Pentecostal Triangle of Primitive Faith

The modern call for Primitivism derives from the idea of personal experience with God. There is yet no truth for and about Pentecostalism that does not emerge from experience. Irrational in thinking and in an intimate parallel to the story of the Primitive Church, Pentecostalism combines the discomfort and weakness of the oppressed and persecuted. It is the story of one and yet many that excels through the piety of the search for holiness and the power of the supernatural experience of Pentecost. It is the call for the reclaiming and restoration of “the faith once delivered to the saints.”

Such an idea of “looking back to the church of antiquity” derives from a Puritan background and is indisputably Wesleyan. In a letter to the Vicar of Shoreham in Kent, Wesley writes that the parallel between the present reality and the past tradition must remain close. For Wesley, the primitive church was the church of the first three centuries. Equality in the community as in the primitive church was the context in which Wesley ministered. Everyone was allowed to preach, both deacons and evangelists, and even women “when under extraordinary inspiration”

Of course, for Wesley, the Primitive Church was restored with the Church of England. The Pentecostal response was quite different, “The Methodists say that John Wesley set the standard. We go beyond Wesley; we go back to Christ and the apostles, to the days of pure primitive Christianity, to the inspired Word of truth.” The main characteristic of restoration was the personal experience of God. This experience was vividly presented by the Wesleyan interpreters in the quadrilateral along with reason, tradition and scripture. Such a scheme, however, may not be fully sufficient to describe the Pentecostal identity, as well as the paradigm of the Primitive Church.

The experience of God in a Pentecostal context carries a more holistic role, which is connected with the expression of the individual’s story and identity in both personal and corporate ecclesial settings. Through the experience then, they become a collaboration of the story of the many, and at the same time remain in the boundaries of their personal identity. The experience of both the individual and the community that holistically and circularly surrounds Pentecostalism is expressed in prayer, power and praxis.

Since Pentecostalism is based on the personal experience of God, prayer as the means of spiritual communication is its beginning. Being the source of spiritual power in the individual’s life it becomes the means of existence within the community of believers. Power derives only from God through a spiritual relationship which expressed through prayer, develops as a factor of constant change. The product is a unique praxis, which in the quest for church holiness and personal morality appeals for redefinition of the original ecclesial purpose and identification with the lives of the first Christians. The triangular formula of prayer, power and praxis is then the basis for Pentecostal theology.

Pentecostals claim primitivism aplenty, conformity to the apostolic experience of Pentecost and the Book of Acts. It affirms that modern Christianity can rediscover and re-appropriate the power of the Holy Spirit, described in the New Testament and particularly in Acts of the Apostles. In a social context, it was a call against public injustice. Globally the Pentecostal movement was a powerful revival that appeared almost simultaneously in various parts of the world in the beginning of the twentieth century. In the United States it occurred during the time of spiritual search.

During the first seventy years of national life of the USA barely 1.6 million immigrants arrived. In 1861-1900 fourteen million entered the country, and it was precisely within the recorded decade of 1901-10, with 8.8 million immigrants, that the Pentecostal movement began. The mass migration was in an immediate connection with the rapid urbanization and industrialization occurring in a chronological parallel. Since first generation immigrants are usually rootless, combined with sociological changes, the context created a search for identity and roots. In America, Pentecostalism came as an answer to this search.

In parallel, the beginning of the Church of God was a call for restoration and a literal return to the Primitive Church. It was The Christian Union committed to “restore primitive Christianity.” In its early years the Church of God focused on four main characteristics of the Church from Acts: (1) great outpouring of the Spirit, (2) great “ingathering of souls,” (3) tongues of fire and (4) spread of the Gospel. Similar to the Early Church, it began in the context of persecution, presence and parousia. While heavily persecuted the Church of God constantly remains in the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit in a firm expectancy of the return of Christ. The Genesis of the Church of God was a restoration of the Pentecostal prayer, power and praxis of the Primitive Church.

Pentecostal Praxis

My first personal experience of the Pentecostal praxis was through the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. It took place the day after I was saved, and ever since has taken a central place in my personal life, spiritual life and ministry. The liturgy I am about to describe is a typical Communion Service in the Bulgarian Church of God.  It dates back to the early 1920s when Russian immigrants to the United States were traveling back from the Azusa Street revival to Russia to preach the Good News to their people. On the way back, their ship stops for a night at the Bulgarian port of Bourgas on the Black Sea. They attended the service at the Congregational church in town, and a great number of the believers received the Spirit through their ministry. This event is considered the initiation of the Pentecostal movement in Bulgaria.

The Church of God in Bulgaria was established in the 1928 with an identical name, but independently from the Church of God (Cleveland, TN). The first link between the two churches was established in 1985. During this 65-year period, the Church of God in Bulgaria was persecuted by Orthodox and nationalistic organizations before and during the Communism Regime, and was looked upon as an extreme cult organization. Yet, during these years of underground worship, the Church of God has preserved the liturgy of the Eucharist in the grade of authenticity in which it was received.

An essential part the service is the preparation. The believers depend on the leadership of the Holy Spirit for the exact date and time of the Communion Service.  Due to the lack of scheduled services in the underground church, the believers trusted in the protection of the Holy Spirit in arranging the service.  Fasting is also a requirement on the day of the service.

The actual service usually takes place in the nighttime when everyone is free from work.  It takes place in a believer’s home.  Sometimes these services have up to fifty people in a small apartment.  Worship is quiet, because any loud noise may lead to the appearance of the police.

The physical silence, however, does not limit the presence of the Holy Spirit, and even helps the believers to be more sensitive to God’s voice, which is indescribable when taking place as a group experience. The service starts with prayer, which lasts till God reveals who among the ladies is to beak the unleavened bread for the communion.  After the chosen ladies leave to bake the bread, the minister delivers his communion message.

The altar call, given after the preaching, purposes to prepare the believers for Communion. Communion is not given to a person who is not saved, baptized in water and in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, after the sermon, a prayer is offered for the sick and the needy, a special prayer is prayed for repentance and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I have personally witnessed up to thirty people saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit in a matter of minutes.

The converts are led to the river and baptized in water. This is often done in the middle of the night, when sometimes the temperature is so low that the minister and his assistants break the ice in order to baptize the convert.

The converts are welcomed back with a special song sung by the congregation. After an extended time of self-examination and the request of each believer to be forgiven by the present members of the congregation, the pastor presents the Communion to the congregation. One unleavened cake is used as a symbol of the oneness of Christ’s body. The cup of the Communion is filled with wine. The roots of this tradition can be traced back to the teachings of the first western missionaries to Bulgaria at the end of the nineteenth century, as well as the influence of the Eastern Orthodox tradition. After communion, men and women are separated for a foot washing service. At the end of the service, all are gathered for an Agape feast, which serves as a conclusion of the Communion Service.

This communion liturgy has been strictly preserved for the past hundred years by believers who have been challenged to keep their faith even with the cost of their lives through the persecution of Communism. Apart from the official doctrinal teachings of the denomination, the experience of the sacrament has been its only protector.

It would have been easier to define and reconstruct the basic list of church practices if at least a minimal structural system, formal government or doctrinal statements existed. Both the Primitive Church and Early Pentecostalism substantively lacks all of this. It was this deficit that creatively shaped the identity of the Church and presupposed its further search for primitivism.

Although the primitive communities were not the same everywhere, three practices were common for all: sharing of possessions, baptism, and communion. They were accompanied by the early liturgical formulas such as amen, hallelujah, maranatha, etc.

The message of the Primitive Church was delivered mainly through speeches (Acts 2, 7, 17, 20, etc.) and communal discussions of examples of the Bible (Acts 7; Heb. 11). It contrasted the present experience with the former lost conditions in a before-after contextual method (Rom. 7-8) and served as a practical instruction of the Christian walk (Col. 3:5ff.).

Pentecostal Power

I have heard the stories of the older Bulgarian Christians about the Communist persecution; stories of pain and suffering, horrifying the psyche and the physics of the listeners. They speak of a persecuted church whose only defender has been God.  I have heard the stories of the saints of old, but I have also seen these stories turning into powerful testimonies of the powerless, who become powerful in a realm which human understanding cannot comprehend or explain. I have seen the stories of pain then become an arena for the power of God, and the saints of old holding their hands lifted up, with eyes filled with fire from above, voices that firmly declare, “Thus sayeth the Lord.” And their testimonies have become confirmation of my faith and convictions as well as the faith of many others. Their faith, rather primitive and naïve, but firmly based in God, naturally powerless but divinely powerful, has preserved their experience for us.

Theologically, preservation is an agency through which God maintains not only the existing creation, but also the properties and powers with which He has endowed them. Much had been said and written about spiritual power in the second half of the nineteenth century. The theme of “power” was clearly present in the Wesleyan tradition along with the motifs of “cleansing” and “perfection.” The effects of the spiritual baptism were seen as “power to endure, and power to accomplish.” It was also suggested that “holiness is power,” and that indeed purity and power are identical.

Nevertheless, it was recorded that in the midst of this quest for the supernatural power of the Primitive Church, the believers in Topeka, Kansas searched “through the country everywhere, …. unable to find any Christians that had the true Pentecostal power.”  The Apostolic Faith began its broadcast of Pentecost with the words “Pentecost has surely come …” It further explained that the cause for this miraculous occurrence was that “many churches have been praying for Pentecost, and Pentecost has come.”

The central understanding of the spiritual power was as enduement for ministry. According to this interpretation, Christ’s promise in Acts 1:8 was seen fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost. It was intergenerational power to experience God’s grace for the moment, but also to preserve it for the generations to come, as Peter stated, “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39). Furthermore, this power was interpreted as an integral part of the ministry of the Primitive Church. Since it had been lost in history, it was needed again and an immediate reclaiming was necessary. It was both an individually and corporately experienced power as it focused on both personal holy living and witnessing to the community.

The Church of God accepted both the sanctification and baptism characteristics of the power, but it interpreted the sanctification separate from the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Sanctification was divinely initiated and perfected. It was not through the believer’s self-discipline, as Wesley taught, but through the power of God alone, that the believer could be sanctified and continue to live a sanctified life free from sin. What was experienced in 1896 was definitely Pentecost, and not just any Pentecost, but was the Pentecost of the Primitive Church from Acts chapter two.

Further, interpreting the account of Acts, this power found expression in glossolalia, spiritual gifts, miracles and healings. Since, it was physically manifested in the midst of the congregation it was holistically experienced by the Christian community, and that was enough proof for its authenticity. The interpretation included expressions like dynamite, oxidite, lyidite and selenite.  But the power had more than just physical manifestations. It was their only explanation of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. It was their proof that He indeed was the Messiah. Therefore, it produced results in real-life conversions, affecting the growth of the small church in the mountain community. It was a power for witness. It was also the power that gave them strength during the numerous persecutions. Even when the church building was burned to the ground and the members were shot at and mocked, the reality of the living Church, as the Body of Christ, remained unscathed. The promised power brought meaning into the life of the Church of God.

Pentecostal Prayer

My personal experience of prayer comes from an hour between three and four o’clock in the afternoon spent every day sitting in the presence of God on an old chair in Coffee Room #3 on the fourth floor of the Men’s dorm in the Computer Technical School of Pravetz, Bulgaria. It is accompanied with the memories of leaving the dormitory through a first-floor window along with 15-20 other boys and running in the early morning snow to the small mountain Church of God through the doors of which so many have entered the glory of Heaven. And it always brings to my mind the image of my praying grandmother who forgetting the need of sleep and rest spent countless nights of prayer in the presence of the Almighty God.

If Pentecostalism has indeed discovered and acquired any of the characteristics of the Primitive Church this would be the prayer of the early saints. Prayer is also the means for universal identification with the Pentecostal movement. The Bible School of Charles Fox Parham in Topeka, Kansas had a prayer tower where prayers were ascending nightly and daily to God. It was through prayer and laying on of hands when around 11 p.m. on December 31, 1900, Agnes Ozman was baptized in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. Six years later the Apostolic Faith stated that the beginning of Pentecost started with prayer in a cottage meeting at 214 Bonnie Brae.

It was a timeless prayer as they wept all day and night. It was prayer for reclaiming the power from the past; prayer for the present needs, and prayer for the future return of Christ. Prayer was not only the source of divine power, but also the means for preservation of the power and the identity of the Primitive Church. Prayer was not only the request for power, but also for the personal change and preparation of the believer who was going to receive the power. The connection between power and prayer was in the spirit of the ongoing Azusa Street Revival, whose members were earnestly urged to, “Pray for the power of the Holy Ghost.”

Similarly, the Church of God based its quest for the Primitive Church in prayer. Moreover, prayer was the only way these poor, uneducated and persecuted people could find comfort for their needs and answers for their lives. Prayer was their communication with God, their worship and their only way of experiencing the divine and acquiring the supernatural. It was not a sophisticated constructive liturgy, but rather a simple deconstructive experience, where the believer was divinely liberated from the past, present and future doctrinal dogmas and human limitations.

Only then was the believer able to experience the presence of God freely. The past pain was gone, the present need was trivial and the future was in the hands of the Almighty God. Hope, faith, crying, tears and joy were all ecstatically present in the reality of prayer, because God could hear and see all. And somehow, in a ways, which remains unexplainable, mystic and supernatural, their cry to God was heard and they were indeed empowered.

