Relational Empowerment

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

| PentecostalTheology.com

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

Relational Empowerment

A Process-Relational Theology of the Spirit-Filled Life

Joshua D. Reichard

Oxford Graduate School, Youngstown, Ohio

[email protected]

Abstract

This article comprises a reformulation of the pentecostal-charismatic notion of spir- itual power from a process-relational theological perspective. The problem of power is investigated in terms of coercive and persuasive power, followed by a proposal con- cerning the role of love in persuasion over coercion. The notion of “relational empower- ment” suggests that co-suffering and other-orientedness represent healthier perspec- tives on persuasive love than typical notions of raw empowerment for domination or control. The primacy of God’s responsive love while co-suffering with creation is central to this affirmation. A Spirit-filled life is proposed as one that fully and enthusi- astically embraces the “other-oriented nature” of God’s persuasive love. Moreover, the use of power metaphors is critiqued and alternatives presented. Ultimately, it is argued that the unsurpassable power of such unconditional love must remind the world that “Christ is not Caesar.”

Keywords

process theology – relational theology – philosophical theology – theology of love – theology of power

Introduction

Power is central to pentecostal theology and essential for the pentecostal vision of the fullness of the Christian life. However, Pentecostals and Charismat- ics have been imprecise in defining the nature of that power. In so doing, Pentecostals have struggled to overcome the “predominant conceptions of

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/15700747-03602004

1

relational empowerment

227

power” that the world has generally valued.1 This article represents, as Charles Hartshorne and other process-relational theists have endeavored, an attempt to formulate a “better way of interpreting divine power” on behalf of the pente- costal-charismatic movements.2 Alfred North Whitehead, the progenitor of process philosophy, observed that the deep historical idolatry of Christianity has been the worship of “raw power,” casting God in the “image of Caesar” rather than in the “brief Galilean vision of humility” in Jesus.3 Insofar as Pente- costals and Charismatics proclaim empowerment by the Holy Spirit, process- relational theology4 can serve as a constructive partner to precisely define the nature of such power. Because process-relational theology insists on persuasive love over coercive tyranny, a process-relational theology of the Spirit-filled life can be rightly understood as “relational empowerment.”5

A creative synthesis of pentecostal-charismatic and process-relational theo- logical concepts of power need not concede to presuppositions about process thought and the specter of liberalism that clouds it. Such fears may prevent Pentecostals and Charismatics from learning from process-relational theol- ogy, in particular the prophetic elements that could help refine a pentecostal- charismatic perspective of spiritual power. There are important things that

1 Amos Yong, The Bible, Disability, and the Church: A New Vision of the People of God (Grand

Rapids, mi: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2011). In chapter 4, Yong situates Paul’s discussion of power

in weakness within a pentecostal-charismatic theological and ecclesiological context. Yong’s

premise concerning disability and power is highly relevant to the framing argument of this

article.

2 Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes (Albany: State University

of New York Press, 1984), 19.

3 Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality(New York: Macmillan, 1929), 519.

4 Note that I intentionally use the term process-relational. This is because I do not suggest

a carte blanche appropriation of process theology proper, but of the wider movement that

includes evangelical relational theology as well. I retain the word process because I see

intrinsic value in the metaphysics of process philosophy; this does not, however, necessitate

a full embrace of process theism, which is in fact as diverse and varied as Pentecostalism. To

be receptive to process thought is not to subscribe to a concrete, established canon of beliefs. 5 Pentecostals and Charismatics favor the termempoweredto refer to the baptism of the Spirit

and the Spirit-filled life. The term relationally empowered, as coined here, does not refer to

the fact that Pentecostals have no power or that they are not empowered by the Holy Spirit

in any way. Rather, the term refers to the Spirit’s work in laying bare the human tendencies

toward coercion and control, as will be explicated in the remainder of this article. Although

it is provocative, it is also contextually appropriate.

I extend appreciation to the blind reviewers of this article for their critical-constructive

feedback, which helped reframe the title and refine the central argument of this article.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

2

228

reichard

process-relational theists have to say and that Pentecostals need to hear. In fact, there are some perspectives that process-relational theists bring to the table concerning omnipotence, omniscience, and divine impassibility that are perhaps more biblical than classical views.6 Pentecostals and Charismatics largely inherited their theology from the immediate traditions from which they emerged in the early twentieth century; much about the pentecostal- charismatic conception of God was appropriated pre-Whitehead.

Although there is sufficient literature to support the notion that “power” has been a central theme for pentecostal-charismatic theology, this article is not a direct critique of Pentecostalism per se. Further, despite the fact that some wings of the pentecostal-charismatic movements arguably tend toward coer- cion (bombastic preaching, establishing independent churches as little “fief- doms,” spiritual abuse, and so forth), this article does not focus on those issues. Instead, from a constructive viewpoint, the argument is that Pentecostals and Charismatics are poised to be at the forefront of clearly defining the nature of spiritual power and boldly resisting the tendency toward political, manip- ulative, and controlling forms of power.7 Thus, this article seeks to demon- strate an opportunity at hand: the reality of the synergy between pentecostal- charismatic theological instincts and the philosophically and metaphysically grounded arguments from process-relational theology.8 Such compatibility po- sitions Pentecostals and Charismatics to lead the world in reformulating and redefining what it means to wield spiritual power.

On the contrary, worldly conceptions of spiritual power have “long bred, and must evermore breed atheism as a natural reaction.”9 The sustainable health and future vitality of the pentecostal-charismatic movements depend on a reversal of the world’s dominant conceptions of power. Process-relational the- ology can be principally constructive to that end. It is insufficient simply to

6 This has been a typical argument of open theists, including Clark Pinnock, Greg Boyd, and

Thomas Jay Oord.

