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
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 24, No. 1, Spring 2002
S SP
Articles
Spiritualities Old and New: Similarities between Eastern Orthodoxy &
Classical Pentecostalism
Edmund J. Rybarczyk
Introduction: General Disparities and Similarities
Could there be a more diverse pairing in Christendom than North American Classical Pentecostals and the Eastern Orthodox? The Orthodox esteem aesthetics, as is evident in their iconography, architecture, sym- bolism, liturgy, and the Palamite delineation of panentheism.
1
Pentecostals are mostly devoid of an aesthetic awareness and instead have historically preferred plain and symbol-free forms of architecture and worship. The Orthodox are resolutely ecclesial: Jesus instituted, and is the mystical fountain of, the church, the mysteries, the priesthood, the liturgy, and icons. If one is to encounter Jesus Christ, he or she will do so through those established means.
2
Sadly, Pentecostals are ambiguous about eccle- siology. Western in orientation, their emphasis is upon individual encounter
1
For Gregory Palamas on God’ s essence and energies and their relations in time and eternity see De Hesychastis , in I. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graecae, vol. 150 (Turnholti, Belgium: Typographi Brepols, 1978). Studies in English include John Meyendorff, Gregory Palamas: The Triads , trans. Nicholas Gendle (New York: Paulist Press, 1983); A Study of Gregory Palamas , trans. George Lawrence (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’ s Seminary Press, 1998); and Robert E. Sinkewicz, Saint Gregory Palamas: The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters (Toronto: PontiŽ cal Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1988).2
There are Orthodox writers who cogently argue that the whole universe is an icon of God that facilitates some encounter with God. Alexander Schmemann, “ The World as Sacrament,” in Church, World, Mission: Re ections on Orthodoxy in the West , trans. Lydia W. Kesich (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’ s Seminary Press, 1979), 217-27; Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’ s Seminary Press, 1995), 43-46; and Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’ s Seminary Press, 1987), 138-40.
© 2002 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden
pp. 7-25
1
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 24, No. 1, Spring 2002
with Christ. Historically characterized by a deep undercurrent of anti- Catholic sentiment, Pentecostals are generally wary of concepts like the priesthood, the institutionalized church, and sacraments. Not only are these groups seemingly theologically disparate, both groups view one another warily, at best. Since the fall of Communism and the ensuing rise of reli- gious liberties, Pentecostals have been actively evangelizing in Eastern Europe.3 This has resulted in the Orthodox accusing Pentecostals (and others) of both poaching and conspiring against Orthodoxy.
4
Conversely, the Pentecostals believe the indigenous Orthodox have unfairly utilized state-church relations to exclude foreigners.”5
Pentecostals tend to view Orthodoxy as Roman Catholicism’ s twin sis- ter; Orthodoxy may re ect a semblance of Christian truth, but is overly committed to an ancient culture and too constricted by a lifeless liturgi- cal form to be of any consequence for contemporary life. Furthermore, many Pentecostals have dismissed the idea that Eastern European peo- ples, apart from the in uence of Western missionaries, could ever be Christian. For example, predisposed by their traditional eschatological hermeneutic, one historically exacerbated by the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union (xenophobia fueled many twentieth century eschatological schemes), Pentecostals tend to view the Russian populace as though it had accepted Marxist Socialism’ s atheism in toto.
6 For their part, Orthodox priests and lay people, if they know anything at all about Pentecostals, consider them as one more subsection of the Evangelical or Charismatic groupings.
7
A former eminent Orthodox the-
3
From 1914 to 1981 the Assemblies of God (AG) sent three missionaries to Russia. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the AG has sent twenty eight missionaries (inter- view 4 with the AG’ s missions ofŽ ce, March 1997).
Metropolitan Ioann of St. Petersburg said, “ What proof does one need in order to understand that against Russia, against the Russian people, a dirty war, well paid, well pre- pared, unceasing and bitter, is being waged. . . by devilish instigators. . . . It is time that we learn to live trusting in God and ourselves. Nobody beside us can do the difŽ cult but necessary work for the rebirth of Russia.” Ioann, “ The West Wants Chaos,” in Christianity after Communism: Social, Political, and Cultural Struggle in Russia , ed. Niels C. Nielsen, Jr., (Boulder, 5 CO: Westview Press, 1994), 110-11.
Hereafter these will be noted simply as Orthodox and Pentecostals. This is not to ignore the varying ethnic, cultural, and theological (Chalcedonian vs. non-Chalcedonian) manifestations of Orthodoxy, or the varying ethnic, cultural, and theological (Trinitarian vs. Oneness) 6 manifestations of Pentecostalism.
Russia is often viewed as the great anti-Christian nation “ Gog and Magog” of Ezekiel 38-39 7 and Revelation 16:12.
Dwight J. Wilson, “ Pentecostal Perspectives on Eschatology,” in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements , ed., Stanley Burgess and Gary McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), 264-86.
8
2
Spiritualities Old and New
ologian pejoratively dismissed Pentecostals as Holy Rollers.
8
An Orthodox patriarch included Pentecostals among the non-Christian religions. Pentecostals are quasi-Christian; they lack the apostolic priesthood and “ the fullness of Orthodoxy,” as the Orthodox regularly put it. It follows then that Pentecostals are limited to a shallow emotionalism that will never produce lasting change. Beyond these immediate Christian con- cerns, there are also disparities resulting from great cultural and histori- cal divides.
Other than the declaration that “ Jesus is Lord,” what could these two groups possibly have in common? Frankly, a great deal. Obviously, but importantly, neither is subject to the Roman Catholic Pope. Consequently, each believes that they themselves are free from institutionalized eccle- sial notions and are therefore more organically structured. Each believes that they themselves are the true pneumatologists of Christianity; the Orthodox, because (brie y) they rejected the insertion of the Žlioque clause into ancient Christian creeds; the Pentecostals, because they believe they are re-presenting the Holy Spirit to the church universal. Both are quite theologically conservative and dogmatically assert the following: Jesus Christ is God’ s sole means of salvation; Jesus was born of the virgin Mary; the Christian canon is Holy Spirit-inspired and as such is the pri- mary and authoritative source for a Christian worldview; a Nicene- Constantinopolitan Christology; and a trinitarian understanding of the Godhead.
