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
caroline.redick@marquette.edu
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
Global Mission In Pentecostal Perspective
113 Murray W. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus and Douglas Petersen, eds., Called & Empowered: Global Mission in Pentecostal Perspective (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 321 pp. $14.95 paper. Reviewed by L. Grant McClung, Jr. Who has the answer to what Pentecostals believe about mission and the description of how they go about doing mission? Coming out of a sense of urgency that caused them to “act now and theologize later,” Pentecostals have been known more for action than reflection. Identifying who the Pentecostals were and how they did the job was a task largely left up to sympathizers from groups such as the Church Growth Movement. Other outside observers, however, were not always so sympathetic. This book is a statement by Pentecostals about Pentecostal missions, a move toward what I have called a “Decade of Self-Definition in the 1990s.” What has emerged since the mid 1980s are signs of a budding “pentecostal missiology,” a development exemplified in this volume. Readers of this excellent new contribution will find that Pentecostals have a broader understanding of wholistic mission issues than the supposed limited agenda of evangelism/church planting via the supernatural. This collection of twelve articles–all from Assemblies of God authors–and three “outside observer” responses has something to say about biblical/theological dimensions, the integration of gospel and culture, response to non-Christian religions, and missiological strategy. It reads well as a text (which I am using) or as a pre-study tool, for example, for a field conference or consultation devoted to understanding the Pentecostal/Charismatic contribution to world evangelization. The three editors are professors at Southern California College in Costa Mesa, California, a Christian liberal arts college sponsored by the Assemblies of God, and are also involved in Latin America ChildCare, an Assemblies of God ministry to underprivileged children in sixteen Latin American countries. The editors introduce each of the five sections of the book with a rationale for the theme of the section and a brief synopsis of each chapter in the section. These sectional introductions give an overall conceptual coherence to the volume, reducing the choppiness and unevenness that often attend multi-authored anthologies. Gordon Fee opens the first section on “Biblical and Theological Dimensions of Global Mission in the Pentecostal Tradition” with a chapter which aims to demonstrate that the roots of the Pentecostal conviction about the global mission of the church are to be found in Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God. In the next chapter, 1 114 Murray Dempster utilizes the concept of the kingdom of God as an integrating center in the development of a wholistic Pentecostal theology which features evangelism, social service and social action. Douglas Petersen in the third chapter of this section adopts and modifies “the hermeneutical circle” of Latin American liberation theologians in order to promote a Pentecostal praxis which applies Jesus’ message of the kingdom within the context of the Third World. Section two focuses on “The Emerging Pentecostal Integration of Gospel and Culture” and features chapters written by Everett Wilson, Augustus Cerillo, Jr., and Del Tarr. Wilson analyzes the phenomenal growth of Pentecostalism in Latin America from a functional perspective, identifying the changing social conditions in Latin culture which encouraged indigenous, national Pentecostal leaders to create “a church of the people.” Cerillo identifies the issues that Pentecostals face in light of the ever-increasing global trend of urbanization, and offers some pertinent suggestions for formulating effective urban ministries. In rounding out this section, Tarr develops a model of communication for preaching the gospel across the different cultural regions of the globe. The issue of gospel and culture is taken up again in section three but the issue is analyzed from the perspective of differing worldviews. Each author describes the worldview under investigation in his chapter from his viewpoint as a participant: Peter Kuzmic analyzes the Marxist worldview, Sunday Aigbe analyzes the worldview of tribal people groups and Sobhi Malek analyzes the Muslim worldview. Given the breakup of the former Soviet Union subsequent to the writing of his chapter, Kuzmic sho.wed great insight in noting: “Anything written about the ‘communist world’ today should be written in pencil. All across Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union monumental changes are taking place at a breathtaking speed and in most dramatic and unpredictable ways” (143-44). Even though sweeping changes have occurred in the Communist bloc countries, Kuzmic’s study still provides a goldmine of information in understanding what is happening in that part of the world. “Pentecostals and Current Missiological Strategies” is the topic of section four. A chapter by Gary McGee provides a descriptive historical overview of the multiple mission strategies that Pentecostals have used in this century. A jointly-written chapter by Byron Klaus and Loren Triplett documents the historical connection between non-formal/informal national leadership programs and the mushrooming growth of Pentecostalism, warns Pentecostals about their newly found reliance on formal structures of national leadership development and calls for a renewed commitment to indigenous leadership development “in ministry.” Missiologist Larry Pate, in the last chapter in the strategies section, describes the emergence of the 2 115 “two-thirds world missions movement” and assesses its implications for Pentecostal missions efforts. Pate makes a compelling case that theological and practical reflection on the implications of the global shift embodied in the two-thirds world missions movement is the most important strategic issue facing Pentecostal missions today. The fifth and final section of the book provides “Views from Outside” the Pentecostal movement, and according to the editors, the chapters in this section “stress the importance of Pentecostals learning to listen to the broader church as part of its missiological activity” (xviii). Pentecostal mission effort is evaluated from a Church Growth perspective by Peter Wagner, from an ecumenical perspective by Jeffrey Gros, FCS, and from a Third Wave perspective by Charles Kraft. These chapters, designed to provide “dialogical feedback,” are stimulating to read and insightful in both their positive appraisals and constructive criticisms. Hopefully, Called & Empowered will be expanded and revised in a subsequent edition to include a broader participation of missions practice and reflection from a wider variety of Pentecostal and Charismatic missions ministries, along with more contributions from women (all the authors are male) and voices from the “southern world” (only three of twelve essays are from non-North Americans). The book, however, is well-researched and highly readable for those seeking to look through the window into the self-understanding of Pentecostals and their responsibility in world evangelization. Even the casual observer of this tradition would agree that the energy Pentecostals expend in world missions activity flows out of the belief that Pentecostals are Called & Empowered. L. Grant McClung, Jr., is Coordinator of Research and Strategic Planning for the Church of God World Missions and Associate Professor of Missions and Church Growth at the Church of God School of Theology in Cleveland, Tennessee. 3
A Call to Righteousness over Italy
Pentecostal Theological Education
Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261 Dialogue
“Epistemology, Ethos, and Environment”: In Search of a Theology of Pentecostal
Theological Education, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen
Professor of Systematic Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, USA
Docent of Ecumenics, Faculty of Theology, University of Helsinki, Finland
vmk@fuller.edu
The purpose of this essay is to take a theological look at Pentecostal theological education at the global level. While dialoguing widely with various current and historical discussions of the theology of theological education, particularly with David Kelsey of Yale University, the essay urges Pentecostals to negotiate an epistemology that corrects and goes beyond both modernity and postmodernity. The essay also urges Pentecostals to negotiate several seeming opposites such as “academic” versus “spiritual” or “doctrinal” versus “critical.” The final part of the essay offers Pentecostals some advice and inspiration from the reservoirs of the long history and experience of non-Pentecostal theological institutions.
