Modernity and the crisis of authority

Plausible, potentially a good brick in a soon-to-be much-defaced grafitti-ready argument-bearing wall surface in the discussion room. For me I need to chew it over with more time to pray and listen to God and the texts and roots referred to, before venturing out with an opinion more than hmmm...

You seem to be saying that pentecostalism fits into the postmodern, authority questioning zeitgeist. But, the postmodernist movement is overwhelmingly even more rebellious against the traditional conception of God than that. The new age movement is the most notable postmodern religious byproduct.

Here's a radical conception; maybe the pentecostal movement represents a move of God. We're the ones who pay attention to the elites. God seems to be more attuned to using plain folks.

One of my favorite Ortega quotes from Revolt of the Masses was his declaration that modern man's predicament was that of being "lost in their own labyrinths." I think that observation is more true today than in 1930.

I understand what you are saying about the modern world and the desire to eliminate suffering rather than use religion as a means to endure it. But I don't think all religious people truly think religion should alleviate their suffering rather than helping them find ways to cope with it. As I said in my earlier post, people don't want to feel that religion is so bound up in rules and laws that it becomes one more burden for them to bear rather than a means to help them bear life's burdens with grace. I also think they've not only grown tired of listening to religious leaders claim that theirs is the one, true religion but have grown disgusted and afraid of the extremism that often grows out of such claims. Finally, another reason that people may distrust more "hierarchical" religious institutions is a general distrust of "hierarchical" institutions in general -- a distrust that, I might add, has been earned through years of corruption and secrets that have been uncovered in business, government, and religion. Any religion that allows people to feel they can go directly to God and eliminate as many layers of fallible mankind is bound to have some appeal in these times.

I don't know, Rod. I once worked with a woman who had left a very charismatic church. I asked her why she decided to leave it. She looked at me, shook her head, sighed, and said darkly, "We were supposed to testify when we were moved by the Spirit. Week after week, the same people got moved by the Spirit, and got recognized by the preacher to come forth and give testimony. And they were the same people who were running everything else, too. I just got to suspecting that maybe the real Spirit would call on someone else, some of the time."

Now, I don't know how this sort of thing works in Pentecostalism, but what my co-worker's experience indicates to me is something I've found to be true a good deal of the time, and it is this:

Churches are *going* to have some kind of a hierarchy. The ancient Churches, Roman and Orthodox, have defined this very specifically, and as a result have a very visible hierarchy. But some little storefront Church of Jesus (Insert Title Here) will have a hierarchy, too: the pastor as Pope (or patriarch), his assistants as the rest of the clergy, and a few prominent members as, perhaps, theologians or administrators depending on their talents and inclinations. The rest of the people, whether they sit in polished pews or plastic chairs, will be the laity, and even in a church where everyone's supposed to be equal and the Spirit is supposed to move among all without favoritism, the "laity" might be as surprised as my co-worker was to find out how often the Spirit favors the pastor, his/her special friends, and those who are benefactors of the church.

I think this does fit in with the zeitgeist, though. We claim to want freedom, but hand over our liberties without question in the name of security; we claim to want peace, but go to war with little cause; we claim to want fewer government restrictions on daily life, but demand that the government protect us from incidental and consequential harm which might theoretically occur if we buy, for example, products which the State of California has determined might be hazardous to our health due to the presence of lead in the manufacturing process; we claim to want freedom from authority, but will reject a hierarchical church in favor of one where the hierarchy has been replaced by a clique.

In short, we claim to want total control of our lives, but will hand it over at any time for the pleasant illusion of control.

I think this stuff breaks down along IQ levels. The higher IQ people like the metaphysically complex, the lower IQ people like the charismatic experience.

Of course you're right. Pentecostalism and Evangelicalism isn't anti-authority but the authority exercised is much less formal (even if it is sometimes more authoritarian). You're leaders in these churches are just folks like you who lead a certain ministry or function not official robe wearing clergy. You'll hear a lot in Pentecostalism and Evangelicalism that God is "no repecter of persons". To many just seeing a Priest all adorned in vestments is like steeling their freedom in Christ. The gut reaction is to think something like "you think you have special access to God that I don't but Christ lives in me just as much as he lives in you".

I have to say that I agree with the sentiment here; that God in the new covenant ripped open the curtain and is available in a way that is not dependent on the old system. But I don't agree with the application. God also created a community in Christ with roles, responsibilities, and yes hierarchies. Our inability to feel satisfied with our place and our relation to God is our one of our modern faults. Btw I'm now an traditional Anglican after years in moder evangelical churches.