Still another commonality, and the focus in this article, is that both traditions are intentionally and avowedly experiential in orientation and honor worship and spirituality as a locus for theological re ection. Neither tradition is generally interested in theology as an intellectual exercise, and neither tradition elevates its brightest thinkers into heroes or role models.
9 As both traditions teach it, to be a Christian is to live in and for Christ. How one describes the Christian life, or even more pointedly whether one bothers to describe that life, is always secondary to that life itself.
10 In a
8
Kallistos Ware, “ Orthodoxy and the Charismatic Movement,” Eastern Churches Review9 , 4 (1973), 183ff.
Sergius Bulgakov, in John Warren Morris, “ The Charismatic Movement: An Orthodox Evaluation,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 28, No. 2 (Summer 1983): 110; and Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church , trans. Lydia Kesich (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’ s Seminary 10 Press, 1988), 110-11.
In my dissertation, “ Beyond Salvation: An Analysis of the Doctrine of Christian Transformation Comparing Eastern Orthodoxy with Classical Pentecostalism,” Fuller Theological Seminary, 1999, I argue that a general ambivalence about the intellectual and scientiŽ c realms is just one of the fascinating features shared by the Orthodox and Pentecostals.
9
3
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 24, No. 1, Spring 2002
succinct statement of the experiential orientation of both traditions Alexander Schmemann said, “ all genuine theology is mystical at the root, since it is primarily evidence of religious experience.”11 If Christianity is held merely as a philosophy, it is dead. If Christianity is studied but not lived, it is meaningless.
Both traditions maintain that God wants to be known by those who will seek him. In a way surpassing many other Christian groups, both the Orthodox and Pentecostals resolutely assert that this knowledge of God is not limited to the intellectual domain of human existence, but that the believer can sense and hear God in visceral and profound ways. The Orthodox celebrate their experiential thrust as the mystical dimension of Christianity which, they believe, even the apostles enjoyed. The ultimate goal of Orthodox mysticism, both in its institutionalized (i.e., church ori- ented) and immediate (i.e., ascetic) means, is theosis: the ontological trans- formation of the human person into the image of Christ.
12
Pentecostals also exhibit mystical characteristics: they exuberantly speak and sing in unknown tongues; they have been known to pray for protracted, trance-like periods; they can kneel or lay prostrate in stone silence for hours. In a manner confusing to non-members, they pray aloud together in a jumbled mix of sounds; they believe that praying in tongues can accomplish things in the invisible realm; and, to take their traditional distinctive of baptism in the Holy Spirit as an example, they seek an encounter with God that leaves one’ s entire being sated with the divine presence. In all of these ways the Pentecostals are mystical, at least by more rational and stolid standards, and their recent qualiŽ cations to the contrary ring hollow.
13
Moreover, like the Orthodox, Pentecostals believe their exuberant and sometimes arational spirituality has its basis in the apostles’ own experience of Christ’ s Holy Spirit. In distinction to Orthodoxy, the goal of Pentecostal spirituality is not transformation for its own sake, as important as that is, but a transformation that facilitates empowerment for Christian service.
In this article I will Ž rst brie y trace how it is that both Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism incorporate mystical dimensions in their respective
11
Schmemann, The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy , trans. Lydia W. Kesich (Crestwood, 12 NY: St. Vladimir’ s Seminary Press, 1992), 235.
Jaroslav Pelikan said that theosis is the chief idea in Eastern Orthodoxy. The Spirit of Eastern 13 Christendom (600-1700) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 10.
Because they so desperately want to be accepted by both their Evangelical siblings and the broader cultural milieu, Pentecostal ofŽ cials and leaders have presented their move- ment as mainstream, conservative, and even rational.
10
4
Spiritualities Old and New
pursuits of God. Then I will offer analytical and comparative comments. Finally, I will make suggestions toward theological convergence and mutual understanding concerning these two great Christian traditions.
The Orthodox on the Divine-Human Encounter
The Orthodox present the process of theosis as occurring via two approaches: the institutionalized and the unmediated. The institutional- ized approach includes the mysteries— not simply the grace of the sacra- ments, but purveyors of the divine life itself
14— and the life of the formal Christian community.
15
There are indeed rather surprising similarities between the Orthodox liturgy and Classical Pentecostal church services, but these will not be developed here.
16
Instead, because the most obvi- ous similarities between Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism pertain to the sub- jective-mystical experience of God, we will focus on the unmediated approach to God.
The unmediated approach involves the practice of hesychastic aske- sis: self-discipline, asceticism. Orthodox writers regularly clarify that hesy- chastic (from hesychia, silence) pursuits of God are, or should be, always done in concert with the institutionalized approach. However, Orthodox history itself reveals that the two approaches have not always been so neatly harmonized. An examination of The Philokalia reveals that desert fathers and spiritual masters— the archetypal Ž gures of Orthodox asceti- cism— rarely encouraged their readers to attend the liturgy regularly or to receive the eucharist regularly.
17
John Meyendorff explained that there has been a long and historical dialectic within Orthodoxy between the mediated approach proffered by the church institution and the unmedi- ated approach of hesychastic asceticism. This dialectic is a necessary one,
14
John Meyendorff said that in Orthodoxy “ grace is identiŽ ed with participation; grace is never a created gift but is a communion with divine life.” Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, 2d ed., trans. Yves Dubois (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’ s Seminary Press, 1987), 115.15
Authentic Christian community, in the Orthodox understanding, is one served by a priest. A church building is not necessary for the reception of the Holy Spirit’ s grace, but it is 16preferable.
Each tradition, in ways attuned to its own philosophical-cultural milieu, holistically impacts 17 the believer in the affective-intuitive, physical, and intellectual arenas.
The Philokalia , compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth, 4 vols., trans. and ed. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber and Faber, 1979-1995). If anything, the ascetic fathers more regularly warned of unworthily receiving the mysteries than they did exhort their regular reception.
