Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Pneuma 28,2_f13_313-321II 9/26/06 5:06 PM Page 313
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
Performing Global Pentecostal Theology:
A Response to Wolfgang Vondey
Amos Yong
I am grateful to my colleague Professor Wolfgang Vondey for the time he has taken to respond so thoughtfully and at length to my most recent book.1 He has deftly identified some of the contemporary impulses that provide the context for and inform my writing, and correctly understands my intentions to open up rather than provide a definitive Pentecostal the- ology. In responding to my invitation to conversation, Vondey has taken this opportunity to register a few concerns about the methodology of The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, and in the process to hint at the central features of his own emerging theological orientation.
Vondey’s methodological apprehensions derive, so far as I can see, from his own training in and commitment first and foremost to ecumenical theology. This reveals itself not only in his second critical question—that about “what kind of ecumenical theology shapes this [Yong’s] Pentecostal theology?”—but also in his having wanted more in my book of a deeper engagement with and retrieval of the established theological tradition on the one hand, and in his proposal for an “archeological” (origin-oriented) methodology on the other. This archeological hermeneutics, he suggests, is what roots Pentecostal theology in “a firm starting point” even as it provides the broad scope of the Christian tradition for retrieval, recon- struction, and reappropriation. Hence Vondey appears to have appreciated most my chapter 5 as I dialogue with East and West (e.g., Lossky and Barth) in attempting to find a way forward for the Oneness-trinitarian debate,2 while being least enthused about how the largely phenomeno- logical chapter 1 launches the trajectory of the book.
1
As I am writing my rejoinder with only Vondey’s manuscript rather than galley proofs before me, I will be quoting him without providing page number references. References to my The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005) will be made parenthetically as SPF followed by page numbers).
2
Vondey affirms the methodological procedure of my chapter 5 in his footnote 31. Curiously, however, he refers only to the middle section (§5.2) of the chapter, when, in fact, this builds on the historical and contemporary context of Oneness-trinitarian dis- agreements (laid out in §5.1). Further, if engagement with the tradition is what Vondey is after, that is done in each of chapters 2 through 7, albeit in different modes. Either Vondey did not observe my engagements with the tradition as such in these other chapters (they simply did not fit his paradigm for “engagement with tradition”) or he did not appreciate
© 2006 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden pp. 313–321
1
Pneuma 28,2_f13_313-321II 9/26/06 5:06 PM Page 314
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
I am surprised, however, that for all of the concerns registered about my theological methodology, Vondey does not mention the methodological commitments that are explicitly spelled out in the introductory chapter (SPF 27–30). These involve the theological motif of pneumatology, Luke- Acts as the biblical point of entry, and world Pentecostalism as it exists “on the ground.”3 Vondey prefers a trinitarian rather than pneumatological framework and an archeological rendition of “the Pentecostal story” rather than a (pluralistic) Pentecostal phenomenology.4 The former provides essential linkages to the ecumenical traditions of the Christian faith, while the latter secures, for Vondey, a more biblically rooted narrative from which to do Pentecostal theology. On both counts, however, I am less opti- mistic than he about the prospects for a distinctively Pentecostal theology.
The main reasons for my pessimism are related. On the one hand, part of the challenge is that there is no one Pentecostal story. Beyond the fact that there are rather disparate “white” and “black” Pentecostal traditions (about which Vondey the ecumenical theologian is surprisingly silent, given how much I try to engage this matter in my book),5 there are at least two Pentecostal readings of Acts: the trinitarian and the Oneness. On the other hand, there is also no monolithic ecumenical tradition with which to engage (the Oneness position raising questions even about Nicene orthodoxy). More important is that I am wary about allowing the theo- logical traditions of the church to establish the categorical framework for Pentecostal theology. Now Vondey realizes (I hope) that I am committed to engaging the theological tradition. There is, however, an important dif- ference between engaging the tradition and allowing the tradition to dic- tate the conversation. Might Vondey’s ecumenical commitments privilege the tradition in ways that do not allow Pentecostal voices to be adequately heard on their (our) own terms?
the specific traditions with which I was engaging (e.g., that of atonement theories in 2, the marks of the church in 3, and Wesleyanism in 6 and 7).
