Editorial: The Courage to be Prophets

This last month has seen the launch of the third volume of the APS supplementary series, Raising Women Leaders: Perspectives on Liberating Women in Pentecostal and Charismatic Contexts. Edited by Jacqueline Grey and myself, the book brings together scholars from diverse traditions (Catholic, Anglican, Wesleyan, Pentecostal and Charismatic) and a range of academic and practical disciplines (biblical studies, theology, history, spirituality, communications, leadership), who all share a passion to raise up a generation of leaders who are not constrained by gender categories.

The book has its impetus in women’s experiences; both the experience of empowerment that comes from life in the Spirit and, at the same time, the experience of explicit and implicit sexism that arises from stereotypical assumptions about the identity and role of women in the home, church and society. Cheryl Catford, whose PhD research investigated and described female experiences in the CRC movement, notes that:

Female leaders recount stories of being ignored as their (non-ministerial) husbands are addressed, of leadership decisions made by male leaders while attending sporting events to which the women were not invited, of being directed to attend the denominational meetings for pastors’ wives rather than those for ministers, and of enduring sexist jokes at their expense from their male colleagues. A female leader noted, “I have walked into many leadership conferences and joined a group of males discussing religion or politics. Intangibly the conversation shifts and changes - it becomes patronising - and to be honest I have lost heart going to some of these things and “would like to POKE THEIR EYES OUT.” ¹

It is disappointing, especially since Pentecostalism prides itself on its focus on the liberating power of the Spirit, to discover that these sorts of experiences are ubiquitous. They have their ground in long established theological assertions about male leadership and female submission, and are sustained by social practices that go unnoticed by most people. Indeed, it is this practical, socialised dimension of sexism that ensures that, even when philosophical presumptions about gender categories are overcome, the actual experience of women in our churches changes very little or, at least, very slowly. To give but one of many possible examples, the common practice of ensuring that men and women don’t spend any time alone together – a practice whose intention is to prevent infidelity (or the appearance of it) – has the unintended consequence of contributing to the continued alienation of women from the structures of power in churches. By preventing the formation of cross-gender friendships, we not only exclude women from the informal relationships and settings in which many decisions are really made (even if they are formalised elsewhere), but we also prevent cross-gender mentoring. And since most church leaders are, presently, men, the consequence is that women do not receive the support that is vital to their rising to positions of leadership and authority.

Other practices could be cited, but the point is that change is dependent not only on theological development, but on the ability to reflect upon socio-historical practices with a critical eye, to recognise that common sense assumptions and habits may not, in fact, make sense. As Bernard Lonergan notes:

Common sense commonly feels itself omnicompetent in practical affairs, commonly is blind to long term consequences of policies and courses of action, commonly is unaware of the admixture of common nonsense in its more cherished convictions and slogans.²

He goes on to highlight the way in which common sense group behaviours and practices feed into ideologies (labelled by Christians as biblical theologies) that become entrenched communal biases, which work against human liberty and flourishing:

in the measure that the group encouraged and accepted an ideology to rationalise its own behaviour, in the same measure it will be blind to the real situation, and it will be bewildered by the emergence of a contrary ideology that will call to consciousness an opposed group egoism … Corrupt minds have a flair for picking the mistaken solution and insisting that it alone is intelligent, reasonable, good. … A civilisation in decline digs its own grave with relentless consistency.”³

Lonergan’s discussion of common sense and group bias is relevant to Pentecostal attitudes to women, which have become ideological, self-referential, and thoroughly entrenched in horizons of the community. The reversal of this bias will be dependent upon the grace of God, which is capable of changing the way people think and reversing decline. This grace is mediated to communities through what Lonergan labels as the cosmopolis; the theologians, pastors (priests) and artists of various sorts (singers, musicians, poets, writers, painters) who have the responsibility of critically engaging with cultural values, identifying biases and envisaging knew ways of looking at the world.⁴ Those Lonergan labels as the ‘cosmopolis,’ Pentecostals might describe as ‘prophets’ – people called to discern spirits and speak critically about the past and present and creatively about possibilities for the future.

In this way, the academic can be said to have a prophetic calling. We are more than just teachers of Christian tradition but, in fact, have the opportunity and responsibility to exercise discernment, and further, to raise our voice in both encouragement and challenge. This prophetic responsibility is not an easy one. If what we have to say is seen to be encouraging, defending the status quo, then life within our movements and institutions is relatively straightforward – although we are confronted by the memory of the ancient prophets who faced divine judgement when their words proved to be nothing more than hot air, telling the powerful only what they want to hear. If what we have to say confronts the common sense ideologies of those in power, life is much more difficult. What does it mean for our careers (and the well-being of our families) to confront ‘cherished convictions and slogans’ that we believe have become ideological nonsense, and that are propagating and sustaining corruption and injustice? It is easy enough to address topics that are unlikely to cause us any real political difficulties. But what do we do when our pursuit of truth and spiritual discernment causes us to question aspects of communal identity that lie at the heart of institutional cultures and social structures?