11
5
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 24, No. 1, Spring 2002
Meyendorff argued. Monks and hermits routinely and prophetically cri- tiqued the church when it moved in unhealthy directions.
18
Conversely, the highest-ranking leaders within the Orthodox Church are themselves celibates from the monastic ranks. In the end, all Orthodox Christians are summoned to practice asceticism within the yearly liturgical cycle of the church.
To have an appreciation of the unmediated approach it is Ž rst neces- sary to understand something about Orthodoxy’ s dynamic anthropologi- cal position. Every person exists as an icon of God. As the Orthodox express it, icons do not just re ect something, as, for example, the way that a mirror re ects one’ s face. Icons participate in the existence of their subject. The apostle Paul called Jesus the icon (image) of the invisible God (Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 4:4). Jesus, however, did not simply re ect God, he participated in what it meant to be God.
19
Similarly, every person is created in order to image forth, re ect, and mirror God, with the help of God’ s grace. We image forth God to a lesser extent than did the Logos, who did so by nature.
The Orthodox regularly teach that the way in which human persons are situated within creation makes them to be microcosms of the universe: they are at once physical, noetic,
20
and spiritual. The Trinity is the onto- logical foundation, or the divine paradigm, for human existence: just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each distinctions ( hypostases) within the Godhead’ s nature ( physis), each human person is a unique distinction (hypostasis) sharing in human nature.
21
Thus, for the Orthodox, God’ s otherness and togetherness are the ontological foundation for human per- son’ s own otherness and togetherness. Moreover, the belief that human beings were created so that the whole of their existence re ects and par- ticipates in God’ s existence leads the Orthodox to maintain that God can be experienced and realized internally, within the soul and noetic dimen- sions of human existence. In a verse regularly quoted by the Orthodox to
18
For example, the eight-century iconoclastic controversy involved a dispute between iconophile monks (icon defenders) and the then-regnant iconoclastic church hierarchy. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1974), 42-53; Michel Quenot, The Icon: Window on the Kingdom , trans. 19A Carthusian Monk (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’ s Seminary Press, 1991), 26.
Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God , ed. John H. Erickson and Thomas 20 E. Bird (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’ s Seminary Press, 1985), 133-35.
Humanity’ s noetic dimension involves the intellect, but not simply in terms of abstract concepts or the ability to think. It includes the ability to apprehend “ spiritual real- ities 21in a direct manner.” The Philokalia , Vol. 1, Glossary, 362.
E.g., Lossky, Image and Likeness , 107; Ware, The Orthodox Way , 49-50, et passim.
12
6
Spiritualities Old and New
substantiate their iconographical anthropology Jesus himself said, “ The Kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21).
Corrupted by sin and beset by the limitations of mortality, we do not easily recognize or manifest our iconographical qualities. Our spiritual perception obfuscated, we have ceased to be attuned to the voice of the Logos. We do not realize, as Vladimir Lossky said, that the world is a “ musical arrangement: in each thing [we] hear a word of the Word.”22 God’ s healing remedy for this obfuscation, sin, and mortality is provided through the person of Jesus Christ. In Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity took on human nature, divinized it, and became an ontological doorway through which people may enter into communion with God. St. Athanasius said, “ For he was made human so that we might be made divine.”23 Those baptized into Christ begin a process of transformation. Having put on Christ (Gal. 3:27), they are forgiven and saved (a word the Orthodox use less than Western Christians).
Yet it remains for those in Christ to become like him in the core of who they are. Thus, there is a need for hesychastic introspection and the unmediated approach. One can neither save nor transform oneself; the Orthodox are wrongly accused of Pelagianism. They are persuaded that God is always the Ž rst mover. God does not, however, change a person without that person.
St. Diadochos of Photiki (ca. 400-485) typiŽ ed Orthodoxy in this regard when he said,
from the instant we are baptized, grace is hidden in the depths of the intel- lect, concealing its presence even from the perception of the intellect itself. When someone begins, however, to love God with full resolve, then in a mysterious way, by means of intellectual perception, grace communicates something of its riches to his soul.
24
“ For as the soul advances,” Diadochos continued, “ divine grace more and more reveals itself to the intellect. During this process, however, the Lord allows the soul to be pestered increasingly by demons.”25 The
22
Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction , trans. Ian and Ihita Kesarcodi-Watson (Crestwood, 23 NY: St. Vladimir’ s Seminary Press, 1978), 58.
Migne, De Incarnatione 54, in Patrologiae Graecae XXV, col. 192. Elsewhere Athanasius said, “ For he has become man, that he might deify us in himself.” Ad Adelphium 4; in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church , Vol. 4, 2d series., trans. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace., ed., Archibald Robertson (Grand Rapids, MI: 24Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978).
25
St. Diadochos of Photiki, “ On Spiritual Knowledge,” The Philokalia , vol. 1, 279.
St. Diadochos, “ On Spiritual Knowledge,” 279-80. God allows demonic pestering in order for the believer to learn discernment and humility. The Orthodox do not teach that
13
7
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 24, No. 1, Spring 2002
Orthodox teach that theosis involves synergy: the working together of the Holy Spirit’ s energy (grace as pardon and enablement) and the believer’ s energy (will, affections, and obedience). The believer is supposed to coop- erate with the Holy Spirit amid the process of transformation. This divine- human cooperation is best realized amid silence.
Not only can a person be troubled and distracted by external noise and business, he can also be troubled and distracted internally. St. Mark the Ascetic (Ž fth century) said, “ Like a young calf which, in its search for grazing, Ž nds itself on a ledge surrounded by precipices, the soul is grad- ually led astray by its thoughts.”26 Thus, the ascetic is taught to quiet his body and his soul; bodily silence is a precursor to silence of the soul. Ways to quiet one’ s body include sitting still, closing one’ s mouth and eyes, and shutting oneself off from talk and noise. This need for bodily silence is why the Orthodox have revered the desert and monasteries as holy places.