Keywords
Pentecostal theological education, theology of theological education, epistemology, modernity, postmodernity
First Words: Is Bigger Always Better?
Educators like to imagine that education matters. We like to believe that the leadership of a congregation is improved when that person has a graduate degree and three years of study. We like to think that pouring resources into education is worthwhile. We argue that the more resources we devote to theological education, the better.2
1 This essay is a slightly revised version of my presentation at the World Alliance for Pentecos- tal Theological Education Consultation in Stockholm, Sweden, August 25 2010.
2 Ian S. Markham, “Theological Education in the Twenty-First Century,” Anglican Theological Review 92, no. 1 (2010): 157.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/157007412X639889
1
246
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
Against this commonsense expectation, the Anglican seminary professor Ian S. Markman bluntly says that in reality, however, it is sometimes the case that denominations such as his own that invest huge amounts of resources in theo- logical education are declining in membership and activity. Markman reports that the Presbyterian Church (USA) with some of the most highly acclaimed theological schools in the world (Princeton and Columbia, among others) has lost two hundred thousand members between 1999 and 2004 — the biggest loss during that time period among all mainline churches! On the contrary, the Anglican Ian S. Markham further observes, Pentecostals with “very limited and informal” training are growing rapidly all over the world, including in some parts of the USA.3
This is, of course, not to establish any negative causality between the high level of education and low level of church activity — an intriguing PhD study topic in itself! — but it should, rather, shake any unfounded belief in the effects of higher education. Indeed, a classic study conducted in the 1960s by the Swiss sociologist Lalive d’Epinay showed that the traditional theological academic training received by mainline Methodist and Presbyterian pastors in Chile was far from making them more effective pastors and church planters than Pente- costal pastors and pioneers in the same location, who had received the mini- mal amount of education.4 Again, it is wise not to draw conclusions too hastily concerning the cause and effects. While it can be the case that theological edu- cation in itself may have a counter-effect on efficacy in church work, it may also true that the counter-effects are due, rather, to a poor theological education. It is well to recall the critical observation offered by a theological schools’ accred- itation official on the effects of seminary education: “There is no other profes- sional organization in the world that is as functionally incompetent as . . . seminaries. Most of our students emerge from seminaries less prepared than they entered, biblically uncertain, spiritually cold, theologically confused, rela- tionally calloused and professionally unequipped.”5
Before Pentecostals start saying “Amen and Hallelujah! I knew that!,” per- haps they should pause to reflect. It seems to me that very few Pentecostal churches suffer from over-education! On the contrary, we could probably com-
3 Ibid.
4 Christian Lalive d’Epinay, “The Training of Pastors and Theological Education: The Case of Chile,” International Review of Missions 56 (April 1967): 185-92.
5 The remark comes from Timothy Dearborn, Director of the Seattle Association for Theologi- cal Education, reported in Jon M. Ruthven, “Are Pentecostal Seminaries a Good Idea?” n.p., avail- able at http://tffps.org/docs/Are%20Pentecostal%20Seminaries%20a%20Good%20Idea. pdf (accessed 7/12/2010).
2
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
247
pile a long list of Pentecostal churches, planted and started well, that have become stagnant because they lacked trained leadership to facilitate and nur- ture congregational and denominational life. Indeed, there is a dearth of aca- demically trained leadership among Pentecostals, not only in the Global South, where most Pentecostal churches (with a few exceptions, such as those in South Korea) suffer from severe lack of economic and other resources, but also in Europe and the USA.6 Let me just take as an example the US Assemblies of God, one of the most established and resourceful Pentecostal bodies in the world. A recent study of educational levels among Assemblies of God clergy revealed that among senior pastors, 12% had no education beyond high school and 4.3% claimed no ministerial training at all. While 30.6% claimed some training in college or at a technical school, 27.4% had taken a certificate course or had completed some correspondence courses in ministerial training. Some 55.6% had attended Bible college, although only 41.3% completed a degree. While 12.4% held a master’s degree, only 9.9% held a seminary degree [often in counseling] and 2.8% held an advanced degree in ministry.7 This example alone tells us that Pentecostals are approaching the task of considering the nature and role of higher education in theology from a very different vantage point than the mainline traditions.
