Rebuilding 'the House' I

 by Mark Hutchinson

If one were to ask the question “what is Pentecostalism”, the answers might surprise you. It depends on who you ask. Ask a member, and you are likely to be told that it is the movement of God in the world. Ask a Pentecostal theologian, and you are likely to be told that it is a movement of experiential holiness marked by distinctive doctrines emerging from a belief that God, in the last days, has restored the biblical gifts of the Holy Spirit. Ask other sorts of theologians, and they will vacillate between ‘satanism unveiled’ and various sociological descriptions related to the downward mobilization of marginalized laity.

These are all different answers to those that you might come to yourself if you just wandered into a Pentecostal meeting and did some qualitative analysis. Going from one place to another, you would be struck by the coherency of language, and the way that language structures subcommunities. Indeed, the case could be made that 21^st century Western Pentecostalism is less a movement defined by its theology than a linguistic subcommunity formed through common culture. This follows the observations of people such as Peter Berger who declare that we are in a post-denominational age. This gives us a clue as to what we might consider to be 'the big question' to which pentecostalism claims to be 'the answer'. Denominational loyalties have declined, and the Church as a whole needs to find an organisation form which replaces it. This means not only replacing a form of organisation but legitimizing that form.  The variety in Christian theologies is largely based in their attempts - at various periods in history - to legitimize one or another type of church organisation. Those emerging from the doctrinal revolution of the reformation, for example, largely define themselves doctrinally. By contrast, Mega-churches in the global cities act on the world stage as gatekeepers for cultural influence and coherency rather than of ‘theology’. The mode of that culture is the conference – Hillsong Conference in Australia, the growing “500+” group, the Purpose Driven Church Conferences at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in California, the Leadership Summits at Willow Creek in Chicago, or any of a hundred others. Denominations (such as Sydney Anglicans) have responded by reclaiming their ‘brand identity’, but this has not undermined that global space but rather just added more players to it.

So if the sign on the door doesn’t mean much (just look at the bus carpark at a megachurch conference, where Catholic, Adventist, Baptist and Uniting Church youth buses contest for parking space), how do you know what church you are in? Increasingly, language markers seem to be used define the lines of connection, the flow of ideas. This is not a new observation – generational language markers have been in use in the post-War west for decades, distinguishing ‘cool dudes’ from ‘totally sick’ and ‘mad’ ‘youth communicators’ (which is apparently the new term for a visiting youth pastor from another church). Word faith churches are so “totally awesome” as to be instantly identifiable to the attentive listener, and quite distinguishable from Angloceltic charismatic churches where the welcome to the “Hwoly Spidit” projects a very different set of expectations about class, behaviour and background. Among Pentecostal churches shifting away from their holiness roots (no “Hwoly Spidit” there, only the “ ‘Oly Ghost-ah, and Fire!”) towards the soft-entry, seeker sensitive model, the language is rather more biological. One hears talk of being part of the ‘DNA’ of the church, a ‘son of the house’ whose belongingness is demonstrated by their commitment to the vision of the leader of the house, ie. the senior pastor. The power of this is immediately obvious. It is sub-rational, a claim which is not about choice but about obedience flowing from tribal belonging. It is not a set of agreements about theology, or even a set of conscious engagements, but rather an appeal to the deepest and defining desire of humans: to belong to a community of meaning. It carries with it promise – belong, and we will look after you. It also carries with it threat – cease to belong, and you will be cast into the outer darkness of declining communities.

Such biological language is eminently suited to the fraying of the post-Reformational doctrinally-defined communities which came down to settler and secularizing societies as ‘denominations.’ (many in fact were established churches which through the 19^th Century were disestablished – to the delight of their non-conformist colleagues!) It does not depend on a coterie of well-trained clergy to define its terms. It does not have in it implicit rights, and therefore it does not allow for challenges to authority. It takes care of the persistent problem of voluntarist associations in a post-disestablishment age – the instability of the willful volunteer – by creating a parallel with the most highly effective organisational form of the day, the corporation. Volunteer associations after all depend on the internal motivational level of their volunteers. Biological members are not volunteers, but members by birth and ingrained identity. They can be motivated to work more like IBM than the Girl Scouts, an essential characteristic in an age when the Girl Scouts (and football clubs, and Lions’ clubs, along with all other forms of volunteerism based on the 19^th century concepts of philanthropy and the ‘common good’) are declining fast. They will not only turn up for car park duty, but like members of a family company, will pay for the pleasure of doing it. They do not ‘help’ the church; they are the church, the ‘body of Christ’ in a very dynamic and presentist manner.

