PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
On Pentecostals and Pentecostal Theology An Interview with Walter Brueggemann
Bob L. Johnson, Jr.
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy,
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama
and, Visiting Professor/Scholar of Education, Stanford University, Graduate School of Education, Palo Alto, California
Abstract
Few contemporary scholars have influenced biblical theology more than Walter Brueg- gemann. As an authority on the Hebrew Bible, he has earned the respect of theologians worldwide. His work speaks to a variety of audiences in the church and academy. Of special interest here are the relationships he has developed with pentecostal schol- ars in recent years. His rhetorical approach to Scripture, coupled with the prominence this method affords the biblical text, speaks to Pentecostals. His appreciation for the wonder, mystery, and generativity of the biblical narrative likewise reflects a common emphasis. The priority he gives to the theological interpretation of the text contrasts with the historical-critical approach that once dominated the field. Within this theo- logical context, the purpose of this interview was threefold: 1) to hear Brueggemann’s account of his own spiritual journey as a disciple and scholar—that is, his testimony; 2) to explore the origins and nature of his relationship with Pentecostals; and 3) to under- stand his perceptions of pentecostal theology.
Keywords
Walter Brueggemann – testimony – Pentecostals – Pentecostalism – pentecostal schol- ars – pentecostal theology – Society for Pentecostal Theology
Few contemporary scholars have influenced biblical theology more than Wal- ter Brueggemann. As an authority on the Hebrew Bible, he has earned the respect of theologians worldwide. His work speaks to a variety of audiences in the church and the academy.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/15700747-03801015
1
124
johnson
Of special interest here are the relationships he has developed with pente- costal scholars in recent years. His rhetorical approach to Scripture, coupled with the prominence this method affords the biblical text, speaks to Pente- costals. His appreciation for the wonder, mystery, and generativity of the bib- lical narrative likewise reflects a common emphasis. The priority he gives to the theological interpretation of the text contrasts with the historical-critical approach that once dominated the field.
It is such reasons as these that led me to pursue the interview that follows. More specifically, I found myself wanting to: 1) hear Brueggemann’s account of his own spiritual journey as a disciple and scholar—that is, his testimony; 2) explore the origins and nature of his relationship with Pentecostals; and 3) understand his perceptions of pentecostal theology. The need for such an inter- view was given added impetus by the realization that no written document can be found that addresses these topics together, either by Brueggemann or by others. While bits of autobiographical information are sprinkled here and there in his work,1 few if any publications speak directly to his perceptions of Pentecostals and their theology.2Given his interactions with Pentecostals, this interview seemed both justified and overdue.
Many Pentecostals have discussed Brueggemann’s work in conference set- tings through the years. His work has been cited by many in support of their research. Yet, few if any have offered a written, systematic critique of his work from a pentecostal perspective. Brueggemann has something to say to Pente- costals; Pentecostals have something to say to Brueggemann. But what? This project represents an intentional effort to connect some of these proverbial dots.
The idea for this interview emerged around the convergence of three events over a ten-year period. The first was my initial introduction to Brueggemann’s work via his volume The Creative Word. I stumbled across it at a bookstore in Salt Lake City in 2004. As an education policy analyst with an interest in public theology, the word education in its subtitle caught my attention.3 This
1 See, for example, the opening chapters of Brueggemann’s A Pathway of Interpretation: The Old
Testament for Pastors and Students(Eugene,or: Cascade Books, 2008).
2 After an extensive search, and excluding book reviews, the only published work I could
find are Brueggemann’s invited responses to journal articles by Rickie Moore and Lee Roy
Martin. In these short pieces Brueggemann responds to arguments made by each. He offers
no critique of the pentecostal theology contained in them. See Walter Brueggemann, “A
Response to Rickie Moore’s ‘The Prophet as Mentor,’” Journal of Pentecostal Theology15, no. 2
(2007): 173–175;also Brueggemann,“Lee RoyMartin, ‘The Unheard Voiceof God: A Pentecostal
Hearing of the Book of Judges,’” Journal of Pentecostal Theology18 (2009): 15–19. 3 The full title of this volume is The Creative Word: Canon as a Model for Biblical Education
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982).
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
2
on pentecostals and pentecostal theology
125
introduction to Brueggemann proved to be a creative and substantive read; it whetted my appetite for more.
This event was followed by another, one that occurred on the Amazon River two years later. It was then that I reconnected with a friend from undergraduate days. Though I hadn’t seen or talked with him in several years, Rickie Moore and I found ourselves together on a missions trip to Brazil. Little did we know how fortuitous this reunion would be. By then Rickie had become professor of Old Testament at the Church of God Theological Seminary and I a faculty member at the University of Utah.
I described my experience of reading Creative Word. He listened attentively and was somewhat surprised that I wouldbe familiar with this book and author. This sparked an ongoing conversation about his relationship with Bruegge- mann, theology, and a host of other topics. I was unaware at that time of Walter’s influence in the field. I would go on to read The Prophetic Imagina- tion, Finally Comes the Poet, Old Testament Theology, and several other vol- umes.
Walter’s invitation to speak at the joint meetings of the Society for Pente- costal Studies and Wesleyan Theological Society in Seattle in 2013 constitutes the third event. Given that it was the thirty-fifth anniversary of The Prophetic Imagination, five pentecostal scholars were invited to critique this volume.4 Brueggemann concluded the session by responding to the observations and criticisms raised by each. The room was full and the exchange that ensued engaging. It was obvious that most were drawn into the conversation. While the Pentecostals on the panel were attuned to ways in which Brueggemann’s work informed their theology, it was not as apparent to me that Brueggemann himself discerned the extent to which his work intersected with pentecostal theology.
What I heard lingered with me the rest of the day. “Though we come from different theological traditions,” I thought, “Brueggemann has something to say to Pentecostals. Exactly what is it? What are the points of convergence between his work and pentecostal theology? How does one inform the other? Has anyone explored these in a systematic way?”
This interview was conceived during the seven hours between Bruegge- mann’s initial session that morning and the plenum at which he later spoke. Afterward I introduced myself and asked if he might be interested in doing an
4 Scott Ellington (Emmanuel College), Lee Roy Martin (Pentecostal Theological Seminary),
Rickie Moore (Lee University), James Shelton (oru), and Derek Knoke (Emmanuel College—
University of Toronto).