I have no easy answer to this question. Pentecostal culture has a reputation (deserved or otherwise) for its reluctance to engage in the task of critical reflection, and this reluctance is particularly acute in Australia, with its critique of criticism itself, and its relentless insistence on positive thinking. This culture, derived from the fundamentalist response to the liberal takeover of institutions of higher learning, and expressed in “word of faith” and “prosperity” doctrines, declares that “negativity is an enemy to life.” There is no doubt that negative thinking can be self-perpetuating, as can a positive attitude, but the greater danger occurs when a particular culture confuses “negativity” with “criticism”, and rejects critical thinking altogether. What is needed is the valuing of what might be termed “faithful criticism” (or, rather, “faithful critique”).⁵

Notwithstanding this need, there are some topics that it seems easier to just avoid, at least in the conservative context of Pentecostalism and Evangelicalism. Gender based role distinctions are only one such topic and, at this point in our history, it is an issue that has lost some of its heat (if not its importance). Yet there are other topics that might not even be ‘safe’ to discuss (at least not if one has a view that differs from the norm); the church’s treatment of homosexual people; centralising trends in ecclesiology and the authority of the pastor; inter-religious encounter and dialogue; formative doctrines (such as baptism in the Spirit); literal six-day creationism; fundraising practices and theologies of tithing and prosperity, etc.. While the topics that may be unquestionable will differ from one movement and culture to another, the underlying dilemma for Pentecostal academics remains the same. Our own pursuit of authenticity in the process of study is likely to have taken us beyond the constraints of the common sense ideologies of our communities. In such cases, the challenge is working out how and when to become agents of change. Controversy for controversy’s sake is not only likely to be motivated by egoism (which, no doubt, has formed the basis of many an academic career), but it is also likely to have little impact upon community values. A person kicked out of a movement, labelled a heretic or rebel, is essentially rendered voiceless. On the other hand, to say nothing about group biases potentially undermines one’s own integrity, and may make one complicit in the corruption and power structures that have created and sustained error, manipulation and injustice.

The way forward is to hold together courage and wisdom. Paul Tillich describes the need for “the courage to be as oneself”⁶ in the context of a democratic conformist society. His point is to note that corporate harmony is not undermined by individual research, by the free encounter of everybody with the bible, by “the courage to follow reason and to defy irrational authority.”⁷ In fact, this kind of revolutionary courage is essential to the flourishing and freedom of the whole, since it facilitates a transition towards “a good in which more and more people can participate, to a conformity which is based on the free activity of every individual.”⁸ Such courage, however, must be matched with wisdom, the spiritual discernment that enables one to realise that one is part of a larger whole, that the life of the community is more important than individual ego, that cultural change takes time, and that way one communicates challenging ideas is as important as the idea itself.

Having said all of this, I have to confess that I am neither courageous nor wise. I am, therefore, deeply aware of my need for the grace of God and the empowerment of the Spirit, so that I can take up my cross and follow Christ. Only then might I begin to fulfil my prophetic call and, along with my fellow scholars, contribute to the good of the community of which I am a part and, thereafter, play a redemptive role in society. I hope Jacqui and I have been courageous and wise in the publication of Raising Women Leaders and, more significantly, I pray that God might help me to understand and begin to model the self-sacrificing love of Jesus that is the true source of courage and wisdom.

In terms of this issue of APS, it is my belief that we have given voice to what can be labelled prophetic scholarship. In the first place, we have emphasised the work of three Old Testament scholars. Scott Ellington develops a biblical theology of the Spirit as creative and re-creative force, whose presence not only sustains every living thing, but who renews and repairs the spiritual and moral life of human persons and communities. Jacqui Grey explores a theology of creation and redemption from Isaiah 40-55 that moves beyond an anthropocentric focus to embrace the renewal of creation as a whole. This is an especially challenging message in the context of a church that has not taken its ecological responsibility seriously. Thirdly, Narelle Melton challenges us to renew the practice of lament, a form of spirituality that was vital not just to exilic Judaism, but also in the experience of early Australian Pentecostal communities, for whom honest dialogue with God was a vital means of engaging with the injustice and pain of everyday life.

Moving beyond the Old Testament, Neil Ormerod explores the shared missionary task of Catholicism and Pentecostalism in proclaiming the gospel in a globalising world. Ormerod is a Catholic scholar whose modelling of this ecumenical responsibility is apparent in his mentoring of my own scholarship – a service that has borne fruit in the forthcoming publication of our jointly authored book, Globalization and the Mission of the Church.⁹ Lastly, our next generation essay features Wayne Harrison, who explores the various factors that contribute to longevity of tenure of Pentecostal youth leaders. His research is of significant practical importance, since he identifies various contributing factors to the development of a long term vocational orientation for youth ministers, factors that prove vital for ministry effectiveness.

I commend these prophetic works to your reading and reflection

Shane Clifton

(Editor)

---

Endnotes