One more thing. I'm not sure framing the question as how someone would feel walking in off the street in any given church is proper. I've become convinced that church is for Christians not those on the fence. Evangelism happens while we're out in the world not at church. I don't mean that it can't happen there; sure it could. But church is for the worship of God for those who know him through Christ.

I think this stuff breaks down along IQ levels. The higher IQ people like the metaphysically complex, the lower IQ people like the charismatic experience.

Perhaps. However, one of the best books I've read on the subject, and still one of the best books on the subject, IMO, is Morton Kelsey's TONGUE SPEAKING. And then there's John Sherrill's classic book, THEY SPEAK WITH OTHER TONGUES. Sherrill was a long-time editor for GUIDEPOSTS Magazine. These books might not confirm this relationship between IQ and glossolalia. Persons curious about Pentecostalism/Charistmatic Christianity, or especially about speaking in tongues, should at least read these two books.

And then there is this 40-year-old study, AN ETHNOLOGICAL STUDY OF GLOSSALALIA by George J. Jennings, that I found on the Internet today, which, somewhat in line with Rod's essay, concludes: "Americans and Western man are insecure and anxious people. It is the writer's opinion there is a positive correlation between the disappearance of traditional supports sustaining man's self-confidence and the emergence of charismatic revivalism with its glossolalic phenomenon. Through ecstatic experiences by which he identifies with the supernatural, man secures compensation for the social, economic, and spiritual vacuum characteristic of Western culture in the twentieth century."

That article led me to the Webpage of The American Scientific Association: A Fellowship of Christians in Science, and using the "Search ASA" box turned up a number of scholarly articles on tongues-speaking and charismatic/pentecostal activities that might have some things to say related to Rod's recent posts.

Churches are *going* to have some kind of a hierarchy. The ancient Churches, Roman and Orthodox, have defined this very specifically, and as a result have a very visible hierarchy. But some little storefront Church of Jesus (Insert Title Here) will have a hierarchy, too[...]

There's a storefront church about an hour north of where I live that has a sign saying, "Come as you are. No traditions. No politics. No baggage." Every time I drive past it, I think to myself, "Rrrrrrrrrrrrright." If you've had your doors open for six months or more, you're going to have all three, whether you acknowledge it or not.

[L]eaders in [Pentecostal and Evangelical] churches are just folks like you who lead a certain ministry or function not official robe wearing clergy. You'll hear a lot in Pentecostalism and Evangelicalism that God is "no repecter of persons". To many just seeing a Priest all adorned in vestments is like steeling their freedom in Christ. The gut reaction is to think something like "you think you have special access to God that I don't but Christ lives in me just as much as he lives in you".

On the other hand, my gut reaction seeing a a guy with slicked back hair and wearing a $2,000 suit with a Bible under one arm yelling into a microphone is not exactly that this is "folk like me." One of the nice things about having a vested clergy is that at least it's an honest presentation of function. Function and status are two ideally unrelated concepts, particular in terms of ecclesial hierarchy (read the letters of St. Ignatius sometime; the laity are just as important as the episcopate and have all the same "access to God", it's just a difference of function), but for some reason that's a concept that's difficult to communicate to a lot of people.

In terms of the broader topic--the Orthodox monk Fr. Seraphim Rose talked a lot about the heresy of chiliasm (the belief that before the final judgment there will be an paradisical earthly kingdom over which Christ will rule for a thousand years) and his belief that it had manifested itself in the current age as the secular conviction that the world could be perfected. Further, he argued that the re-emergence of this heresy was infecting Christianity on every level:

"The careful observer of the contemporary religious scene...cannot fail to notice a very decided air of chiliastic expectation. [...] Thus, many traditionalist Roman Catholics believe in the coming of a chiliastic ‘Age of Mary’ before the end of the world, and this is only one variant on the more widespread Latin error of trying to ‘sanctify the world,’ or, as Archbishop Thomas Connolly of Seattle expressed it... ‘transforming the modern world into the Kingdom of God in preparation for His return.’ Protestant evangelists such as Billy Graham, in their mistaken private interpretation of the Apocalypse (Revelation), await the ‘millennium’ when ‘Christ’ will reign on earth." (Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood Press, p177).

For more on this, look here. I don't buy everything Fr. Seraphim had to sell by any means, but I think it's a worthwhile point to raise for this discussion nonetheless.

Richard

I would not go so far as to say that we North Americans live in a liberal society, because I believe any society is much more complex than to be labelled in so obviously reductive a fashion.

Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that the liberal account of society is a dominating one. One of the key features of this account is the effort to reduce the full complexity of human communities to mere voluntary associations, revisable at the discretion of their members. Thus the social contract came early to define political community, with Thomas Jefferson taking this on in his Declaration of Independence.