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
3
126
johnson
interview to explore his interactions with Pentecostals. My son lives in Cincin- nati, I explained, and I visit him several times a year. “Might I call and schedule an interview over lunch?” I asked.
“Sure!” he said. “Call the next time you’re in town.”
And I did.
My point in sharing these anecdotes is this: I view my reading of, relation- ship with, and this interview with Walter Brueggemann as both informative and formative. Though he speaks from outside the pentecostal tradition, his work has been an important catalyst in clarifying my own thinking about pen- tecostal theology. His ideas have enabled me to name and frame what we as Pentecostals experience in our hermeneutics, the biblical text, and preaching. This is not to say that points of disagreement with him do not exist. They do.
Interview Logistics
The preparation and execution of this interview took place between January and June 2015. Its questions were guided by the purposes noted above. Beyond these open-ended queries, allowance was made for impromptu follow-ups to probe and clarify as needed.5
The completed protocol was sent to Brueggemann prior to the actual inter- view. Wanting to assure him of the integrity of my intent and establish trust, he was given the option to veto any question or topic. He vetoed nothing and answered all questions. I then asked if I could record the interview. He agreed. This option served two functions: 1) it freed me from the distraction of exces- sive note-taking; and 2) it provided a means of creating an exact transcription of his responses.6
I assured Walter that once completed I would send the transcript to him for review. Recognizing the difference between oral and written speech, I took liberties to smooth out and punctuate what was said, so as to make the final version of the transcript reader-friendly. This was done without sacrificing the
5 The procedures described in this section are derived from accepted standards of qualitative
data collection methods, specifically via interviews. See, for example, Michael Q. Patton,
Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks,ca: Sage Publications,
2002).
6 See Herbert Rubin and Irene Rubin, Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 3rd
ed. (Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage Publications, 2012). Also, Stienar Kvale and Svend Brinkmann,
InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviews, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks,ca:
Sage Publications, 2009).
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
4
on pentecostals and pentecostal theology
127
content/substance of Brueggemann’s responses. I shared this intent with him in advance. He understood and was comfortable with it.
A period of three months separated the initial interview and its transcrip- tion. Once completed, I sent it for review, inviting him to edit that which was unclear and delete that deemed unacceptable. He deleted nothing and, again, expressed comfort with both the process and the transcript. Recognizing the need to follow up on points in need of clarification and to ask questions that had come to my mind after the initial interview, I requested a second interview. He granted my request.
About the Interviewer
Realizing the conscious and unconscious biases we bring to our work, and in theinterestof full disclosure,a few observationsregardingmyselfasinstrument are in order. I am a lifelong Pentecostal raised in the American South and a member of the Church of God (Cleveland Tennessee). Thus, I have been a part of and heavily influenced by what is known in scholarly circles as the “Cleveland School”; however, I am aware that Pentecostalism is larger, more diverse, and more global than this tradition.
I hold an undergraduate degree in theology and was a classmate of, and remain friends with, many of the theology faculty at Lee University, the Pen- tecostal Theological Seminary, and members of the Society for Pentecostal Theology. My academic interests, however, differ from those of these valued colleagues. My work to date has been in the fields of educational leadership and policy, specifically in the public and higher education sectors. In this role, and consistent with Brueggemann’s observations regarding the “sectarian hermeneutic,” I’ve found myself primarily “on the wall,” living at the nexus of two worlds, pursuing public theology in two languages: that spokenonand that spokenbehindthe wall.7This has not been without its challenges.
Coupled with my life and work in Utah for twenty years, these experiences have made me more theologically tolerant of other traditions—evangelical, mainstream Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, and so forth. Living as a religious minority helped me transcend the hard-and-fast denominational commitment that defined my earlier years, and this without diminishing my
7 See Brueggemann, “The Legitimacy of the Sectarian Hermeneutic,” in Walter Brueggemann,
Interpretation and Obedience: From Faithful Reading to Faithful Living (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1991): 41–69.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
5
128
johnson
theological commitments or love of my tradition. This experience has likewise increased my impatience for those whose denominational loyalties trump commitment to the larger kingdom.
About Walter Brueggemann
As expressed in his willingness to do the interview, I found Brueggemann to be a warm and accepting individual. He was gracious with his time. The candor and incisiveness of his thoughts were marked by a robust humor and quick wit. Although the Pentecostals and Charismatics Brueggemann actually knows are not representative of those who are more fundamentalist in their theology and conservative in their politics, he understands the church to be the embodiment and purveyor of a counternarrative in a post-Enlightenment world and is particularly attuned to the gospel’s implications for social justice.8 He approaches his work as a theologian in service of the church and the academy, and provides a useful model for negotiating the tensions that define the relationship between the two. This is reflected in his ecumenical outlook, self-critical demeanor, and openness to dialogue with traditions other than his own. Most notably, his work is defined by a creativity and richness that are often missing in the work of others. As one interested in the development of professional competence, I find this dimension of his work intriguing. It is an element that is critical to professional competence, yet its development is either ignored or inadequately addressed in most professional schools. How might one teach or develop this quality? Is it a charism?
This interview was undertaken in the spirit of ecumenism that characterized the early pentecostal movement. Consistent with Simon Chan’s call, it is offered as a contribution to the larger collective effort within the pentecostal commu- nity to tradition this theology within the historical flow of the church catholic.9 It is hoped that this interview will generate subsequent interest in comparative explorations between Brueggemann’s work and pentecostal theology. Mutual engagement of this kind provides yet another opportunity to critique and clar- ify pentecostal theology for ourselves and others.
8 For example, see Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2001); Finally Comes the Poet: Daring Speech for Proclamation (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1989); The Word Militant: Preaching a Decentering Word (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2007).
9 Simon Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition (Eugene, or: Wipf &
Stock, 2000).
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
6
on pentecostals and pentecostal theology
129
bj:Walter, let’s begin by exploring your spiritual journey/testimony. When did you become a Christian?
wb: I was born into the church and baptized as a baby in a congregation that practiced infant baptism. My father was a pastor. In fact, he’s the one who baptized me. The pietist tradition of which he was a part believed that for those born into the church, there isnevera time in their lives when they did not know Christ.
