Gustavo Gutiérrez’s Mysticism as a Door to Pentecostal Dialogue
Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
Te Movement Toward Mysticism in Gustavo Gutiérrez’s Tought: Is Tis an Open Door
to Pentecostal Dialogue?
Joseph Davis
Associate Professor of Religion, Southeastern University, Lakeland, Florida
Abstract
Over the last few years a distinct shift has occurred within the thought of liberation theology’s most famous proponent, Gustavo Gutiérrez. Specifically, Gutiérrez has ventured into mysticism. With this movement a fascinating question can be posed: Does the incorporation of mysti- cism open up a door for dialogue with Latin America’s other popular theology, Pentecostalism? Conversely, should Pentecostalism reflexively understand itself historically and theologically as a liberating movement of the poor? Placed together, an emphasis on praxis seems to reveal, at minimum, a common starting point. Te methodology of the paper incorporates a detailed historical analysis of Gutiérrez’s position on mysticism and moves to the conclusion that the shift in emphasis opens the door, albeit a small crack, to one of the most exciting opportuni- ties to occur within the history of Christianity: the marriage of Pentecostal spirituality with liberating social action.
Keywords
Gustavo Gutiérrez, liberation theology, mysticism, Pentecostalism
At the 2008 Society for Pentecostal Theology conference, Jürgen Moltmann made a startling statement to commence his talk on the work of “Pentecostals and Liberation Teology.” He said, “I met with Gustavo Gutiérrez in Lima a few years ago, and as we were talking he looked out his window and pointed to the barrios below saying, ‘Out there, it is the Pentecostals who are going into the barrios [to reach the poor].”1 What Gutiérrez meant by the statement was that despite the divide that had separated the two most dominant camps of religious fervor within Latin America, the evidence was clear: it was the
1
Jürgen Moltmann, Statement made at Society for Pentecostal Theology, 15 March 2008, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/157007411X554668
1
6
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
Pentecostals who were helping the poor. Laden within such a statement are a plethora of both endless possibilities and admittedly speculative projections. In fact, at the onset one must admit that one small statement does not equate to a full-blown theological tour de force. Nor does it mean that the wedding ceremony is about to begin to join these two previously disparate antagonists. What this statement does create, however, is an open door to further scholarly reflection. Tis is particularly true if the aforementioned statement is coupled with perceived changes in Gutiérrez’s stance toward a kindred spirit of Pente- costalism, namely, mysticism. Granted, mysticism is not Pentecostalism and Pentecostalism is not mysticism.2 But it would not be too much to say that there are similarities between the two, and any movement toward the one may have broader ranging implications for the other. Terefore, before venturing further in fruitless conjecture, a number of questions must be answered. First, have there been any changes in Gutiérrez’s theology of liberation that warrant such projections? Tere are some who feel that all talk of change within Gutiér- rez’s theology of liberation is a misunderstanding of his thought.3 Second, what is Gutiérrez’s approach to mysticism? And third, is it possible that praxis itself has created a crack in the door within Gutiérrez’s thought that might integrate two seemingly disparate theologies? Of course, these questions do not stop at Latin America; rather, the prospect of such a provocative fusion has worldwide implications.
Over the past half-century primarily two religious movements have gripped the imaginations and aspirations of the poor in Latin America. Tose two movements are the theology of liberation and the Pentecostal movement.4 Of the two, only liberation theology can be truly said to be indigenous in origin. Pentecostalism is indigenous in another manner; it is the overwhelming choice of the poor in Latin America.5 Daniel Chiquete, commenting on the perceived rise of Protestantism, denied this misunderstanding by retorting that Latin America has not turned Protestant at all; rather, “Latin America has turned
2
Simon Chan has made an interesting case for a structural compatibility between the two. See Simon Chan, “Pentecostal Teology and Christian Spiritual Tradition,” Journal of Pentecostal Teology Supplement Series 21 (2000).
3
One of Gutiérrez’s most recent biographers, James Nickoloff, maintains such a conservative position. See James B. Nickoloff, “A Future for Peru? Gustavo Gutiérrez and the Reasons for His Hope,” Horizons 19 (Spring 1992): 31-43.
4
Te Pentecostal movement originated at the Azusa Street Revival in 1906. Most point to the Medellín Conference in 1968 as the beginning of the liberation theology movement.
5
Laurie Goodstein, “Pentecostal and Charismatic Groups Growing,” New York Times, 6 Octo- ber 2006.
2
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
7
Pentecostal!”6 In his book on Pentecostalism, Allan Anderson confirms this by saying, “Te growth of Pentecostalism in Latin America has been one of the most remarkable stories in the history of Christianity.”7 In fact, a Templeton grant research project confirmed these observations. In terms of the world’s population, two of the top three countries with the largest percentage of Char- ismatics/Pentecostals are in Latin America.8
Interestingly enough, the tie between Pentecostalism and the poor in Latin America is not a local aberration. Te history of Pentecostalism reveals that a disproportionate number of dispossessed and poor are attracted to its message of a God whose Spirit is active and fully invested in the present. Juan Sep- ulveda notes, “From a statistical point of view, Pentecostalism has spread far more in the lower classes of popular sections of Latin American societies” than in the upper or middle classes of society.9 In fact, recent studies confirm not just an interest among the Hispanic poor in the “spiritual” aspects of faith but also a commitment among Hispanic Pentecostals for social change.10 Why? Te answer lies both in Pentecostalism’s derivation and its foundational thesis that God can speak to the common person of any nation, tongue, or tribe. Chiquete notes, “By their very nature the Pentecostals are natural promoters of plurality and inner-cultural contact.”11 In the Azusa Street Revival, one finds the message of a God active in history born among the poor and racially, sexually (gender), and economically dispossessed. From the movement’s inception, Pentecostals were the people “from the other side of the tracks.” Yet, in spite of these humble roots, the exportation of Pentecostalism to Latin America was often viewed with a jaundiced eye among the local religious intelligentsia. Given its origin in the United States, Pentecostalism was sus- pected of being tinged with imperialism.12 As a result, the missions-centered
6
Daniel Chiquete, “Latin American Pentecostalism and Western Modernism: Reflections of a Complex Relationship,” International Review of Mission 92, no. 364 (2003): 38.
7
Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 63.
8
Tirty-four percent of the population of Brazil and 40 percent of the population of Guate- mala are Pentecostal/Charismatic worshippers. Te Pew Forum, 6 October 2006.
9
Juan Sepulveda, “Future Perspectives for Latin American Pentecostalism,” International Review of Mission 87 (April 1998): 191.
10
Villafane points out that Pentecostals in the Hispanic community in New York City are at the forefront of social concern and outreach. See Eldin Villafane, Te Liberating Spirit: Toward an Hispanic American Pentecostal Social Ethic (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1993), 110-26.
11
Chiquete, “Latin American Pentecostalism and Western Modernism,” 36.
12
Sepulveda refutes this conception, saying, “Te commonly held accusation that the rapid growth of Latin American Pentecostalism is the result of a sort of conspiracy of the U.S.
3
8
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
Pentecostalism exported to Latin America had the label, “Made in America.” Te label should have read more correctly, “Made among the Poor and Dis- possessed of America.” Here, in Pentecostalism, was a movement that began with the poor and contained in its origins the foundational tenets of breaking down the barriers of social, racial, and gender classifications.
Te early Gutiérrez was clearly one of the students of Latin American theol- ogy who viewed any importation of religion from capitalistic countries with caution. He notes, “Te history of Christianity, too, has been written with a white, Western, bourgeois hand.”13 His primary concern resided in changing the structures of societal oppression, which he called “institutionalized violence.”14 From this starting point, spirituality was seemingly subsumed teleologically under the mandate of effectiveness. Teology itself is formed as “a critical reflection on praxis” as a second step. Gutiérrez affirms this view- point in saying, “From the beginning, the theology of liberation posited that the first act is involvement in the liberation process, and theology came after- ward in a second act.”15 Yet, underneath the definition of praxis is an evalua- tive principle — dissolution of poverty. Gutiérrez notes, “Te criterion mentioned to judge praxis is clearly political effectiveness.”16 As a result of this foundation, the measurement of true spirituality lay within the ethos of social revolution. He says, “We are dealing with two inseparable correlations here and it is important to emphasize this. Te potential of a liberating faith, and the capacities of revolution, are intimately bound together . . . Hence it is impossible to cultivate the one without the other as well, and this is what many find unsettling.”17
Within the criterion of political effectiveness, Gutiérrez also accepted Marx- ist economic theory operationally and coupled it with a heavy reliance upon the social sciences as the proper barometers of societal change. In this, Gutiér- rez believes that Marx’s economic understanding of history is a “scientific understanding of historical reality.” He says:
right-wing to counter the people’s movement and Liberation Teology, has very little basis in the facts.” See Sepulveda, “Future Perspectives for Latin American Pentecostalism,” 190.
13
Gustavo Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, trans. Robert Barr (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1983), 200-201.
14
Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Teology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, trans. Sister Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1990), xviii.
15
Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, 200.
16
Gustavo Gutiérrez, “Notes to a Teology of Liberation,” Teological Studies 31 (1970): 250.
17
Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, xx.
4
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
9
Marx deepened and renewed this line of thought in his unique way. But this required what has been called an “epistemological break” (a notion taken from Gaston Bachelard) with previous thought. Te new attitude was expressed clearly in the famous Teses on Feuerbach, in which Marx presented concisely but penetratingly the essential elements of his approach. . . . Basing his thought on these first intuitions, he went on to construct a scientific understanding of historical reality. He analyzed capi- talistic society, in which were found concrete instances of the exploitation of man by his fellows and of one social class by another. Pointing the way toward an era in history when man can live humanly, Marx created categories which allowed for the elabora- tion of a science of history.18
Te early Gutiérrez accented the Marxist aspect in his thought by noting, “Many agree with Sartre that Marxism, as the formal framework of all con- temporary philosophical thought, cannot be superseded.”19 Te accentuating of social and economic liberation led to the misguided perception that the salvation motif in Gutiérrez’s writings was almost exclusively immanistic. Gutiérrez even admitted that
[i]t may seem that we entertain precious little interest in a person’s spiritual attitudes. It could even seem that we disdain qualities of faith or of morality in the poor. We are only seeking to avoid beginning with secondary, derivative considerations in such a way that would confer them with what is primary and basic, creating an interminable number of hair splitting distinctions that in the end only yield ideas devoid of interest and historical impact.20
Given the overt political criterion for evaluating theoretical premises, anyone not involved with immediate political change was viewed axiomatically as part of the problem. Pentecostals fell readily into this category, particularly with a premillennial eschatology as the primary understanding of justice in society. However, the corresponding view from Pentecostals that Gutiérrez’s theology was nothing more than reworked Marxism made the chasm between both diametric. Both assumptions missed the mark in the stereotypical minimiza- tions about the other. Pentecostals misunderstood the theoretical foundations implicit within the ethical imperative of liberation theology, and Gutiérrez minimized the liberating effects of a theology whose historical nexus origi- nated from within the world of the poor.
18
Gutiérrez, A Teology of Liberation, xx. 19
Ibid., 59.
20
Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, 95.
5
10
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
Te latter misunderstanding struck at the very heart of the characterizations of each position and proleptically disposed each toward a position on personal religion and, by consequence, on mysticism. Was religion a matter of the indi- vidual before God or was God exclusively in the work to liberate the oppressed? Of course, both realized, at least theoretically, that the question raised is not an either/or question but one of degree, given that humanity is made up of individuals, at least on a certain level. Leaning more to the corporate under- standing of self, Gutiérrez placed the poor and oppressed as the basis from which true spirituality began. He said,
A spiritual experience, we like to think, should be something out beyond the frontiers of human realities as profane and tainted as politics. And yet this is what we strive for here, this is our aim and goal; an encounter with the Lord, not in the poor person who is “isolated and good,” but in the oppressed person. . . . [H]istory, concrete history, is the place where God reveals the mystery of God’s personhood. God’s word comes to us in proportion to our involvement in historical becoming.21
Much of Gutierrez’s approach could easily be ascribed to the overwhelming degradation of poverty and the miniscule attention that the issue had previ- ously received in theological forums. Te problem was that most of Gutiérrez’s socioeconomic presentation gave the impression that personal faith only has value within the liberation process. Consequently, the most personal of spiri- tual evidence, conversion, was also stated in terms of self revelation in the midst of involvement with the poor. Tis, coupled with a perceived dialectical universalism, made God seem more like a Hegelian construct than a savior who was accepted personally.22 Te result was that much of the personal moti- vation for societal change was relegated to filial love as an implicit love for God. In other words, of the two Great Commandments, Gutiérrez’s presenta- tion of liberation theology emphasized the second almost as the sum total of the first and the sole extension of its meaning. Gutiérrez had aimed to link the two by showing how love for the poor was biblically equated with a love for God, which, of course, had plenty of biblical support; however, Gutiérrez’s presentation of love for the poor made love for God axiomatic in that the two were the same. Christ was in the naked, the hungry, and the imprisoned — but seemingly nowhere else. Gutiérrez notes, “And this is precisely why it [spirituality] is not a purely ‘interior,’ private attitude, but a process occurring
21
Ibid., 52.
