Spirit Baptism As A Moral Source In A Secular Age

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

Spirit Baptism as a Moral Source in a Secular Age

Caroline Redick Marquette University

caroline.redick@marquette.edu

Abstract

CharlesTaylor notes that moderns aspire to high moral standards, such as universal jus- tice and benevolence, but lack the moral resources necessary to fulfill these standards. Instead, the weak motivations of egoism, guilt, and obligation result in hypocrisy or the projection of blame on others when we fail to meet these ideals. Taylor’s work seeks to uncover deep moral sources, such as agape, that make it possible to fulfill these stan- dards. This article will complement Taylor’s excavation of powerful moral resources by arguing that Spirit baptism, understood as intense participation in divine love, is a retrieval ofagapeas an empowering moral source as well as a way to contact this source through spiritual articulation. It is a particular kind of retrieval that resonates with the modern sense of the self through a language of personal resonance and an elevation of the ordinary person into the extraordinary life.

Keywords

Charles Taylor – moral sources –agape– Spirit baptism – glossolalia – secularity

Introduction

In his philosophical anthropology,Sources of the Self, Charles Taylor notes that moderns aspire to high moral standards, such as universal justice and benev- olence, but lack the moral resources necessary to fulfill these standards. For example, we may send relief funds to a tsunami-impacted area, not because these are human beings worthyof good will, but in order to avoid the crushing guilt of failing to meet a standard. The weak moral motivations of egoism, guilt, and obligation result in this type of moral hypocrisy. One alternative to this scenario is to lower our modern moral expectations to a more attainable level.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/15700747-04001007

1

38

redick

Instead of aspiring to alleviate hunger around the world, one could prudently focus on providing for their immediate family. Yet, Taylor also finds this alter- native dissatisfying, as adopting a stripped-down morality stifles a key piece of being human: deep spiritual aspirations. It is a form of “spiritual lobotomy,” ignoring distant others to focus on a proximate few, thereby denying the deep desire to care for all human beings because they are worth caring for.1 From a theological perspective, it denies God-like love for the whole world.

Instead of criticizing the high aspirations of universal justice and benevo- lence as overly idealistic, Taylor affirms these modern moral intuitions while seeking to retrieve sources that make them possible, such as the Christian notion of God’s agapic love.2Taylor laments that “the secular ethic of altruism has discarded something essential to the Christian outlook, once love of God no longer plays a role.”3Moderns have become blind to this strong moral source through an “inward turn” away from a transcendent perspective.4Taylor’s work seeks to uncover deep moral sources, such as agape, that make it possible to fulfill these standards.

ThisarticlewillcomplementTaylor’sexcavationof powerfulmoralresources by arguing that Spirit baptism, understood as participation in divine love, is a retrieval of agapeas a moral source. This will be accomplished, first, by explor- ing Taylor’s concept of moral sources; second, through articulating a theology ofagapein relation to the Creator’s vision of creation and Christ’s incarnate sol- idarity with creation; and third, by arguing that Spirit baptism opens up new possibilities for retrievingagapeas a moral source in our secular age.5

1 CharlesTaylor,Sourcesof theSelf:TheMakingof theModernIdentity(Cambridge,MA: Harvard,

1989), 520.

2 As Gary Kitchen has noted, Taylor is neither a “booster” or “knocker” of modernity; “Charles

Taylor: The Malaises of Modernity and the MoralSources of the Self,”Philosophy & Social Crit-

icism: An International, Interdisciplinary Journal25, no. 3 (1999): 30.

3 Taylor,Sources of the Self, 22.

4 Taylor,Sources of the Self, 515.

5 By “secular” I follow Taylor’s definition of “secularity 3,” which refers to new conditions for

belief. For example, “self-sufficient” humanism, with no reference to transcendence, is an

option for the modern person. See Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (London: Belknap Press,

2007), 18, 20.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

2

spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age

39

Moral Sources

Sources and the Good

In Sources of the Self, Taylor offers a thick description of the development of the modern identity through providing a historical account of notions of the self. As part of this account, Taylor relies on the image of “moral sources” that empower our pursuit of the good. This concept becomes intelligible in the con- text of his moral ontology. For Taylor, there are some goods that we respect because of their nature. While reductive naturalists believe human agency is based upon one’s subjective preferences, Taylor argues that human choices are consonant with a framework of goods.6 These are goods that correspond to a “strong evaluation” independent of our subjective desires, choices, or procliv- ities and “command our awe.”7 Although we may only be implicitly aware of these goods, they nevertheless orient our lives.

Taylor uses a spatial metaphor for the self’s orientation to these goods. We view ourselves in relation to a field of qualitative distinctions between goods, and placing ourselves in this space forms our identity. From this position, we orient ourselves to a good and move toward it. Thus, “Orientation in moral space turns out again to be similar to orientation in physical space. We know where we are through a mixture of recognition of landmarks before us and a sense of how we have travelled to get here.”8 Furthermore, we gain a sense of direction from narrating our lives in relation to this good. Through telling sto- ries, we reaffirm the goods that are important to us and recount our failures and accomplishments in pursuit of these goods.

Among the plurality of goods, some are more important than others, and these displace other goods in relation to them. Taylor refers to these standards as “hypergoods” by which other goods are evaluated.9 For example, a culture may value the avoidance of suffering as a hypergood that outweighs all other goods that come into conflict with it. Hypergoods are not simply a matter of subjective taste; rather theymoveus to respect them because we perceive them to be objectively worthwhile. There is an “intrinsic connection between seeing and feeling” as we are moved by what we see as “infinitely valuable.”10

6

7 8 9 10

Taylor, Sources of the Self, 26–27. See pp. 5, 22–24 for his description of modern natural- ism. Reductive naturalists view moral reactions as similar to instincts and dispense with any ontological account of morality (morality that involves claims about what the human being is).

