Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
brill.com/pneu
Practicing the Passion of Pentecost
Re-envisioning Pentecostal Eschatology through the Anatheistic
Sacramentality of Richard Kearney
Monte Lee Rice | orcid: 0000-0002-2237-819X
Asia Pacific Theological Seminary, Singapore, Singapore
monterice@gmail.com
Abstract
Scholars are steadily situating pentecostal studies within the embodiment turn, recognizing its foci as imperative to ongoing twenty-first-century pentecostal/charismatic
studies. Yet this enjoins greater movement beyond the earlier “linguistic turn,” which
too often overlooked the crucial perspectival role of human flesh. For from the horizons of incarnation and Pentecost, Christian faith propagates God’s turn toward flesh.
This suggest that pentecostal spirituality generates an eschatological urgency. Fostering this “urgency” into the twenty-first century, however, requires recasting its source
and expression within pentecostal spirituality. Drawing from Acts 2:17 (“I will pour
out my Spirit on all flesh”), this essay explores how this turn to the flesh might aptly
ground and generate eschatological fervor. Doing so, however, exposes deficiencies
with pentecostal sacramentality, recognizing links between it and eschatology. The
essay addresses this by engaging Kearney’s “anatheistic sacramentality.” It concludes
with several implications with particular attention to the violent tragedy of world
hunger.
Keywords
Acts – embodiment – eschatology – hospitality – Pentecost – Richard Kearney –
sacramentality – violence
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/15700747-bja10015
Downloaded from
Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
44
1
rice
Introduction
Across academic fields, contemporary scholarship exhibits an increasing turn
to issues of embodiment and how this methodically factors within a given
research scope.1 Conversely, scholars are steadily situating pentecostal studies
within this turn. For the bodily kinesthetic qualities, ritual expressions, and tactile practices of Pentecostalism convincingly demonstrate that embodiment
issues are imperative foci to ongoing twenty-first-century pentecostal/charismatic studies.2 Moreover, studies have observed in these an efficacy toward
shalomic flourishing.3 For notwithstanding its failings, world Pentecostalism
at its best—insofar as its varied discourse communities discursively will themselves toward Pentecost as their “core theological symbol”4—demonstrates a
unique vision grounded in an “eschatological orientation to mission and justice” for a more equitably flourishing world order.5
I have thus far tersely specified the promising potential of pentecostal embodiment for our century and beyond. But in view of the painful realities of
racism and race-based populist nationalism that over these past years significantly haunts both popular and scholarly discourse worldwide, I find myself
increasingly drawn to Willie James Jennings’s watershed thesis about a “diseased social imagination,” spawned from the former Western colonialist era,
that has sense plagued modern Christianity, specifically impending practiced
theologies of embodied flourishing that robustly envision the saving promise of
Pentecost.6 More pointedly, a “racialized” construal of human “bodies” effect-
1 Cognitive science is highly influential, for it establishes a thorough mutual causality between
the body and mind; Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr., Embodiment and Cognitive Science (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005), 1–13; Mark Johnson, Embodied Mind, Meaning, and Reason: How Our Bodies Give Rise to Understanding (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
2017), 1–34.
2 Michael Wilkinson and Peter Althouse, eds., Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion, vol. 8:
Pentecostals and the Body (Leiden: Brill, 2017). Especially note the essays by Wilkinson and
Althouse, “Social Theory, Religion and the Body,” 1–14 (2) and Michael Wilkinson, “Pentecostalism, the Body, and Embodiment,” 17–35 (17–21).
3 Later in this essay I shall reference relevant research when reviewing Wolfgang Vondey’s work
on pentecostal sacramentality.
4 Wolfgang Vondey, Pentecostal Theology: Living the Full Gospel (London: Bloomsbury, 2017), 1,
11–12, 283–291.
5 James K.A. Smith, Speaking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 41–43, 44–46, 60–61; Vondey, Pentecostal Theology, 119–121,
201, 216–220.
6 Willie James Jennings, The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 6–7, 265–271, 289–294; Jennings, “Theology and Race,”
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
practicing the passion of pentecost
45
ing anaemic visions of flourishing, discursively rampant throughout the global
apparatus of Christian theological discourse through its historically seminated,
normalizing ideology of “whiteness” as a universal telos of human salvation.7
Herein moreover, Jennings argues, lies the primary root to an array of destructive forces (for example, racism, sexism, patriarchy, nationalism, poverty, planetary exploitation, and so forth) that violently characterize our world today.8
I must therefore also stress how varied contemporary vicissitudes are freshly
awakening many of us to their deeply entrenched, formative power operating within world Christianity; indelibly consequent, as Jennings well demonstrates, to the historic “colonialist moment” of former European imperialist,
hegemonically-willed expansion worldwide.9 With Jennings, however, I must
stress that this anemia cannot be simply registered as solely a Western or
Anglo/European matter, as the earlier “colonial moment” and ongoing process of globalization have indelibly formed local expressions of Christian life
and theology worldwide.10 Yet more pointedly, my concern is how world Pentecostalism must conversely labor through this inferred task of decolonization, insofar and howsoever its vision of Pentecost also pathologically suffers through the aftermath of Western colonialism and its consequent Whiteness ideologies11 that formidably fuels patriarchally rooted will(s) to hege-
7
8
9
10
11
in The Routledge Companion to Modern Christian Thought, ed. Chad Meister and James
Beilby (London: Routledge, 2013), 783–794 (794).
Jennings, The Christian Imagination, 6–7, 241–249, 285–286, 293–294; “Theology and Race,”
786–789, 792; Jennings, “Can White People Be Saved? Reflections on the Relationship of
Missions and Whiteness,” in Can ‘White’ People Be Saved? Triangulating Race, Theology, and
Mission, ed. Love L. Sechrest, Johnny Ramírez-Johnson, and Amos Yong (Downers Grove:
ivp Academic, 2018), 27–43 (28–32, 38). As an ongoing fallout of Western colonialism, I
define “Whiteness” as social/political structures that continue producing realities of: 1.
raced-based privilege, specifically, those of “White”-race descent; and 2. systemic racism
embedded within those structures. A third facet I would add is that the culture of Whiteness strives to assimilate and thus “normalize” non-Whites within its idealized culture of
White European heritage. For a similar definition, see Johnny Ramírez-Johnson and Love
L. Sechrest, “Introduction: Race and Missiology in Glocal Perspective,” in Can ‘White’ People Be Saved? 1–24 (12–14).
Jennings, The Christian Imagination, 292–293; Jennings, “Can White People Be Saved?,” 28.
Jennings, The Christian Imagination, 8; Jennings, “Theology and Race,” 784.
Jennings, “Theology and Race,” 792.
Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 166–170; Anderson, Spreading Fires: The Missionary Nature of Early Pentecostalism (London: scm Press, 2007), 5–8, 31–32; Chris Green,
“The Spirit that Makes Us (Number) One: Racism, Tongues, and the Evidences of Spirit
Baptism,” Pneuma 41 (2019): 397–420 (402–409); Nimi Wariboko and Bill Oliverio, “American Pentecostalism, the 8:46 Moment, and the covid-19 Pandemic,” Pneuma 42 (2020):
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
46
rice
monic power that discursively shapes global theological discourse(s),12 and
violence against women worldwide.13 We should thus acknowledge that the
“colonial aftermath” that plagues Christianity indelibly shapes local Christian expressions worldwide through the sheer discursive power of global networks that rhizomatically structure contemporary world Christianity; including world Pentecostalism.
For such a time as this, there is, therefore, much we must mine from Jennings’s work. Though in this essay I particularly attend to three crucially integrated dynamics descriptive of pentecostal spirituality that we must assess on
our way to a postcolonial vison and practice of Pentecost; namely, embodiment, sacramentality, and eschatology. For these reasons, I fully concur with
Wolfgang Vondey, who has recently argued that, notwithstanding the intrinsic risks of hegemonically willed power plays for ideological dominance within
global theological discourse, we must nonetheless pursue the difficult and too
often failed task of articulating some form of a globally funded, theological “tradition,” “identity,” and practiced discourse that can normalize healthier visions,
pathways, and practices of Pentecost.14
Notwithstanding the challenges I have briefly described, I therefore believe
that as an embodied religious movement, world Pentecostalism comprises
uniquely efficacious powers for fostering global healing and shalomic flourishing, though contingent to fostering visions of Pentecost that evoke a practiced
eschatology for materializing the eschaton through actions willed toward hospitably embracing human differentiation. While acknowledging its horrific failures, world Pentecostalism can and should narrate how the shalomic potential
of embodied practices within any Christian or religious tradition is contingent
on how well these practices counter hostility against human alterity, by materializing in daily mundane life the embracing hospitality of God’s kingdom.
12
13
14
169–174 (169–171). We might also rope in here the role contemporary Pentecostalism has
played thus far within “Christian Trumpism” worldwide. See, for instance, Leah Payne and
Erica Ramirez, “The Christian sect that has always cheered on Donald Trump,”
The Washington Post, March 21, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made‑by
‑history/wp/2018/03/21/the‑christian‑sect‑that‑has‑always‑cheered‑on‑donald‑trump/
(accessed January 13, 2021); Erica Ramirez and Leah Payne, “President Trump’s hidden religious base: Pentecostal-charismatic celebrities,” Religion News Service (August 27, 2020),
https://religionnews.com/2020/08/27/president‑trumps‑rnc‑religious‑base‑pentecostal
‑charismatic‑kari‑jobe‑paula‑white/ (accessed January 13, 2021).