This probably sounds strange to Pentecostals. But it is consistent with what Horace Bushnell described in his examination of Christian education/nurture: there should be no need for young children in the church to “come to Christ” because there was never a time when they did not know him. That’s a valid characterization of my early years as a Christian.
bj: Describe your confirmation and the circumstances surrounding it.
wb:I was confirmed at age thirteen. Consistent with the residue of my German religious heritage, instruction was a part of this confirmation. Those confirmed met once a week for two years. We memorized the catechism and studied church history and the life of Jesus. While I learned a great deal about the Christian faith during this time, not much of this new knowledge made an impact on me then.
Don’t get me wrong, I took this training very seriously! But intellectually I didn’t understand what I was memorizing and being taught. Yet, in terms of understanding myself as a responsible member of the church and disciple of Jesus, this was a veryformative learning experience for me.
We studied the Evangelical Catechism.10 It is a product of the nineteenth century, developed by a group of individuals from the German religious tra- dition of which I’m a part, and reflects a mixture of Lutheran and Calvin- ist theology. It is perhaps closer to the Heidelberg Catechism than to any other. While it is more concise than the Heidelberg Catechism,11 it is not as developed as the Heidelberg. Its authors were familiar with both Luther’s and the Heidelberg Catechism; their intent appears to have been to combine the two.
Consistent with the old German tradition, the pastor would lay hands on each individual being confirmed. As he did, he would quote a verse from
10 11
http://ucc.org/beliefs_evangelical-catechism. https://urcna.org/1651/file_retrieve/23908.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
7
130
johnson
Scripture. This Scripture would become the life-verse for that individual. It was given with the intent that it should follow him or her through life. Eventually it would be read again at his or her funeral.
The verse given to me by my Dad was Psalm 119:105—Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Although the Hebrew for “word” in this context is debar, it is a clear reference to the Torah tradition. I like to think that this verse was providential, even prophetic for me in becoming a Scripture scholar.
The pastor was always responsible for teaching the confirmation classes in the church. It allowed him to connect and get to know the members of the congregation.Thiswasanimportantsubtextofthelargerconfirmationprocess.
bj: At what point in your journey did you come to the conclusion that Scripture provided a valid account of the human condition? When did you start taking it seriously?
wb: I think it was probably some time in high school. During the summers I would go to church camp. I did this four years in a row. The young pastors who ran the camp were quite influential in my life. Their witnesses and lives gave credibility to the whole biblical narrative for me. It’s during this period of time that I made the most elemental decisions about the gospel message. Since I graduated from high school in 1951, this would have been between 1947 and 1951. I was confirmed in 1946, so it was when I was between fourteen and seventeen years of age.
bj:Was this response to the gospel more cognitive or affective?
wb: No, I don’t think it was primarily a cognitive decision at all! There was a strong emotional dimension to it, and that sense of belonging led me to the conclusion thatthis communitywas my true habitat.
As much as he could as the pastor of a rural parish, my Dad placed a great deal of emphasis on compassion and justice in his ministry. It was in this contextthatmyfaithwasnurturedasayoungteen.Lookingback,thisemphasis was also quite formative. It shaped and has continued to influence my work through the years.
bj:Tell me more about your Dad—his piety and influence on you.
wb: Although my father went to seminary, I wouldn’t consider him to be the scholarly type—certainly not in the sense of the academic circles I move in
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
8
on pentecostals and pentecostal theology
131
today. Yet, at the same time my Dad had a tremendous influence on my life. As I’ve gotten older, I continue to discover how much he was a model for me. I have the same gestures, the same laugh—I’ve gotten all this from him.
He was a man of great conviction, but he was also a very gentle man who had the heart of a pastor. While this was not true of my mother, he was almost completely nonjudgmental. When people in the church would stumble or make questionable decisions in their lives, Dad would respond by saying, “Well, stuff happens. As a pastor, you have to respond to it and get on with life!”
For reasons such as this, he was a beloved pastor—loved by the congrega- tions he served. He was also a model for me in this regard.
bj:Reflect on your vocation and the understanding you have of your own call and gifts. At what point did you realize that a superficial reading of biblical text was not enough for you? When did you realize that you that you wanted to know more about Scripture, the Old Testament, and theology?
wb:That happened when I went to seminary. Before seminary, I’d never heard of graduate school. I didn’t even know people did that!
Two of the most formative teachers I had were in Old Testament at Eden: Allen Wehrli and Lionel Whiston. Neither published anything, so it is highly unlikely that those outside of that community would know their names. Wherli had been my Dad’s teacher thirty years earlier—my Dad had him at the begin- ning of his teaching career, I had him at the end!
These two teachers channeled me to graduate school. My initial plan for going to seminary was to become a pastor because that’s all I knew. In retro- spect, however, I could never have been a pastor. I don’t have enough patience! The only time I did pastor was as a doctoral student at Union in New York. I served a church in the Bronx during that time, but it wasn’t a “real” pastoral appointment. Everyone knew I was there pursuing my degree.
During my middler year of seminary—I would have been around twenty- three years old or so—my Old Testament teacher started getting me ready for graduate school. He did this by pointing me in the direction of languages and other scholarly things. I had no idea what I was getting into then. I just found the study of Scripture compelling and interesting, and sort of moved forward by taking the next step in front of me as it became apparent.
bj: At what point did others recognize your scholarly gifts? When did others begin to recognize that you had something substantive to say?
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
9
132
johnson
wb:I think my teachers in seminary thought it was worth investing in me. Back in those days, seminaries tended to produce their own faculty. They looked for good students to send to graduate school, with the hopes that they would eventually come back and teach.
In terms of “getting noticed” by others, I don’t think that really happened until I had been teaching seminary about ten or so years—and then only after the publication of The Prophetic Imagination in 1977. With the publication of thatbook and the volumeThe Land, which came out shortly thereafter, I began to get attention from others in the field. After this it dawned on me that I might have a substantive contribution to make. Up until that point in time I’d assumed I was just going to be a seminary teacher—and I was perfectly happy doing that! I didn’t anticipate anything more. But as you know, when something is well received by others, it creates a ripple effect. You get invited to do other things. That’s kind of what happened to me in 1978 or so.
bj: What are discipleship and spiritual formation about? What are their goals? Toward what are they moving?
wb: It’s about living life in the community of faith so that others can catch glimpses in your life of the truth of the gospel. The gospel is about God’s unconditional love and his embrace of the world. Growing in faith means embodying the truth of the gospel more and more. That’s quite incarnational and Barthian. But as you know, I’ve been greatly influenced by Barth.
bj: Describe your own spiritual journey through the years.
wb:I’m now eighty-two years old. Much of my spiritual growth is reflected and revealed in my work. While some of my writing is the result of invitations to address certain topics, much of it is an autobiographical formulation of my thoughts on faith and life.