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 20.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 48.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 69.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 74.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

3

40

redick

Modern culture especially resonates with the hypergoods of universal be- nevolence, the affirmation of the ordinary life, and autonomy.11 These goods form the framework for the modern self, providing the self qualitatively distin- guishable goods as points of orientation. Conflicts arise when one hypergood clashes with another, such as when one must choose between benevolent ser- vice on behalf of others and autonomous self-expression.12 For example, we affirm the decision of a young writer who gives up her dream of studying cre- ative writing in graduate school in order to earn money to pay for her father’s medical bills. At the same time, we view this decision as a real loss, because she sacrifices her autonomous self-expression in order to care benevolently for a family member. As moderns, we feel this tension because the writer chooses between two recognizable hypergoods: benevolence and autonomy. But if she chose to move to Florida to learn to surf instead of caring for her sick father, we would not feel sympathetic. Learning to surf is a genuine life-good, but it is not a hypergood—it does not outweigh the obligation of benevolence.13 Tay- lor’s point is that we intuitively sense the weight of hypergoods, even though we may not be able to articulate why these goods hold our respect.

Furthermore, there are particular goods that not only relativize other goods, but also move us as we love them. These “constitutive goods” are associated with strong moral sources that empower us to do good and be good.14For exam- ple, the Platonic idea of the Good is the source of value for all other goods, and persons are motivated by the love of it. Augustine, improvising upon Plato’s idea, recognizes God as the constitutive good whose agapic love empowers our pursuit of him.15 As gift of God, agape empowers the self from without as a moral source, while also intimately relating to it to affect its re-creation.16

Through language, human cultures express their deep sources. Thus, Arto Laitinen has observed that, for Taylor, moral sources are dependent upon

11

12 13

14 15 16

William Greenway, “Charles Taylor on Affirmation, Mutilation, and Theism: A Retrospec- tive Reading of Sources of the Self,” Journal of Religion80, no. 1 (2000): 27.

Greenway, “Charles Taylor on Affirmation, Mutilation, and Theism,” 28.

Greenway provides a similar example: In the first case, a young man who chooses between joining the Nazi resistance or caring for his elderly mother (two hypergoods). In the sec- ond case, he refuses to join the resistance so he can enjoy eating strawberry ice cream (a life-good). Again, we intuitively recognize the absurdity of choosing a life-good over a hypergood.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 93.

Taylor,Sources of the Self.

Roshnee Ossewaarde-Lowtoo, “The Sources of Modernity: Agape and Secularised Agape in Charles Taylor,” presented at conference Radical Secularization? in Antwerp (2012): 2.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

4

spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age

41

human culture and articulation, yet are not completely human constructions.17 Deep sources, such asagape, originate in God and become manifest in human language. In a theological sense, the Word becomes flesh—the external moral source is articulated in a familiar tongue. The problem is that moderns have become blind to anything beyond the immanent frame and unable to express these deep sources.

The Internalization of Moral Sources

Through gradual internalization, moderns have come to draw upon sources exclusively found within humanity. Taylor traces the relocation of moral sources through Western history. The ancient attraction to the Platonic Good, or God, took an “inward turn” when Augustine posited that the road to God lies within. For Augustine,

our principal route to God is not through the object domain but ‘in’ our- selves. This is because God is not just the transcendent object or just the principle of order of the nearer objects … God is also and for us primarily the basic support and underlying principle of our knowing activity … So the light of God is not just ‘out there,’ illuminating the order of being, as it is for Plato; it is also an ‘inner’ light.18

In this way, Augustine initiates a shift in epistemic access to the source—God is no longer found as the Logos in the external order, but within the self.19This move anticipates later thinkers, such as Descartes and Rousseau, who interpret inwardnessasasourceof itsown,effectively(althoughunintentionally)cutting it off from its connection to the divine.20

For Descartes, insight does not come from attunement to the cosmic order or the Good, but from a separation of the mind from the world.21 The world becomes a mechanism that can be controlled through instrumental reason. Similarly, human passions are brought under the control of reason.22 This

17

18 19

20 21 22

Arto Laitinen, Strong Evaluation without Moral Sources: On Charles Taylor’s Philosophical Anthropology and Ethics(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 272.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 129.

Taylor, Sources of the Self, 128–129. Also see Arto Laitinen, Strong Evaluation without Moral Sources: On Charles Taylor’s Philosophical Anthropology and Ethics (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008) 271.

Laitinen,Strong Evaluation without Moral Sources, 271.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 146, 8.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 149.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

5

42

redick

new “mastery of reason” leads to the relocation of moral sources—they are no longer found in an external order or Good but within the human being.23 A sense of one’s own dignity as a rational being, with the ability to con- trol one’s emotions and environment, provides moral strength.24Furthermore, the internalization of reason functions to provide “self-sufficient certainty.”25 While Descartes is a theist, he no longer encounters God within like Augustine. Instead, the source of empowerment is the self—specifically, instrumental rea- son, which provides certainty. This internal moral source no longer requires encounter with the divine. Thus, Descartes opens the way to a complete imma- nentization of moral sources—a path taken by later thinkers.

