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
129
Pentecostal Social Concern and the Biblical Mandate of Social Justice
Murray
W.
Dempster*
Recognition
is expanding in Pentecostal circles that the church’s mission and
ministry of evangelism
should be augmented to include a commitment to social
justice.
“The
Gospel
cannot be
proclaimed fully,”
observes Manoel de Mello, “without
denouncing injustices committed
by
the
powerful
In this
challenging statement,
the Pentecostal founder of “Brazil for Christ” verbalizes the conviction of a growing number of Pentecostal leaders: the church’s
evangel- ism efforts need to be authenticated
by
a ministry of social action that
puts
into
practice
what it preaches.
Although recognition
of the need for the church’s social involve- ment has increased
significantly among
Pentecostals over the
past two
decades,2 very
little serious
theological
work has been devoted to the
development of a pentecostal
social ethic.3 As a consequence, current
engagement
in social
ministry among
Pentecostals seems to depend
more on the individual conscience of influential leaders and the time-bound
exigencies
of politics and culture than on
broadly- shared
theological agreements concerning
the nature of the church and its moral mission in society. The
pentecostal community
is still sorely
in need of a social ethic to
inspire,
direct and validate its ministry
of
promoting
and
instituting
social
justice.
In constructing a pentecostal social ethic, church leaders will find it
necessary
to look to the Old Testament moral tradition to discover the biblical
injunction
for God’s
people
to
pursue
social justice. Social justice
is not an explicitly articulated ethical
category within New Testament moral
theology, although
it is
certainly implied
in the New Testament as we shall see in the
concluding reflections of the article. But it is the Old Testament that
presents social justice
as the will of God
for society
and mandates the
people of God to
pursue
it.
The
purpose
of this article is to
identify
five ethical
principles from the Old Testament moral tradition that can
instigate
and nurture social concern in the
pentecostal community.
These five basic features of Old Testament social ethics are its theocentric foundation,
its
concept
of the
Imago Dei,
its
portrayal
of the covenant
people,
its
prophetic
tradition of social criticism, and its Jubilee
teachings.4
After
developing
these Old Testament ethical principles
and
suggesting
their relevance for
pentecostal
social concern,
the article concludes with a hermeneutical
argument
1
130
indicating
how the Old Testament
conception
of social
justice
can be
integrated
into a distinctively
pentecostal
social ethic
grounded in the Luke-Acts
interpretation
of
Spirit baptism.
Old Testament Social Ethics and its Theocentric Foundations: The Platform of Social Justice
A dominant feature in the biblical
portrayal
of Jewish life is the theocentric orientation of the Jewish
people.
God was at the center of all Jewish life-its social,
political
and economic
practices
and institutions. Their social life modeled their view of who God was and what God did. This theocentric orientation is crucial to understand the basis of Old Testament social ethics. “The
character, will,
word and work of
God,” according to Professor
Walter C. Kaiser,
“supply
the
determining principle
and central
organizing tenet of Old Testament ethics.”5 Thus, from its theocentric orient- ation,
a fundamental moral axiom came to dominate Israel’s life: “What God is in his character, and what God wills in his revelation
defines what is fight.”6
To determine what is morally good, therefore,
requires
the
prior theological
determination of who God is. For God and the
good
are inextricably
linked
together. Every theological
statement describ- ing
God’s character and action
simultaneously
is an ethical imperative prescribing
who God’s
people ought
to be and what
they ought
to do. As God
is, so
God’s
people
should be. As God
acts,
so God’s
people ought
to act. This
principle
of the imitation of
God, according
to T. B. Maston, “is the nearest
thing
we have in biblical ethics to one
unifying
theme or motif.”7
Against
this theocentric foundation which links
theology, ethics, and social life together, the
unfolding
of the revelation of God in the history
of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament takes on crucial significance.
As Israel came to a more
complete understanding
of God’s character
through
the
mighty
acts of God’s
self-disclosure, their
conceptions
of the moral foundations of their
political, economic and social life expanded and
deepened.
R. E. O. White, in his
study
of Biblical
Ethics, provides
an overview of Israel’s progressive
revelation of God and the
corresponding
ethical implications
which Israel
perceived
in God’s revelation for its social life.
White shows that in its early
history,
Israel vicwed Yahweh as a deity
who related to them within the context of its tribal life. While the Canaanites had Baal as their God, the
Israelites
had Yahweh Sabboath-Yahweh of the Hosts-as their defender
(I Kings 18:17-40).
On the basis of this
early
view of God’s character as Israel’s vindicator, Israel
developed
a corresponding ethical view to structure its nomadic life
grounded
in moral instincts such as
‘
.
2
131
jealousy, revenge
and
pity. Clearly,
God’s self-disclosure
through
mighty
acts in Israel’s
history provided
a matrix within which
Israel’s
perception
of the divine character was progressively shaped .
to include ethical
qualities.
On the basis of this
unfolding
revelation
of God’s moral character, Israel
developed
a corresponding ethical
view
by
which to
judge
the
quality
of its social life
grounded
in
moral
principles,
such as justice, loving kindness
(f¡esed), mercy
and holiness. The
pinnacle
of this
theological-indicative/ethical _ ‘ imperative
development
occurred in Isaiah 40-66 when Israel came
to understand God as the One,
Only
True God. Israel came to the
theological
conviction that there were not true
gods
and false
gods
as it had believed earlier. There was
only
One True God whose
will,
word and character defined what was
morally right
for all
people.
On the basis
of
this
theological development
from Yahweh as
Israel’s national defender to God as the One True
God,
Israel’s
corresponding
ethical
development
can be charted from a
provin-
cial ethic
(God’s
will defines what is morally right for
Israel)
to a
universal ethic
(God’s
will defines what is
morally right
for all
peoples).8
The
importance
of White’s
analysis
for a developmental under- ‘
standing
of Old Testament social ethics can
hardly
be overstated.
As Israel’s view of God’s character
expanded,
its view of
morality
deepened
and with this ethical
development
a
platform emerged
from which
prophets
and
sages
could
appeal
for social
justice
in its
corporate
life.
Thus,
“Old Testament
ethics,”
as Walter Kornfield
states, “is … inseparably
connected with Old Testament
religion
and
fundamentally
aimed at
making
human behavior conform to
the will of Yahweh.” “The more
clearly
God’s
personal
will is
recognized
in its authoritative claim
upon
all
spheres
of
life,”
Kornfield
concludes,
“the more exalted does the ethical
message
become … God’s will is the
highest
ethical norm.”
The basic theocentric character of Old Testament social ethics .
provides
a
compelling
rationale for
pentecostal expressions
of
social concern. Social concern is nurtured in individual believers
and the
corporate
Church in the same
way
it developed in the Old
Testament. It is
brought
into existence and
kept
alive
by
a
deep
moral conviction that acts of
charity
and the
pursuit
of social
justice give tangible
witness to God’s own ethical character and to
God’s will for
society.
In this
sense,
the character and
quality
of
social concern in the
believing community
is no more and no less
than a reflection of its view of God. The moral vision of God’s
justice provides
the unshakeable
platform
for the
community
of
believers to involve itself in the
pursuit
of social
justice.
The Old
Testament not
only provides
a platform for social
justice
in God’s
own
character, however,
but it also establishes the
parameters
of
social
justice
in it doctrine of the
Imago
Dei.
3
132
Old Testament Social Ethics and
the Imago Dei: Social Justice .
The Parameters of
in the
The creation of humanity in God’s own
image,
as portrayed Genesis creation narratives, is a
key ingredient
in the Old Testa- ment
conception
of social
justice.
Genesis 1 :27 declares, “and God created man in His
image,
in the
image
of God He created
them; male and female he created them.” Thus
humanity-the
“man” of Genesis 1 :27-was
distinquished
from the rest of created life in that only
Adam and Eve were created in God’s own
image.
Because
humanity
is the divine
image-bearer,
each
person possesses
a
unique
value to God. As a
consequence,
the Old Testament teaches that a
person
should treat with
respect
and dignity
other human
beings
who are also made in the
image
of God. Accordingly,
Genesis 9:6 prohibits murder
precisely
on the grounds of the
Imago
Dei. That
is, the act of murder
is such an egregious act of social
injustice precisely
because it violates and devalues the human
being
as bearer of the
image
of God.
