Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Pneuma 31 (2009) 283-289
Response to Reviews of, In Jesus’ Name
David Reed
Wycliff e College, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1H7, Canada
Abstract
This article is a response by Reed to two reviews of his book. Both reviewers write as Oneness or “Apostolic” Pentecostals, Millner from an African-American tradition and French from a predominantly white organization. Reed briefl y examines three issues raised in the reviews based on their implications for race within OP identity: the historical roots of OP theology in early evangelicalism, OP’s heterodox beliefs and tenuous relationship with other Christian bodies, and Reed’s historical-theological methodology.
Keywords
Oneness Pentecostal, Pentecostal, Evangelicalism, heterodoxy, race
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the two reviews of In Jesus’ Name. Scholarly writing is a community eff ort that is intended to hold us account- able for our handling of the sources and the conclusions we draw from them. T ey expose the lacunae that of necessity exist in any work that does not claim to be exhaustive. And they challenge the writer’s angle of vision, ther eby broad- ening and enriching the multi-layered dimensions of the human project.
This pair of reviews is particularly interesting because of the selection of the reviewers. Both represent the Oneness tradition, which for uninformed outsiders might appear redundant. But a cursory reading reveals that this choice — intentional or inadvertent — exposes a racial fault line that has existed within the American experience of the Oneness movement from the beginning, and especially since the first split within its organization, the Pen- tecostal Assemblies of the World, in 1924.
The schism of 1924 may serve to locate the first real diff erence between the black and white constituencies. The blacks, mostly from the northern states, regarded racial unity as a theological priority, while the southern whites believed that a racially united organization would hinder the evangelistic work
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/027209609X12470371388001
1
284
D. Reed / Pneuma 31 (2009) 283-289
and growth of the movement in the south. Numbers also played a signifi cant role, as blacks were more numerous in the North, while whites constituted a majority in the South.1 No student of this period in American history today would dispute the claim that racism was a harsh reality in the debate, regard- less of the practical considerations proposed by the whites. But the division was palliated somewhat by the fact that a number of white leaders understood the theological signifi cance of the schism and chose to remain with the PAofW as a witness. In a way, this profi le of the early Oneness movement highlights the signifi cance of the two reviews.
T at said, both reviewers highlight what they consider to be the strength of my work and its defi ciencies. I am pleased that each recognizes my eff ort to be “balanced” (French) and follow a mediating path (Millner) between sides that continue to be polarized and sometimes vitriolic. Both point out the historical legacy of the Oneness movement in late-19th century Evangelicalism and the cohering theological theme of the Name throughout the book. French appar- ently read my 1970’s thesis and rightly notes that the book is “more a new work than a revision.”
T ree themes emerge in the reviews that deserve a response in order to clarify and perhaps move the discussion forward. The first is the historical roots of Oneness theology in late-19th century Evangelicalism. French, I believe, understands the signifi cance of this connection when he states that, “the movement — like it or not, and as enigmatic as it may seem — is the undeni- able product of Evangelicalism.” T ere is an apparent unresolved tension in which the early Oneness pioneers at once claimed direct revelation for their exclusive new doctrine and yet would cite without qualifi cation Trinitarian writers as diverse as Methodist biblical commentator, Adam Clarke, Presbyte- rian pastor-theologian, J. Monro Gibson and biblical scholar, William Phillips Hall.
One reason is that, with other Restorationists, they believed that the pure Apostolic truth had been gradually “leaking” into the church since the Refor- mation. Equally important historically is that these early leaders saw them- selves as part of a larger movement of the Spirit in the Last Days. It was only after their ejection from the Assemblies of God in 1916 that the fault line became a chasm. I would only emphasize that the strand of Evangelicalism that
1
See chapter 10. “From Issue to Organization,” in ‘ In Jesus’ Name’; see also Robert Mapes Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism (New York Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 191.
2
D. Reed / Pneuma 31 (2009) 283-289
285
most infl uenced the New Issue architects were the early Pre-Millennialists, Dispensationalists and those infl uenced by the Keswick Holiness movement.
Millner, on the other hand, appears to be making an a-historical critique of my work. While I share his concerns regarding the penchant for some Pente- costals to be “good Evangelicals” and acknowledge the role of racism in the early Pentecostal Revival, his understanding of “Evangelical” is shaped more by its present North American expression than by the historical movement to which I refer — which is in my mind undeniable. To consider such a historical “thematic” approach to be inappropriate is at best reductionistic.
The second matter is my theological treatment of orthodoxy, heresy and hetero- doxy. With the 1916 split from the Assemblies of God, the heresy label has continued to hang over the Oneness movement, ensuring its isolation for now more than nine decades. But as French correctly observes, these early Oneness Pentecostals saw “no real, or serious, departure from the subculture of Evan- gelicalism in which they were submerged.” While I doubt that “Evangelical- ism” was their primary referent point, it is clear that in their rejection of the received doctrine of the Trinity they were oblivious to the theological signifi – cance of the line over which they had stepped.
