituality. Its trademarks
include religious practices, social behaviors, emphasis on individual religious
experiences and perceptions of the world.(4) As we hope to show, Pentecostal
spirituality fosters a deep, even mystical, piety that emphasizes the immanent sense of
the divine. The belief system accentuates an understanding that "gifts of the Spirit,"
including the subjective religious experience of "Spirit baptism" appear and operate as
normative in the life of the Pentecostal churches. This conviction informs all of
Pentecostal religious experiences and expressions.(5) 

Part I of this paper seeks to describe the characteristic qualities of Pentecostal

spirituality.(6) In order to explicate the major qualities of the Pentecostal spirituality we
will proceed in two ways. First, we will suggest six selected indigenous ritual symbols,
each symbolizing a cluster of qualities, characteristics, concerns, and inclinations of
Pentecostal spirituality. Second, we will present a general outline of the characteristic
qualities of Pentecostal spirituality within the organizing symbol of "experiencing
God." 

Part I --CHARACTERISTIC QUALITIES OF

PENTECOSTAL SPIRITUALITY

Pentecostal spirituality can be thought of as the lived experience of a particular

configuration of beliefs, practices, and sensibilities(7) that put the believer in an ongoing
relationship to the Spirit of God. In order to explicate the major qualities of the
Pentecostal spirituality we will proceed in two ways.(8) First, we will suggest six selected
emic (or indigenous) ritual symbols,(9)that function as primary factors within Pentecostal
spirituality.(10) Each factor symbolizes a cluster of sensibilities, qualities, beliefs, and
practices connected to Pentecostal spirituality. Second, we will present a general outline
of the characteristic qualities of Pentecostal spirituality within the organizing symbol
of experiencing God. We begin by selecting six emic ritual symbols [see appendix for our
presuppositions and definitions of ritual and Pentecostalism]. 
A. Selected (Emic/indigenous) Ritual Symbols:

Elemental Factors of Pentecostal Spirituality 

Elsewhere we have described and interpreted a variety of data concerning Pentecostal

ritual symbols.(11) Here, we select six fundamental indigenous symbols central to
Pentecostal ritual and thus important to the understanding of Pentecostal spirituality in
general. We will consider them as elemental factors for understanding particular
qualities of Pentecostal spirituality. We chose emic or folk terms, that is, familiar
idiomatic concepts rooted in Pentecostal parlance. The following six emic symbols
commonly surface in each of the Pentecostal communities that we studied. Each of
these symbols enjoys wide use among American Pentecostals: leadership, worship, word,
gifts, ministry, and mission(s). We begin with the leadership factor. 

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. 

Leader(ship) as spokes(wo)man and model. Much of leadership in the Pentecostal

tradition emerges within the role of spokeswoman or spokesman.(12) The prophetic role
is essentially open to any Pentecostal ritualist. And anyone who functions as a
spokeswoman for God leads, at least during the giving of their oracle. As a result of the
prominent prophetic role in the Pentecostal tradition, the symbol of leadership
conforms in part to the prophetic type. The prophetic role within the liturgy continues
to shape the notion of leadership, specifically the role of the Pentecostal pastor. Though
others may bear the message to the faithful, particularly during the ritual, the pastor
must carry out the role of the prophet. Of course, the pastor carries the burden of the
prophet during the preaching rite. But in all of our study churches the senior pastor also
functions as the primary spokesman for the divine during other rites. (13) 

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. 

Leadership as lay (non-specialist/expert). Elders and deacons also represent leadership

in the Sunday ritual. Though the role of elders and deacons varies from church to
church, normally they are all lay and not part of the professional staff of the church.
Their leadership is more a leadership within the congregational life of the church, but
they are also recognizable symbols of leadership within the ritual context to the
discerning eye. Their presence is felt. Often they greet visitors, serve as ushers, make
announcements, help serve communion, pray for the sick, minister around the altars
during prayer times, teach, even preach from the pulpit. Elders, deacons represent the
importance and the prominence of lay leadership in Pentecostal spirituality. 

Leadership as spontaneous and legitimate. Leadership is not limited to the standard

established roles (e.g., pastor, elder, deacon, worship team). Spontaneous leadership
may emerge through nearly any member of the congregation, as one "moved by the
Holy Spirit" takes action.(15) However, the mere action does not assure a resulting
leadership identity. A spontaneous action must be legitimized, emerging acts of
leadership must be recognized. To be legitimate it must be recognized as "from God" or
"Spirit;" it must be "in order" or appropriate to the moment in the service. In other
words, to be legitimated, the congregation (and the established leadership) must
discern the burgeoning leadership's charismatic qualifications.(16) The congregation
must see a spontaneous act of leadership as "anointed" or "operating in the gifts." And if
they are Spirit anointed, and properly operating in the gifts of the Spirit, they must be
recognized as "moving out" during an appropriate moment in the service and with an
appropriate tone or else they will be seen as "not in order." The congregation and the
established leadership must believe in the appropriateness of spontaneous charismatic
leadership. 

Leadership as legitimated by a responsive social dynamic. It is clear that spontaneous

leadership, while available to any individual ritualist, depends on a corporate
legitimation and recognition. In this dynamic we see that even the spontaneous
charisms have a social dimension.(17) And thus, the Pentecostal symbol of leadership
speaks of the social functions of the spirituality. Certainly, spontaneous charismatic
eruptions may symbolize the immediacy of the divine and the docility of the emerging
leader, but they also reveal the complex social dynamic of discernment that either
recognizes an action as legitimate or not. 

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. 

Leadership as a boundary: order and ecstacy. Finally, the Pentecostal ritual leadership

symbolizes a basic binary opposition: order/ecstacy.(20) The Pentecostal service
maintains a leadership balance in part through a dynamic tension between order and
ecstacy. An individual ritual leader, particularly the pastor functions as a symbol of
both order and ecstacy. The pastor must fulfill the congregation's expectations that s/he
can lead them into forms of group ecstacy. On the other hand, the pastor remains
responsible for maintaining the boundaries that provide order. As we have mentioned,
there are various leaders and potential leaders in any of the liturgies of our focus
churches. This variety of leaders must incorporate the order/ecstacy tension, as the
individual pastor must.(21) 

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"

"Worship" represents a set of meanings configured by Pentecostals. Their

understanding and practice of worship lies at the heart of their liturgies and spirituality.
For example, throughout our field research we heard the term continually, "I come for
the worship," or "'Vineyard' has the best worship" or "worship is the most important
part of our service." 

Pentecostals understand worship as having three main connotations: 1) worship as a

way of Christian life, particularly outside of the church services and activities. All of life
is seen as worship, as an expression, a gift, offered to God; 2) worship as the entire
liturgy, the whole of the Pentecostal service, and 3) worship as a specific portion, aspect,
or rite within the overall liturgy. While all three of these connotations contain the
Pentecostal understanding of the symbol, here however, we will draw mainly from the
third. We will consider these dimensions of worship as experimental in the worship
rite: worship as encounter with hierophany, as attentiveness to God, and as yielding a
sensitivity to human need. 

Encounter with hierophany.(24) For some contemporary Pentecostals congregants,

"worship" is another way of saying "presence of God." "Worship" functions as a code
term. For many, it refers to the encounter with the divine as mediated by a sense of the
divine presence or power. Pentecostals believe strongly in the manifest presence of God.
Their experience of the holy presence shapes them spiritually. In the liturgy the
heightened awareness of this presence occurs often within the dimension they refer to
as 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). 

The Pentecostal attitude toward worship is essential to understanding their practice of

it.(28) For Pentecostals, worship is not strictly a human activity. Worship involves a deep
communion between divinity and humanity, an encountering. An attitude of
expectancy shapes the practice of this communion. Believers expect God to come and
meet with his people. Pentecostals believe that God alone inaugurates the experience by
God's gracious acts and presence, congregants can only prepare themselves (through
their iconic ways). Ritualists cannot force God's presence and movings. They can only
prepare and wait for God's actions in and among the worshippers, and then respond to
the "flow of the Spirit" when God's "promptings" or "strirrings" occurs. The Spirit
initiates, guides, facilitates, and leads the worship. Pentecostals believe that God
"desires to meet with His people." Thus, the Pentecostal approaches worship in an
attitude of expectancy; God will encounter God's people. This understanding molds the
style and structure of the ritual and informs the symbol of worship as a type of
encounter with hierophany. 

