MAY LING TAN
William Menzies' historical discussion is enlightening, and his contribution to the Pentecostal faith invaluable. I appreciate the reminder of our heritage- that early Pentecostalism is marked by vigorous and effective proclamation. I affirm his call for an 'engaged' theologizing especially for the Asia Pacific world. There is a great need to think through issues that are pertinent and important to our contexts and us. The approaching millennium and the postmodern context mandate that we, as Pentecostals, must give ourselves to serious and conscious theologizing, even as we are fervent in our missionary and evangelistic endeavors. Theologization is not purely an exercise in academics, at heart it is pastoral and missiological.
My response to Menzies' paper is in the form of 'trouble-shooting' critique. What I have to say may not be radically new except that I am giving voice to what some of us have thought about but never verbalized.
Pentecostal distinctives
Though Menzies mentions the need to deal with fresh questions with courage and conviction, I do not think that he has wrestled with the issues of the new millennium at all. His summary catalog of twelve theological issues is primarily historical rather than contemporary and global. We have to stop looking behind our shoulders constantly or we will miss the transitional signs around us. The process of theologizing requires that we be courageously self-critical, which is in fact to be constructive, to clarify for ourselves who we are, what we are presently doing and where we go from here. This preoccupation with denominational distinctives is indexical of our theological insecurity. We need to ask ourselves honestly and courageously why these issues continue to be our absorbing concerns. Are we trying to prove something to ourselves, or to our non-Pentecostal counterparts? Is it an issue of theological respectability and credibility, or is it a matter of denominational survival? Are the reasons political or theological? Politically, I can empathize with the concern to preserve denominational distinctives, if indeed younger Pentecostal scholars are abandoning the distinctives and practices altogether. But is this situation rampant? Pushing for total interpretive consensus and stricter conformity to institutional distinctives is not the solution. We need to ask ourselves why these scholars are alienating themselves from our distinctives and practices. Is it because younger Pentecostals are influenced by their higher education in non-Pentecostal seminaries and universities that are critical of our beliefs? Or is the reason something more sobering? Can the reason be that these scholars do not want to inherit a form without the vitality? Have our preoccupation with denominational survival and preserving denominational orthodoxy undermined the vitality of the Pentecostal faith? In our pursuit of stability and survival are we not forgetting something more crucial and fundamental? The vitality of the Pentecostal faith does not rest solely on articulate formulation, but the dynamic presence and activity of the Spirit. If this is so, then the solution is not simply theological justification but experiential-a recovery of a vibrant spirituality and a dynamic experience of the Spirit's presence and empowerment.
To thus continue to rehash these issues only makes us captive-paradoxically-to a 'siege mentality' that will inevitably retard our pastoral and missiological effectiveness and relevance. A defensive and dogmatic assertion of particular distinctives as shibboleths of orthodoxy will incapacitate our ability to live with the complexities of the contemporary moment. Therefore, I suggest that issues 1-9 should no longer occupy our theological energies as we enter the 21st century. I am not here to suggest that we jettison these issues; we have matured theologically and some of our younger scholars-like Roger Stronstad, Donald Johns, Wonsuk Ma, Simon Chan, Frank Macchia, Steve Land, Chris Thomas and Robert Menzies-have achieved significant presence in wider academia. My sentiment is that since these capable Pentecostal scholars have dealt with these issues adequately in the recent years we should put them to rest. We can hold on to our particular expressions of faith with confidence and humility with the understanding that we all see through the glass darkly.
global revival movements
Testimonies and documentations of revivals and vibrant growth abound- Pensacola, Latin America, the 10/40 window are samplings of what the Holy Spirit is orchestrating. These worldwide reports of revival movements merit serious considerations. Menzies expresses his concerns about certain questionable manifestations (gold teeth fillings, laughing, lengthening of legs) of some contemporary revivals. I agree with Menzies that we should reflect and evaluate these revivals and phenomena, but in the process of doing so we must guard against cynicism. Since revival movements are not sanitized but messy, abuses seem inevitable, precisely because abuses usually have to do with human response to divine power. In our contemporary culture so starved of true transcendence, it is understandable that people do overreact to divine touch. It is only when the manifestations become definitive of the substance of divine renewal that the true problems arise. Perhaps, these extra-biblical phenomena appear absurd to the Western mindset that is still captive to the Enlightenment mentality, but in Asia, in the two-thirds world these phenomena make sense and are part of our spiritual reality.