27
The most famous hesychastic technique involves breathing and pray- ing the Jesus prayer, “ Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy” (Mark 10:47; Luke 18:13). The form of this prayer can vary. Sometimes “ Lord” is omitted. Sometimes “ have mercy on me” or “ have mercy on me a sin- ner” is emphasized. Other times it is prayed as a prayer of praise, or repen- tance, or focus. The ascetic is taught to breathe-pray this prayer as a kind of arrow prayer: a prayer that busies the mind (we cannot cease to think), but which having Ž xed itself on the words enables the mind to reach out into the stillness where God resides. The goal of such praying is called pure prayer: an unhindered focus upon and participatory communion with God. Pure prayer is not an imaginative act whereby one tries to picture Jesus. Instead, it is done to focus oneself upon God, if God chooses to come to one in prayer.
28
In a meditative and prayerful stillness, God may speak in a still small voice (1 Kings 19:11-12).
29
one can be simultaneously indwelt by Christ and by a demon. Diadochos, taught that before baptism God’ s grace lurks from without, while Satan works from within. After baptism Christ 26 works from within, while Satan pesters from without (279).
St. Mark, “ On those who think that they are made righteous by works,” The Philokalia , Vol. 271: 131.
Hierotheos Vlachos, Orthodox Psychotherapy : The Science of the Fathers, trans. Esther 28 Williams (Levadia, Greece: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1994), 312-15.
Nearly every Orthodox book on asceticism or spirituality addresses this. Cf. Ware, The Orthodox Way , 122-23; Anthony Bloom, Living Prayer (SpringŽ eld, IL: Templegate Publishers, 29 1996), 85-88.
Lev Gillet, The Jesus Prayer , rev. ed. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’ s Seminary Press, 1987), 94.
14
8
Spiritualities Old and New
Within hesychia, the believer is instructed to practice nepsis: attentive and alert watchfulness. Maintaining guard over his heart, the believer practices discernment to see whether thoughts are driven by virtues or passions. St. Hesychios of Sinai (ca. eighth-ninth centuries) said, “ If you wish to engage in spiritual warfare, let . . . the spider, always be your example for stillness of heart . . . The spider hunts small ies, but you will continually slay ‘ the children of Babylon’ (cf. Ps. 137:9) if during your struggle you are as still in your soul as is the spider; and, in the course of this slaughter, you will be blessed by the Holy Spirit.”30
The passions (literally, those things suffered) are often brought from without by demonic suggestion. The passions can also erupt from within a believer as well. The natural impulses and appetites were perverted by sin and can lead one astray. The passions are also the result of prepos- session: the lingering effects of former sins that remain in the memory.
31 Through prayerfulness, nepsis, asceticism (fasts, vigils, meditation, self- control), and keeping Christ’ s commandments the believer undergoes heal- ing. Enabled and assisted by the energy and grace of the Holy Spirit, the believer, in the depths of his existence, is healed and “ becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit.” The heart and mind become integrated, as one scholar said, so that in the end the person himself becomes an “ inner liturgy” whereby theoria— the vision of God— is experienced.
32
Ascetic writers teach that as one enters into pure prayer through watchfulness, repen- tance, and communion with God, and as one recognizes and roots out the passions, such subjective phenomena as tears, purging Ž re, and the warm- ing and/or leaping of the heart can result. These phenomena are not the goal of asceticism (some phenomena are even demonic illusions), but they will be manifested amid genuine experiences of the Holy Spirit. Diadochos of Photiki exempliŽ ed these kinds of experiences when he said,
When the soul has reached self-understanding, it produces from within a certain feeling of warmth for God. When this warmth is not disturbed by worldly cares, it gives birth to a desire for peace which, so far as its strength allows, searches out the God of peace. . . . It awakes in all parts of the soul a longing for God; its heat does not need to be fanned by anything outside
30
31
Hesychios, “ On Watchfulness and Holiness,” The Philokalia , 1:166.
On the latter see Mark the Ascetic, “ On the Spiritual Law: Two Hundred Texts,” The 32Philokalia , 1:119-20.
Jacques-Albert Cuttat, The Encounter of Religions: A Dialogue between the West and the Orient with an Essay on the Prayer of Jesus , trans. Pierre De Fontnouvelle and Evis McGrew (New York: Desclé e, 1960), 119.
15
9
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 24, No. 1, Spring 2002
the heart, but through the heart it makes the whole man rejoice with a boundless love.
33
These feelings can “ gush up like a spring” inside oneself.
34
Many asce- tic authors also discuss experiencing a vision of God amid meditative prayerfulness. Along with regular admonitions against being deluded by Satan or oneself, they often qualify how it is that words do not adequately describe the experience. Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022) described such a vision:
Once . . . I saw lightning ashing around me and rays of light emanating from Thy countenance and blending with the waters; seeing myself washed in luminous, radiant waters I fell into ecstasy. . . . Some time went by, and then I saw another awesome mystery. I saw Thee ascend to heaven and take me up with Thee. However, I do not know whether Thou didst take me there in the body or without it; Thou alone knowest it, for Thou has done it. After being there with Thee for some length of time, wondering at the greatness of glory . . . I fell into ecstasy from its inŽ nite loftiness, and I trembled. But then Thou didst leave me again alone on the earth where I stood before. Having come to myself, I realized that I was weeping and wondering at my sorrowful impoverishment. A while later Thou didst deign to show me Thy countenance shining like the sun, without image and invis- ible, from on high through the open skies.
35
Such visions are not normative in hesychasm. After all, Symeon was called the “ new theologian” because of his tremendous mystical encoun- ters. Nonetheless, Symeon believed that “ contemplative union with God is possible for all alike.”36
Both in their formal liturgy and in the unmediated hesychastic disciplines, the Orthodox actively seek mystical communion with the ineffable God. Such communion is facilitated via icons, the liturgy, the mysteries, the priesthood, prayer, asceticism, and a discerning eye of faith that sees the Ž ngerprints of God resident in all created things and persons. To a fasci- nating extent, the Pentecostals, in ways harmonious with their own respec- tive philosophical and cultural milieu, also seek transforming communion with God.
