What Do Emergence and Pentecostalism Have to Learn from One Another?

david martin is the go-to scholar on this. his theory is that at it’s core pentecostalism is egalitarian since the spirit is what levels hierarchy. he argues that it is the true american religious export and becuase of its democratic structure, it has been particularly powerful among the socially, economically, and religiously oppressed especially in latin america and africa. check this one out: http://www.amazon.com/Pentecostalism-Parish-Religion-Spirituality-Modern/dp/0631231218

I’m writing my master’s thesis on global Pentecostal hermeneutics, but I occasionally attend a postmodern discussion group with Matthew Gallion and Phil Snyder who specialize in postmodern thought and theology.

Based on my (limited) knowledge of postmodernism and my academic studies of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement, I’m convinced that there are similarities between the two. Both are for instance, by way of ‘era’ or ‘time period,’ reactions to modernity; both are post-modern, in the most basic sense of the term. Both address the ‘ecstacy deficiency’ of contemporary society, with the intent of restoring primal spirituality and a relational experience with the divine. Both promote holistic or integrated perceptions of body, intellect, action, and being. Both movements are anti-hierarchical, empowering of the everyman and leaning towards the mark of the Divine as embossed upon every individual. Both are movements at the front of social justice innitiatives. Hermeneutically, both movements approach sacred text experientially, narratively, and relationally, challenging standard conceptions of inspiration. And the last parallel I can come up with on the top of my head: glossolalia and xenoglossia, forms of tongues speech, are the ultimate deconstruction of linguistics and language.

I’m excited to hear you speak at SPS. Looking forward to it.

Wow, what a question. And some excellent answers above. (But, Ted, sorry to break this to you, buddy, but I grew up Pentecostal (A/G). Those Pentecostals are friends of mine. My catholic friend, you’re no Pentecostal.)

To the points above, I would add that Pentecostals are good candidates for understanding theology as narrative. I once heard one of my Emergent friends who also grew up A/G mention how he grew to understand Pentecost as an answer to the story of the Tower of Babel.

Also, Brian McLaren has some good thoughts in “Generous Orthodoxy” in the chapter about “The Seven Jesuses.” One of the Jesuses is the Jesus of the Charsmatic church.

Kenton and Ted – I think it’s important to distinguish between Pentecostals as an actual group/movement and the charisma of Pentecost which can be experienced in other traditions including Roman Catholicism. My husband and I have a dear friend who is a nun in the RCC and “charismatic”.

We have enjoyed the fruits, in interreligious dialogue, as our rather exclusivistic ecclesiocentrisms have slowly yielded on the ecumenical front to a more inclusivistic Christocentrism. Without forsaking our own Christocentric stances, we might foster an even more fruitful interreligious dialogue by opening same with a pneumatological inclusivism. Pentecostals & Charismatics have led the way on such mutual understanding within Christianity, sharing our experience of Spirit. This may be the model for advancing dialogue and understanding between the Great Traditions, too? Pentecostals might have some suggestions for a way forward.

Pentecostals also have something to offer regarding emergence, human anthropology, epistemology and the science and religion dialogue. Counterintuitive on the surface? Scroll down to this list of articles in the Dec 2008 Zygon: Pentecostal Voices in the Theology-Science Conversation .

Finally, I’m sure most have at least heard of the distinction between our dialectical and analogical imaginations. Amos Yong has made some proposals regarding the pneumatological imagination and the difference it can make in one’s approach to reality. My own panSEMIOentheism, what I call a radical emergence, is grounded in my experience in the Charismatic Renewal in the 70′s.

Kenton – indeed. And I was born into a Catholic home to parents who early in my life became “Azuza street style Pentecostals”. I’ve seen charismatic Catholics and been to charismatic Catholic bible studies and it’s most definitely not the same thing.

Not that I have a problem with charismatic Catholics. Just like I don’t have a problem with Pentecostals even though I would no longer consider myself one.

I’ve a few thoughts on this…

Emergents can learn from Pentecostals that it’s okay to have a doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I think emerging theology tends towards Christomonism. The British expressions of emerging, I think, tend to come out of Pentecostal/Charismatic roots more than the American, so maybe there’s a regional distinction too.