John Locke carries on the internalization of sources through developing the “punctual self,” which harnesses instrumental reason to objectify and remake the self.26 Through self-control, one’s consciousness becomes detached from any outside sources of influence such as passion, tradition, or authority.27The punctual self, as described by Locke, is recognizable in modern culture’s self- disciplinary practices in the military, schools, fitness programs, and bureaucra- cies, which aim to remake individuals and society through drawing upon the source of disengaged reason.28 Thus, self-control exemplifies a moral source still operative today.

But this is only one possible direction in modernity. Taylor clarifies that modern moral culture is influenced by three sources: the “original theistic foun- dation,” disengaged reason, and the goodness of nature.29Thinkers influenced by the Cambridge Platonist school did not locate moral sources in disengaged reason but in nature. For example, Shaftesbury argued that the highest good was found in the nature of the cosmos.30 Persons do not access this good via disengaged reason, but through the inherent “bent” of their nature to love the whole.31 Love bridges the gulf between the interior subject and the exterior world. Thus, Shaftesbury counters Locke’s disengaged reason with a way to reengage with the whole through love.

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 151–152. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 152. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 156. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 171. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 167, 72. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 173. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 317. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 253. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 254.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

6

spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age

43

At the same time, it is important to note that Shaftesbury’s emphasis is not on thelovabilityof the whole, but onloveas an innate endowment that carries us beyond ourselves to disinterested affection for all.32The ethic of nature has become internalized: natural affection, the main moral source, is found within the self.33 Like Shaftesbury, Hutcheson located human moral sources in senti- ment, the most important of which was benevolence.34 He argued that failure to see the benevolence in our nature cripples our moral sentiments, but recog- nition of the good in ourselves and others empowers benevolent actions. Thus, internal sentiments, especially benevolence, become the way in which the self moves toward the good.

Yet, for Hutcheson and other deists, moral sentiments work in conjunction with the providential order. Contact with these sources attunes the self to the created order and empowers the self to bring about good.35 Thus, while these sources are internal to the human being, they are still connected to the divine plan. Later thinkers develop this trajectory into the exclusively human sources associated with secularity.

For Rousseau, the inner feelings do not provide contact with the good in the created order but “define” what is good.36 He associates nature, and its moral source, with a voice within the human person that transforms the will so the self can become truly benevolent.37 While this voice is present to all, only a few hear it since it is hidden deep within the self. Thus, Rousseau’s depic- tion of nature becomes the modern “expressive view of life” in which fulfilling the self’s nature requires contact with (and expression of) one’s inner voice.38 Furthermore, each individual has their own original source and way of being human that must be expressed to be realized.39 Moral sources are no longer found within humanity in general, but located within individual selves, requir- ing expression. Art and poetry, in particular, provide a language for articulat- ing one’s inner nature.40 Through creative imagination, persons express their “inexhaustible inner depths.”41

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 256. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 255. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 261. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 362. Taylor,Sources of the Self. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 357–358. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 374–375. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 375–376. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 377. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 390.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

7

44

redick

At the same time, expressivism resists instrumental reason’s division of nature within and nature without (nature within the human person and in the natural order). In the Romantic vision of nature, there is a current of love or life running through the natural order that must be participated in to be fully understood.42 The artist not only expresses the depths of the individual, but also strives to express the élan of nature.43 Again, this is nature not as God’s providential order, but as a mysterious enigma. Like nature within the human subject, it is also an immanent moral source.

Through this revolutionary transition in Western consciousness, exclusive humanists have come to rely upon immanent moral sources, such as human dignity and natural sentiments.44 In the first case, admiration for the human power of disengaged reason, or natural sentiments, creates the horizon that directs the self’s activity. In the second case, artists tap into moral sources within the depths of the individual, or outside of the subject through express- ing an epiphany of the natural world. Although this source is beyond the sub- ject, it still resides in the immanent frame.

While moderns may not always recognize these sources, or be able to artic- ulate them, they are nevertheless present, functioning as analogues to older moral sources, such asagape.Taylor interprets the shift in the location of moral sources as the process of secularization.45 But he is not ready to accede to the reality of traditional (transcendent) sources that empower humanity. The problem is not that these strong sources do not exist, but that we have become blind to them through the immanentization of our moral sources. Unfortu- nately, this moral ignorance not only keeps us from accessing helpful moral sources, but also blinds us to our “darker motivations.”46

Shadows

The occlusion of strong moral sources has resulted in reliance upon the weak analogues of the immanent frame. For example, benevolence has come to replace the constitutive good of agape. Benevolence is a high moral standard, calling for a solidarity that moves one beyond one’s own kin, social group, or

42 43 44 45

46

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 380.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 383–385.

Laitinen,Strong Evaluation without Moral Sources, 271.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 313. He explains, “Secularization doesn’t just arise because peo- ple get a lot more educated, and science progresses … What matters is that masses of people can sense moral sources of quite a different kind, ones that don’t necessarily sup- pose a God.”

Ossewaarde-Lowtoo, “The Sources of Modernity,” 4.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

8

spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age

45

class, to care for all without discrimination. On the one hand, this is a remark- able advancement since “our age makes higher demands of solidarity and benevolence on people today than ever before.”47On the other hand, these high moral aspirations are cut off from their original moral source.

Colin Grant has noted that the secular concept of altruism, or benevolence toward those outside one’s own group, is rooted in the Christian gospel, par- ticularly the Christian message that God is agape. God reaches out in love to humanity and “seeks to elicit an emulating caring from us for one another.”48 Similarly, Taylor views the ethic of benevolence as a shadow of the Christian notion of agape, which presents an ideology of universal love. Unlike agape, benevolence lacks a way to empower these high standards, other than human power.49Insteadof participatingthroughgraceindivinelove,benevolentaltru- ism is fueled from within, by a direction of the human will.50 This is too high a moral standard to be sustained by the human will alone. Eventually, the pur- suit of benevolence results in self-condemnation for failing to meet this high standard or even in self-hate as it opposes our human tendency toward self- fulfillment.51Thus, solidarity rooted in benevolent altruism leads to unforeseen consequences.

