Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
189 Azusa and Other Experience Myths: The Long and Winding Road from to Stated Belief and Back Again Jean-Daniel Plüss* Those must have been marvelous days, when signs and wonders were accompanying the early days of the Pentecostal revival at the beginning of this century. The more Pentecostals search the roots of their movement, the more evidence is found that a charismatic spirituality lies at the heart of the Pentecostal phenomenon that has brought an impulse of renewal to twentieth-century Christianity. I believe that Pentecostals need to learn to appreciate their past metaphorically in order to recover and incorporate that early charismatic spirituality into today’s Christian experience. Spiritual thirst today will not be quenched by mere deductive propositions and statements of doctrine. In order to illustrate my point, I invite you first to look at the concept of “initial evidence” as it has been discussed in the recent book edited by Gary B. McGee.1 In a second step, I will illustrate the difficulties arising from a conceptualization, or should I say objectivization, of such a phenomenon. Then, I will suggest reasons and provide tools that encourage believers of today to find their way back to the roots and the early spirituality of Pentecostalism, without, at the same time, rejecting some of the information and interpretive understandings that Pentecostals have gathered from a critical, analytical approach. It is a journey from the marvelous memories of early Pentecostalism, to hypothetic-deductive procedures, and back to a mythic consciousness of God’s Spirit working among God’s people today. Initial Evidence: > A Doctrine, or the Magic Agent in a Fairy Tale? If a Pentecostal in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in Sweden or in Switzerland were asked, how the Pentecostal Movement started, the most likely answer would be: “Well, it started when they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues.” Apparently, glossolalia was a remarkable sign or evidence of the new outpouring of the Spirit. It was, as a gift of God’s Spirit, a common denominator that brought people from different places, different colors, and different backgrounds together. As many came from the Holiness Movement, they understood the sign of tongues as a further step *Jean-Daniel Plüss is editor of the EPTA Bulletin, the Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association. the 1 garb B. McGee, ed., Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991). 1 190 towards the restoration of the full Gospel as in the days of the Book of Acts.’ Up to 1907 there was even a consensus that speaking in in tongues, the form of xenoglossa, was a utilitarian necessity for the evangelization of the world.’ It is easy to understand that speaking in tongues as a sign of Spirit baptism became a pivotal point for the new revival. Baptism in the Holy Spirit would bring power for ministry and tongues; healings and miracles would testify to a divine outpouring of grace to the world. So, at the beginning, speaking in tongues was appreciated as a phenomenon of God’s grace. It had not been elevated yet to the status of a doctrine.” It was first and foremost an experience whose form was described in biblical language. Probably the earliest reference to “initial evidence” is found in the “Statement of Fundamental Truths” of the Assemblies of God, written in 1916. Only a few years later the preferential term had become “initial physical evidence.” Later again one could hear the term “indispensable initial physical evidence.,,5 In view of rising controversy and a struggle for identification with, as well as differentiation from, other Christian communities, the perception of a spiritual phenomenon changed to a shibboleth of orthodoxy. It is not the intention of this article to assess the doctrinal value of such statements; on the contrary, I would like to analyze the rationale that led to this conceptualization and suggest an interpretation of its consequences. The rationale that led to this conceptualization has a secular as well as a religious aspect. From a secular point of view the predominant philosophy for the first generation of Pentecostals was influenced by a dualistic positivist objectivism. The performance of the empirical sciences was strong; political and social views were pronounced.6 One did not need to belong to the well-educated classes Book of 2 Gary B. McGee, “Early Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Tongues as Evidence in the Acts,” in Initial Evidence, 99 ff.; cf. also, Donald. W. Roots MI : Francis Dayton, Theological of Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids, Asbury Press, 1987), 73. 145. ‘ Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “William Seymour and ‘the Bible Evidence’,” in Initial Evidence, 77; James R. Goff. Jr., “Initial in the of Charles Fox Parham,” in Initial Evidence. 