Emergents can learn that empowerment is more than social action and opening up conversation. There’s a reason why it has been said that while Liberation Theology sought to help the poor, the poor became Pentecostals.

With this, I think, is that Pentecostals have a strong eschatology. There’s a driving, shaping perspective on eternity that shapes the hope in the present. Emergent theology tends towards a more realized eschatology–and all the frustrations this can bring.

Pentecostals could also show how a broadly orthodox/conservative position on theology can be worked out in immensely appealing, empowering, exciting, missional, global ways. Pentecostalism resonates with people all over the world, in all kinds of settings.

Emergents can teach Pentecostals a broader pneumatology. The Holy Spirit does a whole lot more than give shiny gifts.

They can also remind Pentecostals of their early, egalitarian roots. The earliest communities were racially mixed and gender inclusive. This trend quickly, in the first generation, got blasted apart. While there’s certainly some openness, there’s still massive regression in these things.

Emergents can be a prophetic voice turning Pentecostals away from some tendencies towards health/wealth, which is a strong trend globally. It can contribute a perspective on theology that is inclusive, empowering, and holistic, focusing on the whole Gospel, the whole Kingdom of God, that leads us not to look to our own health/wealth, but to learn how to live in open community with and for others.

Emergents can point to non-authoritarian patterns of ministry which better appropriate the idea of the Spirit’s work in unity through diversity. Rigid control and leadership more often than not breaks down the work of the Spirit, even if it often serves as a quick, easier fix to community issues.

My personal opinion is there’s a lot of interest from Pentecostals about what’s going on in emerging circles. I’m really excited for the March gathering and look forward to the conversations that are generated from that.

I think John’s onto something–Antony’s “demons”, Teresa of Avila’s “raptures”, St. John of the Cross’ existential “long dark night”, Hildegaard of Bingen, Julian of Norwich–all had some pretty ecstatic religious experience. The spiritual formation movement has readily embraced them but Azusa-brand Pentecostalism seems to wig those folks out.

Authenticity seems to be a byword in emergent circles. So it is with Pentecostalism. Pentecostalism emerged about 100 years ago among radical Holiness and evangelical Christians who were very uncomfortable with the gap between scripture and practice; between ought-ness and is-ness. They wanted to practice an authentic spirituality; a genuine Christianity, not just in confession, but in practice. They saw in scripture that Spirit-baptism provided empowerment to live above normal human existence; this experience with God drew believers closer to God and empowered them for witness. Early Pentecostals eschewed dry confessionalism, but they found out the hard way that fanaticism and emotionalism didn’t last long-term. They tried to capture, as Grant Wacker termed it, “lightning in a bottle.” Finding, living out, and conveying this authentic Christian spirituality from one generation to the next has proven a very difficult task.

What is the essence of Pentecostalism? Some people identify its seeming progressive manifestations – such as pacifism, affirmation of women in ministry, a missional mindset, interracialism, and relevant ministry – as constituting Pentecostal identity. These themes might seem to coincide with emergent values. However, it is important to remember that a passionate spirituality reminiscent of the monastics of old – including miracles, tongues, expectations of holiness, spiritual warfare, and passionate worship services – accompanied the progressive aspects of early Pentecostalism. These themes – including those progressive and those otherworldly – were not random and disconnected. Rather, all of these themes were manifestations of a restorationist worldview. Many Pentecostals today forget this — that early Pentecostalism arose from a clear worldview – one that assumes that Christians should seek to be more fully devoted Christ-followers. All of these Pentecostal themes arise from the aim for full consecration to Jesus. It is important not to confuse the various Pentecostal-like themes with Pentecostal identity. Just because a church affirms women in ministry, interracial churches, pacifism, relevant ministry, holiness codes, and miracles does not mean that church is Pentecostal. These themes may have arisen from other cultural sources. To discover early Pentecostals identity, one must look to their worldview of full consecration to Jesus.