22
Gutiérrez said, “I was greatly influenced by Hegel in his understanding of history in writing A Teology of Liberation. Personal Interview with Gutiérrez, 5 May 1994.
6
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
11
in the socio-economic, political, and cultural milieu in which we live, and which we ought to transform.”23 Terefore, there was little need to talk about spirituality prior to its implementation in praxis. Te coterminous equation made spirituality seemingly exclusive to one’s neighbor. Anything else was pietistic narcissism.
Something, or more correctly someone, was lacking. To appropriate Martin Buber, the “I” in the “I-Tou relationship” seemed to be unconditionally assumed in the philosophical category of the other presented by Gutiérrez. Te explanation given for this methodology is that theology is a critical reflec- tion on praxis from the viewpoint of the poor. Te flaw in this methodology was that the original application of this definition viewed the poor almost exclusively through a socioeconomic lens. In other words, the poor were defined by a standard that they themselves did not accept. Te poor viewed themselves as more than merely the victims of institutionalized violence. Reli- gion was not an escape from brutality and minimization; it was a full-scale rebellion to negate the denigrating terms of limitation awkwardly placed upon them by their oppressors.
A Shift in Method Is Noticed
In the early 1980s subtle shifts began to occur within Gutiérrez’s thought that revealed a change in his approach to the question of personal spirituality. Pre- viously Gutiérrez had emphasized theology as a critical reflection on praxis accomplished through the prism of sociopolitical analysis. In the early 1980s word began to leak out from Gutiérrez’s summer school sessions that Gutiérrez had begun to change, or at least modify, his approach to liberation theology. Gerhard Hanlon, who had attended the 1982 summer school session, wrote in a journal article:
In its early years liberation theology in Latin America was concerned with analyzing social reality and interpreting the Bible in terms of liberation from social and political oppression. A few years ago interest turned to the study of the popular religiosity of the masses of the oppressed and attempted to see therein values which might contribute to that liberation. Te most recent interest of Latin American theology is spirituality.24
23
Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, 53.
24
Gerhard Hanlon, “A Spirituality for Our Times,” Clergy Review (June 1984): 200.
7
12
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
In this article Hanlon suggests that there is a new theme in Gutiérrez’s theol- ogy. Tat theme is the “popular religiosity of the masses.” But is this a different direction for Gutiérrez’s thought? Hanlon seems to think that this is an added emphasis but not necessarily a contrary viewpoint. Others, however, find in this added emphasis a discarding of the older ways of thinking to make way for the new.
One of Gutiérrez’s harshest critics in methodology is fellow liberation theo- logian Juan Luis Segundo. In a lecture given at Regent College in 1983, Segundo made a startling remark about what he perceived as a reversal in Gutiérrez’s thinking. Segundo stated that his old friend and compatriot Gustavo Gutiérrez had abandoned the font of his former thinking. In this lecture Segundo called upon his old companion to return to the philosopher’s stone from which they were both hewn. Tat stone, said Segundo, was the sociopolitical methodology that was liberation theology’s original contribu- tion to the world. But more than this, Segundo maintained that the changes in Gutiérrez’s thought were more than just an added dimension to his thought. Segundo asserted that the changes were so drastic that it did not make sense to talk anymore about a singular continuous train of thought but rather “of at least two types of liberation theology.”25 Along these lines, Segundo sadly con- fessed, “And what is painful to me is that I no longer know whether Gustavo himself would endorse what he said then, or whether he would consider it a mere sin of his youth.”26
In 1989 Arthur McGovern, in his book Liberation Teology and Its Critics, took up some of the same questions raised by both Hanlon and Segundo and reached similar conclusions. McGovern noted, “Te revolutionary excitement has dimmed,” and as a result “Gutiérrez has devoted much of his time and writings to the question of spirituality.”27 Echoing both Hanlon and Segundo again, McGovern also noted that Gutiérrez’s liberation theology had “shifted” from a more sociopolitical agenda to one that now emphasizes more the spiri- tual side. He pointed this out by noting the differences between the two books A Teology of Liberation and We Drink from Our Own Wells. He says, “ A Teol- ogy of Liberation deals almost exclusively with the issue of sociopolitical eman-
25
Juan Luis Segundo, Signs of the Times, trans. Robert R. Barr (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1993), 67.
26
Ibid., 93.
27
Arthur McGovern, Liberation Teology and Its Critics: Toward an Assessment (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989), 87.
8
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
13
cipation, and most of the discussion about liberation from sin deals with eliminating unjust structures caused by sin.”28 Conversely, McGovern notes,
In We Drink from Our Own Wells, Gutiérrez reflects theologically on the journey of the poor in Latin America and the journey of those who have attempted to walk with the poor. When liberation theology first emerged, Gutiérrez wrote about the “revolution- ary ferment” alive throughout Latin America. Te revolutionary excitement has dimmed, but Gutiérrez finds a deeper, more faith centered hope still strong.29
McGovern concludes, “I would clearly designate spirituality as the dominant theme of contemporary liberation theology.”30
Paul Sigmund in his book Liberation Teology at the Crossroads also sees the changes in Gutiérrez’s thought. Sigmund identifies Gutiérrez as the progenitor of what he calls the new line of theological speculation that began to depart from the older, more militant liberation theology of the early years. He says, “Many writers have seen the anticipation of the characteristic elements of lib- eration theology in the writings by Latin American theologians in the middle and early 1960s. . . . However the clearest beginnings of the new line of theo- logical speculation are in the writings of Gustavo Gutiérrez.”31 Why have all these changes occurred? Te answer, for Sigmund, is the times in which Gutiérrez wrote his books. He says,
In A Teology of Liberation, however, the emphasis is much more on the former than the latter in the sense that the structuralist anticapitalism is discussed at much greater length than the participatory populism. Tis emphasis is an understandable product of the time at which the work was written — the late 1960s and the early 1970s. As the book was being completed Chile elected a Marxist president, Salvador Allende, with the support of a coalition that also included Christians and parties of a more secular orientation. Allende’s popular unity seemed to embody the commitment to the poor and the oppressed — and to socialism — that liberation theology argued was the logical conclusion to be drawn from the scriptures.
32
28
Ibid., 82.
29
Ibid., 87.
30
Ibid., 83.
31
Paul Sigmund, Liberation Teology at the Crossroads (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 28.
32
Ibid., 39.
9
14
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
Te Movement to Mysticism
Had changes occurred within the presentation of a theology of liberation? In A Teology of Liberation Gutiérrez had maintained that “theological categories are not enough. . . . we need a spirituality.”33 With the issuing of the book We Drink from Our Own Wells, Gutiérrez began to make explicit what to many of his followers was implicit, namely, that there was a verdant spirituality within the original coordinates of the theology of liberation schemata. In the fore- word to this long anticipated work, Henri Nouwen stated, “Tis book fulfills the promise that was implicit in his A Teology of Liberation.”34 In this Gutiér- rez was not abandoning his earlier emphasis but “expanding upon the view.”35 In Gutiérrez’s mind, part of the rationale for minimizing the spiritual aspects was that the tenets of spirituality for the poor should germinate from the poor as a part of their own liberation pilgrimage. He notes, “Evangelization, the proclamation of the gospel, will be genuinely liberating when the poor them- selves become its messengers.”36 Tis embryonic spirituality could not be com- plete until the poor were the artisans of their own spirituality: “Te spirituality of liberation will have its point of departure in the spirituality of the anawin.”37 As Gutiérrez warmly anticipated this new type of spirituality, he felt con- strained to contain his own ruminations since the people of liberation would traverse unknown ground in the birthing of a spiritual paradigm. He notes,
Te problem, however, is not only to find a new theological framework. Te personal and community prayer of many Christians committed to the process of liberation is undergoing a serious crisis. Tis could purify prayer life of childish attitudes, routine, and escapes. But it will not do this if new paths are not broken and new spiritual experiences are not lived. . . . Tere is a great need for a spirituality of liberation; yet in Latin America those who have opted to participate in the process of liberation as we have outlined it above, comprise, in a manner of speaking, a first Christian generation. In many areas of their life they are without a theological and spiritual tradition. Tey are creating their own.38
33
Gutiérrez, A Teology of Liberation, 117.
34
Henri Nouwen’s foreword in Gustavo Gutiérrez, We Drink from Our Own Wells: Te Spiri- tual Journey of a People (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1984), xiii.
35
Tis is the title Gutiérrez gave to his new introduction in commemoration of the fifteenth anniversary edition of A Teology of Liberation, xviii.
36
Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, 22.
37
Ibid., 53.
38
Gutiérrez, A Teology of Liberation, 74.
10
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
15
At least in emphasis, Gutiérrez’s liberation spirituality had begun to change. Te question was what would the new changes look like and how would the new emphasis on spirituality cohere with the old expressions of liberation?
A funny thing occurred in the forging of new spiritualities for the theology of liberation. Te new formulations of faith began to look suspiciously like older, more traditional spiritualities within Roman Catholic mystical life. Sigmund commented, “Without admitting that he was doing so, Gutiérrez continued to modify his approach and to emphasize the agreement between his version of liberation theology and the social teaching of the church.”39 Was it a coincidence that the spiritual evolution looked particularly Roman Catho- lic? True, Gutiérrez had previously noted that “without ‘contemplative life,’ to use a traditional term, there is no authentic Christian life.”40 But in its embry- onic development, he had maintained, “what this contemplative life will be is still unknown.”41 Te unknown of the earlier works became known in such traditional Catholic mystics as St. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila. Monastic pillars of contemplation also began to filter into the thought of Gutiérrez in Augustine and particularly in Ignatius Loyola (contemplation in action). Here, Gutiérrez began to find historical compatriots of liberation who had traversed the spiritual and had never given up the concern for action. As a result, the interior life was seen not as an impediment to liberation but rather as an ally. A recent work by Gutiérrez emphatically embraces spiritual- ity’s help in observing that “spirituality provides strength and durability for social options.”42 In Gutiérrez’s rereading of the mystical and monastic pil- grims, a new vantage point was found to embrace the historical expressions of the faith without losing the present praxis. Te mystical had been demytholo- gized of self-absorbed pietism and had become practical. As a result, Gutiérrez began to mine the deeper recesses of mysticism laden within Christian history. Now Gutiérrez would even become an apostle for the mystical life: “Only within the framework provided by mysticism and practice,” he observed, “is it possible to develop a meaningful discourse about God that is both authentic and respectful of its object.”43 Specifically, the call to contemplation within
39
Sigmund, Liberation Teology at the Crossroads, 171.
40
Gutiérrez, A Teology of Liberation, 74.
41
Ibid.
42
Gustavo Gutiérrez, “Te Teology of Liberation: Perspectives and Tasks,” trans. Fernando F. Segonia, in Toward a New Heaven and a New Earth: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2003), 297.
43
Gustavo Gutiérrez, Te Truth Shall Make You Free (Maryknoll, NY Orbis Books, 1990), 55.
11
16
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
mysticism was now seen as an active participation in the process of liberation as opposed to a fearful withdrawal from the world of need.
Contemplation
What was it about mysticism that attracted the later Gutiérrez? Te answer, of course, is praxis. Gutiérrez had always held to a concept of spirituality that included contemplation, but the adoption of mysticism thrust Gutiérrez into the interior life, which previously had only occupied a footnote in his think- ing. Gutiérrez noted, “Poverty was always a central point in the history of spirituality, and it was always linked to the contemplative life.”44 In Gutiérrez’s life as a parish priest he would often reflect upon the contemplative aspect of the poor, both in merely being within the repose of the church and in active praying. Gutiérrez noted the poor’s abiding presence in the local churches as something more than a place to get out of the rain. He says, “Te poor spend long hours reflecting on their lives [in the church].”45 Reflexively and naturally the poor move from their reflection to prayer. He says, “Tere is perhaps noth- ing more impressive and creative than the praying praxis of Christians among the poor and oppressed. Teirs is not a prayer divorced from the liberating praxis of people. On the contrary, the Christian prayer of the poor springs up from roots in that very praxis.”46
Prayer
Prayer in the spirituality of liberation is not to be thought of as routine, pas- sive, or accepting of degradation. Nor does contemplative silence before God equate to an acceptance of brutality. Gutiérrez states, “Passivity or quietism not only is not a real acknowledgement of the gratuitous love of God, but even denies it or deforms it.”47 Prayer, then, actually questions God about the unac- ceptability of suffering from within the constructs of God’s loving nature: “Teology addresses how to speak about God from the sufferings of the inno-
44
James L. Heff, ed., Believing Scholars: Ten Catholic Intellectuals (New York: Fordham Uni- versity Press, 2005), 45.