Commenting
on the connection of the
image
of God in Genesis I and Genesis
9, Norman W. Porteous writes:
The manner in which the creation of man is introduced in
I :26 and the fact that the passage 9: I-7 implies that human
life has a
greater sanctity
than animal life and that this
difference is linked with the
image
of God
imply
that the
writer intends
by the phrase “image
of God” to express in
some way peruliar
dignity.1U fit
‘
.
.
Implicit
in the
concept
of persons
being
created in the
Imago
Dei is the view that all human
beings
are of
equal
value to God and should be treated
fairly
and
equitably.
Social
justice
is rooted deeply
in this basic
assumption
that all men and women are bearers of the divine
image. “The
doctrine of creation
provides
a universal- istic base and
potential
for the ethic of the Old
Testament,”
as Dennis F. Kinlau
rightly
observes. I This universal base in the ethic of the Old Testament extends the
parameters
of social
justice beyond
the dominant
contemporary philosophical conceptions
of our time which
typically
determine
justice
on the basis of
merit, work, need, rank or
legal
entitlement.12 In contrast to such philosophical views,
the Old Testament teaches that
persons
are entitled to just treatment on the basis that
they
are
persons
created in the divine
image, nothing
more or nothing less.
Although
the rule of
practice governing
the administration of justice may need to adapt pragmatically
to the concrete
possibilities
of
practical life, the formal
principle
of
justice
in Old Testament social ethics is grounded
in the essential
dignity
of all human
beings by
virtue of
4
133
their
relationship
to their Maker. In the Old
Testament, therefore, the
parameters
of
justice
extend to all
people, including
the displaced
farmer,
the
widow,
the
orphan,
the
alien, the stranger,
the hired servant, the debtor, the
poor
and the
needy (Ex.
22:21-27; 23:9- I 1;
Deut.
10: 18; I 5:1-2; 23:19-20; 24:14-22; Lev. 19:9-34;
25 :2- 7).
Based on the
concept
of the
Imago Dei,
the
sage
could write, “He who
oppresses
a poor man insults his
Maker,
but he who is kind to the
needy
honors him”
(Prov. I4:31).
If the his in this text means that the
oppressor
insults the
poor
man’s Maker, then “there is an implied recognition
of a common
humanity-the needy
man is not merely
an
object
of passing sympathy, he is respected as a creation of the divine wisdom. “1.1 The
personal
worth of all human
beings who share in a common
humanity independent
of their
varying economic status in life is similarly stated in Proverbs
22:2,
“The rich and the
poor
have a common bond, the Lord is the maker of them all.” As C. H.
Toy points out,
“There are social differences
among men-but all men, as creatures of God, have their
rights,
and their mutual
obligations
of
respect
and kindness.”‘4
The fourth commandment of the
decalogue
also links the doctrine of creation to a social concern. The admonition to
.
“Remember the sabbath
day,
to
keep
it
Holy”
has a ceremonial
aspect
since a fixed
day
is set aside for rest and
worship (Ex.
20:8-1 Oa).
But there is a moral
aspect
to this commandment as well
which liearkens back to the creation narrative
(Ex. 20:1 1). As
God
worked for six
days
and rested on the
seventh, so people are
to do
likewise. The commandment to
incorporate
a day of rest into the
work week extended not
only
to the heads of households and sons
and
daughters,
but it included male
servants,
female servants and
even the
sojourner
who was a house
guest.
The law which instituted
the sabbath rest
explicitly
included those who
might
otherwise be
exploited by
an
unreasonably
hard taskmaster.
Although
the Old Testament social ethic is theocentric and not
anthropocentric
in its basic
foundation, the doctrine of humankind
as God’s
image-bearer provides
universal
parameters
in the
appli-
cation of social justice. Because all human
persons
are brothers and
sisters in the flesh due to their common
origin,
David
Moberg
claims that “social concern is irrevocably linked with the essential .
nature of man.”15 This doctrine of a humanity who is created in the
image
of God has a special relevance for a world-wide
pentecostal
movement in touch with millions of
people
on a
daily
basis. If it
shared a common social concern informed
by
the Old Testament
understanding
of human
origins,
the
pentecostal
church with its
global presence
is already
strategically
located to advance the cause
5
134
justice justice
of race, creed,
status or gender.
of social
‘
of justice for all people independent
The Old Testament
provides
these universal
parameters
in its doctrine of the
Imago Dei,
the
platform
for social
in its theocentric
orientation,
and as we shall now
explore, the
principles
of social
justice
in its
concept
of the Covenant.
Ethics and the Covenant
Old Testament Social
individuals
(Gen. 21:27, 26:28;
11:4).
People:
The
.
.
Principles
of Social Justice
The
concept
of covenant is one of the
unifying
themes that link the
Law,
the
Prophets,
and the
Writings together.
T. B. Maston notes that the Hebrew word
berit,
translated
“covenant”,
is used to describe
agreements
of
many
kinds within Jewish life-between
1 Sam.
18:3),
between a husband and wife (Mal. 2:14), between tribes
(Ex. 23:32; Judg. 2:2),
between monarchs
( K. 20:34)
and between a monarch and his
people (2 K.
But the most
profound meaning
of berit refers to the covenant of God with his
people. It.
Walter
Eichrodt,
noted Old
says
that the idea of covenant “enshrines
fundamental
conviction, namely, its sense of a unique relationship
with God. “17 God was the one who entered into
with Noah
(Gen. 9), with
Abraham
(Gen. 17) and
with the chosen
people
at Sinai
(Ex. 19:2-6; 24:7). Referring specifically the Sinai covenant, Maston identifies the
significant
features of
Testament scholar, Israel’s most
covenanl
be .
to
God is always the initiator of the covenant; it is not a contract between two people of equal or near-equal standing. This means that
although
there are two
partners
in the covenant-God and Israel-it was
really
unilateral rather than bilateral. God alone stated the conditions of the
‘
ing
.
‘
covenant-giving
.
covenants behavior on Noah
God’s
.
.
in Israel’s life. The earlier
of
‘
covenant; the people could not negotiate with God regard-
the covenant nor
change
its conditions.
They
could
either
accept
or reject it. Once
they accepted
it they could
not annul it, although they could violate its conditions or
break it. God alone had the power to dissolve the covenant;
a
power
He never used. He is revealed not
only
as a
but also as a covenant-keeping God. 18
The Sinai covenant was
unique
with Noah and Abraham laid no
specific obligations
or Abraham. The rainbow for Noah and circumcision for Abraham were
signs
of the covenant.
By contrast,
covenant at Sinai laid
specific
behavioral
obligations
on His people.
Obedience to the
principles
of the covenant was the
sign
of the covenant. It is within the context of covenant,
that the Ten Commandments
are to be
properly
understood as a list of
obligations
by
his
people
therefore,
interpreted.
and the law codes of Israel The Torah or law should not be
in
prohibitions
or a
legalistic
6
sense; instead
as Ellen Flesseman sion … of God’s covenant.
Flesseman’s
.
135
lt
points
out, “it is an expres- shows what it means to live as observations are borne out
by
words
ronomy
4:13 reiterates, commandments.” Further, ronomic
God’s
people….”’19
the biblical text. Exodus 34:28
says,
“he wrote on the tablets the
of the covenant-the Ten
Commandments,” and Deute-
“he declared to
you
his covenant,
in both the Exodus and the Deute-
brought you
The Ten Commandments the
second
20:12-17).
exercised
‘
God should
20:15),
the ten
the Ten Commandments
are
forms of the
decalogue,
introduced
by
the covenant refrain. “I am the Lord
your
God, who
out of the land of
Egypt….” (Ex. 20:2,
Deut.
5:6).
are
comprised
of two
major
divisions;
first mandates
right
relations with God
(Ex. 20:3-11 );
the
mandates
right
relations
among people
within
society (Ex.
These “two tables”
always belong together.
No
duty
toward God alone can fulfill the duties that one
person
owes to all other human
beings
within
society. Right
relations with
be translated into dutiful obedience to the
principles
of the
sanctity
of the family
(Ex. 20:12),
the
sanctity
of life (Ex.
20-.13), the
sanctity
of
marriage (Ex. 20:14),
the
sanctity
of
property (Ex.
the
sanctity
of
legal justice (Ex. 20:16),
and the
sanctity
of pure
motivation
(Ex. 20 :17).20
Three
major
law codes-Ex.
book of
–
Deuteronomy-testify
the moral laws of the Covenant into concrete rules of practice that
in everyday life.:!1 A few examples from the materials of the law codes will illustrate this concrete
application
of social
justice.