Wolfgang Vondey, “Pentecostalism as a Theological Tradition: An Ideological, Historical,
and Institutional Critique,” Pneuma 42 (2021); 521–535 (532–533).
Linda M. Ambrose and Kimberly Alexander, “Pentecostal Studies Face the #MeToo Movement,” Pneuma 41 (2019): 1–7 (2–3).
Vondey, “Pentecostalism as a Theological Tradition,” 535.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
practicing the passion of pentecost
47
Yet I would also wager that this direction enjoins greater movement beyond
the earlier “linguistic turn,” particularly within hermeneutical philosophy and
its predominant attention to “texts” as signifiers beyond the concrete.15 For too
often, this signified a shift from the crucial perspectival role of sensately functioning human flesh.16 More specifically, the past “linguistic turn to the text”
too often comprised “a turning away from the flesh—in practice if not in principle.”17 For from the horizon of incarnation, Christian faith propagates God’s
turn toward flesh: “the Word became flesh.”18 Thereby the Spirit of God incarnates the eschaton, making phenomenologically present the kingdom of God.19
Appropriating these trajectories suggests that at its best, pentecostal spirituality generates an eschatological urgency (what Steven Land famously called
a “passion for the kingdom”),20 thereby materializing the eschaton through its
public acts of service. Yet I also share Daniel Castelo’s sentiment that given the
delayed Parousia, doctrinally funded as it was by earlier “end-time” dispensationalist-rooted schemes, fostering this “urgency” into the twenty-first century
requires that we theologically “recast” its source within pentecostal spirituality
and what our “eschatological expectation ought to look like.”21
Drawing inspiration from the eschatologically framed promise of Acts 2:17—
“I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh”, giving us prophesy, vision, and dreams—I
therefore suggest we consider how this return to the flesh might aptly ground
and generate our eschatological fervor. I find a promising orientation through
sacramental sensibilities that we can discern within the ethical-phenomenological and materialist-ontic concerns of post-continental philosophy of religion. In fact, we can situate these concerns and the embodiment turn within a
broader sacramentality that twenty-first century scientific cosmology is evok15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Richard Kearney and Brian Treanor, “Introduction: Carnal Hermeneutics from Head to
Foot,” in Carnal Hermeneutics, ed. Richard Kearney and Brian Treanor (New York: Fordham
University Press, 2015), 1–11 (10); Richard Kearney, “The Wager of Carnal Hermeneutics,” in
Carnal Hermeneutics, 15–56 (17, 46).
Kearney, “The Wager of Carnal Hermeneutics,” 49, 59.
Kearney, “The Wager of Carnal Hermeneutics,” 17.
John Panteleimon Manoussakis, “On the Flesh of the Word: Incarnational Hermeneutics,”
in Carnal Hermeneutics, 306–315 (306–307).
Manoussakis, “The Promise of the New and the Tyranny of the Same,” in Phenomenology
and Eschatology: Not Yet in the Now, ed. Neal DeRoo and John Panteleimon Manoussakis
(Surrey: Ashgate, 2009), 69–89 (72–76, 84).
Steven Jack Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom, JPTSup 1 (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1993; Cleveland: cpt Press, 2010), 23–24, 120, 164–167, 172–178, 219–
220.
Daniel Castelo, Revisioning Pentecostal Ethics: The Epicletic Community (Cleveland: cpt
Press, 2011), 111.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
48
rice
ing and thus further substantiates toward the growing problematic yet kairotic
promise of pentecostal eschatological passion. In this essay I am thus suggesting what I believe is a promising philosophical foray toward theologically
constructing a pentecostal practiced eschatology, oriented toward materializing, through our embodied acts of witness, the embracing hospitality of God’s
kingdom.
This argued turn toward the flesh, moreover, wields greater moral import
toward addressing from within the passion of pentecostal eschatological expectation the twenty-first-century problematics of global violence and suffering toward human alterity. For example, with help from Levinasian-Derridean
philosophical reflection,22 pentecostal scholarship has substantially retrieved
from the imagery of “Pentecost” its implicit motifs of God’s affirming hospitality toward human differentiation. Yet thus far, it has given lesser weight to how
or why such discussions warrant attention to its implications toward human
suffering and violence, particularly noting how both Emmanuel Levinas and
Jacques Derrida posited hospitality and violence as integrated phenomena,
given that opportunity for hospitable action comprises a dual risk toward violence.23
Crucial to their respective works was their shared conviction that inscribed
on human faces, particularly those destitute, vulnerable, or in diasporic conditions (exemplified by the Torah’s quadric reference to the “poor, widow, orphan,
and ‘stranger’”), is the divine command to “not kill,” but welcome.24 So we
might say that “violence” begins whenever we engage some form of “defac-
22
23
24
Frank D. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 187; Amos Yong, Hospitality and the Other: Pentecost, Christian Practices, and
the Neighbor (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2008), xiii–xv, 56–59, 105–121; Daniela C. Augustine,
Pentecost, Hospitality, and Transfiguration: Toward a Spirit-inspired Vision of Social Transformation (Cleveland: cpt Press, 2012), 18–20, 44–45, 65–72; 123–124; 145–148; Augustine,
The Spirit and the Common Good: Shared Flourishing in the Image of God (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2019), 49–51, 58–60.
Granted, Augustine, who directly addresses problems of actual fleshy involved, human
violence, is an exception; The Spirit and the Common Good (chap. 2, “From the Iconoclasm of Violence to Love as the Life of the New Creation”), 61–120. See Jacques Derrida, Of
Hospitality: Anne Dufourmantelle Invites Jacques Derrida to Respond, trans. Rachel Bowlby
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), 55; Derrida, “Hospitality,” trans. Gil Anidjar, in
Jacques Derrida, Acts of Religion, ed. and trans. Gil Anidjar (New York: Routledge, 2002),
358–420 (359–362).
Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, trans. Alphonso Lingis
(The Hague: Martinus Hijhoff, 1979), 215; Levinas, Difficult Freedom: Essays on Judaism,
trans. Seán Hand (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1997), 9, 18; Derrida, “Hospitality,” 363, 365.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
49
practicing the passion of pentecost
ing” a person or people; that is, when by not seeing them having a “face” like
ours calling for “our moral recognition,” we thus diagnose them “as a threat”
to our existence.25 So we might ask ourselves, is there more to what these
“faces” signify before us—whether they be geographically near or far—than,
as hermeneutical reflection too often primarily nuances, “traces of transcendence” or metaphysical truths? For as Roman Catholic continental philosopher
Richard Kearney stresses, these “faces” are never merely “textual signifiers” but,
rather, “living sensible flesh,” from which the possibility of divine incarnation
actually gestures, calling us to loving action,26 materializing the kingdom of
God.
Therefore, through this essay, I will raise some further problematics with
pentecostal “eschatological urgency” that I find linked to deficiencies with the
tradition’s sacramentality. Thereafter, I will further develop my proposed orientation by retrieving, from Kearney’s sacramental envisioning of continental
philosophy of religion, his “anatheistic sacramentality,” particularly drawing on
two crucial elements—namely, Kearney’s “diacritical hermeneutics” and then
his “micro-eschatology.” I will then conclude with several implications, particularly appropriating this re-envisioning of pentecostal eschatology to the violent
tragedy of world hunger. I thus hope to establish here a promising philosophical
resource for theologically constructing a pentecostal practiced eschatology oriented toward materializing, through our embodied acts of witness, the embracing hospitality of God’s kingdom.
2
Problems of Pentecostal Eschatological Urgency
and Sacramentality
As a caveat, I must stress that in view of the historic context I surveyed earlier,
I do not correlate this assessment of pentecostal eschatological urgency with
world Pentecostalism altogether, but with particular eschatological visions—
25
26
William H. Smith, “Neither Close nor Strange: Levinas, Hospitality, and Genocide,” in Phenomenologies of the Stranger: Between Hostility and Hospitality, ed. Richard Kearney and
Kascha Semonovitch (New York: Fordham University Press, 2011), 242–257 (252). Augustine thus suggests we define violence as “an iconoclastic … denial of the divine face in its
incarnate proximity,” beginning with our “refusal to recognize the other’s humanity”; The
Spirit and the Common Good, 66.
Kearney, “Epiphanies of the Everyday: Toward a Micro-Eschatology,” in After God: Richard
Kearney and the Religious Turn in Continental Philosophy, ed. John Panteleimon Manoussakis (New York: Fordham University Press, 2006), 3–20 (6).
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
50
rice
namely, those rooted in past Anglo/European colonialist-era-funded theological trajectories—that overly construe Christian salvation as primarily a matter
of post-mortem afterlife. For example, we must acknowledge that throughout
its history, world Afro-Pentecostalism substantially escapes my critique. For
whether we look at Black theology, African-American Pentecostalism, Black
African Pentecostalism on the African continent, or its diasporic expressions
elsewhere in the world, we could amply characterize these as showing forth
visions of eschatology that orientate Christian salvation as very much, teologically, this-worldly oriented.27 So as I have therefore earlier discussed, we
may root the problems I am raising in, as Jennings stresses, the “colonialist
moment”–rooted Christian imagining of flourishing28 that has funded anemically “deformed” doctrines of creation, soteriology, reconciliation, and mission.29 And as I am particularly arguing, by way of his labor toward a better
vision of Pentecost,30 this has thus caused anemic notions of embodiment,
sacramentality, and eschatology.31
Having established my preceding caveat, I can now say that to the problem
of pentecostal eschatological urgency I find an apt entry point through David
Perry’s phenomenological study on how the pentecostal experience of Spirit
baptism has effectually caused pentecostal mission and ministry worldwide.32
27
28
29
30
31
32
Frederick L. Ware, “On the Compatibility/Incompatibility of Pentecostal Premillennialism
with Black Liberation Theology,” in Afro-Pentecostalism: Black Pentecostal and Charismatic
Christianity in History and Culture, ed. Amos Yong and Estrelda Y. Alexander (New York:
New York University Press, 2011), 191–206 (193–197, 200–201); J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu,
“Pentecostalism and the Transformation of the African Christian Landscape,” in Pentecostalism in Africa: Presence and Impact of Pneumatic Christianity in Postcolonial Societies,
ed. Martin Lindhart, Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 15 (Leiden: Brill, 2015),
100–114 (107–109); J. Ayodeji Adewuya, “Constructing an African Pentecostal Eschatology:
Which Way?” in Perspectives in Pentecostal Eschatologies: World without End, ed. Peter Althouse and Robby Waddell (Eugene: Pickwick Publications; Wipf & Stock, 2010), 361–374
(366–368).