33
34
St. Diadochos of Photiki, “ On Spiritual Knowledge,” The Philokalia , 1:278.
35
Vlachos, Orthodox Psychotherapy , 193.
Symeon, “ Homily 90,” Homilies (Moscow, 1892), in Ivan M. Kontzevitch, The Acquisition 36 of the Holy Spirit (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1988), 53.
Like John the Evangelist and Gregory of Nazianzos, the two great theologian-mystics who experienced God, Symeon spoke of visions of God. Cf. The Philokalia 4:13.
16
10
Spiritualities Old and New
The Pentecostals on the Divine-Human Encounter
Pentecostal anthropology is less speciŽ cally concerned about “ who” created and more concerned about “ why” God created. Pentecostals do not openly refute ontological categories, but because those are not part of their own Z eitgeist they have little reason to consider them. The why is answered in very pragmatic terms: to enjoy communion with God, to exercise the dominion given the human race, and to glorify God in all they do.37 Using ontological categories, the Orthodox maintain that human beings are microcosms of the universe. Using pragmatic categories, Pente- costals hold that human beings are preeminent because it was God’ s pur- pose that they should be. Again, God’ s purpose, not God’ s being, is the point of departure for Pentecostal anthropology. Adam and Eve were orig- inally sinless. Nonetheless, God desired that they develop their moral nature through their obedience. E.S. Williams said, “ Holiness . . . and char- acter result from choices and decisions. Man could not develop morally were there nothing to resist. In innocence moral character was undevel- oped because not tested.”38 Their immortality was conditioned upon their obedience, not upon their having been created in God’ s image. The state- ment, “ If you eat it you will die” (Gen. 2:17) was not so much a cause- and-effect assertion (as the Orthodox hold) as it was a judgmental warning.
39 This juridical-moral emphasis is one that distinguishes much of Western Christianity’ s theological anthropology from that of Orthodoxy.
Humans were created with a mind, affections, and intuition. God intended that the human soul— “ the life-giving and intelligent principle animating the human body” — would variously employ these dimensions in the divine-human communion.
40
Arne Vick expressed well the Pentecostal anthropology when he said, “ God is a spiritual Being, so it follows that our communication with Him in worship must be a spiritual exercise. ‘ Deep calleth unto deep’ — the depths of the human spirit respond to the
37
Myer Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible (SpringŽ eld, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1937), 37-41, 68-77, 102; Ernest S. Williams, Systematic Theology , Vol. 1 (SpringŽ eld, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1953), 166-67; Timothy Munyon, “ The Creation of the Universe and Mankind,” in Systematic Theology : A Pentecostal Perspective, ed., 38Stanley M. Horton (SpringŽ eld, MO: Logion Press, 1994), 251-53.
Systematic Theology , 2:123-25; see also 119-20; Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines of the 39 Bible , 109.
Bruce R. Marino, “ The Origin, Nature, and Consequences of Sin,” Systematic Theology: 40 A Pentecostal Perspective , 285-89.
For the quote see Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible , 104, 107, 112; Cf. Williams, Systematic Theology , 2:130.
17
11
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 24, No. 1, Spring 2002
inŽ nite deep of the Spirit of God.”41 Adam and Eve’ s sin not only caused separation from God, it also threw humanity’ s deepest recesses into con- fusion and ruination. Bruce Marino said, “ Sin shades every aspect of human existence, enticing us from the outside as an enemy and com- pelling us from the inside as part of our fallen nature.”42 Peoples’ God- given ability to relate to spiritual realities was obfuscated.
43 The imago dei was not eradicated by the Fall, but the human heart, “ the engine room” of human personality, was wounded and infected by sin.
44
The God of holiness and justice could not overlook sin. Following their Western theological heritage, Pentecostals emphasize the satisfac- tion of Christ’ s atoning work on the cross. Christ’ s having died in our place, his having established a new covenant with God, and his having sent the Holy Spirit to actualize the effects of that covenant in our lives are all foundational to understanding a Reformed-Higher Life Pentecostal position on transformation.
45 Comparatively speaking, whereas the Orthodox root transformation in the ontology of Christ, Pentecostals root transfor- mation in the work of Christ.
46
Jesus came and died in order to cleanse us. He was both the ransom and the Ransomer (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6).
47
As Pentecostals put it, this cleansing has applications on both the heavenly and human
41
42
Vick, “ Pentecostal Worship,” Pentecostal Evangel (September 1, 1966), 10-11.
43
Marino, “ The Origin, Nature, and Consequences of Sin,” 255. My emphases.
44
Munyon, “ The Creation of the Universe and Mankind,” 244.
Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible , 112; Cf. Paul H. Pipkin, “ Know Your 45Heart,” Pentecostal Evangel (June 17, 1962), 4-5, 17.
Reformed-Higher Life Pentecostals include the Assemblies of God, the Christian Missionary Alliance, and the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. Wesleyan- Holiness Pentecostals include the Church of God (Cleveland, TN), the Church of God (Anderson, IN), the Church of God in Christ, the Nazarene Church, the Free Methodists, the Pentecostal Holiness Church, and the Wesleyan Church. The latter maintain that sanctiŽ cation is a crisis experience— something that happens in a moment of time— rather than a process of transformation. There is, however, a blurring of the categories occurring in Wesleyan-Holiness Pentecostal depictions of sanctiŽ cation. See Donald N. Bowdle, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Cleveland, TN: Pathway Press, 1972); and F. French L. Arrington, Christian Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective (Cleveland, TN: 46Pathway Press, 1993).
In the Ž rst half of the twentieth century, Pentecostal theology was deŽ ned by its fourfold gospel: Jesus as savior, healer, baptizer, and soon-coming king (Holiness Pentecostals argue for a Ž vefold gospel, adding Jesus as sanctiŽ er to the aforementioned four). Cf. Donald Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987), 15-28. Thus, those outside the pale of Pentecostalism err when they say the Movement overemphasizes 47 pneumatology in its ordo salutis .
Daniel B. Pecota, “ The Saving Work of Christ,” in Systematic Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective , 349.