As the title indicates, my focus will be on the theology — rather than, say, pedagogy or philosophy or finances — of Pentecostal theological education. Therefore, I have to leave many things unsaid. My main goal is to urge Pente- costal theologians and educators to collaborate in developing a solid and dynamic theology as the proper ground for theological education. Mainline churches are ahead of us in this work — understandably so, since they have had more time to “practice.” There is much to learn from those explorations and experiments.
My argumentation moves in three main parts. First I will take a look at the epistemological options for Pentecostal theological education. Second, build- ing on that discussion, I seek to discern some key dimensions in the ethos of Pentecostal education. Third, I will offer some reflections as to different envi- ronments for Pentecostal theological education.
6 For a fine essay with ample documentation on the history and current state of Pentecostal theological education, see Paul Lewis, “Explorations in Pentecostal Theological Education,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Theology 10, no. 2 (2007): 161-76.
7 “Fact* Survey Results: A 2000 Survey of Assemblies of God Churches” (Springfield, MO: Office of the General Secretary, 2000), 9. Copies of this survey are available from the Office of Statistics or from the Office of the General Secretary in Springfield, Missouri. I am indebted to Cecil M. Robeck, my colleague at Fuller, for providing me with this information.
3
248
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
Epistemology: Four “Cities”
In a highly acclaimed and programmatic essay titled Between Athens and Berlin: The Theological Debate, David H. Kelsey of Yale University outlines the underly- ing epistemology and theology of theological education using two cities as paradigms.8 “Athens” refers to the goals and methods of theological education that are derived from classical Greek philosophical educational methodology, paideia. The early church adopted and adapted this model. The primary goal of this form of education is the transformation of the individual. It is about char- acter formation and learning to achieve the ultimate goal, which is the knowl- edge of God rather than merely knowing about God. “It is not primarily about theology, that is, the formal study of the knowledge of God, but it is more about what Kelsey calls theologia, that is, gaining the wisdom of God. It is the transfor- mation of character to be God-like. The emphasis therefore falls upon personal development and spiritual formation.”9 The second pole of Kelsey’s typology, “Berlin,” is based on the Enlightenment epistemology and ideals. (This turn in theological education was first taken at the University of Berlin.) Whereas the classical model of “Athens” accepted the sacred texts as revelation containing the wisdom of God and not only knowledge about God, in the “Berlin” model, rational reasoning and critical enquiry reign. The ultimate goal of theological training is no longer personal formation based on the study of authoritative texts. Rather, it aims at training people intellectually.
It doesn’t take much reflection to realize that, as helpful as this scheme is, it only says so much. There is more to the picture of the underlying epistemology and theology of theological education. Two other models could be added to the equation before an assessment from a Pentecostal perspective is in order.10 My former colleague at Fuller Seminary Robert Banks has suggested a third model, which can appropriately be identified with the city of “Jerusalem,” as it denotes the missionary impulse of the Christian church to spread the gospel from Jeru- salem to the ends of the earth. In an important work titled Revisioning Theo- logical Education,11 Banks argues that if Martin Kähler’s classic dictum “Mission is the Mother of Theology” is true, it means that theology should be missional
8 David H. Kelsey, Between Athens and Berlin: The Theological Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd- mans, 1993).
9 Brian Edgar, “The Theology of Theological Education,” Evangelical Review of Theology 29, no. 3 (2005): 209.
10 I am indebted to the essay by Edgar, “Theology of Theological Education,” for helping find connections between the four models.
11 Robert Banks, Revisioning Theological Education (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999).
4
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
249
in orientation. The ultimate goal and context of theological education should thus be missional, which at the end of the day fosters and energizes the church’s mission. It is, however, more than what is usually thought of as “missiological” education as in the training of foreign missionaries. It is about theological edu- cation buildingthe “foundation” that is the mission of the church in all aspects of the church’s life and work. This missional orientation is, of course, in keeping with the current ecclesiological conviction that mission is not just one task given to the church among other tasks, such as teaching or children’s work, but, rather, that the church is missional by its very nature, and thus, everything the church does derives from the missional nature.
Yet one further model can be added to the scheme. Named “Geneva” after the great center of the Reformation, it cherishes a confessional approach to theological education. It seeks to help the students to know God both through the study of the creeds and the confessions and as the means of grace. Forma- tion is focused on the living traditions of the community. “Formation occurs through in-formation about the tradition and en-culturation within it.”12
What would a Pentecostal assessment on this typology be? Pentecostals cer- tainly prefer “Athens” over “Berlin” and “Jerusalem” over “Geneva.” So the ques- tion is settled. Or is it? I don’t think so. We all agree that it would be too cheap to settle on a couple of appealing choices and move from there. The issue is more complicated — and it has to do, I repeat, with both epistemology and theology.
