The Pentecostals Encultured Theology

The Banner Photo was taken in 1984 at a church located in the Mountains of Leyte. I was there to teach for a few days.

Culturally Embedded Pentecostal Responses

I grew up in the Pentecostal movement. My parents and both sets of grandparents were Pentecostal believers. I am indebted to them for the faith that has shaped my life. This essay is a brief aid for guiding Pentecostals through a group of colloquial readings that have belonged to Pentecostal thought. These readings I have heard taught, proclaimed and presented as answers to the questions and concerns of preceding generations since I was a child.

I will begin with my own question before proceeding.
Is the reading of scripture within a cultural-linguistic context subject to the underlying power of accepted thought patterns that signify membership?

 The question recognizes that the Pentecostal movement was, in part, formed by a linguistic phenomenon that allowed a group of people to identify one another as members of a movement. They believed God miraculously directed their burgeoning movement through preaching the spiritually cathartic and ecstatic experience of glossolalia that they insisted accompanied the baptism in the Holy Spirit as ‘initial physical evidence’. This element of Pentecostal practice emphasized an experience with God that was not dependent upon the intellectual rigor of previous generations of Christian leaders, nor did it require the ceremonial elements of ritual and sacramental practice. In effect, God was accessible to the simple and empowered those that believed, to be witnesses, in a way that was not dependent upon the religious structures of the past.

 Around the experience of glossolalia, that is, speaking in tongues, a group of American society was forming a new religious culture. The entrepreneurial spirit of the pioneer was reclaiming the right of the people to determine their own social ethics within the confines of religious belief. Pastors had, traditionally, been the most educated person in town. Now, the passion of a people who had discovered that God was accessible and ready to fill their souls with divine purpose was producing pastors whose educational background was irrelevant. Theirs was a religion of experience, of signs and wonders, of a relevant God of the people, the poor, a God whose power could transform a life in an evening.

 This new culture of believers spoke a religious language of coded phrases that signified membership. Their self-perception was eschatological renewal. They were ushering in the ‘last days’ and returning to the (supposed) purity and power of the early church recorded in Luke’s second volume; the Acts of the Apostles. The question, “Are you a spirit-filled believer?” meant, have you spoken in tongues and had an ecstatic experience of empowerment?

Pentecostalism is primarily dependent upon the African American church for its existence and this debt should be acknowledged. In spite of this, the Pentecostal movement would suffer racial separation as the movement became institutionalized. As Pentecostalism developed, the sin of racism would be followed by the sins of nationalism and materialism. The egalitarian ideology of the early Pentecostals succumbed to the existent power of racism in America. The pacifism of the early Pentecostals fell prey to government pressure through the espionage act. In fear of having their printing presses confiscated they compromised their nonviolent stance. The evangelistic fervor for funding missions fell prey to the prosperity gospel.

Today, vestiges of Pentecostalism’s lack of biblical literacy remain intact in various publications and continuing the use of culturally embedded readings of scripture. In the hotbed enthusiasm of Pentecostal faith, the bible became a book for finding answers rather than inductive study for carefully developed theology. The bible was read as a book of rules rather than instructive guidelines to be worked out in a complex world. The concept of reading the bible as instruction - a very Hebraic concept - was lost to the Pentecostals as it was to the religious leaders of the first century.

1st Corinthians 13: 12
(KJV) 12 For now, we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

(NRSV) 12 For now, we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.

In a Pentecostal bible study, if the subject of heaven or death and the afterlife are introduced, someone will inevitably ask a culturally embedded question that requires a culturally embedded answer and all in the room will affirm the answer as established. The question is revelatory of early Pentecostal needs and concerns; “When we get to heaven will we still be who we are and recognized by others?” The fear of death and loss of self is evident in this question, as is the desire to reunite with loved ones and others that have already passed.

The standard answer is delivered in these words, “The bible says we will be known as we are known”. Interestingly the piece of scripture represented in this standard answer comes from the poem in 1st Cor. 13 and contextually has nothing to do with self-identity as in, “I am Mike”. Rather, the passage is expressing the incapacity of finite human knowledge to understand reality and know or make God predictable. However, we are fully known by God and because this is so, all of our being can be immersed in God and we can know God when we are united with him in the Spirit of love.