In this regard there are two definitive influences on my own spiritual journey worth noting. The first is the liberation movement in theology—liberation theology, feminism, postcolonialism, and so forth. This larger movement, and the sense of social justice reflected in it, has had a profound influence on me.
A second influence is a fundamental realization of the role that imagination plays in our thinking and the possibilities it creates for us. I was oblivious to this—didn’t have the slightest clue about it until mid-career! The work of Paul Ricoeur in particular was quite helpful here. Because I don’t have a philosophical mind, I was never quite sure I that understood his books. But I read, and read, and reread his work on imagination. Only after working
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
10
on pentecostals and pentecostal theology
133
diligently through his ideas did I finally understand what he was talking about. He helped me understand the role imagination plays in biblical interpretation and preaching. This fundamental insight has been continually generative for me.
As I became more declarative of Ricoeur’s ideas, I went back and reflected on what James Muilenburg had taught me at Union. While Muilenburg didn’t use this kind of language in his approach to Scripture—that is,imagination and generativity—this is what he had in mind in his interpretive method.
Then I started thinking about the ideas of my first Old Testament teacher, Allen Wehrli, at Eden, who was a student of Hermann Gunkel. Wehrli taught the ot through storytelling. He mesmerized us students with this approach while at the same time giving modest, yet uncompromising attention to the historical-critical aspects of the text. Just as important, it was he who encour- aged me to recognize the wonder, mystery, and hiddenness of the biblical nar- rative.
In an understated way, I’ve since come to realize that this—imaginative generativity—is what Wehrli was trying to teach me. At the time, however, I didn’t have the language to describe it. Ricoeur gave me the words to under- stand the importance of imagination in biblical interpretation and preaching. He further helped me see that this is how my own teachers—Wehrli at Eden and later Muilenburg at Union—approached Scripture. In retrospect, there has been a remarkable continuity in my development, and much of this has occurred unconsciously. I came to recognize and name it later as my think- ing matured. And it is this emphasis onimaginationthat defines my rhetorical approach to the biblical text today. There’s an inclination among interpreters to relate imagination to the work of the Spirit. A good poet or novelist often says, “It just came to me. It came to me in the night.” That’s got to be the gift of the Spirit. I prefer to describe it as “imagination.” It describes something more than one’s invention; it is a way of recognizing that something else beyond me is happening here.
Rather than taking a hyperexegetical approach to the biblical text in preach- ing, one must examine its style and rhetorical markers and use these to convey its message in preaching in ways that recognize the wonder and hiddenness of the text. Instead of allowing one’s exegetical method to “get in the way” of what the text is saying, one should present the text to the audience and allow it do its work in the imagination of the hearers. This contrasts sharply with the approach I used when I first started teaching. Back then I took time to tend carefully to all the historical-critical aspects of the text, and I insisted that all my students learn these details. And now, you know, it’s too bad I spent so much energy on those things then.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
11
134
johnson
Again though, don’t get me wrong! It’s important that we be aware of these issues when examining the text, but we can’t get bogged down in them in our preparation. Not getting bogged down in these details makes it easier for all parties involved—students, the scholar, the preacher, and folks in the congregation!
There’s another teacher who was critical to my formation. I majored in sociology as an undergraduate at Elmhurst College in Chicago. At that time sociology was a one-person department at Elmhurst! By the time I graduated, I had taken eight sociology courses from this one professor, Theophel Mueller. In each I recall how passionate he was about social justice. Though it took me several years to make the connection, Mueller helped me understand that an important theme of the Old Testament prophets was social justice. In my old age, I can see how Mueller and the other teachers I’ve mentioned—Wehrli and Whiston at Eden and Muilenburg and Therion at Union—have contributed to my spiritual and intellectual development over the years. Their influence can be discerned in my thinking and work.
bj: This retrospective account of your spiritual/intellectual growth provides an important context for understanding your work. It also suggests why Pentecostals are drawn to it. With this as prelude, let’s explore your perceptions and under- standing of Pentecostals and pentecostal theology. What comes to mind when you hear the wordpentecostal?
wb: What comes to mind for me now is a particular cluster of people that I’ve come to know: you, Rickie Moore, Lee Roy Martin, Scott Ellington, and others associated with the Society for Pentecostal Theology.
Before meeting these people I knew nothing about Pentecostalism. I thought it was simply a kind of undisciplined emotionalism. But my perception has changed dramatically; it’s been corrected. Pentecostals are a community of people who are being led in the Spirit in remarkably liberated ways.
When I think about Pentecostals in relation to mainline Lutherans and Calvinists, of which I am a part, Pentecostals exhibit more of an openness to the Spirit that I find very refreshing. It’s just terrific!
bj:Tell me about your denomination and tradition.
wb:I am a part of the United Church of Christ movement. It is a tradition that embraces a very soft Calvinism. What is interesting is that I’m now living in Cincinnati, where there are many descendants of German Catholics. In fact, Xavier University (a Catholic institution in Cincinnati) just happens to have
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
12
on pentecostals and pentecostal theology
135
a building named the Brueggemann Center. It’s named in honor of a Jesuit theologian! [He laughs at the irony of this.]
[With Brueggemann’s consent, I then engaged him in word associations, asking him what came to mind when I mentioned people or concepts significant in the pentecostal world. He was unfamiliar with the Four Square Church leader Jack Hayford and the nt scholar Gordon Fee, and associated “slain in the Spirit” with being seized or called out of oneself and certain well-known pentecostal/charismatictvevangelists with “con-men.” We continued:]
bj: Pentecostal worship.
wb: I associate it with a kind of free-form. I’m not sure exactly what that free- form is or what it’s like, but I think it is a worship that is very open, one that’s not as liturgically structured as the tradition of which I’m a part. While I’ve come to understand that pentecostal worship is rooted in a theology, many non-Pentecostals don’t seem to understand it or the theology behind it. Much like the initial impression I had before meeting and interacting with pente- costal scholars, many non-Pentecostals see pentecostal worship as unbridled emotionalism.
bj:Gifts of the Spirit.
wb: I think of Paul’s inventory of the gifts of the Spirit. These extend from prophecy and teaching to the practice of generosity and hospitality. These gifts represent a whole range of things that Christians are empowered to do.