The choice between the classic model of “Athens” and critical model of “Ber- lin” reflects the dramatic intellectual change brought about by the Enlighten- ment. From a Pentecostal point of view, two overly simple responses to the Enlightenment can be mentioned: First, it is bad! Second, it is inevitable! What I want to say here is that even though it would be safe and soothing to be able to go back to the pre-Enlightenment mentality in which the biblical authority, the uniqueness of Jesus, and other key faith convictions could be taken at their face value — and are being taken as such among the common folks, not only among Pentecostals but in almost all other traditions as well — for an aca- demically trained person living in our times it is not a feasible option. To pre- tend that the Enlightenment never happened is the worst kind of self-delusion.
What about postmodernity? Wouldn’t postmodernity’s critique and rejec- tion of modernity’s legacy come as a God-sent aid to those who are troubled about the rule of reason? Indeed, many Pentecostals are enthusiastic about the
12 Edgar, “Theology of Theological Education,” 211.
5
250
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
promises of postmodernity; I myself am much more reserved. Indeed, what is happening in the beginning of the third millennium is that there is a continu- ing debate, at times even a conflict, between three poles when it comes to epis- temology. Following Ernest Gellner’s suggestive book title, Postmodernism, Reason and Religion,13 they can be named as religion, modernity, and postmo- dernity. Whereas “religion” (cf. “Athens” and “Geneva”) builds on authoritative revelation, “modernity” (cf. “Berlin”) seeks to replace all faith commitments for critical inquiry and postmodernity deconstructs all big narratives in turning to everyone’s own stories and explanations. “Religion” is between a rock and a hard place. Neither modernity nor postmodernity looks like a great ally. The lesson to Pentecostal theological education may be simply this: Even though Pentecostals with all other “Bible believers” seek to build on the author- itative revelation of God in Christ (“Athens”), that cannot be done in isolation from the challenges brought about by both modernity and postmodernity. Pen- tecostal theological education should seek to find a way of education in which the challenges of both of these prevailing epistemologies are being engaged in an honest and intellectually integral way. Two other lessons that guide us in reflection on the ethos of Pentecostal theological education in the next main part of the essay follow from this discussion. It is clear and uncontested that Pentecostals should incorporate the missional impulse (“Jerusalem”) into the core of their education. Furthermore, I urge Pentecostals also to consider the importance of a confessional (“Geneva”) approach, not exclusively, but rather as a complementary way.
Ethos: Four Polarities
Building on these tentative conclusions based on the epistemological discus- sion, let me continue my reflections on the theology of Pentecostal theological education by discerning and highlighting four dynamic continuums or polari- ties. Polarities are not just opposite ends, they are also processes and orienta- tions in dynamic tension with each other. I think it is important to hold on to the healthy and constructive dynamisms when speaking of the theological education of this movement that was birthed by a dynamic movement of the Spirit. This is what makes the ethos of Pentecostal theological education. I name these four polarities in the following way:
13 Ernest Gellner, Postmodernism, Reason and Religion (London: Routledge, 1992).
6
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
251
• “Academic” versus “Spiritual”
• “Indoctrinal” versus “Critical”
• “Practical” versus “Theoretical” • “Tradition-Driven” versus “Change-Driven”
“Academic” versus “Spiritual”
Everyone who has worked in the context of Pentecostal or any other revivalistic theological training knows that there is a built-in tension between spiritual exercises and academic pursuit. In contrast, the “Berlin” model pretty much leaves that tension behind because only academic excellence is pursued. Every- one who has worked in “secular” theological faculties knows what I mean by this.
The “Athens” models suggest that knowledge and wisdom are not alterna- tives, nor can they be subsumed under each other. Knowledge is the way to wisdom, the true “knowing” of God. The noted American theologian Ellen Cherry describes this in a most useful way as she reflects on the lost heritage of the Augustinian and patristic way of doing and teaching theology: “Theology is to enable people to advance in the spiritual life. Spiritual advancement is the driving force behind all of Augustine’s works. Theories about God and the things of God (i.e., doctrines) are important and wanted, but they are to a fur- ther end: to enable people to know, love, and enjoy God better and thereby to flourish.”14 Augustine is a wonderful example to lift up here because alongside deep spirituality, he is also well known for his highly intellectual and analytic mind. Let me just take up one example. As you read his classic autobiographi- cal Confessions, you will soon notice that in the true spirit of Pentecostal-type testimonials he shares about his life before turning to Christ and the dramatic change he underwent. At the same time, this book also contains one of the most sophisticated inquiries into divinity and theology, including the famous chapter 11 on the theology and philosophy of time! Spirituality and academics seem to go well together with the bishop of Hippo.
Whereas for Augustine and likeminded thinkers theology was spiritual by its nature — an aid to help Christians know, love, and enjoy God — post- Enlightenment academic education as conducted in the university setting has strayed so far from this ethos that recently courses in “spirituality” had to be
14 Ellen T. Cherry, “Educating for Wisdom: Theological Studies as a Spiritual Exercise,” Theology Today 66, no. 3 (2009): 298.
7
252
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
added to the curriculum!15 As if studying God — logos about theos — were not a spiritually nourishing exercise in itself.