Nietzsche, an insightful critic of high moral standards, warns that benev- olence can become “destructive to the giver and degrading to the receiver” when it is opposed to self-fulfillment.52 Taylor follows Nietzsche in this suspi- cion toward benevolence as a moral source, while also identifying other pitfalls. He warns that failure to meet the high standard of universal benevolence can lead to a “sense of unworthiness” resolved by projecting evil out toward other groups.53Through projection, one blames others for one’s own sense of failure. For example, the high modern standard of universal justice demands a form of economic fairness. The guilt from failing to meet this standard may result in a projection of blame onto the poor. Thus, we often hear that the poor are vicious or “lazy” and that it is their own fault that they are poor. These assess- ments do not only come from ignorance of poverty, or pride in one’s own ability to overcome difficult circumstances, but are often the result of projected guilt.

47 48

49 50 51 52 53

Charles Taylor, A Catholic Modernity? (Dayton,OH: Dayton University Press, 1996), 29. Colin Grant, Altruism & Christian Ethics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 167–168.

Charles Taylor, A Secular Age(Cambridge,MA: Belknap Press, 2007), 247.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 22.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 516.

Taylor,Sources of the Self.

Taylor,Sources of the Self.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

9

46

redick

While projection functions to alleviate one’s conscience, projection itself may not be enough to overcome this sense of guilt. Taylor notes how the iden- tification of moral failure with a particular group can lead to violent elimina- tion of that group. In this case, the other is blamed for preventing universal benevolence—and the solution is through their destruction. For example, we may recall the millions slaughtered in pursuit of the Communist ideal of eco- nomic equality and universal justice. As manifested in Stalinism, a sense of guilt often leads to an “ideology of polarization” in which one recovers purity by opposing the group identified with evil.54

Taylor believes that the only way to avoid this pull toward violence is in the turn toward transcendence “through the full-hearted love of some good beyond life.”55In the terms of moral sources, the only way to affirm human flourishing without resorting to violence is throughagape. Thus, Taylor posits that “only if thereissuchathingasagape,oroneof thesecularclaimantstoitssuccession,is Nietzsche wrong.”56The only way to meet high moral standards without falling into the trap of projection is through connection to a strong moral source. Fur- thermore, this source cannot be found completely within the immanent frame. If self-giving love is possible for human beings, then it is possible “to the extent that we open ourselves to God.”57

Recognizing that benevolence is parasitic of agape, drawing from its high aspiration to “see good” and enact the good, Taylor endeavors to retrieve this original source. He believes that the forgotten goods of moral sources, such as agape, can be retrieved through articulating them so that we become aware of their presence.58 He observes, “If articulacy is open to us, to bring us out of the cramped postures of suppression, this is partly because it will allow us to acknowledge the full range of goods we live by. It is also because it will open us to our moral sources, to release their force in our lives.”59 Through articu- lating our sources, we become aware of their presence. Taylor describes this process as a “retrieval” of “buried goods.”60 Articulation provides language to see these goods so that we may participate in them and thereby be empowered by them.61

54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Taylor,Sources of the Self. Taylor, A Catholic Modernity?, 27. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 516. Taylor, A Catholic Modernity?, 35. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 520. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 107. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 520. Taylor,Sources of the Self, 92.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

10

spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age

47

Agapeas a Moral Source

In a sense, Taylor’s whole narration of Western history in Sources of the Self is an exercise in articulating moral sources so that they become available to us again.62 While he does not claim to provide a theological account of modern identity, a theological anthropology is present in his narrative, particularly the self’s orientation toward constitutive goods (includingtheconstitutive good— God). The theological roots of this good in creation and incarnation, discern- able in Taylor’s work, assists our understanding of agape as a strong moral source.63

Agapeand Creation

Taylor derives his notion of agape as “seeing good” from the narrative of Gen- esis 1, in which God sees creation and declares it as good. This optic is central to the notion of divine love. Taylor argues that “agapeis inseparable from such a ‘seeing-good’” since it is “a love that God has for humans which is connected with their goodness as creatures.”64 God creates humanity as good, sees them as good, and loves them in this goodness. Taylor clarifies that God’s love is not just a response to seeing this inherent goodness, but also makes it good.65

Taylor follows the classical theological understanding of creation as God’s free, gratuitous gift of life.66 God does not create because of dependency, or a need for creation, but out of an overflowing love. There is no need to decide whether humans are loved because they are good or good because they are loved.67 Either way, God affirms human being; agape is the overflow of love that generates new life.

As a moral source, this “seeing good” transforms our vision of the world. Taylor notes that the “transformation of our stance toward the world” is tra- ditionally connected to grace.68In this case,agapeis a moral source for human

62 63

64 65 66 67 68

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 521.

Here I follow a path trod by Philip Rossi, “Seeing Good in a World of Suffering: Incarnation as God’s Transforming Vision,” in Godhead Here in Hiding: Incarnation and the History of Human Suffering, ed. Terrence Merrigan and Frederik Glorieux (Leuven, Belgium: Uitgev- erij Peeters, 2012), 455. Rossi senses an implicit theology of incarnation and creation in Taylor’s anthropology as it relates to “seeing good.”