7 The purpose of this article is not to define philosophically an ontology of power. The process-

relational ontology of power is well documented elsewhere in the corpus of process thought.

See, for example, David Ray Griffin, God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Philadelphia:

Westminster,1976);JudithJones,Intensity:AnEssayinWhiteheadianOntology(Nashville:Van-

derbilt University Press, 1998).

8 The purpose of this article is not to document compatibilities between process-relational and

pentecostal-charismatic theology; I have done that work elsewhere. See: Joshua D. Reichard,

“Process-Relational Theology, Pentecostalism, and Postmodernism: Opportunities for Socio-

Religious Transformation,”Process Studies41, no. 1 (2011): 87–110.

9 Hartshorne,Omnipotence, 8.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

3

relational empowerment

229

suggest that God is all-powerful and that Spirit-filled believers share in that power.10 Ultimately, persuasive power, the unsurpassable power of uncondi- tional love, must remind the world that “Christ is not Caesar.”11 As the fastest growing religious movement in the world, Pentecostals and Charismatics must be at the forefront of this enterprise; not only for the sake of their own move- ments, but for the sake of the whole world. Thus, Pentecostals and Charismatics can move beyond power-laden jargon to clearly articulate what they mean by power and consequently, what kind of power they claim to have. Thus, this article contributes to the ongoing discussion among Pentecostals regarding a reformulation of the work of the Spirit in terms of divine love.12 In so doing, process-relational theology is brought to the table as a direct partner for con- structive engagement.

For example, Amos Yong traces a hidden thread of love throughout the pen- tecostal tradition and deems the baptism of the Spirit a “baptism of love.”13 Although Yong thoroughly demonstrates a pentecostal affirmation of love in its purest theological rendering, these sources have thus far only minimally found their way into the everyday life of the church. Pentecostals and Charismat- ics remain entangled with images of tyrannical power, unwittingly infiltrated by the classical conception of divine omnipotence.14 Perhaps more than any other contemporary theological tradition, process-relational theology has seri- ously grappled with the nature of power, the limitation of God’s power, and the effect of power on the God-world relationship. Pentecostals and Charis- matics are now coming to terms with the rudimentary reality of love that

10 Daniel Castelo,Theological Theodicy(Eugene, or: Cascade Books, 2012), 17.

11 Gabriel Salguero, “The Cross or Caesar? A Postcolonial Query,” in Relational Theology: A

ContemporaryIntroduction, ed. Brint Montgomery, Thomas J. Oord, Karen Strand Winslow

(Eugene, or: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 93–96, at 95.

12 In terms of contemporary pentecostal scholars, Amos Yong leads this discussion. I would

argue that a handful of others, including Frank Macchia, for example, have also been

working in this direction.

13 Amos Yong, Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace (Waco, tx: Baylor University

Press, 2012).

14 This is, I contend, primarily due to an uncritical acceptance of the classical doctrine of

omnipotence in the context of an “ideology of power.” Kathleen Hladky, “I Double-Dog

Dare You in Jesus’ Name! Claiming Christian Wealth and the American Prosperity Gospel,”

Religion Compass 6, no. 1 (2012): 82–96. doi:10.1111/j.1749–8171.2011.00325.x; Peter Althouse,

“The Ideology of Power in Early American Pentecostalism,” Journal of Pentecostal Theol-

ogy 13, no. 1 (2004): 97–115; J. Wilson and H.K. Clow, “Themes of Power and Control in

a Pentecostal Assembly,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 20, no. 3 (1981): 241–

250.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

4

230

reichard

process-relational theists have affirmed for decades. Thus, both traditions can stand together, affirming a Spirit-filled life grounded in love.

Although process-relational theology provides a sound philosophy and metaphysic to ground a pentecostal-charismatic theology of love, it remains cerebral and largely devoid of corporeal experience. Pentecostals and Charis- matics have been more successful in this regard. The passionate experiential- ism that characterizes the pentecostal-charismatic movements can “experi- entialize” the otherwise experientially bereft metaphysical system of process- relational theology. In contrast with Pentecostalism, Cobb refers to this as the liberal predisposition to “lukewarmness.”15 Passionate, enthusiastic love is a powerful force indeed and has the intrinsic capacity to overwhelm, consume, and compel to responsive action. Process-relational theists call this the “divine lure.” Such passionate love, however, is tangibly expressed in pentecostal-cha- rismatic worship, altar ministry, and other spiritual practices. In spite of a gen- eral skepticism toward religious enthusiasm, it is perhaps a perceptible mani- festation of the Spirit at work. Enthusiasm and passion do not constitute coer- cion. Thus, Pentecostals and Charismatics have an opportunity to bring such vibrancy to the table of dialog with process-relational theists. In fact, Pente- costals and Charismatics shame process-relational theists in terms of a tangi- ble, experiential expression of the realities that process-relational theologies propose. In like manner, an appropriation or adaptation of the process meta- physic is possible without embracing some of the more extreme elements of process theology proper; in this respect, process-relational theists have done the heavy lifting on issues of power and Pentecostals and Charismatics can ben- efit from that contribution.

The Problem of Power

Pentecostals proclaim the baptism of the Holy Spirit as an empowerment for living the fullness of the Christian life. For early Pentecostals, being Spirit- filled afforded them a legitimate voice, status, and power in their communi- ties and in the broader Christian context.16 This is especially true for Pente- costals in the Majority World where there is a profound sense of powerless-

15 John Cobb, “Why Are We Lukewarm?” 1990. Retrieved from http://religion-online

.org/showarticle.asp?title=293.