Perhaps, the important question we have to raise is not, Are there biblical precedents for these phenomena? Or, How do these fit in with our tradition? We need to avoid the idolatry of being limiting to our traditional experience of God or the way we understand divine activity. In doing this, 'we become the center of the universe, not God, and we come to judge the stories of God by how much they agree with the stories we tell at our human centers'.' Perhaps, the larger question that we need to raise is, Does our theological understanding of God allow us to accommodate these extra-biblical phenomena? If God is the sovereign and living One, then, may we not allow God to do a new thing in our midst? If God is the reconciling God, would He not break through with these phenomena to arrest our attention and to remind the world at large that He is very much alive and active on our behalf? If God is the loving Father, may we not expect him to refresh us with these phenomena just to relieve us from being locked into the predictable, the traditional and the routine?
As we critique these contemporary revivals we also need to be criticized by them. How does our movement compare to these? The prayer movement, the prophetic movement and the emerging New Apostolic Reformation have restored great expectation in the power of the Spirit evidenced by vision, passion, and activism. We need to read the writings of these movements with an open mind and not with a dismissive attitude. The rise of the prophetic and apostolic ministries has serious theological and pastoral implications. Can we agree with their experiential arguments even if they are not theologically coherent? How are these present-day prophets and apostles different from their biblical counterparts? If they are not different then do they have the same authority status to prescribe beliefs for the contemporary church? How does the restoration of the prophetic and apostolic impact our ecclesiology, leadership and organizational structures, and ministry? In the light of what is happening, how should we look at Ephesians 4? Can we accommodate this new emphasis into our Pentecostal theology? Again, I agree with Dr Menzies that we must prevent the abuse of spiritual authority in the name of the prophetic. How do we prevent ecclesiastical elitism? How do we filter the truly prophetic from the flaky and manipulative? How do we minister powerfully and with integrity? Power and character must coincide. How do we guard against the corrupting effects of power? These are critical questions. We do have a moral and spiritual responsibility to think through these issues. Nonetheless, as we consider what is taking place in the new Apostolic Reformation we must be careful not to commit the same pharisaical mistake as in the 1st Pentecost-dismissing the phenomenon as nothing more than a drunken orgy. There is a fresh wind of God blowing. We need to submit our theological tradition to the critique of the Spirit of God.
social justice
Wanton violence on a massive scale is a daily reality for a large part of the non-Western world. Given our current global conditions of political chaos, ethnic cleansing, religious persecutions, gender oppression, brutal inequalities, etc., it is crucial that we get involved in the work of social justice, healing and restoration. The task is massive. This requires the cooperation and unity of the entire Christian community. We need to develop a critical awareness of social reality. How do we discern the present activity of God's Spirit? How do we speak with prophetic confidence into the despair and chaos of the times? I think that Pentecostals have a lot to offer in this area. What are the specific resources within Pentecostalism that help us articulate effectively the reality of the God who continues to act and speak definitively in our world? The inaugural text of the Spirit's anointing of Christ (Lk. 4.18-19) is significant for our present context: like Jesus we have been empowered to do the same. Within this inaugural text lies the social implications and power of the Gospel. We need to bring the liberating and transformative presence and power of the Spirit into the contexts of violence. Pentecostals need to fully appropriate the power of the Spirit into the two aspects of evangelism-the spiritual and the social. To maintain the former dichotomy of evangelism and social transformation is to remain captive to western dualism.2 The question that needs to be raised is how do we bring the biblical emphasis on the Kingdom of God, the Lordship of Christ, community and mission to bear on our social contexts? This is especially urgent in the contexts of the two-thirds world. How do we understand missions in the contexts of violence and oppression? What is the role of the church? What impact does this social reality have on ecclesiology and Christian discipleship? I believe that Pentecostalism contains within itself powerful elements for a theology of social justice. The urgency for us is to be empowered by the Spirit for signs and wonders, and empowered with grace to endure sufferings and to forgive. It is only when we put these elements of our faith in balance that we will not commit the mistake of theological triumphalism on the one hand, and pessimism on the other, or regress into mere liberation theology.