As I have argued, these Evangelicals believed passionately in the Father, Jesus and the Spirit. But the constellation of ideas that constitutes the tradi- tional doctrine of the Trinity was less well understood or valued. Evangelicals were, after all, biblical Christians, not creedal. The New Issue was the occasion to test allegiance to the received doctrine. Beginning with the Assemblies of God, and in subsequent decades the wider Christian community, that alle- giance was afirmed and in many cases made a test of fellowship. In my con- versations with Oneness leaders over the years, their first concern in dialogue has been to be understood. Most are less off ended by the heresy label since it is related more directly to tradition rather than Scripture, but they adamantly resist the charge of being a cult (which, after all, only gained prominence since the 1970’s).
Millner’s critique is, I confess, confusing to me. On one hand, he seems to be unaware of the implications of the distinction between heresy and hetero- doxy, perhaps because this sort of classical theological discussion is of little interest to him.2 He states, “It is not entirely clear how repositioning Apostolic
2
I am indebted to Ralph Del Colle for the discussion regarding heresy and heterodoxy, a distinction which he in turn borrows from Friedrich Schleiermacher — a point which neither reviewer mentions; see Ralph Del Colle, “Oneness and Trinity: A Preliminary Proposal for Dia- logue with Oneness Pentecostalism,” Journal of Pentecostal T eology 10 (1997): 85-110; also Reed, ‘In Jesus’ Name’, p. 231.
3
286
D. Reed / Pneuma 31 (2009) 283-289
Pentecostalism as heterodox rather than heretical changes the theological debate around the movement.” But he later acknowledges that the heresy label “has clear theological implications that are social, economic and political.” Whatever his intention, I am convinced that one of the major hurdles to be overcome in the future will be for both sides to engage in the hard work of refi ning their own doctrines and nuancing their accusations of the other (e.g., Trinitarians are incipient tritheists, and Oneness are heretical modalists). Issues of race, culture and power will need to be confronted. Here, I believe, Milner’s approach will be most useful. But if ideas — including theological ideas — are not reducible simpliciter to social, economic and political realities, then the discipline of refi ning and enriching them cannot be abandoned. Drawing a distinction between heresy and heterodoxy is one small way we can refi ne theo- logical ideas. Put simply, we all bear in our breast — perhaps unwittingly — a little false doctrine, but we do not claim this threatens our salvation. Further- more, even condemnation of heresy is not a judgment on one’s salvation but a standard for faithfulness to the biblical revelation of salvation.
Any suggestion that the practice of heresy-making is a white phenomenon needs the timely reminder that the inclusion of right belief (orthodoxy) in the discipline of Christian thinking is not a white intrusion. Its roots are in Scrip- ture and its development is in the Mideast. But two qualifi cations need to be made. First, if Millner is referring to the simplistic way in which today’s Evan- gelical apologists engage in heresy hunting, I agree wholeheartedly.
Second and more importantly, doctrinal boundary-setting is not the exclu- sive property of whites. It is generously practised in every culture — African- American, Hispanic and Asian. In other words, concern for doctrinal faithfulness (as well as orthopraxy) is practised throughout the Christian world.
Perhaps to support Millner’s point, the same doctrine does not always pro- duce the same practice. Many black and white Apostolics share the same doc- trine but apply it diff erently; for example, in their relationship with Trinitarian Pentecostals. Whereas the United Pentecostal Church Inc. would be reluctant to invite a Trinitarian leader to address its General Conference, this is regularly practiced among African-American Apostolics. T is, I think, is an example of how social location shapes practice.
I struggled with how to fi nish the book. T ere were other themes, but I eventually chose to discuss the matter of heresy and titled the last chapter, “Whose Heresy? Whose Orthodoxy?” As I have studied and listened to the debate for many years, I became convinced that the greatest stumbling block (barring a spiritual change of heart by the Holy Spirit!) remains theological —
4
D. Reed / Pneuma 31 (2009) 283-289
287
lack of theological development and a misunderstanding of the other based upon the perpetuation of unchallenged labels. I have no illusions about the stubbornness of institutional pride and culture of refusal. But I believe that a fruitful way forward is face-to-face dialogue.
I chose Lindbeck’s approach for two reasons. It provides a method for engaging Oneness theology in light of the core creedal commitments of the Trinity and christology, but also views doctrine as a second order discipline or “grammar” within a particular community of believers. The latter encourages an exploration of cultural infl uences and social location that shape the identity and language of a particular community of Christians.
My third response relates to method. Millner claims that I have no “inter- pretive lens of identity,” and that I present “Anglo-American perspectives as the norm.” He then applies this critique to my treatment of Haywood. First, I have made it clear that my work may be comprehensive but it is not exhaus- tive. In particular, I acknowledge in the Preface that Haywood’s infl uence as a founding architect of the new movement has given a distinctive shape to the North American Oneness experience that is unique among Pentecostals and deserves further exploration.