64f. Tongues Theology 4 In the early days speaking in tongues was seen as a sign of God’s eschatological promise. There was a initiated the awareness of phenomenological link between Pentecost and the present that God’s present reign through the power of the In other words, glossolalia was “initial” evidence of a new outpouring of the Spirit. Spirit. Only later would this phenomenon receive a fixed terminology and be conceptualized as a doctrine. For William J. Seymour’s nuanced on and in theological view Spirit baptism speaking tongues as two related, but see independent, graces, Robeck, “William Seymour and ‘The Bible Evidence’,” 77-82. On various views on the issue during the early years cf McGee, “Early Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” 103-110. ‘ McGee, “Early Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” 110; and J. L. Hall, “A Oneness Pentecostal 6 Looks at Initial Evidence,” in Initial Evidence, 185. A new century had started, on one side changes were expected and many were confident, on the other side social convictions were strongly defended: good was 2 191 to be taken in by the mental attitudes of the time. As a matter of fact, it is likely, that unsophisticated people were “pigeonholing” their opinions even more radically according to a “this can be/this can’t be” or a “this is good/this is bad” attitude. Is it surprising, then, that speaking in tongues as a manifestation of Spirit baptism would be called “initial physical evidence?” They might just as well have called it “basic empirical proof.” The second aspect for the development of this conceptualization is a religious one. As indicated above, controversy forced Pentecostals to take sides for the sake of maintaining a clear differentiation from those with whom they did not agree.’ Furthermore, the challenges of the Evangelicals had to be answered. The Pentecostals were forced to give good reasons for their convictions. Naturally, a theologizing of glossolalia and the notion of Spirit baptism took place. They wanted to prove spiritual filiation with the Evangelicals. Beginning with World War II, a rapprochement was achieved and culminated in membership of prominent Trinitarian Pentecostal denominations with the National Association of Evangelicals. Honorable as the intentions were, it must be asked what were the benefits and what was the price that the Pentecostals had to pay? Beneficial was the theological reflection that ensued, even if the resulting convictions may prove to be tentative.8 8 The price that Pentecostals had to pay, however, was, in my opinion, the loss of an essential aspect of their spirituality; namely, the disassociation of speaking in tongues and Spirit Baptism from its original setting. Or, to put it hermeneutically, they demythologized the “outpouring of the Spirit upon all flesh” as it happened, for instance, at Azusa Street for the sake of a propositional claim. The problem can be described as follows: the Pentecostal revival brought a new context and a new expression of God’s grace to the believing community. The Spirit of God was moving. What happened was well-expressed in the early testimonies which embodied narratives of people being touched by God’s love and motivated by the Holy Spirit to serve humankind. Then, as we have stated, the need arose to explain the work of the Spirit theologically. In providing this theological explanation, Pentecostals employed the commonly shared epistemological presuppositions of the day, which were based upon a positivist understanding of history. Timothy B. Cargal has well argued good and evil stayed evil, black people were not white and that was that. ‘ A point in case is the controversy between Fred Francis Bosworth and the Executive Fred Presbytery of the Assemblies of God in 1918. See R. M.. Riss, “Bosworth, Francis,” in Dictionarv of Pentecostal and Charismatic Afovements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 94. 8 On the hermeneutical implications see below and “Second Naivete : Viable Approach or Idealist Escape: Reflections on a Hermeneutic Problem my in a Renewal Movement,” a paper presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology (Lexington, KY: November 10-12, 1988). 3 192 his thesis that Pentecostals, Fundamentalists Modernists have in common,” presupposition meaningful.”9 By conceptualize, “speaking in tongues” began as “speaking about devoid of terms up phenomenon in fact, shared the same rational bias with and Modernists alike. “What both Fundamentalists and question is before us: can Cargal wrote, “is a philosophical and objectively true is route Pentecostals began to down what they meant by of the Spirit.” As a result, what ended in a “formalization” that only what is historically following this to narrow and to pin and “baptism an experience” much substance.’° To nail down an idea might be helpful in of clarifying the issues at stake, but it is dangerous if it all ends as a crucifixion. To put it differently, some have tried to elevate the of speaking in tongues to the level of doctrine, and thereby they seemed to forget that I speaking in tongues is primarily a symbol of God’s Spirit of blessing.” In the beginning there was an experience and a testimony, then came an explanation in the form of a theological construct. The challenging we now move on to a fuller comprehension of what happens when God “fills people with his Spirit?” We know now that every doctrine, if one does not live up to it, bears the potential for instilling fear; in contrast, a symbol of God’s grace instills hope and In order to inhabit the symbolic world of God’s Spirit, Pentecostals need to drink anew from the wells of their earlier charismatic spirituality. Such a journey is aided, as the next section of article will suggest, by a metaphorical reading of glossolalia in the commitment. my context of Spirit Baptism. How to Handle