one of the big questions i think i have been really trying to answer as we all look at the awesome and sweeping cultural shift that is upon us (i mean in the church as it begins to re-form in the postmodern era) is this; how will the pentecostal church fare in the end?
it is a church that embraces the experience of God. sometimes it has been criticized as too experience-based and that is partly true. instead of an experience of God i would really rather talk about an encounter with God – a face to face meeting rather than an emotional tickle, a life change rather than a series of momentary touchy feely events. nevertheless, the pentecostal church has expected the supernatural encounter of God.
it is a church that acknowledges the mysteriousness of God. even though God is mysterious we do believe he is still knowable. we know that God is invisible but believe that his presence can be sensed.
it is a church that embraces imagery and spiritual insight through sensory perception – consider the sound of rushing wind, the sight of tongues of fire, the tender lighting of a dove.
it is a church that is participatory. we trust God to enable us to speak in a spiritual language and, by the same Spirit to interpret spiritual language. we trust God to move in and through us as we employ the spiritual gifts he has given for the strengthening of the church.
it is a church that is communal. we know that from the beginning the Spirit was poured out on the church as it was meeting to pray and worship as one body.
to be honest, my underlying assumption (and, for sure, my hope) is that the pentecostal church is well suited to move into the postmodern period if it can only shake free of some of the other cultural (modern) trappings it has learned to live with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I hear what you are saying... and more power to you on your positive outlook; but I think it goes a bit deeper - what a person from a "post-modern" perspective is looking for...
I mean can't every church in the Christian tradition say what you have said about the "pentecostal church." - all churches were born from the "communal pouring out at pentecost." all churches can claim the same symbolism of the Holy Spirit. participatory - all church can claim to be so if the definition is the modern mantra of "discover and use your gift-mix."
couple of questions - is the pentecostal church - truly experiential? I would push back and suggest that the pentecostal church places MUCH MORE emphasis on the authority of the word over the understanding from experience... And this issue of mystery - from my limited experience in pentecostal churches - not much is left to mystery - the communion snack is completely explained, the question why is never left unanswered, God and his word is almost alway packaged in a three or four point sermon and God is almost always experienced in the same formulaic manner - a rousing song, a prayer, worship, offering, prayer for one another and a sermon.
So, I wish I could share your positive outlook... but, I don't find your position promising or convincing...
experience - pentecostals only if we can point to chapter and verse.
mystery - no God is the pentecostal's friend - made in their image.
imagery - well, I guess you might find a picture of a western jesus hanging around
particpatory - you can sign up to fulfill brother or sister so & so's favorite cause
communal - no way... far from it - jesus is our PERSONAL savior - community is trivialized by an hour or two bible study at someones house who serves bad coffee...
anonymous, thanks for your comment!
you are absolutely right about your experience of the modern pentecostal church. the point i'm making again is this, "that the pentecostal church is well suited to move into the postmodern period if it can only shake free of some of the other cultural (modern) trappings it has learned to live with." i would argue that the pentecostal church was birthed in spite of and in reaction to the modern church but that in its desire to become more acceptable and mainstream it has morphed into a modern church over the years since its inception.
sure, every church can point back to the symbols of the early church but it was the pentecostal church that brought freshness to the images of the dove, wind, fire and others, the significance and meaning of which had largely been lost from the church.
you are right when you say the pentecostal church is concerned with grounding their experience in chapter and verse. it was, in fact, the desire of the early pentecostals to take God at his word that led them to seek the pentecostal experience. it was certainly not the case, however, that they placed more emphasis on the authority of the word over understanding from experience - at least not in the beginning. indeed, that was one of the biggest criticisms leveled against the pentecostal church.
it embraced mystery and transendence much more readily in its infancy (even now, who can fully explain tongues or divine healing?). the encounter of God was evidence enough that this experience was good and right.
it was much more communal in the beginning as they met in homes or any other spaces they could find (as much as anything because they were not allowed in churches).
it really was much more participatory (and still is in many ways) than any other modern church - tongues, interpretation, dreams, visions, laying on of hands, physical manifestations (reaction of the body to the experience of God).
it was much more missional. in fact, this fresh outpouring of the Spirit was taken as a clear mandate to take up the mission of Christ and reach out to the ends of the earth.
anyway, my point is that i hope we can recover that more "barbaric" and honest time when i believe the pentecostal church was much more "postmodern" in ways. the way we started out is the way i would like begin again.
I think that in our rush to classify and clarify we sometimes forget that the things that really changed and moved people (in the beginning of any movement throughout the history of the Church) go far beyond even experience. It is more "harsh reality". The problem with defining it as "experience" is that that word has been so cheapened by our modern mass/multi/media culture. Experience today is a really big TV screen. It's a really addictive Playstation game. It's a special-FX laden movie.
The kind of "experience" that is offered by Christ is not something that can ever be packaged or marketed or even preached. All those things can serve it, help it grow, maybe give rise to it, but can not define it. Yes. It's a mystery... although not to God. I think even in our churches that are embracing the current culture more readily there is still always the temptation to define and explain everything. And I think that is what gives root to this whole desire to "re-tell the Gospel in the current idiom", whatever that may be. We want to translate it into our own "language"
But...
We forget that it's not even the Gospel that is what we are preaching, in a sense...
It is a real, live person. A person who is human and divine, who is present in and among us even though he's been invisible to us for 2 millenia. All of our denominational explanations and descriptions fall short, because he is not, in a sense, a "personal" savior. He saves communities, families, towns. Nobody is a follower of Jesus by themselves. Nobody comes to Him by themselves.
People today want a "sense" and an "experience" of community, and what Jesus offers is the real thing, and what he offers is the "real" person (him). I think it's more than people think they want, and often we're afraid it is too much for our limited understanding. (We're right!) I think that's why we like definitions and systematic theologies.
Reminds me of the old Arminian/Calvinist debate. Predestination? The Bible seems to say so. Free Will? Well, wow, that's in there, too... It's a mystery...
We will serve Him best if we continue to talk about in such a way that it comes across as a mystery. Our denominational tags matter very little to the current culture, but I think that means that they matter less in a negative sense, too. And that gives me a lot of hope.
"Experience"? No. Not if you mean a video game.
Just my 2c
By stating "Nobody comes to Him by themselves" you pinpointed the source of modern times angst. We, ourselves and I all want - and think we deserve - to have our own "personal savoir". Why should we have to share? Unless it is a joystick or a big screen, I want to keep my savoir and my faith to myself.
That was my approach until finding PT's C3 and realizing that I needed help in understanding the "how to" of practicing faith. Before I felt secure in my worldly knowledge of faith to push and protect me. Yet this was without even really reading the Bible and seeing firsthand what power of the experience of Christ that a community of believers collectively conjures.
Even as I say I am blessed and that it took "someone" to direct to find this connection to God, it sounds contrived. Just the repetition of the "We are blessed" phrase sounds like a cliches lifted from a Hollywood script. But the script written for us by God is indeed dependent on outside influences and interaction. Thanks Anonymous for pointing that out.
And PT, great discussion opportunity. I love to study history and this is not one aspect I had engaged in previously...
Post a Comment