The theological basis for much of this shift arises out of an attempt to consolidate the gains of the 1970s charismatic movement in a form which can be applied ecclesiologically and generically. This is strongest in the Wagnerian ‘Ride of the Apostles’ theology emerging from America, something reflected in the energy released by David Cartledge’s story of the rise of apostolic leadership in Australia (The Apostolic Revolution). Most of the punters, however, never get near such literature. Rather, it is passed on in ‘leadership training’ (which, in churches typified by leaders who claim apostolic authority without necessarily having apostolic giftings, could be more accurately be described as ‘follower training’) in small, ministry oriented groups for musicians, service support people etc. It is modeled in the hierarchies of conferences (different coloured tickets, a ‘green room’ for VIPs, and a class of VIP evident only by the absence of the conference speakers from the Green Room at all), in a style of dress, in a tone of voice and certainty of tread that one usually associates with the business world.

[Continued in 'Rebuilding the House II']

Comments

[bclark]

ROFL - **picks himself off the floor, dusts himself off and begins to write**.

'than a linguistic sub community formed through common culture' - I was thinking about this the other day....we have a lady who gives announcements at church on the video screen and every week her talk is specifically tailored to a set formula. My fun every week is betting with my wife what superlative she will use (extraordinary, fantastic, miraculous....)

'a ‘son of the house’ whose belongingness is demonstrated by their commitment to the vision of the leader of the house, i.e. the senior pastor' - and their willingness to tithe :)

'belong, and we will look after you' - yet they seem to have very few techniques to engender belonging. If it were 'follow me' and we'll look after you it might have a bit more of a meaning but even that could be a flawed model.

The corporate model works because of the fact the people get paid for work and there are defined career networks within it that allow for advancement. Although there are still glass ceilings and barriers to entry in some areas (e.g. women on boards of companies are still rare but increasingly less so) these networks of communities work for many reasons; the most economically being self interest and the gratis payment for effort. This doesn't happen in contemporary ecclesial communities.

[Deborah Taggart]

but let's not be too hard on our own tradition; despite structural changes from a voluntarist movement that runs by democratic voting to a leadership style more like the corporate top-down model, Pentecostal churches still have the highest rating on National Church Life Surveys for creating a sense of identity, belonging and ownership in the members.

Something we do helps people belong and feel like their contributions are meaningful; I guess what we want to do is explore how to continue to harness this skill, but ensure we use it ethically, pastorally, and unselfishly...

>

[Frank Emanuel]

Just before I jump to the next one, Vineyards have been using biological language for a long time. But the sociological model is not so bounded (nor is it mysogenistic enough to use terms like 'son of the house') But we have expressed belonging in language of just being - you don't become Vineyard you find out you always were. However, we don't fall into a restorationist (or new apostolic) ecclesiology, that just has no real basis in actual church history. And the center is not so much a senior pastor (but our leadership model does make that too easy) but in the best examples a theology and the rest an ideology or set of common values.

We recently redefined our denominational structure to capture this organic/biological identity more.

OK on to the next bit, interesting article BTW.

[Deborah Taggart]

'misogenistic' is a tad of an overstatement for our movement, I think. We/they see themselves as loving women and helping them assume their designed place in God's Kingdom. There are just a different range of opinions on what that designed place is - often determined by something between conservative and progressive culture and/or interpretations of biblical text.

Most people talk about sons and daughters of the house - I have never felt excluded from that language on the basis of gender; I'm more likely to wonder on what basis a church assumes my parentage, and if I really am happy to be known as the child of this particular institution which has certain values and actions which may or may not agree with mine.

The Bible tends to say we are children of God; apart from that, all I can think of is Paul saying in 1 Corinthians 4:15-16 "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me" (also cf. 1 Th 2:11-12).

Note that it seems to be more of a 'God has knit our hearts together' kind of relationship than a 'you subscribe to my vision' relationship. But I guess a problem of today is, how do you knit hearts/create reciprocity in the larger church?