Worship as attentiveness to God. While the goals of encounter, experience, (and

transformation) always predominate, worship embodies a kind of performance that
attends closely to the divine. Particularly in the praise and worship rites, frequently at
the beginning of the ritual, the people of our focus churches see themselves as
performing for the divine. God is the audience and the congregation is to perform the
drama of praise. For as they say, "God inhabits the praises of His people." This
"performance" for the ritualists represents a way of attending to God, a way of focusing
on the divine, a "ministry to God." 

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. 

Worship as yielding a sensitivity to human need. Pentecostals claim that their forms of

worship sensitize them to human needs and concerns. The priority of worshipping
God, and thus maintaining a "right relationship with God," they believe allows them a
subsequent awareness of human needs. Pentecostals experience a self reflexivity, an
empathy toward the needs of others, and a motivation to minister to others as a result
of their worship. According to Pentecostals, the terms of "word," "gifts" and "missions"
(see below) each represents human interaction enhanced by ritual worship and graced
by the divine. God, they believe, "desires to minister to peoples' needs" through the
faithful and gifted ritualists. In worship the believers minister to God and then God in
turn ministers in and through the believers to others.(29) For example, at one of our study
churches, often during or immediately following the rite of worship and praise, a ritual
leader will ask for prayer requests. From week to week it varies, but some form of
prayer or healing rite will normally emerge at the end of the worship rite. Congregants
may form circles of prayer, praying for one another's needs. Or, the pastor may call
those who desire prayer for a need to come to the altar to be prayed for by the elders.
Other times congregants may simply be asked to stand to signify a prayer request, other
ritualists will then come to pray with them. In each case, congregants reflect a
sensitivity to human needs. 

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. 

Bible and biblical messages. The Bible as word is seen as speaking to contemporary

needs, sometimes in an overly simplistic interpretation, but always relevant in "the
now." Pentecostals claim to give the Bible a central role in their liturgies and their
spirituality. It has priority over other forms of "word." Other "words" they say are
judged by the scriptures. The pastoral message (sermon) seeks to proclaim or teach a
"biblical truth." And as a liturgical rite, the sermon (as word of God) is most often set at
the center of the service between the worship rite and the rite of altar response.
Comforting or challenging, edifying or exhorting, directional or didactic, the pastoral
message aims for biblical relevance. But in the Pentecostal ritual, "word" is not limited
to the sermon. 

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) 

Charismatic word. Perhaps the most dynamic dimension of the Pentecostal

understanding of "word" is that of "charismatic word(s)." Aspects of these phenomena are
referred to as "gifts," "utterances," "words," "prophecies," "messages in tongues," "word
from the Lord," "manifestation of the Spirit," etc. Not every charism or charismatic
activity fits the category of word (e.g., gifts of healing are seen as actions of God and
"discernment of spirits" is seen as insight), but many charismatic manifestations in the
ritual emerge within the classification, word (e.g., "word of knowledge,""word of
wisdom"). 
Fundamentally, the word in Pentecostal parlance, is a speaking forth in the name of the
Lord. It gives voice to the divine, under the impulse of the Spirit. Charismatic words
vary. The style and form of such words varies with the context, the community, the
personality of the speaker and the perceived need.(31) Frequently, a ritualist casts a word
in a prophetic mode, with a "thus saith the Lord" as a prelude or postscript. At other
times a charismatic word's introduction takes a more cautious turn, "I feel the Lord is
saying. . . ," a congregant begins. In either case there is an inherent risk. What if the
"prophesy" does not represent the word of God? What if the impulse to speak was not
rightly discerned? What if the congregation does not "receive" the word? These
questions represent the risk faced by the would be charismatic prophet. However,
Pentecostal prophets face this risk with a belief that relies on the Spirit and on their own
experience and knowledge of the Spirit's ways. Yet, in the end, the congregation must
discern a charismatic word's appropriateness and validity. 

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 empowerment. The baptism in the Spirit is a symbol of empowerment.

Spirit baptism is more than "conversation" or an encountering with the divine. The
Pentecostal baptism symbolizes an infusion of the divine, a union, with a resulting
"enduement with power." Since Pentecostals seek and expect to do the work of God,
modeling themselves after the biblical apostles subsequent to pentecost, they
acknowledge the need for empowerment. Spirit baptism, then, symbolizes an on-going
experience of the Spirit, that is, an empowering experience that facilitates and supports
the Pentecostal believer in her or his personal life and in serving God and humankind.
While many Pentecostals expect the sign of tongues to accompany this experience, they
do not reduce Spirit baptism to glossolalia. But the charism of tongues represents only
one of the expected phenomena to accompany the on going life in the Spirit, the
empowered life of the Spirit baptized believer. (34) So, while tongues may symbolize
prayer to and presence of the divine, Spirit baptism as a gift represents the power and
empowerment of the Spirit in the Pentecostal's spirituality. 

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 within the framework of Pentecostal spirituality occurs in three dimensions:

ministry to God in worship, an edification ministry directed within the "body of Christ,"
and ministry to the world. The symbolic center of the "ministry" ideal lies in the second
dimension as we have just described the gift-edification. Ministry, especially in the
liturgy, consists of the actions, prayers, and other rites in which believers share and
serve the needs of one another in "the body" (i.e. the church or faith community). Here
we will consider the symbol of ministry (to the body) as a consideration of personal
hunger and exigencies, as opportunity to serve, as a framework for the rites. 

Consideration of personal hunger and exigencies. Much of the reason for a Pentecostal

gathering can be understood in this ministry present in the ritual. In fact, Pentecostals
have been criticized at times by other Christians for being too focused on the human
dimension of the service (i.e., edifying the body) with a resulting neglect of worship and
the focus on the divine. But Pentecostals, in their own defense point to the biblical Jesus,
who they insist was intensely interested in addressing human needs. Consequently,
Pentecostal ritualists, rather than avoiding the personal needs of members and visitors,
seek out those in need and use the liturgical setting to address the personal troubles and
concerns. Our focus churches provided numerous examples of how Pentecostals
consistently pursue opportunities to minister in the name of their God to human
hungers, personal exigencies. For example, the senior pastors of each of these churches
encourage their people to be alert to people's needs both inside and outside the church.
One pastor, for instance, often exhorts his congregation to be attentive to the needs of
friends and colleagues in the work place and the market. "Offer to pray for them" he
instructs. "They may think you're crazy, but you may be able to help them. Let Jesus
work a miracle." 

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." 

Pentecostal spirituality characterizes ministry as a giving and receiving of empathic

understanding, a concerned touch, heartfelt prayer and appropriate action, by people
who deeply care for one another. But Pentecostal concern extends beyond the liturgy
from within the faith community outward where the symbol of ministry shifts to the
symbol of missions. 

6. "Missions"

The indigenous symbol missions connotes an orientation to the world or to society as

distinct from the church. It is one of three theological relationships that the Pentecostal
liturgy expresses--"relationship to the world." Here we want to highlight the importance
of this symbol, "missions," as expressing an integral dimension of Pentecostal
spirituality. To Pentecostals "missions" means: ministry beyond the faith community,
called to accomplish God's purposes, gifted service, and distribution of resources. 

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) 

Called to accomplish God's purposes. The language of "reaching the world" sounds so

idealistic in part, because it draws on an understanding of being called by God to
become involved in God's purposes. Our focus church Pentecostals not only
appropriate to themselves Christ's commission to his disciples to "go into all the world
and proclaim the gospel" (Mark 16:15), they believe that God "raised them up" for this
period of history.(40) They feel called to "this generation." They have a mission: to spread
the gospel in their society and around the world. As a result of their sense of mission,
the spirituality of Pentecostals seeks to "equip" toward the accomplishment of their
missions goals. And part of the equipping process they believe is accomplished by the
Holy Spirit. For according to Pentecostals, the Spirit leads into missions, the Spirit gifts
for missions, and the Spirit enlightens the understanding concerning missions, i.e., its
aims and methods. Pentecostals discover themselves, and their spirituality, in the
context of God's purposes, God's will. Missions for Pentecostals not only gives a reason
for being, it takes them beyond themselves and their own concerns to consider the
needs of others. 