16 Amos Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian

Theology of Religions(New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2000), 154.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

5

relational empowerment

231

ness.17 The nature of the power that Pentecostals claim to receive, however, fundamentally determines how they see God, themselves, and society at large. The image in which Pentecostals cast God is the image of God they cast to the world.18

A process-relational theology of the Spirit-filled life must begin with a dis- cussion on the nature of God’s power. The question is less about the quantity of power God possesses and more about what quality of power is most valued or perceived to be valued in the human understanding of God. Societies and tra- ditions have a tendency to cast God in their idolized image. Pentecostals and Charismatics have not been immune to this tendency and their emphasis on “empowerment” elicits more familiar concepts of coercive power.

Coercion and persuasion are two options for conceptualizing the nature of power. The former is the “power to determine every detail of what happens in the world” and the latter is the power to “significantly influence the happen- ings” of the world.19 If human beings value coercive power, they are more likely to conceive empowerment in terms of coercion; but if human beings value per- suasive power in terms of love, they may be more inclined to conceive the cor- responding empowerment in terms of persuasion. Predominant conceptions of power affect every aspect of Christian living: from relationships and lead- ership, to preaching and worship, to economics and care of the earth. When theological language is loaded with connotations of aggression and force, it breeds conflict, violence, and militarism in the world. But when weakness and love are emphasized, healing and peace follow.20 Power matters.21

Coercion is the “despot’s ideal of power.”22 Coercion involves both the coer- cer and the coerced, that is, an agent that coerces another agent, and an agent that is coerced by another agent. Coercion diminishes the targeted agent’s free- dom and responsibility, a violation that most would argue, at least in practical

17 Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity(Cam-

bridge, uk: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 234.

18 The intent is to avoid setting up a pentecostal straw-man to attack; instead of making

imperative-declarative statements, the intent is to challenge Pentecostals to rethink their

own conceptions of power, what they mean by empowerment, and how they project that

power to the world.

19 Hartshorne,Omnipotence, 11.

20 John D. Caputo, The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event (Bloomington: Indiana

University Press, 2006).

21 Although there are less binary, more nuanced interpretations of power, the coercion-

persuasion dichotomy is the typical process-relational distinction.

22 Hartshorne,Omnipotence, 12.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

6

232

reichard

terms, is a moral violation. In reality, coercive power limits God and denies God the ability to lovingly interact with “any world worth talking about.”23 Process- relational theists argue that if God exercises coercive power, then the world is not genuinely free and the relationship between God and the world is no more loving than that of a dictator and the dictated. God is a tyrant whose power is ultimately tyrannical.

Although this article is not intended to explore the philosophical dimen- sions of power in depth, it is also prudent to propose a brief outline for a process-relational ontology of divine power. Following Tom Oord’s proposal,24 this ontology provides a basic metaphysical framework for a pentecostal the- ology of “relational empowerment.” While it is prudent to nuance language regarding the exercise of power, Oord notes that there is a “fundamental meta- physical difference” between persuasive and coercive power, “not only in degree but in kind.”25 Coercion is the ability to absolutely control or deter- mine the actions of another agent. In the process-relational metaphysic, this kind of determination is not only immoral but technically impossible.26 All agents retain some measure of freedom regardless of the amount of power exer- cised upon it by another agent. Thus, persuasion is the ability of one agent to influence, but not determine, the actions of another agent. Moreover, Oord dis- tinguishes between strong and weak persuasion; the former being persuasion of a free agent toward an array of possible “good” options, and the latter, per- suasion toward one “best” option.

In a process-relational ontology of power, this distinction also applies to God. God cannot act coercively in the metaphysical sense. God’s power is per- suasive. However, Oord also proposes that because God is an immaterial, dis- embodied Spirit, God cannot exercise direct bodily impact in the same man- ner as an agent with a localized body. Thus, God exercises strong persuasion through “indirect bodily impact.” That is, God persuades other localized bodily agents to act in God’s stead. This idea establishes an ontology of pentecostal empowerment. God empowers human beings to be agents of God’s indirect activity in the world.

23 Ibid., 17.

24 Thomas Jay Oord, “A Process-Wesleyan Theodicy: Freedom, Embodiment, and the Al-

mighty God,” in Thy Nature and Thy Name is Love: Wesleyan and Process Theologies in

Dialogue, ed. Bryan P. Stone and Thomas Jay Oord (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 2001),

192–216.

25 Oord, “Theodicy,” 211.

26 Ibid., 199–200.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

7

relational empowerment

233

If God’s activity is non-determinative and non-coercive, however, then Pen- tecostals might consider what kind of power they are speaking of when they claim to be “empowered.” Thus, Pentecostals and Charismatics must ask, in what sense can coercion ever be said to be the best moral choice? Although common objections, such as the forcible arrest of a criminal, suggest that coer- cion is sometimes justified, they do not sufficiently account for a metaphysical ontology of God’s power, and thus the analogy ultimately collapses. God is non-corporeal and, as such, cannot exercise bodily impact on target agents in the same manner as localized, corporeal beings. God is a universal spirit and cannot physically coerce in a strict metaphysical sense, especially in terms of localized physical agency.27 While God may influence other agents to action, God does not exercise full determinative control. Even if God chooses to act dramatically in relation to another agent, the agent always retains some mea- sure of freedom. In cases of allegedly justifiable human coercion, it is never the best option or morally preferable option. Although human beings are capable of some physical coercion, the agent who is coerced likewise retains a measure of freedom.28 Nevertheless, in such cases the question is simply whether coer- cion is ever the morally preferable exercise of power.29

Knowingly or unknowingly, the Christian tradition has applied the “tyrant ideal of power” to God.30 If Pentecostals and Charismatics focus too heavily on worldly conceptions of “power,” coercive, manipulative, and tyrannical, they are unwittingly “complicit with colonial enterprises” and undermine the loving mission of the church.31 As Hartshorne questioned, “tyrannical people worship a tyrant God, but why should the rest of us do so?”32 Pentecostals must reflect on this question and decide whether or not they actually affirm coercive power or if they will intentionally endeavor to repudiate it. If God is not a tyrant and does not have the power to coerce, then human beings should not aspire to be tyrants or to coerce others. Certainly, then, the Spirit-filled life is not a quest for coercive power, but of love in powerlessness.

