Near Emmaus

Author Archives: Daniel James Levy


by 18 Comments

Why I am a P/pentecostal (Pt. 1d)

Brian LePort, JohnDave Medina, and Joshua Smith have all gone before me, writing on why they would identify as either E/evangelical, Roman Catholic, or Mennonite.

In this post, I will discuss my religious experience, Pentecostalism, how it is elusive to identity (and why that is an identity) and characteristics of a Pentecostal worldview.

Growing Up

Since my earliest years I have been in either neo-Pentecostal or Classical Pentecostal churches. At around the age of six, my parents started taking me to Christian Life Center, a large, multicultural, Classical Pentecostal, Assemblies of God community. It was in this community that I first became aware of God’s presence. Particularly in Children’s Church, I had encounters with the Holy Spirit that have shaped me. Much of who and what I believe today was because the encounters I had at those tear and snot drenched altars. These encounters continued throughout my younger years – whether in children’s church, youth group, adult service, or what was considered the promised land by most Pentecostal teenagers – youth camp.

Pentecostal worshipAt the age of 12, my dad became the outreach pastor at this church. Thus, involvement in church only escalated. The goal of my parents was and is to make the lives of the less-fortunate look a little more like the eschatalogical new heavens and earth by bringing the message of salvation, along with clothing, food, furniture, pool parties and cook-outs. Yes, I said pool parties and cook-outs (Pentecostals like, no, love food). Around this time I began playing drums for the youth group. Fast forward five years later and I’m interning, teaching Sunday school, and leading prayer meetings.

And then – seemingly out of the blue –  I found myself doubting everything: God’s existence (and if he does exist, does he love me?), denominational identity, calling. Shortly thereafter, I began studying theology at Southeastern University. While I was studying there, I attended various churches. First, an emerging esque Christian & Missionary Alliance community. Thereafter I became a youth pastor at an Assemblies of God church. Sometime after this, I started attending the CMA church again, and then ended up serving as an intern at a liturgical Presbyterian church for almost two years. Still, after all of the diverse denominational experience, I consider myself P/pentecostal.

P/pentecostal? 

What does it mean to be a “Pentecostal”? Much like Brian with Evangelicalism, I’m hesitant to use the term “Pentecostalism” with an upper-case “P”. Why?  Well, there doesn’t seem to be a solid definition of what “Pentecostalism” is. Discussing Pentecostal identity is extremely nuanced. In discussing this matter, sociological and historical matters are almost as important – if not as important – as theology. In the West, Classical Pentecostal groups such as the Assemblies of God – my clan -, the Church of God, and the Church of God in Christ have attempted to define Pentecostalism by doctrinal affirmations. Defining markers of these groups are speaking in tongues and a pre-millenial eschatology. To the contrary, Pentecostal groups in the global South typically have a larger umbrella and would probably define Pentecostalism more as a way of doing theology as opposed to a fixed theology. Thus, the late Walter D. Hollenweger contends that we can talk about Pentecostalisms in the world.

A few stories that overlap can exemplify Hollenweger’s ‘Pentecostalisms’. Around April 1906, the Spirit moved powerfully at Azusa. People began to speak in other tongues. Charles Parham and William Seymour understood tongues-speech as a sign of Spirit baptism. A similar experience occurred on a different part of the globe. In April 1906, a revival led by Minnie Abrams broke out in Mutki, India. Similar to Azusa, people began speaking in other tongues. What makes this interesting is that there isn’t any known contact between Azusa and Mutki. Where Azusa and Mutki diverged was interpretation of the tongues phenomena. It’s interesting that where many at Azusa believed tongues denoted a sign of Spirit baptism, many at Mutki believed tongues to denote prayer to God. It wasn’t until January 1907 that Americans from the Azusa mission arrived in India and began to insist that tongues-speech is evidence of Spirit-baptism (See William K. Kay’s, Pentecostalism). While both groups had a similar experience, they both came to different interpretations of their experience. As of right now, I see Pentecostalism(s) similarly.