It was through a fervent prayer that in the summer of 1896 in the Shearer Schoolhouse in Cherokee County, NC about 130 people received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It was through the prayer that took place in a cottage house, after the model of the Primitive Methodists. It was through the prayer in the house of W.F. Bryant and the prayers of the men on the “Prayer Mountain.” It was like the prayer in the Upper Room in Jerusalem (Acts 2). It was through the prayer which all seekers of God prayed in their search for His presence, in their need and in their longing for life. It was through the prayer, which reclaims, experiences and preserves the true Christian identity.

Twenty years later, The First Assembly of the Church of God recommended that prayer meetings would be held weekly in the local churches. It also urged for every family to gather together in family worship and seek God, instructing their children to kneel in the presence of the Almighty. In the 1907 Consecration Service both A.J. Tomlinson and M.S. Lemons expressed their desire and willingness to pray as they worked in the ministry.  To seek the power for ministry through prayer was completely in the spirit Azusa Street Revival, through which Pentecostalism addressed the world with the words, “The power of God now… “

Pentecostal articles for Pentecost Sunday

Offering a few recent Pentecostal articles in light of the upcoming Pentecost Sunday celebration:

1. The Forgotten Azusa Street Mission: The Place where the First Pentecostals Met
2. Diamonds in the Rough-N-Ready Pentecostal Series (Complete)
3. 95th anniversary of the Pentecostal movement in Bulgaria
4. Toward a Pentecostal Solution to the Refugee Crises in the European Union
5. Historical and Doctrinal Formation of Holiness Teachings and Praxis among Bulgarian Pentecostals
6. Pacifism as a Social Stand for Holiness among Early Bulgarian Pentecostals
7. The Practice of Corporate Holiness within the Communion Service of Bulgarian Pentecostals
8. Sanctification and Personal Holiness among Early Bulgarian Pentecostals
9. First Pentecostal Missionaries to Bulgaria (1920)
10. Historical and Doctrinal Formation of Holiness Teachings and Praxis among Bulgarian Pentecostals
11. The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought
12. Online Pentecostal Academic Journals
13. What made us Pentecostal?
14. Pentecostalism and Post-Modern Social Transformation
15. Obama, Marxism and Pentecostal Identity
16. Why I Decided to Publish Pentecostal Primitivism?
17. Historic Pentecostal Revival Tour in Bulgaria Continues
18. The Land of Pentecostals
19. Pentecostal Theological Seminary Address
20. A Truly Pentecostal Water Baptism
    

Bulgarian Pentecostal riddle…

Five kings with five crowns
Four bishops and castle in the middle
Who will blow the whistle
and who will play the fiddle?
A Bulgarian Pentecostal riddle…