18
12
Spiritualities Old and New
sides. On the heavenly side, upon our conversion we are instantaneously justiŽ ed in God’ s eyes. This justiŽ cation is often taught as being posi- tional sanctiŽ cation: God sees us washed in the righteous blood of Christ.
48 The construct of positional sanctiŽ cation enabled Paul to address the car- nal Corinthian Christians as “ saints” (1 Cor. 1:2).
49
At the moment of positional sanctiŽ cation we are both adopted into God’ s family (John 1:12, 13; Rom. 8:15, 16) and initiated into a process of inner and spiritual trans- formation (2 Cor. 6:16-18; Gal. 4:5-6). On the earthly side, Christ’ s cleans- ing has ramiŽ cations regularly described as progressive sanctiŽ cation. We are buried in Christ’ s baptism so that we can walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4).
50
Gordon Fee maintains that there is an eschatological dimension to sanctiŽ cation: those in Christ are set apart (like the Jewish temple’ s holy vessels) as people of the new age. Signifying God’ s acceptance, we are given a pledge of the new age’ s dawning— the Holy Spirit— and thus become pneumatikoi , those belonging to the sphere of the Spirit. The transformational process involves our becoming what we already are in Christ: people of the new age.
51
Wooed and impelled by the Holy Spirit, the believer separates from the world in order to live a holy and conse- crated life unto God. The Holy Spirit, Pearlman said, “ makes real in believ- ers what Christ has done for them,” and the Spirit comes to “ make Christ real.”52 Consistent submission to the Holy Spirit will eventually produce an internal order, so that one’ s desires and affections function according to their created identity.
53
In this transformational process, synergy is clearly implied (though the word is foreign to Pentecostals). God cannot save a person without his or her faith and assent, neither can God trans- form someone without that person’ s continued faith and assent.
54
48
Bowdle, Redemption Accomplished and Applied , 95-100; Arrington, Christian Theology49 , 232-33.
Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible , 227-42, 252-54; Williams, Systematic Theology 50 2:230-55; Pecota, “ The Saving Work of Christ,” 365-67.
W.I. Evans, “ SanctiŽ cation and the Holy Spirit,” Pentecostal Evangel (July 15, 1950), 51 3.
Fee, God’ s Empowering Presence : The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: 52Hendrickson, 1994), 29-32; 78-79; 127-32; 93-112; 475-76; 626-27; 803-26; 859.
53
Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible , 283.
54
Williams, Systematic Theology 2:262.
This model harkens back to John Wesley’ s own. Wesley said, “ First, God works, therefore you can work: Secondly, God works, therefore you must work.” Salvation comes by virtue of God’ s being the Ž rst mover, but we must live in cooperation with God’ s salviŽ c work if we are to grow in grace. The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley , ed., Frank Baker (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1984ff), Vol. 3, 206-9.
19
13
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 24, No. 1, Spring 2002
Rooted as they are in Christian tradition, Pentecostals have long taught that one must discipline oneself in order to live in harmony with the Holy Spirit. Because of our fallen nature and the world’ s sinful climate, we must train ourselves to recognize temptation. We must recognize when natural inclinations are going awry. If we do not reject unholy desires and thoughts they can overwhelm us. “ There is a lurking volcano in every heart that can explode,” one pastor said. We need to realize that sin takes root “ in the imagination of the heart.”55 Unknowingly echoing Mark the Ascetic, one British Pentecostal said, “ Points where we have failed in the past should be marked with a danger signal.” We “ should not tri e” with our own weaknesses.
56
Another Briton said, “ Our bodies . . . have pas- sions and appetites which, though in themselves legitimate and healthy, will, if played with, set on Ž re the whole course of evil desire and prac- tice.”57 The Christian is involved in a struggle against “ evil passions” and the old carnal nature.
To combat our fallen nature, the Christian needs to practice repentance and a constant renewal of one’ s commitment to God.
58
For similar intro- spective-spiritual reasons, Pentecostals have also historically taught about the need for fasting, practicing silence, and exhibiting humility. Pentecostals believe that pride will affectively and spiritually distance one from God’ s presence. Pride will make one less pliable in God’ s hands. Pride is, one editor said, “ the mother of selŽ sh ambition.”59 One Pentecostal writer, emphasizing Jesus’ own humility, even published a book on Jesus’kenosis.60
The Pentecostals’ synergistic pneumatological-anthropological position (the Holy Spirit indwelling our spirit, a union Gordon Fee expressed as S/spirit) is based on the belief that the person of the Holy Spirit is sov- ereignly free to interact with individual believers. Certainly, the Spirit is understood to work through both the church and the Scriptures, but is not bound to them. In a manner that fascinatingly parallels Orthodoxy’ s icono- graphical view of creation, Pentecostals regularly teach that the Holy Spirit reveals through nearly any possible means: preaching, Christian testi-
55
56
Paul H. Pipkin, “ Know Your Heart,” Pentecostal Evangel (June 17, 1962), 4-5, 17.
Leonard Gittings, “ How to Conquer Sin: Our Position With Regard to Self,” Redemption 57 Tidings (March 1, 1934), 12.
58
A. F. Missen, “ Keep Thyself Pure,” Redemption Tidings (July 1, 1943), 10-11.
59
Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible , 103.
“ He Humbled Himself and Became Obedient,” Editorial, The Weekly Evangel (July 8, 1916), 60 7-8.
Frank M. Boyd, The Kenosis of the Lord Jesus Christ (San Francisco, CA: Frank M. Boyd, 1947).
20
14
Spiritualities Old and New
monies, devotional materials, Christian koinonia, the beauty of nature, music, silence, a hug, a smile, or a shed tear. Devotions, consisting of Bible reading, prayer, meditation, and intercessory prayer, are the most commonly taught avenue for communion. Other, more corporate, avenues include church worship services and revival meetings. Through these avenues the believer is instructed to renew one’ s internal-spiritual self via communion with the Holy Spirit.