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 516.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 449.

Grant, Altruism & Christian Ethics, 215.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 516.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 449.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

11

48

redick

empowerment, as persons participate in this divine love.Through participating in divineagape, persons are empowered to view creation through this optic— we see that “human beings are eminently worth helping” and treating with dignity.69 Because this gaze beholds all of creation, it extends beyond the nor- mal human scope of tribal selectivity. We not only see the goodness of family, kinship group, or fellow citizens, but also see the dignity of the stranger and even other creatures. This sight empowers action on behalf of others. In short, participation in the Creator’s agapic gaze opens up the possibility of fellowship with other creatures.

Inspired byagape, universal benevolence strives to see the good of the whole but is deprived of the Creator’s perspective. Since benevolence is powered from within, and from the individual’s perspective, it must rely upon techniques and technologies to extend its gaze. From time to time, this standard of seeing good is successful, such as when television highlights the impact of an earthquake in another country. We see and are moved to give to strangers in distant lands. But in the end, as a weak moral source, benevolence lacks the motivating power, and source outside of the human will, to sustainably see in a way that generates new life. Such a task becomes possible through seeing with God and participat- ing in the Creator’s gift of life by affirming life.

This produces a kind of solidarity that Taylor terms “a network of agape.” In contrast to a “categorical grouping” of people who share a common prop- erty, agapic solidarity is not based on a universal category or in tribal kinship. Rather, it is based on “the kind of love God has for us,” which creates bonds of particular relationships, resembling family relationships.70This kind of love is exemplified in the parable of the Good Samaritan, who sees a wounded Jewish man on the side of the road and is moved to care for him. While moderns are tempted to take this story to be an endorsement of universal moral rules,Taylor (following Ivan Illich) insists that the story actually points to a source of moti- vation. The Samaritan does not feel called by an “ought” but by the wounded human being before him.71 Thus, the source of his altruistic activity is seeing the wounded man as a person worthy of care and assistance. The Samaritan participates in the Creator’s gaze and is moved to act in love.

69 70 71

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 515. Taylor, A Secular Age, 739. Taylor, A Secular Age, 738.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

12

spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age

49

Agapeand Incarnation

Loving participation in divine seeing good becomes a source for affirming life and working toward the flourishing of all. Yet, agape, as a moral source, aims notonlytowardhumanflourishingbutalsotowardagood“beyond”flourishing, expressed in eschatological terms as union with God or the beatific vision.72 Pursuit of this good may even require fasting from one’s own flourishing. This is why Christianity can find meaning in death and suffering.The negation of life can become “a place to affirm something which matters beyond life, on which life itself originally draws.”73 In this way, agape follows the kenotic model of Christ’s incarnation, in which the Son divests himself of life in order to affirm a good beyond his own flourishing. Christ displays a willingness to suffer in solidarity, a prospect that makes little sense in an immanent frame in which human flourishing, especially one’s own flourishing, is the singular good. Per- sons participate in this form of agapethrough self-renunciation, for the sake of union with God.

At the same time, the two goods, flourishing and “beyond” flourishing, are mutually supportive. While “renunciation de-centers you in relation with God, God’s will is that humans flourish, and so you are taken back to an affirmation of this flourishing, which is biblically called agape.”74 Thus, kenotic renuncia- tion of life paradoxically functions to affirm creation.

The incarnation further affirms a particular facet of creation—embodi- ment—through divine enfleshment. While the modern turn to disengaged reason has disembodied the spiritual life, leading to an “excarnation” of the modern self, agape is an embodied love-response to others.75 Taylor points to Christ’s experience of seeing others and being physically moved by compas- sion. Christ felt moved in his bowels (splangnizesthai) to take pity on those he saw. Thus, “agape moves outward from the guts.”76 It is an embodied response to seeing good in the other.

Christ’s incarnate experience of embodiedagapebecomes a model for form- ing a network of enfleshed people. Through participating in agape, persons are “fitted together in a dissymmetric proportionality … which comes from God, which is that of agape, and which became possible because God became flesh.”77 The incarnation, not universal rules or standards discovered through

72 73 74 75 76 77

Examples of “beyond” flourishing are my own. Taylor, A Catholic Modernity?, 16.

Taylor, A Catholic Modernity?

Taylor, A Secular Age, 771.

Taylor, A Secular Age, 741.

Taylor, A Secular Age, 739.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

13

50

redick

rational agency, makes this network possible. Universal rules obscure the lived reality of our contingency—a reality that is central to the Samaritan’s percep- tion of his neighbor. He discovers his neighbor by accident, on the side of the road, and enfolds him into his network.78 Disengaged reason and its universal rules attempt to bypass contingency and enfleshment, thereby missing the gaze of the other. In doing so, they lose contact with the incarnate source of love for neighbor.

Thus far, this essay has illuminated Taylor’s notion of agape by noting its theological roots in creation and incarnation. This theological articulation has hopefully assisted in discernment of what agape is, and how it is a strong moral source for solidarity, capable of forming networks of love. But a ques- tion remains, how does a moral source become available? How do persons “tap into” this source?79 While Taylor focuses on articulating history as one way a lost source may become available for moderns again, some may wonder if this is sufficient on its own.80 In order to engage the question of contacting moral sources, this essay will examine the third article of the creed for new ways to articulate and participate in agape. In particular, the pentecostal-charismatic experience of Spirit baptism may be interpreted as a recovery of this empow- ering moral source as well as a way to tap into this source through spiritual participation and articulation.