postmodernism
'Postmodernism' is not simply a contemporary phenomenon, but will continue to be the culture of the new millennium. I think that in the new millennium it will take on a more defined shape. Dr Menzies has aptly pointed out the high cost of dancing with postmodernism. Postmodernism is a potent anaesthetic to the vitality of the Christian faith and witness. One of the destructive effects of postmodernity is that it fosters a plurality unknown before in its scope and scale. Jean-Francois Lyotard captures the essence of postmodernism as 'incredulity toward metanarratives'. This incredulity extends from ontology to epistemology. Reality, truth and meaning are viewed as mere social constructs signifying nothing. With the demise of metanarratives, all we have left is ghettoized perspectivalism. In such a context it is prudent not to accentuate denominationalism as this would reinforce the rule of perspectivalism. Hollenweger avers that 'Pentecostalism must confront its tendency to segregate and separate into countless denominations. It is happening all the time, and it really is a scandal.'3
The task facing Christian denominations is to stand as a united front, to discover our fundamental unity and to highlight that unity for the sake of witness in an age that has lost its moorings. Denominational diversity is inevitable to some extent, but we need to guard against viewing each other as competition and in so doing, unwittingly encourage spiritual consumerism. Reginald Bibby comments, 'Religion ... is mirroring culture. A specialized society is met with specialized religion. Consumer-minded individuals are provided with a smorgasbord of fragment choices. Culture leads; religion follows.'4
Such ghettoized perspectivalism also colors the meaning of 'faith'. Faith no longer means 'firm belief or certitude but rather 'preference' or 'choice'. In other words, faith's objectivity is displaced by radical subjectivism. Craig Gay notes, 'Modern sociocultural pluralism, in other words, has rendered the logic of preference increasingly imperative and ipso facto has rendered the notion of orthodoxy increasingly untenable'.5 Theological pluralism-the greatest doctrinal challenge of the coming century-is symptomatic of the despair of the age, a despair which has been described as 'an inability to believe that God is really able to speak and act effectively in our world'.6 Christian faith is thus privatized, a matter of personal preference rather than truth. When the logic of choice acquires preferential status, relativism and subjectivism reign. Christian faith is no longer about the worship of the only God but about feeling satisfied, sounding good and what works for me. This is indexical of the dominant sickness of the contemporary culture, narcissism: that we are lovers of self rather than lovers of God. The seduction of relevance lures us into relativity with regard to Christian orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is regarded as contaminating true religion. Inevitably orthodoxy is sacrificed on the altar of orthopraxis. How do we speak into such a context? How shall we do our apologetics? What is the most effective means to bring out the Christian truth? How are we to be missiologically relevant without sacrificing the true Gospel?
conclusion
As we approach the dawning millennium we cannot continue to think of Pentecostal issues in isolation from the global contexts and happenings. If we are to be vigorous and effective in the new millennium, we must not insulate ourselves from the worldwide sweep of God's Spirit and the burning issues of our times. The greater urgency now is not to expend our collective energies on these issues such as denominational distinctives but to exert the best of our minds and energies in combating cultural, intellectual and religious tides that threaten to atrophy the vitality of the Christian faith and witness.
Notes
1. R. Bondi, Leading God's People: Ethics for the Practice of Ministry (Nashville: Abingdon, 1989), p. 1 5.
2. H. Yung, Mangoes or Bananas? (Oxford: Regnum, 1997), p. 215.
3. W. J. Hollenweger, 'Pentecostalism's Global Language', Renewal Journal 13 (1999).
4. Cited by C.M. Gay, 'Plurality, Ambiguity, And despair In Contemporary Theology', JET5 36 (1993): 218.
5 Gay, 'Plurality', 209.
6. Gay, 'Plurality', 211.