As the covenant
people
of God, Israel was to have a social concern for the fair treatment of the hired servant, the
promoted
social justice
.
by day
I justify
for
stranger,
20:22-23:33; Lev. 17-26; and the that Israel
attempted
to translate
.
stranger,
the widow, the
orphan
and the
poor.
A hired servant who
was
poor-whether
a Hebrew or an alien-was not to be oppressed
the
withholding
of wages; the servant was to be paid on the same
the labor was
performed.
The covenantal refrain, “and
you
shall remember that
you
were a slave in the land of Egypt, therefore
am
commanding you
to do this
today,”
is the reason
given
to
this
practice (Deut. 24:14-18).
A stranger was not to be oppressed or wronged. The justification
this rule of
practice
is
grounded
in God’s
mighty
act which
established the
covenant,
“…
you
know the
feelings
of a .
for
you
were
strangers
in the land of
Egypt” (Ex. 22:21,
23:9).
The
stranger
was not to be
wronged
in
judgment,
in
of
weight
or
volume,
but was to receive the
just
The reason for this just treatment of a
is rooted in the covenant, “I am the Lord
thy
God, who
out from the land of Egypt”
( Lev_ 19:33-36). Similarly,
measurement
balance and
the just weight. stranger
brought you
7
136
the widow and the
orphan
were not to be afflicted.
Echoing
back to a time when God heard lsrael’s
cry and brought judgment
on
Egypt for its
injustice,
the reason
given
not to mistreat the widow and the orphan is,
“If
you
afflict him at
all,
and if he does
cry
out to
Me,
I will surely hear his cry”(Ex.
22:22-23).
But God
required
more than simply prevention
of harm for the
orphan,
the widow and the alien God wanted
justice
executed for the
orphan
and the widow and hesed
for the alien
expressed by giving
food and
clothing.
The justification
is found in a familiar covenantal refrain, “for
you
were aliens in the land of
Egypt” (Deut. 14:18, 19).
Likewise,
the
poor
were the
objects
of social concern. The presence
of the
poor provided
a constant
opportunity
for Israel to demonstrate its
loyalty
to the
covenant,
“For the
poor
will never cease to be in
your midst;
therefore 1 command
you saying, you shall
freely open your
hand to your brother to your needy and
poor in your land” ‘
(Deut. 15:7-I 1).=1 The poor
were due
justice
in the courts, false charges and bribes
were forbidden because such practices perverted
the cause of the
just (Ex. 22:25-27).
The Levitical code also underscored that the
poor
were not to be charged
interest on the
money they
borrowed but added that the poor
man was to be received as a house
guest
in the same manner in which
hospitality
was
given
to a sojourner. Further, the
poor
man was to be fed without
charge ( Lcv. 25:35-38).
Although
the Book of the Covenant in Exodus and the Levitical Code both
appeal
to the covenant to justify this fair treatment of the
poor,
each tradition does so in its own
unique way.
In
Exodus, the instruction
begins,
“If
you
lend
money
to
My people,
to the poor among you… ,9t
it continues
with
the
prohibition against charging
interest which
may
be oppressive and concludes with the warning,
“And it shall come about that when he cries out to
Me,
I will hear
him,
for I am
gracious.”
The obvious allusion in these verses is to the earlier account recorded in Exodus when God heard
the
cry
of the children of Israel in
Egypt
and delivered them and brought
them to Mount Sinai to
give
them a covenant. Now the oppressor may
be Israel itself which will not include the
poor- . whom God identified as
“My people”-within
the circle of the covenant. In Leviticus, the
prohibition against charging
interest for r money
and the
admonition
to care for the
poor
is followed
by
the preface
statement of the covenant: “1 am the Lord
your God,
who brought you
out of the land of
Egypt….”
The
logic
of the social ethics of the covenant is evident in these biblical materials. God first
designated
Israel as “My people,” not at Mount Sinai, but
during
Israel’s
Eyptian bondage.
It was in Egypt
where God heard the
cry
of “His
people… God brought
these
.
8
137
people
out of
Egyptian slavery by
God’s own
mighty
act of
liberation. In the Exodus account, God liberated all these
people,
including
the
slave,
the
servant,
the
widow,
the
orphan,
and the
poor.
At Mount Sinai, God established the
principles
of the
covenant-the Ten Commandments–within the framework, “I am
the Lord
your
God, who out of the
–
brought you
land of Egypt, out
of the house of slavery”
(Ex. 20:2;
Deut.
5:6).
The rules of practice identified in the three law codes fleshed out
the concrete
meaning
of the covenant for Israel’s social life as God’s
people. Repeatedly throughout
the law codes with their concern for
the
socially
and
economically disadvantaged
was the same cove-
nant theme, or same variation of it, which introduced the deca-
logue,
“1 am the Lord
your God,
who
brought you
out of the land of
Egypt,
out of the house of slavery.” The covenant
required
that if
‘
God demonstrated such a deep social concern in the
mighty
act of ‘
liberating
the
oppressed,
then God’s covenant
people
should also
incorporate
into its social life an intense concern for the alien, the
,
poor,
the
hungry,
the widow and the
orphan.
These covenant
principles
of Old Testament social ethics have
profound significance
for
pentecostal
social concern. The New
Testament church as God’s new covenant
people
is the “fulfillment”
of the biblical
promise
rooted in the Old Testament
conception
of
Israel as God’s covenant
people (I
Cor. 11:25; 11 Cor.
3:6).
The
church that is empowered for witness
by the coming
of the
Spirit
in
Acts 2, therefore, is more than a voluntary association which seeks
to witness to “the
good
news” on an individual basis. Instead, the .
church is a new social
reality brought
into existence and
empow- ‘
, ered for mission by the
covenant-making
God of the Old and New
Testaments. Thus, the church is empowered by the
Spirit
to provide
a visible demonstration of what all of life should look like in the
new covenant established in Jesus Christ which “fulfills” the Old
Covenant.
Accordingly,
social
justice
should be
proclaimed
as
God’s will for the
global community,
and most
significantly,
it
should be modelled within the
pentecostal community
as a social
witness to the
power
of the
Gospel.
“The
primary
social structure
through
which the
gospel
works to
change
other structures,” as
John Yoder has stated, “is that of the Christian
community.”23
The
covenant
concept
of
providing
a social witness as a
signpost
of
being
God’s
people
and as an
agent
of
change
is crucial for a
pentecostal
social ethic
designed
to institute
good
news within a
world marked
by deeply
entrenched division and alienation.
In summary, the Old Testament identifies the
principles
of social
‘
justice
in the
concept
of the covenant
people,
the
paramenters
of
social
justice
in its doctrine of the
Imago Dei,
and the
platform
for
.
‘ .
.
‘
.
‘
‘
_
9
138
social
justice
in its theocentric foundation. These basic features of Old Testament social ethics also
provide
the
proper
framework in which to understand the
pleas
for social
justice
embodied in the prophetic
tradition.
Old Testament Social Ethics and
Prophetic
Criticism: The Pleas for
Social Justice
The social ethics of the Old Testament
prophetic
tradition24 is
more
closely
associated with the Law and the covenant than is
sometimes
supposed.
The biblical text
clearly
indicates that the
moral law and the
principles
of the covenant
provided
the
prophets ‘
with the criteria for their
judgment
of
specific
national sins and
served as a basis to call Israel and Judah to repentance.
“Prophetic ,
morality,”
as Yehezkel Kaufmann
rightly argues,
“is rooted in that
of the Torah as is its culmination.'”-5
Although
the
prophets
grounded
their ethical
pronouncement
in the
Torah,
the
prophets
grounded
the Law and the covenant itself more
deeply
in the
revelation of God’s ethical character. “The word of the Lord”26
which came to the
prophet
was a revelation of the character of the
God
who spoke
the Torah and established the covenant with God’s
people.
The
prophets’ message brought
this divine revelation of
God’s character to bear on the moral conduct of the nation.