Agapeand the Spirit of Love

Spirit Baptism as Participation inAgape

InBaptizedintheSpirit, Frank Macchia frames Spirit baptism in agapic terms— as the self-impartation of divine love. In contrast to those who view divine love as something that God has, Macchia emphasizes that the Spirit is the flame of love—the love between the Father and the Son.81 The Father gives himself to the Son, and the Son to the Father—a self-gift that is the Spirit. This intratrini- tarian gifting shows that “love is not a mere attribute, but God’s very nature.”82

78 79

80 81 82

Taylor, A Secular Age, 742.

Ossewaarde-Lowtoo, “The Sources of Modernity,” 5, asks this insightful question in refer- ence to Taylor’sSources of the Self.

Taylor, A Secular Age, 512.

Macchia, Baptized in theSpirit, 261–262.

Macchia, Baptized in theSpirit, 262.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

14

spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age

51

Furthermore, human love finds its model and ground in the triune nature. Human persons image the divine self-gift through an “analogy of love.”83David R. Nichols, who has identified this analogy at the heart of pentecostal “spiritual ontology” (and, in this case, pentecostal anthropology), explains:

The analogy lies in the fact that love, even as it proceeds from the spir- itual dimension into the material, can also be produced and returned toward the spiritual dimension. This, perhaps, is man’s greatest dignity, that he is capable of striving to produce that free, unconditional love which reciprocates the love of God … But this is a flawed, conditional love, which needs the corrective of regeneration. In the Christian, love has an exterior source, namely God. Divine love has interpenetrated his human love so that he is on the way toward the complete, unconditional agape.84

Nichols notes that human persons extend love to one another in a way that is analogous to trinitarian love. Thus, we often see individuals acting altruis- tically and benevolently toward others. Yet, this love is not “complete” (sus- tainable and completely unconditional) without divine assistance. An exterior source, the love of God, is necessary to transform partial, conditional love into agape.TheSpiritinterpenetrateshumanlove,elevatingitsothatitmoreclosely resembles the unconditional self-gift of the triune persons.

In addition, the Spirit’s interpenetration enables human participation in divine love. Through the Spirit of love, human persons take part in divine love, sharing in what properly belongs to the Godhead without exhausting it.85Thus, Macchia understands the event of Pentecost as an outpouring of divine love through which we enjoy fellowship in the “love of God as Father, Son, and Holy

83

84

85

For more on the “analogy of love” see L. William Oliverio, “Spirit Baptism in the Late Mod- ern World: A Pentecostal Response to the Church: Towards a Common Vision,” inThe Holy Spirit and the Church: Ecumenical Reflections with a Pastoral Perspective, ed.Thomas Hugh- son, 44–70 (New York: Routledge, 2016), 60.

David Nichols, “The Search for a Pentecostal Structure in Systematic Theology,”Pneuma6, no. 1 (1984): 72. Nichols does not assume the method of analogy of being, but an analogy between Barth’s dialectics and the Thomists’ analogia entis, which retains God’s “other- ness” while also affirming humanity’s responsibility for responding to revelation. Here I draw from a Thomistic understanding of participation as articulated by Joseph W. Koterski, “The Doctrine of Participation in Thomistic Metaphysics,” in The Future of Thomism, ed. Deal W. Hudson and Dennis W. Moran, From the American Maritain Asso- ciation (Notre Dame,IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), 189.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

15

52

redick

Spirit.”86L. William Oliverio suggests that Macchia’s theology of Spirit baptism points to an “ontology of divine love” in which the substance of life is partici- pation in divine love.87 Moreover, Spirit baptism is a particularly potent locus of taking part in divine life. James K.A. Smith has recognized that there are “intense” sites of participation in God.88Smith notes that “while all that is par- ticipates in God through the Spirit, there are sites and events that exhibit a more intense participation.”89 Thus, in the sphere of participatory life, Spirit baptism could be interpreted as one such exceptional point of enfoldment into the divinekoinonia.

While Macchia, Nichols, and Smith articulate Spirit baptism in an ontologi- cal register through the language of “participation” and “analogy,” their crucial insight into the relation of Spirit baptism and agape may be carried over into Taylor’s register through the language of “moral sources” with its ethical impli- cations. Spirit baptism, as an elevation of human love through intense partic- ipation in divine love, provides a crucial nexus by which human persons tap into agape (that is, a love that transcends, but interpenetrates, human love). Through this elevation, persons are empowered to participate in God’s mission in the world: the self-giving Spirit produces a people who are self-giving.90 As a retrieval of a deep source, Spirit baptism produces genuine solidarity with others. Macchia explains:

Spirit baptism fills us with the love of God so that we transcend ourselves and cross boundaries.We find the power to transcend limitations through divine infilling to pour ourselves out for others. In transcending ourselves we are fulfilled, for we have been made for the love of God.91

The Spirit enables self-emptying for a good beyond our own flourishing, and at the same time, a fulfillment of our own flourishing through being caught up in divine love through this loving activity.

86

87 88

89

90 91

Frank Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006) 257–259. See also 1John 1:3–7.

Oliverio, “Spirit Baptism in the Late Modern World,” 59.

James K.A. Smith, Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy (Grand Rapids,MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 102.

Smith,Thinking in Tongues, 102–103. It should be noted that Smith is not advocating that the Spirit intervenes at these sites (grace conceived above and apart from nature); rather, the Spirit is “already present in creation” and is particularly active at these sites. Macchia, Baptized in theSpirit, 264.