While interpretation and doctrinal formulation is important, I think Pentecostalism is to first be defined as a worldview. A Pentecostal worldview is one that has an expectancy to experience God in unexpected ways. As James K.A. Smith says, it is “openness to a God who exceeds our horizons of expectation and comes unexpectedly” (Thinking in Tongues, 34). People in both Azusa and Mutki had a similar worldview and a similar experience of the Spirit. Can we say that because they came to a different – albeit similar – interpretation of tongues-speech that one is Pentecostal and one isn’t?

As mentioned above, many have tried to define Pentecostalism in a number of ways. To define something is to give it borders, to make it exclusive. Ironically, I think the difficulty in determining what Pentecostalism is or isn’t has given it an identity of non-identity. In my opinion, because there are Pentecostalisms this has caused Pentecostals to remain extremely ecumenical. This is seen especially true in groups such as the Society for Pentecostal Studies. While the SPS focuses on the development of constructive Pentecostal theology, praxis, and worldview (and more), they are comprised of people that are from nearly any denominational background, but typically hold to a similar worldview. Thus, this identity of non-identity has caused us to find affinity with people we typically wouldn’t. Such an example is Jeffrey Gros, a former president of the SPS who is also a Roman Catholic.

Further Characteristics of a Pentecostal Worldview

With this said, I think there are beliefs that are often characteristic of a Pentecostal worldview and historical classical Pentecostal churches. Some of these are more characteristic than others. Some of these might be considered non-negotiables. These also are reasons why I consider myself a Pentecostal.

  • Earliest Pentecostalism was very Christocentric. In his phenomenal book, The Gospel Revisited: Towards a Pentecostal Theology of Worship and Witness, Kenneth J. Archer contends that the five fold Gospel is at the heart of Pentecostalism. This would affirm that Jesus Christ is: Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, Spirit Baptizer, and Soon-Coming-King. Constructive Pentecostal theologians would attribute sacraments to each of these five parts of the Gospel. The sacramental sign for Jesus as Savior is water baptism, for Sanctifier it is foot-washing, for healer is it the laying on of hands and anointing with oil, for Spirit baptizer it is tongues-speech, and for Soon-Coming-King it is the Eucharist.
  • Azusa Pentecostalism had a strong racial reconciliatory dynamic. In the wake of the Jim Crow era, Frank Bartleman said,  ”The ‘color line’ was washed away in the blood.” To be Pentecostal (and I would also say a Christian) is to embrace the Pauline belief that there isn’t Jew or Greek, Slave or free, male or female.
  • Earliest Pentecostalism and contemporary Pentecostalism both share an affinity for story-telling. If you grew up Pentecostal, you probably heard stories like God healing Pastor Sol of colon cancer, or of a check Sister Lucie received in the mail just before rent was due. For Pentecostals, the living-witness of the Spirit’s activity is Christ’s body, the Church. And the medium of this witness are often stories. In a very real way, Pentecostals find stories to be sacramental, and as a Pentecostal, I believe they are.
  • Pentecostals believe in divine healing. Pentecostals believe that while there are physicians, Jesus is the “great physician.” This is a reality that I have experienced first-hand and part of the reason why I call myself a Pentecostal.
  • Pentecostals most-often have a synergistic understanding of grace. This is cooperation with God. While the Spirit is a gift, one tarries for their “personal Pentecost.”
  • Pentecostals believe the gifts of the Spirit – prophecy, healing, tongues, teaching, preaching, wisdom, etc – are for today.
  • Pentecostals are people of the Book. Nevertheless, Pentecostals typically have a quite different hermeneutic than Evangelicals. For Pentecostals, the end of interpretation isn’t always authorial intent (if that’s even possible to ascertain). To the contrary, they believe that the Spirit speaks through the Scriptures to particular contextual situations. Further, Pentecostals see stories in the Scriptures as stories to guide and give meaning to their experience.   

Conclusion

I’m confident that some will disagree with what I believe are features or characteristics of Pentecostalism(s).  Nevertheless, I think these are the notes played and heard by many Pentecostal communities globally. To those raised in Pentecostal communities, what I have listed probably resonates as a familiar tune or sound. Thus, I have attempted in giving a large-blanket definition of Pentecostalism, one that includes most and excludes few.