_
This
“exegesis
of existence from a divine
perspective”27
marks the content of the
prophets’ message
in at least three
ways. First,
it gave to the
prophets’ message
a ring of powerful moral conviction in its indictments
against
the
unjust practices
of the covenant com- munity. Second,
it gave to the
prophets’ message
a particular moral insight
into the
political,
economic and social institutions and practices
which
promoted
and
perpetuated
the social
injustices within the covenant
community. Third,
it
gave
to the
prophets’ message
a passionate desire to induce God’s
people
to see afresh the moral character of God. The
prophets
seemed sure that if God’s people
would understand the nature of God and were
right
in their relations to
God,
then
they
would reform the
unjust
conditions of their
society
in order to have
right relations
with each
other,
an idea rooted in berit but raised to a new level of ethical consciousness
by the
prophets.
The
prophetic tradition,
it is generally acknowledged, reached its ethical
highpoint
in the
eighth-century prophets-Amos, Hosea, Isaiah,
and Micah.28 Amos is selected for examination in this section because he
explicitly
identifed
justice
as a fundamental moral
quality
of God’s character.
Although
all the
eighth-century prophets
called for
social justice
in the nation’s
life,29 Amos was the
.
‘
10
‘
context carried
139
of of
‘
ministry
was and
military
neigh-
.
prophet
who
grounded
his
message
to Israel in the
conception God’s
justice.
To understand the
meaning
and
significance Amos’
prophecy,
we must hear it within the historical and social
in which he proclaimed it.3″ Amos’ prophetic
on under Jeroboam
11,
a
strong political
leader.
By exploiting
the
vulnerability
of its
war-ravaged
Jeroboam
brought
Israel into an
unprecedented period
of
clout and economic
growth. During his
reign,
Israel
successfully managed
to
gain
control of the
major trade routes of the
eighth-century
world.
bors, territorial
expansion,
political
.
which
brought
Israel into a
.
This new commercial renaissance of prosperity of the nation. primarily
commercialism, central
marketplace. economy gave became
within
social
associated
cism of
meaning
At
expansionism
also
brought
a shift in the social structure
Prior to this
period
of
expanded
trade, Israel was
a rural culture. With the
dominating
influence of the new
the nation’s
economy gradually
shifted to the
This shift from a rural to an
emerging
urban
rise to an
entrepeneurial
class of merchants who the
power-brokers
of the
developing
economic order. It is the
consolidating
influence of these
political,
economic and factors in Israel’s life-and the
practices
of social
injustice
.
‘
through displacing landless
poor.
Amos’
prophetic
criti-
.
‘
°
with these
developments-that
the
society
and his
pleas
for social
justice
take on concrete
and
significance.
the heart of Amos’
prophetic
criticism is his indictment of those members of Israel’s rich urban class who
gained
their wealth
their calculated
exploitation
of the
poor, particularly by
small farmers and
turning
them into a new class of the
He makes the
charge:
Hear this;
you
who
trample
the
needy,
to do
away
the
humble of the land,
saying,
“When will the new moon be
over So that we may buy grain, And the sabbath, that we
the wheat
market, To
make the bushel smaller ..
and the shekel bigger, And to cheat with dishonest scales So .
as to buy the helpless for money And the needy for a of . sandals, And that we may sell the refuse of the wheat?”
pair
may open
(Amos 8:4-6)
of exploi- oppressed
the
poor.
down on the size
.
First,
of the
purchased
less
grain illegally
6).
grain
the merchant to
In these
verses,
Amos identified a twofold
technique
tation
by
which the merchants
systematically
the merchants
rigged
their scales
by cutting
bushel and
increasing
the weight of the shekel so that the
poor
at greater cost
(v. 5). Moreover,
the
poor paid
inflated
prices
for “the
refuse,” the
lowest
quality
wheat
(v.
Often this
practice permitted
the merchant to
place
the best
on the
export
market for sale to the
highest bidder, allowing
make
greater profits by his exploitation
of the
poor
11
140
through selling
them low
quality grain.3′
This first
plank
of
systematic unjust profiteering
was an
especially
lucrative
way
to
exploit
the urban
poor
or those who travelled from the
nearby
country
to
buy grain
in the
city.
A second
plank
in the merchant’s
system
of
exploitation
was to
drive the small farmer
into greater
debt so as “to do
away (with)
the
humble of the land”
(v. 4),
or as the RSV translates
it, to “bring
the
poor
of the land to an end.” Since the Jewish law allowed for .
debt-ridden
people
to be sold into
slavery
or to become a hired
servant, foreclosing
a debt was a
legalized way
to
pilfer
the land
from the small farmer. In the culture of the Near
East,
the transfer
of real
property
was
accompanied by
the transfer of footwear.
Thus, in condemning
the merchants for
buying
“the
helpless
for
money
and the
needy
for a
pair
of sandals”
(v. 6),
Amos was
condemning
the merchants for the foreclosure of debt in order to
gain legal
title to the
poor
farmer’s land.32 What was
particularly
repugnant
to Amos was the
greed
that motivated the rich in this
land
“rip-off”
scheme. So insatiable was their
appetite
for more and
more wealth that
they
could
hardly
wait for the
sabbath,
or for such
special holidays
as the festival of the new
moon,
to end in order for
them to
begin
another business week to execute their scheme of
oppression (v. 5).
As a consequence of their success in victimizing poor farmers, a
new economic class of landless
peasants
came into
existence,
whom
the rich merchants could
exploit
even further for
greater profit.
The
displaced
farmers could now be hired as tenants to work the farms
and
vineyards
for the urban merchant. Because a tenant would
often be required to
pay
the
major part
of the
crop
as a land use
fee,
the merchants were able to build
large
estates on the labor of the
poor.!;
On this scheme of oppression, Amos
pronounced judgment:
‘
‘
Therefore, because you impose heavy rent on the poor And exact a tribute of grain from them,
Though you have built homes of well-hewn stone, Yet you will not live in them: You have planted pleasant
vineyards, yet you will not drink their wine. (Amos
5:1 1)
.
Not
only
did the rich
exploit
the
poor by systems
of oppression, according
to Amos, but
they
were insensitive to the
suffering
on which their luxurious
life-style
was based.
Aiming
at those who drank wine
by
the basin full in their cultic
banquets
while possessing
no
grief
that their
opulent life-style
was sustained
by their
oppression
of the
poor,
Amos delivered his
prophetic
woe:
Woe to those who are at ease in Zion Those who recline
on beds of
ivory
And
sprawl
on their
couches, And eat
12
141
.
lambs from the flocks And calves from the midst of the
stall,
Who
improvise
to the sound of the
harp,
And like David have
composed songs
for themselves, Who drink wine from sacrificial bowls, While they anoint themselves with the finest of oils, Yet they have not grieved over the ruin of Joseph.
(Amos 6:1, 4-6)
_
.. .
In
,
his indictments of the
inequitable system,
Amos hammered
home the
point
that
oppression
was made
possible by
the
compli-
city
of
powerful groups
who
mutually
benefitted from the
exploi-
tation. The bankers were
complicit
in the
system
of
injustice
for
without their
cooperation
it would have been
impossible
to
rig
the
scales.34 There was the court which
perverted justice by granting
foreclosures on the farmers’ land.
Speaking
to these court
judges,
Amos
boldly
declared his
repulsion
for their evil deeds: “You who
distress the
righteous
and
accept bribes,
And turn aside the
poor
in
the
gate;” i.e.,
the
place
where court was held
(Amos 5:12).
Along
with the bankers and the
courts,
Amos
singled
out the
priests
and the
perverted religious ideology
which
provided
a _ religious
sanction for this
system
of
oppression.
In his encounter
with
Amaziah,
the
priest
of
Bethel,
Amos declared
boldly
that he .
was not intimidated
by
the threat of banishment from the
priest.
Amaziah directed Amos to do
his.”prophesying”
in Judah because
Bethel was a “sanctuary of the
king
and a
royal
residence.” Amos
responded
that he was not a prophet, nor a son of a prophet, but a
fig
farmer with a God-inspired mission for social
justice,
so he did ‘
not
plan
to leave the
country.
He concluded the verbal
exchange
with a word of prophetic judgment
against
the
priest
and the nation
as a whole
(Amos 7:10-17).