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) 

Distribution of resources. Finally, the symbol of missions means a distribution of

resources. According to statistician and missiologist David Barrett, Pentecostals in
general give a higher potion of their resource to missions than other Christian groups.
(43)
 Some of our study churches, for example, seek to give twenty-five percent of the
church income to missions. But each of the churches of our study "invests" heavily of
their time, energy and financial resources in missions projects. The distribution of their
resources into missions provides a way of giving "unselfishly." Missions dollars do not
pay the salaries of the pastors, nor the church utility bill, nor other important and
legitimate expenditures that benefit the congregation's members. Missions funds seek
only to benefit others, those beyond the faith community. Thus, missions means
unselfish distribution of resources. Pentecostals seek to utilize their resource and their
gifts to extend the good news. In this sense Pentecostal spirituality is an evangelical
spirituality. 

B. Experience of God: Outlining the Pentecostal Spirituality(44)

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. 

1. Experiencing God Mystically as Supernatural

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. 

Experiential/Mystical. The category of experience is essential to understanding the

spirituality of Pentecostals. One way to approach this important quality is situating it
within the Christian mystical tradition. Though Pentecostals seem largely unaware,
they participate in a rich heritage of Christian mysticism. Evelyn Underhill describes
mysticism as

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. 

A young man we interviewed from one of our focus congregations wanted us to

understand his experience. As we questioned him concerning the contemplative mode
of sensibility within the worship rite, he emphasized the sense of "being." "Worship is
more than just preparation for the sermon," he insisted, "it is a time of just being, not
doing or even worshipping, but being." This experience of being in the presence of God
is fundamental to the Pentecostal spirituality. Although, the trade mark of
Pentecostalism has been seen in active, even boisterous ritual, beneath such
manifestations is an essential belief in the experience of the presence of their God. 
Complementary to the sense of immediate presence, the experience of the divine is
expressed as a  responsive spirituality. Pentecostal congregants respond not only to the
sense and other symbols of divine presence, they participate in a responsive
relationship with the symbolic elements, that signify the actions of the Spirit. The
Pentecostal liturgies model a kind of dialogic relationship between God and humans
that is espoused as normative for the Christian life by Pentecostals. The rite of
altar/response illustrates the kind of responsiveness that occurs continually throughout
the rites. Ritualists respond individually and as a group, they respond "in their hearts"
and in their actions. But passivity has little place in Pentecostal spirituality, Pentecostals
actively pursue a spirituality characterized by a responsiveness to their God.(49) 

Emphasis on Supernatural. When observing, listening to, or participating in, even at a

cursory level, the worship rites of the churches studied here, the emphasis on the
Supernatural is unmistakable.(50) The entire ritual assumes the awareness of the presence
of God in a general sense, if not the in-breaking of the Spirit in a "supernatural
way."(51) Expectancy is heightened, as the congregation approaches certain rites, rites
sometimes charged with anxious anticipation.(52) Such anticipation is stimulated by the
history of the experience of the rite and the perceived presence and action of the
Supernatural.(53) 

Pentecostal spirituality emphasizes the supernatural. The Pentecostal realm envisions a

world subject to invasions by the supernatural element. Pentecostals teach adherents to
expect encounters with the supernatural. For the Pentecostal the line between natural
and supernatural is permeable, but the two categories are radically separate. This of
course is seen in the rites, but for the Pentecostal it is extended from the Sunday
communal ritual to the world at large. Even mundane elements of life are envisioned as
the territory for supernatural exploits. Claims of signs, wonders, and miracles are not
limited to the regions of the Sunday ritual. They are to be a part of daily life. (54) 

At the core of Pentecostal spirituality abides the belief in an experience characterized as

a divine "overwhelming" of the human person.(55) This experience of overwhelming may
be identified by various terms (Spirit baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit being
among the most common) and has been understood in various ways. Yet, there seems
to be a general belief among Pentecostals and Charismatics that the overwhelming
experience of God in the Spirit is something that they share in common. (56) 

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. 

2. Experiencing God in a Communal Context

Pentecostal spirituality is rooted in a communal experience of God typified by its

encouragement of democratic-participatory forms, and by its stresses on the media of
biblical symbols, oral exchange, and kinesthetic/music. There is truth in the
characterization that Pentecostals are individualists. The essential mystical quality of
their experience lends itself to a certain focus on the personal/individual dimension of
spirituality. To bypass the communal characteristic of the spirituality, however, would
to be miss an elemental and determinative component of Pentecostal spirituality. 

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 social dynamics of the Pentecostal community are often contextualized by a

liminality that facilitates moments of communitas and continued community building.
(60)
 These communal aspects of the ritual and the extended group life are in part the
secret of the Pentecostal attraction. Time and again, in interviews people told us that
they came to the church because of "the worship." The worship rite is often the richest
rite in distinctive, dramatic, social expressions of worship. Social bonding is strongly
reliant on these rites. The sense of community among the members of each of the study
congregations, to a large extent grows out of their common practice of their Pentecostal
rites. So, the communal aspect of the rites both attracts and retains Pentecostal
worshippers. It provides the basis from which the individual may express his or her
own personal spirituality. 

Participation/democratic. While the routinization of the Pentecostal rites tends to limit

broad based ritual participation, the democratic-participation persists among
Pentecostals.(61) In each of the focus churches we discovered highly participatory forms
of spirituality. 

Lay leadership and involvement is still emphasized, though in varying degrees in

Pentecostal churches.(62) The programs of most Pentecostal churches depend heavily on
lay leadership. For example, several of our focus churches ran extensive food
distribution programs. These exemplified the functioning of lay leadership and
involvement. Foreign service/missions trips that are completely lay also were
prominent in several of our study churches. 

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. 

Media of the participatory communal experience. Basically three media function as

channels through which the communal experience is transmitted and in which it is
experienced: biblical, oral, and kinesthetic/musical. The fundamental symbols of
Pentecostal spirituality are biblical symbols. Pentecostals consciously attempt to
understand the biblical messages and appropriate them to their community. Biblical
terms and biblical images abound in the liturgy, the language and the life-styles of
Pentecostals. Any doctrine, practice, or innovation in the ritual or in the community
programs faces the question, "Is it biblical?" Pentecostal see themselves as a "people of
the Book."(63) And as such, the book, more correctly their understanding of the book,
shapes their lives and their community experience. Pentecostals seek to transmit their
spirituality in the framework of biblical images. And as a result they filter their
experience of God through their "reading" of the book. In other words, the biblical
symbols provide the primary medium through which the community understands itself
and communicates that understanding; biblical images contain and carry the
Pentecostal spirituality. 

Pentecostals also exploit forms of orality as a second main medium of their

participatory-democratic, communal experience of God.(64) Hollenweger was perhaps
first to note the oral emphasis that characterizes Pentecostal spirituality. He rightly
assessed that to a great extent the Pentecostal spirituality is transferred within an oral
subculture. Of course, the oral dimensions of the spirituality appear most obviously in
Pentecostals in developing countries. But orality plays a major role even within the
American Pentecostal communities. For while American Pentecostals have written
tracts and cursory theological treatments (and more recently scholarly works), to a great
extent the Pentecostal liturgies, moral codes and taboos, and "histories" remain in oral
form. To a large extent the Pentecostal spirituality persists in "a lively oral tradition." (65) 

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. 