By thinking that Pentecostal identity rests on various manifestations of this early worldview, rather than upon the worldview itself, one could say that we Pentecostals see the trees, but we don’t have the forest in focus. This is why some Pentecostal churches are in spiritual and moral decline — they have forgotten their first love and have accommodated the world’s values. Instead of questioning the structures of an evil society and seeking to do what is right even if it is unpopular and difficult, too many Pentecostals have opted to compromise and some even call it blessed. We have adopted so many of the world’s values, that our founding fathers and mothers would likely be aghast. Instead of following a radical call to self-denial for the purpose of full consecration to Jesus, many Pentecostals now treat our national symbols as sacred; they accept unwise or sinful activities; they support an entertainment industry that purveys filth; they are materialistic; they accept easy divorce and remarriage; and so on.

Early Pentecostal literature is bursting with examples of this worldview of full consecration. Here’s a sample I recently found – a prophetic call to forsake civil religion, written by Paul Bettex, a Pentecostal missionary to China, in 1914 (the year the Assemblies of God was organized). I am curious – when you read Bettex, do you sense any of the same yearning for counter-cultural authenticity that you find among emergents?

[Paul Bettex, an early Pentecostal missionary, wrote the following critique of patriotism in 1914, two years before he was killed on the mission field in China. The Swiss-born Bettex, the son of a distinguished Christian apologist, studied at the University of Geneva, various Italian schools, the Sarbonne, and Princeton Theological Seminary. He attended meetings at the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, joined the ranks of the Pentecostals, and in 1910 headed for China as a missionary.

The following critique of patriotism (and in particular of what today might be called "civil religion") was republished in 1934 by GPH in a biography of Bettex -- Wholly for God: A Call to Complete Consecration, Illustrated by the Story of Paul Bettex, a Truly Consecrated Soul. The book was written by Stanley Frodsham, who also was editor of the Pentecostal Evangel (the weekly magazine of the Assemblies of God).]

False Standards [of consecration to God]
By Paul Bettex, 1914

“Between the first of Matthew and the last of Revelation where is there any room for any particle of patriotism? The Christian, redeemed through the Blood of Calvary, presenting his body a living sacrifice unto God (not to king, kaiser, or czar), a pilgrim and a stranger in the world, seeking a city which hath foundations, can properly be called a patriot of the kingdom of heaven.

“There is not the slightest room for self in the New Testament. The Word of God is like the fiery sword of the cherubim guarding the gate of Eden, which continually seeks out and slays every remnant of self.

“Now patriotism is the selfishness of multitudes of selves. It is an abominable imitation of the kingdom of God, and by the very seeming good it contains it is all the more dangerous as it hinders the full expansion of the kingdom. If you want to see one of the fruits of religion, 50% adulterated with patriotism, look to Europe in its present crisis (at the time Bettex wrote this the war was raging). We have one Sovereign, the Lord Jesus; one country, the kingdom of heaven.

“The more we invest all our strength in the kingdom of God, the easier it will be to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Patriotism is one of the many pseudo-Christian growths that, like barnacles, cover the ship of the church, impeding her progress. Why forsake the fountain of living water, and bow down to sticks and stones of our own making, gods which are not gods? In these dangerous times, when the Lord is testing His people to the utmost, it behooves us to try to cut out every foreign factor which has crept in from below. It is by these foreign factors perhaps more than by open sin that the enemy is trying to kill the life of joy in the believer.

“To get rid of these barnacles or these man-made doctrines, on which millions of humble and earnest believers have been fed by a superficial clergy — this is the task set before the church of Christ in the coming decades. And while no one deplores more deeply than we do the horrors of the European war, we rejoice in this that the war has brought out all the weaknesses, all the un-Scripturalness, all the superficiality, all the hypocrisy of a Christian life that permits, nay encourages Christian men to face each other on the battle field and to inter-kill, inter-slay, inter-slaughter, and inter-mangle each other in such holocaust that would fill Tamerlane, Attila, and all the murderers of history with pale envy.