a Hot Potato, or How Does ivfyth Remain an Inspiration Clarifications . Literary One thing should be clarified from the outset. When we are talking about metaphorical interpretation we are not making any a priori value Societv for argues 9 Timothy B. Cargal, “Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Controversy: Age,” Pneuma: The Journal Pentecostal Theology 15 of the (Fall 1993): 168. ‘° With his well-known that the analogy of the “Pearl and the Oyster,” Henry I. Lederle tendency to establish a rationalistic theological construct “reifies” the apostolic faith and “domesticates” the Evidence and the Holy Spirit. Henry 1. Lederle, “Initial Charismatic Movement,” in Initial Evidence, 135. It is a Protestant fallacy to think that God communicates seriously only through the rational word. My premise would be that the Spirit of God is just as much at home in our unconscious self. epistemological point ” Phillip H. Wiebe’s argument that the notion of initial evidence is, from an of view, not a doctrine at all [cf. “The Pentecostal Initial Evidence Doctrine,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Societv 27 (December 1984): 465-472] has been succinctly summarized Vem Newman, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Suggesting a by Larry Model, Exploring the Problems,” a paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies (Lakeland, FL: November 7-9, 1991 ). 4 193 judgment on truth content; we do not intend to minimize the notion of point of Spirit Baptism simply by relating to it from a metaphorical view. On the contrary, it might become apparent that a metaphorical interpretation is quite helpful as it points to a surplus of truth otherwise not hinted at, if only propositional analogies and hypothetical deductions are made. To put this statement on metaphorical interpretation into context, a small segment of the hermeneutical theory of Paul Ricoeur will prove helpful,’2 particularly his use of the following notions: metaphor, myth, and mimesis. A metaphor is a figure of speech, attempting to make a statement in such a way that it seems contradictory, but at the same time rings true. A well-known example of a metaphor is the phrase, “King David is a lion.” On the one hand, King David is a human being and not an animal; on the other hand, the metaphor seems to imply that David rules Israel as with the strength and’majesty of a lion. The copula “is” in the metaphor “King David is a lion” implies equivalence and difference at the same time.’ 3 The positivist would say that it is impossible to say that something is and at the same time that this thing is not. In understanding metaphors, however, it is vital to go beyond the literally deductive point of view. Metaphors do convey something existential and/or ontological. They must be understood in the context of human life. 14 Consequently, if we talk about traditional stories, such as the Azusa Street revival, we cannot be satisfied with identifying objectively factual descriptions; instead, we are invited to perceive the dialectical relation between that which is and that which is not. In other words, if there is a spiritual appeal to events, or should I say testimonies, from which we desire to drink, we must consider them in the context of human life. Such representations are metaphorical in their origin and in their intent. They are never purely historical, nor merely fictitious. They relate to an encounter between the immanent and the transcendent. Ricoeur begins his treatment of myth by elaborating the Aristotelian definition of that term. A myth is a traditional story in the experience of time, with a plot that leads to an unexpected reversal of fortune and a surplus of meaning, thus providing people’ with grounds for ritual 12 As the hermeneutic theory of Paul Ricoeur is quite elaborate and spans a life’s work it is not easy to pick a few of his books on the topic. However, basic reading would include: The Svmbolism of Evil (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967); The Rule of Metaphor. A4ulti-Disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Vfeaning in & Language (London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1977) ; Temps et recit (English translation: Time and Narrative) 3 vols. (Paris: Editions Seuil, 1983-1985); and, a collection of articles by Ricoeur edited by Lewis S. Mudge, Essays on Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia. PA: Fortress Press, 1980). 13 Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor, 248. “Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor, 252. “The paradox consists in the fact there (sic) there is no other way to do justice to the notion of metaphorical truth than to include the critical incision of the (literal) ‘is not’ within the ontological vehemence of the (metaphorical) `is’.” Ricoeur, The Rule oflvletaphor, 259. 