3. Experiencing God as Empowering Spirit

and Commissioning Lord 

Thirdly, Pentecostals experience God as empowering and commissioning. The language

of power has always played a part in the Pentecostal liturgy and spirituality. Their
language reflects their reality. Pentecostals not only see God as an all powerful Spirit,
they believe that God manifests God's power in their world. The manifestation of power
(e.g., in healing, or other "signs and wonders") has a sacramental quality for
Pentecostals. In the manifestations of power God proves God's interest in the affairs of
humankind in specific ways. The experiences of power reflect very personal
experiences, an individual experiencing a personal God. They are rather very personal.
For example, Pentecostals not only speak of a personal experience of Salvation (i.e., a
conversion event), by the speak of another event as well. Pentecostals testify to an initial
and on going experience of Spirit baptism which is often presented as profoundly
personal and intimate. And the sense of personal intimacy continues in the "Spirit filled
life." The empowerment for "life and service" that Pentecostals claim as a result of Spirit
baptism is typically experienced as "a closeness to Jesus." Many speak of their Spirit
empowerment as "making Jesus more real." They say that daily life looks and feels
different because they sense a presence of Christ "in" them and they are confident in his
ability, "power" to assist them in the mundane matters of life as well as the
opportunities for service. 

Pentecostal congregants testified to us of a sense of empowerment as a result of

participation in their liturgical rites. Such witnesses to empowerment did not speak
only of the symbol of Spirit baptism, though that symbol remains central. Experiences
of empowerment seem to occur throughout the liturgy: in the worship rite during
celebrative singing, as a part of prayer times, during the rites of transition, and of
course, during the altar response. Empowering experience, also, seems to occur often
when a ritualist is ministering to another as when one is being ministered unto. For
example, frequently, congregants noted a sense of empowerment as they prayed for
someone else's needs. Often, charismatic phenomena accompany such prayers. Such
efficacious prayer is central to the Pentecostal understanding of "ministry." But the
power of the Spirit seems to be experienced by both the parties in the ministry diad.
Pentecostals experience God as an empowering Spirit in their rituals. 

As we have indicated above, however, while Pentecostals experience the empowerment

of the Spirit often in their corporate ritual, they move outward with a sense of the
Spirit's power to serve the needs of the society, "the world." Although the answers to
society's ills have often been viewed simplistically by Pentecostals, nonetheless, they do
in their own way seek to positively effect the society by sharing good news in word and
in deed. The result has been a disproportionate level of involvement in missionary,
evangelistic and other service ventures. Each of these ventures emerges out of the sense
of empowerment and the belief that they have been commissioned. 

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. 

4. Experiencing God as Creative

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. 

God as Creative. Pentecostals conceive of God as creative. The Pentecostal God is a God

who is ever creative and seeks by the Spirit to interact with and minister to humankind
creatively. For Pentecostals, God's (re)creation among humanity is yet to be completed.
But, this notion of God as ever creative Spirit is more than a cognitive category.
Pentecostals experience God as creative. We have characterized the Pentecostal
interaction with the Holy Spirit as liberating, empowering and gifting experiences.
These experiences are seen as God's creative work in the individual through an
engaging transaction with the Spirit. This creative, freeing, endowment convinces
Pentecostals that God "has done a work in" them and more. Inherent in God's "work,"
God's baptism, lies a sense of intimate connection to God and to the divine creativeness
symbolized in the charisms for the Pentecostals, gifts are not so much possessed by the
human as available divine resources. The perception of being personally attached to
God and the supernatural resources converges with the Pentecostal understanding of
(com)mission. 

A creative entrepreneurial form of spirituality. As we have indicated previously,

Pentecostals experience God as their commissioning Lord. That is, they believe they
have been given a divine mission, a purpose in life. It is particularly within this sense of
mission that Pentecostal spirituality expresses itself in its creative, entrepreneurial form.
This model of Pentecostal spirituality reveals traits of pioneering innovation,
adaptability, and pragmatic action, among others. The history of this century's
Pentecostal movement is replete with examples of Pentecostal people combining
innovation, adaptability and action to produce new patterns of religious life. (70) Our
field studies revealed, the sparks of creative, entrepreneurial, Pentecostal life in the
histories and ongoing life of our focus churches. The innovative actions of Pentecostal
pastors and congregants from the past are yet unfolding. These religious entrepreneurs
arrived in town armed with a message, and a belief in their experience of a creative
God. Their gifting, creative applications, and adaptability have served in the process of
creating communities which now engage in revitalizing and reappropriating symbols
Pentecostals have long held dear. The resulting spirituality is authentically Pentecostal,
creative and Christian. 

To summarize this section, we have characterized Pentecostal spirituality as a

mystical/experiential spirituality that emphasizes encounter with the supernatural. We
have asserted that it is rooted in a communal experience of God typified by its
encouragement of democratic-participatory forms, which transpire in and through
biblical symbols, orality, and kinesthetic/musical activity. Thirdly, this characterization
presents Pentecostals as those who experience their God as an empowering Spirit who
commissions through callings and giftings toward a life of service, mission and
evangelism. And, finally Pentecostals experience God as creative and thus, as One who
encourages creativity marked by an inventive and improvisational actions and an
adaptable, entrepreneurial spirit. 

Part II --ECUMENISM AND PENTECOSTAL SPIRITUALITY 

In this final part of the paper we wish to link Pentecostal spirituality to the quest for
Christian unity. Under two main headings: "Pentecostal Spirituality as a Force for
Ecumenism" and "Challenges of Ecumenism for Pentecostal Spirituality," we will briefly
suggest categories for consideration and discussion. 

A. Pentecostal Spirituality as a Force for Ecumenism

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. 

As a result of the Charismatic renewal, grassroots ecumenical impulses gained

momentum. Especially during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, ecumenical prayer meetings,
Bible studies, and conferences were supported and/or initiated by Pentecostal
churches. Again, these were generally on the local and not the denominational level.
However, these grassroots meetings produced a greater openness to, interest in, and
mutual understanding of Christians of diverse traditions. During this period many
Pentecostal churches invited ministers from nearly all Protestant denominations as well
as priests from Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches to speak to their congregations.
In home meetings, and prayer groups of all sorts, Pentecostals shared in prayer and
fellowship with Christians of "all stripes." Many other cooperative efforts with
significant ecumenical overtones (such as community prayer meetings and civic prayer
breakfasts) have been part of the Pentecostal grassroots movement. 

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 a greater spirit of inclusiveness is present in the para-church organizations that

are a direct result and expression of Pentecostal spirituality. Women's Aglow
Fellowship (WAF) and Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship International (FGBMFI)
exemplify this spirit. Both groups have become worldwide organizations. WAF
encourages groups of women to gather for luncheons focusing on prayer and
fellowship. At the organizational level these women commit explicitly to work toward
unity among believers by bringing women together (trans-denominationally) to share
in worship, witness, and fellowship.(77) Likewise, FGBMFI seeks to provide a forum for
ecumenical fellowship and outreach. Avoiding church buildings and facilities, the
FGBMFI aims at providing a non-sectarian fellowship of laity within the context of
restaurants and hotel ballrooms. Seeking a non-threatening environment, they reach out
to Christians of all denominations and assist in fellowship and evangelization through
mutual support and selected focused testimonies. This ecumenical fellowship with a
Pentecostal flavor was founded in 1951, and by the late 1980s included more than 3000
local chapters in 87 countries. These two groups illustrate, in part, the ecumenical force
among Pentecostals embodied organizationally.

4. Contributions to the Larger Christian World

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. 

If Pentecostals have anything to offer to the larger Church it is rooted in their

spirituality. A spirituality that, as we have pointed out, emphasizes a
converting/transforming relationship with God as revealed in Jesus Christ, and a
sanctifying/empowering relational experience with the Spirit of God. The Pentecostal
experience of God--often symbolized in or spoken of as the "Spirit filled life," or "Spirit
baptized life"--not only grounds the believers' spirituality, it produces within their
movement significant outcomes which may have relevance to the Church at large. Here
let us quickly highlight a few of these outcomes.(78) 

Pentecostal spirituality seems to produce a new and often keen sense of community. As

we have said, Pentecostals experience God in a communal context. This context is both
the result of and an encouragement to a dynamic expressive worship (liturgy) marked by
participatory forms of prayer, a love of scripture, and other rites which stimulate
communal worship including spiritual gifts. Pentecostals do not "own" the charismata.
Perhaps, however, their focus offers a revalorization of the charismata.(79) 

Pentecostal spirituality has also produced an emphasis on various forms of Christian

outreach including evangelism, missions, and social concerns. (80) Perhaps the
contribution most relevant to this discussion, however, is best stated in one Pentecostal
ecumenist's testimonial, "Our experience of the Spirit has taught us that genuine
Christian unity is ultimately a creation of the Spirit of God."(81) If Pentecostals have an
offering to make toward Christian unity, which derives from their experience of God, it
is the reminder that God's Spirit is forever the Author and Architect of authentic
ecumenism. 