In reference to Pentecostals and how they view these gifts, I don’t know. I think they would associate these with speaking in tongues and getting outside of oneself … What does the phrase suggest to you?
bj: I think many non-Pentecostals are reductionist in their views of spiritual gifts, and often caricature Pentecostals’ understanding of them by focusing primarily on glossolalia and prophetic utterances. While these gifts certainly are identified by Paul and others, I would suggest that the lists of spiritual gifts Paul enumerates is not exhaustive, nor are all gifts “dramatic” in nature. Many are expressed as natural dispositions and abilities and can be quite pedestrian.
You mentioned the gift of prophecy. It has been my experience that Evangel- icals—particularlythosefromthereformedtradition—arecessationistsandthus tendtodefinethisgiftintermsofpreaching/teaching.ForPentecostals,“prophecy” is this and more. Would you consider yourself a “cessationist”?
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
13
136
johnson
wb:I’m not sure what the word means. If by it you mean that the spiritual gifts enumerated by Paul no longer operate in the church today, then no. I don’t believe that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased operating. Icertainlydon’t believe that! I know this view exists among many fundamentalists though. Having said that, I’m not familiar with that particular term cessationist per se, but I am familiar with the idea it is intended to convey as you’ve described it.
bj: Are you familiar with Jesus-Only or Oneness theology?
wb: No, I’m not sure exactly what “Jesus-Only” refers to. I’m not familiar with this theology either. Does it have something to do with questions about the Trinity?
Being Pentecostal and being led by the Spirit assumes a trinitarian view of God, does it not?
bj: It is a pentecostal tradition/movement out of the St Louis area. Being from Missouri and having graduated from and taught at Eden Seminary, I thought you might be familiar with this theology and tradition.
bj:The Assemblies of God.
wb: Within the stream of denominations, when I hear that particular name I think of a non-mainline church tradition. I tend to think of it as an anti- intellectual group. That’s what I associate it with. But this is probably due to my unfamiliarity and ignorance of it. If I’m not mistaken, the administrative office of that denomination is in Springfield, Missouri.
bj:What about the phrase “Spirit-Word”?
wb: I’m not familiar with that juxtaposition of terms … I’m not helping you much with these associations, am I?
bj: No problem! My intent with this line of inquiry is to provide a context of your perceptions and understanding of Pentecostals and pentecostal theology. I appreciate your candor and the freedom you’ve given to ask you about these ideas, concepts, and personalities.
“Spirit-Word” is a phrase that describes the way many Pentecostals view and read Scripture: as a living, Spirit-imbued text. Informed by such passages as Hebrews 4:12, it is a recognition of the dynamic quality of Scripture as a means of encountering and experiencing God.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
14
on pentecostals and pentecostal theology
137
wb: I’m not familiar with that particular phrase, but I certainly subscribe to that view. It reminds me of the way Barth describes Scripture as becoming the Word of God to the reader.
This contrasts sharply with a more fundamentalist reading in which the meaningofthetextissoughtandfromwhichdefinitivetheologicalpropositions are derived. Such thinking easily leads to a misguided doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and eventually to authoritarianism. Yes, it does! For me this kind of thinking is a theological dead end.
While I’m not familiar with the phrase “Spirit-Word,” I subscribe to what it represents as you’ve described it. It is similar to the way Lutherans describe the Eucharist: the Spirit is in, with, around, and under the Eucharist. There are parallels between what you’ve described as “Spirit-Word” and this view of the Eucharist.
bj: A fundamental assumption in your work is that with the emergence of post- modernism, the historical-critical method has been displaced by a plurality of approaches. You are critical of biblical scholars who get excessively bogged down or choose to “hide behind the apparatus” to the neglect of the theological intent of the text. With its rejection of metanarratives, postmodernism provides space for pentecostal theology. Given this, what does pentecostal theology represent to you? What are your perceptions of it?
wb:It represents a theology that has not been captured by the Enlightenment, nor tamed by the categories of Enlightenment-reason. When the gospel is voiced in Enlightenment terms, it loses its edge and becomes subject to human domestication. Enlightenment rationality is a threat not only to hearing, but to responding to the gospel.
Pentecostal theology is also a theology that gives voice to and speaks in behalf of those on the margins. I use the word margins here in an economic sense. There is always a link between one’s economic status and epistemology. The more centrist people are economically, the more they tend to buy into Enlightenment control. The less centrist they are, the more open they are to non-Enlightenment categories and epistemologies.
This is how I think about it. This is how I would characterize pentecostal theology. It provides an alternative to the dominant narrative. Those once excluded from the conversation by those who adhere to Enlightenment-based theologies have now been empowered to speak. Many now enjoy a privileged position at the table.
I also associate pentecostal theology with Catholic liberation theology. Both represent God’s preferential option for the poor … and just as important, his
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
15
138
johnson
preferential option for the thinking done by those at the economic margins. This idea is consistent with the message of Israel’s prophets.
bj: When did you become aware of pentecostal theology and the pentecostal tradition?
wb:I became aware of it through an initiative by Rickie Moore. I was teaching at Columbia at the time. He and some of his colleagues from the Church of God Seminary in Cleveland, Tennessee came to see me in Atlanta. Before they came, I didn’t quite know what to make of their visit. I was unaware of their motives.
They came and talked with me. We had several follow-up conversations after that. They eventually invited me to be a guest of the Seminary in Cleveland. This happened a few years after I joined the Columbia faculty in 1986.
bj:Tell me more about your experience with the pentecostal community in Cleve- land.
wb: I was diligent to follow up and learn about them and their theological orientation. I was eager to interact with them. My wife even went with me to Cleveland.
When I arrived they served a fancy lunch in my honor. I remember turning and saying to the Dean or someone, “You know, this is a real exquisite lunch we’re having here!”
He laughed and said to me in a tongue-in-cheek tone, “You know, we didn’t all just fall off the turnip truck!”