Jennings, The Christian Imagination, 6–7, 293–294; Jennings, “Theology and Race,” 788–
789; Jennings, “Can White People Be Saved?,” 27–43 (28–29).
Jennings, The Christian Imagination, 9–10, 93, 112–114. 143–145, 165–168, 232–233, 245–249,
250–251.
Jennings, The Christian Imagination, 10–11, 265–268, 270–271, 286–288, 291–293.
Amos Yong similarly appropriates Jennings’s analysis to problems with pentecostal construals of salvation and eschatology in his essay “Conclusion: Mission after Colonialism
and Whiteness: The Pentecost Witness of the ‘Perpetual Foreigner’ for the Third Millennium,” in Can ‘White’ People Be Saved?, 301–317 (302, 306, 317).
David Perry, Spirit Baptism: The Pentecostal Experience in Theological Focus (Leiden: Brill,
2017), 176.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
51
practicing the passion of pentecost
Pentecostalism commonly conceptualizes this link through reference to Acts
1:8, positing Spirit baptism as an “empowerment for ministry.”33 Perry argues,
however, that the past several decades of the tradition’s “shifting eschatology”
logically challenges this effectual meaning.34 For its “eschatological expectation” toward the imminent return of Christ35 that has largely framed this effectual cause has steadily diminished36 via factors such as pentecostal upward
socioeconomic mobility, increasing affluence,37 and the cognitive difficulty of
indefinite expectation of Christ’s immediate return.38
Against this framing, Perry proposes that we rather frame the effectual
meaning of the pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism within the rubric of
God’s love poured into us through the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5), thereby effecting
mission and ministry.39 While I strongly affirm his effectual link, for many reasons I do not believe we should separate the substance of God’s love from the
historic notion of “eschatological expectation.” For example, I think Frank Macchia effectively captures this integration by casting Spirit baptism as “a baptism
into divine love”40 while tightly correlating the eschatological movement of
God’s kingdom breaking in through Spirit baptism, as virtually concomitant
to the outpouring of God’s love.41
I therefore believe that Castelo provides a more appropriate direction, suggesting that, rather than displacing the effectual role of pentecostal “eschatological expectation,” our present historic task is theologically recasting what
this should look like.42 By mining the traditional pentecostal imagery of “tarrying,”43 he proposes we temper our “urgency” with the broader “Christian virtue
of patience.”44 Yet while I affirm this, I suggest instead a recasting not to temper but rather to foster our sense of urgency. I thus suggest we consider how we
might draw our eschatological passion from discerning how and where God’s
kingdom and hence the commissioning presence of Christ our coming king,
is breaking into our present time—sacramentally. More specifically, propheti33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Perry, Spirit Baptism, 150, 157.
Perry, Spirit Baptism, 159, 161, 176.
Perry, Spirit Baptism, 152–159, 176.
Perry, Spirit Baptism, 159.
Perry, Spirit Baptism, 159–161.
Perry, Spirit Baptism, 160–161.
Perry, Spirit Baptism, 176.
Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 258.
Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 259–261, 269–272.
Castelo, Revisioning Pentecostal Ethics, 111.
Castelo, Revisioning Pentecostal Ethics, 28.
Castelo, Revisioning Pentecostal Ethics, 112.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
52
rice
cally envisioning moments that the kingdom sacramentally materializes, as we
responsively act before bodily spheres of human and creational suffering.
This “recasting” builds on the amply explored notion of pentecostal “sacramentality,” a term historically derived from the contemporary Roman Catholic
affirmation that prior to the sacraments, creation incarnationally discloses the
risen Christ and God’s kingdom, when humanly recognized.45 Chris Green and
Wolfgang Vondey respectively evidence the most comprehensive effort toward
a pentecostal theology of sacramentality. In a 2010 jointly written essay, they
argued how the concept well describes pentecostal perceptions of and engagement with reality. Following James K.A. Smith’s earlier work, they characterized
this as “surrealistic,” suggesting a “manifoldness” to all realities, thus enjoining
not singularly intellective but affectively rooted epistemologies for comprehension.46 Green later published his book, Toward a Pentecostal Theology of the
Lord’s Supper: Forecasting the Kingdom, which in many ways remains the most
singularly focused monograph on pentecostal sacramentality.47 For the purpose of this discussion, the main value of Vondey’s and Green’s essay and the
latter’s work on a pentecostal theology of the Lord’s Supper is that both strongly
stress how pentecostal spirituality accentuates the eschatological substance of
sacramentality and liturgical practices, particularly the Eucharist, and thereby
the “corporeal nature of eschatology.”48
Reflecting on the Acts 2 phenomena,49 along with pentecostal liturgical practices commonly observed worldwide through phenomenological
studies,50 Vondey suggests we define pentecostal sacramentality as “manifestation of the Spirit that leads toward, makes possible, and carries further the
45
46
47
48
49
50
K.W. Irwin, “Sacramental Theology,” in The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., vol. 12, ed.
Thomas Carson and Joann Cerrito (Washington: Catholic University of America Press,
2003), 465–479 (473); Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium
48–51, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat‑ii
_const_19651118_dei‑verbum_en.html# (accessed June 16, 2016).
Wolfgang Vondey and Chris W. Green, “Between This and That: Reality and Sacramentality in the Pentecostal Worldview,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 19 (2010): 243–264 (244,
247–248, 256); see Smith, Speaking in Tongues, 80–85.
Chris E.W. Green, Toward a Pentecostal Theology of the Lord’s Supper: Forecasting the Kingdom (Cleveland: cpt Press, 2012).
Vondey and Green, “Between This and That,” 258–260, 263–264; Green, Toward a Pentecostal Theology of the Lord’s Supper, 272–277, 286–288.
Vondey, “Pentecostal Sacramentality and the Theology of the Altar,” in Scripting Pentecost:
A Study of Pentecostals, Worship and Liturgy, ed. Mark J. Cartledge and A.J. Swoboda (London: Routledge, 2017), 94–107 (98).
Vondey, “Pentecostal Sacramentality,” 95; Vondey, “Embodied Gospel: The Materiality of
Pentecostal Theology,” in Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion, 102–119 (103).
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
practicing the passion of pentecost
53
meeting of the human being with God.”51 He posits that chief among these
practices is the pentecostal practice of coming to the “altar” expecting a transforming human-divine encounter.52
From Vondey’s and Green’s respective efforts, we can observe value yet limitations to pentecostal sacramental sensibilities. Positively, pentecostal sacramentality attributes an efficacious role to the worshiper’s bodily actions within
the sacramental environment of pentecostal worship. In pentecostal spirituality, the physicality of the gathered community through bodily involvement
constitutes its implicit sacramentality.53 Hence, while implicitly presuming a
sacramental understanding of creation,54 I think we might say that pentecostal
sacramentality primarily describes their vision of congregational worship as a
“sacramental environment” that emerges from its intensely “embodied spirituality.”55 So regarding the mediating role of materiality, pentecostal sacramentality accentuates the mediative role of human embodiment and actions and
their potential efficacy toward mediating spiritual realities.56 Past and ongoing
empirical research confirms this, consistently suggesting that these practices
comprise efficacious and formative outcomes.57 It thus also accentuates the
epicletic invocation of the Spirit on the community gathered for an expected
divine-human encounter.58
Negatively, in contrast to more explicitly avowed sacramental traditions that
more readily perceive sacramentality operative throughout creation, discussions on pentecostal sacramentality, including the works of Vondey and Green
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Vondey, “Pentecostal Sacramentality,” 102.
Vondey, “Pentecostal Sacramentality,” 95, 99–102; Vondey, Pentecostal Theology, 30–31.
Vondey, “Pentecostal Sacramentality,” 103.
James K.A. Smith, Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 61, 99; Castelo, “Mediation and the Pentecostal Experience of God,” in Pentecostal Theology and Ecumenical Theology: Interpretations and Intersections, ed. Peter Hocken, Tony L. Richie, and Christopher A. Stephenson (Leiden: Brill,
2019), 180–199 (193–194).
Daniel Tomberlin, Pentecostal Sacraments: Encountering God at the Altar, rev. ed. (Centre
for Pentecostal Theology: Cherohala Press, 2015), 59.
Vondey thus argues that pentecostal spirituality operates from and suggests a highly materialist soteriology stemming from its radically embodied liturgical practices; “Pentecostal
Sacramentality,” 98–101; Vondey, “Embodied Gospel,” in Annual Review of the Sociology of
Religion, 102–103, 114; Vondey, Pentecostal Theology, 18, 28, 30–32, 51, 114.