Great posts thus far. I’m not sure that I have much to add as far as content goes but I think I might have an interesting format by which to showcase much of the material that has been offered here. I am an ordained A/G minister, reared in the classical Pentecostalism of rural Alabama. I received my undergrad at Southeastern University (then Bible College), my masters from The Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and am currently enrolled in my PhD program (religious and theological studies) at the University of Wales. I am writing on the topic of Lectio Divina as a spiritual grid for Christ-followers in a post-modern/post-colonial world and thought you might be interested in this as a form for discussion.

Each of the movements of Lectio seems to have both an emergent and pentecostal leaning (this has much to do with the ancient-future aspects of both Pentecostalism (the a/historical proposition) and the emerging conversation (neo-monastic movement). Here are the rungs and their correlating emphases:

Lectio (or Read as in your work)- Returning to a devotional reading of the scriptures…asking for and receiving a word is a big thing for Pentecostals; this movement seeks to ground that quest in the proper setting of scriptures…it also allows for a hermeneutic of deconstruction for post-moderns/colonials as the goal is to be mastered by the word rather than mastering it.

Meditatio (Think)- This movement has appeal as it allows for conversation between the practitioners of lectio (much of my premise is based on the thought that the breaking of God’s bread, i.e. the bible, should be rescued from the modern idea of the sermon and returned to the communal hearing of God’s word) . For emergents dialogue is a must (it seems) and for true Pentecostals this harkens back to the practice of dialog between preacher and congregation as well as incorporating the concept of “testimony time”.

Oratio (Pray)- Here the practices of the Jesus prayer and speaking in tongues are both seen as “traditioning.” I know that many in my own denomination have issue with this departure from viewing tongues as being the “initial physical evidence” of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, buy I would point to Simon Chan’s work regarding tongues as a concomitant. In both cases the prayer works as a means to occupy the physical and cognitive aspects of the individual so that he or she may move into the phase of prayer where the Spirit intercedes on our behalf in ways that we do not fully comprehend.

Contemplatio (Live)- This final movement of prayer traditionally is one of presence or centering. This is both a monastical and classic pentecostal must in regards to spirituality. If one were to go back to the days of Azusa he or she would read of periods of prolonged silence. It has only been in the last few decades that we Pentecostals have become uncomfortable with silence.

It is my opinion that Pentecostalism and the mysticism associated with the Medieval mystics (St. John, Theresa of Avila, etc.) are simply opposite sides of the same coin. Both are concerned with a radical openness for the in-breaking of the Spirit upon the present situation- it’s just that one is concerned primarily with process (the mystics) and the other with crisis (Pentecostals).

There is much more in common as it relates to the sociological makeup of the two groups (Phyllis Tickle does a great job of comparing the two groups in her book, The Great Emergence).

In any case, I know that you have a great affinity for Lectio Divina and thought this might spark some thought on how the two groups can be connected through this ancient/future practice. I, of course, would welcome any thoughts that you might have on the matter, but also understand that you have massive amount of work at hand. Please don’t underestimate the importance of your work for the kingdom. I, myself, have put your books in the hands of at least 1,000 individuals (having used your works as textbooks for the University at which I last taught). And also know that you are helping many Pentecostals move past the error of a/historical-ism (not sure that’s a word) by reconnecting them with their heritage via the ancient/future practices you so often champion in your books. Thank you.

I’m pretty sure some of you aren’t even speaking english – if I didn’t mention it above, something emergents can learn from pentecostals is to speak in plain language and get out of you damn head for awhile. Sheesh.

Just to preface: I am a “n0n-factory-trained” lay person (which is why most of what Mr. Sylvest said went over my head!) who is just trying to figure out what it means to be a follower of Jesus, and part of the Dance of the Trinity.

I am wondering if a conversation between Pentecostals and Emergents can effectively take place until we first work towards a better, perhaps more authentic grasp of the mystery of the Trinity. It seems that MOST Christians have a top-down linear/hierarchical picture of the Trinity: God–>Jesus–>Holy Spirit or at best, a triangular picture with God at the top and Jesus and the Holy Spirit at the base corners. This would explain why we might think of Pentecostals as pushing a pendulum (“hanging” from God) more toward the Spirit and most other Christians seeming to have it pushed more towards Jesus. I am starting to believe, thanks to the wisdom of Richard Rohr, that perhaps the doctrine of the Trinity has gotten a bit off the track since the early 4th century and it has been derailing our theology ever since.