3
This triadic but yet open-ended and dynamic methodological orientation is defended at greater—some would say exhausting—length in my Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective (Burlington, VT and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002).
4
On Luke-Acts as my biblical point of entry, Vondey says nothing except that I use Peter’s speech on the day of Pentecost (he cites SPF, 81) “as an exclusive basis for Pentecostal theology.” I am unsure both about how Vondey concludes this and about what exactly he means. “Exclusive” means undivided and unshared. My use of Scripture is not methodologically exclusive, nor do I consider my interpretations of Scripture exclusively correct. There is a similar ambiguity in his saying, “Yong suggests that this kind of the- ology is possible only in a pneumatological approach to other religions” (italics mine).
5
On this point, see also my “Justice Deprived, Justice Demanded: Afropentecostalisms and the Task of World Pentecostal Theology Today,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15, no. 1 (2006): 129–50.
314
2
Pneuma 28,2_f13_313-321II 9/26/06 5:06 PM Page 315
Performing Global Pentecostal Theology: A Response to Wolfgang Vondey
I think Pentecostal theologians should be alert to the subtle ways in which we might be led to play by the ground rules of others now that we’re (finally!) gathered (allowed?) around the ecumenical table. This upward theological mobility is, of course, a relatively recent phenomenon. Vondey and I are among the handful of what before this last generation was considered an oxymoron: Pentecostal theologians. In fact, Pente- costalism itself has not achieved theological respectability up until now, and classical Pentecostalism was always a movement on the margins seek- ing acceptance. Looking back, Charismatic movements in the church— from the early Pentecostals through Great Awakening revivalists and the Reformation Schwarmerei and Anabaptists all the way back to the Montanists—have always resided on the underside of ecclesial history. Ours has long been a voice of protest, of resistance, and of prophetic opposition. In fact, I am convinced that we need to revisit the theological tradition of the church from the vantage points of her various Charismatic renewal movements, precisely in order to be in the position to ask ques- tions like: What does pre-Nicene “orthodoxy” look like from the Montanist perspective? How do the Augsburg Confession and Trent read from the perspective of the Schwarmerei? How did the Great Awakening revivals open up theological space for the emergence of a distinctively American theological tradition? and so on. While I suspect that this is not what Vondey has in mind in his call for a trinitarian and ecumenical theology, I propose that this is precisely what Pentecostalism itself invites her the- ologians to inquire into.
The tension for Pentecostal theology in our time is to find a way to engage the theological and ecumenical traditions of the church with respect (here Vondey operates at his point of strength), but not to kow-tow to the tradition in ways that would mute the Pentecostal difference (which I know Vondey also wishes to avoid). It was precisely this balancing act that produced SPF. This is a systematic theology that breaks many (if not most) of the rules of the genre, beginning not with the doctrine of God, but with the question of salvation that most immediately interests Pentecostals (yet not neglecting the doctrine of God). Further, whereas traditionally structured systematic theologies end with eschatology, Pentecostals protest that theirs is a thoroughly eschatological theology, even from the very beginning.6 Finally, whereas evangelical systematic theologies locate the chapter on pneumatology somewhere in the latter part of the book—and earlier classical Pentecostal theologies followed
6
E.g., D. William Faupel, The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology
315
3
Pneuma 28,2_f13_313-321II 9/26/06 5:06 PM Page 316
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
suit, adding chapters on Spirit baptism and the gifts—a thoroughly Pente- costal theology, I suggest in SPF, is pneumatological through and through. The challenge for Pentecostal theology is how to systematize the many discordant voices (on the Day of Pentecost and in the current world Pente- costal scene) without doing violence to what is being witnessed to.