27 Ibid., 205.

28 In these cases, although the forcible arrest of a criminal may be morally preferred over

allowing additional criminal activity, the morally preferable option is the criminal’s vol-

untary decision to stop committing crimes. Coercion occurs only as a last resort, but even

so, the criminal retains a measure of freedom, if not bodily, at least mentally. 29 It is arguable that even in the incarnation, divine ability to coerce others, in and through

the localized body of Jesus of Nazareth, was limited; those in contact with him always

retained a measure of freedom.

30 Hartshorne,Omnipotence, 10.

31 Salguero,Cross, 94.

32 Hartshorne,Omnipotence, 59.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

8

234

reichard

Therefore, the pentecostal-charismatic movements need a new theological conception of power, “purified of the taint of divine tyranny, which has dis- figured classical theology.”33 The Spirit of God emancipates individuals and institutions that are enslaved by the idols of power they have created.34 By constructively appropriating elements of process-relational theology, the pen- tecostal conception of power can be freed from the trappings of coercion, tyranny, and colonialism and usher in a new understanding of what it means to be Spirit-filled. While it is true that all ontological conceptions of power are not necessarily as binary as the coercion-persuasion dichotomy, Pentecostals and Charismatics might ask critical questions such as, “Is it ever morally prefer- able to exercise coercion?”; “Is it ever morally preferable to force one’s will on another?”; and “Is it preferable to exercise determinative control or to foster free choice?” These questions may provoke Pentecostals and Charismatics to reflect critically on the kinds of power they ascribe to God and, consequently, the kinds of power they project to the world.

The Relational Power of Persuasion

Process-relational theology provides sufficient rational, philosophical, and me- taphysical grounds for a comprehensive and coherent definition of the nature of persuasive power. The God of process-relational theology is not weak.35 On the contrary, process-relational theists insist that God exercises immense power, but the power God exercises is persuasive rather than coercive. The nature of God’s power is not to determine or coerce events; instead, it is sim- ply the appeal of “unsurpassed love.”36 Thus, God’s power is a “steadfast love” that remains forever faithful to a relationship with the creation.37 As such, per- suasive power is God’s ability to influence everything but determine nothing, because God necessarily values and fosters freedom.38 In the divine-human concursus, this relationship is freely cooperative rather than forcibly coercive.39

33 Ibid., 71.

34 Hollis Gause, Living in the Spirit (Cleveland, tn: Pathway Press, 1980), 7.

35 Robert Mesle, Process Theology: A Basic Introduction(St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1993), 15. 36 Hartshorne,Omnipotence, 14.

37 Thomas J. Oord, “What is Relational Theology?” in Relational Theology: A Contemporary

Introduction, ed. Brint Montgomery, Thomas J. Oord, and Karen Strand Winslow (Eugene,

or: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 1–5, at 1.

38 Hartshorne,Omnipotence, 11.

39 Joshua D. Reichard, “Toward a Pentecostal Theology of Concursus,” Journal of Pentecostal

Theology22, no. 1 (2013): 96–115.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

9

relational empowerment

235

Mutual transformation is suffering in the sufferings of others and rejoicing in the joys of others; this is the process-relational vision of the God-world rela- tionship and the nature of relational power. Process-relational theists under- stand God’s exercise of persuasive power as an act of love that does not vio- late the freedom of creatures or interfere with the regularity of the natural order, but rather enhances freedom and creativity.40 For process-relational theists, persuasive power liberates rather than restricts the power of others.41 God acts in love and only enables, rather than disrupts, creaturely freedom; thus, persuasive power does not dominate but empowers others. Moreover, through loving persuasion and the fostering of freedom, “a relational God gives to but also receives from others.”42 God is fundamentally relational and in a mutually transformative relationship with human beings and all of cre- ation.43

Persuasive power is “the ability to influence others.”44 Persuasion is “the abil- ity, the power, to be open, to be sensitive, and to be in relationship with the world about us.”45 This definition also applies to God. The foundation of God’s loving nature is God’s deep openness, relationship, and interaction with the created world. Persuasive power is also “the ability to be self-creative.”46 In the process-relational conception of divine love, “self-creativity is the ability to integrate the world into a unified self, rich in relationships but unique in response.”47 Again, such a conception applies not only to human beings, crea- tures, and entities, but to God as well. Ultimately, God’s power is to influence the world, and in like manner, process-relational theists affirm that the world exercises considerable influence on God. The relational power of persuasion is God’s loving relationality with the world. If God operates through such rela- tionality, then coercive and tyrannical alternative conceptions of human and spiritual power should be reformed. In so doing, Pentecostals and Charismatics might strive to critically retract the attributes of Caesar that have been ascribed

40 Thomas J. Oord,The Nature of Love: A Theology(St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2010). 41 John B. Cobb, Jr., The Process Perspective: Frequently Asked Questions About Process Theol-

ogy(St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2003), 82.

42 Thomas J. Oord, “Relational Love,” in Relational Theology: A Contemporary Introduction,

ed. Brint Montgomery, Thomas J. Oord, and Karen Strand Winslow (Eugene, or: Wipf &

Stock, 2012), 24–27, at 24.