Martin Lindhardt, “Introduction,” in Practicing the Faith: The Ritual Life of PentecostalCharismatic Christians, ed. Martin Lindhardt (New York: Berghahn Books, 2011), 1–48 (1);
Joel Robbins, “The Obvious Aspects of Pentecostalism: Ritual and Pentecostal Globalization,” in Practicing the Faith, 49–67 (51, 65).
Vondey, “Pentecostal Sacramentality,” 101; see also Castelo, Revisioning Pentecostal Ethics,
22.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
54
rice
I have reviewed earlier, consistently restrict it primarily if not exclusively to
the topic of worship settings. I thus pose the question, might it therefore be
possible that this restriction significantly gestures why Pentecostals have historically prioritized evangelistically oriented endeavors over such endeavors
as social/societal justice, cultural development, and creational/earth care—
hence, endeavors that broader notions of sacramentality naturally evoke?59
As Perry assessed, Pentecostals have usually, cognitively correlated their
eschatological “urgency” to doctrinal belief in a rapture of the church out of
the world just prior to the Lord’s return. This expectancy has thus usually prioritized evangelistic and missionary endeavors (though I would qualify both
as oriented toward the aim of church planting) over concerns for social/societal justice and activism, notwithstanding the tradition’s impact within these
spheres.60 Notwithstanding that pentecostal soteriology is highly materialistic,
aiming toward physical healing and thus bodily flourishing,61 in many ways,
like their Evangelical counterparts, Pentecostals have tended to cognitively
understand ‘salvation’ experience as preparatory for “future other-worldly postmortem existence” rather than as bodily flourishing within present life.62
As Yong notes, we can especially see this within the “therapeutic existentialism” significantly operative within typical contemporary pentecostal/charismatic “praise and worship” worldwide. For, on one hand, this far too often
functions as a “feel good” sedative pitched toward the “affective domain.”63
I say “sedative” to stress that the problem is not its affective orientation per
se, for this is certainly crucial to the nature and aims of Christian music and
worship practices,64 but rather, following James K.A. Smith’s definition of liturgies as “pedagogies of ultimate desire,”65 its lack of telos toward shaping within
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Mathai Kadavil, The World as Sacrament: Sacramentality of Creation from the Perspectives
of Leonardo Boff, Alexander Schmemann and Saint Ephrem (Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 86,
306–307.
Perry, Spirit Baptism, 164–166.
Vondey, Pentecostal Theology, 114–121.
Wayne Morris, Salvation as Praxis: A Practical Theology of Salvation for a Multi-Faith World
(London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 42, 44.
Yong, “Improvisation, Indigenization, and Inspiration: Theological Reflections on the
Sound and Spirit of Global Renewal,” in The Spirit of Praise: Music and Worship in Global
Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity, ed. Monique M. Ingalls and Amos Yong (University
Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2015), 279–288 (282).
On its positive integral role see Peter Althouse and Michael Wilkinson, “Musical Bodies in
the Charismatic Renewal: The Case of Catch the Fire and Soaking Prayer,” in The Spirit of
Praise, 29–44 (33–36).
James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation, vol. 1,
Cultural Liturgies (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2009), 24–25, 53, 86–87.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
practicing the passion of pentecost
55
worshipers important theological foci regarding the mission of God within creation. On the other hand, Yong stresses that far worse is how the contemporary
praise and worship industry and consuming market thereby fosters a “debilitating otherworldliness that disempowers Christian engagement with the present
world and its challenges.”66
Meanwhile, Perry also notes the growing dissonance that Pentecostals face
toward maintaining the effectual links among Spirit baptism, eschatological
urgency, and evangelistic/missionary action, thus transitioning to a more “inaugurated eschatology of the kingdom of God.”67 Arguably, these developments
are tightening the evangelistic and social/societal justice poles of pentecostal
ministry.68 Vondey also addresses this dissonance through his notion of “eschatological practices,” defined as church “practices” for enacting its mission to
“transform the world.”69 He argues that while other traditions express these,
Pentecostalism grants them an “eschatological intensification” expressed
through “apocalyptic urgency,” also believing that God accompanies them with
miraculous “manifestations” of the Spirit’s outpouring, signaling the inbreaking
of God’s kingdom.70 He notes, too, how Pentecostals are increasingly engaging
ministry endeavors attending to present-life bodily flourishing,71 adding that
their “apocalyptic vision” can effectually foster this aim.72
But Vondey ultimately returns to the same impasse diagnosed by Castelo and
Perry, namely, the steady waning of pentecostal “apocalyptic urgency” given the
seeming delay of the Parousia according to earlier dispensationalist schemes of
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Yong, “Conclusion,” in The Spirit of Praise, 282. For helpful analysis on how today’s culture
industry formidably drives the preceding comments on contemporary Christian praise
and worship music, see Dave Perkins, “Music, Culture Industry, and the Shaping of Charismatic Worship: An Autobiographical/Conversational Engagement,” in The Spirit of Praise,
230–246 (230, 232, 243–244). Nimi Wariboko also attends to how “late capitalism” thereby
interpellates the Christian worship industry for the aims of inculcating consumer compliancy to its profit-making aims; The Split God: Pentecostalism and Critical Theory (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 2018), 113–120, 128, 130–131; see also Smith, Desiring the
Kingdom, 24–25, 93–110. N.T. Wright helpfully discusses how this otherworldliness shapes
popular notions of “heaven” in manners theologically opposed to its material implications,
in Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church
(New York: HarperOne, 2008), 16–26.
Perry, Spirit Baptism, 160–162.
Perry, Spirit Baptism, 161–167.
Vondey, Pentecostal Theology, 136.
Vondey, Pentecostal Theology, 137; also 148–151.
Vondey, Pentecostal Theology, 139–141.
Vondey, Pentecostal Theology, 148.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
56
rice
eschatology.73 Thus we come back to the question on whether “eschatological
expectation” and “urgency” are effectually and constitutively integral to pentecostal spirituality. I have been arguing that it is, though our contemporary
setting enjoins us rather toward a more carnal grounding of our “eschatological urgency.”
3
Sacramental Sensibilities in Post-Continental Philosophy
of Religion
Therefore, my suggested recasting of pentecostal eschatological fervor carnally grounds it and its resultant practices on the very promise of Pentecost:
Spirit immanentizing flesh. As earlier noted, I find a promising philosophical orientation for funding this move in the sacramental sensibilities of the
post-continental philosophy of religion. I should thus note that this argued reenvisioning of eschatological urgency represents one argued trajectory within
the presently increasing development of pentecostal philosophy and thick
philosophically funded theological methodologies within pentecostal studies.74 But I have been observing that with the exception of Nimi Wariboko’s
increasing effectiveness toward popularizing the critical and ethical import
of continental philosophy,75 this development presently exemplifies a decidedly North American orientation toward analytic philosophy, striving to capitalize on its nuanced concerns for reasoned, cognitively-conceptual precision
and analysis.76 And as J. Aaron Simmons notes—with which I agree—thus far
“the vast majority of pentecostal philosophical work” is generally transfixed
within the defensive apologetical contours of “Plantinga-type Christian philosophy,” thereby perpetuating, I would argue, the colonialist-rooted malaise
that I have earlier summarized (Simmons indeed concludes how it reinforces
73
74
75
76
Vondey, Pentecostal Theology, 137.
Wariboko and Oliverio, “American Pentecostalism,” 172–173; J. Aaron Simmons, “Prospects
for Pentecostal Philosophy: Assessing the Challenges and Envisioning the Opportunities,”
Pneuma 42 (2020): 175–200 (176–177, 185–194).
Wariboko, The Split God: Pentecostalism and Critical Theory (Albany: State University of
New York Press, 2018); Wariboko, The Pentecostal Hypothesis: Christ Talks, They Decide
(Eugene: Cascade Books, 2020).
Note the essays that notably argue or at least suggest preference for the analytic rather
than continental tradition: Christopher A. Stephenson, “Should Pentecostal Theology be
Analytic Theology?” Pneuma 36 (2014): 246–264 (248–249, 258–264); Simmons, “Prospects
for Pentecostal Philosophy,” Pneuma, 188–194; Yoon Shin, “Confessing at the Altar: A Call
and Response,” Pneuma 42 (2020): 201–219 (216–219).
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
practicing the passion of pentecost
57
“the theological insularity that underwrites so much of our contemporary
social discourse”).77
Thus, contra this rather North American-sourced, analytic-Plantinganian
direction, I am pleading that the problematics I have thus far reviewed warrant significant turn toward (as Simmons rightly describes) the “embodied
material,” though I would add, critically ethical orientation of the continental
philosophy of religion.78 Following are several relevant descriptives. First, the
continental philosophy of religion labors toward “critical, phenomenological,
political, and cultural analyses of religious beliefs and practices” within human
life.79 It thus generally approaches theism or transcendence with respect to
embodied life and its vicissitudes.80 Among foundational influences, I find
most pertinent Levinas’s stress on ethical practice toward human alterity in
religion and Derrida’s justice orientation via his deconstructive methodology.81
Hence, its methodology has been generally phenomenological and its resultant
ethic oriented toward just practices toward human alterity.82
77
78
79
80
81
82
Simmons, “Prospects for Pentecostal Philosophy,” 194–195.
Simmons, “Prospects for Pentecostal Philosophy,” 192.
John D. Caputo, “Continental Philosophy of Religion,” in A Companion to Philosophy of
Religion, 2nd ed., ed. Charles Taliaferro, Paul Draper, and Philip L. Quinn (Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2010), 667–673 (667).
Eugene Thomas Long, “Self and Other: An Introduction,” in Self and Other: Essays in Continental Philosophy of Religion, ed. Eugene Thomas Long (Dordrecht: Springer, 2007), 1–7
(2).