Toward a Pentecostal Philosophy of Education

Toward a Pentecostal Philosophy of Education Jeffrey S. Hittenberger Introduction Michael Parra serves as Outreach Coordinator at Valley High School in Santa Ana, California, an urban community south of Los Angeles. Every day Michael works with students in crisis, on the verge of dropping out, involved in gangs, pregnant, suicidal. He states: ‘ Whereas some people might say, “This kid is lost,” I have an of what God can do. Some expectation call people might say I’m optimistic because I’m But what young. or see as a attitude, I would call people optimism, positive expectation, vibrant expectation of what God can do. Outside looking in, some might see it as youthful impetuousness, but I see it as a recognition of God’s power, and my wanting to be involved in God’s Kingdom work. Michael Parra is one of perhaps millions of Pentecostal educators, tens of thousands of whom are working in formal education systems. To be a Pentecostal or Charismatic Christian (henceforth, for the sake of simplicity, Pentecostal) is to be one of more than 400 million people in the world who have submitted their lives to Jesus Christ and opened their souls to receive the baptism or infilling of the Holy Spirit. Terminology varies, but Pentecostals share a belief that the gifts of the Spirit did not end with the Apostles, that the signs, wonders, and miracles in the Acts of the Apostles are not confined to the first century, but that that outpouring of the Spirit continues into the presents. I How do Pentecostal Christians think about and do education? How do Pentecostal experience and theology shape Pentecostal educational philoso- phy and pedagogy? I am especially interested in how Pentecostal experi- ence and theology influence our teaching and thinking when we teach in formal education systems and in higher education systems. Do our experi- ences of Spirit baptism or Spirit in filling and our beliefs about the ongoing outpouring of the Spirit give our educational ideas and practices a distinc- ‘ I David B. Barrett, and Todd M. Johnson, “Annual Statistical Table on Global Mission: 1999,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 23:1 (January 1999), Johnson estimate pp. 24-25. Barrett and Pentecostal/Charismatic population at just over 449 million in mid-1999. define this They category as “Church members involved in the Pentecostal/Charismatic Renewal.” ” 217 1 tive quality? Is there some special gift that Pentecostal educators have to share with the larger church and with the wider world? Four sections follow, corresponding to the major questions to be addressed: What do Pentecostals say about how their experience and theology impacts their educational thought and practice? . What framework might allow us to formulate and compare philosophies of education? How do Pentecostal educators adopt and adapt various educational philoso- phies ? What framework might enable Pentecostals to further explore and articulate the impact of Pentecostal experience and theology upon their educational philosophy and practice? – The bulk of this study is descriptive and analytic in character, covering the first three questions above in some detail, while suggesting a preliminary framework in response to question four. This study is exploratory in nature and seeks to contribute to Pentecostal thinking and practice regarding edu- cation. The structure of this article is inductive, moving from the specifics of Pentecostals reflecting on their own experience as educators toward the generalities of educational philosophy. I do not presume to articulate a Pentecostal philosophy of education in any definitive fashion. I do suggest, however, that Pentecostal experience and theology have relevance for the educational philosophies and practices of Pentecostal educators, a relevance that opens fascinating possibilities for further research and development. For the purposes of this study, “Pentecostal” is defined broadly to include those Christians who consider themselves Pentecostal or Charismatic, embracing the works of the Holy Spirit in the first-century church as described in Acts and elsewhere in the New Testament as relevant and normative for contemporary Christians. Pentecostal experience, by extension, is defined as personal participation in Christian communities that embrace and seek the continuous outpouring of the Holy Spirit and practice the multiple gifts of the Spirit described in the New Testament. A subsequent study might fruitfully examine distinctions among various Pentecostal and Charismatic groups (with their varied ideas of the nature of the continuous 218 2 outpouring) with regard to educational philosophy. Education is also defined broadly to include both the formal (school- based, credit- or degree-oriented) and nonformal (church- or home-based, mentoring-oriented). A Pentecostal educator, therefore, might be a teacher, a pastor, a mentor, a parent, or a friend who intentionally contributes to the learning of another. This broad definition of education also recognizes that much learning occurs indirectly, or informally, and this is of particular sig- nificance to Pentecostals. The primary focus of the study, however, is on education in formal and post-secondary settings. Peterson has defined a philosophy of education as “a unified set of philosophical assumptions together with their implications for the educa- tional enterprise.”2 Knight notes that the task of educational philosophy is to bring educators into z . Face-to-face contact with the large questions underlying the meaning and purpose of life and education. To understand these questions, the student must wrestle with such issues as the nature of reality, the meaning and sources of knowledge, and the structure of values. Educational must philoso- phy bring students into a position from which they can evaluate alternative intelligent- ly ends, relate their aims to desired ends, and select methods that harmonize with their aims. Thus a major task of educational philosophy is to help educators think pedagogical about the total educational and life process, so that they will be in a meaningfully better tion to posi- develop a consistent and comprehensive 3 program that will assist their students in arriving at the desired goal.3 . This study’s methodology includes interviews of Pentecostal educators, a cross disciplinary review of literature related to this topic, as well as philo- sophical and theological reflection. This article is also informed by a life- time of interaction with Pentecostal educators and by my career as a Pentecostal educator serving in a variety of educational contexts. . What Do Pentecostals Say about How Their Experience and Theology Impact Their Educational Thought and Practice? Pentecostal educators face a dilemma. The Pentecostal movement is, among other things, a Spirit-inspired protest against structures and forms that obscure the truths of God’s Kingdom. Pentecostals have historically ‘ . 2 Michael L. Peterson, Philosophy of Education (Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1986), 24. 3 George R. Knight, Issues and Alternatives in Educational Philosophy, 3d ed. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1998), 3. 219 3 shared Jesus’ distaste for religious systems that have become instruments of oppression. “Woe to you experts in the law,” Jesus said, “because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”4 They have also shared the per- spective of the Apostle Paul, who wrote, “See to it that no one takes you cap- tive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tra- dition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”5 Pentecostalism is a renewed experience of God’s direct intervention in one’s life, God’s self-revelation in the world. For a Pentecostal, a second- or third- hand experience of God does not satisfy. True ideas about God are no sub- stitute for God’s tangible presence. This Pentecostal emphasis on immediacy makes more abstract thought, or academic discussion about spiritual experiences, suspect. It is one thing to have a theology of Holy Spirit baptism. It is quite another to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. These attitudes toward education, particularly of the rationalistic vari- ety, are clearly not unique to twentieth-century Pentecostalism. Tertullian, in the second century, differed with Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria as to the value of classical education, posing the famous ques- tions : “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?”6 For Pentecostals, to quote Cheryl Bridges Johns, the question might be rephrased, “What has Athens to do with Azusa Street?” Almost six hundred years ago, Thomas a Kempis wrote in his classic The Imitation of Christ: . Cease from an inordinate desire of knowing, for therein is much distrac- tion and deceit. The learned are well-pleased to seem so to others, and to be accounted wise… If thou dost more thine own reason or than upon that power which rely upon brings thee under the obedience of Jesus Christ, it will be long before thou become enlightened; for God industry will have us perfectly subject unto him, that being inflamed with his love, we may transcend the narrow limits of human reason.7 Apprehensions regarding formal education and the pursuit of knowl- 4 Luke 11:52 (New International Version). 5 Colossians 2:8 (New International Version). All subsequent biblical references are from the New Revised Standard Version. 6 Tertullian, “Prescription Against Heretics.” in D. Bruce Lockerbie, ed., A Passion for Leaning: The History of Christian Thought on Education (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 71. 7 Thomas a Kempis, The Imitation of Christ (Chicago: Moody Press. 1984), 26; 48. 220 4 edge have been counterbalanced for Pentecostals by Jesus’ inclusion of the mind in the greatest commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.”8 Moreover, Jesus and his biblical followers, including the writers of Scripture, embodied the Apostle Paul’s injunction, “Be trans- formed by the renewing of your minds.”9 Of special interest to Pentecostals is the scholarly approach of the writer of Luke-Acts, who frames his Gospel with these words: “I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.”10 Spirit and mind are clearly complementary for Luke. Likewise, church leaders and reformers through the centuries have drawn upon their formal education in the conviction, encouraged by leaders like Augustine, that “all truth is God’s truth.” Several of the early leaders of the twentieth century Pentecostal movement benefited from their own expe- rience in higher education, like E. N. Bell, first Superintendent of the U.S. Assemblies of God, who had a Bachelor’s degree, a seminary degree, and three years of graduate study at the University of Chicago. So despite ambivalence about formal education, Pentecostals recog- nized the need to prepare believers to be effective students of Scripture and articulate ambassadors of Christ. Pentecostals quickly began to establish Bible schools, then Bible institutes, then Bible colleges, then Christian lib- eral arts colleges, and, most recently, theological seminaries and compre- hensive universities. I I Pentecostals pursued and obtained advanced degrees and Pentecostal churches began to produce scholars. Each of the Pentecostal educators I interviewed for this paper has at least a Bachelor’s degree and almost 80 per cent have earned doctorates. They represent the large number of Pentecostals who combine a Pentecostal experience with advanced formal education ‘ 8 Mark 12:30. 9 Romans 12:2. 10 Luke 1:3-4. ‘ 11 For a summary of the development of higher education in the United States Assemblies of God, the largest denomination in Pentecostalism, see William W. Menzies. Anointed to Sen?e: The Story of the Assemblies of God (Springfield, MO: 12 Gospel Publishing House, 1971 ). For this paper, I interviewed 35 Pentecostal educators either in person or via telephone or email. The profile of my interview group is as follows: Pastors – 2 , Missionary Educators – 3 , 221 5 The responses of these educators have greatest relevance for Pentecostals in higher education, since over 70 per cent of my respondents fit that profile. In principle, however, many of the same findings apply to Pentecostals in other educational settings, as my respondents in these other settings tended to confirm. Future studies of this topic would do well to focus on and compare other populations of Pentecostal educators (e.g., those in two-thirds-world set- tings ; without formal higher education; in various academic disciplines; from different generations; from various Pentecostal and Charismatic move- ments). My interviews included five basic questions, which I will list below with summaries of the responses I received. These questions were meant to elicit personal reflection from Pentecostal educators about the impact of their Pentecostal experience and theology on their educational thought and practice. Thus the questions were open-ended, and in my analysis of their responses I try to let them speak for themselves. For each question I offer a major finding, sample responses, and some elaboration. Question 1: In what ways has your own education been a “Pentecostal education”? Finding: Pentecostal educators note a tremendous Spirit- inspired dynamic in their educational experience and practice. . This group of Pentecostal educators is impressive both academically Public school teachers – 3 ‘ Private Sector Human Resources Trainer – I Educational Consultant (focusing on Sunday Schools) – 1 . Professors at Pentecostal institutions of higher education (IHEs) in the U.S. – 13 3 Professors at Pentecostal IHEs outside the U.S. – 1 Professors at non-Pentecostal IHEs – 2 Administrators at Pentecostal IHEs in the U.S. – 3 Administrators at Pentecostal IHEs non-U.S. – 3 Administrators at non-Pentecostal IHEs – I K-12 Christian school leaders – 2 I did not attempt to select a statistically representative sample of Pentecostal educators. Instead, I sought to interview Pentecostal educators who had a formal educational experience that would have exposed them to diverse philosophies of education, them to reflect on the rele- vance of their Pentecostal experience and theology for their educational causing philosophy. Of my seven are women, five live outside the United States, and three are citizens of nations other than the United States. They are of diverse ethnicities, with seven sample, either have being non-Anglo. completed or are completing doctoral degrees. Approximately 70 per cent attend Assemblies of God churches, with others scattered among other Pentecostal and Twenty-six Charismatic churches. 222 6 and from the point of view of Christian service. Many in this group have obtained graduate degrees from prestigious universities in the United States and abroad. They are also impressive in terms of their commitment to the spiritual growth of their students and their desire to be instruments of the Holy Spirit in their teaching. Almost three-quarters (73 per cent) of these Pentecostal educators had experience as undergraduate or graduate students in Pentecostal institutions of higher education (IHEs). Though most had attended Pentecostal IHEs for at least part of their undergraduate experience, most cited nonformal dimen- sions of their Pentecostal education (through mentors or family members) as more influential in their lives than the formal curriculum. Examples of their comments: ‘ I learned about the church and ministry from my grandfather and from my father. They taught me, informally, the Christian ethics of Pentecostalism. I also learned how to interpret the world and my reality Pentecostally. My Pentecostal education was enriched by the corporate model of the Ivoirian [Cote d’ Ivoire] church, which experienced a sovereign, nation- wide move of God. I was intluenced by the model of African some pastors, well-educated, others not schooled. Often when the formal education experience at a Pentecostal IHE was mentioned, the nonformal educational/spiritual experiences were highlight- ed : . I attended an Assemblies of God school at the undergraduate level and in that sense I suppose you could say I had a Pentecostal education. It . was not so much what was taught, but the ethos that surrounded the com- .. Belief that learning had to be enhanced by encounter with God. Belief that God munity. enriched the classroom that fullest dimension to what we were always by experiences gave leaming. The belief that chapel was a central experience, not because it was ‘more spiritual’ but because , there we actualized the relationship we had with God to include more than left brain activity. In that context there was the real expectation that God would regularly intrude into the humanly devised schedule that sur- rounds formal educational activity. Several noted a deepening of their “Pentecostal education” through influences not generally associated with classical Pentecostalism: Exposure to Catholic and Anglican Charismatics has broadened and resensitized me to the Holy Spirit’s work both personally and corporate- ly. ‘ 223 7 The great irony of my Pentecostal education is that I first to learn about seriously began my tradition’s history and theology when I attended a non- Pentecostal institution: Fuller Seminary! Responses to this question suggest that Pentecostal education has had a very strong mentoring orientation, with families, pastors, and faculty mem- bers personally engaging with their children/parishioners/students and pro- viding personal guidance in their spiritual growth. Conversely, responses to this question suggest that Pentecostal educa- tors have not been thoroughly engaged within their Pentecostal IHEs in reflection on the implications of their Pentecostal experience and theology for their formal education, per se. That is, none mentioned that the formal curriculum in their Pentecostal IHEs had engaged them in asking the ques- tion : “How does my Pentecostal experience and theology impact the way I understand my discipline, my academic field, my professional studies?” Whether at the graduate or undergraduate level or at the K-12 level, all those I interviewed, like most Pentecostal educators, have wrestled with their ideas about formal education in institutions (whether secular or affili- ated with other Christian traditions) whose philosophies of education were not informed by Pentecostal experience or theology (and which were, in some cases, hostile to Pentecostal experience and theology). Question 2: Describe a Pentecostal educator who had a particularly sig- nificant influence on your life. If more than one, would you pick one and tell about their influence on you? , Finding: Pentecostals have experienced Pentecostal education through the mentoring of their professors (as well as pastors, friends and family members) who modeled an integration of mind, spirit, and life. Responses to this question tended to focus on the life qualities of influ- ential Pentecostal educators (their relationship with God, integration of spir- it and mind, personal integrity). Examples of comments on the nature of their influence follow. I could cite a number of very useful influences in my life, but I will sin- out one: W. I. Evans. Evans was the academic dean at Central Bible Institute (now Central Bible College) when I was a student. His knowl- gle edge of the Scriptures, his obvious deep fellowship with the Lord, and his leadership in the chapel services had a great effect on me. He embodied the best features of the Pentecostal revival, in my judg- particularly ‘ 224 8 ment. Professor Daniel E. Albrecht, Professor at Bethany College, was one of the first models I had that one could be/remain Pentecostal and still sue the life of the mind. pur- , Dick Foth, Assemblies of God minister and former President of Bethany Bible College, represented a combination of passionate faith, joyful serv- ice, and an affirmation of the intellect integrated with the previous two disciplines. Dr. James M. Beaty and his wife gave me a great example of what to be a Christian is all about. In their life and practice they lived the values of the Kingdom. Their spiritual disciplines and their faith with vision and their sense of mission impacted my life. I had Murray Dempster for only one course. It was my senior year, a very important moment in my life… It was a turning point in my life. He was just fantastic, so passionate, so animated. He was inspiring a vision, inspiring a passion. ‘ Pentecostal educators interviewed for this study emphasized the char- acter, the passion, the embodiment of truth in the professors who shaped their lives at Pentecostal IHEs. Their mentors integrated mind and spirit and led lives of personal integrity and ministry. Those who mentioned other Pentecostal mentors emphasized these same traits. Question 3: As a Pentecostal educator, how does your Pentecostal expe- rience and/or theology shape the way your teach? Finding: Pentecostal experience and theology strongly influ- ence the ideas of Pentecostal educators about pedagogy, orient- ing instruction toward inspiration, transformation, and empowerment. ‘ In reflecting on their own teaching, Pentecostal educators described what they try to do in their pedagogy. Some of the contrasts they drew were as follows: Transformation rather than just information Practice rather than just cerebral knowledge Experience rather than just theory Inspiration rather than just information. In describing their ideals for teaching, the following words were fre- 225 9 quently used: Vibrant Gift Mentoring Empowerment Power Mission Sensitivity Dynamic Expectation Growth ‘ . . I have sought to pattern my teaching on I Thessalonians 1:4-10. In this passage, Paul reviews the object of his ministry among the Thessalonians, but also the manner in which he ministered to them. I see in this the following: ( 1 ) “with words”-he was articulate in his com- munication ; (2) “with power”-not simply with ‘words,’ but also with the empowering of the Spirit; (3) “with the Holy would under- stand this to mean exercising sensitivity to the Spirit”-I leading of the Spirit; (4) “with deep conviction”-In this I see that the faculty person has an obli- share with the students gation to [personal] convictions, although he must be careful not to insist that the students must how we lived agree with him; (5) “You know among you”-I see this as transparent model- ing of a lifestyle, outside the classroom as well as inside. ‘ The idea that when you’re equipped with God’s power, nothing is in the classroom. I have seen so many pessimistic teachers who can make a list of everything they can’t do. I had the genuine belief, impossible based on my Pentecostal that God could move mountains, that this vessel could be used experience, by God. Marie Brown and my mother [my mentors] also emphasized that the vessel needed to be equipped. God will use your talents. God works in history. Wonderful things can in that classroom. You have to hap- pen equip yourself. I teach from my own experience. I believe that is part of integrity. One should not teach something that isn’t part of her/his experience, in that that is particu- larly related to spiritual principles and values. Some of the educators I interviewed expressed concern that often these principles are not in practice in Pentecostal IHEs due at least in part to reliance upon pedagogical and philosophical models that are more Evangelical (or fundamentalist) than Pentecostal. Most of my ‘Pentecostal’ education could be characterized as classical Most of the teachers and pastors who had the influence on me were Pentecostal but had Evangelicalism. greatest largely embraced a philosophy . 226 10 and lifestyle that would represent more Evangelicalism than Pentecostalism. My ministry today has been shaped more ‘Charismatic’ theology and ecclesiology. This segment of by has Christianity impacted me and allowed me to re-embrace the theology and tice of prac- early Pentecostalism, which is fundamentally different from the suburban, Bible College Pentecostalism of the 1980s and 1990s. ‘ . ‘ Pentecostals have mostly adopted the methods and modes of the larger Evangelical church. And that adaptation does not only concern reli- gious, biblical, or theological education. This conformity to has its Evangelicalism strengths and weaknesses. On the plus side it has more recent Pentecostal taught generations to think, and to think criti- It has also cally. taught the Pentecostals some degree of humility about their own tradition (they are learning to appreciate those who are unlike them). It has caused them to be less myopic about Christianity and them- selves… On the negative side, Pentecostals have forsaken some of their own dynamics. In their desire to appear rational, they forsook their to the openness mystery of Christianity. In their desire to develop their minds, that is they adapted an overly rational, overly linear mode of thinking gutting them of the dynamics that birthed their movement. In their uncritical embracing of Fundamentalist American abandoned what to me was a natural Christianity, they byproduct of their ethos: an aes- thetic awareness, appreciation, and creativity. – Question Four: As a Pentecostal educator, how would you characterize your philosophy of education? In what ways might a Pentecostal phi- losophy of education be distinct or have emphases different from other Christian philosophies of education? Finding: With regard to educational philosophy, Pentecostal educators note Pentecostal influences and distinctives at a number of levels, but indicate that a need exists to further explore this topic. Without exception, the Pentecostal educators I interviewed thought that a Pentecostal philosophy of education could be distinguished, at least in its emphases, from other Christian philosophies of education and certainly from secular philosophies of education. What is less clear is the meaning of a phi- losophy of education. Pentecostal educators located the distinctives of Pentecostal educational philosophy at various levels. Some suggested Pentecostal distinctives at the metaphysical (ultimate reality) level. Pentecostals should have a worldview that informs their philosophy of education. This worldview includes an openness and embracing of the . 227 11 mystery of God and life. God can and does surprise us. God is both frighteningly transcendent and joyously immanent. We need to embrace a pre-Enlightenment scientific vista that sees God as present in the world. Some suggested Pentecostal distinctives at the axiological (value) level. The values of the Pentecostal experience are distinct and deeply rooted in our community: values of a devotion to God’s inerrant Word, to truth, to urgency, to the breadth of God’s people, to Christian to Christian to the of calling, to holi- ness, community, power the Holy Spirit. As we think back about these values, these ideals of Pentecostalism, we are bet- ter able to look forward. . Others see Pentecostal distinctives at the epistemological (knowledge) level. I take one of the hallmarks of Pentecostal theology to be its which calls into epistemolo- gy question any form of rationalism … think a distinct- Pentecostal ly philosophy of education would be grounded in the non- rationalist, experiential epistemology, coupled with an emphasis on lib- erating practice. . Some suggested distinctives with regard to our view of the student. It seems to me that Pentecostal education has to be holistic, all three of Bloom’s traditional taxonomies in the cultivation of mind and embracing spirit for the larger service of the Kingdom of God. Others emphasized the difference in the role of the teacher. A Pentecostal philosophy has to recognize the essential charismatic nature of the teaching gift, and cultivate that gift, realizing that the leads Spirit one, and energizes one, in the communication of truth and bonds the learner into a process of common discovery. . The role of the teacher is different from the role of expert pouring knowl- edge into the uninformed. I want to learn about learning more than about teaching. It’s a dynamic process, not a disengaged, content-driven There is a phi- losophy. dynamic between the content, the learner, and the educator. That’s where the role of the Spirit comes in. Others emphasized distinctives at the level of the curriculum. Truly Christian discipleship (training for mission) must involve the of acquisition spiritual skills: prayer, spiritual power, radical obedience to the Spirit, etc.-all usually regarded as ‘extra-curricular’ or assumed 228 12 . for the student rather than carefully taught as the core of the curriculum. The very method of teaching in Bible colleges and seminaries reflects a detached observation of the Christian phenomena ‘out there’ (a Western/Greek way of knowing) vs. the knowing-by-experience of nor- mative, New Testament Christianity. Several emphasized distinctives in pedagogy, discussed above. Others emphasized the nature and role of the school/educational community. . Pentecostal education has to be holistic. It is tied to an inclusiveness that comes out of Acts. It is global and cross cultural, uniting bond and free, male and female. It has to remember the margins as well as the center. The field in a class is never level. How do I help those for whom this does not come playing easily’? My philosophy of education focuses on stu- dent learning for empowerment. · – . Many spoke of the difference all this makes in practice. My philosophy of education as a Pentecostal educator is impacted by a sense of “present tenseness.” I am not so much wanting to characterize a humanly devised system of to discern cognition. I am dealing with a process of learning implications of information. I am much more aware of a full orbed dimension of education that includes both cognitive and affective and also a dimension of subsequent action. . . Several mentioned the need for Pentecostals at this stage of our history to give focused attention to the topic of educational philosophy. _ We have to learn from the rest of the church. They are centuries ahead of us in terms of developing Christian character; thinking about church- state issues; thinking about societal and ethical issues; thinking about the human person… Too quickly, we are embracing non-Christian ‘ approaches to these disciplines and questions and this will lead to our , demise. . Very little of the earlier approaches to Pentecostal pedagogy or of education remains. It philoso- phy probably is time once again (as the educational founders of our institutions had to original do) to raise the ‘What is an question, appropriate Pentecostal educational pedagogy for our insti- tutions today?’ It is useful to review the thoughts and educational philosophies and practices of our founding educators themselves. Question Five: What resources have been helpful to you in your devel- opment as a Pentecostal educator? . Finding: Most Pentecostal educators agreed that we are still in 229 13 the early stages of the work of bringing Pentecostal experience and theology to bear on explicitly educational issues of philoso- phy and pedagogy. Most of my respondents indicated that written resources on education- al philosophy and pedagogy authored by Pentecostals for Pentecostal edu- cators are lacking, especially for higher education. So what resources have been helpful to them in their development as Pentecostal educators? Eight mentioned colleagues and mentors as their primary resources. Eight men- tioned Pentecostal writers, leaders, and theologians, with each of the fol- lowing named at least once: Gordon Fee, Steven Land, Cheryl Bridges Johns, Myer Pearlman, Billie Ralph Riggs, Davis, Miroslav Volf, Opal Reddin, Robert Menzies, Walter Hollenweger, Roger Stronstad, Mel Robeck, Russell Spittler, Vinson Synan, Lyle Lovett, Murray Dempster, J. Robert Ashcroft, and Robert Cooley. Seven mentioned writers and thinkers not generally associated with pente- costalism, such as: Watchman Nee, Brother Lawrence, Thomas a Kempis, Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, C.S. Lewis, John Wesley, John Piper, Gustavo Gonzalez, Andrew Murray, Madame Guyon, Arthur Holmes, Harry Blamires, Thomas Groome, Parker Palmer, Jean Piaget, George Marsden, and James Burtchaell. Two mentioned “Third Wave” Pentecostal/Charismatic writers, such as: C. Peter Wagner, Cindy Jacobs, John Arnott, Charles Kraft, and Guy Chevreau. . Two mentioned Pentecostal periodicals, such as Enrichment. Several men- tioned the Holy Spirit and Scripture. One mentioned worship music. Few of the Pentecostals mentioned have written specifically on educa- tion. Commenting on one of the challenges faced by Pentecostal educators within Pentecostal IHEs, one of the respondents wrote: “We have had limit- ed opportunity to study our own experience as Pentecostals because [of what might happen] if you don’t come up with the accepted perspective (approved by the denomination).” I conclude this section with a quote that summarizes much of the above: 230 14 ‘ . The creation of Christian higher education institutions outside of min- istry training will no doubt encourage the growth of a professional teach- Pentecostal in the new setting remains to be seen, as the ing class within pentecost. Whether that teaching class can remain roots of Augustinian tradition (Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist) are much more deep context of professional pentecostal educators…Beyond creating institu- powerful and widespread, providing both the training and the continuing tional space for the of Pentecostal training and continuing education and employment teachers, there needs to develop a flourishing interdisci- plinary concentration on the nature and function of Pentecostal a peda- gogy, fellowship between teachers and pastors, and appropriate resources such as journals, internet sites, conventions, etc. As well as an institutional approach to linked to pedagogy, it is essential that Pentecostal teach- ers remain strong local congregations where their gifting is both and relativized by its setting amongst other gifts. There is no room in Pentecostal pedagogy for elitism or showmanship…To some appreciated degree, we are having to invent pentecostal higher education as we go! . The same may likely be said of other forms of Pentecostal education as well. What Framework Might Allow Us to Formulate and Compare Philosophies of Education? A Proposed Framework Pentecostal educators rarely describe their ideas about education in terms of classical philosophies or contemporary educational theories. Their descriptions of the impact of their Pentecostal experience and theology on their educational ideas and practices more often refer to intuitive connec- tions than to systematically defined relationships. While this intuitive sense is both powerful and consistent with Pentecostal experience, it translates with difficulty into formal educational settings, where strategies for curriculum and instruction must be formulated in a systematic way. Consequently, Pentecostal educators often find them- selves lacking a specifically Pentecostal framework for educational philoso- phy, with the result that Pentecostals then borrow heavily from other educa- tional philosophies that do not fully capture the dynamic of the implicit edu- cational ideas undergirding Pentecostalism. Daniels has described this dilemma within the Church of God in Christ (COGIC), a historically African-American Pentecostal denomination. A system of Bible colleges was launched within COGIC in 1972 with the pur- pose of preparing ministers and missionaries. However, while successful numerically, the Bible colleges found themselves, in Daniels’ view, overly reliant upon curriculum and pedagogy insensitive to educational ideas and 231 15 practices implicit within the COGIC Pentecostal community. 13 3 Likewise, Pentecostal educators across formal education systems have been reliant upon books, curricular materials, and instructional methods rooted in other Christian and secular philosophies of education. 14 It would be of value, then, to have a framework within which to com- pare various philosophies of education, which would then allow Pentecostals to intentionally integrate their experience and theology with their educational ideas and practices. Thus we could draw on the wealth of ideas available to us within our own history and communion, as well as on other Christian traditions and other educational and philosophical schools of thought. I suggest that our search for such a framework might fruitfully begin with the questions that educators ask. What are some core questions per- taining to the educational process? I would suggest that the following ten questions are universal educational concerns. While this is not intended to be an exhaustive list of core questions, it does provide a common framework for our discussion of educational philosophies. 1. What is real? 2. What is true and how do we know? 3. What is of value? 13 David D. Daniels, Ill, “‘Live So Can Use Me Anytime, Lord, Anywhere’: Theological Education in the Church of God in Christ, 1970 to 1997,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Theology 3:2 (July 2000), 303. Daniels writes: “The mission of the of the System of Bible Colleges is admirable, although the uncritical appropriation Evangelical curriculum is problematic.. . What is the best pedagogy to transmit the COGIC message and experience? Does an implic- it COGIC pedagogy exist that could be employed? The System of Bible Colleges promoted a pedagogy that was alien to the COGIC context. The pedagogy of the System of Bible Colleges mitigates against COGIC’s informal education processes of Bible discussion and mentoring.” 14 See, e.g., Cheryl Bridges Johns, Pentecostal Formation: A Pedagogy Among the Oppressed (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 7. Johns writes: “The area of Christian edu- cation reflects some of the best and most sincere attempts to fit in with more established churches. For many Pentecostals, the schooling paradigm, with its closely graded classes, cog- nitive and deductive approach to faith formation, four-color curriculum materials and stream- lined organization, is the wished-for ideal. We point to our untrained teachers, poor facilities and lack of good pedagogy as sure signs of our sectarian backwardness, all the while over- formational processes which have historically been part of our discipleship.” An example of this from looking powerful my own experience concerned the core textbook in the Basic Christianity class at Evangel University, an Assemblies of God institution in Springfield, Missouri, when I attended there in the late 1970s and early 80s. An book on edu- cational philosophy is entitled The Idea of a Christian College, by Arthur outstanding Holmes, a professor of philosophy at Wheaton College. Writing from a Reformed perspective, Holmes provided my classmates and me with a coherent and powerful evangelical philosophy of education, but we to relate it to our Pentecostal experience and theology, and no comparable philosophy of education from a Pentecostal Christian perspective was available. struggled 232 16 4. What are my goals as an educator? 5. How does my contextual setting frame and constrain my educational goals? 6. What is the nature of the student? 7. What is the role of a teacher? 8. What should be learned? 9. How should it be taught? 10. How do my ideas shape my educational practice (and vice versa)? Put simply, then, an educational philosophy involves an educator’s responses to, ideas about, and assumptions regarding these ten essential and mutually informing questions (and others). Within each of these questions there are sub-questions. For example, within the question “What is real?” one will find questions concerning the nature of the universe, the nature of God, the nature of human beings. These are all “metaphysical” questions, and, when one asks about distinctives for a Pentecostal philosophy of education, one might reflect on whether Pentecostals would answer these questions differently, or with different emphases, than others. Insofar as one is an educator, I would suggest, one has ideas about each of these matters. These ideas may be richly or slightly considered. They may be honed by consistent practice or relatively untried. They may be con- sciously related to a philosophical school of thought, a wisdom tradition, or . an educational theory, or not related. One may be said to have a formal edu- cational philosophy if these ideas are made explicit. If these ideas remain implicit, one may be said to have an informal philosophy of education. But educational practice is rooted in these questions and, in this sense, every educator has an educational philosophy. Often, the degree of formality in a statement of educational philosophy is a function of the formality of the educational setting, with formal systems demanding more explicit articula- tion of an educational philosophy and nonformal setting demanding less explicit articulation. 15 As for institutions, an institutional philosophy of edu- 15 Though we may not be explicitly aware of the labels and terminology of educational we are in phi many ways the products of one or some combination of these educational ideas and their working out in practice. For example, few have read the writings of John losophy, Dewey, the foremost American philosopher of education and author of books like and Democracy Education, but virtually all of us are products, at least in part, of reforms in American schools. Deweyian progressive Many Christian educators Alan Bloomri The Closing of the American Mind in the early 1980s, but just what enjoyed reading was the educational Bloom’s philosophy underlying thesis, and was it an educational philosophy that Pentecostal educators 233 17 cation may likewise be said to consist of the institution’s responses to these ten questions, with personal pronouns modified. Toward the end of this discussion, I will suggest a model that draws on depictions of a philosophy of education like the one below. Knight’s model, while lacking a reciprocal dynamic, does have the virtue of depicting the various components of a philosophy of education. Fig. 1. Components of a Philosophy of Education from Theory to Practicel6 The first three elements of Knight’s model are the classical questions of philosophy, organized around metaphysics (What is ultimately real?), axi- ology (What is of value?), and epistemology (How can we know?). Educational goals follow from our worldview, and these goals are shaped and reshaped by contextual factors, such as political dynamics, social forces, economic conditions, and the expectations of immediate family or commu- nity. Our goals then find expression in the framework of specifically edu- cational issues, such as the nature of the student, the role of the teacher, appropriate curricular emphases and teaching methodologies, and our ideas about the social functions of educational institutions. These ideas in turn underlie and shape our educational practices. Joldersma depicts that central place of Christian perspective for Christian educators below. could fully resonate with? Likewise, Paulo Freire’s 1986 book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed touched a responsive chord with many Christians in its appeal for justice, but how cognizant are Pentecostal educators of the underlying educational philosophy? Thanks to to Cheryl Bridges Johns and others, Pentecostals are beginning engage Freirian thought in just this kind of dia- logue, but overall we are in the early stages of this kind of reflection. 16 Knight, Issues and Alternatives, 34. – 234 18 Fig. 2: Influence Domains 17 of Christian Perspective on Various Educational – – Do Pentecostals have anything to add to Joldersma’s model? We will continue to explore this question below. The length limitations of this essay do not allow for a discussion of each of the historic and contemporary philosophies, ideologies, and educa- tional theories that have shaped our educational experiences. For summaries of the philosophies and their educational implications, I would recommend Knight and Gutek.lg In the next section, I provide a brief overview of the components of several contemporary educational philosophies and discuss ways in which they have been adopted and adapted by Pentecostal educa- tors. How Do Pentecostal Educators Adopt and Adapt Various Educational Philosophies? Pentecostals do not hold a single philosophy of education. Some Pentecostal educators would identify with a form of Pentecostal particular- ism. Others would tend to agree with essentialist approaches. Others are 17 Julia K. Stronks and Gloria Goris Stronks, Christian Teachers in Public Schools (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 45. 1 See Knight, Issues and Alternatives, and Gerald L. Gutek, Philosophical and Ideological on Perspectives Education, 2d ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997). 235 19 inclined to speak of their educational ideas in terms that resonate with peren- nialism. Some would consider themselves progressive educators. Still oth- ers are enthusiastic about educational goals and practices that correspond to reconstructionism. There are also Pentecostal educators who would identi- fy with critical pedagogy. They would typically not use this terminology, but I hope to show that the diverse ideas of Pentecostals about education res- onate with these widely divergent educational theories. Drawing primarily upon the history of Assemblies of God education in the United States, I suggest eight approaches to educational philosophy that have emerged in roughly chronological order, but that now coexist among (and within) diverse Pentecostal educators. All eight may be seen as adap- tations of philosophies of education that exist in the larger culture, and we will explore how existing philosophies of education have been adopted and adapted by Pentecostal educators over time. The eight approaches to edu- cational philosophy to be explored in this section are: 1. particularism 2. essentialism 3. perennialism , 4. progressivism 5. reconstructionism 6. critical pedagogy . 7. pragmatism 8. eclecticism. The earliest educational approaches among American Pentecostals may be described as “particularistic.” Particularism in education is characterized by a withdrawal from dominant and mainstream education systems, often a forced withdrawal made by minority groups whose values are not accepted in the dominant culture. Pentecostal particularism is related to forms of fun- damentalist and minority ethnic (such as Afrocentric) educational philoso- phy, in which marginalized groups embrace their separateness and distance themselves from the educational systems of mainstream (and oppressive) society. This Pentecostal separatism was also expressed in a pacifist stance toward war, which was the official position of the U.S. Assemblies of God, for example, until 1967, and in a code of personal piety that avoided involvement in many social activities of mainstream culture (e.g., movies, social dancing, involvement in party politics). Some of the characteristics of Pentecostal particularism are: – emphasis on Bible study and ministry preparation – emphasis on eschatological expectation that Jesus’ Second Coming 236 20 – may occur at any time – flowing from this eschatological expectation, an emphasis on short- term, intense, and practical training for – ministry likewise, a suspicion of longer-term academic pursuits that seem the oretical and insensitive to the shortness of time – use of fundamentalist curricula and theological models, even when such models seem inconsistent with Pentecostal experience and the – ology (e.g., dispensational theology and the Scofield Reference Bible) pragmatic emphasis on practical skills for evangelistic and mission ary endeavors; academic subjects are valued insofar as they give pragmatic assistance for Pentecostal mission (e.g., literacy for preach – ing, writing, and Bible study; math for financial and logistical efforts) formal degrees from academic institutions are considered unimportant and even undesirable. Pentecostal- education in its particularist form is often accused of being anti-intellectual, and in some senses this is true. Many young Pentecostals have been discouraged from “thinking too much.” Pentecostals have some- times seen the mind as an enemy of the spirit and the Spirit. However, as Jesse Miranda, Director of the Urban Studies and Ethnic Leadership Center at Vanguard University, stated in an interview, “They were reacting against pseudo-education and the lack of balance between the rational and the rela- tional. They wanted to go beyond the rational.” The hostility of early Pentecostals, and some contemporary Pentecostals, was not toward intellect or formal education per se, but rather toward the intellectual status systems of formal education from which Pentecostals, largely from lower social strata, had been excluded. Pentecostal anti-intellectualism, then, while sometimes an unbalanced rejec- tion of the mind, more often rejected the rationalism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that sought to build great structures of truth upon human reason alone. In this sense, Pentecostal particularism antici- pated some of the postmodern critiques of both traditionalist and modernist education. Pentecostal particularism, then, was the educational approach most characteristic of Pentecostal education in the United States in the first few decades of the twentieth century, through the founding of the many Bible institutes and Bible schools. Beginning in the late 1930s, with the establishment of the first Assemblies of God four-year degree-granting institution, Southern California Bible College, and continuing into the 1940s, with the Pentecostal . 237 21 rapprochement with moderate Evangelicals in the various agencies related to the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), Pentecostal educators began to explore other approaches to formal education. The figure below shows key elements of five other educational theories mentioned above. Other educational philosophers would use slightly differ- ent terminology and even different categorical labels, but for the point I wish to make here about diversity of educational opinion within Pentecostalism, I draw upon the educational theory taxonomy suggested by Gutek. (See Figure 3) While most Pentecostals would not describe their educational ideas in terms of the labels above, one often hears the elements of these various the- ories in Pentecostal descriptions of educational ideas. The following descriptions are compilations of comments from Pentecostals, past and pres- ent, that seem to resonate with core elements of these five educational theo- ries. E.ssentialist orientation ‘ ‘ In order to accomplish that Great Commission, we need to be prac- tical and we need to be skilled. To that end, we need to teach our young people to read and write and to calculate, to be able to have the academic skills necessary to spread the gospel through litera- ture, and through Bible study, teaching, and preaching. People without literacy skills cannot really study the Bible and are prone to error and immaturity. Furthermore, math skills are essential if we are to use modem methods of construction, technology, and other tools that allow us to take the message to all the world. In addition to their Bible education, our people need these basic aca- demic tools and we must make sure that they acquire these. These skills are also necessary for good citizenship. , Perennialist orientation God is the giver of gifts, and God’s gifts are of many kinds; super- natural gifts, leadership gifts, service gifts. The Body of Christ is very diverse and so must be the preparation of our youth for their unique callings. In addition to our Great Commission, which impels us to bring the gospel to all people, we have received a cul- tural mandate, which compels us to bring our Christian worldview to bear on all the activities of our lives. We must integrate our faith with our learning and with our lives. All truth is God’s truth. The Bible is wholly true, but it is not an encyclopedia of human knowl- 238 22 edge. We must seek out and understand the truth wherever it is found. To this end, our young people need to study the great works of literature, must understand that science is not opposed to our faith but is compatible with it. The Spirit of God is to lead us into all truth and so our educational endeavors are a sacred activity. . Progressive orientation Traditional education has been much too focused on abstract ideas of truth and too little focused on the child or the learner and her unique needs. As Pentecostals, we prize the soul and spirit as much as the mind. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit touches every aspect of a person’s life. Jesus models that compassionate concern for the whole person. His teaching is not full of abstractions, but is rooted in people’s real life experiences. We need to recover his gra- cious concern for the whole person. Moreover, the Biblical model associates the work of the Holy Spirit with the formation of a com- munity. The church in the book of Acts is a community of concern and love, which values each member, recognizes its diversity and treasures it, and seeks the full formation of each person within the context of the body of Christ. Our education should reflect this concern for body, mind, and spirit, so that we may reflect the love of Christ to the world. All our abstract ideas and great pronounce- ments tend to alienate people from Christ rather than attract them to him. Reconstructionist orientation The outpouring of the Holy Spirit comes with liberating power. When Mary learned from the angel of Jesus’ coming birth, she exclaimed that God has sided with the poor and brought down the proud oppressors. Jesus’ life modeled this identification with the outcast and his judgment upon their rich oppressors. When the Spirit of God came at Pentecost, the Spirit came upon men and women, slaves and free, Jew and Gentile, and most notably upon those outside the structures of political, social, and economic power. This baptism in the Holy Spirit lifted up oppressed people and brought them into a community empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak prophetically against their oppressive circumstances and for a community of equality before God. Our education should likewise empower the oppressed to receive God’s power and to 239 23 build a new society based on inclusion, gender equality, and peace- making. We should be involved in transforming society, not just seeking spiritual experiences for our own satisfaction. Critical 12edagogy orientation Both traditional and modem forms of education have asserted an ability to know and convey absolute truths about the world. They have constructed rationalistic systems and complex theories to explain the world, and then have attempted to force these systems of thought on generations of students. In fact, we should be suspi- cious of all these claims. The Apostle Paul said that we see through a glass, darkly. In other words, our knowledge is very limited. We should be humble about our assertions. What concerns God more than our epistemology and our rationalistic metaphysical systems are our relationships, our authenticity, our advocacy on behalf of the voiceless and the marginalized. We need to teach our children to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God. The Holy Spirit comes with a power not rooted in rationalistic systems, but with authentic, personal, intimate, and liberating power. Each of these expressions of Pentecostal educational ideas represents a synthesis of Pentecostal experience and theology with educational philoso- phies rooted in other intellectual traditions. That elements of these educa- tional theories should be attractive to Pentecostal educators should come as no surprise, since all of these theories are informed by elements of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Many of the proponents of these theories have been and are believers in God and in Jesus Christ, while many other propo- nents within the same general philosophy are not (See Fig. 3). Two other varieties of Pentecostal philosophies of education that merit comment here are Pentecostal pragmatism and Pentecostal eclecticism. Pentecostal pragmatism would assert that the nature of the education system really is not all that important because the Spirit-filled believer can function within any of them, bearing witness to Christ in a dynamic and suc- cessful way, adjusting to the circumstances as need be, just as he or she would adapt and function within any culture. This pragmatism is especially compelling in cultures like the United States, in which the ultimate justifi- cation for most actions is whether it “works.” ” In secular society, the criteri- on to measure whether something works is usually whether it allows one to attain one’s desired outcome, usually defined in materialistic terms. This emphasis on ends can blur the worldview and ethical issues pertaining to the 240 24 Fig. 3. Elements of Five Major Educational Theories means by which those ends are to be achieved, leaving people in a frenetic competition for wealth, status, and personal gratification. The same danger exists for Pentecostal pragmatists, whether the desired end be a growing 241 25 church, a successful ministry, or personal spiritual fulfillment. Pentecostal eclecticism may be the most common philosophy of educa- tion among Pentecostals. The general American public tends to pick and choose elements of educational philosophies in an eclectic way, often with little opportunity to reflect on the larger issues of worldview. “Reflective” eclecticism makes good sense in that good ideas about education and worth- while practices come from a variety of sources and perspectives. However, one must be cautious about what George Posner calls “garbage-can eclecti- cism, in which practices based on contradictory or invalid assumptions are collected into a ‘bag of tricks.”‘ 19 9 Indeed, each of the educational philosophies discussed above has its merits. I believe, however, that Pentecostals are still in relatively early stages of reaching beyond these conventional or popular educational ideas to examine the educational possibilities inherent within Pentecostal experi- ence and theology. The current syntheses have often been forged in a prag- matic way and need to be reexamined. Menzies’s summary of the state of Assemblies of God education in 1970 continues to hold true ‘ thirty years later: ‘ The changes seem to have been occasioned largely by economic and social pressures, not matched by an overarching philosophy of educa- tion. The result of unassimilated changes has produced a degree of uncertainty and competition on the undergraduate level.20 A Possible Framework for Exploring the Impact of Pentecostal Experience and Theology upon Educational Philosophy and Practice It is a crucial time for Pentecostals to re-examine our educational philosophies in the light of our Pentecostal experience and theology. It is conceivable, of course, that Pentecostals may have little that is special to contribute to the discussion of philosophies of education. Some would argue that Pentecostalism merely reasserts orthodox Christian belief with a focus on practice and experience of those truths and not mere intellectual assent to them. The results of this survey and literature review, however, would seem to suggest otherwise. Perhaps Pentecostals do have something to contribute to retlection on educational philosophy, beginning with metaphysics, axiology, 19 George J. Posner, Analyzing the Curriculum, 2d ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1995), 3. 20 Menzies, Anointed, 373. 242 26 and epistemology and extending to the nature of the student, the role of the teacher, pedagogy, curricular emphases, and the relationship of practice to ideas. Based on my interviews, comments by Pentecostal writers, as well as other Christian and secular writers and the biblical text, I offer the following draft framework for envisioning a Pentecostal philosophy of education in order to suggest potential areas of reflection and study for Pentecostal edu- cators in various domains of a comprehensive philosophy of education. I look forward to dialoguing with and learning from my fellow educators and fellow Pentecostals in this exploratory process. ‘ Fig. 4. Draft Framework for Envisioning a Pentecostal Philosophy of Education In this model, God’s empowering presence becomes the framework for the entire educational process. The Holy Spirit informs our reflection and prac- tice. The relationships among worldview formulation, educational goals, issues, applications, and educational practice are dynamic and reciprocal. The Pentecostal theologian Gordon Fee writes, , We are not left on our own as far as our relationship with God is con- cerned; neither are we left on our own to “slug it out in the trenches,” as it were, with regard to the Christian life. Life in the present is ered empow- by the God who dwells among us and in us. As the personal pres- 243 27 ence of God, the Spirit is not merely some “force” or “influence.” The living God is a God of power; and by the Spirit the power of the 1 living God is present with us and for us.21 Like other Christians, Pentecostal educators draw on Scripture and the- ology for their perspectives, and become proficient in contextualizing their educational goals and activities. In doing so, Pentecostal educators see God through the Holy Spirit as One whose presence infuses one’s formulation of ideas, goals, strategies, and who not only guides the process and empowers the plan, but who might break into the process at any time to accomplish the unexpected. The teacher and learner, then, find themselves together in the presence of God, whatever the educational context. From this vantage point, one could suggest fresh ways in which Pentecostals might think and are thinking about their educational philosophy and various ways in which they may continue to engage in powerful educational practice. 21 Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 8. 244 28