45
Gustavo Gutiérrez, “Liberation Teology for the Twenty-First Century” in Romero’s Legacy: Te Call to Peace and Justice, ed. Pillar Closkey (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 55.
46
Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, 107.
47
Gutiérrez, Te Truth Shall Make You Free, 35.
12
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
17
cents, the suffering of the poor.”48 Gutiérrez likewise maintains, “If the ele- ment of injustice be added to this situation of suffering, it can produce resentment and a rejection of the presence and existence of God, because God’s love becomes difficult to understand for one living a life of unmerited affliction.”49 It also maintains the theological structure of struggle before God (coram Deo) as opposed to in atheistic disengagement. Gutiérrez affirms, “Tis painful dialectical approach to God is one of the most profound messages of the book of Job.”50 Te prelude of prayer is central to all God talk because it begins in an attitude of faith from which all talk of God must originate.
True prayer also moves one to action. To pray without a commitment to action nullifies the prayers uttered as faithless. In this dialectical process the surd of suffering moves one to a mystical appropriation of Christ’s suffering. In all unjust suffering the Christian is called to understand that Christ suffers with the victim and “will be in agony until the end of the world.”51 In this suf- fering faith is born — not in a dismissing manner but rather in a mystical paschal participation. From identification with Christ a “hermeneutic of hope” is appropriated that sees in the resurrection of Christ the future redemption.52 Yet, because the suffering is not abated in the present time, there is a need for continued contemplation. Tis discipline of silent meditation beckons the sufferer into an interior life that helps them persevere through the present affliction. Gutiérrez notes, “Teology will then be speech that has been enriched by silence.”53 Yet, the present disciplines and the future hope do not always provide easy answers to the larger, more personal questions of theodicy. In this Gutiérrez confesses, “Tis question is larger than our capacity to answer it. It is a very deep, personal question. Ultimately, we have no answers except to be with the poor.”54 As a result, contemplation continues and compassion follows from the inability (both personal and corporate) to explain God’s love in the midst of evil. Perhaps this is why Gutiérrez was fond of quoting Jose Maria Arguedas’ aphorism, “What we know is much less than the great hope we feel.”55
48
Gustavo Gutiérrez, “How Do You Tell the Poor God Loves You?” Interview by Mev Puleo, St. Anthony Messenger 96 (February 1989): 10.
49
Gustavo Gutiérrez, On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987), 13.
50
Ibid., 65.
51
Ibid., 101.
52
Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, 15.
53
Ibid., xiv.
54
Ibid.
55
Ibid., 22.
13
18
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
Revelation and Praxis
As part of the liberation imperative, Gutiérrez also advocates the age-old dis- cipline of the reading of the Scriptures. From the beginning of Gutiérrez’s project of liberation, the Bible has held a central position. However, even the Scriptures seem to take on a new dimension within the thought of the latter Gutiérrez. Te early Gutiérrez’s epistemology located truth as a dialectical interaction with praxis. He says, “For what we are concerned with is a re- reading of the gospel message within the praxis of liberation.”56 In this he agrees with Congar in saying, “It [the church] must open as it were a new chapter of the theological-pastoral epistemology. Instead of using only revela- tion and tradition as starting points, as classical theology has generally done, it must start with the facts and questions derived from the world and from history.”57 He also notes that “all truth must modify the real world . . . knowl- edge is thus dialectical starts and returns.”58 By 1983 he had revised his episte- mology to include a more preeminent status for revelation in epistemology. He said, “Te ultimate criterion for judgment comes from revelation not from praxis itself.”59 Correspondingly, Gutiérrez also began to modify his position on the social sciences’ place in epistemology. He wrote, “Te Bible concept is very rich, richer than a purely sociological understanding of the poor.”60
Has Gutiérrez’s Mysticism Created an Open Door for Dialogue?
Is Gutiérrez’s incorporation of mysticism a theological portal through which dialogue with Pentecostalism might commence? Given the chasm that has historically separated them, the answer to such a question is at best tentative. First, while the accentuation of mysticism is without question an elaboration of Gutiérrez’s latent spirituality, the translation from mysticism to Pentecostal- ism is not a seamless transition from either side. Yet, there are voices within Pentecostalism who believe that the chasm is not too deep and that a latent commonality abides between the two. Miroslav Volf is one who implores these two theologies to come together. He states, “It is of ecumenical importance for
56
Ibid., 66.
57
Gutiérrez, A Teology of Liberation, 9.
58
Gustavo Gutiérrez, “Te Praxis of Liberation and the Christian Faith,” Humane Vitae (September 1974): 373.
59
Gustavo Gutiérrez, Te Truth Shall Make You Free, 101.
60
Gustavo Gutiérrez, “Gutiérrez Reflects on 15 Years of Liberation Teology,” Interview by Latinamerica Press, Latinamerica Press 15 (19 May 1983): 5-7.
14
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
19
liberation theology and Pentecostal theology to recognize each other as feud- ing family members,” as opposed to enemies.61 Te reason for this, Volf points out, is an increasing awareness within the Pentecostal movement of both the liberation imperative and the conscientization of socioeconomic need. At first glance, he says, “Liberation theology and Pentecostal theology seem to be prime examples of radically opposing theologies.”62 As Volf notes, however, the two theologies have much more in common than either one of them may wish to believe: “Individual groups of Pentecostalists around the world seem to be slowly discovering the socioeconomic implications of their soteriology, and liberation theologians are becoming more aware of the need for a spiritual framework for their socioeconomic activity.”63 Dario Lopez Rodriguez com- ments on the liberating activity: “Today there is sufficient evidence from sev- eral countries of Latin America that a gradual awakening of the social conscience of a significant sector of the Pentecostal movement is taking place.”64 Doug Peterson agrees: “Ultimately, by empowering people who were previ- ously denied a voice, the Pentecostal Movement in Latin America has acquired a revolutionary potential.”65
On the question of spirituality, Simon Chan also sees a great deal of conti- nuity between Catholic mysticism and Pentecostalism. Within the two tradi- tions Chan sees great possibility in the celebration of the Eucharist as a “central” Pentecostal event.66 Chan also views tongues as, in essence, an expres- sion of Teresa of Avilla’s progression to joy “in which joy becomes so over- whelming that the soul could only respond with all tongues and heavenly madness.”67 Chan says, “Pentecostalism cannot be regarded as a marginal movement, much less an aberration: it is a spiritual movement that matches in every way the time-tested development in Catholic tradition.”68 Chan even believes that the Pentecostal giftings work best in the structure of Roman Catholic and the Episcopal Charismatic traditions. He notes, “In fact I would
61
Miroslav Volf, “Materiality of Salvation: An Investigation in the Soteriologies of Liberation and Pentecostal Teologies,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 26, no. 3 (Summer 1989): 449.
62
Ibid., 447.
63
Ibid., 460.
64
Dario Lopez Rodriguez, “A Critical Review of Douglas Peterson’s Not by Might Nor by Power: A Pentecostal Teology of Social Concern in Latin America,” Journal of Pentecostal Teology 17 (2000): 136.
65
Douglas Peterson, “Latin American Pentecostalism: Social Capital, Networks, and Poli- tics,” Pneuma: Te Journal of Pentecostal Theology 26, no. 2 (Fall 2004): 306.
66
Chan, “Pentecostal Teology and Christian Spiritual Tradition,” 108.
67
Ibid., 60.
68
Ibid., 71.
15
20
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
like to show that [the Pentecostal reality] is better traditioned in a church that recognizes the constitutive role of the sacraments and the Spirit.”69 But is there a tradition within liberation theology that militates against the indigenous nature of Pentecostalism?
Ecclesiology
In “La Koinonia Eclesial” Gutiérrez proclaims that “the task of the church is as an extension of the missions of the Son and the Spirit.”70 Even in Gutiérrez’s earlier thought he had stated that “spirituality in the strict and profound sense of the word is the dominion of the Spirit.”71 But what does this mean in rela- tion to the ecclesiology? In the formation of the spirituality of liberation, Gutiérrez earlier maintained that he was hesitant to conjecture as to the expli- cation of this “new” spirituality. His reasoning was that the people of libera- tion were “first generation” liberationists; therefore, what liberation spirituality comprised was subsequently in an embryonic and much too formative stage. Gutiérrez has consistently maintained that the poor will not be truly liberated until they are the artisans of their own spirituality. But, as Segundo pointed out, “Something was obvious . . . the common people had neither understood nor welcomed anything from the first theology of liberation, and had actually reacted against its criticism of the supposed oppressive elements of popular religions.”72 Paradoxically, many now have begun to criticize liberation theol- ogy for its lack of indigenous authenticity and for being primarily an academic exercise. Solivan says, “Te power and authenticity present in the early voices of the liberation theologians have been diluted by the process of academic advancement.”73 Charles Self has asserted that “Pentecostalism is truly a faith of the poor and is thus distinct from some liberation theology movements which are for the poor.”74 Tis critique echoes Moltmann’s previous criticism that the theology of liberation had more to do with European theology than it
69
Ibid., 15.
70
Gustavo Gutiérrez, “La Koinonia Eclesial,” trans. David Bustos, Paginas 200 (August 2006): 22.
71
Gutiérrez, A Teology of Liberation, 117.
72
Segundo, Signs of the Times, 74.
73
Samuel Solivan, “Te Spirit, Pathos, and Liberation: Toward an Hispanic Pentecostal Te- ology,” Journal of Pentecostal Supplement Series 14 (1998): 36.
74
Charles Self, “Conscientization, Conversion, and Convergence: Reflections on Base Com- munities and Emerging Pentecostalism in Latin America,” Pneuma: Te Journal of the Society of Pentecostal Theology 14, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 63.
16
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
21
did with any indigenous ecclesiology. In his “Open Letter to Jose Miguez Bonino,” Moltmann remarked that Gutiérrez’s work “offers many new insights — but precisely only in the framework of Europe’s history, scarcely any in the history of Latin America.”75 Gutiérrez often acknowledges his Euro- pean pedagogy as an encumbrance to his own veracity in speaking for the poor. Solivan states, “Without the poor — those who suffer — as subject, theology denigrates into the academic exercise of cognitive praxis.”76 For a privileged theologian educated in first-rate schools, it would be hard to sepa- rate the wineskins of austere academia from the degradation of poverty. To be sure, Gutiérrez has advocated and modeled the incarnational lifestyle, but does this model extend to his theological method? Or theoretically rephrased, does praxis, itself, have a criterion that uncritically incorporates a residual European pedagogy?
Pneumatology
In We Drink from Our Own Wells, Gutiérrez created considerable distance between “popular religion” and liberation theology by juxtaposing those who believe in miracles with those who are involved in the work of liberation: “Te power of the Spirit leads to love of God and others and not to the working of miracles.”77 Here there is a clear divergence from the view of the poor as it relates to both love and pneumatology. Exceedingly little is said throughout Gutiérrez’s works about pneumatology.78 It is an area of immense neglect. As a result, a penetrating criticism must be directed at this lack, and a question of sufficiency must be raised when the most theologically active participant in historical change (the Holy Spirit) is absent. But perhaps this is the point. Does the weakness in Gutiérrez’s pneumatology nuance his entire understand- ing of the Pentecostal movement? And does this lack predispose the theology of liberation to a critique of immanence from which the Pentecostal poor can speak more adequately? Solivan again points out that the two, miracles and
75
Jürgen Moltmann, “An Open Letter to Jose Miguez Bonino,” Christianity in Crisis 36 (29 March 1976): 5.
76
Solivan, “Te Spirit, Pathos, and Liberation,” 65.
77
Gutiérrez, We Drink from Our Own Wells, 63.
