A Dialect of Doctrine: Pentecostalism and the Positive Tension between Charisma and Tradition By Joseph J. Vasquez Introduction It has been said that, “the only thing spreading faster tha Pentecostalism is the growing body of Pentecostal studies, journal, texts, and literature.”n 1 It is a fact that Pentecostalism is the fastest growing stream of Christianity in the world and that when something grows that fast that far, it will be examined. The reasons for studying this phenomenon are vast I’m sure. But I would venture to separate those reasons into 3 categories: explanation, duplication, and causation. The reason for my addition to this substantial body of literature would fall under causation of their growth. The objective of this thesis is an answer to the question, “What causes Pentecostalism to be so successful?” In my opinion the answer is that the strength of Pentecostalism lies in its apparent weakness: its dialectic of doctrine. The tension between the liberal Spirit led charismata and the conservative commitment to certain doctrines. These two should not work together. How can you advocate being Spirit directed, while at the same time employing rules and order that would seem to limit that freedom? More simply put, the strength of Pentecostalism is that it is open enough to adapt to the changes in culture (through time and/or location) and still be relevant, but restrained enough (in creed, doctrine, and practice) to maintain itself for over a century. The tools for this investigation As a tool, I will be relying heavily on Max Weber’s theory of the routinization of charisma. Weber was a late 19 early 20th century German sociologist who 1 profoundly influenced the discipline of sociology. He also contributed greatly to the field of sociology of religion, and it is in this field where we encounter this particular theory. To summarize Weber’s theory: a religious movement often begins or is founded by a charismatic individual, a prophet. The prophet is usually an outsider who is challenging the status quo and criticizing the powers that be. He might or might not have credentials, which does not matter. What matters is that he has influence…he has charisma. His personality, gifts, and talents have formed a following. These followers are loyal to the prophet. They hang on his words, and sometimes write them down. When the prophet dies, his movement will sometimes continue. How it continues is the known as the routinization process. The charisma that was found in the leader must now be bureacratized to the followers in order to keep the movement going after the death of the original founder. However, the path of routinization comes with compromise, since by definition it results in a formalization and institutionalization of the original movement. This next stage in development will involve the creation of a new "tradition". A new leader now exercises this “tradition”; he is the Priest. The Priest stands in the place of the Prophet as leader, but he did not achieve that status by way of his charisma, instead by way of tradition. This is a much weaker position, perhaps because he waves a much weaker flag. Whereas the Prophet is about “change”, the Priest is about “preservation”. He does not promote doing things a new way, instead he advocates doing them the way they have been done. Alas, the progress of this movement has halted and at worse it will be no more. Here we are stuck. The 2 dilemma lies in that you need the charisma of a Prophet to get the wheels turning, but the guarded-tradition of the Priest to maintain what has been started, the tradition that will almost always kill the charisma. Here in lies a tension between charisma and tradition. Pentecostalism as Prophet and Priest Between this tension is where we find Pentecostalism. Yet it does not kill, stifle, or hinder the religion in any way. I argue in this thesis that Pentecostalism has reworked Weber’s tension into a positive tension, and that it is in this tension that Pentecostalism strives. In order to move forward you need to be a challenging force…you need charisma. At the same time you need to preserve your movement and you do that by tradition, which has always been opposed to charisma. So how do you maintain both charisma and tradition? When you make it traditional to be charismatic. It has solved the dilemma through a dialectic of doctrine. Charisma is the new tradition, and with doctrine like that you allow the leader to have one foot in both offices. He is permitted to operate both as prophet and priest. Throughout this thesis I will attempt to show the role that this dialectic of doctrine has played throughout Pentecostalism’s formation. I will examine three areas and show how the dialectic is present in each of these areas: Pentecostalism’s origins, theology, and contemporary history, using the global south as an example. For the purposes of being thorough, I will confine my studies to North America (except for the last chapter), specifically the United States. In addition to 3 examining a specific geographical location, I will study a specific Pentecostal denomination as my subject. This is an attempt to grasp a more tangible subject other than the more vague term, “Pentecostal”. This denomination will serve as an “ideal type” for my research. That is a subject that represents certain characteristics and elements of a given phenomena. It is not meant to correspond to all of the characteristics of any one particular case, but it provides a good comparative tool. The subject in question will be the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world, The Assemblies of God.2 I will often reference their history and their doctrine as stated plainly in their Statement of 16 Fundamental Truths. This thesis has been divided into 3 chapters. Each chapter will have 2 objectives: to deal with the growth of Pentecostalism and to examine that growth through the reworking of Weber’s theory, which I have proposed above. Again, I argue that Pentecostalism reworks Weber’s concept of the routinization of charisma. Pentecostalism does not choose one or the other but embraces both: charisma as tradition. In the first chapter I will introduce the subject. I will present two perspectives on the origin of Pentecostalism: the Pentecostal perspective and a historical perspective. As I present these perspectives I will be returning to the dialectic, and show the role it plays, not only in the formation, but more importantly the sustaining and expansion of Pentecostalism. I will explore early Pentecostal predecessors such as Montanism and Methodism. In addition I will introduce and examine the origins of the Assemblies of God. Also I will set a tone early in this paper as I use the word charismata and charisma interchangeably. I understand that “charisma” in the Weberian sense means an opposition to authority and a 4 proponent for change. But in this chapter I will argue that there is a decline in the practice of charismata throughout church history. The practice of charismata is marginal and not mainline. It pushes for change and challenges the status quo. Therefore those who practiced it throughout history were for the most part marginalized, making any movement that embraced it a movement of charisma. In the second chapter I explore Pentecostal theology. I will examine the four core pillars of Pentecostal theology as they are seen in all forms of Pentecostalism even on a global scale: Salvation, Divine Healing, Spirit baptism, and the Second Coming of Christ. I will make an important distinction between doctrine and theology, what is essential (theology) and what is useful (doctrine). This distinction will help to flesh out the tension and relationship between charisma and tradition and serve as a support for my thesis. I will use as an example the Statement of 16 Fundamental Truths, a historic and doctrine-setting document in Assemblies of God history. Through these examples you will see once again the tension of charisma and tradition and how it has worked its way even into the structure of theology. In the third and final chapter I will explore Pentecostalism’s growth in the global south. The global south is a term that generally refers to the more underdeveloped nations of our world. In the last decades Pentecostalism has found much growth and success in these areas. I wish to understand this growth and discern whether or not the dialectic argued for in this paper can apply to these nations and cultures, as well as what other factors might be present. I find there to be three reasons for the influence Pentecostalism has in these nations: 1. Charisma as tradition (I will explore Neo-Pentecostalism at this junction) 2. 5 Animism/Spiritism (the neumatological indigenous religions of the area) 3. Finally, the socio-economic conditions. On this the third point I will introduce various religious scholars such as E.P Thompson, Karl Marx, and Gustavo Gutierrez. Finally, I will conclude with a prediction of Pentecostalism’s future. Where I see it going considering it’s contemporary history, Neo-Pentecostalism, and the delicate balance of charisma and tradition. I will not claim to know where Pentecostalism will fall in the upcoming decades, but I do feel a certainty in the sense of being familiar with what factors will lead to either their success or demise. NOTES 1 Whacker, Grant, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture Harvard, University Press, 2001, p. 2 2 World Christian Database. 6 Ch. 1 – What are the origins of Pentecostalism? The Pentecostal Perspective I should state at the onset of this thesis that I write from an insider’s perspective.