Another thing to note on Paul's claim to parenthood of the Corinthian church, is that his model puts the initiative of 'parent-child' relationship-building on the parents. As in, someone further along takes the initiative to care for people as 'children', unconditionally (but hoping they will respond with love, attention to wisdom, and imitation of the parent's actions and values). This could be an interesting corrective to leadership that insists on a congregation proving their daughter/son-ship (offerings, volunteering etc.); shouldn't our church leaders first commit to demonstrating faithful parenthood (loving, committed pastoral care, shepherding etc.)? But I guess that takes time, which starts to demand financial resources, and all of a sudden we need tithe-paying kids to enable us to act like parents....I wish ideals just worked, complication-free!

[Frank Emanuel]

Wow that isn't what I expected would get picked up, calling something bounded isn't exactly complimentary. However my experience, and it is considerable as I became a Christian in the PAOC (AOG in Canada) and served as a minister in the Foursquare for a number of years, the movement does have misogenistic tendencies. I think most young evangelical movements do, including my own (that is one area I have disagreements with Wimber on). So I wouldn't single out the Pentecostals, but I also am one who feels it is proper to point it out wherever I see it. I know many women have found ways to see the language through an interpretive grid that lets them feel included, but the fact is the language is exclusive and very male-centric. This stuff is insidious in Christian culture and ignoring it just fosters those who use it to really exclude.

[Deborah Taggart]

hmm, maybe we just have a different understanding of the word 'misogynistic' - I take it as a serious accusation of deliberate hatred of women.

I agree that women in the church (the church at large and my own movement) still need to empowered and treated as full equals, and the exclusive male language should change (I mention this on my own blog: http://the-bright-side.blogspot.com/2006/05/ministry-and-movements.html). I found it distressing to be in a megachurch last year and hear them call all the elders to the stage to pray about something....only to see all the elders were male! It was such a visual statement of patriarchy and inequality I burst into tears....and the senior pastor must've gotten a slight shock himself, so he then asked the elders' wives to come join them onstage....

Thanks for being honest and on board to fight discrimination :)

[Mark Hutchinson]

Thanks for the comments all. The discussion is heading away from the theme somewhat, but hey, boots and all, eh?! I think we have to be a little careful about how we import broader discussions into the church. The feminist critique of patriarchal societies is a just one (though its internal politics are another thing), and insofar as the Church participates in the social norms of its day, it is open to the same critiques. A broader sociological approach, however, has to admit the internal coherency of social groups and the way they define their own ‘realities’. Pentecostals are a classic example of this tension. Instead of adopting either modernism (a la the liberals) or straight dispensational fundamentalism (à la the reformed antimodernism of Bob Jones et al), early Pentecostals adopted a form of ‘counter-modernism’ in which the techniques of modernity were filtered out from it rationalist reductionism, and the dispensations of literal fundamentalism were squashed into an end times, restorational immediacy. In the process they solved the problem of Calvinism vs. arminianism by declaring both things to be irrelevant to the immediate necessity of God. The balance was maintained through the hermeneutic of the Spirit. Consequently, Pentecostals manage to fulfil the maxim of ‘being in the world but not of it’ by building what, to modernists, is an oxymoronic spirit filled community, a conflation of public and private, a free literalism. No-one in these communities would think for a moment that they were being ‘misogynistic’ in reading the text – they are simply trying to defend a traditional conception of biblical obedience which they associate with the power to be who they are, their ‘free literalism’. The ‘megachurch’ that Deb is talking about is a good example. As with many of the churches in our tradition, they have numerous women pastors, females in the highest positions of their organisations. Indeed, the best known ‘face’ and most powerful pubic asset of that megachurch is a woman. However, they do not have a hermeneutic which will enable them to overcome certain texts in the bible which, given the reformed dominance of the literature, have been read in misogynistic ways. That is changing – Pentecostals are increasingly producing their own theology and hermeneutics in ways that are faithful to free literalism (see the work of Jacqui Grey on a Pentecostal hermeneutic of the Old Testament). There will come the day, Deb, and that not far off I believe, when you won’t need to cry in church anymore! In the meantime, such churches have made remarkable strides in quite a traditional context, to empower women in real ways. We are only 20 years into the process here, a short time indeed in historical terms, so let's be hopeful, and supportive of the strides that have been made.

Ha ha ha ha...