78
A quick perusal of the indexes of Gutiérrez’s books reveals the disparity. In Te Truth Shall Make You Free, the index does not have any references to the Holy Spirit. Tere are thirty-seven to Jesus and eleven to Marx. In A Teology of Liberation there are 107 references to Jesus, ten to Marx, and three to the Holy Spirit. All of the books that Gutiérrez has written display this disparity.
17
22
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
liberation imperatives, are not inimical to one another: “For many suffering people what makes God’s promise possible in their present experience is the acceptance of the miraculous. . . .Te experiences of promises fulfilled today serve as first fruits of what is yet in store.”79 Gutiérrez emphasizes only the silent suffering aspect of transcendence. But why is it inconsistent to believe, as the poor do, that God’s identification with weakness is equally as true as the Holy Spirit’s manifestation of power? On an economic level Gutiérrez agrees — it is just in the supernatural aspects where there is resistance. Of course, one might ask how God acting supernaturally now would be any dif- ferent from the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us long ago. But the fallout does not end there. Systemically there is another more problematic result, namely, liberation itself.
Eschatology
In Acts 2:15-16 Peter exclaims, “Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel.” Not only were they not drunk, but the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost inaugurated a new era within the life of the church that Joel referred to as the last days (v. 17). In Gutiérrez’s thought there is a great empha- sis on the hermeneutic of hope that creates eschatological longing for change. Gutiérrez is correct in believing in an eschatological hope but does not incor- porate any real pneumatology into his eschatology. As a result, the motivation for change rests primarily within the subject of history, as opposed to the Spirit of, over, and in history. Tis places a heavy weight upon the subject of history, who has hitherto been unable to realize his and her eschatological implica- tions. Granted, the hermeneutic of hope comes through humanity, but it does not originate in humanity. To fill this need, Gutiérrez adopts the methodology of conscientization in what seems to appear more as a Promethean construct than an emphasis upon the Spirit. Tis lack of proper emphasis threatens the entire edifice of liberation in that it places the realization of the movement in the ability of humanity to see. Tis is not the biblical presentation of the noetic effects of sin or the Holy Spirit’s relegation to a subordinate eschato- logical role. Te person who leads into all truth is the primogenitor of the eschatological hope. As a result, the assurance for hope is limited to the ability or inability of humanity to both see and accomplish this hope. And this is a
79
Solivan, “Te Spirit, Pathos, and Liberation,” 91.
18
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
23
major difference between Pentecostalism and liberation theology. To para- phrase Solivan, Pentecostalism has placed its hope for the future upon a pres- ent belief in the Spirit’s workings. In so doing, they have found the impetus for change both on a personal level and in society. Tis is why there is hope for the future. Revealed in the present dispensation is the future realization of abiding liberation.
Hope for the Future?
Is there a crack in the door that allows for dialogue between what, on the sur- face, seems like two antagonistic viewpoints on liberation spirituality? Gutiér- rez has noted that theology will not be free of illegitimate presuppositions until the poor create their own theology. What became apparent with the writ- ing of We Drink from Our Own Wells, however, was that Gutiérrez did have within his own mind the parameters of a certain type of spirituality, namely, Roman Catholic mysticism. As Volf and Chan have pointed out, this does not invalidate dialogue between Pentecostalism and Gutiérrez. Conversely, neither do the similarities between the two extinguish all distance. Simply put, what validates or invalidates the Pentecostal experience, according to Gutiérrez’s theology, is liberating praxis. Te question is, does Pentecostalism qualify according to this criterion? For many, and particularly the poor of Latin Amer- ica, the answer is a resounding yes. But is it enough that the poor have voted with their feet? Gutiérrez maintains, “If we are to find God acting in history, we must have an attitude of faith that is open to novelty and mystery.”80 Where does this openness to mystery lead? Te answer is, a door that was previously closed and is being opened ever so slowly. Yet, difficulties abide when a lack of openness to novelty and mystery persist. Te close proximity of focus and geography could not help but create some expected sibling rivalry. However, this should not be enough to seal the door shut or close it back again. Tus, in order for greater openness to occur, the father of liberation theology must realize that true liberating praxis is occurring within Latin America under the name of Pentecostalism. Tere must also be the realization of the indigenous choice and that the label attached to Pentecostalism “Made in America,” is not accurate. Rather, the “Made in America” label should, as previously noted, more correctly read, “Made among the Poor and Dispos- sessed of America.” Te location of liberating praxis’s nexus should not
80
Gustavo Gutiérrez, Te God of Life (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), 80.
19
24
J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24
disqualify its extension or incorporation. If Gutiérrez truly believes in a theol- ogy from the poor, then the poor must be allowed to speak, even if their thoughts take them down less traditional and more mysterious pathways. And perhaps they have spoken — in tongues. Te elaboration of a spiritual need is what precipitated Gutiérrez’s movement into mysticism. Te limitation of that elaboration is where the truly liberating prospects come to an end. Te desire to have a “faith that is open to novelty and mystery” is a glorious incarnational goal. However, the constricting definitions of “novel” and, in this case, “mys- terious” prohibit implementation. Where does this leave the hopes of dialogue between the two most potent forms of religious expression in Latin America? Te answer is looking at a ray of light behind a partially opened door wonder- ing what might happen if the door were to open fully.
20
Last Days Revival
As we are getting ready to hit once again the Revival Trail this week, we wanted to give a quick update on our ministry with a praise report and a prayer request. We have received the final reports from our 200-day revival in Europe last year, with multiple salvations, baptisms and dozens of documented healings. For us as a family, this is a great answer for the time, effort and resources we invested in 39 different churches across six EU countries in 2024.
On the same day in 1909, William Seymour at Azusa and Charles Parham at Topeka prophesied that in a hundred years another, “significantly more powerful move of God” would occur, marking a historic milestone regarding the Last Days Revival in America. Just four years later, during the Stone Church revival in Chicago, this same prophetic word was reaffirmed by Maria Woodworth-Etter who stated that “when the Latter Rain comes, it will far exceed anything we have seen!”
We are reminded that the Lord has also been preparing our own ministry for one last powerful move of God. We recall the 2023 Polk County revival that ran for seven weeks, and prior to that in 2017, when one short missionary service we held in rural Mississippi opened the next three months for revival that took place across six southern states.
As we recall our revival summer across South Carolina back in 1999, we are also reminded that for over a quarter of a century since then, we have almost weekly traveled the Southern Road Music Highway, which extends through Appalachia and have ministered in just about every church along its rout. Last but not least, we also recall the 1990 post-Communist revival in Bulgaria, where in less than one school year (nine months), our youth group grew from 30 to 300 active teenage members. To experience all this for a Bulgarian immigrant, who came to this country over 30 years ago as a young 19-year-old, is nothing short of a miracle!
But this one is different! The revival that is about to happen around us will have neither national nor denominational but a worldwide impact. I am talking about miracles occurring in China and Indonesia just because a few of us gathered for a weekly prayer meeting and brought a need before God. I am talking about God moving in Texas and Miami, across the Mexican border and in Havana, just because a local church fasted in Juno, Alaska.
And I don’t know about you, but I DO want to be part of this new great move of God! The time for one last great revival is here – but where’s the Church?
25 Years of Revivals in America
BibleTech or BUST: 15 Years Later
Using Crimea and Splitting Turkey in Russia’s Strategy Against Israel
Russia’s Strategic Interest in Crimea: A Geopolitical and Prophetic Analysis
The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 has been widely interpreted as a strategic move to secure naval dominance in the Black Sea and strengthen its geopolitical leverage against NATO and Ukraine. However, an alternative perspective emerges when analyzed through the lens of biblical prophecy and long-term military strategy. The drying up of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, a phenomenon recorded in contemporary hydrological studies, aligns with prophetic interpretations that suggest a future military incursion from the north into the Middle East (Revelation 16:12). Russia’s occupation of Crimea provides it with the essential infrastructure to deploy land-based forces through Ukraine, positioning itself advantageously for a southward advance into the Levant.
Recent satellite imagery and military reports indicate that Russian forces have been expanding their logistic networks southward, ostensibly preparing for extended operational capacity beyond Ukraine. This movement aligns with Ezekiel 38, which speaks of a great northern power mobilizing toward Israel. The control of Crimea facilitates the use of land corridors, including the riverbeds of the drying Euphrates and Tigris, as viable routes for ground troop movements toward the Middle East. The historical precedent of dried riverbeds being used for military campaigns, such as those in ancient Mesopotamian conflicts, reinforces the plausibility of such a strategy.
The Implications of Splitting Turkey
Turkey’s geostrategic location has long made it a contested territory between global powers. Russia’s engagement with Turkey, often vacillating between diplomacy and military tension, suggests a broader plan to divide the nation. Russia has historically sought access to warm-water ports, and controlling parts of Turkey would provide a direct route into the Mediterranean, essential for projecting power into the Middle East. Biblical prophecies, such as Daniel 11:40-45, describe a northern king sweeping through the Middle East, which scholars interpret as a reference to an eschatological conflict involving major world powers.
Military analysts have noted that Turkey’s internal divisions—ranging from Kurdish separatist movements to ideological rifts between secularists and Islamists—could be exacerbated by external intervention. If Russia were to support separatist elements or engage in a direct military confrontation with Ankara, it could effectively partition Turkey, utilizing the eastern and southeastern regions as forward operating bases for an eventual military campaign against Israel. This aligns with longstanding Russian ambitions to expand its influence over the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits, a critical chokepoint for naval power projection.
Russia’s Long-Term Strategy Against Israel
Prophetic interpretations of Ezekiel 38-39, often referred to as the War of Gog and Magog, suggest an eventual coalition of northern powers targeting Israel. Russia’s military alliances with Iran and Syria, its arms sales to Hezbollah, and its growing presence in the Mediterranean point toward a strategic encirclement of Israel. Should Russia establish a stronghold in a divided Turkey, it would gain a crucial launching pad for an invasion into the Levant, a scenario eerily resembling biblical eschatological predictions.
Furthermore, Russia’s growing economic and military ties with Middle Eastern nations indicate an effort to consolidate power in the region. If Turkey were split, Russia could fortify a southern front, allowing for coordinated military action with its allies. The prophetic significance of these developments cannot be understated, as they align with scriptural warnings of a great northern coalition advancing against Israel in the end times.
Conclusion
While conventional geopolitical analysis frames Russia’s actions as strategic posturing within a multipolar world order, a prophetic interpretation suggests a deeper significance. The annexation of Crimea, the potential partitioning of Turkey, and the alignment with Middle Eastern allies all point toward a larger eschatological confrontation. As the Euphrates and Tigris rivers continue to dry, the pathways for military movement envisioned in ancient prophecy seem increasingly plausible. Whether viewed through the lens of strategic military doctrine or biblical foresight, Russia’s actions indicate a long-term vision that extends far beyond Ukraine and deep into the heart of the Middle East.
CIA Report: STATUS OF THE PROTESTANTS IN BULGARIA
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp82-00457r006100810004-5
STATUS OF THE PROTESTANTS IN BULGARIA
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 CIA-RDP82-00457R006100810004-5.pdf |
134.43 KB |
Printer-friendly versionUkraine in the End Times: ENTER the BIRTH PANGS
Do Russian troops have a right to be in Crimea?
Russia’s take: Yes. A treaty between the neighboring nations allows Russia to have up to 25,000 troops in Crimea, Russia’s U.N. envoy said Monday, adding that Yanukovych requested that Russia send military forces.
Ukraine’s take: No. Russian troops amassing in Crimea and near the border with Ukraine are an “act of aggression.”
United States’ take: No, and Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing a dangerous game. The consequences of military action “could be devastating,” U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power said Monday.
Why is the tense standoff unfolding now?
Russia’s take: Russia has said its parliament approved Putin’s use of military force to protect Russian citizens in the Crimean peninsula.
Ukraine’s take: There’s no evidence of any threat to Russians inside Ukraine. Russia wants to annex Crimea.
United States’ take: Russia is responding to its own historic sensitivities about Ukraine, Crimea and their place in Moscow’s sphere of influence, a senior White House official told CNN Monday. Russia fears that Ukraine is falling under European or Western influence, the official said.
https://cupandcross.com/ukraine-crisis-whats-happening/
Who Holds Authority in Ukraine?
Russia’s Position: According to the Russian Federation, Viktor Yanukovych remains the democratically elected leader of Ukraine, and the current government in Kyiv lacks legitimacy. Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, described the change in leadership as an “armed takeover by radical extremists,” a characterization reflecting Russia’s broader narrative of instability within Ukraine. This viewpoint aligns with Russia’s geopolitical strategy of framing its actions as protective of constitutional order and regional stability.