I was introduced to other faculty at the Church of God Seminary at that time. I have since interacted with several of them on multiple occasions at various meetings over the years.
I can say that my interaction with scholars like Cheryl Johns have made me keenly aware of the intellectual force of the pentecostal movement. She’s quite the theologian, a theological heavy-weight for sure. We were later together at a meeting sponsored by the Lilly Foundation with scholars from Harvard and Yale. On that particular occasion I felt as if we were both outsiders of sorts, and that we were perceived as such by the group. She may have not sensed this, but I did. This is how I felt.
Cheryl started her lecture by reflecting on the preparation struggles and dif- ficulties encountered in the days leading up to the presentation. She seemed passionate in the conveyance of her thoughts about these things—so much so that the people in the room were attentive to what she was saying. She described how she had voiced these difficulties to her students and how they
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
16
on pentecostals and pentecostal theology
139
had responded by praying for her. Cheryl told the group that after this, prepar- ing for the lecture became easier. Yes, this is what I remember about her at that particular meeting.
bj:Reflect on the presuppositions you had about the pentecostal community prior to your visit to Cleveland. How did you reconcile these presuppositions with your experiences with this group?
wb: I don’t recall that I had any particular presuppositions, except that I was keenly aware that this was a zone in which I had never been. What I remember most was the generous hospitality shown to me by the group.
My book Theology of the Old Testament (1997) had recently been published and Rickie took advantage of the opportunity and invited me to speak to the group about it. I remember how generous he was in his introductory remarks.
After I spoke, he provided a written response to my book, one that he had prepared in advance. As I recall, the response was fairly sharp. Yet, his critique addressed points that I really needed to hear. I remember processing what he had to say and what I experienced in my visit. I would return to Cleveland at a later date. In light of interactions such as this, I’ve since come to realize that Pentecostals are veryserious theological partners for me.
I don’t recall any presuppositions regarding Pentecostals and pentecostal theology other than the realization that I needed to learn more about Pente- costals and pentecostal theology. Prior to this, I hadn’t paid much attention to either. I didn’t know anything about them. In my ignorance, I just thought Pen- tecostalism was simply another form of fundamentalism.
This just goes to show you how ignorant I was, and what little I knew about them. Whereas fundamentalists bank on theological certitude, the Pen- tecostals I’ve come to know certainly don’t. Pentecostals seem to recognize and provide space for the mystery of God. As noted inTheology of the Old Testament, the inscrutable, unpredictable nature of Yahweh is a dominant theme in Israel’s testimony.
bj:When you said, “I need to engage with these Pentecostals; they have something I need to hear,” what led you to this conclusion? Did you conclude that they were looking at your work from a new, unfamiliar angle?
wb: Oh, I think so! Yes, as I recall, in his critique of my Theology of the Old Tes- tament, Rickie said many positive things. But he also pointed out that from an epistemological standpoint, I had remained within the bounds of established thinking.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
17
140
johnson
That observation was interesting, and it caught me off guard a bit. It sur- prised me. Up to that point I was considered sort of a “renegade” in the aca- demic and church circles I moved in. Yet, I was not perceived as such with this group. This was not the case at all, at least not according to Rickie’s critique and his understanding of pentecostal theology!
bj: What specifically did you “hear” in his critique? How did you interpret his criticism of playing it hermeneutically “safe” by remaining within the bounds of established thinking?
wb:I can’t remember the specific point in the book that prompted this critique from him. But what I think Rickie was trying to say is this: although I had dynamic categories for interpreting the text, the categories I used still weren’t open or dynamic enough … yes, that’s it! That’s what I heard from him.
bj:That’s interesting … Let’s pursue that further. As an established scholar with a noted track record, how did you react to this pentecostal critique?
wb: Well, his critique was a bit edgy. But he did it in such a gentle, generous way that I really thought to myself, “You know, I need to give more thought to this, and educate myself on the perspective that informs his critique.”
I really wanted to entertain his idea that these texts were indeed more dangerous and emancipatory than I had allowed, because, as he said, “biblical interpretation should be ‘Spirit-led.’”
While I don’t think that I had fully incorporated that perspective in my work to that point, that’s what Rickie’s critique prompted me to think about. It was a legitimate critique and worth hearing … a good thing.
bj:Think about your involvement with Society of Biblical Literature (sbl) and the dominant epistemological paradigm that has historically defined that group, that is, its infatuation with Enlightenment thinking, modernity, and so forth. Compare this with the rhetorical approach you’ve inherited and how you’ve championed a rhetorical, emancipatory reading of the text in your work. And now, years later as an established scholar, you hear this critique from a pentecostal about playing it “too safe” and not allowing the text to do its “full” emancipatory work … This must have been provocative!
wb: That’s right! For those in mainline denominations who’ve been educated in the historical-critical method as the end-all-be-all, it’s difficult to free one- self from it. And to some extent, the presuppositions of the historical-critical
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
18
on pentecostals and pentecostal theology
141
approach still operate for me. It’s difficult to just walk away from these. I can’t! And I think no serious biblical scholar can really do that.
The real issue is how one adjudicates between those presuppositions and the idea that the Spirit still leads the text in new directions. This I believe is at the heart of our work as biblical scholars. This I think is also the fundamental tension that lies at the heart of our work and pentecostal hermeneutics. The Spirit isstillin the text. In addition, there remain multiple layers of meaning in the text that continue to prove generative in new and surprising ways.
This view of the Spirit and Scripture stands in sharp contrast to more tra- ditional notions of inspiration that link the work of the Spirit solely with the origins of the text. We must recognize that the Spirit is also at work in the transmission and interpretation of the text. At their best, all things regarding Scripture are Spirit-led!
bj: Now, that’s not a view that has much traction insblor the Academy.
wb: No—but it has more traction these days than it used to have. In years past, the older historical-critical epistemology was on full display at the annual presidential address at sbl. I remember a Canadian scholar in particular— R.B.Y. Scott—whose address focused on the topic: “How long is a cubit?” And you know, those who give these addresses are giving it their best shot. He worked, and worked, and worked that topic in painstaking detail. Such minu- tiae! But then again, if you’re confined to asking those kinds of historical-critical questions, you’re driven to this kind of minutiae! The question then becomes, what are we going to investigate next?