Gustavo Gutiérrez’s Mysticism as a Door to Pentecostal Dialogue

Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

Te Movement Toward Mysticism in Gustavo Gutiérrez’s Tought: Is Tis an Open Door

to Pentecostal Dialogue?

Joseph Davis

Associate Professor of Religion, Southeastern University, Lakeland, Florida

[email protected]

Abstract

Over the last few years a distinct shift has occurred within the thought of liberation theology’s most famous proponent, Gustavo Gutiérrez. Specifically, Gutiérrez has ventured into mysticism. With this movement a fascinating question can be posed: Does the incorporation of mysti- cism open up a door for dialogue with Latin America’s other popular theology, Pentecostalism? Conversely, should Pentecostalism reflexively understand itself historically and theologically as a liberating movement of the poor? Placed together, an emphasis on praxis seems to reveal, at minimum, a common starting point. Te methodology of the paper incorporates a detailed historical analysis of Gutiérrez’s position on mysticism and moves to the conclusion that the shift in emphasis opens the door, albeit a small crack, to one of the most exciting opportuni- ties to occur within the history of Christianity: the marriage of Pentecostal spirituality with liberating social action.

Keywords

Gustavo Gutiérrez, liberation theology, mysticism, Pentecostalism

At the 2008 Society for Pentecostal Theology conference, Jürgen Moltmann made a startling statement to commence his talk on the work of “Pentecostals and Liberation Teology.” He said, “I met with Gustavo Gutiérrez in Lima a few years ago, and as we were talking he looked out his window and pointed to the barrios below saying, ‘Out there, it is the Pentecostals who are going into the barrios [to reach the poor].”1 What Gutiérrez meant by the statement was that despite the divide that had separated the two most dominant camps of religious fervor within Latin America, the evidence was clear: it was the

1

Jürgen Moltmann, Statement made at Society for Pentecostal Theology, 15 March 2008, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/157007411X554668

1

6

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

Pentecostals who were helping the poor. Laden within such a statement are a plethora of both endless possibilities and admittedly speculative projections. In fact, at the onset one must admit that one small statement does not equate to a full-blown theological tour de force. Nor does it mean that the wedding ceremony is about to begin to join these two previously disparate antagonists. What this statement does create, however, is an open door to further scholarly reflection. Tis is particularly true if the aforementioned statement is coupled with perceived changes in Gutiérrez’s stance toward a kindred spirit of Pente- costalism, namely, mysticism. Granted, mysticism is not Pentecostalism and Pentecostalism is not mysticism.2 But it would not be too much to say that there are similarities between the two, and any movement toward the one may have broader ranging implications for the other. Terefore, before venturing further in fruitless conjecture, a number of questions must be answered. First, have there been any changes in Gutiérrez’s theology of liberation that warrant such projections? Tere are some who feel that all talk of change within Gutiér- rez’s theology of liberation is a misunderstanding of his thought.3 Second, what is Gutiérrez’s approach to mysticism? And third, is it possible that praxis itself has created a crack in the door within Gutiérrez’s thought that might integrate two seemingly disparate theologies? Of course, these questions do not stop at Latin America; rather, the prospect of such a provocative fusion has worldwide implications.