Morny Joy, “Introduction,” in Continental Philosophy and Philosophy of Religion, ed. Morny
Joy, Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, vol. 4 (New York: Springer, 2011),
1–16 (3–4); Philip Goodchild, “Continental Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction,” in
Rethinking Philosophy of Religion: Approaches from Continental Philosophy, ed. Philip
Goodchild (New York: Fordham University Press, 2002), 1–39 (14, 19–22). I should point
out here that contrary to popularized but mistaken assumptions that Jacques Derrida’s
“deconstruction” concept and links between hospitality and violence are conclusively
nihilistic, I rather urge recognition that underwriting both themes was his drive toward
“justice”: hence, “Deconstruction is justice,” and justice is not deconstructible; Jacques
Derrida, “Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority,’” in Acts of Religion, ed.
Gil Anidjar (New York: Routledge, 2002), 230–298 (243); and “Hospitality,” 358–420 (361–
362). More specifically, then, driving these themes was Derrida’s impassioned urgency
toward fostering attention to human rights against the backdrop of global migration, while
proposing philosophical frameworks for negotiating global problematics of race/ethnic/
cultural-based violence against one another; Elisabeth Weber, “Introduction: Pleading
Irreconcilable Differences,” in Living Together: Jacques Derrida’s Communities of Violence
and Peace, ed. Elisabeth Weber (New York: Fordham University Press, 2013), 1–17. See also
Nicole Anderson, Derrida: Ethics under Erasure (London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2012), 1–2.
Clayton Crockett, B. Keith Putt, and Jeffrey W. Robbins, “Introduction: Back to the Future,”
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
58
rice
I draw the prefix “post” from John Mullarkey’s reference to a turn within
the tradition, signifying an increasing prioritizing of the “immanence” over
“transcendence” category, thus further accentuating focus on materiality and
embodiment.83 This trend thus also explains how we might understand “transcendence” operative within “immanence.”84 Yet the immanent turn thus
frames the embodiment turn within the emerging twenty-first-century cosmology that increasingly posits quantum-level, mutual causality between elements
of spirit, mind, and materiality, all existing in “mutual entanglement.”85 Physicist Karen Barad thus argues that “anachronistically” prior to our engagements
with living entities, this causality obliges us toward responsibly discerning our
best ethical actions, for “our (intra)actions matter—each one reconfigures the
world in its becoming.” Moreover, our “(intra)actions” thereby “become us.”86
To reiterate, our material movements always comprise ethically charged decision points and outcomes that either foster or hinder mutually just flourishing.87
83
84
85
86
87
in The Future of Continental Philosophy of Religion, ed. Clayton Crockett, B. Keith Putt, and
Jeffrey W. Robbins (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014), 1–18 (2). Brian Treanor
helpfully associates “otherness” with “similitude,” meaning aspects of things or others that
are in some ways “familiar or understandable to us,” and “alterity” with things or others
that are “unfamiliar, alien, or obscure” to us. Alterity thus refers to how encountering otherness presents us with new or unforeseen phenomena, and similitude refers to aspects
of otherness that we can understand more adequately or comfortably; Aspects of Alterity: Levinas, Marcel, and the Contemporary Debate (New York: Fordham University Press,
2006), 229. Treanor’s approach thus parallels Richard Kearney’s “diacritical hermeneutics,”
which I will soon discuss; 224.
John Mullarkey, Post-Continental Philosophy: An Outline (New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006), 1–2; see also Goodchild, “Continental Philosophy of
Religion,” 25–27; Patrice Haynes, Immanent Transcendence: Reconfiguring Materialism in
Continental Philosophy (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2012), 1–2.
John D. Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon, “Introduction: Do We Need to Transcend Transcendence,” in Transcendence and Beyond: A Postmodern Inquiry, ed. John D. Caputo and
Michael J. Scanlon (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007), 1–14 (7).
Karen Barad, Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning
(Durham: Duke University Press, 2007), ix, 33, 147, 152; Davies, Theology of Transformation:
Faith, Freedom, and the Christian Act (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 47–48. More
accurately, continental philosophy is increasingly suggesting a “non-reductive materialism” that appreciates concepts such as spirit and matter or mind and body as integrated
throughout; hence best described through the “paradoxical notion of immanent transcendence”; Haynes, Immanent Transcendence, 3. We might best, then, theologically appreciate
the “transcendent/immanent” pole as a heuristic device rather than actual “binary” poles;
Davies, “Holy Spirit and Mediation: Toward a Transformation Pneumatology,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 16, no. 2 (April 2014): 159–176 (160).
Barad, Halfway, 392, 394.
Barad thus defines responsibility as not a “commitment that a subject chooses but rather
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
59
practicing the passion of pentecost
4
Richard Kearney’s Anatheistic Sacramentality
Richard Kearney is widely recognized as one of the most inspiring and
respected early twenty-first-century voices in continental philosophy regarding its so-called “theological turn”88 and a sacramental turn within continental philosophy of religion.89 Since his 2010 book Anatheism: Returning to God
after God, we may sum up his key themes as “anatheistic sacramentality.”90
On one hand, Kearney’s project thus falls within the historic “death of God”
theological discourse, yet on the other it critically exemplifies a post–deathof-God trajectory, for—working from unique readings within radical Christian apophatic theology—it innovatively aims toward fresh ways of articulating theism (coupled with the notion of “sacredness”) beyond both commonly defined, atheistic (and agnostic) and metaphysically grounded theistic categories either “against” or “for” sacred divinity within today’s postShoah/secular/Christendom religiously pluralistic context.91 Briefly, Kearney
appreciates God as posse (“possibility of being”) rather than esse (“actuality
of being as fait accompli”) as being.92 Hence, he stresses that contingent to
the efficacy of God’s saving power or action toward suffering humanity and
creation is the human reply to the divine summons for responsible action.93
I thus feel that Kearney’s posse-grounded understanding of God actually resonates well with pentecostal sensibilities toward a deeply passible, immanently
88
89
90
91
92
93
an incarnate relation that precedes the intentionality of consciousness.” Hence, “an obligation which is anachronistically prior to every engagement” with other living creatures,
human or otherwise; Halfway, 392.
John Panteleimon Manoussakis, “Introduction,” in After God, xv–xx (xvi–xvii).
Kearney, “Epiphanies of the Everyday,” in After God, 362.
Kearney, Anatheism: Returning to God after God (New York: Columbia University Press,
2010), 3–7, 16.
Kearney, Anatheism, xiii–xiv, 16, 53–53, 58–61, 72–73; Kearney, “Preface,” in Reimagining
the Sacred: Richard Kearney Debates God, ed. Richard Kearney and Jens Zimmermann
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), vii–vii (xiii); Kearney, “Epilogue: In Guise of a
Response,” in Reimagining the Sacred, 240–249 (244, 248–250). Kearney more thoroughly
develops his “anatheistic” articulation of God in his earlier work, The God Who May Be: A
Hermeneutics of Religion (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001); see also Kearney,
“Enabling God,” in After God, 39–54 (45).
Kearney, The God Who May Be, 4; Kearney, “Enabling God,” 41–49.
Kearney, “Enabling God,” 40, 43–45, 53–54. For an excellent summary of Kearney’s thinking and its contemporary relevance as, moreover, a theistic apologetic, see Christina
M. Gschwandtner, “Richard Kearney: Postmodern Charity,” in Postmodern Apologetics?
Arguments for God in Contemporary Philosophy (New York: Fordham University Press,
2013), 265–286.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
60
rice
nuanced doctrine of God94 that appreciates the efficacious role of human
action in the divine cause toward creation.95
The prefix “ana” (“back again, anew”) signifies the return, after experiences
of loss, to one’s “primal experience” in newer, fuller, and forward-moving
epiphanic receptions.96 Kearney’s root issue is theistic: a “returning to God
after God.”97 He experiences this as a “loss of God” according to ontological
“omni-” descriptions,98 to a more phenomenologically ethically nuanced and
ontically grounded understanding of God.99 To use the Ricoeurian expression,
“anatheism” signifies a “second naïveté” by discovering “ourselves before God”
in new ways. More specifically, though retrieving yet crucially differing Levinas’s abstracted notion of the “face” (“prosopon”) as a “trace” of God, anatheism
discerns calling us through the “concretely enfleshed phenomenon” of “faces
from” before us, particularly through “strangers.”100
Now, given that I may represent the first fairly extended engagement with
Kearney’s work within pentecostal studies, let me more pointedly note now
how our contemporary setting warrants this retrieval, particularly given its
placement within the “death of God” discourse, which I also don’t think has
received much attention. Here I think the key foray is, as just mentioned, Kearney’s “ana”-nuanced conception of a “second naïveté” stressing the “retrieval”
of something lost but now re-found in some surprisingly new ways.101 Following the post-Shoah/theodical reflections of Jürgen Moltmann and Paul
Chung vis-à-vis Levinasian-Derridean discourse, this discussion references the
metaphor within our “late Capitalist” setting to the death God shares within
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
Samuel Solivan, The Spirit, Pathos and Liberation: Toward an Hispanic Pentecostal Theology, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 14 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1998), 54, 59–61, 149; Clark H. Pinnock, “Divine Rationality: A Pentecostal Contribution to the Doctrine of God,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 16 (2000): 3–26 (6–7, 13–16,
18–21); Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (London: T&T
Clark, 2008), 28–29, 33; Kenneth J. Archer, The Gospel Revisited: Toward a Pentecostal Theology of Worship and Witness (Eugene: Pickwick, 2011), 84, 91; Andrew J. Gabriel, The Lord Is
the Spirit: The Holy Spirit and the Divine Attributes (Eugene: Pickwick, 2011), 133f., 156–157;
Wariboko, The Split God, xvi–xix, 2–5, 10–11, 16, 72, 195–196.