“Indoctrinal” versus “Critical”
Pentecostal preaching and testimonies are about persuasion — and often amplified with a loud voice! Not only that, but the Pentecostal way of discern- ing God’s will is geared toward nonmediated, direct encounters with God. In that environment, critical thinking, analysis, and argumentation often sit uncomfortably.Coupled with this is the Bible school mentality of much of Pen- tecostal training that, in opposition to critical academic faculties in the univer- sities, was set up to combat reigning liberalism. In other words, the “Berlin” model doesn’t seem to be a viable option in that kind of environment. Mark Hutchinson describes aptly the dynamic field in which Pentecostal theological education often finds itself in the midst of conflicting expectations:
It would be true to say that most leaders in our movement have little understanding of educational processes, and little expectation about the intelligence of their members. The model of the charismatic leader is to hear from God and then tell the people what he has heard. The concept that they may be in fact serving a community which can hear from God and which is capable of dealing with what they’ve heard is not a common one. And yet, the community model is precisely what a uni-versity is — it is a commu- nity of scholarship. With the prevailing church model, education tends to default towards indoctrination, with more emphasis on character outcomes and opinions than on intellectual formation and knowledge.16
There is a clash of cultures between the church and the academic institution; only the Bible school environment usually avoids this dynamic by going smoothly with the church culture. A Pentecostal academic institution of theo- logical knowledge “exists as a place where definite, charismatic, revelational knowledge and certainty exist alongside and in interaction with the indefinite but progressive search for truth,” whereas a typical church setting calls for a definite, authoritative settling of the issues under discussion. In order to keep this dynamic tension in a healthy measure, “[l]eaders and pastors will have to acknowledge that their revelational knowledge and ecclesial authority is not
15 See further, Cherry, “Educating for Wisdom,” 296-97.
16 Mark Hutchinson, “ ‘The Battle Hymn of the Republic of Learning’: Thoughts on Academic Freedom in a Pentecostal College,” Australasian Pentecostal Theology 9 (July 2005/6): 10.
8
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
253
absolute, while teachers will have to admit that their academic freedom and scholarly knowledge are not absolute goods.”17
A Pentecostal academic mindset should be able to make a distinction between two kinds of understandings of the term critical. The first meaning that usually comes to the popular mind is something like “tearing apart” or “breaking down” beliefs dearly held — as in radical forms of biblical criticism. That kind of use of critical faculties often replicates the naïve and unfounded understanding of rationality à la the Enlightenment whereby one assumes the location to be a context-free “no-man’s land” in which one is able to know something neutrally, without prejudice or bias. That modernist illusion is, of course, thoroughly prejudiced and biased. If postmodernity has taught us any- thing, it is that all of our knowledge is “perspectival”; there is “no view from nowhere.” This takes me to the other, more constructive meaning of critical, which means something like “sorting out” or “weighing” between various opin- ions, options, viewpoints. On the way to a confident opinion or belief, the intel- lectual capacities are put in use to ensure that one’s opinion is justified in light of current knowledge, experience, and wisdom.
The Pentecostal movement at large would be greatly helped by soberly trained leaders who have been taught how to exercise healthy criticism, includ- ing self-criticism. Pentecostals would, for example, learn that “bigger is not always better.” Even though it is not an easy task, by taking the “Athens” model as the basis and the “Berlin” model as a necessary aid, Pentecostal theological education would benefit greatly. In practical terms this means teaching the basics of biblical and doctrinal criticism as part of the curriculum, doing histo- riography rather than hagiography when studying the past of the movement, subjecting prevailing leadership or church growth patterns and ideals to scru- tiny, and so forth.
“Practical” versus “Theoretical”
A recent essay by the newly elected president of Union Theological Seminary (NY), Serene Jones, discloses the depth of the problem that has haunted theo- logical education, particularly ministerial training, from the beginning, namely, how to balance “practical” and “theoretical” aspects. She makes painfully clear just how far academic theology too often has strayed from its practical task. Her title “Practical Theology in Two Modes” is an admission that systematic theol- ogy, her own discipline, needs practical theology by its side as a separate field
17 Ibid.
9
254
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
of study, although at the same time she acknowledges that “everything we do in the divinity school is practical; it’s about faith and people’s lives.”18 The divide between theoretical and practical is another child of modernity, although the distinction, of course, serves heuristic purposes and everyday needs; think, for example, of how useful it is to study first about traffic signs in class (“theory”) before venturing into actual traffic (“practice”). Common sense dictates that in some manner, the distinction should be maintained. In the case of theological education, as long as it has ministerial training as its goal, the separation cannot be accepted. Theological education that does not lead into the adoption of “practices” and virtues relevant and conducive to Christian life and ministry is simply a failed exercise.19
Theology is a peculiar form of cognitive reflection, for its goal is not simply the expan- sion of knowledge. Theology has a quite practical goal — what I would call the forma- tion of religious identity. Theology must once again become an activity forming religious identity and character. For it to play that role, theologians must be engaged in reflection upon religious practices. Some of those practices will be located within reli- gious communities, while others may be broadly distributed within society. Theolo- gians need to attend both to the practices of congregations — worship, preaching and counseling, for example — and to societal practices that have religious and moral dimensions . . . .20
When beginning a new course in systematic theology for seminary students, I usually tell the students that my discipline may be the most “practical” and “relevant” of all fields in the theological curriculum. Students often respond by asking, isn’t systematic theology rather about thinking, argumentation, doc- trines? My counter-response affirms that but also adds that, in the final analy- sis, what else could be more “practical” to pastors, counselors, and missionaries than thinking deeply about what we believe, why we believe, and how we best try to formulate it? That is what shapes sermons, testimonies, worship, coun- seling, evangelism, finances, marriage, and so forth. Although such an exercise may not seem to be as “practical” in a shorter view as, say, basics of homiletics
18 Serene Jones, “Practical Theology in Two Modes,” in For Life Abundant: Practical Theology, Theological Education, and Christian Ministry, ed. Dorothy C. Bass and Craig Dykstra (Grand Rap- ids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 195.