Over the past half-century primarily two religious movements have gripped the imaginations and aspirations of the poor in Latin America. Tose two movements are the theology of liberation and the Pentecostal movement.4 Of the two, only liberation theology can be truly said to be indigenous in origin. Pentecostalism is indigenous in another manner; it is the overwhelming choice of the poor in Latin America.5 Daniel Chiquete, commenting on the perceived rise of Protestantism, denied this misunderstanding by retorting that Latin America has not turned Protestant at all; rather, “Latin America has turned

2

Simon Chan has made an interesting case for a structural compatibility between the two. See Simon Chan, “Pentecostal Teology and Christian Spiritual Tradition,” Journal of Pentecostal Teology Supplement Series 21 (2000).

3

One of Gutiérrez’s most recent biographers, James Nickoloff, maintains such a conservative position. See James B. Nickoloff, “A Future for Peru? Gustavo Gutiérrez and the Reasons for His Hope,” Horizons 19 (Spring 1992): 31-43.

4

Te Pentecostal movement originated at the Azusa Street Revival in 1906. Most point to the Medellín Conference in 1968 as the beginning of the liberation theology movement.

5

Laurie Goodstein, “Pentecostal and Charismatic Groups Growing,” New York Times, 6 Octo- ber 2006.

2

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

7

Pentecostal!”6 In his book on Pentecostalism, Allan Anderson confirms this by saying, “Te growth of Pentecostalism in Latin America has been one of the most remarkable stories in the history of Christianity.”7 In fact, a Templeton grant research project confirmed these observations. In terms of the world’s population, two of the top three countries with the largest percentage of Char- ismatics/Pentecostals are in Latin America.8

Interestingly enough, the tie between Pentecostalism and the poor in Latin America is not a local aberration. Te history of Pentecostalism reveals that a disproportionate number of dispossessed and poor are attracted to its message of a God whose Spirit is active and fully invested in the present. Juan Sep- ulveda notes, “From a statistical point of view, Pentecostalism has spread far more in the lower classes of popular sections of Latin American societies” than in the upper or middle classes of society.9 In fact, recent studies confirm not just an interest among the Hispanic poor in the “spiritual” aspects of faith but also a commitment among Hispanic Pentecostals for social change.10 Why? Te answer lies both in Pentecostalism’s derivation and its foundational thesis that God can speak to the common person of any nation, tongue, or tribe. Chiquete notes, “By their very nature the Pentecostals are natural promoters of plurality and inner-cultural contact.”11 In the Azusa Street Revival, one finds the message of a God active in history born among the poor and racially, sexually (gender), and economically dispossessed. From the movement’s inception, Pentecostals were the people “from the other side of the tracks.” Yet, in spite of these humble roots, the exportation of Pentecostalism to Latin America was often viewed with a jaundiced eye among the local religious intelligentsia. Given its origin in the United States, Pentecostalism was sus- pected of being tinged with imperialism.12 As a result, the missions-centered

6

Daniel Chiquete, “Latin American Pentecostalism and Western Modernism: Reflections of a Complex Relationship,” International Review of Mission 92, no. 364 (2003): 38.

7

Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 63.

8

Tirty-four percent of the population of Brazil and 40 percent of the population of Guate- mala are Pentecostal/Charismatic worshippers. Te Pew Forum, 6 October 2006.

9

Juan Sepulveda, “Future Perspectives for Latin American Pentecostalism,” International Review of Mission 87 (April 1998): 191.

10

Villafane points out that Pentecostals in the Hispanic community in New York City are at the forefront of social concern and outreach. See Eldin Villafane, Te Liberating Spirit: Toward an Hispanic American Pentecostal Social Ethic (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1993), 110-26.

11

Chiquete, “Latin American Pentecostalism and Western Modernism,” 36.

12

Sepulveda refutes this conception, saying, “Te commonly held accusation that the rapid growth of Latin American Pentecostalism is the result of a sort of conspiracy of the U.S.

3

8

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

Pentecostalism exported to Latin America had the label, “Made in America.” Te label should have read more correctly, “Made among the Poor and Dis- possessed of America.” Here, in Pentecostalism, was a movement that began with the poor and contained in its origins the foundational tenets of breaking down the barriers of social, racial, and gender classifications.

Te early Gutiérrez was clearly one of the students of Latin American theol- ogy who viewed any importation of religion from capitalistic countries with caution. He notes, “Te history of Christianity, too, has been written with a white, Western, bourgeois hand.”13 His primary concern resided in changing the structures of societal oppression, which he called “institutionalized violence.”14 From this starting point, spirituality was seemingly subsumed teleologically under the mandate of effectiveness. Teology itself is formed as “a critical reflection on praxis” as a second step. Gutiérrez affirms this view- point in saying, “From the beginning, the theology of liberation posited that the first act is involvement in the liberation process, and theology came after- ward in a second act.”15 Yet, underneath the definition of praxis is an evalua- tive principle — dissolution of poverty. Gutiérrez notes, “Te criterion mentioned to judge praxis is clearly political effectiveness.”16 As a result of this foundation, the measurement of true spirituality lay within the ethos of social revolution. He says, “We are dealing with two inseparable correlations here and it is important to emphasize this. Te potential of a liberating faith, and the capacities of revolution, are intimately bound together . . . Hence it is impossible to cultivate the one without the other as well, and this is what many find unsettling.”17

Within the criterion of political effectiveness, Gutiérrez also accepted Marx- ist economic theory operationally and coupled it with a heavy reliance upon the social sciences as the proper barometers of societal change. In this, Gutiér- rez believes that Marx’s economic understanding of history is a “scientific understanding of historical reality.” He says:

right-wing to counter the people’s movement and Liberation Teology, has very little basis in the facts.” See Sepulveda, “Future Perspectives for Latin American Pentecostalism,” 190.

13

Gustavo Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, trans. Robert Barr (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1983), 200-201.

14

Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Teology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, trans. Sister Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1990), xviii.

15

Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, 200.

16

Gustavo Gutiérrez, “Notes to a Teology of Liberation,” Teological Studies 31 (1970): 250.

17

Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, xx.

4

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

9

Marx deepened and renewed this line of thought in his unique way. But this required what has been called an “epistemological break” (a notion taken from Gaston Bachelard) with previous thought. Te new attitude was expressed clearly in the famous Teses on Feuerbach, in which Marx presented concisely but penetratingly the essential elements of his approach. . . . Basing his thought on these first intuitions, he went on to construct a scientific understanding of historical reality. He analyzed capi- talistic society, in which were found concrete instances of the exploitation of man by his fellows and of one social class by another. Pointing the way toward an era in history when man can live humanly, Marx created categories which allowed for the elabora- tion of a science of history.18

Te early Gutiérrez accented the Marxist aspect in his thought by noting, “Many agree with Sartre that Marxism, as the formal framework of all con- temporary philosophical thought, cannot be superseded.”19 Te accentuating of social and economic liberation led to the misguided perception that the salvation motif in Gutiérrez’s writings was almost exclusively immanistic. Gutiérrez even admitted that

[i]t may seem that we entertain precious little interest in a person’s spiritual attitudes. It could even seem that we disdain qualities of faith or of morality in the poor. We are only seeking to avoid beginning with secondary, derivative considerations in such a way that would confer them with what is primary and basic, creating an interminable number of hair splitting distinctions that in the end only yield ideas devoid of interest and historical impact.20

Given the overt political criterion for evaluating theoretical premises, anyone not involved with immediate political change was viewed axiomatically as part of the problem. Pentecostals fell readily into this category, particularly with a premillennial eschatology as the primary understanding of justice in society. However, the corresponding view from Pentecostals that Gutiérrez’s theology was nothing more than reworked Marxism made the chasm between both diametric. Both assumptions missed the mark in the stereotypical minimiza- tions about the other. Pentecostals misunderstood the theoretical foundations implicit within the ethical imperative of liberation theology, and Gutiérrez minimized the liberating effects of a theology whose historical nexus origi- nated from within the world of the poor.

18

Gutiérrez, A Teology of Liberation, xx. 19

Ibid., 59.

20

Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, 95.

5

10

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

Te latter misunderstanding struck at the very heart of the characterizations of each position and proleptically disposed each toward a position on personal religion and, by consequence, on mysticism. Was religion a matter of the indi- vidual before God or was God exclusively in the work to liberate the oppressed? Of course, both realized, at least theoretically, that the question raised is not an either/or question but one of degree, given that humanity is made up of individuals, at least on a certain level. Leaning more to the corporate under- standing of self, Gutiérrez placed the poor and oppressed as the basis from which true spirituality began. He said,

A spiritual experience, we like to think, should be something out beyond the frontiers of human realities as profane and tainted as politics. And yet this is what we strive for here, this is our aim and goal; an encounter with the Lord, not in the poor person who is “isolated and good,” but in the oppressed person. . . . [H]istory, concrete history, is the place where God reveals the mystery of God’s personhood. God’s word comes to us in proportion to our involvement in historical becoming.21

Much of Gutierrez’s approach could easily be ascribed to the overwhelming degradation of poverty and the miniscule attention that the issue had previ- ously received in theological forums. Te problem was that most of Gutiérrez’s socioeconomic presentation gave the impression that personal faith only has value within the liberation process. Consequently, the most personal of spiri- tual evidence, conversion, was also stated in terms of self revelation in the midst of involvement with the poor. Tis, coupled with a perceived dialectical universalism, made God seem more like a Hegelian construct than a savior who was accepted personally.22 Te result was that much of the personal moti- vation for societal change was relegated to filial love as an implicit love for God. In other words, of the two Great Commandments, Gutiérrez’s presenta- tion of liberation theology emphasized the second almost as the sum total of the first and the sole extension of its meaning. Gutiérrez had aimed to link the two by showing how love for the poor was biblically equated with a love for God, which, of course, had plenty of biblical support; however, Gutiérrez’s presentation of love for the poor made love for God axiomatic in that the two were the same. Christ was in the naked, the hungry, and the imprisoned — but seemingly nowhere else. Gutiérrez notes, “And this is precisely why it [spirituality] is not a purely ‘interior,’ private attitude, but a process occurring

21

Ibid., 52.

22

Gutiérrez said, “I was greatly influenced by Hegel in his understanding of history in writing A Teology of Liberation. Personal Interview with Gutiérrez, 5 May 1994.

6

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

11

in the socio-economic, political, and cultural milieu in which we live, and which we ought to transform.”23 Terefore, there was little need to talk about spirituality prior to its implementation in praxis. Te coterminous equation made spirituality seemingly exclusive to one’s neighbor. Anything else was pietistic narcissism.

Something, or more correctly someone, was lacking. To appropriate Martin Buber, the “I” in the “I-Tou relationship” seemed to be unconditionally assumed in the philosophical category of the other presented by Gutiérrez. Te explanation given for this methodology is that theology is a critical reflec- tion on praxis from the viewpoint of the poor. Te flaw in this methodology was that the original application of this definition viewed the poor almost exclusively through a socioeconomic lens. In other words, the poor were defined by a standard that they themselves did not accept. Te poor viewed themselves as more than merely the victims of institutionalized violence. Reli- gion was not an escape from brutality and minimization; it was a full-scale rebellion to negate the denigrating terms of limitation awkwardly placed upon them by their oppressors.

A Shift in Method Is Noticed

In the early 1980s subtle shifts began to occur within Gutiérrez’s thought that revealed a change in his approach to the question of personal spirituality. Pre- viously Gutiérrez had emphasized theology as a critical reflection on praxis accomplished through the prism of sociopolitical analysis. In the early 1980s word began to leak out from Gutiérrez’s summer school sessions that Gutiérrez had begun to change, or at least modify, his approach to liberation theology. Gerhard Hanlon, who had attended the 1982 summer school session, wrote in a journal article:

In its early years liberation theology in Latin America was concerned with analyzing social reality and interpreting the Bible in terms of liberation from social and political oppression. A few years ago interest turned to the study of the popular religiosity of the masses of the oppressed and attempted to see therein values which might contribute to that liberation. Te most recent interest of Latin American theology is spirituality.24

23

Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, 53.

24

Gerhard Hanlon, “A Spirituality for Our Times,” Clergy Review (June 1984): 200.

7

12

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

In this article Hanlon suggests that there is a new theme in Gutiérrez’s theol- ogy. Tat theme is the “popular religiosity of the masses.” But is this a different direction for Gutiérrez’s thought? Hanlon seems to think that this is an added emphasis but not necessarily a contrary viewpoint. Others, however, find in this added emphasis a discarding of the older ways of thinking to make way for the new.

