In 1906 the Los Angeles Times reported a rather eccentric if not disturbing scene
New Sect of Fanatics Is Breaking Loose Wild Scene Last Night on Azusa Street Gurgle of a Wordless Talk by a Sister
Breathing strange utterances and mouthing a creed which it would seem no sane mortal could understand the newest religious sect has started in Los Angeles. Meetings are held in a tumble-down shack on Azusa street...and the devotees of the weird doctrine practice the most fanatical rites and preach the wildest theories and work themselves in to a state of mad excitement in their peculiar zeal.
Colored people and a sprinkling of whites compose the congregation and night is made hideous in the neighborhood by the howlings of the worshippers, who spend hours swaying forth and back in a nerve-racking attitude of prayer and supplication. They claim to have the "gift of tongues and to be able to comprehend the babel...
Los Angeles Times (April 18, 1906): 3.
For many, the novelty of “strange utterances” was a curious spectacle and it attracted its share of voyeurs. For others, especially those conservative Christian believers who were already fighting a battle with the liberal front of the church over the authority of Scripture, this outbreak of spirit activity could not have come at a worse time. With every opportunity, these conservatives self-identified as The Fundamentalists,1 rose to vilify the Pentecostal experience as a bastardized form of religious faith. They accused Pentecostals of a litany of sins. Morally, Pentecostals were suspect by promoting a "hell- hatched free-loveism."2 Ethically, they were accused of spiritual pride, by insisting that they had an inside track to God.3 And socially, contrary to the normative biblical teaching of its time, women freely participated in their services, and whites and blacks worshipped together. But one suspects in reading the literature that the true offence occurred over the notion that God still speaks anew through his Spirit. From the perspective of the fundamentalists, the Bible represented an archaeological dig in which experts in the field spent a lifetime unearthing timeless propositional truths. Steeped in the priestly tradition, the truths were all in one location - the Bible and await our discovery. These early Pentecostals no less in keeping with their own holiness roots, valued the authority of Scripture but operating from a decidedly more prophetic impulse Scripture functioned more as a compass on a ship. The compass worked by keeping the ship on course, but Pentecostals still relied on the prompting of the Spirit to know where to set the course and the Spirit itself to fill the sails.
I raise this historic memory not to boast about the Pentecostal tradition over against other Christian traditions. Truth be told Pentecostals today struggle as much with the prophetic voice as their Christian counterparts of old. In the tradition of the priestly voice Pentecostals are as wary of the stranger or anything outside their creedal beliefs as any other Christian tradition. A hundred plus years later they too have generally become more comfortable with the Bible as a closed text, bordered by two covers that advertises itself as all one really needs to know in living out the good life - seemingly a small price to be paid for the control it provides.
It behooves us therefore to revisit the prophetic voice and the anxiety it creates for established church institutions. If Genesis 1.1 represents the priestly voice of creation and its call for order, Genesis 1.2 speaks of the prophetic witness of the wind/spirit of God as it sweeps over the waters. Try as we might to harness the enigmatic powers of wind and water, they have a will of their own. They are forever crossing borders. If the mantra of the priestly voice is Lev. 19.2 “Be holy as God is holy,” the mantra of the prophetic voice is Luke 6.36 “Be merciful as your father is merciful.” The prophetic voice has a long history of dancing on the Sabbath, overturning both religious and secular tables of containment, and resisting all attempts at domestication. Here boundaries are meant to be crossed and the Bible as its companion is an inclusionary open book that points the way “not wanting anyone to perish.”
And here is the awkward truth of Scripture. Both voices, the priestly and prophetic live side by side inside the realm of Scripture. Neither do they apologize for the presence of the other even if sometimes they seem to be at odds with each other. The issue is not one of balance, it is of tension. History has long documented the excesses of the prophetic voice when it ignores its priestly counterpart, and it also knows the crippling numbness that occurs when the priestly shuts down the prophetic.
If the mantra of the priestly voice is Lev. 19.2 “Be holy as God is holy,” the mantra of the prophetic voice is Luke 6.36 “Be merciful as your father is merciful.”