5 194 action as well as ethical commitment. A myth helps people understand themselves and to act in their world. A myth is not simply to be explained (as the Modernists or the literalists would have it), but it provides a form of divine truth in a worldly context which reaches beyond known and tangible reality. It provides a plot for human existence and more.” Myth is always more than an event in world history, for it points to transcendence, and hence to a ‘ surplus of meaning. The notion of mimesis advanced by Ricoeur is based on Aristotle’s poetics and refers to a re-presentation of tragic action. It belongs to the tragic because for Aristotle, tragedy was the only noble representation of reality, containing a tension between the perception of that which is and that which ought to be. ” It is precisely the perception of this tension, of that which is and that which ought to be, that marks the core of the early testimonies of how people got baptized with the Holy Spirit and began to minister “with signs following.” Thus, we have a good example of mimesis as representation of tragic action. Ricoeur now introduces his hermeneutic theory by suggesting three mimetic moments. The first mimetic moment is a pre-reflective representation of ethos and praxis. In other words, it is a pre-reflective expression of intelligibility reflecting a common understanding of temporality which is culturally conditioned. By analogy to the early days of Pentecostalism we may apply this first mimetic moment to the testimonies interpreting speaking in tongues as xenoglossa as a sign of the “latter rain” for the sake of world evangelism. The first mimetic moment is the pre-understanding one brings to any event due to one’s being in the world and caring about it.” It is the very disclosure of an experience. It has not yet been explained, but it already makes sense. The second mimetic moment relates to the production of an explanation. A text is configurated; a phenomenon is conceptualized. Again, by analogy we may compare this development with the efforts to establish a doctrine of initial evidence. This aspect of mimesis includes scientific historiography. It is a synthesis of elements pertaining to an event, individual and/or collective, with heterogeneous factors that are thought to shed light on the understanding of what was or is going on. As reflective activity it brings concordance to the discordant or fragmentary; it makes it possible that a thought, a theme, or an argument can be spelled out. 18 But as a constituent element of “Ricoeur, The Svmbolism of Evil. 5-18; Temps et récit, 1, 72; and, Essays on Biblical Interpretation. 6 1. ‘6 Ricoeur, Temp,s et récit. I. 58. “Ricoeur intentionally introduces the order Heideggerian notions of Dasein and Sorge in to establish a connection between the production of meaning and ethics at the verv beginning of his hermeneutic of “poetic” thought. See Ricoeur, Temps et récit, 1,96-100. Ricoeur., Temp.s et récit. 1, 101-109. 6 surplus meaning distancing glossolalia experience, comprehend present by experience his or places cycle has been established 195 of establishing a Pentecostal for it would defeat the very lies at its root. We need to be able to Ricoeur’s third mimetic of represented human tradition, this structuring possibility also leads to the closure of the text.’9 In other words, explanation removes the mythical element of from the original experience, and possibly leads to a from an awareness of God’s grace in that particular context. The thesis presented in this essay boils down to that: an explanation of what we have learned to call Baptism of the Spirit in the context of was a necessary aspect identity, but it cannot be an end in itself, the very message, that this explanation against the context of the past and the means of personal appropriation. At this stage of personal appropriation, moment sets in. It is a personal refiguration based on the first two mimetic moments, the pre-reflective representation of an event and the critical explanation thereof It is a time of action in which the receptor of the “story” makes the narrative her own. It is a moment where religious disclosure can take it is a time of pathos or joy, of recognition or catharsis. In any case, it is a time that calls for commitment. If this happens, a mimetic without being a vicious one. The receptor of the story has entangled himself or herself in the narrative in order to its meaning.” Ricoeur’s hermeneutic approach allows for an approach to traditional narratives, such as the events witnessed at the Azusa Street meetings. On the one hand, critical historical research and theoretical constructs are considered, and on the other hand, Ricoeur’s mimetic theory enables a refiguration of mythic contents, that is, an of a sacred story to one’s particular life world. In this sense he refers to a second naivete. The second part of this section will have to probe deeper the question, why would a personal of myth be possible; why could a second naivete bring us a further than conceptualized propositions? ponder application and ask refiguration step ‘9″Nous pouvons maintcnant ajouter que c’est dans t’acte de re-raconter, dans celui de raconter, plutot que que cette fonction structurelle de la cloture peut Etre discem6e.” Ricoeur, Temps et récit, I, 105. 20 On the disclosure theory of religious language see Ian Phrases Ramsey, Religious Language. An Empirical Placing of Theological (London: SCM Press, 1957). 