One of Gutiérrez’s harshest critics in methodology is fellow liberation theo- logian Juan Luis Segundo. In a lecture given at Regent College in 1983, Segundo made a startling remark about what he perceived as a reversal in Gutiérrez’s thinking. Segundo stated that his old friend and compatriot Gustavo Gutiérrez had abandoned the font of his former thinking. In this lecture Segundo called upon his old companion to return to the philosopher’s stone from which they were both hewn. Tat stone, said Segundo, was the sociopolitical methodology that was liberation theology’s original contribu- tion to the world. But more than this, Segundo maintained that the changes in Gutiérrez’s thought were more than just an added dimension to his thought. Segundo asserted that the changes were so drastic that it did not make sense to talk anymore about a singular continuous train of thought but rather “of at least two types of liberation theology.”25 Along these lines, Segundo sadly con- fessed, “And what is painful to me is that I no longer know whether Gustavo himself would endorse what he said then, or whether he would consider it a mere sin of his youth.”26

In 1989 Arthur McGovern, in his book Liberation Teology and Its Critics, took up some of the same questions raised by both Hanlon and Segundo and reached similar conclusions. McGovern noted, “Te revolutionary excitement has dimmed,” and as a result “Gutiérrez has devoted much of his time and writings to the question of spirituality.”27 Echoing both Hanlon and Segundo again, McGovern also noted that Gutiérrez’s liberation theology had “shifted” from a more sociopolitical agenda to one that now emphasizes more the spiri- tual side. He pointed this out by noting the differences between the two books A Teology of Liberation and We Drink from Our Own Wells. He says, “ A Teol- ogy of Liberation deals almost exclusively with the issue of sociopolitical eman-

25

Juan Luis Segundo, Signs of the Times, trans. Robert R. Barr (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1993), 67.

26

Ibid., 93.

27

Arthur McGovern, Liberation Teology and Its Critics: Toward an Assessment (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989), 87.

8

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

13

cipation, and most of the discussion about liberation from sin deals with eliminating unjust structures caused by sin.”28 Conversely, McGovern notes,

In We Drink from Our Own Wells, Gutiérrez reflects theologically on the journey of the poor in Latin America and the journey of those who have attempted to walk with the poor. When liberation theology first emerged, Gutiérrez wrote about the “revolution- ary ferment” alive throughout Latin America. Te revolutionary excitement has dimmed, but Gutiérrez finds a deeper, more faith centered hope still strong.29

McGovern concludes, “I would clearly designate spirituality as the dominant theme of contemporary liberation theology.”30

Paul Sigmund in his book Liberation Teology at the Crossroads also sees the changes in Gutiérrez’s thought. Sigmund identifies Gutiérrez as the progenitor of what he calls the new line of theological speculation that began to depart from the older, more militant liberation theology of the early years. He says, “Many writers have seen the anticipation of the characteristic elements of lib- eration theology in the writings by Latin American theologians in the middle and early 1960s. . . . However the clearest beginnings of the new line of theo- logical speculation are in the writings of Gustavo Gutiérrez.”31 Why have all these changes occurred? Te answer, for Sigmund, is the times in which Gutiérrez wrote his books. He says,

In A Teology of Liberation, however, the emphasis is much more on the former than the latter in the sense that the structuralist anticapitalism is discussed at much greater length than the participatory populism. Tis emphasis is an understandable product of the time at which the work was written — the late 1960s and the early 1970s. As the book was being completed Chile elected a Marxist president, Salvador Allende, with the support of a coalition that also included Christians and parties of a more secular orientation. Allende’s popular unity seemed to embody the commitment to the poor and the oppressed — and to socialism — that liberation theology argued was the logical conclusion to be drawn from the scriptures.

32

28

Ibid., 82.

29

Ibid., 87.

30

Ibid., 83.

31

Paul Sigmund, Liberation Teology at the Crossroads (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 28.

32

Ibid., 39.

9

14

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

Te Movement to Mysticism

Had changes occurred within the presentation of a theology of liberation? In A Teology of Liberation Gutiérrez had maintained that “theological categories are not enough. . . . we need a spirituality.”33 With the issuing of the book We Drink from Our Own Wells, Gutiérrez began to make explicit what to many of his followers was implicit, namely, that there was a verdant spirituality within the original coordinates of the theology of liberation schemata. In the fore- word to this long anticipated work, Henri Nouwen stated, “Tis book fulfills the promise that was implicit in his A Teology of Liberation.”34 In this Gutiér- rez was not abandoning his earlier emphasis but “expanding upon the view.”35 In Gutiérrez’s mind, part of the rationale for minimizing the spiritual aspects was that the tenets of spirituality for the poor should germinate from the poor as a part of their own liberation pilgrimage. He notes, “Evangelization, the proclamation of the gospel, will be genuinely liberating when the poor them- selves become its messengers.”36 Tis embryonic spirituality could not be com- plete until the poor were the artisans of their own spirituality: “Te spirituality of liberation will have its point of departure in the spirituality of the anawin.”37 As Gutiérrez warmly anticipated this new type of spirituality, he felt con- strained to contain his own ruminations since the people of liberation would traverse unknown ground in the birthing of a spiritual paradigm. He notes,

Te problem, however, is not only to find a new theological framework. Te personal and community prayer of many Christians committed to the process of liberation is undergoing a serious crisis. Tis could purify prayer life of childish attitudes, routine, and escapes. But it will not do this if new paths are not broken and new spiritual experiences are not lived. . . . Tere is a great need for a spirituality of liberation; yet in Latin America those who have opted to participate in the process of liberation as we have outlined it above, comprise, in a manner of speaking, a first Christian generation. In many areas of their life they are without a theological and spiritual tradition. Tey are creating their own.38

33

Gutiérrez, A Teology of Liberation, 117.

34

Henri Nouwen’s foreword in Gustavo Gutiérrez, We Drink from Our Own Wells: Te Spiri- tual Journey of a People (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1984), xiii.

35

Tis is the title Gutiérrez gave to his new introduction in commemoration of the fifteenth anniversary edition of A Teology of Liberation, xviii.

36

Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, 22.

37

Ibid., 53.

38

Gutiérrez, A Teology of Liberation, 74.

10

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

15

At least in emphasis, Gutiérrez’s liberation spirituality had begun to change. Te question was what would the new changes look like and how would the new emphasis on spirituality cohere with the old expressions of liberation?

A funny thing occurred in the forging of new spiritualities for the theology of liberation. Te new formulations of faith began to look suspiciously like older, more traditional spiritualities within Roman Catholic mystical life. Sigmund commented, “Without admitting that he was doing so, Gutiérrez continued to modify his approach and to emphasize the agreement between his version of liberation theology and the social teaching of the church.”39 Was it a coincidence that the spiritual evolution looked particularly Roman Catho- lic? True, Gutiérrez had previously noted that “without ‘contemplative life,’ to use a traditional term, there is no authentic Christian life.”40 But in its embry- onic development, he had maintained, “what this contemplative life will be is still unknown.”41 Te unknown of the earlier works became known in such traditional Catholic mystics as St. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila. Monastic pillars of contemplation also began to filter into the thought of Gutiérrez in Augustine and particularly in Ignatius Loyola (contemplation in action). Here, Gutiérrez began to find historical compatriots of liberation who had traversed the spiritual and had never given up the concern for action. As a result, the interior life was seen not as an impediment to liberation but rather as an ally. A recent work by Gutiérrez emphatically embraces spiritual- ity’s help in observing that “spirituality provides strength and durability for social options.”42 In Gutiérrez’s rereading of the mystical and monastic pil- grims, a new vantage point was found to embrace the historical expressions of the faith without losing the present praxis. Te mystical had been demytholo- gized of self-absorbed pietism and had become practical. As a result, Gutiérrez began to mine the deeper recesses of mysticism laden within Christian history. Now Gutiérrez would even become an apostle for the mystical life: “Only within the framework provided by mysticism and practice,” he observed, “is it possible to develop a meaningful discourse about God that is both authentic and respectful of its object.”43 Specifically, the call to contemplation within

39

Sigmund, Liberation Teology at the Crossroads, 171.

40

Gutiérrez, A Teology of Liberation, 74.

41

Ibid.

42

Gustavo Gutiérrez, “Te Teology of Liberation: Perspectives and Tasks,” trans. Fernando F. Segonia, in Toward a New Heaven and a New Earth: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2003), 297.

43

Gustavo Gutiérrez, Te Truth Shall Make You Free (Maryknoll, NY Orbis Books, 1990), 55.

11

16

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

mysticism was now seen as an active participation in the process of liberation as opposed to a fearful withdrawal from the world of need.

Contemplation

What was it about mysticism that attracted the later Gutiérrez? Te answer, of course, is praxis. Gutiérrez had always held to a concept of spirituality that included contemplation, but the adoption of mysticism thrust Gutiérrez into the interior life, which previously had only occupied a footnote in his think- ing. Gutiérrez noted, “Poverty was always a central point in the history of spirituality, and it was always linked to the contemplative life.”44 In Gutiérrez’s life as a parish priest he would often reflect upon the contemplative aspect of the poor, both in merely being within the repose of the church and in active praying. Gutiérrez noted the poor’s abiding presence in the local churches as something more than a place to get out of the rain. He says, “Te poor spend long hours reflecting on their lives [in the church].”45 Reflexively and naturally the poor move from their reflection to prayer. He says, “Tere is perhaps noth- ing more impressive and creative than the praying praxis of Christians among the poor and oppressed. Teirs is not a prayer divorced from the liberating praxis of people. On the contrary, the Christian prayer of the poor springs up from roots in that very praxis.”46

Prayer

Prayer in the spirituality of liberation is not to be thought of as routine, pas- sive, or accepting of degradation. Nor does contemplative silence before God equate to an acceptance of brutality. Gutiérrez states, “Passivity or quietism not only is not a real acknowledgement of the gratuitous love of God, but even denies it or deforms it.”47 Prayer, then, actually questions God about the unac- ceptability of suffering from within the constructs of God’s loving nature: “Teology addresses how to speak about God from the sufferings of the inno-

44

James L. Heff, ed., Believing Scholars: Ten Catholic Intellectuals (New York: Fordham Uni- versity Press, 2005), 45.

45

Gustavo Gutiérrez, “Liberation Teology for the Twenty-First Century” in Romero’s Legacy: Te Call to Peace and Justice, ed. Pillar Closkey (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 55.

46

Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, 107.

47

Gutiérrez, Te Truth Shall Make You Free, 35.

12

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

17

cents, the suffering of the poor.”48 Gutiérrez likewise maintains, “If the ele- ment of injustice be added to this situation of suffering, it can produce resentment and a rejection of the presence and existence of God, because God’s love becomes difficult to understand for one living a life of unmerited affliction.”49 It also maintains the theological structure of struggle before God (coram Deo) as opposed to in atheistic disengagement. Gutiérrez affirms, “Tis painful dialectical approach to God is one of the most profound messages of the book of Job.”50 Te prelude of prayer is central to all God talk because it begins in an attitude of faith from which all talk of God must originate.

True prayer also moves one to action. To pray without a commitment to action nullifies the prayers uttered as faithless. In this dialectical process the surd of suffering moves one to a mystical appropriation of Christ’s suffering. In all unjust suffering the Christian is called to understand that Christ suffers with the victim and “will be in agony until the end of the world.”51 In this suf- fering faith is born — not in a dismissing manner but rather in a mystical paschal participation. From identification with Christ a “hermeneutic of hope” is appropriated that sees in the resurrection of Christ the future redemption.52 Yet, because the suffering is not abated in the present time, there is a need for continued contemplation. Tis discipline of silent meditation beckons the sufferer into an interior life that helps them persevere through the present affliction. Gutiérrez notes, “Teology will then be speech that has been enriched by silence.”53 Yet, the present disciplines and the future hope do not always provide easy answers to the larger, more personal questions of theodicy. In this Gutiérrez confesses, “Tis question is larger than our capacity to answer it. It is a very deep, personal question. Ultimately, we have no answers except to be with the poor.”54 As a result, contemplation continues and compassion follows from the inability (both personal and corporate) to explain God’s love in the midst of evil. Perhaps this is why Gutiérrez was fond of quoting Jose Maria Arguedas’ aphorism, “What we know is much less than the great hope we feel.”55

48

Gustavo Gutiérrez, “How Do You Tell the Poor God Loves You?” Interview by Mev Puleo, St. Anthony Messenger 96 (February 1989): 10.

49

Gustavo Gutiérrez, On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987), 13.

50

Ibid., 65.

51

Ibid., 101.

52

Gutiérrez, Te Power of the Poor in History, 15.

53

Ibid., xiv.

54

Ibid.

55

Ibid., 22.

13

18

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

Revelation and Praxis

As part of the liberation imperative, Gutiérrez also advocates the age-old dis- cipline of the reading of the Scriptures. From the beginning of Gutiérrez’s project of liberation, the Bible has held a central position. However, even the Scriptures seem to take on a new dimension within the thought of the latter Gutiérrez. Te early Gutiérrez’s epistemology located truth as a dialectical interaction with praxis. He says, “For what we are concerned with is a re- reading of the gospel message within the praxis of liberation.”56 In this he agrees with Congar in saying, “It [the church] must open as it were a new chapter of the theological-pastoral epistemology. Instead of using only revela- tion and tradition as starting points, as classical theology has generally done, it must start with the facts and questions derived from the world and from history.”57 He also notes that “all truth must modify the real world . . . knowl- edge is thus dialectical starts and returns.”58 By 1983 he had revised his episte- mology to include a more preeminent status for revelation in epistemology. He said, “Te ultimate criterion for judgment comes from revelation not from praxis itself.”59 Correspondingly, Gutiérrez also began to modify his position on the social sciences’ place in epistemology. He wrote, “Te Bible concept is very rich, richer than a purely sociological understanding of the poor.”60

Has Gutiérrez’s Mysticism Created an Open Door for Dialogue?

