James K. A. Smith, Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010.
"What Hath Athens to do with Azusa Street?" is a favorite question of James K. A. Smith, a Pentecostal philosopher who teaches at Calvin College. He attempts to provide a preliminary answer to this question in his newest book, entitled Thinking in Tongues. At first glance, the title may misdirect its readers, and while the last chapter does address the practice of tongues-speech, this book primarily introduces those interested in philosophy to a Pentecostal worldview and its contribution to various subjects in philosophy. As a result, the language that Smith uses throughout the book can be technical in nature, and indicates that his intended audience is comprised of those with an educational background in philosophy or theology.
Throughout the book, Smith intentionally uses a small "p" in ‘pentecostal’, to make it clear that his analysis of Pentecostal spirituality covers the entire Pentecostal movement and not just Classical Pentecostalism. Some may question anyone’s ability to encapsulate and articulate a Pentecostal philosophy rooted in the Pentecostal spirituality and practices of such a global movement. Yet, one needs to give credit to Smith for making the effort, and for the general direction which Smith prescribes for what a Pentecostal philosophy should look like. Yet, at times, the reader may be pushed by Smith toward certain positions instead of being pulled into what is already resonating within Pentecostalism.
The first chapter opens up with Smith’s ‘advice to Pentecostal philosophers’, similar to Alvin Plantinga’s ‘advice to Christian philosophers’. Here, Smith lays the groundwork for Pentecostal philosophers to legitimately philosophize from their Pentecostal commitments, and encourages them to exercise confidence in the autonomy and integrity of Pentecostal philosophy. Smith argues that there is in fact a distinct and implicit Pentecostal philosophy that arises out of the practiced spirituality of global Pentecostalism.
In the next chapter, Smith shows what this would look like, by articulating the elements of a Pentecostal worldview which he believes is implicit among Pentecostals in general and across cultures: 1) A position of radical openness to God, 2) an "enchanted" theology of creation and culture, 3) a nondualistic affirmation of embodiment and materiality, 4) an affective, narratival epistemology, and 5) an eschatological orientation to mission and justice. Smith arrives at these five elements based on his analysis of Pentecostal spirituality.
Unfortunately, in the introduction of the book, Smith makes too strong of a distinction between Pentecostal spirituality and Pentecostal theology by simply ignoring how Pentecostals themselves articulate their beliefs and practices (or ‘doctrine’ and ‘dogma’). This is largely due to his charge (which I think is largely correct) that much of the intellectual formation of the Western Pentecostal movement is too heavily influenced by "off-the-shelf theological paradigms" carried over from evangelical theology. Yet it is not enough to simply ignore the formative influence of Pentecostal doctrine and theology upon a Pentecostal worldview, and spirituality. Put simply, Smith takes the opportunity to critique the portion of Pentecostalism that—based on their pre-cognitive practices and behavior—is overly rationalistic and dichotomistic. Unfortunately, his exclusive focus on Pentecostal spirituality in its pre-cognitive/affective practices results in unbalanced conclusions regarding a Pentecostal worldview. Surely an adherence to biblical revelation, some sort of christocentric gospel (savior, baptizer, sanctifier, healer, and soon coming king), andone understands Spirit baptismat least as significant a role in a Pentecostal's worldview as the believer's precognitive commitments.
There are, after all, tensions within the spirituality of Pentecostals as a whole. Pentecostal spirituality involves both practices and theological articulations, both affective and the cognitive elements. Put simply, Pentecostal spirituality has historically always navigated the tension implicit in holding onto both ‘Word’ and ‘Spirit’, without allowing the one to be swallowed by the other. It would have been preferable for Smith to argue for a more balanced and consistent goal for Pentecostals to head toward, without simply ignoring the theological beliefs of Pentecostals.
The next four chapters further explore the contribution of Smith’s understanding of a Pentecostal worldview in relation to the following subject areas: epistemology (chapter 3), metaphysics (chapter 4), philosophy of religion (chapter 5), and philosophy of language (chapter 6).
The third chapter focuses on articulating a Pentecostal epistemology. Here, the author describes Pentecostal epistemology as being proto-postmodern, in that it critiques the overly cognitivist understandings of anthropology and epistemology inherent in modern rationalism. Smith rightfully points out that when one looks at Pentecostal worship there is a distinct emphasis on an affective and narrative epistemology. Yet, as noted above, Smith simply ignores the cognitive and intellectual features of Pentecostal spirituality rooted in its commitment to biblical truth. Furthermore, while historic Pentecostal worship services have featured a kind of proto-postmodern epistemology, at the same time, Western Pentecostalism has also featured a modernistic epistemology in its intellectual formation. Smith’s aim in this chapter—to help Western Pentecostals value and holistically emphasize affectivity and emotions as being just as central (if not more central than the intellect) to Pentecostal spirituality—is laudable. Ideally, both the cognitive and emotional elements of the whole person should be engaged without compromising one over the other. Writing from a disciplinary and ecclesial context which has often over-emphasized the individual intellect, Smith has done a good job of demonstrating the legitimacy and value of an affective epistemology.