5. Other Impulses for Ecumenism Native to Pentecostal Spirituality

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

and relates to their experience of God as creative (see above). 

B. Challenges of Ecumenism for Pentecostal Spirituality

If the potential for ecumenism inherent in Pentecostal spirituality is to be more fully

realized, certain challenges must be addressed. Here we will only identify and briefly
comment on a few. Incidentally, we are not suggesting that the following challenges are
utterly unique to Pentecostals. In fact, it seems likely that each challenge in some form
must be faced by each Christian tradition. Nonetheless, the following issues remain for
Pentecostals to confront. 

1. The Challenge of Inherent Fears and Stereotypes

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." 

Some of Pentecostal apprehension is rooted in stereotypes. Perhaps the most

troublesome stereotypes concern other forms of Christianity. While Pentecostals seek
fellowship, as noted above, when they are unsure of the authenticity of another's
Christianity, they avoid fellowship. If Pentecostals are to proceed in the quest for
Christian unity, they need to address their fears and the unfair stereotypes of others
who "name the name of Christ," yet experience God differently.

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. 

3. The Challenge of Discernment

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. 

4. The Challenge of Recognizing the Different Orientations of Christian

Spiritualities

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. 

Orientation to experiencing God. Mel Robeck argues convincingly that groups of

Christians often misunderstand each other because they have fundamentally different
approaches to God.(86) Basing his thought on the work of scripture scholar Samuel
Terrien, Robeck suggests that some groups of Christians are oriented more to the
symbolic experience of the divine "Glory" (Glory/ eye/ space/ enthusiasm) while other
traditions focus more on the divine "Name" (Name/ ear/ time/ ethics). These two
orientations to God's presence, both biblical, can exist in a dynamic tension within one
community's spirituality. However, as Robeck implies, often either Glory or Name
becomes the dominant epistemological orientation for a Christian tradition or
denomination. When the tension of having the two orientations within the same group
is lost, a certain myopia results. This narrowing vision makes it more difficult to
recognize or understand other Christians who experience God and God's presence quite
differently.(87) 

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. 

Orientation to the "World" and the Kingdom. Similarly, Pentecostals will need to

recognize that there are a variety of orientations toward the world (society) among
Christian groups. This understanding, of course, emerged from the work of Ernst
Troelsch with his Church and sect (and mystical) topologies. Later, H. Richard Niebuhr
expanded and refined Troeltsch's three types into five.(88) In his work, Niebuhr spoke of
the relation between Christ and culture. While his work was particularly concerned
with social ethics, his typology has provided a foundation for thought concerning the
Church's liturgy,(89) and recently has been applied to Christian spirituality.(90) 

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). 

------------------------------------------------------------ 

Appendix: Ritual and Pentecostalism 

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. 

Defining "ritual" (and "rites"). Ritual has many definitions,(97) but throughout this

paper ritual connotes those actions, dramas, performances that a community creates,
continues, recognizes and sanctions as ways of behaving that express appropriate
attitudes, beliefs, and values within a given situation. In particular, we apply the
term ritual to the corporate worship service.(98) The Pentecostal service lies at the heart of
the Pentecostal spirituality and with its attending rites and practices constitutes the
most central ritual of Pentecostalism.(99) We employ the term  rite when referring to a
portion or phase of the service (e.g., the sermon, the song service), a particular practice
or specific enactment (e.g., laying on of hands and prayer, taking an offering, receiving
water or Spirit baptism) or a set of actions (e.g., various types of altar/responses)
recognized by Pentecostals as a legitimate part of their overall ritual. (100) 

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.

4. See Robert M. Anderson, "Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity," in Encyclopedia

of Religion vol. 11 ed. Mircea Eliade, et al. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987),
229-235; Barbara Hargrove, The Sociology of Religion: Classical and Contemporary
Approaches (Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1979); Martin E. Marty, A
Nation of Behavers (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976); Russell P. Spittler,
"Spirituality: Pentecostal and Charismatic," in DPCM, ed. Stanley M. Burgess et al.
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 800-809; Grant Wacker,
"America's Pentecostals: Who They Are," Christianity Today (October 16, 1987): 16-21.

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).

6. Studying any type of Christian spirituality presents a challenge. Studying Pentecostal

spirituality is particularly precarious. Walter J. Hollenweger has rightly warned that
while Pentecostalism has great potential for ecumenical contribution, "it is, however,
difficult to introduce this kind of spirituality into the ecumenical discussion because--if
reduced to concepts and propositions--it loses its very essence." He goes on to assert

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.

Hollenweger's assertion directs us toward a particular type of study. In this case, we

have chosen to study Pentecostal spirituality in the midst of its most common and
salient experiences, the Pentecostal worship service, the main liturgy or ritual. The
following seeks to relate an understanding of Pentecostal spirituality based on this
study.

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

Piety and Practice," in Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Vinson Synan,

Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1975), 193-233; L. G. McClung, Jr., "Evangelism," in
DPCM, 248-88; Gary B. McGee, "Missions, Overseas, (North American)," in DPCM, 610-
25; Richard Quebedeaux, The New Charismatics II (San Francisco: Harper and Row,
1983), 127-192; Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. "Azusa Street Revival," in DPCM, 31-36; Roger G.
Robins,"Pentecostal Movement." In The Dictionary of Christianity in America, ed. Daniel
G. Reid, et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 885-891; Idem, "Pentecostals
and the Apostolic Faith: Implications for Ecumenism." Pneuma 9 (1987): 61-84; Russell
Spittler, "The Pentecostal View," in Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification,  ed.
Donald L. Alexander (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 133-154; Idem,
"Spirituality: Pentecostal and Charismatic," in DPCM, 800-809; Idem, ed.Perspectives on
the New Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976); Vinson, Synan,
ed., Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International,
1975);Idem, "Pentecostalism: Varieties and Contributions," Pneuma 8 (Fall 1986): 31-49;
Grant Wacker, "America's Pentecostals: Who They Are." Christianity Today (October 16,
1987): 16-21; Idem, "The Function of Faith in Primitive Pentecostalism." Harvard
Theological Review 77:3-4 (1984): 353-375; "Pentecostalism," in The Encyclopedia of
American Religious Experience vol. 2, ed. Lippy, Charles H., Peter W. Williams (New
York: Scribner's, 1988), 933-45; James F. White, Protestant Worship: Traditions in
Transition (Louisville, KY: Westminster/Knox Press, 1989); J. Rodman Williams, The
Pentecostal Reality (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1972).

9. Anthropologists often distinguish between emic and etic descriptions of culture, a

distinction made first by K. Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure
of Human Behavior, vol. 1 (Glendale: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1954), 8. An emic
term is a term employed by the people of the culture. An emic analysis of a culture
utilizes not only the folk terms but attempts to portrays the culture and its
meaningfulness as an insider understands it. Whereas an etic analysis applies categories
that the anthropologist finds helpful in describing the culture to outsiders. In this
chapter we do not attempt to operate wholly within either of these types of analyses.
However, in this first section especially, we do find it helpful to use prevalent emic
terms to describe aspects of Pentecostal spirituality.

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.

11. Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit; and Albrecht, "Pentecostal Spirituality," Pneuma 14:2 (Fall

1992) 107-125.

12. In the history of the Pentecostal movement spokeswomen have played a prominent

and significant role. Aimee Semple McPherson and Kathryn Kuhlman represent only
two or the most well known. But as specialists (i. e., preachers, evangelists, teachers,
missionaries) or lay, women have spoken from within the Pentecostal tradition usually
to their own local congregations. Their congregations believed them to be speaking on
behalf of God.