Archer, The Gospel Revisited, 84–85; Wariboko, The Split God, 2, 4, 10–12, 71–73, 79–80, 107–
110, 116, 165, 168.
Kearney, Anatheism, 3.
Kearney, Anatheism, xvi, 3, 167.
Manoussakis describes these as “omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence” and their
produced “triumphalist teleologies” and “ideologies of power”; “Introduction,” xvi, xviii.
Kearney, “God after God: An Anatheist Attempt to Reimagine God,” in Reimagining the
Sacred, 6–18 (10).
Kearney, “Epiphanies of the Everyday,” in After God, 6–7.
Kearney, “Epiphanies of the Everyday,” 8, 12.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
practicing the passion of pentecost
61
violence toward and in solidarity with oppressed, excluded, or peripheralized
human alterity, consequent to the will-to-hegemony indelibly operative within
human civilizational progress.102 I thus establish warrant for this engagement
in response to, as I have earlier surveyed, all the contemporary vicissitudes
I have noted regarding our increasing grappling with historic Western colonialism in all its ongoing aftermath, coupled with how these interface, moreover, with the deepening problems with pentecostal eschatological passion and
sacramentality.
Though in many ways Kearney’s broader theological reinvisioning reaches
beyond orthodox Christian theism,103 let me stress that I especially find a compelling fittedness between his work and pentecostal studies through (according to Justin Sands’s assessment) his passionate grounding and engagement
“within biblical and theological texts” coupled with his evident aims not toward
replacing “traditional or orthodox belief” but, rather, at teasing out, I think, the
notion of divine summons to responsible action toward “Otherness and alterity” that oftentimes gets “obscured” through more mainstream conceptions of
Christian theism.104 Particularly when esse takes precedence over posse toward
the topic of establishing the role of human action within the healing mission of
God. I believe this essay’s subsequent discussion should make this conviction
even more convincing.
Two concepts compose Kearney’s sacramentality: his “diacritical hermeneutics” and “micro-eschatology.” Both derive from an archetypical narrative of
human-divine encounter that Kearney finds throughout Scripture and that
thus structures the primal narrative of anatheistic sacramentality: namely, God
coming before us as a “Divine Stranger” summoning us to ethical response and
bodily welcome, calling us to repentance (“turning”) from “hostility” to “hospitality” (for example, Genesis 18 and 32; Matthew 25; Luke 1 and 24).105 He
thus calls these encounters “threshold” events106 comprising the potential of
102
103
104
105
106
Jürgen Moltmann The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology, trans. R.A. Wilson and Jon Bowden (London: scm Press, 1974;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 200–201, 207, 277–278; Paul S. Chung, Critical Theory
and Political Theology: The Aftermath of the Enlightenment (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2019), 32–33, 63–64, 311–318.
For critical concerns see the varied response essays in After God (particularly William
Desmond, “Maybe, Maybe Not: Richard Kearney and God,” 55–77).
Justin Sands, “Passing through Customs: Merold Westphal, Richard Kearney, and the
Methodological Boundaries between Philosophy of Religion and Theology,” Religions 7,
no. 83 (2016): 1–13 (10).
Kearney, “God after God,” in Reimagining the Sacred, 10; Kearney, Anatheism, 4, 17–30.
Kearney, Anatheism, 4.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
62
rice
Epiphany (Heb 13:2).107 His “diacritical hermeneutics of alterity” is thus the
practice of anatheistic sacramentality.108 Recalling traditional medical practices of “diagnosing” bodily “symptoms,”109 it discerns between a “good” (the
stranger, the widow, the poor, and the orphan) and a “bad” alterity, the latter
meaning a genuine evil willing violence against us.110
This “diacritical” practice represents what Kearney and similar advocates
describe as “carnal hermeneutics,” stressing that hermeneutics begins not with
linguistic understanding, but with the sapiential (etymologically derived from
sapere, “to taste”) causing “sensation” of tactile, fleshly embodied human life
(16–17).111 As the prefix “dia” (“between”) infers, diacritical hermeneutics is thus
a phenomenologically oriented “dialogical” method.112 Through it we diagnose
the “other” before us, and though we might perceive this “other” as “strange,” we
might also discern variables in our “self” that might be causing us to respond
with rejection or hostility rather than with welcome,113 or, more pointedly, to
discern the possible sacred summons these encounters present us.114
Within anatheistic sacramentality, Kearney’s micro-eschatology exemplifies a “retrieving” of eschatology “after” (ana) standard “macro-eschatological”
depictions of the kingdom’s coming via notions of “sovereignty, omnipotence,
and ecclesiastical triumph.”115 He constructs this from a “sacramental methodology” that discerns “the divine” operative within kairotic “events of quotidian
existence.”116 Thus, as a phenomenological practice in the form of diacritical
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
Kearney, Anatheism, 29, 31, 38; Kearney, Strangers, Gods, and Monsters: Interpreting Otherness (London: Routledge, 2003), 3; Kearney and Kasha Semonovitch, “At the Threshold:
Foreigners, Strangers, Others,” in Phenomenologies of the Stranger, 3–29 (4–5, 8).
Kearney and Semonovitch, “At the Threshold,” 20; Kearney, Strangers, Gods, and Monsters,
17, 229.
Kearney, “What is Diacritical Hermeneutics?,” Journal of Applied Hermeneutics (December 10, 2011): 1–14 (3).
Kearney and Semonovitch, “At the Threshold,” 17.
Carnal hermeneutics thus corrects past continental philosophical and postmodern
themes that have approached the physical body as “signifier” within cognitive reality
construction (through both the “hermeneutical” and “linguistic” “turns”), thereby bypassing its primordial role toward human understanding; Kearney and Brian Treanor, “Introduction,” in Carnal Hermeneutics, 1–2; Kearney, “The Wager of Carnal Hermeneutics,” in
Carnal Hermeneutics, 16–17; Treanor, “Mind the Gap: The Challenge of Matter,” in Carnal
Hermeneutics, 57–73 (58–59).
Kearney and Semonovitch, “At the Threshold,” in Phenomenologies of the Stranger, 20.
Kearney, Strangers, Gods, and Monsters, 18.
Kearney, “What is Diacritical Hermeneutics?,” 9.
Kearney, “Epiphanies of the Everyday,” 8, 42.
Kearney, “Sacramental Imagination and Eschatology,” in Phenomenology and Eschatology:
Not Yet in the Now, 55–67 (55–56).
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
practicing the passion of pentecost
63
hermeneutics, “micro-eschatology” discerns the “eschaton” bodily breaking out
before us, particularly in the most banal of settings and the lowliest forms of
suffering humanity.117
Temporal and spatial metaphors clarify Kearney’s “micro-eschatology.” He
draws the temporal from the continental philosophical construal of “messianic
time” via the works of Levinas and Derrida,118 yet particularly through Walter Benjamin’s reflection: “at the heart of every moment of the future is contained the little door through which the Messiah may enter.”119 Benjamin’s
statement reflects Jewish rabbinical notions of the messianic waiting within
human suffering, thereby summoning our moral response.120 Kearney calls
this a “weak messianism,” for it characterizes “messianic” events coming to us
through weakness rather than through power.121 Here we can readily appreciate Kearney’s “spatial” metaphors from the Gospel descriptions of the kingdom
as “a mustard seed, a pearl, a reed, an infant,” and Jesus’s reference to how a
blessed “judgment of the Kingdom” is contingent to our response to the “least
of these” (Matt 25:40).122
Kearney stresses how these metaphors converge through fleshly incarnated
loving actions—the extended “cup of cold water” to thirsty people, particularly to the “least”—whereby we materialize God’s kingdom.123 He thus posits
that the hope of messianic eruption ethically summons our response to moral
action, beginning with our expectancy toward these moments,124 which pri-
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
Kearney, “Epiphanies of the Everyday,” 4.
Kearney, The God Who May Be: A Hermeneutics of Religion (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001), 45. In continental philosophy, messianism speaks of the promise of
transcendence breaking into immanence, though as a potentially unsettling ethical summons (particularly via Derrida’s and John Caputo’s deconstructive themes) toward human
“alterity”; Clayton Crockett et al., “Introduction,” in The Future of Continental Philosophy,
3–4.
Walter Benjamin, “Theologico-Political Fragment” (1921), in Benjamin, One Way Street
(London: nlb, 1979), 155f.; quoted in Kearney, “Enabling God,” 39–54 (43). Elsewhere Walter Benjamin similarly writes, “the ‘time of the now’ … shot through with chips of Messianic time … for every second of time” is “the straight gate through which the Messiah
might enter”; “Theses on the Philosophy of History,” in Illuminations: Essays and Reflections, trans. Harry Zhon, ed. Hannah Arendt (New York: Schocken Books, 1969), 263–264.
This reflects the rabbinic fable of a rabbi asking the prophet Elijah: “When will the Messiah come?” Elijah replies, “Go and ask him himself.” After the rabbi asks, “Where is he?,”
Elijah replies, “He is sitting among the lepers”; Levinas, Difficult Freedom, 71.
Kearney, The God Who May Be, 45–46; Kearney, Anatheism, 59.
Kearney, “Enabling God,” 41–42.
Kearney, “Enabling God,” 42.