61
Time spent in the Holy Spirit’ s pres- ence is transformational. Richard Champion said, “ Man’ s soul, like a sen- sitive photographic plate, takes on the image of that to which it is exposed; and the longer the exposure, the clearer the image.”62 Pentecostal writers frequently express the divine-human communion in the affective language of poetry. One said:
Not a sound invades the stillness, not a form invades the scene, Save the voice of my Beloved, and the person of my King. Precious, gentle, holy Jesus! Blessed Bridegroom of my heart, In Thy secret inner chamber, Thou wilt whisper what Thou art. Wrapt in deep adoring silence, Jesus, Lord, I dare not move, Lest I lose the smallest saying meant to catch the ear of love. Rest then, O my soul, contented: Thou has reached thy happy place In the bosom of thy Saviour, gazing up in His dear face.
63
The affective-intuitive-spiritual similarities with hesychastic Orthodoxy aside, we must be clear: Pentecostals rarely teach on the importance of communing with God as an end unto itself. Instead, they consistently teach on the importance of such communion for pragmatic reasons: to build faith, to grow in power for Christian living and evangelism, to gain favor with God in intercessory prayer, to grow ever sensitive to God’ s whispers and promptings, or to discern God’ s purposes.
64
The archetypal transformational experience for Reformed-Higher Life Pentecostals is Spirit baptism. Some Pentecostal denominations and the- ologians maintain that Spirit baptism is not a sanctifying event; it is not part of the ordo salutis .65 However, as Pentecostals have expressed it for
61
E.g., Richard L. Dresselhaus, “ Developing inner senses,” Pentecostal Evangel (January 62 11, 1987), 12-14.
63
Champion, “ Exposed to the Glory,” Pentecostal Evangel (June 16, 1963), 4.
64
Pentecostal Evangel (November 6, 1955), cover page.
Jack Hayford manifests this deeply pragmatic emphasis in Prayer is Invading the Impossible (PlainŽ eld, NJ: Logos International, 1977). Chas. E. Robinson manifested early Pentecostal pragmatism in Praying to Change Things (SpringŽ eld, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 65 1925).
Stanley Horton, “ The Pentecostal Perspective,” Five Views on SanctiŽ cation , ed., Melvin E. Dieter, Anthony Hoekema, Horton, and J. Robertson McQuilkin (Zondervan,
21
15
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 24, No. 1, Spring 2002
more than ninety years, when one is plunged into God’ s Spirit one is transformed and therefore progresses in sanctiŽ cation. The number of anecdotes testifying to the transforming nature of Spirit baptism are legion; thus we will only note a few.
Smith Wigglesworth said, “ Beloved, if God lays hold of you by the Spirit, you will Ž nd that there is an end of everything and a beginning of God, so that your whole being becomes seasoned with a divine likeness.”66 Zelma Argue similarly testiŽ ed, “ Some seeker would get ‘ through’ and perhaps spring to his feet, rapturously wanting to hug everybody, his face shining like the sun, and how transported we all were with joy!”67 Dorris Warren, strangely echoing St. Symeon, described the internal impact of Spirit baptism in the following manner:
Suddenly Jesus Christ baptized me in the Holy Spirit! I was speaking in a new and beautiful language! The power of God poured over and over me until I felt saturated in the glory and light that that ooded my body and my soul! . . . My new tongue enables me to truly worship Him, and at the same time the inner being is ediŽ ed and satisŽ ed completely! This Ž lling of love divine has revived my experience of salvation, enhanced the beauty of Jesus, and magniŽ ed the Word of God to my heart!
68
Pentecostals maintain that every believer can enjoy the same Spirit baptism that the apostles themselves experienced. Moreover, and in a manner harmonious with their own pragmatic milieu, Pentecostals believe that Spirit baptism empowers a person for Christian life and service. Jesus had even said, “ You will receive power, after the Holy Spirit comes upon you” (Acts 1:8).
Conclusion
Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism both emphasize the reality and the impor- tance of the nearly ineffable dimensions of the process of a Christian’ s
1987), 132; William Menzies, Anointed to Serve: The Story of the Assemblies of God (SpringŽ eld, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1971), 74-77, 318. This distinction is the result of exegetical reasons (the New Testament does not present sanctiŽ cation as an event) and complex historical reasons (they wanted to distance themselves from Wesleyan-Holiness Pentecostals). Wesleyan-Holiness Pentecostals historically argue that sanctiŽ cation is an experience that cleanses one in order to prepare for the Spirit’ s baptismal work. Reformed- Higher 66 Life Pentecostals reject that teaching.
Wigglesworth, “ How To Become a Powerful Christian,” Redemption Tidings (January 67 2, 1939), 8.
68
Argue, “ The Waiting Meeting,” Pentecostal Evangel (January 19, 1964), 8.
Dorris F. Warren, “ I received the fullness,” Pentecostal Evangel (March 27, 1966), 5.
22
16
Spiritualities Old and New
transformation. Are these similarities mere historical accidents? I do not think so. First, both seek to root their experiential theology in the apos- tolic worldview. That worldview is pre-modern in character: it is open to the supernatural; it is suspicious about claims concerning the human mind’ s capacity to understand sufŽ ciently. Further, it is impelled by the belief that God is active in creation; and it is convinced that God wants us as his representatives to be similarly active. Second, both share in the stream of Christian tradition that is regularly experiential in orientation. Third, the two have a historical connection via John Wesley (1703-1791). Wesley, the Anglican founder of Methodism, is important for the understanding of Pentecostalism’ s historical antecedents. Pentecostals built upon and reprocessed Wesley’ s own experiential foundations, foundations that were themselves modiŽ cations of the implications of Greek patristic theology.
69
Through Wesley, Anglicanism provides some historical connection between Pentecostalism and Orthodoxy. Because it severed its ties from Rome but continued to maintain the latter’ s sacramental and ecclesial sys- tem, Anglicanism understands itself to be a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism. The sacramental model is sustained, but the elements of rationality and faith, so important for the Protestant Reformers, are also emphasized. I think Pentecostalism can be viewed as a kind of mys- tical via media between Orthodoxy and the more rational branches of Protestantism. Obviously, the institutional character shared by Anglicanism and Catholicism is not analogous for the Orthodox and Pentecostals. And, without question, most Pentecostals do not hold the precise, sacramental, or iconic understandings of the Orthodox (although, as I suggested ear- lier, the distance between them in this regard is not so great as appears at the outset).