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.

14. They represent leadership as a team, as opposed to individual leadership. For

example, on the first visit to one of our study churches we did not recognize that there
is a "head" of the team. During the worship rite the team of four vocalist and several
instruments seem to be one unit--a true team. Upon further investigation, it became
clear that one was the principal leader, but the sense of multiple leadership in the form
of a team continues even after one knows who primarily directs.

15. The Pentecostal understanding of charismatic "leadings" and "giftings" yields a

potential for a variety of leadership roles and styles both in the ritual and in the larger
Pentecostal communities. For both the established leaders (e. g., pastors) and
spontaneous leaders are expected to move and lead according to the Spirit's guidance.
And the resulting leadership roles will vary according to the individual leader and the
particular situation.

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).

17. For an informative view of charismatic leadership as social see Peter Worsely, The

Trumpet Shall Sound, 2d ed., (New York: Schocken Books, 1968), especially the
Introduction.

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.

20. Anthropologists at least since Claude Levi-Strauss express distinctions and tensions

within a culture by locating binary oppositions or discriminations. Victor Turner uses
this method to contrast liminality and status system. See Turner, The Ritual Process, 106-
107. For other examples of this technique see Mary Douglas' use of symbolic boundaries
in cultural analysis inPurity and Danger and Robert Wuthnow, Meaning and Moral Order,
especially 66-96.

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.

23. The leadership symbol is central to an understanding of the other elemental factors

of Pentecostal spirituality that we have selected: worship, word, gifts, ministry, and
mission. The dynamics between the leadership symbol and these other main symbols
are based on the congregations' values. The leader of Pentecostal worship is perceived
as embodying the values of the community. In some ways the leaders symbolize the
community in total, its values, and potentials. Leaders help to model the ideals of the
community in worship. There roles in worship, word, charisms, ministries, and
outreach help to demonstrate the possibilities within each symbol. The potential for
transformation and (re)ordering of the community are in part recognized in the symbol
of leadership. The leadership symbol, then, helps to shape the common vision and
guide the worshippers toward that vision.

24. We understand hierophany here to mean an earthy manifestation of the scared, the
holy, divine power, or God.

25. Elsewhere we have described Pentecostal "iconic ways" (i.e., ways in which

Pentecostals use elements of their liturgy to function analogously to the function of
icons in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. See Rites in the Spirit chapter three; also
Albrecht, "Pentecostal Spirituality," 110-111.

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.

28. See Jerry Shepperd, "Worship," in DPCM, 903-05.

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.

32. Charismatic words may also occur as non-edifying, even destructive manifestations.

This negative potential represents a continual pastoral concern.

33. Neo-Pentecostals and/or so-called third wavers often understand Spirit baptism in a

less distinct fashion.

34. Tongues as a charism may be considered a sign of Spirit baptism but as a sign or

"evidence" it is distinguishable from the baptism or "in-filling." Tongues functions
primarily as a form of prayer.

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.

38. Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit.

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."

42. The symbol of Missionary though altered in connotation, continues to serve

Pentecostals as a paradigmatic symbol of the committed and called Christian.

43. Barrett, "The Twentieth-Century Pentecostal/Charismatic Renewal," 119-20.

44. Following Donald Gelpi we have chosen the (edic/analytic) category experience of

God as a central organizing symbol by which to consider spirituality. Gelpi's adroit use
of this category produced a philosophically sensitive theology of "human emergence"
within the North American tradition. See especially, Gelpi, Experiencing
God and Idem, "On Perceiving the Human Condition North Americanly: A Strategy for
Theological Inculturation," in Grace as Transmuted Experience and Social Process, and Other
Essays in North American Theology (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988), 1-
40.

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).

46. Evelyn Underhill, Mystics of the Church (Wilton, CN: Morehouse-Barlow: 1925), 10.

47. Evelyn Underhill, Mystics of the Church, 10. Also by Underhill on the Christian

mystical tradition see The Essentials of Mysticism and Other Essays (New York: E. P.
Dutton & Co., [1920], 1960); Mysticism, 12th ed. (New York: New American Library,
[1911], 1974); Practical Mysticism (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1915); also see R. C.
Zaehner, Mysticism, Sacred and Profane: An Inquiry into some Varieties of Praeternatural
Experience (Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1957).

48. Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit, see chapter five for descriptions of the ritual modes of
sensibilities; also see Albrecht, "Pentecostal Spirituality."

49. Examples of responsiveness (the dialogic relationship between congregants and

their God) can be seen both in speech acts and actions of Pentecostals. Their language
illustrates the point. They speak of: "hearing from God"/"speaking to God," of being
"touched by God"/"touching God," "meeting with God."

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.

53. An example of heightened anticipation of supernatural actions occurs at one of our

focus churches' monthly "miracle service." Due to testimonies of miracles and reported
healings from the previous miracles services, congregants approached the monthly
service expecting to "see God at work." They call this heightened sense of the presence
of the Spirit the "supernatural."

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.

56. See Kilian McDonnell and George Montague, eds., Fanning the Flame (Collegeville,

MN: The Liturgical Press, A Michael Glazier Book, 1991). These Roman Catholic
scholars recognize this overwhelming in the Spirit as "the later awakening of the
original sacramental grace" (Christian initiation). They claim that this experience,
"baptism in the Holy Spirit" (term used by the editors) is found "almost universally in
the churches, both Protestant and Catholic, in which the charismatic renewal" is
experienced, 9, 28. For a fuller treatment by the same authors see Christian Initiation and
Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries (Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press, A Michael Glazier Book, 1991).

57. Martin Marty, A Nation of Behavers, 106-220 and Idem, "Pentecostalism in the Context

of American Piety and Practice," in Aspects ed. Vinson Synan, 193-233.

58. Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit, chapter four.

59. The religious experience of the individual is both rhetorically and practically

important to the members of our study churches. Their rites allows significant "room" to
individually sense, experience, and express the divine presence within the ritual. But
these personal explorations and experiences are within the highly social ritual context.
A context that provides for a "confluence of experience" where the multitude (of
experiences) merge into one corporate expression (experience). The result of such a
convergence of experience is the sensation of the multiplication of the power of the
Spirit and an intensification of the awareness of the Spirit's presence. Ibid.

60. See Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit, chapter six for a discussion of liminality and
communities (communitas). Also see Victor Turner, The Ritual Process.

61. For a discussion of routinization among Pentecostals see Margaret M. Poloma, The

Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas (Knoxville:
University of Tennessee Press, 1989).

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.

63. As "people of the book" Pentecostals have a tendency toward forms of

fundamentalism. Their emphases on the actions, gifts and words of the Spirit, however,
challenge their tendency toward bibliolatry. Normally, we observed a healthy tension
existing between the two Pentecostal poles of charismata/Spirit and bible/literalism. In
the absence of the dynamic tension between the disparate elements inherent in the
Pentecostal spirituality, Pentecostals can, however, slip into a literalist-fundamentalism
form of religion bordering on bibliolatry or they can move toward the other extreme
into of a form of spiritism.

64. See W. J. Hollenweger, "Pentecostals and the Charismatic Movement," in The Study

of Spirituality ed. Cheslyn Jones, et al., (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986),
551; idem, The Pentecostals; R. Spittler, "Spirituality," in DPCM, 805; Richard
Quebedeaux, The New Charismatics II (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1983), 182-183;
S. Land, "Pentecostal Spirituality," inChristian Spirituality, vol 3, ed. Louis Dupre, 485.

65. Spittler, "Spirituality," DPCM, 805.

66. See chapter 3 in Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit, for a discussion of kinesthetic forms of

worship. For the importance of movement and gestures in ritual see Ann Hawthorne,
"Introduction - Method and Spirit: Studying the Diversity of Gestures in Religion...,"
in Diversities of Gifts: Field Studies in Southern Religion, ed. Ruel Tyson, Jr., et al. (Urbana
and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 3-20. See also Harvey Cox, Fire from
Heaven (New York: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1995).