Kearney, The God Who May Be, 46.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
64
rice
mordially open before us through encountering suffering human alterity.125
The messianic moment especially summons our hospitality to those different
from ourselves.126 To use Derrida’s language, in these decision-making events
between violence or hospitality comes the possible deconstructive “advent” of
“Messiah” standing before us.127
Let me now briefly summarize Kearney’s project. First, in “micro-eschatology,” the logic of Christ’s incarnation is kenosis, and the logic of kenosis
is embodied response to human and creational suffering within their fleshly
existence. The eschaton thus works through the sacrament of incarnation, for
its “logic … obeys that of an inaugurated eschatology.”128 As I read Kearney,
his phrase “the sacramental move,” which describes God’s kenotic “descent
into flesh,” captures this logic yet “depends on our response” to the messianic
moment’s “sacred solicitation.”129 Its resultant outcome is a “sacramental
ethics” that kenotically translates “epiphanies of transcendence” into the
“immanence of hospitable everyday action.”130 Second, Kearney’s themes
demonstrate how “incarnation” is thoroughly an “eschatology” concept, making our actions the “eschaton embodied” when responsive to messianic eruption.131
Finally, as earlier stated, Kearney’s anatheistic sacramentality insists that
God’s kenotic aims are contingent on human response, a principle he denotes
through his dictum “God of the possible.” This he constructs from contrasting
the fifteenth-century German mystic Nicholas of Cusa’s rendering of the Latin
term posse as “the possibility of being” with the term esse (actuality of being).
From this, he argues that God’s loving action in the world as posse requires our
response in the moments of potential messianic eruption. Hence, God waits for
us “to hear the call” and “answer the posse with esse, to make the word flesh.”132
Within this interplay, Kearney thus suggests a divine-human dialogue: “I can125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
Kearney, Anatheism, 17–22, 29, 54.
Kearney, Anatheism, 54.
Derrida, “Avowing—The Impossible: ‘Returns,’ Repentance, and Reconciliation: A Lesson,”
trans. Gil Anidjar, in Living Together: Jacques Derrida’s Communities of Violence and Peace,
ed. Elisabeth Weber (New York: Fordham University Press, 2013), 18–41 (40); Derrida, “Letter to a Japanese Friend,” in A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds, ed. Peggy Kamuf (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1991), 269–276 (273–274); Derrida, “Hospitality,” 362, 364;
Derrida, “Force of the Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority,’” in Acts of Religion,
230–298 (243).
Kearney, “Sacramental Imagination,” 55.
Kearney, “Sacramental Imagination,” 56.
Kearney, Anatheism, 133.
Manoussakis, “Toward a Fourth Reduction?” in After God, 21–33 (31).
Kearney, “Enabling God,” 45.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
practicing the passion of pentecost
65
not become fully embodied in the flesh of the world, unless you … answer my
call ‘Where are you?’ with the response ‘Here I am.’”133 Hence, God does not
“become incarnate … until we open the door, until we give the cup of cold water,
until we share the bread, until we cry, ‘I am here.’”134
5
Conclusion
What I have broadly proffered by engaging the “embodiment turn” within
the humanities and sacramental sensibilities of post-continental philosophy
of religion illustrated in Kearney’s anatheistic sacramentality is a recasting
of pentecostal “eschatological expectation.” Such a recasting is also responsively attentive to the decolonizing task and ethos that must, I believe, increasingly negotiate our search for better readings and visions of Pentecost and
thus human and creational flourishing: namely, one that grounds and generates this “urgency” from discerning God’s kingdom sacramentally breaking
out within our quotidian opportunities to act lovingly, with our lives sensibly
turned, as Kearney stresses, to the “micro” places where the eschaton summons our responsive action. More specifically, in those moments that the continental philosophical tradition calls the deconstructive events of “messianic”
possibility; thus the moments when we must decide whether to act with hostility or hospitality—thereby eschatologically practicing salvation toward bodily
spheres of human (yet perhaps also broader creational) suffering.
What emerges is a pentecostal practiced eschatology, oriented toward materializing, through our embodied acts, the embracing hospitality of God’s kingdom. Recalling, on one hand, Kearney’s notion of “diacritical hermeneutics”
and, on the other, the eschatologically framed promise of Acts 2:17—“my Spirit
on all flesh”—this orientation moreover suggests a discerning critique to our
resultant acts of public witness and service. Grounded in the generated passion
of Pentecost, this re-envisioned eschatology thus enjoins our periodic critique
toward the “worth” of our public acts,135 that we may indeed bodily enact and
133
134
135
Kearney, “Enabling God,” 43.
Kearney, “Enabling God,” 40.
Following Augustine’s deference to the book of Acts, I use the term “acts” to ascribe a pentecostally “pneumatological emphasis” to our “vision of Christian service,” an emphasis
that theologically assumes that the Spirit imbues these acts “with the hospitality of God”;
The Spirit and the Common Good, 200, n. 7. Also in this context, my reference to the term
“service” calls to mind an understanding of “liturgy” in its broad etymological sense (leitourgia), denoting “the work of a people” organizing their lives in behalf of the public
good.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
66
rice
materialize God’s coming kingdom through the Holy Spirit acting on us. Moreover, as Daniella Augustine notes, these acts ascetically embody the kingdom as
we missionally practice them for the world’s transformation. For through their
“ascetic respacing and kenotic self-sharing” movements, they heal us as well
from our own inward turn.136
Yet moreover, this practiced eschatology of discerning the disruptive events
of Pentecost also questions how we might best materialize the blessing of
Christ as Spirit baptizer exalted not beyond but within bodily suffering humanity, thereby beckoning our urgent response to this fleshly locality.137 For beckoning us here is a crucial revelatory site where God wills “divine causality” for
the world’s healing.138 For as Christian ethicist Clemens Sedmak argues, the
Matthew 25 parable suggests the “least of these” functions as a divine “source of
revelation;” as a morally mattering place,139 where the Spirit of God is “causally”
present for effecting the world’s healing.140 Though a dense statement, I will
unpack this through three concluding ramifications emerging from this essay’s
preceding themes.
First, as I have earlier inferred, pentecostal intuitions would situate this
sacramentally tuned practiced eschatology within a strong pneumatological
grounding. Drawing on the pneumatology of Eastern Orthodox theologian
Eugene Rogers, we could thus say that pentecostal sacramentality theologically
demonstrates the “paraphysicality” of the Spirit, meaning that the Spirit proactively “re-befriends the physical,” particularly the human body to redeem, transfigure, and exceed it (Acts 2:17–18).141 This is why Pentecost and all Christian
experiences of Spirit baptism are sacramental outcomes of Christ’s ascension
136
137
138
139
140
141
Augustine stresses these themes via the term’s earlier athletic etymology (askesis); The
Spirit and the Common Good, 21, 51–53, 129–130, 137–138, 159. Also pertinent is Steven Jack
Land’s description of pentecostal spirituality as an ascetically oriented spirituality, particularly given its practices of “pentecostal prayer” that generate eschatological passion;
Pentecostal Spirituality, 69, 74–91, 120–121, 133–177 (esp. 163–172), 182–183, 219.
Frank Macchia, “A Theology of Christ as Act: A Response to Oliver Davies,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 24, no. 2 (2015): 145–153 (148); Macchia, Jesus the Spirit Baptizer: Christology
in Light of Pentecost (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 124, 127, 342–343.
Paul D. Janz, “Revelation as Divine Causality,” in Oliver Davies, Paul D. Janz, and Clemens
Sedmak, Transformation Theology: Church in the World (London: T & T Clark, 2007), 63–88
(68).
Barad argues that our actions always ethically “matter” given the realities of “quantum
entanglement”; Halfway, ix–xi, 3, 384.
Clemens Sedmak, “The Disruptive Power of World Hunger,” in Davies et al., Transformation Theology, 115–141 (115–116).
Eugene F. Rogers Jr., After the Spirit: A Constructive Pneumatology from Resources Outside
the Modern West (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 2, 15, 49, 57–58.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
practicing the passion of pentecost
67
as Spirit baptizer.142 While addressing platonic tendencies implicit in many
Christian hermeneutical approaches thereby effecting a “spiritualizing” of the
“flesh,” Eastern Orthodox philosopher-theologian John Panteleimon Manoussakis thus argues that the “the claim by which Christianity stands or falls” is
that “the Word became flesh.” Thus, he moreover argues that the aim of Christian ascetics is not turning “flesh into spirit,” but spirit into flesh, “rendering
the suprasensible sensible.”143 For in this mattered place, the Spirit of God
incarnates the eschaton, making phenomenologically present the kingdom of
God.144
Second, this essay suggests we situate the notion of pentecostal orality
within current embodiment studies while conversely bringing it into dialogue
with what Kearney and others are calling “carnal hermeneutics,” particularly
conversing with his “diacritical hermeneutics.” Beginning with Walter Hollenweger’s research, which closely corresponded to anthropologist Walter Ong’s
seminal 1960s/1970s-era work on orality studies and epistemology, pentecostal
orality has long been described as a physically embodied sensory, transrational,
and dialogically oriented way of communication and knowledge perception.145
Pentecostal studies, however, have tended to orientate orality research on the
phenomena characterizing pentecostal congregational worship practices,
though substantially demonstrating how pentecostal orality has granted the
tradition worldwide, its twentieth-century deep resonance with the world’s
poor, who, though often print-illiterate, have found in Pentecostalism a spirituality deeply congruent to their “oral literacy.”146 Hollenweger thus called this
the “oral root” of Pentecostalism.147
142
143
144
145
146
147
Macchia, Jesus the Spirit Baptizer, 153, 183; 185; Vondey, “Pentecostal Sacramentality,” in
Scripting Pentecost, 101; Vondey, Pentecostal Theology, 97, 100–101.