Chapter Four helpfully describes the philosophical spectrum of ideas concerning the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics). He lays out the landscape as follows:
Reductionistic naturalism (Dennett, Kim)
Nonreductionistic naturalism (Clayton, Peacocke, Griffin)
Enchanted naturalism or noninterventionist supernaturalism (implicit in Pentecostal spirituality)
Interventionist supernaturalism (often expressed in Pentecostal language)
Smith says, "embedded in pentecostal practice is a worldview—or better, social imaginary—whose ontology is one of radical openness and thus resistant to closed, immanentist systems of the sort that emerge from reductionistic metaphysical naturalism" (p. 88). He admits that Pentecostals generally hold to an interventionist supernatural model, yet he argues that Pentecostals should espouse an enchanted naturalism or noninterventionist supernaturalism which would more consistently line up with their Pentecostal commitments. At issue here is Smith’s rejection of a dualistic framework which separates the "natural" from the "supernatural." Instead, he proposes an integrated vision of reality where nature is not an autonomous, closed system without the presence and activity of the Spirit of God. He explains that creation is more accurately understood as "en-Spirited," in that
the Spirit is always already present at and in creation. The Spirit’s presence is not a postlapsarian or soteriological ‘visiting’ of a creation that is otherwise without God; rather, the Spirit is always already dynamically active in the cosmos/world/nature. God doesn’t have to ‘enter’ nature as a visitor and alien; God is always already present in the world. Thus creation is primed for the Spirit’s action. (p. 102-103).
This would posit God’s relation to the world as being noninterventionist, while at the same time affirming the miraculous work of God. On the one hand, I welcome Smith’s more integrated vision of reality. His proposal moves the conversation forward with regards to refining a Pentecostal understanding of metaphysics. On the other hand, since Smith only sets out to provide an introductory exploration of Pentecostal metaphysics, there is further need for his proposal to engage the traditional critiques against the panentheistic implications of his vision of reality.
In the fifth chapter, Smith offers a Pentecostal critique of standard philosophies of religion. Again, he reiterates his push against rationalist philosophical anthropology, and rightfully asserts that philosophy of religion must take into account a holistic understanding of the human person which includes the embodied experience of believers and not just their beliefs.
The last chapter explores what the Pentecostal practice of tongues-speech may contribute to the philosophy of language. Smith acknowledges the wide perspectives on both the New Testament and contemporary practice of tongues-speech, and suggests four types of functions in the New Testament:
Acts: public utterance (communicative)
Paul: public utterance (communicative with interpretation/translation)
Paul: public ecstatic utterance (noncommunicative, but expressive of divine reality)
Paul: private prayer language (communicative, but non-expressive)
Most of Smith’s reflection upon the contribution of tongues-speech to contemporary speech-act theory (locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary effect) centers on the third function of tongues listed above. And as such, Smith suggests that tongues-speech, in its noncommunicative function, needs to be re-positioned with regard to contemporary speech act models that automatically rule out a noncommunicative act as valid for a working model of the speech act. Smith’s biblical-exegetical analysis of the function of tongues within both Lukan and Pauline writings may be problematic. His strength, however, is his recognition of the differences between Luke and Paul, and even the distinctions within Paul’s own understanding of the function of tongues-speech. In general, Pentecostals do acknowledge different functions of tongues-speech in Scripture and in practice, but what those functions really are and how they relate to contemporary practices remains a fuzzy issue both within the church and the academy. As a result, it may be that Smith’s philosophical conclusions leap ahead of both his own exegetical abilities and the contemporary scholarly consensus regarding this subject. This may not be entirely his own fault—the ecclesial and historical bias in the literature renders the area a difficult one.
Lastly, Smith develops the socio-political nature of tongues as a speech act by suggesting that tongues-speech is a language of resistance. He states:
As an action, one of the things that speaking in tongues does is to effect a kind of social resistance to the powers-that-be. Or perhaps we should say that tongues-speech is the language of faith communities that are marginalized by the powers-that-be, and such speech can be indicative of a kind of eschatological resistance to the powers. We might say that the proletariat speaks in tongues (p. 147).
He goes on to point out the socio-political and economic nature of tongues by suggesting, "at least on a certain level or from a certain angle, tongues-speech could be seen as the language of the dispossessed—or the language of the ‘multitude’—precisely because it is a mode of speech that can be an expression that resists the powers and structures of global capitalism and its unjust distribution of wealth" (p. 148-149).
Here Smith’s political theology runs up against the vast majority of Pentecostal opinion (they do not view tongues-speech this way either in theology or in practice), against the biblical evidence. I am all for resisting the unjust elements of capitalism, and all other injustices of various socio-political-economic systems for that matter. But here, Smith seems to be infusing his own political agenda and meaning into a theology of tongues as practiced by Pentecostals, unfounded on Scriptural or historical support. Granted, an experience with the Holy Spirit and the gospel may naturally lead one to wrestle with the current socio-political-economic structures of the world, but to say that it is constituted and motivated by such a struggle is to misunderstand the nature of the phenomenon.
Overall, Thinking in Tongues has an introductory and exploratory feel to it. Personally, I found much that I resonate with, in particular: 1) the five elements of a Pentecostal worldview, 2) an epistemology that is not overly rationalistic, and values affective ways of knowing, and 3) a non-dichotomistic anthropology and metaphysics. Readers will notice that throughout the book there remains the difficult tension between trying to articulate what is already latent within Pentecostalism, and pointing Pentecostalism in the direction it should go. This will make this book a helpful sounding board for the efforts of future Pentecostal philosophers.
William J. Molenaar
Special Projects Coordinator,
Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center