Part of the concern of the hymn-like poem is that love is superior to knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge is limited and unable to unite a human being with God as completely as love. The ‘but then face to face’ seems to identify the moment when we as human beings are captured up in the Spirit of God’s love. I think the ‘but then’ remains a bit ambiguous as to whether it is applied to the now or the age to come. This being said, the pursuit of love brings us closer to God than the pursuit of knowledge, at least the kind of knowledge the Corinthians were pursuing through their practice of the ‘spirituals’ (pneumatikon). It is notable that the word gifts is not present in 1st Cor. 12:1 so that the intention of the verse is about the spiritual practices of the Corinthians exhibited in various manifestations.

Wisdom is the discerning of God’s voice in the underlying structures of reality. Wisdom is not Paul’s subject in 1st Corinthians chapter 13. His subject is addressing the misuse of ‘knowing’ of certainty. The hymn-like love poem admonishes the charismatic Corinthians to practice some ambiguity in their claims about spiritual matters. The charismatic prophet's words were to be judged and did not contain an absolute word for word direction from the Spirit.

Genesis 6:3


Another culturally embedded practice of Pentecostals is to conduct an altar call (to invite people to receive Jesus into their hearts) with the claim that God is not always inviting. The altar call is a moment filled with urgency for the sinner or unrepentant person in their midst. This urgency is expressed with the claim that the bible says, “My Spirit will not always strive with man…” The preacher will usually warn those sitting under his voice that the immediate moment is charged with the presence of God and may not be repeatable for those hearing. Sometimes the claim will be made that this moment is the last chance for many sitting in the room.

This piece of scripture “My spirit shall not always strive with man…” comes from Genesis 6:3 and its subject is that the life of God breathed into humanity will come to an end in 120 years. The story suggests the complete annihilation of humanity, of all life, of the earth itself, a return to the chaos of primeval waters if it were not for the grace given to a man named Noah. This piece of scripture does not support the interpretive claims and practice of Pentecostal urgency at an altar call. However, for Pentecostals to say, “My Spirit shall not always strive with man…” brings up memories of altar calls and means God’s presence is not always available, is not always inviting. This is not consistent with the teaching of Jesus who continually bids us come.

Peculiar People

The word peculiar has a long history in Pentecostal circles. Recently I sat in a megachurch and listened to the younger preacher present the culturally embedded use of the KJV’s archaic word peculiar. He was only repeating ideas and teaching that were a part of his religious culture, in effect he belonged, his language was recognized as part of the tradition. Pentecostals were (are) proud of being peculiar, odd, strange etc. This however is not the meaning of the original texts where this word is used in the KJV, nor was it the meaning of the word at the time the KJV was produced as a translation. This particular teaching that embraced the modern meaning of the word peculiar was a defense against those that rejected the experience of glossolalia and other phenomena that accompanied the Spirit's manifestation in Pentecostal services.

 In the English language at the time of the translation of the KJV the word, peculiar meant an exclusive possession. In the 1600s this word was particularly used to identify land that was extraordinarily beautiful, flourishing in resources. In the Old Testament of the KJV, the word peculiar was placed as an adjective to modify the word treasure. The single word ‘sigulah’ meaning treasure or possession is in the text but there is no word to translate the word peculiar in Exod. 19:5; Ps. 135:4; and Eccl. 2:8. The word peculiar was introduced to emphasize the grandness of the treasure or possession. When the word ‘sigulah’ is coupled with people, the OT of the KJV simply translates it as ‘peculiar people’ and the word treasure is dropped; e.g. Deut. 14:2; Deut. 26:18.

The NT of the KJV uses the word peculiar in Tit. 2:14 and 1 Pet. 2:9. In both cases, the word is an adjective for the word people. In later translations, the Greek word ‘peripoeisin’ is translated to denote ownership as in God’s own people, or God’s people, or God’s own possession.

I am sure that the impetus for this ongoing culturally embedded thought is rooted in the practice of glossolalia and other forms of ecstatic worship practiced by Pentecostals. However, their use of the word peculiar is mistaken and based upon the popularity of the KJV. Languages that are spoken are called ‘living languages’, meaning the use of words is subject to change due to phenomenological forces in the culture and other purposeful adaptations of language.

My purpose for sharing this essay is in the hope that my fellow Pentecostals will question the culturally embedded aspects of Pentecostal language and bible readings. The emotional release in Pentecostal worship when accompanied by cries too, and response from God is healing and their ecstatic worship is truly a needed practice in a cruel world. I love my Pentecostal heritage and have endeavored to draw from the best of it and add that which most of the early Pentecostals did not have access to, which was education.