Richard Rohr and Cynthia Bourgeault BOTH read “God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life” by Catherine Mowry LaCugna, a book that recovers the early roots of the Trinitarian doctrine. Richard and Cynthia came together in 2005 to do a treat on this intriguing subject. A teaser by Fr. Rohr: ““Whatever is going on in God is a flow that’s like a dance and God is not a dancer, God is the dance, itself.” And the cool thing is, WE are part of the Dance/Perichoresis! I think we need a ancient/future “third way” to look at this Mystery – and these two may be on to something. I think this MUST be part of the Theology we are Transforming!

I HIGHLY encourage you to download and listen to this fresh understanding (WELL worth the $$):
http://www.cacradicalgrace.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=CFAAC&Product_Code=SP-M-18&Category_Code=MP3&Product_Count=49

(also check out Rohr’s “Trinity, the Divine Dance” recording)

I like Fr. Rhor, but I philosophically come down with the atheist Clarke on that line- it’s all natural, we just don’t understand all of nature yet. That appeals to the humility of the more conservative side of my faith- and speaks to a God who is rational, and a rock that can be counted on to be the same from age to age (contrast this with the Islamic view of Allah, who not only changes his mind from verse to verse in the Koran, but can order his followers at any time to disregard scripture and do something entirely different; even our very existence is threatened by such a God. The triumph of such theology in the Ottoman Empire in the 1500s froze all scientific advancement in the Islamic world for many years).

I also like that image from my autistic view of the world. For those of us with autism, change is always bad; it requires a LOT of work to understand the change and work it into our view of appropriate behavior (which is also something we’re pretty shaky with- along with the whole right/wrong line). A God I can count on NOT to change helps a lot in dealing with a world the is in constant change.

Chad: Thanks for the book suggestion and the link – I will have to check out both! What is exciting to me is that Perichoresis “overlays” with open theism/process theology as well as what we are discovering the physical science and cosmology! And the desert fathers and mothers and the mystics seemed to point to it all along!

John, my dream is that these conversations start taking place NOW in the pulpits and in Sunday school classes and NOT JUST at the academia level. Why are most current church afraid to challenge their congregation with this stuff? Why do I, as a lay person, have to go to Google to learn about this stuff? I think THIS is the passion of Philip Clayton!

As we fled from “charismania,” my family spent stints in churches of various denominations, exposing me to the wonder of connecting with God in many different environs. During this time my trust in his omnipresence only grew, as I realized that He would meet with me at my level of faith, whether the service was administered by someone in a robe or in jeans and Birkenstocks. Even during times of teenage rebellion, Jesus would often intervene quite abruptly in order to pull me into his loving protection, enabling me to always trust in His faithfulness, rather than in my own strength to follow.
The universality of music and strength of words sung straight to Him has always been effective in focusing my attention upon my Creator and preparing my heart to receive whatever teaching, word, or images He may have for me, so that I may be empowered to walk worthy of my calling. I can receive these things on my own, but it is in the presence of other worshippers where the synergy of community can be truly equip, unite, and engage in progress. In my adulthood and early-married life, my new family settled into a charismatic church, looking to experience worship in an atmosphere of freedom. We even served as college and later youth leaders in this environment, but our heart for the sub-culture down and outers, which I most likely inherited from my father, soon caused us to lose credibility with our leadership. Our time in the ministry lasted for six years and offered even more hope in God’s love, healing power, and acceptance for all. In the end, however, there was no room for us in this particular church movement. Bigger trumps deeper every time.
A few years ago, my husband, children, and I bailed out of this environment and began working in and around an emergent service, just getting off the ground. What a refreshing thing it was for us to ask the lingering questions concerning doctrine without raised eyebrows and a quick, emphatic correction (according to the “vision” of that particular congregation). Opening the doors to seekers, who may or may not have any church upbringing or may engage in alternative lifestyles, was also something that had always burned in our hearts, but that had never had any outlet in our prior surroundings.
After a while, though, my desire to converse became satiated, and my desire to see action, to be a part of the things I felt God wanted to DO with these seekers, began to eat away at me. I am aware that, at this point, I may sound incredibly high-maintenance, but I simply do not understand why the gifts of the Spirit, as laid out in the New Testament (and beyond-John 5:17-27), and thoughtful, reflective teaching have to be mutually exclusive. Isn’t the Creator of the universe capable to facilitate, guide, and even correct our yielded hearts if we get into destructive areas?
As a result of grad school and my husband’s devouring of all things emergent, I have learned that I am a non-literalist, evangelical, post-modernist, blah, blah, blah… but what does that mean if I/we cannot share the experience with anyone?
Have I branched into a Utopic and naive desire for something that can never be? How can I offer my children a view/experience of a very alive and powerful God while not fencing them into a fearful dogma of judgment and materialism?
I guess what I am really wanting here are answers… the conversation is good, but when do I feel like I am getting somewhere?