43 Oord, Relational, 24.

44 Mesle, Process, 30.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

10

236

reichard

to God. Such critical examination is not about words alone, but constructs and perceptions.48

Relational Empowerment

Undoubtedly, however, some of the biblical writers ascribed imperial titles to the God of the Old Testament and to Jesus in the New Testament.49 Uncriti- cally ascribing the power-oriented titles of Caesar to God, however, are sub- tle concessions that the worship of “sheer power” is valued above “unstinted love.”50 But monarchical terminology is not the problem. The issue is not about whether or not Jesus is “Lord” but about the nature of his Lordship; it is not a question of whether or not Jesus reigns, but of the nature of his kingdom. The comingofthekingdomofGodwasnotanoverthrowof thepoliticalpowersthat oppressed Israel but a gentle infiltration of the work of the Spirit, “who forms a community of reconciliation, worship, and service as a light to the nations.”51 The kingdom of God is not an external reality of castles, crowns, and thrones, but an internal reality in the hearts, souls, and relationships of humanity. In fact, the reality of the kingdom of God may be better articulated as John Cobb has imagined the term: the “Divine Commonwealth.”52

The metaphors for power that Pentecostals and Charismatics choose to appropriate have consequences. The reality of such consequences does not mean that all spiritual power metaphors, whether political, military, or ath- letic, must be abandoned entirely. In particular socio-historical contexts, some power metaphors may be useful in terms of lovingly supporting liberation and freedom, such as “breaking chains,” “conquering fear,” or “mighty to save,” espe- cially for the oppressed. Metaphors, however, are both the “medium and the product” of shared meaning and represent “deeply rooted patterns of thinking” that highlight particular power interests.53 The social construction of meta- phors can also lead to both consensus—freely appropriating the metaphors—

48 I recognize that there must be a nuanced approach to this endeavor.

49 Amos Yong,In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political Theology(Grand Rapids, mi:

Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010), 103.

50 Hartshorne,Omnipotence, 14.

51 Yong, Days, 105.

52 JohnB.Cobb,Jr.,Resistance:TheNewRoleofProgressiveChristians(Louisville:Westminster

John Knox Press, 2008), 160.

53 Stanley Deetz and Dennis Mubmy, “Metaphors, Information, and Power,” in Brent D. Ru-

ben, Information and Behavior (Edison: Transaction Publishers, 1985), 379–384.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

11

relational empowerment

237

and distortion, taking the metaphor to mean something it does not.54 That which is done with the metaphors matters more than the metaphors them- selves. If warfare imagery is used to wage retaliatory political/physical war or to foster injustice, domination, and control, it is problematic.55 But, if warfare imagery is used to strike down injustice through prophetic engagement, then by all means, the imagery is appropriate.56 Nevertheless, all such metaphors should be used cautiously and sparingly because the world comes with pre- conceived notions of what warfare means, what power means, and what kings are like. When employing metaphors that reflect predominant worldly power structures, there is infinite space for confusing God and God’s Spirit-filled peo- ple with tyranny. Rather, Pentecostals and Charismatics must critically and intentionally define the nature of the power that God has and that they accord- ingly claim to share. Pentecostals and Charismatics, with process-relational theists, can lead the way to reduce the careless and uncritical use of metaphors that reinforce a tyrannical view of God to world.

In any case, the language can and must be nuanced away from tyrannical preconceptions to ensure that there is no confusion between Caesar’s reign of conquest and “God’s reign of love.” Framing empowerment in terms of a mas- ter decreeing commands and will-less subjects obeying can only be acceptable to those who are “happy with the tyrant conception of God.”57 On the con- trary, by viewing the Spirit-filled life as empowerment for love, Pentecostals and Charismatics can endeavor to “act more like Christ-crucified than Caesar- enthroned.”58 Pentecostals and Charismatics may thus come to understand the Spirit-filled life as “empowered but uncoerced participation” in the Spirit of God’s loving activity in the world.59

To be relationally empowered is to be purged of coercive forms of power and consumed by persuasive love. Although Gordon Fee’s via media proposal situ-

54 Jürgen Habermas,Knowledge and Human Interests, trans. J. Shapiro (Boston: Beacon Press,

1971). Jürgen Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans. T. McCarthy (Boston: Beacon Press,

1975).

55 Caputo,Weakness, chapters 7–12, in particular.

56 William Placher,Narratives of a Vulnerable God: Christ, Theology, and Scripture(Louisville:

Westminster John Knox Press, 1994). Placher notes the tension between biblical narratives

favoring the poor and oppressed and the perennial use of the Bible as an instrument of

oppression; the reality of this tension is keenly felt by marginalized groups.

57 Hartshorne,Omnipotence, 69.

58 Salguero,Cross, 95.

59 Barry L. Callen, “John Wesley and Relational Theology,” in Relational Theology: A Contem-

porary Introduction, ed. Brint Montgomery, Thomas J. Oord, and Karen Strand Winslow

(Eugene, or: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 7–10, at 9.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

12

238

reichard

ates the pentecostal reality between “triumphalist power” and humble weak- ness,60 the rational conception of spiritual power in process-relational theol- ogy nudges the discussion further toward relational empowerment. Process- relational theists challenge Pentecostals and Charismatics to consider that any form of coercive force is not only unfavorable, but irrational and inconsistent with the nature of God. Thus, Pentecostals and Charismatics might consider precisely what it means to be triumphant: to vanquish the enemies of God by an act of war or to gently win their hearts through the power of persuasive love? Indeed, the Spirit-filled life is a life of overcoming, of victory, and of hope. But process-relationaltheistsinsistthattheSpiritofGodnotonlydoesnot,butcan- not triumph through coercive force.61 The Spirit’s inner work is to lay bare the human tendencies toward tyranny, which are rooted in self-sufficiency, selfish- ness, and sin. Thus, language that suggests coercion should be at least nuanced and ultimately restrained.