21 Being entangled in the narrative can happen on different levels. Ricoeur refers to Wilhelm Schapp. In Geschichten verstrickt (Wiesbaden: B. Heymann 1976), 85, where the analogy is made of a judge, who has to penetrate into the intricate story of causes and circumstances, arguments and the From another counter-arguments, which have brought accused before court. point of view one may recall Hans-Georg Gadamer’s thoughts on hermeneutic as being wrapped up in the play of In this context, however, it seems more important to underline the religious dimension associated with the third mimetic movement. As a disclosure of divine grace it challenges the receptor to commit himself or herself to become answerable and responsible. linguisticality. ethically 7 196 Analytic Clarifications aspects have pointed out, are also Tiefel1psychologie and the reifying The problems associated with the conceptualizing of spirituality, which Timothy B. Cargal and Henry I. Lederle at the outset of the work of Eugene Drewermann. A basic presupposition in his two volume book, und Exegese,22 is that the historical-critical method of exegesis, as an intrinsically unreligious methodology, has clearly failed to take subjective aspects of experience and interpretation into cannot be historicized, it must be account. Religious language constantly reevaluated because subconsciously, about truths circumstances. According typological and an archetypical applying beyond particular to Drewermann, is called for is a belonging to the common heritage interpretation associated outpouring experienced it speaks to us, consciously and historical what hermeneutic of history, 23 An would possibly open des archetypical interpretation of narratives focuses especially on myths and dreams rather than on concepts and words. Whereas words often relate to a specific individual context, dreams and myths are acknowledged as of a people. I, therefore, propose to follow Eugen Drewermann’s argumentation and apply such an to the mythic heritage of the Azusa Street revival and the of the Holy Spirit; that is, to a commonly divine blessing. This approach a hermeneutic key that would allow the Pentecostal community to drink from its own wells and to renew its spirituality. A L’ariety of Narrative Forms. Why is it beneficial that we consider the events of the Azusa Street revival from a mythic, rather than from a mere historical, point of view? To answer this question we need to recall the work of Martin Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte Evangeliums,24 in which he distinguished different narrative forms in the gospels such as paradigm, novel, legend, and myth. He believed that the closer a statement was to a historical word the more truth it could So on the one hand he followed the historical-critical but on the other hand he realized that different literary forms had different intentions. paradigm was located as a means of history-oriented proclamation, novel was a tool of missionary rhetoric, the legend centered generally on an individual’s sanctity, and a myth he considered to be a narrative about the gods .2′ Dibelius concluded contain. presupposition of historicity, Apokalvpse, 23 Drewermann. Tiefenpsychologie For instance, the the that the more beautiful and 2′ Eugen Drewermann, Tiefenpsychologie und Exegese Band 1. Traum, Mvthos, A/ärchen, Sage und Legende (Olten: Walter Verlag AG, 1984), 575; Eugen Drewermann, Tiejenpsvchologie und Exegese Band 2. Wunder, Vision, Weissagung, Geschichte, Gleichnis (Olten: Walter Verlag AG. 1985), 851. und Exegese 1, 46-71. 2.? Martin Dibelius. Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums 4. Aufl. (Tübingen: G. Bornkamm. 1961 ). “For a discussion on presuppositions and examples cf. Drewermann, und Exege.se 1, 78-92. Tiejenp.svchologie 8 197 fantastic a story was, the more it was removed in time, the less reliable it could be for historical research. Analogically, it is my conviction that those people who insist on the propositional character of the early history of the Pentecostal movement have in fact adopted the same fallacy of historicity. It seems important, though, to reevaluate the reason for the various narrative forms. Instead of focusing on different functions as Dibelius did, one could also assign different intentionalities to these literary types. Eugen Drewermann suggests a scheme where religious narratives move within relational fields, from the personal to the collective, from the religious to the profane, in the center of which we find the archetypical. Subconscious symbols and signs feed the various narrative forms.’6 In other words, it is not the individual that governs the use of forms, it is the intentional psycho-dynamics that govern the form,27 and hence its hermeneutic. The archetypical is the self-transcending, as well as, the dream-like essence of religious narratives. Consequently, we can say that the new Pentecost at Azusa is a mythic narrative, because as we shall see, it relates events to the divine and the collective human awareness. As collective human awareness is often entrenched in subconscious visions and convictions, we shortly need to turn to psycho-analytical approaches so that we will be able to help Pentecostals differentiate between drawing from the subjective depths of their own wells and acknowledging divine grace where it inevitably leads to a surplus of meaning and the potential for a deeper spirituality. A Variety of Psycho-Analytic Approaches. We do not need to go into much detail as far as the different psycho-analytic schools are concerned because basic distinctions have already become common knowledge. It suffices, therefore, to outline briefly the three distinctive approaches.” These three approaches illustrate the ways that myths speak to us and challenge us to renew our spirituality. The first approach is known as the reductive and objectival approach propagated by Sigmund Freud’s depth-psychology. The basic idea behind his method relates to identifying subconscious causes for the production of dreams. An individual, or a group within society, may express or testify to conditions, which can be explained from the psychic biography of 26 Drewermann, Tiefenpsvchologie und Exegese 1, 152. The narrative forms are situated in the following relational fields: Legend: between religious/divine and Saga: and profane/human : Fairy Tale: between historical/personal; between historical/personal and profane/human unhistorical/collective; and, Myth: between unhistorical/collective and religious/divine. 