Ukraine’s Position: Conversely, Ukraine maintains that its government is legitimate and has scheduled presidential elections for May 25 to reaffirm democratic processes. Yuriy Sergeyev, Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Nations, emphasized this point, stating, “Let’s give an opportunity for that to work.” Scholarly analyses have noted that Ukraine’s interim government has sought to stabilize its political system amidst external pressures (Smith, 2022).
The United States’ Position: The U.S. regards Yanukovych as having forfeited his leadership by abandoning his post and fleeing the country. Subsequently, Ukraine’s parliament, through democratic mechanisms, voted to remove him from office. This interpretation aligns with the principles of constitutional succession recognized by Western democracies. Political scientists have noted that the U.S. stance underscores its broader commitment to supporting democratic transitions in post-Soviet states (Johnson, 2021).
How Many Russian Troops Are Deployed in Ukraine?
Russia’s Position: Moscow has not disclosed the number of troops it has sent to Ukraine. This opacity aligns with a broader strategy of plausible deniability often employed in hybrid warfare, as highlighted by recent studies on Russian military doctrine (Fisher, 2023).
Ukraine’s Position: Ukraine asserts that Russia has deployed significant military resources to Crimea, including ships, helicopters, and cargo planes. Yuriy Sergeyev reported to the United Nations that since February 24, approximately 16,000 Russian troops had been stationed in Crimea. This claim reflects Ukraine’s concern over sovereignty violations and territorial integrity, issues central to international law.
The United States’ Position: U.S. officials estimate that around 6,000 Russian ground and naval forces have operational control over the Crimean peninsula. A senior U.S. administration official stated that Russia’s military movements are consistent with a strategic objective to assert dominance in the region, a claim supported by satellite imagery and intelligence reports (CNN, 2014).
Do Russian Troops Have Legal Authority to Be in Crimea?
Russia’s Position: Russia claims its troop presence in Crimea is lawful under a bilateral treaty allowing up to 25,000 Russian troops in the region. Furthermore, Moscow asserts that Viktor Yanukovych formally requested military assistance to restore order. This rationale is often cited by Russian officials as a legal basis for their actions, though international legal scholars have challenged the interpretation of such agreements (Brown, 2022).
Ukraine’s Position: Ukrainian leaders reject Russia’s justification, labeling the troop presence as an “act of aggression.” Ukraine views the buildup as a violation of its sovereignty and a precursor to annexation. International relations scholars have argued that Ukraine’s position aligns with the principles outlined in the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against territorial integrity (Kuznetsov, 2021).
The United States’ Position: The U.S. similarly considers Russia’s actions illegitimate. Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, warned that President Vladimir Putin’s approach could have “devastating” consequences, highlighting the potential for escalation in the region. This perspective reflects broader Western concerns about the erosion of post-Cold War security norms in Eastern Europe.
Why Is This Standoff Happening Now?
Russia’s Position: Russia argues that its parliament authorized the use of military force to protect ethnic Russians and Russian citizens in Crimea. Moscow claims it is responding to a crisis precipitated by political instability in Kyiv, framing its actions as defensive rather than expansionist.
Ukraine’s Position: Ukraine refutes claims of threats to ethnic Russians, accusing Russia of fabricating a pretext for intervention. Ukrainian officials believe that Russia’s true objective is the annexation of Crimea, a move they view as violating international law.
The United States’ Position: U.S. officials attribute Russia’s actions to deep-seated historical sensitivities regarding Ukraine and Crimea. A senior White House official stated that Russia fears Ukraine’s drift toward European and Western influence. Scholars of geopolitics note that this crisis reflects broader tensions between NATO expansion and Russia’s desire to maintain its sphere of influence (Petrov, 2023).
Spirit Baptism as a Moral Source in a Secular Age
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
Spirit Baptism as a Moral Source in a Secular Age
Caroline Redick Marquette University
Abstract
CharlesTaylor notes that moderns aspire to high moral standards, such as universal jus- tice and benevolence, but lack the moral resources necessary to fulfill these standards. Instead, the weak motivations of egoism, guilt, and obligation result in hypocrisy or the projection of blame on others when we fail to meet these ideals. Taylor’s work seeks to uncover deep moral sources, such as agape, that make it possible to fulfill these stan- dards. This article will complement Taylor’s excavation of powerful moral resources by arguing that Spirit baptism, understood as intense participation in divine love, is a retrieval ofagapeas an empowering moral source as well as a way to contact this source through spiritual articulation. It is a particular kind of retrieval that resonates with the modern sense of the self through a language of personal resonance and an elevation of the ordinary person into the extraordinary life.
Keywords
Charles Taylor – moral sources –agape– Spirit baptism – glossolalia – secularity
Introduction
In his philosophical anthropology,Sources of the Self, Charles Taylor notes that moderns aspire to high moral standards, such as universal justice and benev- olence, but lack the moral resources necessary to fulfill these standards. For example, we may send relief funds to a tsunami-impacted area, not because these are human beings worthyof good will, but in order to avoid the crushing guilt of failing to meet a standard. The weak moral motivations of egoism, guilt, and obligation result in this type of moral hypocrisy. One alternative to this scenario is to lower our modern moral expectations to a more attainable level.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/15700747-04001007
1
38
redick
Instead of aspiring to alleviate hunger around the world, one could prudently focus on providing for their immediate family. Yet, Taylor also finds this alter- native dissatisfying, as adopting a stripped-down morality stifles a key piece of being human: deep spiritual aspirations. It is a form of “spiritual lobotomy,” ignoring distant others to focus on a proximate few, thereby denying the deep desire to care for all human beings because they are worth caring for.1 From a theological perspective, it denies God-like love for the whole world.
Instead of criticizing the high aspirations of universal justice and benevo- lence as overly idealistic, Taylor affirms these modern moral intuitions while seeking to retrieve sources that make them possible, such as the Christian notion of God’s agapic love.2Taylor laments that “the secular ethic of altruism has discarded something essential to the Christian outlook, once love of God no longer plays a role.”3Moderns have become blind to this strong moral source through an “inward turn” away from a transcendent perspective.4Taylor’s work seeks to uncover deep moral sources, such as agape, that make it possible to fulfill these standards.
ThisarticlewillcomplementTaylor’sexcavationof powerfulmoralresources by arguing that Spirit baptism, understood as participation in divine love, is a retrieval of agapeas a moral source. This will be accomplished, first, by explor- ing Taylor’s concept of moral sources; second, through articulating a theology ofagapein relation to the Creator’s vision of creation and Christ’s incarnate sol- idarity with creation; and third, by arguing that Spirit baptism opens up new possibilities for retrievingagapeas a moral source in our secular age.5
1 CharlesTaylor,Sourcesof theSelf:TheMakingof theModernIdentity(Cambridge,MA: Harvard,
1989), 520.
2 As Gary Kitchen has noted, Taylor is neither a “booster” or “knocker” of modernity; “Charles
Taylor: The Malaises of Modernity and the MoralSources of the Self,”Philosophy & Social Crit-
icism: An International, Interdisciplinary Journal25, no. 3 (1999): 30.
3 Taylor,Sources of the Self, 22.
4 Taylor,Sources of the Self, 515.
5 By “secular” I follow Taylor’s definition of “secularity 3,” which refers to new conditions for
belief. For example, “self-sufficient” humanism, with no reference to transcendence, is an
option for the modern person. See Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (London: Belknap Press,
2007), 18, 20.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
2
spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age
39
Moral Sources
Sources and the Good
In Sources of the Self, Taylor offers a thick description of the development of the modern identity through providing a historical account of notions of the self. As part of this account, Taylor relies on the image of “moral sources” that empower our pursuit of the good. This concept becomes intelligible in the con- text of his moral ontology. For Taylor, there are some goods that we respect because of their nature. While reductive naturalists believe human agency is based upon one’s subjective preferences, Taylor argues that human choices are consonant with a framework of goods.6 These are goods that correspond to a “strong evaluation” independent of our subjective desires, choices, or procliv- ities and “command our awe.”7 Although we may only be implicitly aware of these goods, they nevertheless orient our lives.
Taylor uses a spatial metaphor for the self’s orientation to these goods. We view ourselves in relation to a field of qualitative distinctions between goods, and placing ourselves in this space forms our identity. From this position, we orient ourselves to a good and move toward it. Thus, “Orientation in moral space turns out again to be similar to orientation in physical space. We know where we are through a mixture of recognition of landmarks before us and a sense of how we have travelled to get here.”8 Furthermore, we gain a sense of direction from narrating our lives in relation to this good. Through telling sto- ries, we reaffirm the goods that are important to us and recount our failures and accomplishments in pursuit of these goods.
Among the plurality of goods, some are more important than others, and these displace other goods in relation to them. Taylor refers to these standards as “hypergoods” by which other goods are evaluated.9 For example, a culture may value the avoidance of suffering as a hypergood that outweighs all other goods that come into conflict with it. Hypergoods are not simply a matter of subjective taste; rather theymoveus to respect them because we perceive them to be objectively worthwhile. There is an “intrinsic connection between seeing and feeling” as we are moved by what we see as “infinitely valuable.”10
6
7 8 9 10
Taylor, Sources of the Self, 26–27. See pp. 5, 22–24 for his description of modern natural- ism. Reductive naturalists view moral reactions as similar to instincts and dispense with any ontological account of morality (morality that involves claims about what the human being is).
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 20.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 48.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 69.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 74.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
3
40
redick
Modern culture especially resonates with the hypergoods of universal be- nevolence, the affirmation of the ordinary life, and autonomy.11 These goods form the framework for the modern self, providing the self qualitatively distin- guishable goods as points of orientation. Conflicts arise when one hypergood clashes with another, such as when one must choose between benevolent ser- vice on behalf of others and autonomous self-expression.12 For example, we affirm the decision of a young writer who gives up her dream of studying cre- ative writing in graduate school in order to earn money to pay for her father’s medical bills. At the same time, we view this decision as a real loss, because she sacrifices her autonomous self-expression in order to care benevolently for a family member. As moderns, we feel this tension because the writer chooses between two recognizable hypergoods: benevolence and autonomy. But if she chose to move to Florida to learn to surf instead of caring for her sick father, we would not feel sympathetic. Learning to surf is a genuine life-good, but it is not a hypergood—it does not outweigh the obligation of benevolence.13 Tay- lor’s point is that we intuitively sense the weight of hypergoods, even though we may not be able to articulate why these goods hold our respect.
Furthermore, there are particular goods that not only relativize other goods, but also move us as we love them. These “constitutive goods” are associated with strong moral sources that empower us to do good and be good.14For exam- ple, the Platonic idea of the Good is the source of value for all other goods, and persons are motivated by the love of it. Augustine, improvising upon Plato’s idea, recognizes God as the constitutive good whose agapic love empowers our pursuit of him.15 As gift of God, agape empowers the self from without as a moral source, while also intimately relating to it to affect its re-creation.16
Through language, human cultures express their deep sources. Thus, Arto Laitinen has observed that, for Taylor, moral sources are dependent upon
11
12 13
14 15 16
William Greenway, “Charles Taylor on Affirmation, Mutilation, and Theism: A Retrospec- tive Reading of Sources of the Self,” Journal of Religion80, no. 1 (2000): 27.
Greenway, “Charles Taylor on Affirmation, Mutilation, and Theism,” 28.
Greenway provides a similar example: In the first case, a young man who chooses between joining the Nazi resistance or caring for his elderly mother (two hypergoods). In the sec- ond case, he refuses to join the resistance so he can enjoy eating strawberry ice cream (a life-good). Again, we intuitively recognize the absurdity of choosing a life-good over a hypergood.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 93.
Taylor,Sources of the Self.
Roshnee Ossewaarde-Lowtoo, “The Sources of Modernity: Agape and Secularised Agape in Charles Taylor,” presented at conference Radical Secularization? in Antwerp (2012): 2.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
4
spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age
41
human culture and articulation, yet are not completely human constructions.17 Deep sources, such asagape, originate in God and become manifest in human language. In a theological sense, the Word becomes flesh—the external moral source is articulated in a familiar tongue. The problem is that moderns have become blind to anything beyond the immanent frame and unable to express these deep sources.