For this reason, outside of my triadic methodology—pneumatology, Luke-Acts, Pentecostalism “on the ground”—the other more minor method- ological moves vary from chapter to chapter, proceeding in an ad hoc manner, almost, in one direction on one occasion and then in another direction on another occasion. Perhaps Vondey’s complaint about my inconsistently applied ecumenical methodology—this is called into ser- vice in SPF, chapter 3, 134–35, which is cited by Vondey—should be taken up instead with the messiness of world Pentecostalism as it exists historically and concretely. But more important, Pentecostals should be under no obligation to adopt anyone else’s methodological commitments as a comprehensive paradigmatic framework. If other perspectives are helpful on various issues—as an ecumenical method surely is for the doc- trine of the church (the subject of my chapter 3)—we would be foolish not to engage with them. However, a distinctively Pentecostal theology should proceed from its own starting points. SPF suggests, and attempts to apply consistently, a triangulating approach, interweaving pneumato- logical theology, biblical insights informed initially by Luke-Acts (there is, after all, no such thing as an objective biblical theology cut off from reading communities), and the diversity of Pentecostal experience.
But what about Vondey’s archeological methodology? Now while we neither can nor should dismiss the past—I hope my preceding comments about the necessity of engaging the tradition should dispel that notion— the question of origins is precisely part of the problematic with which we have to do. With regard to the dialogue between theology and science, for example, Pentecostals who have followed conservative evangelicals to engage the question of human origins by going back to the creation narratives will continue to falter over the impasse between affirming and rejecting human evolution from a common ancestor. Vondey does not comment on my final chapter on theology and science, but an archeo- logical approach on this topic is not helpful at the present time.7
in the Development of Pentecostal Thought, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 10 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
7
See further my “God and the Evangelical Laboratory: Recent Conservative Protestant Thinking about Theology and Science,” Theology and Science, forthcoming.
316
4
Pneuma 28,2_f13_313-321II 9/26/06 5:06 PM Page 317
Performing Global Pentecostal Theology: A Response to Wolfgang Vondey
More interesting is an archeological approach applied to the Oneness- trinitarian dispute. I believe Vondey is exactly right that this opens up to the possibility of rapprochement because it shifts focus away from trini- tarian doctrine to trinitarian experience. But the gains made on this issue in an intra-Pentecostal arena will complicate Pentecostal relationships with the wider evangelical and ecumenical communions, since the trinitarian doctrine is a nonnegotiable touchstone in these churches. It was on this dogmatic level that I expressed ambivalence about how to proceed (SPF, 264). While Vondey notes this ambivalence and feels that it potentially hampers the formulation of a global Pentecostal theology, his concern is that without a more explicit trinitarian basis provided by an archeological hermeneutic the task of discerning the Spirit in the world religions is com- promised. My concern in that moment, however, was to open up a con- versation with Islam apart from which any question about attempting to discern the Spirit in that context will be moot anyway. My ambivalence there came from the uneasy feeling that a dogmatic guideline derived from an archeological hermeneutic helps neither the two Pentecostal camps, nor the Christian encounter and dialogue with Islam. But dogmas are not, after all, easily dispensed with.
A similar missing of the mark may be at work in Vondey’s insistence that “a global theology of religions that is both Pentecostal and pneuma- tological will have to address primary trinitarian data, namely, the ques- tion of the definition and origin of the person of the Holy Spirit in both the immanent trinity and in the economic trinity.” This necessity—note the “will have to”—is made also in the context of discerning the Spirit in the world religions, and once again I sense that an archeological and ecumenical hermeneutic is behind Vondey’s claim. But while an archeo- logical and more robustly trinitarian approach may be helpful for dis- cerning the Spirit in certain ecumenical contexts, Vondey’s proposal seems to go much further and require that Pentecostals resolve the ancient dis- pute regarding the filioque. On this matter, there is not one but two arche- ological and trinitarian hermeneutical systems at work (East and West), precisely the root of the ecumenical divide.8 Can Pentecostals resolve this
8
It is precisely for this reason that while my first book attempts to suggest a resolution to the filioque, my second book seeks instead to understand, appreciate, and appropriate the logic underlying the views of both the Orthodox East and the Latin West. See my shift- ing positions on the filioque in Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal Charismatic Contri- bution to Christian Theology of Religions, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 20 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 65–70; Spirit-Word-Community, 67–72; and Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), esp. 185–87.
317
5
Pneuma 28,2_f13_313-321II 9/26/06 5:06 PM Page 318
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
dispute? Should they want to do so with regard to a fight that has never been their own? Or is it the Pentecostal contribution to mediate the opening up of theological space in the present for a conversation on this matter?