The question then is how can these two divergent voices live together?
Perhaps this tension is aptly illustrated with the story of the Canaanite woman and her demon –possessed daughter. Crossing more than one border, in Matthew 15:25 Jesus leaves one place and enters Tyre and Sidon where he is interrupted by a desperate mother. Initially we are surprised that Jesus seems to ignore her pleas. When the disciples later urge her to go away, we are further unsettled by Jesus when he finally speaks and tells the outsider, “I am not here for you. I am sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” And besides, “it is not right to take the bread of children and toss it to dogs.” In other words, not only was she a Gentile she was probably a poor investment on Jesus’ time and resources.
This passage has troubled many a reader because it does not seem to align itself with the merciful Jesus most come to know in the Gospels. But truth be told, his reaction is perfectly in line with the priestly tradition. Jesus was justified in his response and the woman from Canaan knows it. “Yes, Lord” or in some translations, “Truth, Lord,” she responds with her own priestly assessment. But undeterred she presses on because her appeal is not to the priestly it was to the prophetic. She in effect dared Jesus to pass her by. And Jesus likewise responds in the prophetic and declares, “great is your faith, your daughter is healed.” To which, I suspect left the disciples not a little gobsmacked.
I love this story even though truthfully it makes Christians across all frontiers shudder in apprehension. Historically the default position of the Christian church is one of priestly control and security. We love the law. We love the idea of the Bible as a law book, provided we are free to interpret it according to our whims. Like the religious leaders in biblical times, we are more than a little nervous when the Holy Spirit leaks out of our institutions and wanders freely in our streets.[4]
I have been refereeing basketball for the past 26 years. Every year I need to be recertified by passing a national exam that ensures I know the rules – rules that without the game of basketball would be impossible. The rule book is over a hundred pages long and includes case-studies and official interpretations. But referees can memorize the official rule book and not be good officials if they ignore the two cardinal “prophetic” interpretations of “managing the game” and “advantage/disadvantage.” All of which means for the sake of the game, good officials know when on occasion to cross the boundary of the rule.
Today I self-describe myself as a pentecostal (lower case, even though my spell check wants to capitalize it) I understand that I am not always beloved by the Pentecostal institution to which I belong. I don’t always play well by the rules. But I remain true to my pentecostal heritage as it was here I was introduced to the border crossing impulse of the Spirit of God that makes this journey we call life worth living.
I began this little excursion into the authority of Scripture and suggested not a little cheekily that the Bible is useless and is meant to be received not used. By that I mean at the end of the day, the Bible stands in a relationship with its readers. And like any relationship the moment we include expectations from that relationship, the moment we steer the conversation, the relationship becomes sterile and any real conversation between the reader and the writer is forfeited. We in effect use scripture and betray the relationship. Long live the enchanted oracles of God.
[1]The term Fundamentalists should not be confused with its modern usage as radical and sometimes violent adherents to strict religious ways of living. In this case the nomenclature Fundamentalists refers to a late 19th century rift that developed in the church over the authority of Scripture. Concerned over a trend among many biblical scholars that weighed the human side of Scripture over its divine inspiration, several conservative scholars rallied together and produced an anthology that they appropriately titled The Fundamentals. Through this volume the authors attempted to reaffirm the divine origin and hence the inerrancy of Scripture in matters of faith and conduct. Christian groups that adhered to "The Fundamentals" became known as the Fundamentalists. [2]W.B. Godbey, Six Tracts by W.B. Godbey reprinted by ed. Donald Dayton (New York: Garland Pub., 1985): 27-28. [3] Alma White, whose husband left her to join a Pentecostal sect described Pentecostals as the most self- righteous, self-sufficient people on earth. Alma White, Demons and Tongues (Zarpeth, NJ: Pillar of Fire, 1919): 56. [4] In Acts 3, religious leaders arrest Peter and John for their complicity in the healing of a beggar on the steps of the Temple. The religious leaders understood the implication. Should the Spirit leak outside of the Temple out onto the street, who is going to control it?
Comments