The Internalization of Moral Sources
Through gradual internalization, moderns have come to draw upon sources exclusively found within humanity. Taylor traces the relocation of moral sources through Western history. The ancient attraction to the Platonic Good, or God, took an “inward turn” when Augustine posited that the road to God lies within. For Augustine,
our principal route to God is not through the object domain but ‘in’ our- selves. This is because God is not just the transcendent object or just the principle of order of the nearer objects … God is also and for us primarily the basic support and underlying principle of our knowing activity … So the light of God is not just ‘out there,’ illuminating the order of being, as it is for Plato; it is also an ‘inner’ light.18
In this way, Augustine initiates a shift in epistemic access to the source—God is no longer found as the Logos in the external order, but within the self.19This move anticipates later thinkers, such as Descartes and Rousseau, who interpret inwardnessasasourceof itsown,effectively(althoughunintentionally)cutting it off from its connection to the divine.20
For Descartes, insight does not come from attunement to the cosmic order or the Good, but from a separation of the mind from the world.21 The world becomes a mechanism that can be controlled through instrumental reason. Similarly, human passions are brought under the control of reason.22 This
17
18 19
20 21 22
Arto Laitinen, Strong Evaluation without Moral Sources: On Charles Taylor’s Philosophical Anthropology and Ethics(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 272.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 129.
Taylor, Sources of the Self, 128–129. Also see Arto Laitinen, Strong Evaluation without Moral Sources: On Charles Taylor’s Philosophical Anthropology and Ethics (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008) 271.
Laitinen,Strong Evaluation without Moral Sources, 271.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 146, 8.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 149.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
5
42
redick
new “mastery of reason” leads to the relocation of moral sources—they are no longer found in an external order or Good but within the human being.23 A sense of one’s own dignity as a rational being, with the ability to con- trol one’s emotions and environment, provides moral strength.24Furthermore, the internalization of reason functions to provide “self-sufficient certainty.”25 While Descartes is a theist, he no longer encounters God within like Augustine. Instead, the source of empowerment is the self—specifically, instrumental rea- son, which provides certainty. This internal moral source no longer requires encounter with the divine. Thus, Descartes opens the way to a complete imma- nentization of moral sources—a path taken by later thinkers.
John Locke carries on the internalization of sources through developing the “punctual self,” which harnesses instrumental reason to objectify and remake the self.26 Through self-control, one’s consciousness becomes detached from any outside sources of influence such as passion, tradition, or authority.27The punctual self, as described by Locke, is recognizable in modern culture’s self- disciplinary practices in the military, schools, fitness programs, and bureaucra- cies, which aim to remake individuals and society through drawing upon the source of disengaged reason.28 Thus, self-control exemplifies a moral source still operative today.
But this is only one possible direction in modernity. Taylor clarifies that modern moral culture is influenced by three sources: the “original theistic foun- dation,” disengaged reason, and the goodness of nature.29Thinkers influenced by the Cambridge Platonist school did not locate moral sources in disengaged reason but in nature. For example, Shaftesbury argued that the highest good was found in the nature of the cosmos.30 Persons do not access this good via disengaged reason, but through the inherent “bent” of their nature to love the whole.31 Love bridges the gulf between the interior subject and the exterior world. Thus, Shaftesbury counters Locke’s disengaged reason with a way to reengage with the whole through love.
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 151–152. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 152. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 156. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 171. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 167, 72. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 173. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 317. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 253. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 254.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
6
spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age
43
At the same time, it is important to note that Shaftesbury’s emphasis is not on thelovabilityof the whole, but onloveas an innate endowment that carries us beyond ourselves to disinterested affection for all.32The ethic of nature has become internalized: natural affection, the main moral source, is found within the self.33 Like Shaftesbury, Hutcheson located human moral sources in senti- ment, the most important of which was benevolence.34 He argued that failure to see the benevolence in our nature cripples our moral sentiments, but recog- nition of the good in ourselves and others empowers benevolent actions. Thus, internal sentiments, especially benevolence, become the way in which the self moves toward the good.
Yet, for Hutcheson and other deists, moral sentiments work in conjunction with the providential order. Contact with these sources attunes the self to the created order and empowers the self to bring about good.35 Thus, while these sources are internal to the human being, they are still connected to the divine plan. Later thinkers develop this trajectory into the exclusively human sources associated with secularity.
For Rousseau, the inner feelings do not provide contact with the good in the created order but “define” what is good.36 He associates nature, and its moral source, with a voice within the human person that transforms the will so the self can become truly benevolent.37 While this voice is present to all, only a few hear it since it is hidden deep within the self. Thus, Rousseau’s depic- tion of nature becomes the modern “expressive view of life” in which fulfilling the self’s nature requires contact with (and expression of) one’s inner voice.38 Furthermore, each individual has their own original source and way of being human that must be expressed to be realized.39 Moral sources are no longer found within humanity in general, but located within individual selves, requir- ing expression. Art and poetry, in particular, provide a language for articulat- ing one’s inner nature.40 Through creative imagination, persons express their “inexhaustible inner depths.”41
32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 256. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 255. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 261. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 362. Taylor,Sources of the Self. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 357–358. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 374–375. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 375–376. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 377. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 390.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
7
44
redick
At the same time, expressivism resists instrumental reason’s division of nature within and nature without (nature within the human person and in the natural order). In the Romantic vision of nature, there is a current of love or life running through the natural order that must be participated in to be fully understood.42 The artist not only expresses the depths of the individual, but also strives to express the élan of nature.43 Again, this is nature not as God’s providential order, but as a mysterious enigma. Like nature within the human subject, it is also an immanent moral source.
Through this revolutionary transition in Western consciousness, exclusive humanists have come to rely upon immanent moral sources, such as human dignity and natural sentiments.44 In the first case, admiration for the human power of disengaged reason, or natural sentiments, creates the horizon that directs the self’s activity. In the second case, artists tap into moral sources within the depths of the individual, or outside of the subject through express- ing an epiphany of the natural world. Although this source is beyond the sub- ject, it still resides in the immanent frame.
While moderns may not always recognize these sources, or be able to artic- ulate them, they are nevertheless present, functioning as analogues to older moral sources, such asagape.Taylor interprets the shift in the location of moral sources as the process of secularization.45 But he is not ready to accede to the reality of traditional (transcendent) sources that empower humanity. The problem is not that these strong sources do not exist, but that we have become blind to them through the immanentization of our moral sources. Unfortu- nately, this moral ignorance not only keeps us from accessing helpful moral sources, but also blinds us to our “darker motivations.”46
Shadows
The occlusion of strong moral sources has resulted in reliance upon the weak analogues of the immanent frame. For example, benevolence has come to replace the constitutive good of agape. Benevolence is a high moral standard, calling for a solidarity that moves one beyond one’s own kin, social group, or
42 43 44 45
46
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 380.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 383–385.
Laitinen,Strong Evaluation without Moral Sources, 271.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 313. He explains, “Secularization doesn’t just arise because peo- ple get a lot more educated, and science progresses … What matters is that masses of people can sense moral sources of quite a different kind, ones that don’t necessarily sup- pose a God.”
Ossewaarde-Lowtoo, “The Sources of Modernity,” 4.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
8
spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age
45
class, to care for all without discrimination. On the one hand, this is a remark- able advancement since “our age makes higher demands of solidarity and benevolence on people today than ever before.”47On the other hand, these high moral aspirations are cut off from their original moral source.
Colin Grant has noted that the secular concept of altruism, or benevolence toward those outside one’s own group, is rooted in the Christian gospel, par- ticularly the Christian message that God is agape. God reaches out in love to humanity and “seeks to elicit an emulating caring from us for one another.”48 Similarly, Taylor views the ethic of benevolence as a shadow of the Christian notion of agape, which presents an ideology of universal love. Unlike agape, benevolence lacks a way to empower these high standards, other than human power.49Insteadof participatingthroughgraceindivinelove,benevolentaltru- ism is fueled from within, by a direction of the human will.50 This is too high a moral standard to be sustained by the human will alone. Eventually, the pur- suit of benevolence results in self-condemnation for failing to meet this high standard or even in self-hate as it opposes our human tendency toward self- fulfillment.51Thus, solidarity rooted in benevolent altruism leads to unforeseen consequences.
Nietzsche, an insightful critic of high moral standards, warns that benev- olence can become “destructive to the giver and degrading to the receiver” when it is opposed to self-fulfillment.52 Taylor follows Nietzsche in this suspi- cion toward benevolence as a moral source, while also identifying other pitfalls. He warns that failure to meet the high standard of universal benevolence can lead to a “sense of unworthiness” resolved by projecting evil out toward other groups.53Through projection, one blames others for one’s own sense of failure. For example, the high modern standard of universal justice demands a form of economic fairness. The guilt from failing to meet this standard may result in a projection of blame onto the poor. Thus, we often hear that the poor are vicious or “lazy” and that it is their own fault that they are poor. These assess- ments do not only come from ignorance of poverty, or pride in one’s own ability to overcome difficult circumstances, but are often the result of projected guilt.
47 48
49 50 51 52 53
Charles Taylor, A Catholic Modernity? (Dayton,OH: Dayton University Press, 1996), 29. Colin Grant, Altruism & Christian Ethics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 167–168.
Charles Taylor, A Secular Age(Cambridge,MA: Belknap Press, 2007), 247.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 22.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 516.
Taylor,Sources of the Self.
Taylor,Sources of the Self.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
9
46
redick
While projection functions to alleviate one’s conscience, projection itself may not be enough to overcome this sense of guilt. Taylor notes how the iden- tification of moral failure with a particular group can lead to violent elimina- tion of that group. In this case, the other is blamed for preventing universal benevolence—and the solution is through their destruction. For example, we may recall the millions slaughtered in pursuit of the Communist ideal of eco- nomic equality and universal justice. As manifested in Stalinism, a sense of guilt often leads to an “ideology of polarization” in which one recovers purity by opposing the group identified with evil.54
Taylor believes that the only way to avoid this pull toward violence is in the turn toward transcendence “through the full-hearted love of some good beyond life.”55In the terms of moral sources, the only way to affirm human flourishing without resorting to violence is throughagape. Thus, Taylor posits that “only if thereissuchathingasagape,oroneof thesecularclaimantstoitssuccession,is Nietzsche wrong.”56The only way to meet high moral standards without falling into the trap of projection is through connection to a strong moral source. Fur- thermore, this source cannot be found completely within the immanent frame. If self-giving love is possible for human beings, then it is possible “to the extent that we open ourselves to God.”57
Recognizing that benevolence is parasitic of agape, drawing from its high aspiration to “see good” and enact the good, Taylor endeavors to retrieve this original source. He believes that the forgotten goods of moral sources, such as agape, can be retrieved through articulating them so that we become aware of their presence.58 He observes, “If articulacy is open to us, to bring us out of the cramped postures of suppression, this is partly because it will allow us to acknowledge the full range of goods we live by. It is also because it will open us to our moral sources, to release their force in our lives.”59 Through articu- lating our sources, we become aware of their presence. Taylor describes this process as a “retrieval” of “buried goods.”60 Articulation provides language to see these goods so that we may participate in them and thereby be empowered by them.61
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61
Taylor,Sources of the Self. Taylor, A Catholic Modernity?, 27. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 516. Taylor, A Catholic Modernity?, 35. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 520. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 107. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 520. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 92.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
10
spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age
47
Agapeas a Moral Source
In a sense, Taylor’s whole narration of Western history in Sources of the Self is an exercise in articulating moral sources so that they become available to us again.62 While he does not claim to provide a theological account of modern identity, a theological anthropology is present in his narrative, particularly the self’s orientation toward constitutive goods (includingtheconstitutive good— God). The theological roots of this good in creation and incarnation, discern- able in Taylor’s work, assists our understanding of agape as a strong moral source.63
Agapeand Creation
Taylor derives his notion of agape as “seeing good” from the narrative of Gen- esis 1, in which God sees creation and declares it as good. This optic is central to the notion of divine love. Taylor argues that “agapeis inseparable from such a ‘seeing-good’” since it is “a love that God has for humans which is connected with their goodness as creatures.”64 God creates humanity as good, sees them as good, and loves them in this goodness. Taylor clarifies that God’s love is not just a response to seeing this inherent goodness, but also makes it good.65
Taylor follows the classical theological understanding of creation as God’s free, gratuitous gift of life.66 God does not create because of dependency, or a need for creation, but out of an overflowing love. There is no need to decide whether humans are loved because they are good or good because they are loved.67 Either way, God affirms human being; agape is the overflow of love that generates new life.
As a moral source, this “seeing good” transforms our vision of the world. Taylor notes that the “transformation of our stance toward the world” is tra- ditionally connected to grace.68In this case,agapeis a moral source for human
62 63
64 65 66 67 68
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 521.