To be relationally empowered is to live with a sense of expectancy, a sense that God will lovingly empower others through weakness to respond to needs of the world.62 In spite of power-laden language, Pentecostalism is not rooted in elite or imperial social structures. Pentecostalism’s origins among the poor, dejected, and chastised support the reality that God uses all people in spite of “shortcomings and weaknesses.”63 Pentecostalism enables the poor and the powerless to experience the same spiritual reality they read about in the Gospel accounts in their immediate life and cultural context.64 A Spirit-filled life is concerned with the most menial of human problems, especially among the marginalized and the weak.65 There is no preexisting privilege to the Spirit- filled life; the power of the Spirit makes powerful the powerless and powerless the powerful. After all, God’s power is made perfect in weakness.66 But such

60 Gordon D. Fee, “The Spirit, Power, and Weakness,” inGod’s Empowering Presence: The Holy

Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, ma: Hendrickson).

61 It is important to note here that this notion is not in conflict with the spirit of liberation

theologies; instead, it is an affirmation of nonviolence or, more broadly, “non-coercion,” in

the face of oppression.

62 Menzies,Spirit and Power, 186–187.

63 William Menzies and Robert P. Menzies, Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal

Experience(Grand Rapids, mi: Zondervan, 2000), 182.

64 Richard Shaull,Pentecostalism and the Future of the Christian Churches(Grand Rapids, mi:

Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000).

65 Allan Anderson, Moya: The Holy Spirit in an African Context (Pretoria: University of South

Africa Press, 1991), 100–104.

66 2Cor 12:9.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

13

relational empowerment

239

weakness is not timidity: it is at once courageous and bold in its expectations, but tempered by sweet reasonableness and sincere humility.67

To live in expectancy is precisely why Pentecostals affirm divine healing. God is fundamentally concerned with the sick and the weak.68 In like manner, pentecostal-charismatic worship and the experience ofglossolaliais an “affront to decent, controlled people.”69 Such powerlessness is the real demonstration of relational power: not the power to coerce and control, but the power to release and set free. The experience ofglossolaliadefies the “tyranny of words” and serves as a “hidden protest” against any force that attempts to manipulate, coerce, or oppress humanity.70 Whole and healthy relationships must be cen- tral because “love is central” to the Christian life.71 The power of Pentecost is the same power affirmed by process theists: the unparalleled power of persua- sive and relational love that conquers every pretense of coercion. In this sense, relational empowerment is liberation through, not from, powerlessness.72

In the Majority World, such subversion has found affinity with contempo- rary prophetic traditions, such as liberation and feminist theologies.73 Pen- tecostals provide a spiritual voice for the powerless, albeit not in the pre- dominant forms of political and structural power that dominate them. Thus, the pentecostal-charismatic vision of empowerment has the capacity to liber- ate communities from the dominant forms of colonial Christianity that have been complicit in their oppression.74 Yong warns, however, that too often, pen- tecostal spirituality is “hijacked” by political liberation forces, which results in “dangerous political agendas.”75 The issue of such persuasive yet subver- sive power is not a matter of political resistance alone, but of a deeper tran- scendence of the power of love. Pentecostals and Charismatics might instead embrace the power of loving neighbors instead of coveting coercive political

67 2Tim. 1:7.

68 Anderson, Pentecostalism, 199.

69 Cheryl Bridges Johns, “Partners in Scandal: Wesleyan and Pentecostal Scholarship,” inThe

Spirit and the Mind: Essays in Informed Pentecostalism, ed. Terry L. Cross and Emerson

B. Powery (New York, ny: University Press of America, 2000), 237–250, at 246. 70 Walter Hollenweger, “Geist und Materie,”Interkulturelle Theologie 3 (1988): 31–45; Frank

Macchia, “Sighs Too Deep for Words,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology1 (1992): 31–45, 61. 71 Oord, Relational, 27.

72 This is not unlike Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s notion that “suffering is only overcome through

suffering.”

73 Rosemary Radford Reuther,Sexism and God-talk (Boston: Beacon, 1983), 122–123. 74 Anderson, Pentecostalism, 175.

75 Yong, Days, 134.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

14

240

reichard

power.76 It is from a position of weakness that the Holy Spirit can work in and through Spirit-filled believers to “renew and restore the world order.”77 Thus, “authentic liberation” is a matter of persuasive love triumphing over coer- cive domination.78 Pentecostals must start, however, by embracing a different vision of what it means to affect change in the world through love, not might.79 If Jesus conquered sin and death through love, should not love be sufficient power for the fullness of the Christian life?

However, persuasive love retains the power to liberate individuals, institu- tions, and societies from any oppressive or coercive powers that attempt to con- trol them. Self-sacrificial love does not suggest that those in oppression should remain in oppression. Suffering, when coercively imposed on an individual or society, is an evil that must be repudiated.80 For example, process-relational theists would not suggest that God would will a person in an abusive relation- ship to remain in that abuse any more than God would will that the poor should remain in poverty. Freedom is an essential component of persuasive love; thus, if anyone is being dominated, coerced, controlled, or manipulated, process- relational theists would affirm that love demands liberation from bondage. That does not mean, however, political ascendency to dominate others in turn. Scenarios in which the oppressed become oppressors are not uncommon results of liberation movements. When the liberated in turn become the dom- inators, nothing was accomplished in the liberation. If love is effectual, then of course those in oppression should be liberated—the question is, liberated to

76 Salguero,Cross, 95.

77 Amos Yong, Theology and Down Syndrome: Reimagining Disability in Late Modernity

(Waco, tx: Baylor University Press, 2007), 258. Although not exclusively a pentecostal

volume, Yong’s proposal regarding the power in weakness of persons with cognitive and

intellectual disabilities is highly compatible with a process perspective of power. 78 Leonard Lovett, “Ethics in a Prophetic Mode: Reflections of an Afro-Pentecostal Radical,”

in Amos Yong and Estrelda Alexander, eds., Afro-Pentecostalism: Black Pentecostal and

CharismaticChristianityinHistoryandCulture(New York: New York University Press, 2011),

163.