Is Gutiérrez’s incorporation of mysticism a theological portal through which dialogue with Pentecostalism might commence? Given the chasm that has historically separated them, the answer to such a question is at best tentative. First, while the accentuation of mysticism is without question an elaboration of Gutiérrez’s latent spirituality, the translation from mysticism to Pentecostal- ism is not a seamless transition from either side. Yet, there are voices within Pentecostalism who believe that the chasm is not too deep and that a latent commonality abides between the two. Miroslav Volf is one who implores these two theologies to come together. He states, “It is of ecumenical importance for

56

Ibid., 66.

57

Gutiérrez, A Teology of Liberation, 9.

58

Gustavo Gutiérrez, “Te Praxis of Liberation and the Christian Faith,” Humane Vitae (September 1974): 373.

59

Gustavo Gutiérrez, Te Truth Shall Make You Free, 101.

60

Gustavo Gutiérrez, “Gutiérrez Reflects on 15 Years of Liberation Teology,” Interview by Latinamerica Press, Latinamerica Press 15 (19 May 1983): 5-7.

14

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

19

liberation theology and Pentecostal theology to recognize each other as feud- ing family members,” as opposed to enemies.61 Te reason for this, Volf points out, is an increasing awareness within the Pentecostal movement of both the liberation imperative and the conscientization of socioeconomic need. At first glance, he says, “Liberation theology and Pentecostal theology seem to be prime examples of radically opposing theologies.”62 As Volf notes, however, the two theologies have much more in common than either one of them may wish to believe: “Individual groups of Pentecostalists around the world seem to be slowly discovering the socioeconomic implications of their soteriology, and liberation theologians are becoming more aware of the need for a spiritual framework for their socioeconomic activity.”63 Dario Lopez Rodriguez com- ments on the liberating activity: “Today there is sufficient evidence from sev- eral countries of Latin America that a gradual awakening of the social conscience of a significant sector of the Pentecostal movement is taking place.”64 Doug Peterson agrees: “Ultimately, by empowering people who were previ- ously denied a voice, the Pentecostal Movement in Latin America has acquired a revolutionary potential.”65

On the question of spirituality, Simon Chan also sees a great deal of conti- nuity between Catholic mysticism and Pentecostalism. Within the two tradi- tions Chan sees great possibility in the celebration of the Eucharist as a “central” Pentecostal event.66 Chan also views tongues as, in essence, an expres- sion of Teresa of Avilla’s progression to joy “in which joy becomes so over- whelming that the soul could only respond with all tongues and heavenly madness.”67 Chan says, “Pentecostalism cannot be regarded as a marginal movement, much less an aberration: it is a spiritual movement that matches in every way the time-tested development in Catholic tradition.”68 Chan even believes that the Pentecostal giftings work best in the structure of Roman Catholic and the Episcopal Charismatic traditions. He notes, “In fact I would

61

Miroslav Volf, “Materiality of Salvation: An Investigation in the Soteriologies of Liberation and Pentecostal Teologies,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 26, no. 3 (Summer 1989): 449.

62

Ibid., 447.

63

Ibid., 460.

64

Dario Lopez Rodriguez, “A Critical Review of Douglas Peterson’s Not by Might Nor by Power: A Pentecostal Teology of Social Concern in Latin America,” Journal of Pentecostal Teology 17 (2000): 136.

65

Douglas Peterson, “Latin American Pentecostalism: Social Capital, Networks, and Poli- tics,” Pneuma: Te Journal of Pentecostal Theology 26, no. 2 (Fall 2004): 306.

66

Chan, “Pentecostal Teology and Christian Spiritual Tradition,” 108.

67

Ibid., 60.

68

Ibid., 71.

15

20

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

like to show that [the Pentecostal reality] is better traditioned in a church that recognizes the constitutive role of the sacraments and the Spirit.”69 But is there a tradition within liberation theology that militates against the indigenous nature of Pentecostalism?

Ecclesiology

In “La Koinonia Eclesial” Gutiérrez proclaims that “the task of the church is as an extension of the missions of the Son and the Spirit.”70 Even in Gutiérrez’s earlier thought he had stated that “spirituality in the strict and profound sense of the word is the dominion of the Spirit.”71 But what does this mean in rela- tion to the ecclesiology? In the formation of the spirituality of liberation, Gutiérrez earlier maintained that he was hesitant to conjecture as to the expli- cation of this “new” spirituality. His reasoning was that the people of libera- tion were “first generation” liberationists; therefore, what liberation spirituality comprised was subsequently in an embryonic and much too formative stage. Gutiérrez has consistently maintained that the poor will not be truly liberated until they are the artisans of their own spirituality. But, as Segundo pointed out, “Something was obvious . . . the common people had neither understood nor welcomed anything from the first theology of liberation, and had actually reacted against its criticism of the supposed oppressive elements of popular religions.”72 Paradoxically, many now have begun to criticize liberation theol- ogy for its lack of indigenous authenticity and for being primarily an academic exercise. Solivan says, “Te power and authenticity present in the early voices of the liberation theologians have been diluted by the process of academic advancement.”73 Charles Self has asserted that “Pentecostalism is truly a faith of the poor and is thus distinct from some liberation theology movements which are for the poor.”74 Tis critique echoes Moltmann’s previous criticism that the theology of liberation had more to do with European theology than it

69

Ibid., 15.

70

Gustavo Gutiérrez, “La Koinonia Eclesial,” trans. David Bustos, Paginas 200 (August 2006): 22.

71

Gutiérrez, A Teology of Liberation, 117.

72

Segundo, Signs of the Times, 74.

73

Samuel Solivan, “Te Spirit, Pathos, and Liberation: Toward an Hispanic Pentecostal Te- ology,” Journal of Pentecostal Supplement Series 14 (1998): 36.

74

Charles Self, “Conscientization, Conversion, and Convergence: Reflections on Base Com- munities and Emerging Pentecostalism in Latin America,” Pneuma: Te Journal of the Society of Pentecostal Theology 14, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 63.

16

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

21

did with any indigenous ecclesiology. In his “Open Letter to Jose Miguez Bonino,” Moltmann remarked that Gutiérrez’s work “offers many new insights — but precisely only in the framework of Europe’s history, scarcely any in the history of Latin America.”75 Gutiérrez often acknowledges his Euro- pean pedagogy as an encumbrance to his own veracity in speaking for the poor. Solivan states, “Without the poor — those who suffer — as subject, theology denigrates into the academic exercise of cognitive praxis.”76 For a privileged theologian educated in first-rate schools, it would be hard to sepa- rate the wineskins of austere academia from the degradation of poverty. To be sure, Gutiérrez has advocated and modeled the incarnational lifestyle, but does this model extend to his theological method? Or theoretically rephrased, does praxis, itself, have a criterion that uncritically incorporates a residual European pedagogy?

Pneumatology

In We Drink from Our Own Wells, Gutiérrez created considerable distance between “popular religion” and liberation theology by juxtaposing those who believe in miracles with those who are involved in the work of liberation: “Te power of the Spirit leads to love of God and others and not to the working of miracles.”77 Here there is a clear divergence from the view of the poor as it relates to both love and pneumatology. Exceedingly little is said throughout Gutiérrez’s works about pneumatology.78 It is an area of immense neglect. As a result, a penetrating criticism must be directed at this lack, and a question of sufficiency must be raised when the most theologically active participant in historical change (the Holy Spirit) is absent. But perhaps this is the point. Does the weakness in Gutiérrez’s pneumatology nuance his entire understand- ing of the Pentecostal movement? And does this lack predispose the theology of liberation to a critique of immanence from which the Pentecostal poor can speak more adequately? Solivan again points out that the two, miracles and

75

Jürgen Moltmann, “An Open Letter to Jose Miguez Bonino,” Christianity in Crisis 36 (29 March 1976): 5.

76

Solivan, “Te Spirit, Pathos, and Liberation,” 65.

77

Gutiérrez, We Drink from Our Own Wells, 63.

78

A quick perusal of the indexes of Gutiérrez’s books reveals the disparity. In Te Truth Shall Make You Free, the index does not have any references to the Holy Spirit. Tere are thirty-seven to Jesus and eleven to Marx. In A Teology of Liberation there are 107 references to Jesus, ten to Marx, and three to the Holy Spirit. All of the books that Gutiérrez has written display this disparity.

17

22

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

liberation imperatives, are not inimical to one another: “For many suffering people what makes God’s promise possible in their present experience is the acceptance of the miraculous. . . .Te experiences of promises fulfilled today serve as first fruits of what is yet in store.”79 Gutiérrez emphasizes only the silent suffering aspect of transcendence. But why is it inconsistent to believe, as the poor do, that God’s identification with weakness is equally as true as the Holy Spirit’s manifestation of power? On an economic level Gutiérrez agrees — it is just in the supernatural aspects where there is resistance. Of course, one might ask how God acting supernaturally now would be any dif- ferent from the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us long ago. But the fallout does not end there. Systemically there is another more problematic result, namely, liberation itself.

Eschatology

In Acts 2:15-16 Peter exclaims, “Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel.” Not only were they not drunk, but the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost inaugurated a new era within the life of the church that Joel referred to as the last days (v. 17). In Gutiérrez’s thought there is a great empha- sis on the hermeneutic of hope that creates eschatological longing for change. Gutiérrez is correct in believing in an eschatological hope but does not incor- porate any real pneumatology into his eschatology. As a result, the motivation for change rests primarily within the subject of history, as opposed to the Spirit of, over, and in history. Tis places a heavy weight upon the subject of history, who has hitherto been unable to realize his and her eschatological implica- tions. Granted, the hermeneutic of hope comes through humanity, but it does not originate in humanity. To fill this need, Gutiérrez adopts the methodology of conscientization in what seems to appear more as a Promethean construct than an emphasis upon the Spirit. Tis lack of proper emphasis threatens the entire edifice of liberation in that it places the realization of the movement in the ability of humanity to see. Tis is not the biblical presentation of the noetic effects of sin or the Holy Spirit’s relegation to a subordinate eschato- logical role. Te person who leads into all truth is the primogenitor of the eschatological hope. As a result, the assurance for hope is limited to the ability or inability of humanity to both see and accomplish this hope. And this is a

79

Solivan, “Te Spirit, Pathos, and Liberation,” 91.

18

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

23

major difference between Pentecostalism and liberation theology. To para- phrase Solivan, Pentecostalism has placed its hope for the future upon a pres- ent belief in the Spirit’s workings. In so doing, they have found the impetus for change both on a personal level and in society. Tis is why there is hope for the future. Revealed in the present dispensation is the future realization of abiding liberation.

Hope for the Future?

Is there a crack in the door that allows for dialogue between what, on the sur- face, seems like two antagonistic viewpoints on liberation spirituality? Gutiér- rez has noted that theology will not be free of illegitimate presuppositions until the poor create their own theology. What became apparent with the writ- ing of We Drink from Our Own Wells, however, was that Gutiérrez did have within his own mind the parameters of a certain type of spirituality, namely, Roman Catholic mysticism. As Volf and Chan have pointed out, this does not invalidate dialogue between Pentecostalism and Gutiérrez. Conversely, neither do the similarities between the two extinguish all distance. Simply put, what validates or invalidates the Pentecostal experience, according to Gutiérrez’s theology, is liberating praxis. Te question is, does Pentecostalism qualify according to this criterion? For many, and particularly the poor of Latin Amer- ica, the answer is a resounding yes. But is it enough that the poor have voted with their feet? Gutiérrez maintains, “If we are to find God acting in history, we must have an attitude of faith that is open to novelty and mystery.”80 Where does this openness to mystery lead? Te answer is, a door that was previously closed and is being opened ever so slowly. Yet, difficulties abide when a lack of openness to novelty and mystery persist. Te close proximity of focus and geography could not help but create some expected sibling rivalry. However, this should not be enough to seal the door shut or close it back again. Tus, in order for greater openness to occur, the father of liberation theology must realize that true liberating praxis is occurring within Latin America under the name of Pentecostalism. Tere must also be the realization of the indigenous choice and that the label attached to Pentecostalism “Made in America,” is not accurate. Rather, the “Made in America” label should, as previously noted, more correctly read, “Made among the Poor and Dispos- sessed of America.” Te location of liberating praxis’s nexus should not

80

Gustavo Gutiérrez, Te God of Life (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), 80.

19

24

J. Davis / Pneuma 33 (2011) 5-24

disqualify its extension or incorporation. If Gutiérrez truly believes in a theol- ogy from the poor, then the poor must be allowed to speak, even if their thoughts take them down less traditional and more mysterious pathways. And perhaps they have spoken — in tongues. Te elaboration of a spiritual need is what precipitated Gutiérrez’s movement into mysticism. Te limitation of that elaboration is where the truly liberating prospects come to an end. Te desire to have a “faith that is open to novelty and mystery” is a glorious incarnational goal. However, the constricting definitions of “novel” and, in this case, “mys- terious” prohibit implementation. Where does this leave the hopes of dialogue between the two most potent forms of religious expression in Latin America? Te answer is looking at a ray of light behind a partially opened door wonder- ing what might happen if the door were to open fully.

20

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

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

[email protected]

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.

Next Page »