The
priesthood
as a whole,
however,
was
implicitly
indicted
by
Amos’ condemnation of Israel’s ritualistic
religion
devoid of ethical
content. For under the cover
of religiousity,
Amos
charged
that the
affluent were
engaged
in idolatry of the worse sort. The urban elite
ritualized a false God who reinforced
injustice. Amos,
with a word
of the
Lord,
cried out for these
self-indulgent
rituals to end and for
the
pursuit
of justice to
begin:
I hate, I reject your festivals Nor do I delight in your solemn
assemblies. Even though you offer up to Me burnt
offerings
and your grain
offerings,
I will not accept them; And I will . .
not even look at the peace offerings of your fatlings. Take .
away
from Me the noise of your songs; I will not even listen
to the sound of your
harps.
But let justice roll down like
waters. And
righteousness
like an stream.
‘
.
‘
ever-flowing
(Amos 5:21-24)
–
‘
13
142
Thus,
Amos’
prophetic
criticism was aimed not
only
at the individuals and the
groups
who
exploited
the
poor
but also the social
system
which made
injustice self-perpetuating.
As Jack Nelson
says,
Merchants formed alliances with bankers, members of the
court took bribes, and the
unjust prosperity
of the urban
‘
classes spilled over into the coffers of the temple. The result .
was a mutually beneficial and cozy alliance,
complete
with
economic rewards and
religious ideology,
which under-
mined the well-being of the poor.35
Amos’ prophetic call,
therefore,
was for the reform of the social conditions which
perpetuated injustice.
Israel must
pursue
social justice
because
they
are God’s covenant
people.
He reminded the children of Israel that God was the one who
brought up
the
people from the Land of
Egypt (Amos 3: I ). But
he
emphasized
that the God of Israel, the maker of the covenant, is a God of justice and therefore Israel must “let
justice
roll down like waters and righteousness
like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos
5:24).
Israel must “hate
evil,
love
good
and establish
justice
in the
gate,”
and then Amos
says, “perhaps
the Lord God of hosts
may
be gracious to the remnant of
Joseph” (Amos 5:1 S)..
The
prophetic
tradition of the Old
Testament,
and Amos in particular, provides
a great legacy for
building
a social conscience within the
pentecostal community.
The
prophetic
tradition stands as authoritative
testimony
that the social concern of God’s
people requires
a prophetic
cutting edge
in its engagement with
society.
It challenges
toward an authentic social concern rooted in the character of God which has
enough courage
to unmask the
unjust social
systems
which
perpetuate oppression. Taking
clues from Amos, many pentecostal groups-with
their
heritage
of status
quo quietism,
or their new found alliance with
right-wing political agendas-also
need to heed the
warning
that Christian faith can be transformed into an
ideology
that
may unwittingly
serve the cause of oppression. Based on the
reality
of the Old Testament
prophetic tradition,
a pentecostal church
empowered
for mission in a world divided between the “haves” and “have-nots” must learn anew the systemic implications
of
confessing
Jesus as God’s
prophet
who announced his
ministry
in the tradition of the Jubilee
year (Luke 4:16-21),
and
taught
his
disciples
to
pray
for the
forgiveness
of the debt,
not the foreclosure of land
(Matt. 6:12).
Thus, Old
Testament social ethics
provide
a plea for
social justice in its
prophetic
tradition the
principles
of social
justice
in its concept
of the covenant, the
parameters
of social
justice
in its doctrine
of humankind
as God’s
image-bearer,
and the
platform
for
‘
14
143
.
social
justice
in its basic theocentric orientation.
Finally,
we must examine the Jubilee
teachings,
and other relevant
parts
of the law codes,
to uncover the
paths
to social
justice.
Old Testament Social Ethics and the Jubilee
Teachings:
The Paths to Social Justice
.
The social ethics of the Old Testament
promotes
a
special concern for the
alien,
the
widow, and orphan and the poor. Because of this social concern, the
prophets engaged
in social criticism which unmasked the
systems
of oppression
against
the
poor
and the disadvantaged.
Because of this social
concern,
the Old Testament also mandated God’s
people
to
engage
in social action to create mechanisms and institutions to give concrete
positive expression
to the
pursuit
of social
justice.
Four
institutions,
in
particular,
were mandated in the law codes which created the
paths
to social
justice for the
people
of God. The institutions of the Jubilee
Year,
the Sabbath. Year, the law of
tithing
and the law of
gleaning
were established to
guarantee
a path toward
justice
for the
poor
and the needy.36
The institution of the Jubilee Year,
among
other
things, provided a mechanism whereby
all land was to return to the
original
owners without
compensation every fifty years.
God dictated the
original distribution of the land in roughly
equal plots,
and in Numbers
26, God established the
principle
of patrimony by which inherited land was real
property
meant to be held in perpetuity. The function of this institution of the Jubilee Year,
therefore,
was to maintain the egalitarian
nature of the ideal covenant
community. Commenting on this
egalitarian
function of the Jubilee
principle, Stephen
C. M ott
writes,
‘
.
.
‘ ‘
.
.
‘
.
The
provisions
of the Year of Jubilee
exemplify
biblical
justice. Among
its stipulations is the
provision
that after .
every fifty years all land,
whether sold or foreclosed, is to be ‘
. returned to the family whose heritage it is (Lev. 25:25-28).
The effect of this
arrangement
was to institutionalize the
relative
equality
of all
persons
in the landed means of
.
production.
It was a strong egalitarian measure and a far-
reaching
means of redress. When the number of sufferers
becomes too large, private charity cannot
cope with the ills love then
of society; requires structural measures
to achieve
social justice.37
After Israel and Judah were taken into
captivity,
the
prophet
Ezekiel outlined a new land distribution scheme for the time when
the
people
of God would be restored to
stewardship
of their own
land. In contrast to the
unjust system
which
brought
the nation into
exile,
Ezekiel
proposed
an
egalitarian
land
system
based on the
original
distribution of
plots.
He also
incorporated
into his
.
.
.
_
15
144
redistribution
plan,
the
concept
of landed
patrimony along
the lines
of the Year of Jubilee
(Ezek. 45:8-9; 46:18).
The Jubilee
principle
of
land
equalization
was still
recognized by the prophet
as one
way
of
correcting past wrongs
and
oppressions
and of
providing
all
members of the
society
with the
necessary
means to obtain
food,
clothing
and shelter.38
The
theological justification
for the Jubilee institution is found in
Leviticus 25:33: “The land shall not be sold in
perpetuity,
for the
land is
mine,
for
you
are
strangers
and
sojourners
with me.”
Echoing
back to the notion of the covenant in which God delivered
a
group
of
strangers
and
sojourners
to the
promised land,
this justification
for the Jubilee institution
emphasized
Israel’s steward-
ship,
rather than absolute
ownership,
of the land.
In addition to the Year of Jubilee, the Sabbatical Year was
another institution
designed
to establish social
justice
in Israel’s
common life. The Sabbatical Year
provided
a mechanism to
institute the
path
of
justice
for the Hebrew
slave,
the Hebrew .
debtor,
the hired
servant,
the
poor,
and the alien
(Ex. 21:2-3;
23: (0-1 l; Deut. 15:1-18;
Lev.
25:2-7).
For the Hebrew
slave,
the
Sabbatical
ordinance
brought
release from
mandatory
servitude
and a gift of livestock,
grain
and wine as a basis for the released
slave to
begin
his free life
(Ex. 21:2-3;
Deut.
15:12-18).
For the
Hebrew
debtor,
the Sabbatical Year
brought
the cancellation of
debts
(Deut. 15 :1-6).
For the
poor,
the
slave,
the hired
servant,
and
the
alien,
the Sabbatical Year meant that the land was rested and
that
they
could
gather
the food that
grew
of its own accord
(Ex.
23: I O-I l; Lev. 25:2-7).
The institution of the Sabbatical Year was to
remind Israel that it was a covenant
people
which should
incorpo-
rate the Torah into the
very
fabric of its social life
(Ex. 20:8-11;
Deut.
5:12-15)
for
they
were the aliens and the
poor
whom Yahweh
delivered out of
Egypt (Deut. l5:15).
The law of tithing was another mechanism instituted to care for
the
disadvantaged.
The Levitical ordinance reads: “At the end of
every
three
years you
shall
bring
forth all the tithe of your
produce
in the same
year …
and the Levite … and the
sojourner,
the
fatherless,
and the
widow,
who are within
your towns,
shall come
and eat and be
filled,
that the Lord
your
God
may
bless
you” (Lev.
