Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
186
Carmelo E. Alvarez,
Santidad y compromiso (El riesgo
de vivir el evangelio), (Mexico,
D.F.: Casa Unida de
Publicationes, 1985) 84pp.
Reviewed
by
David
Bundy
This volume
by
Alvarez is a study in social
ethics,
and as such is
an
important
milestone in the
development
of Pentecostal
theology.
The
work,
entitled
Sanctification
and
Compromise,
the
Risk
of Living
the
Gospel,
is the
published
version of a series of
lectures
given during
1984,
to
pastors
and leaders of Latin
American Pentecostal churches: the Union
Evangelica
Pentecostal
Venezolana,
the
Iglesia
Pentecostal de Chile and the Comunidad Teologica
de Chile. The author is a
pastor
of rhe
Iglesia
de los
Discipulos
de Cristo de Puerto Rico and director of La Pastoral de
Consolacion del
Consejo
Latino Americano de Iglesias
(CLAI).
He was
formerly
the rector of the Seminario Biblico Latinoamericano in San
Jose,
Costa Rica.
Alvarez draws
upon
a
variety
of data to make his case for an activist Christian
life-style: historical, theological, sociological
and experiential.
The
analysis
is carried out in dialogue with a number of
European,
North
American,
and Latin American
scholars,
both . Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal.
In the first three
chapters,
the author is concerned to establish the historical
theological groundwork
for a Pentecostal social ethic. Chapter
one examines the
experience
of the
Anabaptist
branch of the Reformation and of the Pietists within the Lutheran
tradition, especially Spener
and Francke. He argues that the
Anabaptists
with the
rigid
distinction between church and world and their radical ahistoricidad were able to offer a testimony of social and
political protest,
but were
rarely
able to
participate actively
in
reforming their world. The pietists, despite the emphasis on personal
responsibility, were
unable,
because of their
dualist,
conservative
theology,
to muster a coherent and concerted
response
to the social
problems
of the
epoch. However,
the
emphasis
of both
groups
on the
personal testimony
to the life of the
Spirit
as essential for renewal is seen as an
important legacy
and of prime
necessity
for a Pentecostal social ethic.
Alvarez
proceeds
to an
analysis
of the
Wesleyan
revivals of the 18th
century
with
special
reference to the socio-economic context. Nothing
that
Wesley
was
thoroughly
aware of the social
misery
and dislocation of 18th
century England
caused
by
the industrial revolution and
colonization,
he did not call his Methodists to a process
of
adaptation
to
capitalism,
but to live a
disciplined
.
‘
1
187
response
to the inevitable of the
capitalist development. Wesley
did not withdraw into theological reflection or
spiritualization
of issues,
but
actively engaged
the
problems
of his
society.
His understanding
of sanctification
(Christian perfection)
as an ongoing development
of God’s love
working
in and
through
the individual believer
propelled
him into active involvement in his world.
It is observed that a similar social
upheaval
was in process in the late nineteenth and
early
twentieth centuries in the U.S.A. as industrialization and urbanization
began
to
impact
the midwest and western sections of the
country.
Various
evangelists, especially C. Finney,
popularized
the doctrine of sanctification which combined spiritual aspirations
with dreams of moral and social reform. The Pentecostal revivals
sought
to harness the
power
of the
Spirit
for mission
activity.
Glossolalia was the demonstrable element. The early
movement saw the barriers removed between races as the oppressed minorities
found an identity and structures with which to deal with social
problems.
The theological distinctives of the Pentecostal movement
emphasizing the
Baptism
of the
Holy Spirit
with
implications
for individual living
and
evangelism
and the
impartation
of spiritual gifts for use in the Church and the
world,
as well as the Pentecostal
theological method
(oral culture) provide
the basis for a Pentecostal social ethic.
Some have
attempted
on the basis of the biblical discussions of the
Kingdom
of God to limit ethics to
personal
ethics. Not so Alvarez. He notes that the search for a just life and
community involves
dealing
with
economic,
social and
political
structures. An active social ethic has to confront institutions and social
structures, attempting
to create conditions for real
personal,
social and political liberty.
This is the
responsibility
of the Christian. There is no room for the bifurcation of world and the
“spiritual
realm.” God is
present
and active in
history.
To remove oneself from the historical
struggles
is to remove oneself from God. He warns the reader that one must avoid the double
temptation
of
making political
involvement a Christian
activity
or avoiding direct involve- ment in
political
life.
This
aggressively
Christian
lifestyle,
obedient to the directives of the
Gospel,
is to be lived under the
guidance
of the
Holy Spirit.
It is this life of sanctification which leads to
responsible
action. Here discernment becomes
important.
The Christian is
obliged
to discern the character of the world in which he is called to action. Discernment is to include
analysis
of the
political,
economic and social structures
using
all
possible
social-scientific data as well as personal
and ecclesial
piety.
There is no possibility of being neutral.
2
188
This, argues Alvarez,
is the case
throughout
Latin America. Christians in these countries are confronted with a “crucial situation” which
requires
difficult decisions. It is a situation which has
developed through
the confluence of various
socio-political circumstances. It is that context in which the future must be addressed,
and
liberty brought
to the vast
majority
of the
population which lives in a situation of
oppression
and of the violation of human
rights.
To effect such
change,
a
strategy
must be
developed.
Alvarez outlines essential
components: (1)
motivation
by
the
example
of Jesus; (2)
abandon the
dichotomy
between
“public”
and
“private”; (3) develop
a community interpretation of “word and
reality”;
and (4) passage
from
disengagement
to active discernment. To discern is to
prepare
the means for concrete involvement.
This is the
argument
of Alvarez’s volume. It
provides
a helpful corrective to the usual nationalistic and individualistic
approaches of most
essays by
Pentecostal and Evangelical
theologians
on the subject
of social ethics. It also avoids the
moralizing
tendencies of the North American
neo-Evangelical
efforts. At the same
time,
it is to be
hoped
that Alvarez will have the
opportunity
to
develop
in detail
many
of the historical
analyses, theological
concerns and possibilities
for active Christian
living
which are
merely
hinted at in the all too short treatise.
However,
as it stands, the volume
presents a challenge to Pentecostal
theologians
and is an essential
starting place
for the one who would undertake to write on social ethics from a Pentecostal
perspective.
3