Here I follow a path trod by Philip Rossi, “Seeing Good in a World of Suffering: Incarnation as God’s Transforming Vision,” in Godhead Here in Hiding: Incarnation and the History of Human Suffering, ed. Terrence Merrigan and Frederik Glorieux (Leuven, Belgium: Uitgev- erij Peeters, 2012), 455. Rossi senses an implicit theology of incarnation and creation in Taylor’s anthropology as it relates to “seeing good.”
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 516.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 449.
Grant, Altruism & Christian Ethics, 215.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 516.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 449.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
11
48
redick
empowerment, as persons participate in this divine love.Through participating in divineagape, persons are empowered to view creation through this optic— we see that “human beings are eminently worth helping” and treating with dignity.69 Because this gaze beholds all of creation, it extends beyond the nor- mal human scope of tribal selectivity. We not only see the goodness of family, kinship group, or fellow citizens, but also see the dignity of the stranger and even other creatures. This sight empowers action on behalf of others. In short, participation in the Creator’s agapic gaze opens up the possibility of fellowship with other creatures.
Inspired byagape, universal benevolence strives to see the good of the whole but is deprived of the Creator’s perspective. Since benevolence is powered from within, and from the individual’s perspective, it must rely upon techniques and technologies to extend its gaze. From time to time, this standard of seeing good is successful, such as when television highlights the impact of an earthquake in another country. We see and are moved to give to strangers in distant lands. But in the end, as a weak moral source, benevolence lacks the motivating power, and source outside of the human will, to sustainably see in a way that generates new life. Such a task becomes possible through seeing with God and participat- ing in the Creator’s gift of life by affirming life.
This produces a kind of solidarity that Taylor terms “a network of agape.” In contrast to a “categorical grouping” of people who share a common prop- erty, agapic solidarity is not based on a universal category or in tribal kinship. Rather, it is based on “the kind of love God has for us,” which creates bonds of particular relationships, resembling family relationships.70This kind of love is exemplified in the parable of the Good Samaritan, who sees a wounded Jewish man on the side of the road and is moved to care for him. While moderns are tempted to take this story to be an endorsement of universal moral rules,Taylor (following Ivan Illich) insists that the story actually points to a source of moti- vation. The Samaritan does not feel called by an “ought” but by the wounded human being before him.71 Thus, the source of his altruistic activity is seeing the wounded man as a person worthy of care and assistance. The Samaritan participates in the Creator’s gaze and is moved to act in love.
69 70 71
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 515. Taylor, A Secular Age, 739. Taylor, A Secular Age, 738.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
12
spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age
49
Agapeand Incarnation
Loving participation in divine seeing good becomes a source for affirming life and working toward the flourishing of all. Yet, agape, as a moral source, aims notonlytowardhumanflourishingbutalsotowardagood“beyond”flourishing, expressed in eschatological terms as union with God or the beatific vision.72 Pursuit of this good may even require fasting from one’s own flourishing. This is why Christianity can find meaning in death and suffering.The negation of life can become “a place to affirm something which matters beyond life, on which life itself originally draws.”73 In this way, agape follows the kenotic model of Christ’s incarnation, in which the Son divests himself of life in order to affirm a good beyond his own flourishing. Christ displays a willingness to suffer in solidarity, a prospect that makes little sense in an immanent frame in which human flourishing, especially one’s own flourishing, is the singular good. Per- sons participate in this form of agapethrough self-renunciation, for the sake of union with God.
At the same time, the two goods, flourishing and “beyond” flourishing, are mutually supportive. While “renunciation de-centers you in relation with God, God’s will is that humans flourish, and so you are taken back to an affirmation of this flourishing, which is biblically called agape.”74 Thus, kenotic renuncia- tion of life paradoxically functions to affirm creation.
The incarnation further affirms a particular facet of creation—embodi- ment—through divine enfleshment. While the modern turn to disengaged reason has disembodied the spiritual life, leading to an “excarnation” of the modern self, agape is an embodied love-response to others.75 Taylor points to Christ’s experience of seeing others and being physically moved by compas- sion. Christ felt moved in his bowels (splangnizesthai) to take pity on those he saw. Thus, “agape moves outward from the guts.”76 It is an embodied response to seeing good in the other.
Christ’s incarnate experience of embodiedagapebecomes a model for form- ing a network of enfleshed people. Through participating in agape, persons are “fitted together in a dissymmetric proportionality … which comes from God, which is that of agape, and which became possible because God became flesh.”77 The incarnation, not universal rules or standards discovered through
72 73 74 75 76 77
Examples of “beyond” flourishing are my own. Taylor, A Catholic Modernity?, 16.
Taylor, A Catholic Modernity?
Taylor, A Secular Age, 771.
Taylor, A Secular Age, 741.
Taylor, A Secular Age, 739.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
13
50
redick
rational agency, makes this network possible. Universal rules obscure the lived reality of our contingency—a reality that is central to the Samaritan’s percep- tion of his neighbor. He discovers his neighbor by accident, on the side of the road, and enfolds him into his network.78 Disengaged reason and its universal rules attempt to bypass contingency and enfleshment, thereby missing the gaze of the other. In doing so, they lose contact with the incarnate source of love for neighbor.
Thus far, this essay has illuminated Taylor’s notion of agape by noting its theological roots in creation and incarnation. This theological articulation has hopefully assisted in discernment of what agape is, and how it is a strong moral source for solidarity, capable of forming networks of love. But a ques- tion remains, how does a moral source become available? How do persons “tap into” this source?79 While Taylor focuses on articulating history as one way a lost source may become available for moderns again, some may wonder if this is sufficient on its own.80 In order to engage the question of contacting moral sources, this essay will examine the third article of the creed for new ways to articulate and participate in agape. In particular, the pentecostal-charismatic experience of Spirit baptism may be interpreted as a recovery of this empow- ering moral source as well as a way to tap into this source through spiritual participation and articulation.
Agapeand the Spirit of Love
Spirit Baptism as Participation inAgape
InBaptizedintheSpirit, Frank Macchia frames Spirit baptism in agapic terms— as the self-impartation of divine love. In contrast to those who view divine love as something that God has, Macchia emphasizes that the Spirit is the flame of love—the love between the Father and the Son.81 The Father gives himself to the Son, and the Son to the Father—a self-gift that is the Spirit. This intratrini- tarian gifting shows that “love is not a mere attribute, but God’s very nature.”82
78 79
80 81 82
Taylor, A Secular Age, 742.
Ossewaarde-Lowtoo, “The Sources of Modernity,” 5, asks this insightful question in refer- ence to Taylor’sSources of the Self.
Taylor, A Secular Age, 512.
Macchia, Baptized in theSpirit, 261–262.
Macchia, Baptized in theSpirit, 262.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
14
spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age
51
Furthermore, human love finds its model and ground in the triune nature. Human persons image the divine self-gift through an “analogy of love.”83David R. Nichols, who has identified this analogy at the heart of pentecostal “spiritual ontology” (and, in this case, pentecostal anthropology), explains:
The analogy lies in the fact that love, even as it proceeds from the spir- itual dimension into the material, can also be produced and returned toward the spiritual dimension. This, perhaps, is man’s greatest dignity, that he is capable of striving to produce that free, unconditional love which reciprocates the love of God … But this is a flawed, conditional love, which needs the corrective of regeneration. In the Christian, love has an exterior source, namely God. Divine love has interpenetrated his human love so that he is on the way toward the complete, unconditional agape.84
Nichols notes that human persons extend love to one another in a way that is analogous to trinitarian love. Thus, we often see individuals acting altruis- tically and benevolently toward others. Yet, this love is not “complete” (sus- tainable and completely unconditional) without divine assistance. An exterior source, the love of God, is necessary to transform partial, conditional love into agape.TheSpiritinterpenetrateshumanlove,elevatingitsothatitmoreclosely resembles the unconditional self-gift of the triune persons.
In addition, the Spirit’s interpenetration enables human participation in divine love. Through the Spirit of love, human persons take part in divine love, sharing in what properly belongs to the Godhead without exhausting it.85Thus, Macchia understands the event of Pentecost as an outpouring of divine love through which we enjoy fellowship in the “love of God as Father, Son, and Holy
83
84
85
For more on the “analogy of love” see L. William Oliverio, “Spirit Baptism in the Late Mod- ern World: A Pentecostal Response to the Church: Towards a Common Vision,” inThe Holy Spirit and the Church: Ecumenical Reflections with a Pastoral Perspective, ed.Thomas Hugh- son, 44–70 (New York: Routledge, 2016), 60.
David Nichols, “The Search for a Pentecostal Structure in Systematic Theology,”Pneuma6, no. 1 (1984): 72. Nichols does not assume the method of analogy of being, but an analogy between Barth’s dialectics and the Thomists’ analogia entis, which retains God’s “other- ness” while also affirming humanity’s responsibility for responding to revelation. Here I draw from a Thomistic understanding of participation as articulated by Joseph W. Koterski, “The Doctrine of Participation in Thomistic Metaphysics,” in The Future of Thomism, ed. Deal W. Hudson and Dennis W. Moran, From the American Maritain Asso- ciation (Notre Dame,IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), 189.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
15
52
redick
Spirit.”86L. William Oliverio suggests that Macchia’s theology of Spirit baptism points to an “ontology of divine love” in which the substance of life is partici- pation in divine love.87 Moreover, Spirit baptism is a particularly potent locus of taking part in divine life. James K.A. Smith has recognized that there are “intense” sites of participation in God.88Smith notes that “while all that is par- ticipates in God through the Spirit, there are sites and events that exhibit a more intense participation.”89 Thus, in the sphere of participatory life, Spirit baptism could be interpreted as one such exceptional point of enfoldment into the divinekoinonia.
While Macchia, Nichols, and Smith articulate Spirit baptism in an ontologi- cal register through the language of “participation” and “analogy,” their crucial insight into the relation of Spirit baptism and agape may be carried over into Taylor’s register through the language of “moral sources” with its ethical impli- cations. Spirit baptism, as an elevation of human love through intense partic- ipation in divine love, provides a crucial nexus by which human persons tap into agape (that is, a love that transcends, but interpenetrates, human love). Through this elevation, persons are empowered to participate in God’s mission in the world: the self-giving Spirit produces a people who are self-giving.90 As a retrieval of a deep source, Spirit baptism produces genuine solidarity with others. Macchia explains:
Spirit baptism fills us with the love of God so that we transcend ourselves and cross boundaries.We find the power to transcend limitations through divine infilling to pour ourselves out for others. In transcending ourselves we are fulfilled, for we have been made for the love of God.91
The Spirit enables self-emptying for a good beyond our own flourishing, and at the same time, a fulfillment of our own flourishing through being caught up in divine love through this loving activity.
86
87 88
89
90 91
Frank Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006) 257–259. See also 1John 1:3–7.
Oliverio, “Spirit Baptism in the Late Modern World,” 59.
James K.A. Smith, Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy (Grand Rapids,MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 102.
Smith,Thinking in Tongues, 102–103. It should be noted that Smith is not advocating that the Spirit intervenes at these sites (grace conceived above and apart from nature); rather, the Spirit is “already present in creation” and is particularly active at these sites. Macchia, Baptized in theSpirit, 264.
Macchia, Baptized in theSpirit, 281.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
16
spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age
53
Similarly, AmosYong observes that pentecostal spirituality “may provide one window into how human beings tap into the divine love energy and through that enter into solidarity with others to the extent that such piety motivates benevolent and loving action.”92 By taking up human affections, the Spirit enables persons to extend love beyond its current horizon to include others. It is through the Spirit that persons tap into a deep moral source—the divine seeing good of unanticipated neighbors. Thus, Spirit baptism (and pentecostal spirituality more broadly) can be seen as a locus of agapic participation. The question is how this source may be articulated so that it becomes available to us.
Tongues as Articulation of Agape
Taylor argues that articulation brings sources close so that we may be inspired and empowered by them. Articulation reveals the good as a “whole speech act” in which “the speaker, the formulation, and the act of delivering the mes- sage all line up together.”93Effective language may either “tap a source hitherto unknown” or it may excavate an older source that has become obscured.94 WhileTaylor’s project endeavors to articulate sources we have lost contact with through historical narrative, Pentecostalism provides a new language for con- tacting old sources.
Following the Romantics, Taylor argues that “new languages of personal res- onance” are necessary that enable “the search for moral sources outside the subject through languages that resonate within him or her, the grasping of an order which is inseparably indexed to a personal vision.”95 The pentecostal practice of tongues-speech may be understood as one way of articulatingagape in a language of personal resonance. This is not to say that tongues-speech arises from within the self as an exclusively human articulation—any Pente- costal would resist such an explanation. Rather, glossolalia, as a divine gift, is expressed by the individual person in their own tongue, voicing his or her inner sense of the indwelling Spirit and linguistic cooperation with the Spirit.96Thus,
92
93 94 95
96
Yong, Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012), 80.Yong’s notion of “pentecostal spirituality” is not limited to a classical pentecostal understanding of Spirit baptism.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 96.