Great question Tony, and some great answers. Didn’t get to read them all, but I’ll probably pick at them over the next few days.

I am a neo-pentecostal pastor (Vineyard) with a strong pentecostal background (converted in the PAOC (AOG for us Canucks) and pastored in the Foursquare). I think there is much that both groups can learn from each other. Actually one of the most exciting things for me is seeing the development of pentecostal theology in the last few years. Some of it is really quite well done. But it has been a long time coming. A big reason I left had to do with my dissatisfaction with the theology of both the PAOC and the Foursquare church. I also encountered a fair amount of spiritual elitism – the idea that the pentecostal experience levels the playing field only counts for pentecostals and those within the movement that do not have the same experiences are treated as second class citizens. I think this is also a danger in the EC thinking about other churches (such as the mega-churches).

I MIGHT or COULD have chosen different words but I didn’t it was a bit tongue in cheek while also making a very serious and important statement. Take it or leave it, I care not.

I do want to make the point also that pentecostalism and emergence are not inherently exclusive. I know lots of emergent Pentecostals and at one point would have considered myself one.

Let me make an important point. There is a distinction between “being right” and a “right way of being right.” There is too much incivility and polarization in our political life, nowadays, and, sadly, much of it is fueled by religious quarrels. If we cannot take our dialogue amongst ourselves to another level, there is very little reason to hope things will improve elsewhere. This is a concrete example of affective conversion, in fact. Our responses to fear, guilt, woundedness and so on can be either existential or neurotic, which is to say, either life-giving and relationship-enhancing or life-destroying and relationship-detracting. If we are sitting in the front row of a theater and see a train rushing at us, our sympathetic nervous system is going to kick in, adrenaline will be released, our heart will pound and we’ll go into fight or flight mode. If we jump from our seat and run from the theater, that would be neurotic. If, on the other hand, we were actually on the RR tracks and a train was coming and we jumped off in response, then, that would be existential. Richard Rohr says it best: If we do not allow our woundedness to somehow transform us then we will continue to somehow transmit it. Even in our tweets.

This is a great question! I find that I straddle between the world’s of postmodern/emergent thought and neo-pentecostal/3rd wave Christianity (charismergent?). I discovered both at the same time. I believe that both movements are responses to modernity, even though classical postmodernism has made some accommodations to it. While i haven’t studied the movements as deeply as I’d like, it seems that there is a common or similar hermeneutic that is employed. The 2nd naivete was thrown around in the above threads, so I don’t want to use it incorrectly, but there is an innocence to the approach of the text by both groups. One is based on the Holy Spirit giving direct and divine information, while the other is based on scholarship and cultural deconstruction. I think the 2 movements have more in common than can be expressed here. Is it any wonder that Todd Hunter was part of both movement (Vineyard and early emergent)? I think that as the two movements continue to converge, we’ll see something interesting emerge.

If the above comments are any indication, it seems that we will have rich discussion at the upcoming SPS meeting. I’m impressed with how well the above have nuanced the issues.