Dead or Alive?

Jeff Clarke outlines 4 reasons that he chooses to remain in the Pentecostal tradition. I resonate to a large degree with Jeff's perspectives in his blog postings, particularly his analysis of where the tradition needs to address some serious areas of concern. I can appreciate his 4 reasons for staying, too, but I can't help but wonder, when I read an aside at the end of reason #2, if some of the less-than-positive features of the tradition's shaping influence are peeking through in spite of Jeff's best efforts to set them aside. Specifically, he characterizes a service he attended at a church of another denomination as "dead," as "lifeless and irrelevant."

Here's how I take issue with that bit of Pentecostal baggage:

1. This is irretrievably a subjective judgment. What one person pronounces dead will be seen by another as appropriately sober-minded.

2. What is the assumed opposite of "dead"? (I'm sorely tempted to reference Mad Max in "Princess Bride" here, and fellow fans already know what I mean.) I get the impression that the adjective/antonym is not "alive," in the sense that the Holy Spirit is actively bringing the life of Jesus to the congregated saints, but something more like "lively," which translates as, "I really feel the presence of the Spirit here today." The former is a matter for us to affirm as God's work in and among us, the latter is about the level of our emotional engagement; which of these two is more in line with the otherwise very helpful tenor of Jeff's usual posts? I attempted to make a similar point in a reply to Andrew Gabriel when he spoke of "a living experience of the Spirit."

With Jeff and Andrew, I recognize the value in a truly Pentecost-shaped theology. At the same time, though, I expect that nothing short of a Pentecostal-type miraculous intervention is what it will take to move the tradition to shed some of this kind of baggage. Sadly, I think, features such as the appetite for emotional stimulation are the sorts of things that 20th-century Pentecostalism has "bequeathed" to the wider church, when the bequest could and should have been--and still can be--so much richer.

So, kudos and blessings to scholars like Jeff who are staying. The tradition needs you and your input. May the positive influence of the tradition in your direction be strong and the negative rub-off be minimized through the gracious work of the Spirit, who is--and who makes the church of the Lord Jesus, including its worship services--most certainly alive!

The Name of Jesus

At the Name of Jesus, every knee shall bow,

Every tongue confess Him King of glory now;

’Tis the Father’s pleasure we should call Him Lord,

Who from the beginning was the mighty Word.

Mighty and mysterious in the highest height,

God from everlasting, very light of light:

In the Father’s bosom with the Spirit blest,

Love, in love eternal, rest, in perfect rest.

At His voice creation sprang at once to sight,

All the angel faces, all the hosts of light,

Thrones and dominations, stars upon their way,

All the heavenly orders, in their great array.

Humbled for a season, to receive a name

From the lips of sinners unto whom He came,

Faithfully He bore it, spotless to the last,

Brought it back victorious when from death He passed.

Bore it up triumphant with its human light,

Through all ranks of creatures, to the central height,

To the throne of Godhead, to the Father’s breast;

Filled it with the glory of that perfect rest.

Name Him, brothers, name Him, with love strong as death

But with awe and wonder, and with bated breath!

He is God the Savior, He is Christ the Lord,

Ever to be worshipped, trusted and adored.

In your hearts enthrone Him; there let Him subdue

All that is not holy, all that is not true;

Crown Him as your Captain in temptation’s hour;

Let His will enfold you in its light and power.

Brothers, this Lord Jesus shall return again,

With His Father’s glory, with His angel train;

For all wreaths of empire meet upon His brow,

And our hearts confess Him King of glory now.

Church and culture

Paula Huston, in an interview with The Other Journal, speaks of monasticism, Lenten disciplines, and community. What struck me is her assertion that

if we are going to be effective witnesses for Christ from within culture, whether as cultural critics or culture shapers, we must be willing to look with a clear eye at the habitual patterns of behavior and thought that dominate our society. If we’re to avoid hypocrisy, however, we must first be willing to turn the same assessing gaze on ourselves.

In a course I'm facilitating, students are reading Timothy Gombis, Eugene Peterson, and Jamie Smith and how they work through the same themes in Ephesians. The assignment on these is due tomorrow, and I'm looking forward to their reflections.