This makes us appreciate what Barth did in his commentary on Romans. Don’t get me wrong, there is a place for historical criticism in our work, but in our interaction with the text, it cannot be an end in itself. We must get beyond this to the larger theological message that the author(s) and editors of the text were trying to convey and open up for us.
bj: I think pentecostal scholars appreciate the fruits of the historical-critical method and the analytical tools it has spawned—form, redaction, textual higher/ lower criticism, and so forth. But for us there is an important criticism that is miss- ing, an angle and need these frameworks fail to address: the critique and renewal in our lives that come as we engage/encounter God through the biblical text and allow the Spirit to speak to us existentially in fresh, new ways.
wb:Thanks, right; that’s exactly right! And Barth understood that so clearly.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
19
142
johnson
bj: Yet at the same time so many Evangelicals and fundamentalists have a hard time with Barth on this front because he did not embrace their view of inerrancy as perpetuated by Enlightenment thinking/categories and exemplified in the Prince- ton group—for example, Warfield, Hodge, Van Til, and their theological lineage.
wb: That’s right. One has to remember that Barth was fighting on two fronts in his day: the fundamentalist on one side, and liberal-progressives—whom he referred to as the “rationalists”—on the other.
bj: Reflecting on your initial interaction with the faculty at the Church of God Seminary in Cleveland, you noted that you were struck by their hospitality. Is there anything else that provoked thought from that visit?
wb:I don’t remember the specific occasion, but some time after that at a pivotal point in my life, Rickie came down with a little flask of oil and anointed me … it was a remarkable experience!
bj:What did that mean to you? What was the significance of it? Describe how you experienced it.
wb:Beyond what it meant sacramentally, it was a remarkable act of caring and generosity. I felt accepted by Rickie in his circle of life.
bj: Hearing you describe this experience—and as a pentecostal who seeks to be consciously aware of the social and theological location from which I speak—I interpret that gesture as an act of friendship, hospitality, and recognition of your gifts and call within the Body.
Apart from the sacramental substance of Rickie’s gesture, I also think there was a great deal of symbolism captured in it. Having worked through several of your volumes, my spirit has been stirred by them—and this beyond the “academic” contributions they represent. Though I was not there when he anointed you with oil, I envision myself standing in solidarity with him in that gesture for this reason: whether aware of it or not, your work and approach to interpretation strikes a strong chord within Pentecostals. Many of us hear the Spirit speaking through you.
wb: Yes, I sense that. That’s an interesting way to describe it. I’ve never really thought of it in those exact terms, but I think you’re right.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
20
on pentecostals and pentecostal theology
143
bj: Are there other pentecostal scholars you’ve engaged in a substantial way?
wb:At Columbia I had a few pentecostal students here and there. Two come to mind: Scott Ellington and Jerome Boone. Scott and I remain really good friends. Jerome teaches at Lee University in Cleveland. Ellington has done some good work on lament.
At Columbia I didn’t pay too much attention to students’ backgrounds. All we knew was they were “not Presbyterian.” I didn’t think about the distinctive- ness of these students too much then. There’s also Lee Roy Martin and his work. Beyond these folks, my interaction with Pentecostals is kind of limited to this group of people.
And this brings me back to sbl. The Society has divided over the years into so many interest groups and sessions that attendees tend to confine their interactions primarily with those who share academic interests.
Whereas in previous years there would be multiple perspectives, substantive dialogue, and heated debate in a givensblsession, very little of this occurs any- more. This is due to the splintering of interest groups in the organization. These days Pentecostals are viewed as just another camp within the larger theological tent at sbl. In noting this I am not offering any kind of theological judgment about it. It’s just my observation regarding the splintering of academic inter- ests atsblin recent years. Prior to this, Pentecostals were not viewed as serious scholars by the Society. But that has changed dramatically.
bj: Pentecostalism is bigger than the Church of God-Cleveland tradition. While we can talk about Pentecostals in the aggregate, they are not a monolithic group. The same can be said of the Presbyterian tradition as well. Speaking of religious traditions, how do you account for the warm reception of you and your work by the pentecostal community?
wb:Well, you’d have to tell me why! I think and hope it is for multiple reasons. First, I believe that there is a dynamism to the biblical text. Closely tied to this is a fundamental recognition that the text itself—regardless of our interpretation of it—refuses to be swallowed by any of our epistemological categories. This recognition allows for pluralism in interpretation.
Onagoodday,IpaymoreattentiontothetextitselfthanIdotoall thecritical questions we bring to the text. Now I don’t always do this, but most of the time I do. Pentecostals seem to be drawn to these aspects of my work. I think they appreciate me for these reasons.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
21
144
johnson
bj: Yes, I think that’s a valid assessment. Aside from being a productive scholar and writer, your appreciation for what the text has to say and a recognition that regardless of what we do, we can never master it is compelling. Having read your work, and circling back around in my own professional life after thirty years to reconnect with my academic colleagues in Cleveland, I too sense these important points of convergence between your work and pentecostal theology.
wb: That’s right, I think you’re right. And on top of that, the biblical text continues to surprise us as we engage it.
bj: And I find that to be such a rich idea. A former classmate and friend in systematic theology wrote an article several years ago entitled something to this effect: “Can Pentecostals Bring the Main Course to the Theological Table or Only the Relish?”12 In your view, what do Pentecostals bring to the theological table? What are their strengths? What contributions can they make?
wb: Pentecostals bring a firm conviction that life and the biblical text are inti- mately connected. Whereas in the Reformation tradition emphasis is placed on the relationship between the text and doctrinal formulations/propositions, pentecostal theology reminds us of the importance of the biblical text to life and living.
I sense that Pentecostals have a kind of directness about the contempo- raneity of the text that cannot be found in other theological traditions. Just as important, this respect for the contemporaneity of the text has not been dis- tilled through the second-order language that is theology.
WhilethegoodCalvinistscholarispreoccupiedwithcoveringallofthebases in his/her interpretation, pentecostal scholars don’t seem to linger excessively over such concerns. They appear to be more interested in listening to what the text has to say to their lives now. That’s a terrific contribution they bring to the church!
While Muilenburg did not have Pentecostals in mind in his rhetorical ap- proach to the text, that is how he educated me to approach it. He taught me to get right to the text.