But even key institutions, such as marriage, family and church, have been subject to redefinition in accordance with this voluntaristic conception. Almost inevitably, the notion of the church as an authoritative institution is replaced by that of the church as mere voluntary association. It is hardly surprising that, in a society where personal choice is excessively valued for its own sake, those churches with voluntaristic ecclesiologies would thrive while those at least formally in conflict with the liberal ethos would find it more difficult to do so.

The irony, of course, is that the so-called mainline protestant churches have inherited the old hierarchical ecclesiologies while fully embracing the liberal ethos at the expense of the gospel itself. This is probably the worst combination imaginable. At least the evangelical and pentecostal churches clearly present the gospel message, even if they have allowed something of the liberal ethos to affect their ecclesial structures.

If the modern world is made for Pentecostalism, why is Pentecostalism chiefly successful in the Global South (i.e., certain regions of Latin America and Sub-Saharran Africa), the least modern parts of the "modern world"?

why is Pentecostalism chiefly successful in the Global South (i.e., certain regions of Latin America and Sub-Saharran Africa), the least modern parts of the "modern world"?

One could say the same thing about Catholicism and Anglicanism, which are the most successful in the Global South. Is there something so simplistic and literal about Catholicism and Anglicanism that they are the most successful in Abuja and Oaxaca?

Y'know, tv, after rereading your conjectural assessment that I responded to with the names of four prominent Pentecostal theologians, I find myself probably agreeing with you in large part, and I/we spent nearly 3 decades in non-denominational/Charismatic/Evangelical churches. My response really didn't address what you were saying.

I would probably disagree with your last statement, however:

Yes. Pentecostalism appeals, but not because it is therapeutic and individualistic, but because it makes them "us" and everyone else "them."

I think Pentecostalism appeals partly because it IS therapeutic and individualistic. It gives a person an emotional, physical, psychological and spiritual connection with, and experience of, God that can heal or affirm or edify a person emotionally, physically, psychologically and spiritually by meeting their needs as an individual, and in churches that allow for the exercise of the spiritual gifts by the members during the services or home meetings, it affirms the individual as a distinct and necessary member of Christ's body. That's not to deny the "us" issue, but it is to say that one cannot or should not deny or diminish the individualistic aspect of Pentecostal faith.

Implying people of low IQs gravitate to pentecostalism is insulting. The Catholic charismatic renewal started on university campuses, specifically UMich, Michigan State, Duquesne and Notre Dame. Among the Protestants, the renewal first began in 1960 among Episcopalians, who are no slouches in the intelligentsia department.
During my 2 trips to India (1994 and fall 2006), Christians there told me the only form of Christianity that's growing there - and able to take on Hinduism and Islam - is pentecostalism. I believe China is pretty much the same way. So, it's a very versatile form of Christianity to say the least.
Here's the question I wish someone would answer: Why is the charismatic movement so dead in the United States? Visit once-charismatic churches and you'd think you were among the Southern Baptists. The fastest-growing churches are these "new Reform" and PCA types that are anything but charismatic. So there's a real backlash out there.

I think what makes Pentecostal/charismatic forms of Christianity popular is the same thing that attracts people to the various Neo-Pagan sects. Dreher identifies it in his post - 'experiential [and] individualized'. He understands the practical need for the individualization - we 'modern' types are fairly nomadic in our living habits, so there is a need for a 'portable' faith that can be practiced anywhere, anytime, and alone if necessary.

But I think the 'experiential' element is the really attractive part, and deserves further comment. Dreher's talked in other posts about modern mainstream Christianity as 'moralistic deism' - intellectual assent to the idea of a higher power plus (loose) adherence to a moral code. I think many people find this profoundly unsatisfying. Religion needs a certain amount of intellectual framework, but that isn't what feeds the soul. People want to feel God, not just talk about him. A rite that has little intellectual content, but that engages the senses, the emotions, and the imagination, evokes a sense of holiness far more effectively than theological speech-making. A sense that a spiritual reality exists just a hair's breadth away, and that humankind can and must participate in this reality - that's the heart of all honest religion.

The argument voiced above as to Pentecostal anti-intellectualism is an interesting one. It is both true and false. Yes, there are a lot of Pentecostals that have very simplified minds. This is probably correspondent with the overwhelming number of poor people they call members. The more affluent one is within the culture, the more likely they are to value education and the life of the mind. Pentecostals in the form of The Assembly of God church are the least affluent of Christian traditions currently operating within the United States. The irony is, that according to sociologist Christian Smith's most recent study of Religion among teenagers (a book Titled Soul Searching), teenagers from Assemblies of God churches have the most comprehensive Christian worldview of any Christian denomination. In fact, they have a better understanding of what their religion believes than any religious group in the country, barring only children from Mormon homes. This includes Judaism, which is the most affluent Christian tradition operating in America. So, while their minds may not be all that sharp in general, their church is doing a better job of communicating theology in our postmodern age than any other church. I might also add that Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy were somewhere near the bottom of this list, well below all congregational denominations of Christianity.