27″Die innere Einheit von Mythos, Marchen. Sage und Legende ergibt…, dass, … es inhaltlich von den Motiven her nicht … Nicht der Inhalt an sich, nur die Psychodynamik, die moglich ist. diese Erzahlformen voneinander zu trennen Zielsetzung und der Verwendungszweck entscheiden darfber, was ein was ein Marchen. was eine und was eine ist.” Mythos, Sage Legende Drewermann, Tiejenpsychologie und Exegese 1, 150. 28Drewermann, Tiefenp.!?vchologie und Exegese 1, 15`1-159. 9 198 that individual or group. It is called objectival because the key to an interpretation of a dream is considered to be within the object experiencing that dream. For instance, experiences of guilt or liberation may constitute important elements for the interpretation and refiguration of a myth.’ The second approach is referred to as the final or subjectival approach. This method, propagated by Carl Gustav Jung, starts at the other end of the spectrum. The subconscious is not viewed primarily in terms of repressed thought, but rather in terms of thought that has not had a chance to surface to the conscious. Hence, for Jung, not all dreams are an expression of neurotic or pathological origins. On the contrary, many dreams are a symbolic expression of subjectival aims and transcendent values. From a Jungian point of view, religious symbols are not the product of domesticated repressed drives, but rather essential and basic means to describe individual and social convictions. If we apply this approach to a mythic context we could mention the experiences of unity or the lack of human limitation as examples of such religious symbols. A third approach, that I would like to mention, is phenomenological in nature. It attempts to overcome the existential division between object and subject, and between the conscious and the subconscious. In that method, symbols in dreams are not primarily pointing to repressed feelings or drives, nor are they mainly understood in terms of the archetypical. Instead, symbols are placed against the backdrop of everyday human life. To explain this point of view in biblical terms one could illustrate it by saying: “We are told that God has given life to all of humankind by breathing his Spirit on them. It is this Spirit that unites, sustains and accompanies all aspects of human life. And God’s Spirit of Life has been revealed in a special and significant way through the Pentecostal/Charismatic revival.”3o Now none of these three approaches seem sufficient to satisfy a hermeneutic endeavor of individual and collective dreams, let alone an interpretation of living myths. However, each method has its value and can be used in collaboration with one another, as well as, of course, in synergism with fundamental biblical beliefs. With tools now in hand, we shall look, in the concluding part of this presentation, at events surrounding the Azusa Street revival and interpret this story as a true myth capable to energize the Pentecostal community through the power of the Spirit of God. Hopefully, it will encourage Pentecostal believers 29 A good example of the is the Walter interpretation propagated by J. objectival approach Hollenweger and some of his students. who argue for a reinterpretation of Pentecostalism in terms of the impulses it has received from black culture, traditions and beliefs. ‘° Naturally, a phenomenological approach is also significant in terms of its implications on ecumenical and/or universal aspects and consequences of religious experiences. 10 199 to drink from their own wells and to develop their own brand of Pentecostal spirituality. A Confessional Conclusion: Opening Doors to the Past and Present In the beginning, we have seen that a conceptualization of experiences may lead to explanations, but that these explanations do not lead us to the heart of understanding the significance of what took place at the Azusa Street revival. Conceptualizations take our attention away from the rich context of God’s action and human reaction. Furthermore, if one is content with conceptualizations, too much attention is paid to the human ability to explain. Then, turning to metaphors, we emphasized that this figure of speech intends to illustrate truth within the vital tension between that which is and that which is not. This tension is akin to the existential context of human life as well as the Christian teaching of that which is and that which is to come. The early Pentecostal revival is a spiritual metaphor of what God does in spite of our own social, ideological and physical limitations. But it is more than that because the early testimonies place ever new claims on us. They point to a surplus of meaning through that which cannot be said and yet is implied or hinted at. They speak to us in part because they transcend our ability to explain, and