19 For an important discussion of “practices,” see Practicing Theology: Beliefs and Practices in Christian Life, ed. Miroslav Volf and Dorothy Bass (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002).
20 Ronald F. Thiemann, “Making Theology Central in Theological Education,” Christian Century, February 4-11, 1987, 106-8, available at http://religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=360 (accessed July 11, 2006).
10
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
255
or church administration, its long-term effects may be far more relevant than one would assume.
This observation is worth repeating: The study of theology that fails to posi- tively shape a person’s identity, faith, character, and passion for God has simply failed its calling. An alternative is not to drop altogether the pursuit of theo- logical education, but rather, to work hard for the revising and rectifying of training.
The focus of the “Jerusalem” model, missional orientation, comes into con- sideration here. If it is true that mission is far more than one of the many tasks that the church does — namely, that the church is mission, mission is some- thing that has to do with everything the church is doing, its raison d’être — then it means that the ultimate horizon of theological education is the mission of the church.21 Pentecostalism with its eschatologically loaded missionary enthusiasm and yearning for the power of the Spirit has all the potential of redeeming that promise. Yet, a word of warning is in order here. While Pente- costals have rightly lifted up the needs of the mission as the key factor in shap- ing education, they have often done so in a way that has shortsightedly promoted merely “practical” tools of effectiveness. The urgency of mission does not mean, therefore, that it need not be theologically grounded or reflected upon. On the contrary, if mission is the mode of existence for the church, it means we should continue careful theological reflection along with praxis of mission, both affirming our praxis and offering needed self-criticism.
“Tradition-Driven” versus “Chang e-Driven”
“Tradition” is a bad word in Pentecostal vocabulary. Indeed, a main impulse that helped birth Pentecostalism was an opposition to the traditions, creeds, and rites of traditional churches. Pentecostalism breathes renewal and revital- ization. As it turned its attention to the future rather than the past, there emerged also a curious view of church history: basically it was a leap from the Book of Acts straight to the beginning of the movement in the twentieth century.
As a result, Pentecostalism is known for innovation, creativity, boldness, and “frontier spirit,” which have helped cultivate spontaneity, loose structures, and the use of unheard-of techniques. Ever-new discoveries in church growth, evangelism, leadership, and the like catch the imagination of Pentecostals.
21 For an important call by a noted ecumenist from India to renew missional commitment in all theological education, see Christopher Duraisingh, “Ministerial Formation for Mission: Impli- cations for Theological Education,” International Review of Mission 81, no. 1 (January 1992): 33-45.
11
256
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
Tradition represents everything stagnant, archaic, irrelevant, and dead. Or does it? For Paul, in what may be the oldest section of the New Testament in the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15, it was of utmost importance to pass on tradition about Jesus and his salvific work. The term tradition, of course, comes from the Latin word to “pass on.” The Johannine Jesus promised his disciples that after his exit, the Holy Spirit would continue working in their midst to help them embrace and gain a deeper insight into Jesus’ teaching, “tradition.” In the Chris- tian view, tradition is but the work of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit helps each new generation to delve more deeply and in a more relevant way into the knowledge, power, and mind of Christ.
Although a Pentecostal approach to theological education cannot be based solely or even primarily on the “Geneva” model, neither should it ignore or downplay its importance. There are two facets to Pentecostalism’s relation to tradition. First of all, the Pentecostal movement stands firmly on the tradition of Christ’s church. Hence, a sufficient study of the whole of the church’s theo- logical, creedal, and historical tradition should belong to the core of the cur- riculum. Second, Pentecostalism in itself represents a growing tradition. As much as new revivalistic movements seek to live in the denial of the inevitable, there is no denying the accumulating effects of tradition and traditions.
Any effective theological education needs to be a good training in the tradition. Given the social reality of knowing, we must work within a framework of texts and commu- nity. Each one of us is born into a family and learns a particular language. From day one, each person looks at the world in a certain way. Knowledge is the result of the hard work of communities that struggle with the complexity of the world and start arriving at a more plausible account.22
As this word of wisdom from Markham illustrates, a proper attention to tradi- tion also helps bring in the importance of community. Communal orientation is needed in order to redeem Pentecostalism, including its leadership, from hopeless individualism. This is nothing but the ecclesiological model of Acts 2.
The important task for Pentecostal theologians is to discern and bring to light the key elements of what makes Pentecostal tradition. What, for example, is the role of the baptism in the Holy Spirit in Pentecostal living tradition?23 Change and tradition, new and old, should be kept in some kind of dynamic balance; that is a continuing challenge.24
22 Markham, “Theological Education,” 159. 23 See Lewis, “Explorations,” 162.
24 See further, Markham, “Theological Education,” 164.
12
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
257
Environment: Four Locations
The term environment in this essay refers to two interrelated aspects of Pente- costal theological education. The first has to do with the setting in which the training is done, whether in a church-based Bible school, theological college, or theological seminary, or in collaboration with “secular” university faculties such as in the Free University of Amsterdam. The second meaning of the envi- ronment relates to whether Pentecostal theological education is “Pentecostal” or, as it most often is alternatively, “Evangelical” with some Pentecostal tinsel. Let me begin with this latter meaning.