Macchia, Baptized in theSpirit, 281.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

16

spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age

53

Similarly, AmosYong observes that pentecostal spirituality “may provide one window into how human beings tap into the divine love energy and through that enter into solidarity with others to the extent that such piety motivates benevolent and loving action.”92 By taking up human affections, the Spirit enables persons to extend love beyond its current horizon to include others. It is through the Spirit that persons tap into a deep moral source—the divine seeing good of unanticipated neighbors. Thus, Spirit baptism (and pentecostal spirituality more broadly) can be seen as a locus of agapic participation. The question is how this source may be articulated so that it becomes available to us.

Tongues as Articulation of Agape

Taylor argues that articulation brings sources close so that we may be inspired and empowered by them. Articulation reveals the good as a “whole speech act” in which “the speaker, the formulation, and the act of delivering the mes- sage all line up together.”93Effective language may either “tap a source hitherto unknown” or it may excavate an older source that has become obscured.94 WhileTaylor’s project endeavors to articulate sources we have lost contact with through historical narrative, Pentecostalism provides a new language for con- tacting old sources.

Following the Romantics, Taylor argues that “new languages of personal res- onance” are necessary that enable “the search for moral sources outside the subject through languages that resonate within him or her, the grasping of an order which is inseparably indexed to a personal vision.”95 The pentecostal practice of tongues-speech may be understood as one way of articulatingagape in a language of personal resonance. This is not to say that tongues-speech arises from within the self as an exclusively human articulation—any Pente- costal would resist such an explanation. Rather, glossolalia, as a divine gift, is expressed by the individual person in their own tongue, voicing his or her inner sense of the indwelling Spirit and linguistic cooperation with the Spirit.96Thus,

92

93 94 95

96

Yong, Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012), 80.Yong’s notion of “pentecostal spirituality” is not limited to a classical pentecostal understanding of Spirit baptism.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 96.

Taylor,Sources of the Self, 96–97.

Taylor, Sources of the Self, 513, 510. See also p. 512, in which he argues that languages of personal resonance are the only way the modern self can access moral sources. While numerous scholars have contributed to theological and philosophical understand- ings of tongues-speech, an overview of previous work on glossolalia is beyond the scope of

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

17

54

redick

“glossolalia implies … that one can have direct contact with the divine Spirit in a way that penetrates deeply into the core of one’s being.”97Through this human language, the self expresses contact with a deep moral source—the Spirit of love.

As an expression of agape, glossolalia makes the Spirit’s love available so that speakers may participate in it. Taylor explains, “a formulation has power when it brings the source close, when it makes it plain and evident, in all its inherent force, its capacity to inspire our love, respect, or allegiance. An effec- tive articulation releases this force, and this is how words have power.”98In the practice of tongues-speech, the love of God poured into the heart overflows into a language of love which releases the inherent force of love and orients the speaker’s affections to the good. Tongues-speech becomes a way of narrat- ing the self’s orientation to God.99Thus, glossolalia is like a compass—pointing the self toward the Good on the moral map.

To use another visual metaphor, glossolalia may be interpreted as a “see- ing good” that makes good. Randall Holm has suggested that tongues-speech could be viewed as an auditory icon that “allows those seeking after God to go through language into an audible transcendent communion with God.”100 The perlocutionary effect of this form of speech is to bring the speaker into the presence of God, similar to the way an icon ushers the viewer into a heav- enly realm.Through glossolalia, the congregation “comes into contact with God as he passes by them,” thereby contacting a constitutive good.101 As an icon, tongues is an audible “seeing good” that makes good—it allows the speaker to see the Spirit’s vision and thereby participate in the divine making-good in the world. In this way, it is a linguistic participation in God’s creative activity—an echo of the original speech that brought the world into existence.The God who

97

98 99

100

101

this article. Instead, this section will focus on hearing tongues in the key of Taylor’s moral sources in order to explore the ethical dimensions of glossolalia.

See Macchia,Baptized in the Spirit, 75, who paraphrases Morton Kelsey,Tongues Speaking: The History and Meaning of Charismatic Experience(New York: Crossroad, 1981). Taylor,Sources of the Self, 96.

For a similar observation of glossolalic directionality, see Edmund J. Rybarczyk, “Refram- ing Tongues: Apophaticism and Postmodernism,”Pneuma 27, no. 1 (2005): 93. He argues that for Paul, tongues “reflects an apophatic quality of God-ward and God related expres- sion. The words and noises do not immediately define God or his purposes, nevertheless they move the believer’s heart and spirit toward God and His purposes.”

Randall Holm, “Tongues as a Blush in the Presence of God,”Journal of PentecostalTheology 20, no. 1 (2011): 129.

Holm, “Tongues as a Blush in the Presence of God,” 130.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

18

spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age

55

declared that creation is good continues to do so in the voices of his sons and daughters who groan with the Spirit for the new creation. This is why Pente- costals have emphasized the missional character of tongues-speech: it is not only for the individual speaker, but a gift for the world.102

As an expression of a moral source, linguistic participation in the Spirit of love taps intoagapiclove for others. Macchia, also focusing on the perlocution- ary effect of tongues, describes it as a symbolic bridge across the boundaries of language and culture.103 Other scholars have noted how the Azusa Street Revival unified people across racial and gender boundaries.104 For example, Dale T. Irvin observes, “The fullness of divine power and love through a new baptismal experience of the Spirit was realized first in sacramental signs of the unity of all people, the speaking of many tongues.”105As an event of divine love, tongues provided a language for bridging the fractures of culture. To use Tay- lor’s terminology, participation in the Spirit created a “network of relations” not limited by kinship groups. Azusa Street, as a case study, is an example of a social network constituted throughagapicarticulation: it expressed universal benev- olence because it was empowered by a deep moral source. The contemporary charismatic community has much to learn from Azusa’s emphasis on divine love, even as it must work to heal the fractures that have emerged since that time.106

The Ordinary Person and Extraordinary Life

Thus far, I have argued that Pentecostals “tap into” the powerful moral source of agape through participating in and articulating with the Spirit of love. Yet, the phenomenon of Spirit baptism points not only to a particular way per- sons contact a deep moral source, but also to an understanding of who may be empowered by this source. Pentecostals insist that baptism in the Spirit is available to every Christ follower, whether experienced in the presence of the

102

103 104

105 106

Richard H. Bliese, “Speaking in Tongues and the Mission of Godad gentes,” Journal of Pen- tecostal Theology20, no. 1 (2011): 47.

Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 281.

Dale T. Irvin, “‘Drawing All Together in One Bond of Love’: The Ecumenical Vision of William J Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 3, no. 6 (1995): 45–46. See also Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-first Century (Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 1995), 58.

Irvin, “‘Drawing All Together in One Bond of Love,’” 45.

For example, divisions (and power disparities) within the church based upon race, sex, or culture.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

19

56

redick

community or in the privacy of one’s prayer life: the Spirit of love is poured out on all. In this way, Pentecostalism builds upon the egalitarian emphasis of the Reformation.

Taylor notes how Reformers criticized “higher” spiritual activities (such as monasticism) that only an elite minority could pursue. Instead, the Reforma- tion lead to “the affirmation of the ordinary life” in which spiritual emphasis was placed on ordinary activities such as child-rearing, labor, and produc- tion.107 This shift, originally inspired by “practical agape,” made the heart of spiritual life available to all.108 Similarly, the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism, and its charisms, is available to ordinary persons. This often produces an equalizing effect in a congregation—where anyone, regardless of gender or age, may testify, prophecy, or minister in a public manner. In other words, the creative potential of this agapic source is “decentralized” and dispersed among the community.109 Thus, like the Reformers, Pentecostals affirm the spiritual experience of the ordinary person.

Pentecostalism, however, is not simply another iteration of the Reformation and its way of contacting moral sources. While the Reformers criticized elite religion by elevating the ordinary life, Pentecostals do so by emphasizing the extraordinary life.110As the Spirit is poured out on all flesh, the “higher” activi- ties of divine encounter, scriptural interpretation, prophetic speech, and other charisms become available to the ordinary person. Spirit baptism is egalitarian because it makes mystical experience possible for every Christian, instead of only for a spiritual elite.

At the same time, the pentecostal affirmation of the extraordinary life for the ordinary person builds upon the prior Reformation emphasis on practical agape. Spirit baptism is not only a mystical union with the divine, but also per- fects love toward human persons.111 But this love is expressed in an extraordi- nary fashion: through prayers for healing, deliverance, and divine intervention.

107 108 109

110

111

Taylor, A Secular Age, 370.

Taylor, A Secular Age.

For more on glossolalic speech and the “decentralization” of human creativity see Nimi Wariboko,The Pentecostal Principle: Ethical Methodology in New Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 29.

Wariboko, Pentecostal Principle, 132, similarly observes that “the Protestant Era and the Pentecostal Era are undergirded by a similar drive: to give every individual regardless of class, race, or any other social predicate the full opportunity to fulfill his or her potential- ities,” but “[Protestantism] focuses on resisting obstacles to the emergence of the new; [Pentecostalism] focuses on the capacity to initiate the new.”

This is also a central argument in Yong,Spirit of Love.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

20

spirit baptism as a moral source in a secular age

57

Thus, the self’s contact with the Spirit of love produces hope for human flour- ishing that participates in eschatological renewal. Pentecostals pray for flour- ishing “on earth as it is in heaven”—the ordinary life interrupted by the extraor- dinary. Thus, the pentecostal practice of agape is a unique way of retrieving this moral source, which involves a new shift in the conception of the good life. While many moderns continue to elevate the ordinary life (albeit in a secular fashion), Pentecostals represent another current in modernity that affirms the ordinary person’s contact with a powerful spiritual reality.

Conclusion

The purpose of this exploration has been to discern a particular locus of God’s grace in a secular age: the pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism is a retrieval of a vital moral source that has become obscured in modernity. Yet, it should be noted that Spirit baptism is one way to contact agape in modernity. The notion of Spirit baptism as a transcendent good indexed to a personal vision may only resonate within a pentecostal framework and its emphasis on a par- ticular moment of intense participation in divine love that initiates the partic- ipant into spiritual life. It is likely that other means of contacting grace can be imagined that will resonate within other frameworks. Ecumenical sensitivity provides an awareness and openness to how the Spirit’s activity is recognized (and participated in) within various frameworks.

Nevertheless, Spirit baptism is a particularly powerful kind of retrieval that resonates with the modern sense of the self through a language of personal res- onance. Men and women now look within themselves to contact and express deep moralsources,but this inwardturn need not necessitate a breakwith tran- scendence. The pentecostal-charismatic experience of Spirit baptism exempli- fies a working of grace in the modern self—as the Spirit hovers over the inner depths, re-creating the person from within. Through the gift of the Spirit and the language of love, ordinary persons tap into the deep moral source of agape and are empowered to pursue a good beyond human flourishing, while at the same time affirming human flourishing through networks of solidarity. Thus, Spirit baptism is a particularly powerful way in which modern persons con- nect with the triune God and model the height, depth, and breadth of this love within the fractures of a secular age.

PNEUMA 40 (2018) 37–57

21