in part because they begin to make sense when we acknowledge God’s presence in those events. These testimonies invite us to experience God’s grace through the power of his Spirit. They are part of a living myth that animates us to respond to the divine. Such a response is twofold: for one we are motivated to praise God. It is one of the gifts of the PentecostaUCharismatic movement that it encourages a doxology not for the sake of what God has done for us, but praise for God’s own sake. The second response results in Christian commitment. Ethical action results from a religious disclosure if one gets personally tied up in the story and makes it his or her own. It is a sign of a true myth, when ritual action (such as witness and praise) and ethical commitment (such as a commission in the name of Christ) work hand in hand. It is neither an utopian escape nor a humanly-made ideology, but an answer to the all-encompassing Christian promise.” When we look at the myth of Azusa Street we can say from an objectival point of view that God has overcome racial and social segregation. His Spirit falls upon all flesh. He has not forsaken his ” Walter Hollenweger qualifies a true myth on the conditions that it stands a threefold test. Firstly. a myth has to be applicable to the present social, cultural and economic conflicts. Secondly, a true myth will always relate to the Christ-event on the cross; an event that is relativized and contextualized with regard to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thirdly, a true myth yields a promise beyond history. Walter J. Hollenweger, Umgang mit Alythen (Interkulturelle Theologie, 2; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1982), 160 ff. 11 200 those living in adversity, hardship and poverty. people, especially Glossolalia is evidence that God unifies his people in the power of his Spirit. With a subjectival reading we can say that speaking in tongues is a means of praising God in a language that is not profane and ambivalent. It is a language without defilement and, therefore, symbolic of God’s holiness and Jesus Christ’s reconciliation with humanity, it is a healing experience to the subconscious in us.32 Furthermore, speaking in tongues is a symbol to our consciousness that there is more than meets the eye. There is a surplus of meaning, there is power for ministry, there is hope within our human limitations. Finally, from a phenomenological point of view, we can appreciate the Azusa Street revival as an affirmation that God blesses the believer within the concrete context of his or her life. He encourages us to reach out to our neighbor and minister to him in Jesus’ name. In view of the various approaches one can conclude that Azusa as a myth suspends its particular historical context. It is not just about an encounter between black and white. It is certainly more than a dogmatization of the right spiritual procedure. The archetypical pictures of a true myth disclose meaning spanning the past and the future.33 The tension between the self and God from the regressive past is reconciled, and at the same time the mythic experience provides a progressive future envisioning peace between the self and the community. In the end, if we take myths seriously we may be called naive, but that is all right. We have come full circle to the beginning of the story of Azusa Street. We have taken the road back again and realized that it is not enough to make a statement about the past. We are invited to get entangled in this narrative in order to ponder its meaning for the present and to commit ourselves” to God and ‘Z Fairy tales (on the secular level) and myths (on the religious level) do have a common theme: namely, the individual’s way to his true destiny, in spite of all powers that be. A true myth will not focus on the self in the sense of self fulfillment, but it will free the self from its own to an und preoccupation open personality; cf. Drewermann, Tiefenpsychologie is a sign of Spirit Baptism and an awareness Exegese 1. 378. In this sense glossolalia of the unconscious and human grace; it is a healing experience harmonizing is not experience. Unlike Drewermann, I would that a fulfillment of unsatisfied desires of the soul, but argue that it can glossolalia simply express a peaceful opening of the self to the transcendent. Cf. Drewermann, Tiefenpsvchologie und Exegese 2, 191f.: and Jean-Daniel Plüss, Therapeutic and Prophetic Narratives in Worship (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Veriag. 1988). “Drewermann. asked Tiefenpsycirologie und Exegese 1, 380f. ” When why Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., had spent more than fifteen years the Azusa street revival and the life of William he replied, “He’s s become a friend. I know studying him like a brother, and many of these Seymour, people have become friends. It’s not simply a And history project. They are my people, and I am one of them. their hurts become mine and their visions and their joy have become in ingrained me in that I never would have expected in any time past. So when I get the story written I ways hope there is a sense in which it is not just their story but it is my 12 201 neighbor in the name of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. story as well.” Quoted from the video documentary. God’s Glorious Outpouring. The Azusa Street Revival (Whittier. CA: CTL Productions. 1992). 13