Anyone familiar with typical Pentecostal theological schools knows that much of what is taught has little or no direct relation to Pentecostalism; it is, rather, borrowed materials from the Evangelical storehouses. Pentecostal dynamics and philosophy of education are due to the “reliance upon pedagogi- cal and philosophical models that are more Evangelical (or fundamentalist) than Pentecostal . . . [and] written resources on educational philosophy and pedagogy authored by Pentecostals for Pentecostal educators are lacking, espe- cially for higher education.”25 In other words: although Pentecostal students study in a Pentecostal environment, their education is not often distinctively Pentecostal. It is, rather, the extracurricular activities that are more Pentecostal in nature. As a result, Pentecostals become vulnerable to losing their distinc- tive nature and identity.
Behind this malaise is not only the lack of developed Pentecostal theology or textbooks but also a general orientation in much of Pentecostal theological scholarship that often tends to major in repeating uncritically the voices of Evangelicalism, at times even Fundamentalism — even though it is the Funda- mentalists who have been most vocal opponents of anything charismatic! I am thinking here of Fundamentalistic views such as the doctrine of Scripture and inspiration (inerrancy), dispensationalist eschatology, and so on, which have been adopted without a concerted theological assessment of how well, or how badly, these views fit Pentecostalism.26 Henry Lederle of South Africa, himself a Charismatic Reformed, rightly remarks: “It is an irony of recent ecclesiastical history that much of Pentecostal scholarship has sought to align itself so closely with the rationalistic heritage of American Fundamentalism . . . without fully
25 Jeffrey Hittenberger, “Toward a Pentecostal Philosophy of Education,” Pneuma 23, no. 2 (2001): 226, 230; I am indebted to Lewis, “Explorations” (p. 172) for this citation.
26 For an enlightening analysis of the uneasy relationship between Pentecostalism and Funda- mentalism, see Gerald T. Sheppard, “Pentecostalism and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism: The Anatomy of an Uneasy Relationship,” Pneuma 6, no. 2 (1984): 5-34.
13
258
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
recognizing how hostile these theological views are to Pentecostal and Charis- matic convictions about present-day prophecy, healing miracles and other spiritual charisms.”27 Now, in principle there is, of course, no problem with bor- rowing from others. It would be only foolish to decline to drink from the com- mon Christian wells and take advantage of other churches’ millennia-long traditions of theological reflection. However, the way in which Pentecostals have done that — and seemingly continue doing it — is what raises concerns. In most cases, I fear, Pentecostal theologians do not acknowledge the fact that what they claim to be presenting as a “Pentecostal” theological view is often nothing more than a “Spirit-baptized” Evangelical, often even Fundamentalis- tic, view taken from others with little or no integral connection to the core of Pentecostal identity.
Pentecostals have much to learn from older traditions. Let me take just one current example. In the above-mentioned essay, Markham carefully considers what are the key elements in his own Anglican tradition and, on the basis of that investigation, lays out three broad theological principles with regard to Anglican theological education: first, it should be creedal because of the cen- trality of the ancient creeds and later Anglican dogmatic formulae; second, it should be liturgical because of the center of the church life in worship and lit- urgy; and third, it should be engaged because of Anglicanism’s deep desire to engage the society at large, including politics, culture, arts, science, etc.28 Now, these are not theological underpinnings for Pentecostal higher education. But I admire the clarity, consistency, and boldness of being true to one’s own tradi- tion without being hostile to others.
Building on one’s own identity and tradition is in no way an excuse or ratio- nale for excluding others or fostering anti-ecumenical attitudes (those are prevalent enough without much training, unfortunately!). On the contrary, from the “foundation” of a clearly formulated identity and belonging to one’s community grows an irenic spirit toward others. In keeping with this goal is the set of guidelines from the global working group of theological educators who prepared a useful document for the Edinburgh 2010 World Missionary Confer- ence in relation to theological educators:
27 Henry I. Lederle, “Pentecostals and Ecumenical Theological Education,” Ministerial Forma- tion 80 (January 1998): 46.
28 Markham, “Theological Education,” 160-62.
14
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
259
a. they should strengthen the denominational identity of future pastors and church
workers, so that graduates will have a very clear understanding of the church to
which they belong (theologicaleducation as denominational initiation);
b. they should introduce students to the wider horizons of the worldwide church so
that they will understand that they also belong to the ecumenical fellowship of
churches (theological education as discovery of catholicity);
c. they should prepare candidates to engage models of church unity, to reflect theo-
logically on ‘unity in diversity’ and to ask how the relation between local or denomi-
national identity and the ecumenical worldwide fellowship can be lived out
(theological education as enabling forecumenical learning).29
As mentioned above, Pentecostal theological training by and large takes place in four different environments.30 Both church-based Bible schools and bibli- cal/theological colleges have rendered an invaluable service to the global Pen- tecostal movement. Indeed, one can safely say that, without this network of grassroots-level training that owes its beginning to the end of the nineteenth- century Holiness and other Evangelical movements’ example, the establish- ment of Pentecostal churches all around the world might not have been possible. Even today these schools play a critical role in ministerial training, as is the case, for example, in most Latin American Pentecostal movements. The mode of rationality in those settings is markedly different from that of higher education proper. Their frame of reference is practical, short-term training of workers rather than academic education based on research and new knowledge.