19:2, 9-10):
The Deuteronomic ordinance also instituted
tithing
as a
mechanism to care for the needs of the
Levite,
the
alien,
the
orphan,
and the widow but
emphasized
that this ordinance was instituted so
that these members of the covenant
community’may
also know that
the Lord God
brought
them into a “land
flowing
with milk and
honey” (Deut. 26:12-15).
16
145
.
The Law of
Gleaning
was also established to institute social
justice
for the
poor,
the
alien,
the
widow,
and the
orphan.
The law
of
gleaning
is
part
of the Holiness code of Leviticus 19:1-8. The
exhortations in 19:9-18 are
grouped
into five
major pentads,
each
pentad containing
five principles. The first
pentad
institutes the law
of gleaning (vs.
9-10).
When you reap the harvest of your land,
( 1 ) you shall not .
reap your
field to its
very border, (2)
neither shall
you
gather
the gleanings after
your
harvest.
(3) And you shall ‘
not strip your vineyard
bare, (4) neither shall you gather the
fallen grapes of your vineyard;
(5) you shall leave
them for
the poor and the sojourner: I am the Lord
your
God.39
The Deuteronomic code likewise instituted the law of
gleaning
but added that the
gleanings
should be “generous” and included the
widow and the
orphan along
with the alien as the beneficiaries of
the law. In
Deuteronomy,
the law of gleaning is justified by their
remembrance that
they
were “a slave in the land of
Egypt” (Deut.
24:19-22).
,
.
far .
Although
these four ordinances of social
justice may
not
go
enough
in
instituting justice
for all,
they
do institutionalize a
concern for the social welfare of the
economically disadvantaged.
These laws demonstrate that God’s
people
were commanded to
establish social mechanisms and structures to give cocrete institu-
tional
expression
to their
special
concern for the
poor,
the
widow,
the
orphan,
and the alien. The codes demonstrated that biblical
justice
is biased toward the
poor
and the
needy,
and therefore, the
first
step
on the
path
to social
justice
is to institute
systems
of
distribution for the correction of
oppression.4°
Pentecostal minis-
tries, especially
in Third World
countries,
have been at the
vanguard
of instituting programs to
promote
the social welfare of
the
poor.
Wholistic ministries in
Haiti, India,
and the countries of
Central America have been
developed
to announce God’s
reign
through
their
kerygmatic proclamation
and to institute a visible
expression
of God’s
reign through
their social
programs.4′
The
Pentecostal church in First and Second World countries has much
to learn about social action from their brothers and sisters in the
Third World.
To be
sure,
not all of the institutions of the Jubilee transfer
readily
into a pentecostal social ethic for
today’s
world. The idea of
the
patrimony
of the Jubilee
Year,
for
example, may
have been an
effective
way
for the covenant
people
of God to institute social
justice
within a Hebrew
agrarian society.
This
particular
institution
may
no longer have the same universal relevance in the context of a .
global community
structured
by
international law. However, the
conviction s-hould remain firm that a
pentecostal
social concern
. ‘
.
.
.
.
.
17
146
‘
informed
by the moral authority
of the Old Testament should find creative
ways-relevant
to the conditions of our own times-to institutionalize its care for the
poor,
the
widow,
the
orphan,
and the alien.
The Old Testament Moral Tradition and Pentecostal Social Ethics: A Constructive
Theological Proposal
From the
perspective
of Christian
dogmatic theology,
an
analysis of the Old Testament moral tradition to determine its
abiding principles
for inclusion into a
comprehensive
social ethic is required by
the church’s doctrinal confession that the Bible provides
the authoritative rule for faith and
practice.
In its attempt to
identify
the
enduring legacy
of Old Testament ethics for Christian moral
existence,
the
pentecostal
church shares in a common
theological
task with other Christian
communions,
Protes- tant,
Roman Catholic and Orthodox. I believe, however, that the primary methodology
shifts from the canons of
dogmatics
to the canons
of exegetical theology
when the
following question
is posed: What are the
rudimentary principles
of a distinctively pentecostal social ethic?
The reason for this shift to
exegetical
method is a
simple
one. Pentecostals
distinguish
themselves from other Christians primarily
in their claim that the New Testament teaches that
Spirit baptism
and the
pneumatological ordering
of the church can still be experienced today
and are normative for Christian life and church practice
until the
parousia.
All other
aspects
of Christian doctrine within
pentecostalism
are shared with one or another of the various communions of Christian faith.42 In short, a distinctively
pente- costal
starting point
for
theological
reflection on moral existence- not differences in the moral traditions held in common with other Christian believers-is what should mark a
distinctively pente- costal social ethic.
Starting points
in theological reflection are not
merely
different ways
of
getting
started on an identical
journey,
however.
They
do have a
way
of
influencing
the
particular angularity by
which Christian claims are viewed and
interpreted
as
hermeneutically fundamental or as subordinate to other more fundamental
organ-
‘
izing principles.
The
starting point
of Spirit
baptism-of
the God who
empowers his
people
for
mission-provides,
I submit, such an
angular
vision for a social ethic
designed
to
promote
social
justice
in a divided world. In his
provocative study,
The Charismatic
Theology
of St. Luke, Roger
Stronstad
presents
a thesis
concerning
the
coming
of the
Spirit
at Pentecost that has
profound implications
for inte- grating
the Old Testament
conception
of social
justice
into a
18
147
.
distinctively pentecostal
social ethic. Stronstad declares:
The Pentecost narrative is the story of the transfer of the
charismatic
spirit
from Jesus to the
disciples.
In other
words, having
become the exclusive bearer of the
Holy
Spirit
at His baptism, Jesus becomes the giver of the Spirit
at Pentecost….
By
this transfer of the
become the
Spirit,
the
disciples
heirs and successors to the
earthly
charismatic
ministry
of Jesus; that is, because Jesus has
poured
out the charismatic
Spirit upon
them the disciples
will continue to do and teach those
things
which Jesus
began
to do and teach.43
.
‘
.
.
‘
.
‘
‘
This thesis that focuses on the transference of Jesus’
ministry
to the
disciples by
the
coming
of the
Spirit
at Pentecost
provides
a highly .suggestive organizing principle
for a
distinctively pente- costal social ethic, the contours of which I will
briefly
delineate in
.
the
remaining paragraphs.
A social ethic
starting
with the
principles
inherent in the
story
of
the Pentecost festival of Acts 2 is tied,
by the logic
of Luke, back to
the
ministry
of Jesus as the One anointed
by the Spirit
to inaugurate
the
Kingdom
of God in human
history.
“Those
things
which Jesus
began
to do and teach”
(Acts I:I)
are included within the central
theological concept
used
by
Luke in his
gospel
to describe Jesus’
mission and
ministry:
the
Kingdom
of God. A
pentecostal
social
ethic
grounded exegetically
in Luke-Acts,
therefore, is a Kingdom
ethic made
operational
within the charismatic
community by
the
empowerment
of the
Spirit.
It is not a charismatic ethic but a
Kingdom
ethic transferred as the moral substance of Jesus’
ministry
to the charismatic
community by the coming
of the
Spirit
at Pentecost.
Furthermore,
Jesus
self-consciously placed
his
proclamation
of ‘
the
Kingdom
of God in direct
continuity
with the
expectations
of ‘
the
people
of God in the Old Testament. Luke
emphasizes
that the .
.
inaugural
sermon of Jesus’
public ministry
was the fulfillment of
.
Isaiah’s servant
songs (Luke
4:16-21 cf. Isa.
61:I-2)
and he
places
Jesus’
Kingdom proclamation
in
relationship
to the Law and the
Prophets (Luke 16:16).44
The
reign
of God which Jesus claimed to
inaugurate
in his
ministry
was the fulfillment in human
history
of .
Old Testament
promise. Accordingly,
the ethical
principles opera-
tive in the
reign
of God established
by Jesus cannot
be fully grasped
without
interpreting
them
against
the Old Testament
conception
of
social
justice
which
is ministry brought
to
completion. Thus,
the
Old Testament
pursuit
of social
justice
is
part
of the Jewish ‘ .
religious
Sitz im Leben in which the
Kingdom
claims of Jesus
should be
interpreted.
.
..
.
. –
.
‘
–
.
.
.
..