At the end of the day, Vondey’s advocacy of an archeological, trinitarian, and ecumenical methodology is driven by the valid question, What are the guidelines and criteria for discerning the Spirit in a world Pentecostal theology? I am sympathetic with this question, which itself animated my first book, Discerning the Spirit(s)(2000). Even there, however, I struggled with the corollary question about to what degree concerns regarding the criteria for discernment can rely on past (archeological, to use Vondey’s terminology) formulations. Arguably, a stringently applied archeological hermeneutic would have favored Arius over Athanasius and the Cappa- docians, Trent over the Protestant Reformers, and the fundamentalists over the Azusa Street Pentecostals, because focus on origins privileges already established criteria. Charismatic renewal movements throughout history, however, have never played by the rules (criteria) set down by the institutional hierarchies. Instead, as already noted, they have been voices from the underside of Christian history, resisting the dominant orders and enacting a counter criteriology that subverts rather than perpetuates the status quo.
For these reasons, I believe a Pentecostal hermeneutic should be escha- tological (teleological, as Vondey rightly observes) rather than archeo- logical. This is to privilege the future, even if it does not dismiss the past. But eschatological as I understand it does not mean apocalyptic or other- worldly. Rather, the genius of Pentecostalism, I offer, is the embracing of the coming kingdom as it punctuates the present moment through the presence and activity of the Spirit whose comings and goings are unpre- dictable, like the wind. Hence an eschatological orientation nurtures a disposition that is open to the surprises of the future in the here and now— expectant of a miracle today, to use the insightful cliché of Oral Roberts. Further, an eschatological perspective is concerned not only about crite- ria, but about performance: how can we live faithfully now as we peer through the glass dimly toward the coming kingdom? Finally, an escha- tological hermeneutic realizes that we cannot resolve old debates on past terms, but have to adapt to new situations even as we anticipate the moment when we shall see the Christ face to face. I suggest that con- cerns revolving around dispositions, performances, and anticipations are indicative (rather than symptomatic)9 of Pentecostalism’s eschatological
9
The word symptomatic appears on a few occasions in Vondey’s essay, apparently
318
6
Pneuma 28,2_f13_313-321II 9/26/06 5:06 PM Page 319
Performing Global Pentecostal Theology: A Response to Wolfgang Vondey
orientation, what Pentecostal theologians can contribute to an already existing theological discussion.
How does this eschatological orientation contrast with Vondey’s arche- ological hermeneutic? Taking the case of theology of religions as an exam- ple, we have already seen that an archeological approach, rightly concerned about discerning the Spirit, focuses on established scriptural and espe- cially dogmatic criteria for this task. The result, Vondey says, is that a pneumatological theology of religions “must remain within the trinitar- ian framework of the Christian faith, encourage a mindset that invites ecumenical transformation, and articulate the reflective, dialogical, and critical discernment structures inherent in the Pentecostal story.” I look forward to Vondey’s own pneumatological theology of religions featuring these elements. But I wish to push Vondey’s “dialogical” criterion. Dialogue with whom and about what? Does not a theology of religions require dia- logue with other religionists about their own traditions? But an archeological approach favors the home tradition’s categories, which in the case of theology of religions has already led Christians to classify religious oth- ers in terms of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. The result is that Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and so forth are “lost,” “anonymous Christians,” or “saved,” or said to evidence the Spirit “to the extent that these also exhibit an unbroken desire to be one with the Christian community.”10 But this tells us only what we think about them, not how they understand themselves.
I submit that an archeologically framed theology of religions is less well equipped for the dialogical moment Vondey aspires to include because it does not open up the kind of space essential to receiving and engaging the religious other on his or her own terms. What I mean should be famil- iar to Pentecostals who have long been labeled by others—for example, “demonic,” “fundamentalist,” “emotional fanatics”—precisely because we did not fit the archeological criteria of what respectable or biblical Christianity was thought to be (by white liberals or fundamentalists) at the turn of the twentieth century. Growing up as a classical Pentecostal has sensitized me to the terms of disapprobation, sometimes motivating
functioning to suggest when Vondey considers tendencies to be unhealthy (precisely what symptoms suggest).