In this essay, my focus has been on the academic section of Pentecostal theo- logical education as conducted in theological seminaries and theological col- leges with graduate departments; as mentioned, there is also emerging a new breed of Pentecostal theological training, that located in “secular” university faculties.
In the process of seeking a proper balance between the epistemologies of “Athens” and “Berlin” and consequently between the ethos of passing on tradi- tion and critical scrutiny thereof, the important question regarding the relation between the church and academia emerges (“church” here stands for all levels of ecclesiastical life from local churches to global networks of national movements).
29 “Challenges and Opportunities in Theological Education in the 21st Century: Pointers for a New International Debate on Theological Education,” Short version, Edinburgh 2010 — Interna- tional study group on theological education, World Study Report 2009, p. 8, available at http:// oikoumene.org/gr/resources/documents.html (accessed 7/13/2010).
30 In addition, there are locations that are difficult to classify such as the Folkhögskola (“Folk High School”) institutions in Nordic countries, which play an important role, for example, in Swe- den and in Finland.
15
260
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
Unlike university-based theology faculties — unless directly related to the given church, as is still the case in many Roman Catholic settings — that, in the name of academic freedom, resist any kind of supervision from the church, Pentecostal theological institutions better nurture a constructive, mutual rela- tion to the church. As discussed above, this kind of relationship is not without the challenges arising from two different rationalities and intellectual climates. The above-mentioned Edinburgh 2010 document summarizes in a most help- ful way some of the key principles in this regard under the title “Theological education and the church — a relationship of service, ownership, and critical distance.” The document takes as its starting point the overarching principle of closeness and distance, which helps the church to be the church and academia to be academia, yet in a way that makes the relationship mutually conditioning:
a. There is no fundamental contradiction between the principles of academic learning
or intellectual discipline on one hand and a church-related faith commitment on
the other, although at times there may be tension between the two. It is the task of
theological education to strengthen the commitment to Christian faith and to
develop a proper understanding and practice of it, which may include liberating
faith from narrow-minded or uninformed concepts and/or practices.
b. Theological education has a critical and liberating function in relation to the exist-
ing church; with reference to both Biblical and Christian tradition, theological edu-
cation can remind Christian communities of their proper tasks and key mandates. c. The church has a critical and alerting function over against theological education
and the forms of cultural captivity and blindedness theological education can find
itself in due to its particular environment and internal value systems. Serious com-
plaints are being heard that the theological academy in the West has lost its world-
wide, ecumenical perspective and its missionary impact, and that it is not sufficiently
cognizant of emerging shifts in World Christianity today.
d. Theological education therefore needs regular contact with the existing realities of
church life, involvement and close touch with the challenges of mission, ministry
and life witness of churches today, but it also needs critical distance and a certain
degree of autonomy from the daily pressures of church work and from the direct
governing processes and power interests of church institutions.31
Last Words: “An Unfinished Agenda”
Following the title of the late missionary-bishop Lesslie Newbigin’s autobiogra- phy, An Unfinished Agenda, suffice it to say that the continuing work toward a
31 “Challenges and Opportunities in Theological Education,” 6.
16
V.-M. Kärkkäinen / Pneuma 34 (2012) 245-261
261
more coherent and comprehensive theology of Pentecostal theological educa- tion is a task for the worldwide Pentecostal movement.
That said, I would like to come back to the question I raised in the beginning of the essay, namely, is bigger always better? Jon Ruthven formulates this ques- tion in a helpful way: “Could it be that the extreme reluctance of Pentecostal leadership to bow to pressures for the establishment of theological seminaries has merit? Instead of dismissing them as anti-intellectual, perhaps we might pause to consider if these leaders were onto something.”32 Professor Ruthven himself teaches in a seminary/divinity school setting; this surprising question is thus not meant to dismiss or even downplay the importance of highest-level theological training for Pentecostals. The way I take it is that in the midst of many and variegated efforts to update the level of theological education among Pentecostals, it would only be counterproductive to be so carried over by this effort as to lose the bigger perspective. As a bumper put it succinctly: “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” The key is to work toward a form and content of theological education that bears the marks of an authentic Pentecostal spirituality and identity.
Ultimately, “theological education is part of the holistic mission of the Chris- tian church,” says the World Council of Churches’ Oslo (1996) statement to which Pentecostals can only say, “Amen and Amen.”
There is consensus among us on the holistic character of theological education and ministerial formation, which is grounded in worship, and combines and inter-relates spirituality, academic excellence, mission and evangelism, justice and peace, pastoral sensitivity and competence, and the formation of character. For it brings together edu- cation of:
the ear to hear God’s word and the cry of God’s people;
the heart to heed and respond to the suffering;
the tongue to speak to both the weary and the arrogant;
the hands to work with the lowly;
the mind to reflect on the good news of the gospel;
the will to respond to God’s call;
the spirit to wait on God in prayer, to struggle and wrestle with God, to be silent in penitence and humility and to intercede for the church and the world; the body to be the temple of the Holy Spirit.33
32 Ruthven, “Pentecostal Seminaries,” n.p.
33 Cited in “Challenges and Opportunities in Theological Education,” 5.