79 Zech. 4:6.

80 Elizabeth Dreyer, Earth Crammed with Heaven: A Spirituality of Everyday Life (New York

and Mahwah, nj: Paulist Press, 1993), 87; 136–149. Dreyer notes the distinction between

chosen suffering (such as a parent willingly suffering with her child) and suffering im-

posed by an outside force. The latter, as Dreyer notes, is rooted in sin. Love, then, demands

that such imposed suffering must be overturned in favor of freedom. Relational empow-

erment does not mean that the oppressed should remain oppressed, but it does mean

that oppressors should be stripped of their oppressive power. Dreyer also notes that any

spirituality that suggests timidity in the face of oppression is unhelpful.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

15

relational empowerment

241

what? For example, forgiveness, a manifestation of persuasive love, is a more subversive force than violence against violence. Thus, for process-relational theists, the virtue is not in suffering itself, but sharing in the suffering of others. As Elizabeth Dreyer notes, there must be a response to suffering, both from and for those experiencing the suffering.81 The primacy of God’s responsive love, while co-suffering with the creation, is central to this affirmation.

For Pentecostals and Charismatics, moreover, the operation of the charisms, spiritual gifts, may be understood in terms of empowerment that is rendered powerless, because the gifts are fundamentally relational and operate in “hum- ble self-submission” to the whole community of believers.82 The expression of spiritual gifts reveals brief glimpses of the peaceable kingdom to come.83 Michael Welker argues for the communal nature of spiritual gifts, a theme con- sistent with the principle of interrelatedness in process-relational theology. The charisms are not private gifts for private consumption.84 The relational imper- ative of spiritual gifts is an inherent restriction of their use: only for service to others. Thus, to exercise spiritual gifts is a form of relational empowerment because the gift is rendered impotent if it is used for any purpose other than to edify, encourage, and empower others. As such, spiritual gifts may be liberated to “operate freely” in the church and in the world.85 It is no overstatement to affirm that “love is the greatest miracle that all extraordinary signs of the Spirit serve.”86 From a process-relational perspective, spiritual gifts are only potent in selflessness.

Gabriel Salguero notes that love must account for the ways by which “power affects the lives of people.”87 Surely, then, the power that Pentecostals and Charismatics claim to receive from the Holy Spirit is not the power to manipu- late, control, or dominate others. The real power of the Spirit-filled life is the ability to love and, in so doing, to heal and restore relationships “with one another, with the world, and with God.”88 The Spirit heals and restores “human

81 Dreyer, Earth, 57.

82 John Stott, The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, il: Intervarsity

Press, 1964).

83 Frank Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Grand Rapids, mi:

Zondervan, 2006), 148.

84 Michael Welker,God the Spirit (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2004), 241. 85 Simon Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition (London: Contin-

uum, 2001), 105.

86 Macchia, Baptized, 149.

87 Salguero,Cross, 94.

88 Amos Yong, “Relational Theology and the Holy Spirit,” in Relational Theology: A Contem-

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

16

242

reichard

hearts and human societies,” and this leads to solidarity, community, and mutu- ality.89 Thus, wherever there are examples of “self-sacrificing love, care about community, longing for justice,” “wherever people love one another, care for the sick, and make peace not war,” there is evidence that Spirit-filled individuals are faithfully living the Christian life.90 The “healing power of love” is primarily about healing relationships, and a Spirit-filled life must be predominantly con- cerned with loving relationality.91 Authentic loving relationships require co- suffering with others in relational solidarity; this kind of love requires immense power indeed.

Yong’s vision for the multidimensional nexus of empathetic loving relation- ships, grounded in the life of the Spirit, has profound compatibility with the process-relational mechanism of prehension: feeling the feelings of others.92 Process-relational theology helps move this pentecostal instinct beyond neu- rophysiology, psychology, and sociology to a deep metaphysical level. If, as process-relational theists argue, all of reality is interrelated and every entity is always prehending other entities in each new moment of experience, then human beings at once prehend the Spirit and one another in each moment as well. A metaphysical rendering of the experience of love contributes to an inter- disciplinary pentecostal affirmation of love as the primary expression of the Spirit-filled life. Relational empowerment provides fertile ground into which a spiritual sensitivity toward prehending others can be cultivated; such love is neither impotent nor ineffectual.

To be vulnerable is to willingly embrace the pain of love and, in so doing, to allow that pain to mutually transform both the lover and the loved. Loving from a position of relationality demands infinite strength, for loving is often painful. As process-relational theists affirm, this is true for humanity’s relationship with God and for human beings’ relationships with one another. Oord calls this kind of deep empathetic love “mutuality” and Hartshorne called it “life sharing.”93 For example, from this perspective the gift of tongues might be an expression of groaning in selfless solidarity with the suffering of others.94 The Holy Spirit

porary Introduction, ed. Brint Montgomery, Thomas J. Oord, and Karen Strand Winslow

(Eugene, or: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 18–20, at 20.

89 Welker,God the Spirit, 28.

90 Pinnock, Flame, 209–210.

91 Yong,Theology and Down Syndrome, 250.

92 Yong,Spirit of Love, 149.

93 Oord, Love; Hartshorne,Omnipotence.

94 Frank Macchia, “Pentecost as the Power of the Cross: The Witness of Seymour and Dur-

ham,”Pneuma30, no. 1 (2008): 1–3.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

17

relational empowerment

243

of process-relational pneumatology is understood as fundamentally passible, responsive, and vulnerable to the contingencies of human beings and the created order.95 Thus, a process-relational vision of the Spirit-filled life is that of passionate “empathetic fellowship” both with the Spirit and with others.96 For Pentecostals and Charismatics who claim to share in the life of the Spirit, relational, persuasive love is willfully sharing in the lives of others through both joy and sorrow.