67. See Walter Hollenweger, "Dancing Documentaries: The Theological and Political

Significance of Pentecostal Dancing," in Worship and Dance, ed. J.G. Davis (Birmingham:
University of Birmingham, Institute for the Study of Worship and Religious
Architecture, 1975), 76-82. For a series of essays on a related topic see Bjorn Krondorfer,
ed., Body and the Bible: Interpreting and Experiencing Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia:
Trinity Press International, 1992).
68. Grant Wacker, "Character and the Modernization of North American
Pentecostalism," in the Unpublished Conference Papers: Twenty-First Annual Meeting
of the Society for Pentecostal Studies (Lakeland, FL: Southeastern College, November,
1991), 15. See also Blumhofer, Assemblies of God, 161-75; Everett A. Wilson, "Latin
American Pentecostal, Pneuma 9 (Spring 1987): 85-90; Vinson Synan, "Pentecostalism:
Varieties and Contributions," Pneuma 9 (Spring 1987): 31-49.

69. Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit.

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).

71. Robeck's work on Pentecostalism and Ecumenism provides an extensive body of

thought and genuine insight on the topic. We have drawn heavily upon the following
articles for this part of the paper: "Pentecostals and the Apostolic Faith: Implications for
Ecumenism," Pneuma 9:1 (spring, 1987), 61-84; "The Ecclesiology of Koinonia and
Baptism: A Pentecostal Perspective," with Jerry L. Sandidge, Journal of Ecumenical
Studies 27:3 (summer, 1990), 504-534; "Taking Stock of Pentecostalism: The Personal
Reflections of a Retiring Editor," Pneuma 15:1 (spring, 1993), 35-60; "Discerning the Spirit
in the Life of the Church," William Barr and Rena Yocum, eds. The Church in the
Movement of the Spirit (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1994), 29-49; "A Pentecostal looks at the World Council of Churches," The Ecumenical
Review, 47:1 (1995), 60-69; "Mission and the Issue of Proselytism," International Bulletin of
Missionary Research, 20:1, (1996), 2-8; "David du Plessis and the Challenge of
Dialogue," Pneuma, 9:1 (spring, 1987), 1-4; "The Assemblies of God and Ecumenical
Cooperation: 1920-1965," in Wonsuk Ma and Robert Menzies, Ed., Pentecostalism in
Three Contexts: Essays Presented to William W. Menzies on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth
Birthday, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series (Sheffield Academic Press,
anticipated late 1996/early 1997), 102-143; "Name and Glory: The Ecumenical
Challenge," Presidential Address, Society for Pentecostal Studies, Church of God School
of Theology, Cleveland, Tenn., (November 4, 1983); "Pentecostals and Ecumenism: An
Expanding Frontier," Conference on Pentecostal and Charismatic Research in Europe,
Kappel, Switzerland (July 5, 1991); "Revisioning the Unity We Seek: The Calling of Faith
and Order," a theological Symposium, sponsored by the Ecumenical Development
Initiative, Atlanta, Ga., (February 24, 1995).
72. Walter J. Hollenweger, "The Pentecostal Movement and the World Council of
Churches," The Ecumenical Review 18:3 (July 1966), 313, as quoted in Cecil M. Robeck, Jr.,
"Pentecostals and Ecumenism," 1.

73. Ibid.

74. Seymour expressed a very early Pentecostal self-understanding of the emerging

movement when he wrote in the first issue of The Apostolic Faith that it "stands for the
restoration of the faith once delivered . . . and Christian Unity everywhere" [emphasis
mine]. "The Apostolic Faith Movement," (Sept. 1906). See Robeck's "Pentecostals and
Ecumenism" and his "Pentecostals and the Apostolic Faith" for examples and citations
of the early Pentecostal vision of Christian unity.

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.

76. See Stanley M. Burgess et al. (eds) Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic

Movements, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988) articles, "World Pentecostal
Conference" and "National Association of Evangelicals," (NAE) by Cecil M. Robeck.
Describing the application of the term "ecumenical" to such groups, Robeck speaks
specifically about the NAE, "To describe the NAE in ecumenical terms may, at first
glance, seem odd. Most of its members view genuine Christian unity as spiritual unity
and champion the doctrine of an invisible church. They tend to shy away from any
contact with the formal 'ecumenical movement.' Yet the NAE provides cross-
denominational fellowship, shares common doctrinal and social agendas, and it raises a
visible voice that is demonstrative of the Christian character and commitments of those
involved. These factors are indicative of its basic ecumenical nature," 634.

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.

78. Much has been written concerning the contributions of Pentecostal/Charismatic

Christians. For an extensive citing of books, articles and pamphlets addressing this issue
see footnotes 206-209 in Robeck, "Pentecostal Perspectives on the Ecumenical
Challenge," 63-65. This section builds upon Robeck's suggested contributions. See pp.
65-77.
79. This term is used by Vinson Synan in his article "Pentecostalism: Varieties and
Contributions," Pneuma (Fall 1986) 36-37.

80. There are, of course, other "contributions" or potential contributions to be made

including: Pentecostal/charismatic force for renewal among churches and individuals,
and particular elements of Pentecostal spirituality which are being adopted and
adapted by non-Pentecostal traditions. On the first point see Edith Blumhofer, Restoring
the Faith (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1993) 6, where she notes a "third force"
for renewal orientation among Pentecostals. The second point is established by the
Notre Dame professor of Liturgy James White who asserts a large scale "borrowing" of
Pentecostal liturgical elements by other Protestant worship traditions. See Protestant
Worship: Traditions in Transition (Louisville, KY: Westminster/Knox Press, 1989)
especially chapter 11, "Pentecostal Worship." Also, see John Fenwick and Bryan
Spinks, Worship in Transition: The Liturgical Movement in the Twentieth Century (New
York: Continuum Publishing Co., 1995) 105-114.

81. Robeck, "Pentecostal Perspectives," 77.

82. 66Lilian B. Yeomans expressed the typical early understanding of Pentecostal

experience when she described it as "a sudden impulse of fellowship with all who name
the name of Christ." Pentecostal Papers (Columbia, S.C.: J. M. Pike, c. 1908) 48 quoted in
Robeck, "Pentecostals and the Apostolic Faith." This impulse for fellowship with all
Christians never died in Pentecostal spirituality.

83. Walter Hollenweger, in a discussion at one of the main session of "The European

Pentecostal and Charismatic Research Association" (EPCRA), Mattersey Hall,
Mattersey, Doncaster, England (July 10-14, 1995), asserted that Pentecostal spirituality
has always had a facility and a propensity for "crossing boundaries."

84. E. Glenn Hinson makes a similar point when he identifies mutual appreciation as an

essential ingredient of ecumenical spirituality. Mutual appreciation means
"appreciation for one's own tradition and for that of others." See E. Glenn Hinson
(ed), Spirituality in Ecumenical Perspective (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox
Press, 1993), 3.

85. See Hinson (ed), Spirituality in Ecumenical Perspective, 1-14. Hinson cites Emmanuel

Sullivan, S.A. as observing that mutual appreciation, fundamental to ecumenism,
depends on discerning "the continuing activity of the Holy Spirit over long periods of
separation among churches," 5.

86. Robeck, "Pentecostal Perspectives," 1-4.

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).

89. See Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine and

Life (London, Epworth, 1980) chapter 11.

90. Geoffrey Wainwright, "Types of Spirituality," in Cheslyn Jones et al. (eds), The Study

of Spirituality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986) 592-605.

91. Wainwright, "Types," 592.

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.

94. Hollenweger, "Pentecostal Spirituality," 553-54.

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).

97. See Grimes, Beginnings, 53-69, for a survey of definitions and a refined composite of

connotations with a unique contribution toward a definition of (nascent) ritual.

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.

99. 66Robert Mapes Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American

Pentecostalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979) and Idem, "Pentecostal and
Charismatic Christianity," in Encyclopedia of Religion vol. 11 ed. Mircea Eliade, 229-235
(New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987). We use the term ritual here to speak of the
entire Pentecostal service.

100. 66See Appendix B for a categorization and listing liturgical rites, foundational and
microrites in the Pentecostal service.