19
148
This hermeneutical line of
continuity
which
digresses
from the charismatic
community
in Acts 2 back to Jesus’
Kingdom
ethic in Luke, and
the other
synoptic gospels,
and then back to the Old Testament moral tradition
provides
the
linkages
between
Spirit baptism
and social
justice.
The transference of Jesus’
ministry
to the
disciples
at Pentecost-within the context of its fulfillment for the Law and the
Prophets-also explains
the role
played by
the Holy Spirit
from Acts 2
forward,
in
structuring
the
Apostolic community
as a visible demonstration of justice. Even
though
the category
of
justice
is not utilized
by Luke,
the
Holy Spirit
is presented
in the Acts as the One who
empowers
the church to overcome within its own
community
the entrenched
gender, economic,
cultural and
religious
barriers of a divided world. This establishment of a
just community by
the
Holy Spirit
is used apologetically by
Luke to demonstrate that the church was established
by
the ‘ exalted Jesus Christ
(Acts 2:33, 4:32-37,
10 :34- 48).
Luke
highlights
his portrayal of the charismatic
community
as an expression
of
justice
structured
by
the
Spirit’s power
in the following
manner. In Acts 2, the
gender
distinctions of male and female were overcome
by the empowerment
of the
Spirit.
In Acts 4 and
5,
the economic distinctions between rich and
poor
were overcome in the economic koininia established
by the power
of the Spirit.
In Acts
10, the
cultural distinctions between Jew and Gentile were overcome within the Christian
community by
the
coming
of the
Spirit.
In Acts
19,
the
religious
distinctions between the disciples
of Jesus and the
disciples
of John the
Baptist
were overcome
by
the
power
of the
Spirit
to
instigate
the first Christian ecumenism.
By the
time the
story
of the Acts
concludes,
the
gospel had
gone
unbounded
throughout
the world
by
means of the
Spirit- empowered apostolic community.45
And as the gospel went unbound- ed it had the
power
to establish the
Kingdom
ethic of Jesus which completed
the Old Testament
longing
for
social justice
to
reign,
and instituted it into the life and
practice
of the church.
In the
coming
of the
Spirit
at Pentecost,
therefore,
the
long story of God’s will for
justice
found an
empowering dynamic. Spirit baptism
enabled the charismatic
community
to break down the middle walls of partition between men and women, rich and
poor, Jew and Gentile, and even demarcations of
religious backgrounds within the Christian
community
itself. Thus
by
the conclusion of Luke’s
story,
the charismatic
community
of the Acts
presented within its own social structure the visible
signpost
of the future Kingdom age.
It was liberated
by
the
Spirit
from its
deeply entrenched biases and differences to experience
right
within its own koininia a taste of the social
justice longed
for
by prophets past.
20
149
For the
contemporary pentecostal
church in search of a social ethic faithful to its own
theological convictions,
the Lukan hermeneutic of
Spirit baptism
holds
great promise.
Luke-Acts
provides
a biblical framework for
theological
reflection on church mission and
ministry
that links the God who
empowers
for witness with the God who liberates and
reigns in justice.
–
‘
.
*Murray
W.
Dempster,
an ordained minister with the Assem- blies of
God,
is Professor of Social Ethics at Southern California College
in Costa
Mesa,
California. He holds the PhD in that field from the
University
of Southern California.
‘Robert
Barbosa,
“The
Gospel
with Bread: An Interview with Brazilian Pentecostalist Manoel de Mello,” eds. Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F.
Stransky,
eds. Missions Trends No. 2:
Evangelization, (New York: Paulist
Press,
and Grand
Rapids, Michigan:
Wm. B. Eerdmans
150-151.
Publishing Company, 1975),
2For a brief delineation of the signs of an awakened
pentecostal
social
conscience since the late 1960’s, see the introductory section of
my paper,
“Soundings
in the Moral
Significance
of Glossolalia,” which was presented
to the
Society
of Pentecostal Studies at the 1983 Annual
Meeting
in
Cleveland,
Tennessee and
printed
in Harold D.
Hunter,
ed. Pastoral . Problems in the Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement
(Pasadena,
CA:
Society
for Pentecostal
Studies, 1983).
3Both the
evangelical
and ecumenical movements have a
volume
generated
considerable of theological work in the area of social ethics, much ‘
of which is very compatible with a pentecostal
understanding
of the church
and its mission and ministry. Larry Christenson’s A
Action
Charismatic Approach
to Social
(Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1974) was the first .
book-length attempt
at
identifying
the charismatic features of a
pente-
costal social ethic.
Although
Christenson’s book falls short due to its
“spiritualizing” strategy
to deal with unjust social structures, his
of identifying the features of a
objective
distinctively
charismatic
approach
to social
action remains an important
project.
See Richard
Quebedeaux’s
The New .
Charismatics
II (New York:
Harper Row, 1983) for bibliographic
infor-
mation on the subject of
amount
Spirit baptism
and social change. In addition to a .
considerable of charismatic social action cited
throughout
his
study,
see 170, n. 96. Most of the works referenced in
the charismatic
Quebedeaux’s study ‘
are pleas for renewal movement to involve itself in social
action, although
some of the works cited deal with the theoretical issues
pertinent
to a pentecostal social ethic.
4These Old Testament moral materials were first
developed
for a
“The Old Testament Foundations of Christian Social
paper
Concern,”
which I
read at the Latin America Child Care Conference,
May 20-26,
1985 in San
Salvador,
El Salvador. A revision of the paper,
into Spanish
substantially
edited and
translated
by Floyd
Woodworth was published in Conozca as
a three
part study
for distribution to missionaries and national leaders in
_
,
‘
21
150
Latin America. See “Fundamentos en el
Antiguo
Testamento de la
Inquietud
Social Christiana,” Conozca Ano
12, Numero I (Enero-Marzo
1986), l0-1 1, 13; Ano 12, Numero 2 (Abril-Junio 1986), 5, 14, 16; and Ano
12,
Numero 3 (Julio-Setiembre
1986), 12-13.
5Walter C. Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics
(Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan, 1983),
38.
6Kaiser,
Toward Old Testament Ethics, 3.
B. Maston, Biblical Ethics (Waco, Texas: World
Books, 1967), 282.
8R. E. O. White, Biblical Ethics
(Atlanta, Georgia:
John Knox
Press,
1974),
14-30.
‘
9Walter
Kornfield,
“Old Testament Ethics,” Sacramentum
Mundi,
ed.
Karl Rahner
(New York: Herder
and
Herder, 1969), 280.
ION orman W. Porteous,
“Image
of God,” The
the
Bible,
ed. G. A.
Buttrick,
4
Interpreter’s Dictionary of
vols.
(Nashville,
Tennessee:
Abingdon .
Press, 1962), 2:683.
”tennis F. Kinlau, “Old Testament Ethics,” Baker’s
Dictionary of
Christian Ethics, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Book House,
1973), 471.
12For a clear discussion of the similarities and differences in the
competing philosophical conceptions
of justice, see Chaim
Perelman,
The
Iclea of Justice and the Problem
of Argument (Atlantic Highlands,
New
Jersey:
The Humanities Press, 1963), 1-60.
H.
Toy, Proverbs,
Samuel Rolies
Driver,
Alfred Plummer and
Charles A. Briggs, eds.
(ICC,
New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1904),
299. Toy points out that the “his” in this Proverb
may refer to the oppressor
or to the poor, but notes that “in either case the familiar
duty
is based on
religious grounds;” i.e.,
the insult or the kindness is to God.
‘ 4Toy, Proverbs,
414.
15David O.
Moberg,
Inasmuch: Christian Social
Responsibility
in the
Twentieth
Century (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1965),
33.
16Maston,
17
Biblical
Ethics,
14.
Walter Eichrodt,
Theology of the
Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker
(Philadelphia:
Westminster Press,
1961), 1:17.
‘ 8 M as t o n , Biblical Ethics, 16.
‘9Elien Flesseman, “Old Testament Ethics,” Student World 57 ( 1964),
222.
2″For an ethical
analysis
of the
Decalogue
see Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics, 81-95.
2[John T. Willis, “Old Testament Foundations of Social Justice,” in Christian Social Ethics, ed.
Perry
C. Cotham
The
(Grand Michigan: Baker Book House,
1979), 32-34.
materials in this Rapids, section on the law codes are identified and treated
by Willis; however,
Willis does not tie the moral
casuistry
of the codes to the covenant refrains found in the biblical materials
along
the lines developed in this article.