But it is unfair to accuse me of subsuming “the identities of all non-whites under a hegemonic norm of Anglo-Americanism.” To begin, my book is a work in historical and systematic theology, not a cultural or social history or even contextual theology in the sense that Millner is asking for. My limited focus is evident in a certain lack of attention given to social and organizational history. The reader will observe that I primarily trace leitmotifs, spiritual and theological themes that fi nd their way into Oneness theology from Pietism through late-19th century Evangelicalism and the early Pentecostal Revival. In light of this, I fi nd nothing in Haywood’s ideas or theology related directly to his contribution to Oneness doctrine that would set him apart from his white counterparts. I expect, however, that particular attention to his practices and “lived theology” would yield greater results in terms of his African-American experience. My work traces the theological formation of the Oneness move- ment from within a particular milieu. How that doctrine is lived out among African-Americans, Africans, Latinos and Asian followers will be diff erent from that tradition, and more importantly, diff erent from each other.
An anecdote may illustrate my point. During a World Council of Churches consultation in 1997, I met an African leader (though admittedly not a trained theologian). Trying out a hunch, I asked him what the doctrine of the Trinity meant to him. He admitted that he basically believed the doctrine, but that if
5
288
D. Reed / Pneuma 31 (2009) 283-289
he were pressed to argue in its defense, he would have to treat it as non-essen- tial to his faith. I then asked him how important, in his African experience, it would be to bear his family or tribal name, and how this might apply to his Christian identity. His eyes immediately lit up, “T at would be very important to me as an African Christian.” Whatever spiritual and theological attachment most Christians have made to the language of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” I suspect that for many the spiritual appeal of the Trinitarian Name of God in common pronouns is tepid when compared with the powerful and proper name of Jesus. If identifi cation with Jesus in faith and baptism bonds one with the family (“tribe”) of God, we may have a clue to the attraction of the One- ness movement and message among African-American and African followers. I conclude with a few miscellaneous comments, beginning with French’s review. First, his reference to my “inconclusive” treatment of Bell’s fl ip fl op as an ongoing “sore-spot” illustrates how the memory of a family feud remains alive and unresolved in the white constituency of the Oneness movement. The white UPCI memory bearers still feel the sting of their 1916 excommunica- tion from the Assemblies of God in ways that the black Apostolics do not. Having read the material quite closely, I am not sure that for French my inter- pretation of Bell was inconclusive or just unsatisfactory.
Second, I was not attempting to “rework” T omas Fudge’s work, in large part because as a youth I lived the soteriological tension about which he writes. Perhaps the best way to indicate the presence of the minority tradition which I call “identifi cationist” is to quote a brief section from a pre-1945 edition of the manual of The Pentecostal Church, Inc. It clearly states that one becomes a believer in conversion, and makes no reference to Acts 2:28 as the new birth:
CONVERSION OR FORGIVENESS OF SINS comes by repentance toward God through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, by confessing and forsaking our sins. BAPTISM IN WATER: Immersion in water is for converted believers (emphasis mine), who have turned from their sins and the love of the world, and should be administered by a duly authorized minister of the Gospel by authority, and in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Acts of the Apostles . . . , thus fulfi lling Matt. 28:19. BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT is for all believers, and is obtained by obedi- ence, . . . by asking for, . . . by tarrying for, . . . by faith, . . . and is accompanied by speak- ing with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.3
3
Discipline: The Pentecostal Church, Inc. (Dallas, TX: Privately published, n.d.), pp. 3-4.
6
D. Reed / Pneuma 31 (2009) 283-289
289
Finally, the “third stream” to which French refers is not the mid-century charismatic movement but the Oneness tradition following from the early Wesleyan Holiness and Reformed/Assemblies of God traditions.
The first of three brief comments in response to Millner’s review relates to descriptors of the movement, in particular “Apostolic” and “Oneness.” Again, I struggled over which to use, recognizing that “Apostolic” is the pre- ferred designation among African-Americans while “Oneness” is the common nomenclature for whites. I eventually chose “Oneness” for three reasons. One is that, so far as I could determine after a number of inquiries, blacks did not perceive racial overtones in the term (Millner is the first in my experience to make a racial issue of it).4 Also, the term “Apostolic” is applied to groups other than the Oneness movement and could easily lead to identity confusion; “Oneness” is a term more specifi c to this movement. And fi nally, “Oneness” is the more recognizable term within the wider Christian world. Hence, it was the more appropriate term for reaching a wider audience and minimizing con- fusion with other groups or beliefs.
Second, my description of Oneness theology as “crude” and “popular” is regarded by Millner as off ensive. I need to be clear that both descriptors are technical, not pejorative, terms. By “crude” I mean incomplete and underde- veloped, not unseemly or vulgar. Nor does “popular” theology imply inferior- ity, since it is often rich in symbolism and theological intuitions. But Oneness theology has lacked scholarly attention to historical detail and a sophisticated understanding of the theological complexity of the doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps if this had not been absent in early Oneness rhetoric, the 1916 schism might not have occurred.
Finally, a minor correction — the 1916 General Council meeting was held in St. Louis, not Hot Springs.
To conclude, I thank French and Millner for their review of my work. I trust our modest eff ort will invite further study and exploration of a move- ment that is far more interesting and complex than the rhetoric of the past decades has led us to believe.
4
See my comment in Footnote 7 of In Jesus’ Name, p. 229.
7
8