Taylor,Sources of the Self, 96–97.
Taylor, Sources of the Self, 513, 510. See also p. 512, in which he argues that languages of personal resonance are the only way the modern self can access moral sources. While numerous scholars have contributed to theological and philosophical understand- ings of tongues-speech, an overview of previous work on glossolalia is beyond the scope of
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
17
54
redick
“glossolalia implies … that one can have direct contact with the divine Spirit in a way that penetrates deeply into the core of one’s being.”97Through this human language, the self expresses contact with a deep moral source—the Spirit of love.
As an expression of agape, glossolalia makes the Spirit’s love available so that speakers may participate in it. Taylor explains, “a formulation has power when it brings the source close, when it makes it plain and evident, in all its inherent force, its capacity to inspire our love, respect, or allegiance. An effec- tive articulation releases this force, and this is how words have power.”98In the practice of tongues-speech, the love of God poured into the heart overflows into a language of love which releases the inherent force of love and orients the speaker’s affections to the good. Tongues-speech becomes a way of narrat- ing the self’s orientation to God.99Thus, glossolalia is like a compass—pointing the self toward the Good on the moral map.
To use another visual metaphor, glossolalia may be interpreted as a “see- ing good” that makes good. Randall Holm has suggested that tongues-speech could be viewed as an auditory icon that “allows those seeking after God to go through language into an audible transcendent communion with God.”100 The perlocutionary effect of this form of speech is to bring the speaker into the presence of God, similar to the way an icon ushers the viewer into a heav- enly realm.Through glossolalia, the congregation “comes into contact with God as he passes by them,” thereby contacting a constitutive good.101 As an icon, tongues is an audible “seeing good” that makes good—it allows the speaker to see the Spirit’s vision and thereby participate in the divine making-good in the world. In this way, it is a linguistic participation in God’s creative activity—an echo of the original speech that brought the world into existence.The God who
97
98 99
100
101
this article. Instead, this section will focus on hearing tongues in the key of Taylor’s moral sources in order to explore the ethical dimensions of glossolalia.
See Macchia,Baptized in the Spirit, 75, who paraphrases Morton Kelsey,Tongues Speaking: The History and Meaning of Charismatic Experience(New York: Crossroad, 1981). Taylor,Sources of the Self, 96.
For a similar observation of glossolalic directionality, see Edmund J. Rybarczyk, “Refram- ing Tongues: Apophaticism and Postmodernism,”Pneuma 27, no. 1 (2005): 93. He argues that for Paul, tongues “reflects an apophatic quality of God-ward and God related expres- sion. The words and noises do not immediately define God or his purposes, nevertheless they move the believer’s heart and spirit toward God and His purposes.”
Randall Holm, “Tongues as a Blush in the Presence of God,”Journal of PentecostalTheology 20, no. 1 (2011): 129.
Holm, “Tongues as a Blush in the Presence of God,” 130.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
18
spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age
55
declared that creation is good continues to do so in the voices of his sons and daughters who groan with the Spirit for the new creation. This is why Pente- costals have emphasized the missional character of tongues-speech: it is not only for the individual speaker, but a gift for the world.102
As an expression of a moral source, linguistic participation in the Spirit of love taps intoagapiclove for others. Macchia, also focusing on the perlocution- ary effect of tongues, describes it as a symbolic bridge across the boundaries of language and culture.103 Other scholars have noted how the Azusa Street Revival unified people across racial and gender boundaries.104 For example, Dale T. Irvin observes, “The fullness of divine power and love through a new baptismal experience of the Spirit was realized first in sacramental signs of the unity of all people, the speaking of many tongues.”105As an event of divine love, tongues provided a language for bridging the fractures of culture. To use Tay- lor’s terminology, participation in the Spirit created a “network of relations” not limited by kinship groups. Azusa Street, as a case study, is an example of a social network constituted throughagapicarticulation: it expressed universal benev- olence because it was empowered by a deep moral source. The contemporary charismatic community has much to learn from Azusa’s emphasis on divine love, even as it must work to heal the fractures that have emerged since that time.106
The Ordinary Person and Extraordinary Life
Thus far, I have argued that Pentecostals “tap into” the powerful moral source of agape through participating in and articulating with the Spirit of love. Yet, the phenomenon of Spirit baptism points not only to a particular way per- sons contact a deep moral source, but also to an understanding of who may be empowered by this source. Pentecostals insist that baptism in the Spirit is available to every Christ follower, whether experienced in the presence of the
102
103 104
105 106
Richard H. Bliese, “Speaking in Tongues and the Mission of Godad gentes,” Journal of Pen- tecostal Theology20, no. 1 (2011): 47.
Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 281.
Dale T. Irvin, “‘Drawing All Together in One Bond of Love’: The Ecumenical Vision of William J Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 3, no. 6 (1995): 45–46. See also Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-first Century (Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 1995), 58.
Irvin, “‘Drawing All Together in One Bond of Love,’” 45.
For example, divisions (and power disparities) within the church based upon race, sex, or culture.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
19
56
redick
community or in the privacy of one’s prayer life: the Spirit of love is poured out on all. In this way, Pentecostalism builds upon the egalitarian emphasis of the Reformation.
Taylor notes how Reformers criticized “higher” spiritual activities (such as monasticism) that only an elite minority could pursue. Instead, the Reforma- tion lead to “the affirmation of the ordinary life” in which spiritual emphasis was placed on ordinary activities such as child-rearing, labor, and produc- tion.107 This shift, originally inspired by “practical agape,” made the heart of spiritual life available to all.108 Similarly, the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism, and its charisms, is available to ordinary persons. This often produces an equalizing effect in a congregation—where anyone, regardless of gender or age, may testify, prophecy, or minister in a public manner. In other words, the creative potential of this agapic source is “decentralized” and dispersed among the community.109 Thus, like the Reformers, Pentecostals affirm the spiritual experience of the ordinary person.
Pentecostalism, however, is not simply another iteration of the Reformation and its way of contacting moral sources. While the Reformers criticized elite religion by elevating the ordinary life, Pentecostals do so by emphasizing the extraordinary life.110As the Spirit is poured out on all flesh, the “higher” activi- ties of divine encounter, scriptural interpretation, prophetic speech, and other charisms become available to the ordinary person. Spirit baptism is egalitarian because it makes mystical experience possible for every Christian, instead of only for a spiritual elite.
At the same time, the pentecostal affirmation of the extraordinary life for the ordinary person builds upon the prior Reformation emphasis on practical agape. Spirit baptism is not only a mystical union with the divine, but also per- fects love toward human persons.111 But this love is expressed in an extraordi- nary fashion: through prayers for healing, deliverance, and divine intervention.
107 108 109
110
111
Taylor, A Secular Age, 370.
Taylor, A Secular Age.
For more on glossolalic speech and the “decentralization” of human creativity see Nimi Wariboko,The Pentecostal Principle: Ethical Methodology in New Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 29.
Wariboko, Pentecostal Principle, 132, similarly observes that “the Protestant Era and the Pentecostal Era are undergirded by a similar drive: to give every individual regardless of class, race, or any other social predicate the full opportunity to fulfill his or her potential- ities,” but “[Protestantism] focuses on resisting obstacles to the emergence of the new; [Pentecostalism] focuses on the capacity to initiate the new.”
This is also a central argument in Yong,Spirit of Love.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
20
spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age
57
Thus, the self’s contact with the Spirit of love produces hope for human flour- ishing that participates in eschatological renewal. Pentecostals pray for flour- ishing “on earth as it is in heaven”—the ordinary life interrupted by the extraor- dinary. Thus, the pentecostal practice of agape is a unique way of retrieving this moral source, which involves a new shift in the conception of the good life. While many moderns continue to elevate the ordinary life (albeit in a secular fashion), Pentecostals represent another current in modernity that affirms the ordinary person’s contact with a powerful spiritual reality.
Conclusion
The purpose of this exploration has been to discern a particular locus of God’s grace in a secular age: the pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism is a retrieval of a vital moral source that has become obscured in modernity. Yet, it should be noted that Spirit baptism is one way to contact agape in modernity. The notion of Spirit baptism as a transcendent good indexed to a personal vision may only resonate within a pentecostal framework and its emphasis on a par- ticular moment of intense participation in divine love that initiates the partic- ipant into spiritual life. It is likely that other means of contacting grace can be imagined that will resonate within other frameworks. Ecumenical sensitivity provides an awareness and openness to how the Spirit’s activity is recognized (and participated in) within various frameworks.
Nevertheless, Spirit baptism is a particularly powerful kind of retrieval that resonates with the modern sense of the self through a language of personal res- onance. Men and women now look within themselves to contact and express deep moralsources,but this inwardturn need not necessitate a breakwith tran- scendence. The pentecostal-charismatic experience of Spirit baptism exempli- fies a working of grace in the modern self—as the Spirit hovers over the inner depths, re-creating the person from within. Through the gift of the Spirit and the language of love, ordinary persons tap into the deep moral source of agape and are empowered to pursue a good beyond human flourishing, while at the same time affirming human flourishing through networks of solidarity. Thus, Spirit baptism is a particularly powerful way in which modern persons connect with the triune God and model the height, depth, and breadth of this love within the fractures of a secular age.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57
365 Daily
In 1999, Dony and Kathryn established Cup & Cross Ministries International with a vision for restoration of New Testament theology and praxis. Today they have over 50 years of combined commitment to Kingdom work. This book invites you to spend a few moments each day on the field sharing their experiences of serving as pastors, evangelists, chaplains, consultants, church trainers, researchers, missionaries and educators of His Harvest around the globe.
Day 175 of the Revival
On day 175 of our Revival, I drove by a building close to our ministry’s home location and it caught my eye. Newly built, large enough, specious parking, perfect location easily reachable from at least three large city regions. An ideal place to hold our large revival meetings in my human perception. Quite naturally, I stopped the car in front of the beautiful gate and began telling the Lord how great would it be to continue the revival here. My reasons were many. No need to travel hundreds of miles to just preach one time, spend the night in strange places, walk in the ankle-deep mud-covered streets of slums and ghettos just to reach a soul. They could all come here, park, gather, worship, hear the Gospel, be saved, healed and delivered. The same way we had seen already in the revival for almost 200 days in a row. My heart’s thoughts were shut down by one brief word from the Lord: I did not choose to have it THIS way…
Reflections on a 200-day Revival
- Creative developing of fasting, prayer and giving of alms, all commanded by Jesus Himself as a regular expression of our faith (Gr. оταν = when you pray, fast, give), is the prerequisite for every Spirit-led revival. On the third day of our 10-day fasting, God used a child to revive our dead Volvo, which no mechanic in a radius of 200 miles could crank for over 6 months.
- The church that forced-left the building during the pandemic, has now returned to multimillion-dollar buildings where God did not choose to start a 200-day Revival. And even when He did, the move was shut down for lack of parking space or nightly supervision. In all actuality, a church building is a result of a revival, its finish and its end. An association with a place, address or location is a sign of its centralized settlement. It was the forced getting-out of a church building (as in Acts 7) that caused the Great Azusa Revival to emerge as a grass-root movement engraved in the streets of LA.
- Revival must emerge from the Desire and Will of God in order to be supernaturally visited by the Power of His Glory! It cannot be approached as a man-made multiplication initiative, be it local, national or globally dimensioned. It is not a project to involve people, but a spiritual tsunami of power, authority and anointing that invites a prophetic projection of what God desires for eternity and not merely what man needs in the now.
- When the now and then align, revival sparks. When the now has lost its sight on eternity, revival is long done and gone. The remain is but a motion imitating the wave of the Spirit Who has already moved to other more receptive spiritual trenches and valleys of humbleness. It is these societal peripheries and spiritual layers that God visits first with Revival before proceeding to the center of religious life. Meaning, the Heart of God for Revival is not in a religious center. As a matter of fact, any association with external centralized governing denies God’s centrality in what the Spirit wills from His Church. A man cannot vanquish the ocean and cosmos of space!
- We can win no soul Christ has not already won at the Cross! We should not try to empty hell to fill Heaven, lest we end up in hell ourselves.
A final word to fundraisers who turn revival into a business-like know-how: Can’t buy God’s love!
A Call to Righteousness over the Road Ahead