After speaking at the Society of Pentecostal Theology meeting in Seattle in 2013, I walked away realizing that Pentecostals were real people dealing with one another, and that they take the biblical text very seriously. I’m not saying that this doesn’t happen in other traditions, but I was struck by these things at
12
See Terry L. Cross, “The Rich Feast of Theology: Can Pentecostals Bring the Main Course or Only the Relish?” Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 16 (2000): 20–47.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
22
on pentecostals and pentecostal theology
145
that meeting. Pentecostals are personally and vigorously engaged with the text, and they also seem to know that there is real stuff at stake—life and living are at stake!
bj: The postmodernism critique has certainly opened the door for pentecostal theology. Yet, given that pentecostal scholars pursue theology and knowledge of God as acts of worship, their theology is more premodern than postmodern. In light of this, what are the weaknesses of the pentecostal tradition? What are its blind spots?
wb: I think you’re right about Pentecostals’ sacramental approach to doing theology. Perhaps the biggest weakness is that the tradition can promote an anti-intellectualism. Now I don’t think the people that we’ve referenced here and our friends at sps are this way, but this exists as a temptation within the movement and other traditions like it.
There is also another potential pitfall. If we are not careful, interpretation can become highly subjective. The difference between pentecostal and main- line theologies is that the latter can be highly subjective while imagining that they are objective, and this without substance or content. Pentecostals are not the only ones who are susceptible to this type of subjectivity, but it appears to be an easy temptation for them.
bj: In terms of subjective religious experience, would you view Pentecostals as spiritual descendants of Schleiermacher?
wb:Yes. I too am a descendant of Schleiermacher through the Prussian Union. Tired of the fighting between the Lutherans and Calvinists, the King of Prussia forced these two groups into the same church in 1817. He called it the Prussian Union. This was three hundred years after Luther posted his theses in Witten- berg. This is my religious antecedent. When the first wave of German pastors from this tradition came to the u.s., they called themselves “Union Men.” This moniker signaled that they had no intent of subscribing to either Lutheran or Calvinist dogma.
As a professor at the University of Berlin, Schleiermacher was the godfa- ther of the Prussian Union. His emphasis on pietism provided a means for counteracting the dogmatic traditions that perpetuated quarrels in the Prus- sian Church. Though I was later drawn to the work of Barth, the influence of Schleiermacher on my tradition is significant.
Following that line of thought, it’s interesting to note that Eden Seminary, from which I graduated and at which I later taught, did not have a professor of
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
23
146
johnson
systematic theology until 1946. They saw no need to systematize theology. This illustrates how Schleiermacher mediates the link between Calvinism and my theological orientation.
bj: Does this explain your “soft” Calvinism?
wb: Yes, very much. Schleiermacher is the mediating link between Calvin and my theological position.
bj: With the attention they give to encountering and experiencing God, Pente- costals are in a way descendants of Schleiermacher. Rather than viewing them- selves as spiritual descendants of the magisterial Reformation, many trace their roots to the radical reformation and groups such as the Anabaptists, Moravians, Mennonites, and the likes of Müntzer, Spener, Franke, Wesley, and so forth.
wb: Yes, that’s a valid observation. Speaking of Wesley, I recently learned an interesting thing about him in a meeting with a group of academics. It was something I did not know.
England enacted legislation known as the “Laws of Enclosure” during Wes- ley’s lifetime. These laws allowed wealthy land owners to build walls around their land to keep the poor from collecting wood and their sheep from graz- ing on the land. Laws such as this are part of the roots of modern capitalism as we know it. Well, I then shared with the group that Karl Marx’s newspa- per, first published in 1845, was written to protest to these Laws of Enclo- sure.
Someone in the group responded by noting that the existence of the Laws of Enclosure was also a motivating factor for Wesley in his efforts to take the gospel to the poor. These laws had the effect of excluding and marginalizing them. This exclusionary dynamic still operates in our economy today. I shared all of that to say this: I found Wesley’s and Marx’s mutual interest in the marginalizing effects of the Laws of Enclosure to be quite interesting.
bj:There’saquestionthathasintriguedmeforsometime.Manyfolksareunaware that you have an Ed.D. Why did you pursue this, and how it has influenced your work/thinking as a scholar?
wb: I did that degree at St Louis University in the 1970s while I was teaching at Eden. During that time there was a wave of seminary closures across the country. As a result, I felt the need to pursue a vocational alternative for myself. So I did.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
24
on pentecostals and pentecostal theology
147
My focus was on educational foundations—the history and philosophy of education. For my thesis I wrote a history of Eden Seminary. I was able to trace the turns of the immigrant community around the Seminary through the years. It was an interesting academic experience for me.
As far as the specific scholars from this experience that influenced my thinking, I was influenced by Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. It was published around that time. In conjunction with that on the theology side was Gottwald’s Tribes of Yahweh, published in 1979. This book also influenced my thinking a great deal. In fact, the subtitle for my Old Testament Theology— Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy—came straight from Gottwald’s volume. This underscores how formative his book was for me.
Like myself, Gottwald was a student of Muilenburg’s at Union Seminary, a few years ahead of me. He’s since retired but is still writing in Stoney Point, New Jersey.
bj:TheemphasisonsocialjusticethatdefinestheworkofFreireandGottwaldcou- pledwithyourruminationsontheinfluenceofthesescholarsonyourownthinking lead me to reflect on how the institutional church in the West at times accommo- dates and even mirrors the social and economic oppression of the culture.
wb:That’s right! And this is why the pentecostal tradition is so important. Pen- tecostal theology bears witness to an alternative reality. It bears witness to an alternative, emancipatory narrative that stands in stark contrast to militarism, consumerism, and economic oppression found in the world. This exemplifies yet another point of intersection between my thinking and pentecostal theol- ogy.
bj: Walter, thank you. You’ve been generous with your time and forthcoming in your thoughts. While I have read many of your books, and heard you speak and interact with Pentecostals on multiple occasions, I have not heard you articulate your perceptions of Pentecostals, their theology, and your interactions with them. Hopefully, this interview will shed more light in these areas. I anticipate that these thoughts will be of interest to the pentecostal community. May this dialogue and the spirit that has defined it continue.
wb:Yes, you’re quite welcome.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 123–147
25
Leave a Reply