Still, even while it insists on both sola Ždei and sola gratia along with the rest of Protestantism, Pentecostalism re ects something of Orthodoxy’ s abiding conviction that God yearns to make human people to be God’ s earthly temples. Pentecostalism asserts with the Orthodox that there is a real presence of God that can be apprehended and sensed in the intuitive-
69
Because he was probably ignorant concerning the ramiŽ cations of the Greek fathers’ own philosophical constructs (constructs relying heavily upon Greek Neoplatonism), it is more accurate to say that Wesley borrowed the implications of those fathers’ teachings than that he borrowed their precise terminology as such. For example, in describing how the Christian is to grow in Christ-likeness, Wesley used the words “ holiness,” “ entire sanctiŽ cation” and “ perfection,” but avoided the Greek word theosis, as well as the Greek teaching about apatheia. David Bundy, “ Christian Virtue: John Wesley and the Alexandrian Tradition,” Wesleyan Theological Journal , 26:1 (Spring 1991), 139-55; Ted A. Campbell, John Wesley and Christian Antiquity (Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books, 1991), 42.
23
17
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 24, No. 1, Spring 2002
visceral regions of the human person. Together with the Orthodox, but excluding Orthodoxy’ s reliance upon Greek philosophical categories, Pentecostals seek a fusion of God’ s Spirit with the human spirit. Thus, along anthropological and experiential lines, Pentecostals represent a kind of via media between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Mystical encounters are not encouraged as they once were, but the dynamics of early Pentecostal anthropology have not yet altogether faded.
The role of phenomenology deserves qualiŽ cation.
70
Is it fair to equate the phenomenology of Orthodoxy, with its precise and prescribed ascetic methods, with the phenomenology of Pentecostalism, often exhibiting its own amorphous spiritual methods? In a word, yes. Together with the similar anthropological positions and the striking phenomenological sim- ilarities noted above, God’ s sovereignty is also pertinent. If God freely communes with those whom God chooses, precise method is immediately qualiŽ ed. Scripture is replete with theophanic appearances, and as often as not the human person did little or nothing to bring it about. Orthodox ascetics may indeed surpass Pentecostals when it comes to disciplining and shaping the human psyche and appetites, but asceticism as such in no way obligates God’ s presence.
71
The above reasons notwithstanding, I believe something deeper has caused these two rather divergent groups to process their Christian faith in markedly similar ways. If their exegesis is shaped by their own exis- tential milieu, Pentecostals nonetheless hit the bulls-eye when they teach that “ deep calleth unto deep” (Ps. 42:7), that the human heart longs for communion with God. If the Orthodox are heavily informed by Greek ontology when they assert that human beings are microcosms of the uni- verse, they brilliantly and aesthetically compel us toward the truth that of all God’ s creations we are shaped after the imago dei. Together, Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism assert that the human soul, in its Godward yearning, is not simply satisŽ ed with intellectual knowledge about God, neither is it satisŽ ed with merely obtaining the knowledge necessary for salvation. It may be most accurate to say that not only do we have a spiritual organ that enables our fellowship with God,
72
but that we are spiritual organs created for eternal fellowship with God. True enough, this dimension of
70
I am indebted to Dr. Ralph Del Colle, professor at Marquette University, for prod- ding 71me on this point.
In their spiritual writings, the Orthodox regularly teach that God cannot be manip- ulated by mechanistic methods. Cf. Vlachos, Orthodox Psychotherapy , 193; Bloom, Living Prayer72 , 120.
This was Gregory Palamas’ s position. Meyendorff, Palamas: The Triads , 35.
24
18
Spiritualities Old and New
human nature is only discussed with great difŽ culty, but that makes it no less real.
I do not mean to imply that Orthodoxy’ s and Pentecostalism’ s expe- riential theologies are unique within Christianity. Catholicism certainly has great mystical and experiential traditions.
73
Undoubtedly, other Christian subgroups could argue similarly. It is just that both Orthodoxy and Pente- costalism consistently view experiential theology as a necessary dimen- sion— and not an added bonus or bothersome subŽ eld— of Christianity. Arguing thus, I do not mean to imply that these two traditions are nec- essarily synonymous. Each tradition processes the presence of God and the God-given transcendent dimensions of human existence (soul, heart, mind, viscera; and how all of those are impacted by the divine-human encounter) using the categories of their own historical-cultural milieu. In this light, I am persuaded that Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism will only begin moving toward mutual recognition and appreciation when each begins to learn speciŽ cally what it is that comprises the other’ s milieu. In order for each to understand the other’ s respective theology it will not be enough to compare the favorite biblical texts or biblical hermeneutic of each group. Both will need to explore what it is that predisposes the other tradition variously to interpret Scripture, history, and life. This broader comparison and analysis is necessary, even though it could not be done here.
74
For the sake of revealing Christ to the world, it is my conviction that these two traditions, which together comprise roughly 800 million of the two billion who call themselves Christian, have a great deal that they must learn about one another. Because they exhibit Orthodox-like char- acteristics, and because Orthodoxy is a heretofore unexplored element of their own history, Pentecostals would do well to understand that part of the church which comprised the primary, if not sole, dimension of Christianity in Eastern Europe for roughly 1800 years.
75
Conversely, the Orthodox would do well to understand a movement that itself facilitates a mystical-experiential encounter with Christ. Such study will assist the Orthodox to understand why Pentecostalism is quite literally transform- ing huge territories of the globe, territories increasingly encroaching on formerly Orthodox territory.
73
E.g., see The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism , 4 vols. (New 74York: Crossroad, 1991).
I attempt this very thing in my dissertation, “ Beyond Salvation,” Fuller Theological Seminary, 75 1999.
That is, excluding the Ž rst and twentieth centuries.
25
19
Most Talked About Today