Manoussakis, “On the Flesh of the Word: Incarnational Hermeneutics,” in Carnal Hermeneutics, 306–307, 310.
Manoussakis, “The Promise of the New,” in Phenomenology and Eschatology, 72–76, 84.
Walter J. Ong called this the “sensorium,” referring to the bodily sensory modes humans
use for engaging their exterior world; The Presence of the Word: Some Prolegomena for Culture and Religious History (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970), 1–16, 88; see also 22–35,
111–113; Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, 3rd ed. (Methuen & Co.,
1982; New York: Routledge, 1982, 2002, 2012), 31–32, 45–49, 67–68; Walter J. Hollenweger,
Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997),
18–19, 34, 38, 294; Néstor Medina, “Orality and Context in a Hermeneutical Key: Toward
a Latina/o-Canadian Pentecostal Life-Narrative Hermeneutics,” PentecoStudies 14, no. 1
(2015): 97–123 (114).
Walter J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals (London: scm Press, 1972; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 457–467; Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 20, 33–34, 196, 198, 270, 273, 293.
Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 19–23.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
68
rice
Yet, noting that pentecostal sacramentality seems too categorically restricted to the tradition’s worship practices, Kearney’s “diacritical hermeneutic” challenges us to a better missional orientation. I thus also argue that a
pentecostal “diacritical” or “carnal”-oriented hermeneutic should be “sensibly”
(referring to sensory phenomena) discerning God’s “divine causality” presently
operative within specific situations of human embodied life as well as throughout the world within acute settings of violence, hostility, and suffering.148 Conversely, pentecostal/charismatic Christianity proffers to Kearney’s anatheistic sacramentality and the notion of carnal hermeneutics a pneumatologically rich and charismatic orientation that it could benefit from through this
exchange.
Third, this essay’s broad themes closely dovetails with similar methodological premises and outcomes characterizing the “Transformation Theology” orientation of Roman Catholic theologian Oliver Davies, philosophical theologian
Paul D. Janz, and Christian ethicist Clemens Sedmak. This confluence probably stems from my past and ongoing affinity with their shared efforts. In fact,
a 2015 issue of the Journal of Pentecostal Theology extensively explored this
orientation as a promising conversation partner with pentecostal theology.149
Transformation Theology is a triadically integrated “doctrinal,” “methodological,” and “ethical” reflection oriented toward a confessed belief that divine
revelation vis-à-vis the ascended Christ is materially present—incarnationally
as an “embodied reality”—within our existing space and time, causing its transformation toward God’s eschatological aims as the New Creation.150
148
149
150
Paul D. Janz, “Revelation as Divine Causality,” in Davies et al., Transformation Theology,
63–88 (68–69, 76–78).
Castelo, “Transformation and Pentecostal Theology,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 24
(2015): 137–144.
Oliver Davies, Paul D. Janz, and Clemens Sedmak, “Prologue: Transformation Theology,”
in Davies et al., Transformation Theology, 1–8; Davies, Theology of Transformation, 60. The
“doctrinal” refers to Davies’s Christology of the ascended commissioning Christ, bodily or
incarnate present within the church and beyond in suffering humanity; Theology of Transformation, 3, 18, 54–55, 58–62, 68–70, 85–86, 126–127; Davies, “The Interrupted Body,” in
Davies et al., Transformation Theology, 37–59 (44, 47–53). The “methodical”: Janz’s “revelation as divine causality” dictum, positing “sensible human embodiment” and the world
as “indispensable” sites of divine transcendence, and thus also theological authority and
accountability; “Revelation as Divine Causality,” in Davies et al., Transformation Theology,
63–88 (76–84); Davies, The Command of Grace: A New Theological Apologetics (London: T
& T Clark, 2009), 54, 118, 132, 137, 139, 141, 144. And the “ethical” refers to Sedmak’s stress that
Christian ethics is primarily not “conceptual” articulation but a “causal” praxis demanding the practitioners’ sensible encounter with actual bodily suffering and tragedy; “The
Disruptive Power of World Hunger,” 115–141 (115–116); Davies, “The Wound of Knowledge:
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
practicing the passion of pentecost
69
Moreover, Transformation Theology correspondingly emerges from engaging continental immanentist-phenomenological themes151 yet more deeply
still, increasing scientific understandings of mind/spirit and physical materiality as integrated in mutual causality.152 Presuming this cosmology, it thus substantiates the “pentecostal witness” to the “objective” and thus “material aims”
(Acts 2:33, “what you see and hear”) of Pentecost; for the Spirit comes to seminally transform not our spirit or mind but, rather, matter into new creation.153
I must also add that Transformation Theology thereby further suggests how we
can indeed draw our eschatological passion from discerning the commission
of Christ calling us to action toward suffering humanity; that his kingdom may
sacramentally erupt through our actions, thereby grounding our “passion” to
the “disruptive urgency” of varied yet tragic forms of bodily suffering worldwide.154 With an eye toward Jesus’s word, “whatever you did for … these … you
did for me” (Matt 25:40), this orientation suggests, then, that suffering humans
theologically reveal God’s causative presence in the world aimed also toward
our own transformation—contingent to how rightly we respond to their suffering.155
Finally, we must not construe this practiced eschatology as merely discerning how the eschaton waits for us, but rather as a practiced “naming” to grave
violence worldwide. For underlying this study is the conviction that a crucial
formational outcome of pentecostal orality-rooted liturgical ascetics is bodily
healing from our inward turn, making us outward-facing, primed for tactile
union with God’s mission to heal creation. Hence, contingent to the integrity
of Christian liturgical ascetics are how well they capacitate us for loving action
in the world.
Emerging from this essay’s thrust is one worthwhile ascetical practice that
can involve us as loving agents of “divine causality,” even when living far outside
their proximity.156 I draw this from Sedmak’s effort toward delineating ethical
implications of Transformation Theology for world hunger and acute material
151
152
153
154
155
156
Epistemic Mercy and World Hunger,” in Davies et al., Transformation Theology, 142–166
(145, 150–151, 160–161).
Davies, Theology of Transformation, 199–200, 216–217.
Davies, Theology of Transformation, 12–14, 29–30, 48–52.
Davies, “Transformation Theology and Pentecostalism,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology,
172–186 (176–177).
Sedmak, “The Disruptive Power of World Hunger,” 135–136; Sedmak, “The Wound of
Knowledge,” in Davies et al., Transformation Theology, 150.
Janz, “Revelation as Divine Causality,” in Davies et al., Transformation Theology, 68, 76–82;
Sedmak, “The Disruptive Power of World Hunger,” 115–116.
Sedmak, “The Wound of Knowledge,” 154.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
70
rice
poverty, which, if we accept his assessment that its existence always implicates ourselves as well, we might name a “violence” against humanity.157 As
Sedmak argues, at a very basic level we can causally involve ourselves through
the Christian—and I would stress historic—pentecostal liturgical practice of
fasting.
For as Sedmak explains in the specific cases of world hunger and material
poverty, it is one thing to have a “non-wounded” though well informed conceptual comprehension of global sufferings. Yet it is another to sensibly gain,
through our own bodily deprivation, a “personal knowledge” that comprises the
power to disrupt our conceptual awareness with the divine summons implicit
within this pain, to act morally and lovingly158—hence, to take small steps
toward extending the “boundaries of our self” in ways that make us “epistemically vulnerable”159 and thus postured toward the “disruptive power of divine
causality.”160 For if regularly practiced, fasting can familiarize us with hunger
pains, so that at least in some small ways those pains can create in us compassion, which may generate greater action.161
This practiced food deprivation, may thus ready us for the “disruptive” and
thus “deconstructive” event of world hunger, turning us to Christ, who, among
the poor and hungry of the world, summons us to act lovingly, mercifully, and
justly for the world’s healing (1 John 3:18). More immediately, it thus transforms
us into compassionate people, feeling a growing kinship with global pain. We
may extrapolate this logic to a plethora of other endemic suffering and violence
whether near or across the world.
To conclude, from within bodily suffering worldwide, Christ our coming king
commissions us to action. There are people who need miracles from “heaven”
that can “part the red seas” before them. Yet on us comes the Spirit of Christ,
that we may cause these miracles. For as Karl Rahner earlier stressed, ever
since the incarnation, our coming to “the God whom we confess in Christ”
contingently comprises our kenotically causing union to him within suffering
humanity.162 Hence, the closer we sensibly move to the world’s pain—to cause
justice, mercy, and healing—the closer we move to God in his mission to heal
157
158
159
160
161
162
Sedmak, “the Disruptive Power of World Hunger,” 125–129, 156.
Sedmak, “The Disruptive Power of World Hunger,”; Sedmak, “The Wound of Knowledge,”
148–156.
Sedmak, “The Wound of Knowledge,” 149.
Sedmak, “The Wound of Knowledge,” 155–156.
Sedmak, “The Wound of Knowledge,” 162.
Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity,
trans. William V. Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 226; see also Janz, “Revelation as Divine
Causality,” 85–86.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access
practicing the passion of pentecost
71
the world.163 We might also conclude that if little we do ever touches the world’s
poor—or causes them to touch us—we know nothing about Pentecost (1 Cor
13).
163
Sedmak, “The Wound of Knowledge,” 162–163; Janz, “Revelation as Divine Causality,” 86.
See also Augustine, The Spirit and the Common Good, 153–154.
Pneuma 43 (2021) 43–71
Downloaded from Brill.com 06/12/2024 10:00:12AM
via free access