To be relationally empowered is to be intensely vulnerable, as God is per- fectly vulnerable. Thus, loving relationships require not only a capacity to persuade, but to co-suffer. Co-suffering is the crucible in which the reality of relationships is formed. Process-relational theists affirm a suffering God who shares in the suffering of creation. Invincibility and immutability are not favor- able divine attributes; instead, God is seen as perfect in vulnerability and mutu- ality.

By embracing a process-relational theology of persuasive power, Pentecos- tals and Charismatics may come to understand the power of “self-sacrificial mutuality,” “reciprocity,” and “intersubjectivity” of relationships.97 Thus, a Spirit-filled life is one that fully and enthusiastically embraces the “other- oriented nature of God’s love.”98 Such deep relationality can empower Pente- costals and Charismatics to “resist the daily crosses of injustice in their God’s suffering solidarity with today’s crucified people.”99 Real and full relationships with others require real and full relationship with the Spirit of God.

Conclusion and Implications

Together Pentecostals and process-relational theists might affirm the powerful weakness of God’s vulnerable love over the coercive force of mighty warriors and imperial rulers.100 Persuasive love is the mightiest of all powers—and if

95 Blair Reynolds, Toward a Process Pneumatology (Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University

Press, 1990).

96 Macchia, Baptized, 168.

97 Yong,Theology and Down Syndrome, 187.

98 Oord, Relational, 25.

99 Scandrett-Leatherman, Craig. “Rites of Lynching and Rights of Dance: Historic, Anthro-

pological, and Afro-Pentecostal Perspectives on Black Manhood after 1865,” in Amos Yong

and Estrelda Alexander, eds.,Afro-Pentecostalism:BlackPentecostalandCharismaticChris-

tianity in History and Culture(New York: New York University Press, 2011), 102. 100 Caputo,Weakness.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

18

244

reichard

Pentecostals claim to be empowered, they must first be rendered powerless: stripped of tendencies toward coercion and control by the power made perfect in weakness. A relationally empowered Spirit-filled life does not epitomize “the ruling Caesar, or the ruthless moralist, or the unmoved mover.”101 Instead, Pen- tecostals and Charismatics might focus on the “tender elements in the world, which slowly and in quietness operate by love,” finding purpose in the “present immediacy” of the kingdom of God.102 Thus, a relationally empowered Spirit- filled life focuses not only on proclamation of the gospel but also on gentle “works of mercy and love.”103 Deeply grounded in authentic relationships, rela- tionality is the greatest and most potent power of all.

A reformulation of spiritual power must, however, move outside of the academy and into the pews, deeply reforming worship, preaching, mission, and all aspects of church life. If Pentecostals come to understand their relationship with the Spirit as relational empowerment to love, it must have profound but practical consequences.104 Process-relational theists have struggled with the democratization of their theology for some time and it may prove equally difficult for Pentecostals and Charismatics to reorient the lay-level notion of power in the direction of relational, persuasive love. Nevertheless, the cause is worth the struggle.

The implications for a pentecostal-charismatic embrace of the persuasive love of process-relational theology are at least threefold. First, Pentecostals and Charismatics may consider how a theology of relational empowerment affects their worship and, consequently, the image of God that they cast to the world. When worship songs, for example, are thick with power jargon, including calls for conquest, domination, and force, they should be reformulated or refined to ensure that there is no confusion between worldly coercive power and the per- suasive power of love. Moreover, when preaching tends toward bombastic dis- plays of aggrandizement and aggression, it affirms the image of a coercive and tyrannical God. This kind of preaching may be diminished in favor of gentle, loving, and relational preaching that calls forth change through persuasive free- dom rather than manipulative fear. Second, pentecostal and charismatic mis-

101 Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality: Corrected Edition(New York: The Free Press,

1979), 343.

102 Whitehead, Process, 343.

103 Ogbu U. Kalu, “Black Joseph: Early African American Charismatic Missions and Pentecos-

tal-Charismatic Engagements with the African Motherland,” in Amos Yong and Estrelda

Alexander, eds., Afro-Pentecostalism: Black Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity in His-

tory and Culture(New York: nyu Press, 2011), 213.

104 Yong,Spirit of Love, 91.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

19

relational empowerment

245

sionaries may reconsider the language in which they frame their escapades to a postcolonial world. If missionaries embrace a theology of relational empow- erment, then their missionary zeal will be fueled solely by relational love, not by a desire for domination or control of the receiving cultures. Finally, Pente- costals and Charismatics may begin to focus on the selfless relationality that precipitates the exercise of spiritual gifts. Relationally empowered, Spirit-filled Pentecostals and Charismatics might affirm the process-relational vision of persuasive love and effectively dethrone the false god who has been cast in the image of Caesar.

Thus, Pentecostals and Charismatics need a constructive reformulation of what it means to be Spirit-filled and what it means to exercise spiritual power. In light of its robust philosophical and metaphysical system, process-relational theology might help Pentecostals to precisely define such power and ensure that it is not confused with the predominant conceptions of coercive power in the world. As Wolfgang Vondey observes, “holding on to the margins sti- fles theological productivity and creativity and solidifies the insider/outsider status that the renewal of theology seeks to overcome.”105 Neither pentecostal- charismatic nor process-relational theologies have shared seats at the privi- leged center of theological discourse. Together, however, they may shape and mutually renew not only one another but also broad conceptions of the Spirit- filled life across the Christian theological spectrum.

105 Wolfgang Vondey, Beyond Pentecostalism: The Crisis of Global Christianity and the Renewal

of the Theological Agenda(Grand Rapids, mi: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010), 198.

PNEUMA 36 (2014) 226–245

20