101. 66See Albrecht, Pentecostal/Charismatic,  chapter six where we deal in more depth

with some essential roles of ritual.

102. 66Because Pentecostal ritual embodies a spirituality, ritual performance portrays

that spirituality. But ritual performance functions as both expression and "work." By
ritual work we mean that Pentecostal ritual has efficacious qualities. Rites may induce
experiences and rites emerge as experience themselves. Through their rites Pentecostals
work out their values and produce a sense of meaning, through their rites they do
theology and they "work out their salvation."

103. 66In this paper, "Pentecostal spirituality" refers to a specific type of spirituality

within the broader category of Christian spirituality. Pentecostal spirituality cannot be
utterly unique for it shares in a basic Christian experience. Pentecostal aims, values and
other characteristics are not in themselves peculiar. The editors of the Dictionary of
Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements have correctly noted, "each of the [Pentecostal]
characteristics . . . has appeared before in the rich and colorful tapestry of Christian
spirituality through the ages. But thecombination is new" [emphasis mine]. Consequently,
much of what we say about Pentecostal spirituality and ritual, in this work, applies to
other Christian traditions. We do not claim that our observations are applicable
exclusively to Pentecostalism, nonetheless, we center our observations and
interpretations around Pentecostal spirituality. See Stanley Burgess, Gary McGee and
Patrick Alexander, eds. Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movement [DPCM]
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 5.
http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj2/albrecht.html#N_1_

____________________

CYBERJOURNAL FOR PENTECOSTAL-CHARISMATIC RESEARCH

 

Luke's Application of Joel 2:28-32

In Peter's Sermon in Acts 2

Roli G. dela Cruz

 

                                                               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.

                             SPIRIT OUTPOURING AND ASSUMPTIONS FOLLOWED

            The citation of Joel 2:28-32[1] gives a relevant eschatological significance to Peter's speech at

Pentecost, which is pivotal to Luke's intent in the Acts narrative.  For Luke, the eschatological outpouring of
the Spirit is foundational for the notion that the gift of the Spirit is available to every believer.[2]  Corollary to
this universal outpouring is the fact that the reception of the Spirit of prophecy brings inspiration for the
proclamation of the crucified Christ.  The disciples' experience of the Spirit at Pentecost empowers them, as
witnesses for Christ, to the challenge of encouraging others to call upon the name of the Lord for
salvation.  Thus, a closer examination of the Gospel writer's usage of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2 shows the
direction in which the Gospel writer perceives the outpouring of the Spirit of God as an eschatological
fulfillment, prophetic manifestation, and universal gift for the people of God.[3]

            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?

                                     THE PENTECOST EVENT AND LUKE'S INTENT

            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.

                                    PETER'S SERMON AND THE ACTS NARRATIVE

            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]

                                                 Ancient Speeches as Historical Events

            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.

                                              Acts Speeches as Theological Mechanisms

            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"
(ΠX) and "genuine contests" (•' •), 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.
 

     [1] The reference in the Hebrew or Masoretic Text is 3:1-5.

     [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.

     [3] Robert P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology: With Special

Reference to Luke-Acts, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, ed. David
Hill (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 224-229, sees three things surfacing in Luke's
usage of Joel: (1) "the Spirit of Pentecost is the Spirit of prophecy;" (2) "the Spirit of Pentecost is
universally available to the people of God;" and (3) "the Spirit of Pentecost is an eschatological
sign."  Roger Stronstad, "The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke's Charismatic
Theology," in Contemporary Issues in Pentecostal Theology, Asia Pacific Theological Seminary
First Annual Pentecostal Lectureship Series (Baguio, Philippines: APTS, 1993), pp. 22-23, sees
three points in the application of Joel: (1) "the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit is the eschatological
gift of the Spirit;" (2) "the pouring forth of the eschatological gift of the Spirit is the Spirit of
prophecy;" and (3) "the pouring forth of the eschatological Spirit of prophecy is for the community
of God's people."  Cf. Roger Stronstad,The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1984), pp. 55-57.  Both Menzies and Stronstad recognize that Joel's
prophecy relates to the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost with the notion that the disciples
received the eschatological, prophetic and universal Spirit of God.

     [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."

     [15] See Andrew T. Lincoln, "Theology and History in the Interpretation of Luke's

Pentecost," Expository Times 96 (1984-85): 209.  Contra Haenchen, pp. 172-175.

     [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 ßZ."  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."

     [29] Ibid., pp. 354-357.

     [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.

     [35] Ibid., see pp. 453-455; cf. pp. 638-639.

     [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.

     [37] See the discussion of Gasque, pp. 245-246.

     [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."

     [40] Cf. Gempf, pp. 290-291.

     [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.

     [44] I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1970), p. 55, claims that Luke's utilization of the speeches is "to give his reader
an insight into particular issues involved at crucial points in his narrative."

     [45] For a thorough survey on these differing views see Soards, pp. 1-11.

     [46] Gempf, p. 303.  See also pp. 259-303.

     [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

------------------------------

CYBERJOURNAL FOR PENTECOSTAL-CHARISMATIC RESEARCH

Unmasking Prejudice

By Dr. David K. Bernard

Book Review of E. Calvin Beisner, "Jesus Only" Churches (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1998), 87 pages.

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:

    Monarchianism is represented today by the United ("Jesus Only") Pentecostals. . . . As

the differences between modalism
    and pure trinitarianism are rather minute, it is not surprising that a great number of
Christians in mainline denominations,
    including Roman Catholicism, hold a modalistic conception of the Trinity, at least
unconsciously.(1)

According to this passage, the Oneness doctrine is a relatively insignificant deviation

from "pure trinitarianism" and amounts to nothing more than "a modalistic conception
of the Trinity." Why then it is sufficient to make someone a cultist? Is the author now
willing to extend this blanket condemnation to the "great number of Christians in
mainline denominations" who hold essentially the same view?

Serious Errors of Fact

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: "Oneness Pentecostalism worldwide comprises about 90 denominations in 57

countries. Response: The UPCI by itself exists in 135 countries.(3)

· Claim: "Estimated affiliated [Oneness Pentecostal] church members worldwide in

1990 totaled about 1.4 million." The cited source is David Barrett (1988). Response: The
author misread his source, because Barrett listed two categories of Oneness Pentecostals
totaling 4,704,960.(4) Moreover, this estimate is over ten years old and incomplete. In
June 1997, Charismamagazine reported 17 million Oneness believers. (5) The most
thorough study of this subject, presented as a master's thesis for Wheaton College in
1998, documents over 21 million Oneness Pentecostals. (6)

· 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.

Faulty Presentation of Oneness Doctrine

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)

On the doctrine of salvation, the booklet represents Oneness Pentecostals as believing

that "water baptism is the indispensable means of regeneration." This statement is false.
While Oneness Pentecostals generally agree that water baptism is for the remission of
sins, part of the new birth, and part of the experience of New Testament salvation, they
believe that regeneration is supremely the work of the Holy Spirit and purchased by the
blood of Jesus.

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.

Narrow Presentation of "Historic Orthodoxy"

The booklet's presentation of the "historic, orthodox understanding" of Christ, the

Trinity, and salvation is surprising in places. Its position on a number of issues is quite
controversial, and its appeal to historical authority is inconsistent. Here are some
examples:

· 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.

3. iii.Financial Reports, UPCI, June 30, 1997, 71.

4. iv.David Barrett, "Statistics, Global," Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. Stanley
Burgess, Gary McGee, and Patrick Alexander (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 813.

5. v.J. Lee Grady, "The Other Pentecostals," Charisma, June 1997, 63.

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.

7. vii.Financial Reports, UPCI, June 30, 1997, vi, 71, 84.

8. viii.Financial Reports, UPCI, June 30, 1992, 75, 90.

9. ix.Financial Reports, UPCI, June 30, 1994, 77, 93.

10 x.Manual, United Pentecostal Church International, 1998, 20.

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.

14.xiv.For documentation, see Bernard, New Birth, 261-64.

15.xv.Van Harvey, A Handbook of Theological Terms (New York: Macmillan, 1964), 246.

http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj4/bernard.html

____________________