. 22This text in
Deuteronomy 1 5: 1 I , no doubt,
is the one Jesus
quoted when his disciples criticized the woman for pouring expensive perfume on his head
(Matt. 26:6-13;
Mk. 14:3-9; John
12:1-8). While some Christian believers have used Jesus’saying to argue, “See Jesus himself said, there is
22
151
.
surely Deuteronomy
no point in helping the poor because the poor you always have with you,”
this
misrepresents
Jesus’ intent. Jesus’
15:11 within it in to
say,
“the response incorporated order
poor you always
have
with you and therefore
you must always respond
to their
needs; however,
this woman has anointed
my body
for burial
by her action.” Therefore, , Jesus’
saying
on the
poor
should be viewed as his attempt to
clarify
the ‘
theological
intent of the woman’s act. The act of
pouring expensive .
perfume
was a theological act of preparing his body for burial and it was
not intended, therefore, to be an ethical act
dealing
with the merits of
caring
for the poor. Thus, Jesus said in essence, the poor are always here,
and good should be done for them as you wish for it in your criticism
(the
ethical)
but I am not always
here, therefore,
she has done a good deed
by
anointing
me for burial
(the theological).
Mark
captures
this nuance of .
meaning
in his account of the
story (v. 7).
.
23John Yoder, The Politics
of Jesus (Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1972) 157. For an excellent
discussion of the church
as a counter-community, see Stephen Charles Mott, Biblical Ethics and
Social
Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 128-141. Cf.
Jim Wallis, AgendaforBiblical People(New York:
Harper& Row, 1976).
24The tradition consists of the “early prophets”
(Nathan
and
Elijah);
the prophetic “eighth-century
prophets” (Amos, Hosea,
Isaiah and
Micah);
the “transitional
prophets”
of the seventh and sixth centuries
(Zephaniah,
Nahum and
Habakkuk);
the “prophets of exile”
(Jeremiah
and
Ezekial);
the “prophets of the restoration”
(Haggai,
Zechariah and
Malachi);
and
other “miscellaneous
prophets” (Daniel, Joel,
Obadiah and Jonah). This
classification,
with slight modification, is abstracted from Maston, Biblical
Ethics, 35-70. Although such classifications, Maston warns, may distort
the overlapping of periods in some of the prophets’ ministries-Ezekiel, for
example,
whose prophetic
warnings
occurred both
prior
to Judah’s exile as
well as after it-these
groupings provide a preliminary working
framework
in which to locate the
prophetic
literature
historically.
zsYehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, trans. Moshe
Greenberg
(Chicago: University
of Chicago
Press, 1960), 316.
z6lsa. 6:8; Jer. 1:2; Ezek. 1:3; Hos.I:I;Joell:I;Amos 1:3;Jon.I:I; Mic.
I:l; Zeph. 1:l; Hag. 1:l;
Zech. l:l and Mal. 1 : all include the same basic
form of prophetic literature, “The Word of the Lord came ….” Other
prophets
either base their
prophetic authority
on
being
“an oracle” or
having
a “vision” which mediated to them the authority to say, “Thus
says
the Lord.”
27Abraham J. Heschel, The
Prophets (New
York:
Harper
and
Row,
1962), xvii.
28See,
for
example, Maston,
Biblical Ethics, 44-58, and
White, Biblical
Ethics, 14-16, 22-25,
as well as the scholarly sources which they cite.
29Amos 1:6-8; 4:1-3; 5:4-7, 10-15, 21-24;
8:4-10;
Hos.
4:1-3; 10:11-15;
12:5-9;
Isa. (of Jerusalem)
l:16-17, 21-23; 4:8-15; 5:7; 18-23; 9:1-7; 10:1-2;
11:1-9; 16:1-5; 25:1-4; 26:7-10; 28:16-17; 30:18; 32:15-18; 33:15;
Mic. 3 :8-
12 ; 6:6-8.
3uThe material in this section on the historical and social context of
Amos’ prophetic message depends largely on the study
of Jack A. Nelson,
.
23
152
Hunger for
Justice: The Politics of Food and Faith (M aryknoll, New York: Orbis
Books, 1980). In addition, many
of the
insights
into the
systemic nature of Israel’s
oppression
which Amos addressed were also gained from Nelson’s
study.
31 Nelson, Hunger for Justice,
3.
32Nelson, Hunger for Justice,
3.
33Nelson, Hunger for Justice,
2.
34Nelson, Hunger for Justice,
4.
35Nelson, Hunger for Justice,
5.
36The insight that these four ordinances
represent
institutional struc- tures in Israel’s life to care for the
poor originally
came from
the
reading
the chapter,
“Economic
Relationships Among People
of God” in Ronald J.
Sider,
Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger
(Downers Grove,
Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977), 87-112.
37 motet,
Biblical Ethics and Social
Change,
68.
38Mott,
Biblical Ethics and Social
Change,
68-69.
39This form
analysis
of the law of gleaning is from
Maston,
Biblical Ethics,
26-27. ,
4°Mott,
Biblical Ethics and Social
Change,
71. For a
thoughtful discussion on the principle of redress and the bias of biblical justice in favor of the oppressed, see 65-72.
41in
Haiti; feeding programs
for the
poor
have been established in conjunction
with the national church
through
the missionary ministry of Ron
Hittenberger.
In India, the “Mission of Mercy” established
by Mark Buntain cares for the
poor through feeding programs,
educational programs,
and a full service missionary hospital facility. In Latin America, “Latin America Child Care” established
by
John Bueno and
Doug Petersen, institutes programs
via child sponsorships specifically designed “to break the chains of
poverty”
for children in slum areas
through building
school facilities for educational
programs
as well as providing for clothing,
food and medical attention. All these ministries, and others that could be cited,
incorporate
these social welfare into
outreaches within a wholistic
understanding
of programs
evangelism
the church’s mission. 42The following
description
from a Norwegian
pentecostal highlights
the commonalities and the distinctiveness of pentecostal theology within the Protestant tradition: “On the question of Justification by Faith
they
are Lutherans,
on
Baptism Baptists,
on Sanctification
early Methodists,
in their work of winning souls Salvationists; but with regard to Baptism with the
Holy Spirit they are Pentecostalists,
as
they believe and preach
that it is possible
to be baptized in or filled
by the Holy Spirit
as on the
day
of Pentecost.” Cited
by Einar Molland,
Christendom
(New
York: Philo- sophical Library, 1959),
303. As this
quotation suggests,
Pentecostal theology
is a
collage
of doctrines and
practices
woven
together
from various Christian communions. When in the case of the Assemblies of God congregational
church
polity,
a Pietist
spirituality,
and a Reformed understanding
of sanctification are also thrown into the
theological mix, pentecostalism
almost becomes an ecumenical conference of one. 43Roger Stronstad,
The Charismatic
Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers,
1984), 49.
.
‘
.
,
24
153
44 In addition to Luke’s theology, the other
synoptic gospels also support the claim that
Jesus’ Kingdom ministry
was the fulfillment of the Law and the
Prophets.
Most
explicitly,
Matthew’s version of the Sermon on the Mount includes the saying of Jesus: “Do not think that I come to abolish the Law and the Prophets: I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill”
(Matt. 5:17).
Both Mark and Matthew
present
the announcement
of Jesus’ public ministry
as “fulfillment” of the Old Testament
expectation
of the
Day of the Lord: ” … Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying,
the time is fulfilled, the
Kingdom
of God is at
hand; repent and believe in the gospel” ‘ (Mk.
1: 14-15 = Matt. 4:12-17).
45Frank
Stagg, commenting
on Luke’s
portrayal
of the
Spirit in Acts, makes this following provocative
suggestion: “There may be significance
in the fact that it is in the three chapters in which tongues are mentioned that the gospel breaks
through
to a new group:
Jews, God-fearing Gentiles,
and followers of John the
Baptist
who had not followed Christ. This
agrees with Luke’s theme of tracing the progress of the gospel across barriers of nationality
and race,
struggling
to be
preached
unhindered
(28-31).” “Glossolalia in the New Testament”, in Frank
Stagg, E. Glenn Hinson,
and Wayne
E. Oates, Glossolalia:
Tongue Speaking
in Biblical, Historical, and Psychological Perspective (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1967),
34.
.
_
‘
25