It's ironic that a faith is treated condescendingly in the U.S. when it is a religion of the people, but is used as a symbol of faitfulness when it is the religion of the people beyond our borders. When Catholicism and Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are the religions of the peasants and the poor in Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, it is a symbol of their universal grace. When Pentecostalism is the religion of the "peasants" and poor in the U.S., it is a symbol that it is simple-minded and that the believers are just stupid.

Maybe Anglicans and the Orthodox and Catholics in the U.S. need to get in touch with why their faiths appeal to the poor elsewhere (and not just when it is politically expedient and useful, like certain Episcopal dissidents).

Joe seems to have the formula.

Fortunately, the Protestants corrected the heresy of Orthodoxy and Catholicism years ago.

You don't need someone to give you a prescribed prayer. God knows your heart. Speak to Him from your heart.

Be good to your neighbors and your enemies(with that Protestants agree).

There's no need to fast at appointed times.

Confess one's sins.

Keep oneself from immorality.

Receive the bread & wine.

It's simple. It's truth. All the rest is distraction. Become a mainline Protestant and stop the foolishness.

Sorry Watsy, us Catholics can't live on your version of "mere" Christianity.

We need the sacraments.

So did the early Christians.

Jesus said "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you." More than mere "bread and wine."

Catholics and Orthodox believe he was speaking literally. Christ shares his very own risen life with us in the Holy Eucharist, one of the seven sacraments. Through that holy sacrament we receive the forgiveness of sins and a pledge of the future glory to come.

You might also want to investigate the Orthodox teaching on "theosis", or "divinization."

Um, where did you get the idea I was saying he was speaking individually to me? This is the teaching handed on by the apostles to whom Jesus said "He who hears you hears me." In that context he is addressing all his followers.

No need to go into fundamentalism versus liturgical/sacramental Christianity.

We'll never get off that treadmill.

Thank you for your response Christine. I will look up the Orthodox teaching on theosis. Should be an interesting read.

And maybe we are all kettles sitting around and calling pots black.

Amen, and amen, and amen.

Full disclosure re: Rev. Dr. Thobodaux and the Apostolic Pillar of Fire Holy Ghost Tabernacle - it wasn't coined today, but it is mine, coined during a dinner conversation with friends on this very same subject not 2 weekends ago.

Funny how many of my friends are ex-something-or-other, and how we all did a stint with the Pentecostals after we left our churches of origin. There's definitely something to the appeal of charisma. It's such a shame so little of it is deeper than a puddle of super-fragrant annointing oil. There're folks in any Pente crowd who know what they're talking about, and far far many more who use their bibles as a checklist by which they judge their neighbors instead of themselves.

Frankly, if the theology had ever gone deeper than "God said it. I believe it. That settles it," I'd probably still be a Pentecostal today.

Richard,
You know me too well. I meant parts of it, but for the most part, I was reacting to my annoyance to Joe's posts which imply that his way is the best way to God. I have no problem with Catholic or Orthodox religion. I'm sure that it has good points and bad. In the grand scheme of TRUTH, it's probably spot on in places and misses the mark on others. Same with my mainline Protestant church. Same with my husband's and kid's Reform Judaism.

Here's my real formula:
1.Speak to God from the heart. Recite prescribed prayers if the words of those prayers speak to you and express what you truly want to say. I know that all prescribed prayers are more poetic than anything that I would ever say, so why not use them as a means of speaking to God. If they don't ring true to you and don't convey what's in your heart, then don't bother with them.
2.Be good to your neighbors- friends and enemies alike.
3.Fast if it has meaning to you, or find a way to make it meaningful. I doubt that God's handing out brownie points for those who fast, but it remains a spiritual practice for many people because of the symbolic meaning behind the ritual.
4. Confess when you've done wrong to those you've harmed and then make amends.
5. Keep oneself from doing or promoting that which you know is wrong.
6. Engage in spiritual practices which are meaningful to you on a daily basis.

Joe,
Jesus said what he said because he was a practicing Jew speaking to Jews.
Sorry that I reacted negatively to you rather than responding in a less sarcastic manner.

Christine,
Of course, engage in your sacraments. It sounds like they are very meaningful to you.