10
I fail to understand this claim of Vondey’s. What makes other religions other is pre- cisely their differences from Christianity, and if they were one with the Christian com- munity we would not be concerned about discerning the Spirit in “them.” Further, was not the Spirit present and active in the Syro-Phoenicean woman, the centurion in whom Jesus recognized faith, and the Samaritan woman at the well, all of whom were outside rather than within the Jewish and Christian communities?
319
7
Pneuma 28,2_f13_313-321II 9/26/06 5:06 PM Page 320
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 2, Fall 2006
me to pass (shamefully) as non-Pentecostal in order to gain approval, but other times leading me to resist and reject unfair caricatures and stereo- types from the margins. The future of Pentecostal theology lies along the latter rather than former trajectory, and this is served best if we privilege an eschatological orientation (which is not to dismiss the archeological demands). Such an eschatological approach, I suggest, enables us to cul- tivate dispositions toward religious others that are conducive to hearing them out on their own terms, enables our performative engagement with a complex post-9/11 world of a plurality of religions, and leads us to anticipate the surprising, indeed miraculous, workings of God both now and in the eschaton with regard to the labels that we all use but often struggle to disown. In other words, the eschatological (and pneumato- logical) hermeneutic operative in SPF provides a theological rather than merely politically correct rationale for Pentecostals to engage the con- temporary interreligious dialogue.
To be sure, there are risks involved in an eschatological as opposed to archeological methodology. But the risks have been confronted all along— when the Jews wondered about the Gentiles, when the Nestorian Christians arrived in China, when the Mayflower landed in Newfoundland, when the Lutherans confronted the Anabaptists, when Pentecost fell (again) in Los Angeles—and risks are unavoidable for those of us who wish to remain truly open to being surprised by God again. To be sure, the risks are magnified in the Christian encounter with other faiths today, but they must be embraced if we are to allow our theologies of religions (our under- standings of other faiths) to be shaped by what they are designed to shed light on, which are other religionists and other religious traditions. Just as theology of science or theology of culture, for example, cannot be merely archeological enterprises that neglect engaging the sciences and cultures on their own terms, so also theology of religion cannot be approached only archeologically to the neglect of engaging the diversity of religions in the world today.
At the same time, I am convinced that what is at stake is not just dis- tinctive Pentecostalism. As Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen said in his response to the article by D. Lyle Dabney to which Vondey’s essay refers, we do not need one more hermeneutic, Pentecostal or otherwise, in our methodological tool kit.11 Rather, as Vondey knows well, the point about ecumenism is
11
Kärkkäinen, “David’s Sling: The Promise and Problem of Pentecostal Theology— A Response to Lyle Dabney,” Pentecostal Theology 23 (2001): 147–52. I comment further on Kärkkäinen’s important theological project as it relates to Pentecostal theology in “Whither Evangelical Theology: The Work of Veli-Matti
320
8
Pneuma 28,2_f13_313-321II 9/26/06 5:06 PM Page 321
Performing Global Pentecostal Theology: A Response to Wolfgang Vondey
the lesson that we have slowly but surely learned: not the homogeniza- tion of many voices, confessions, and communions into one world super- church (what classical Pentecostals have always rejected anyway), but the orchestration of the many tongues of the Spirit for the edification of the body of Christ, the healing of the world, and the glorification of God. For those convinced, as I am, that Pentecostal theology can play a role in this movement of the Spirit, then the task of world Pentecostal theology today is a problem with a promise.
Wolfgang Vondey’s work is essential for the prosecution of this larger project, and his voice serves as an important reminder that the eschato- logical glory cannot be completely severed from the archeological foun- dation. But after we’ve cleared our methodological throats, we proclaim the theological substance even as we dialogically negotiate its semiotic meanings. For these tasks, I urge on Professor Vondey in his important project of an archeological, trinitarian, ecumenical, and global Pentecostal theology.
Karkkainen as a Case Study of Contemporary Trajectories,” Evangelical Review of Theology 30, no. 1 (2006): 60–85.
321
9