Instead of saying, “I’m a Pentecostal because I believe tongues-speech to be the sign of Spirit baptism” I’m a Pentecostal because a panoply of reasons that are characteristic of a worldview. In summary of the above, I think what my friend Dan Morrison posted on his Facebook grasps the heart of what it means to be a Pentecostal. He wrote,  “This is what it means to be Pentecostal… to live a life surrendered to the Spirit, making life the adventure that it is.”

What do you think? What does it mean to be a Pentecostal? 

About these ads


by 1 Comment

A breath of fresh air: Jack Levison on the Holy Spirit (Pt. 9)

Brian and I have been reviewing Jack Levison’s recently released book, Fresh Air: The Holy Spirit for an Inspired Life (thanks to Paraclete Press!). Today I continue the review by writing a bit about chapter nine. 

Chapter eight of Dr. Levison’s (Jack’s) recent book is entitled, “Peter’s Praise.” As a Pentecostal and one in the pursuit of an academic theological education, this chapter particularly resonates with me. Jack sets the scene by giving a description about two radically different church services. The first is a pre-Azusa charismatic church that had physical and ecstatic manifestations such as falling to the ground, trembling and shaking. The second gives a description about a Pentecost celebration that will accompany “mouths [that] will be on fire with chips and salsa” (189). 

Regarding these two churches, Jack says this: “Two branches of Christianity. Will they ever meet? And who’s right about the holy spirit? Christians who plummet into ecstatic rapture or Christians who worship with decorum? Those who jerk and swoon or those who sit and kneel? The fitful or the fellowship hall faithful? Who’s right? Who has cornered the market on the holy spirit?” (189). Jack answers with a resounding “neither.” 

From this point, Jack makes efforts to show where there is ecstasy and comprehension. He takes us to the book of Acts. He proposes that in Acts 2 what we see is not just glossolalia. What we see are people proclaiming the praiseworthy acts of God in other intelligible languages. This is xenolalia. He gives us another example from Acts 10. In this chapter the Gentiles are Baptized in the Holy Spirit and they begin to speak in tongues. Peter makes the proclamation that water for baptism cannot be withheld from them because they received the Holy Spirit just as Peter and the others did. Jack proposes these tongues were intelligible Jewish languages.

Jack then takes a turn 1 Corinthians 14. In this book it is evident that the Corinthians thought highly of speaking in tongues. Interestingly enough, when listing spiritual gifts, Paul first refers to wisdom and knowledge and last to tongues-speech. In other lists of spiritual gifts, Paul doesn’t even mention speaking in tongues. Nevertheless, Paul does not dismiss tongues-speech; to the contrary he marries tongues-speech done in the public sphere with the need for interpretation. The purpose of this is for the building up of the Christian community. It is important for words to be understood in order that the other can be built up.

As I said in the beginning, this chapter has resonated a lot with me. I am on a chapel planning team at my institution, Southeastern University. This chapel happens every Thursday at 9AM and we call it “Rhythm Chapel.” As Pentecostals, we can forget the Book of Common Prayer. Actually, in many ways we have. The purpose of this chapel is to essentially marry church that is done like Cane Ridge and church done in a liturgical tradition. We see the Spirit of God in both traditions; we see God in ecstasy and understanding. So, while we are working toward having a full-blown traditional liturgical service, we simultaneously want to be open to the Spirit moving in ecstatic ways. An example of this could be deduced from last week. Everything was going normal as planned until the campus pastor received an unction from the Spirit to tell everybody to break up into groups and pray for one another. I think in this we can see ecstasy and tradition.

At the root of this, we need to be open to the God of the universe acting in ways that we wouldn’t expect him to. And isn’t this expected? Isn’t our religion the most confounding one to begin with? What God would die on a cross? As we go through our lives, may we be unsurprised by the surprising nature of God. He might act in ways that seem ecstatic and uncomfortable – He might act in ways that are intelligible, clear, and reserved. Both sides – whether Pentecostals/Charismatics or Cessationist folk, let’s follow the unpredictable and fresh wind of the Holy Spirit that is blowing throughout our world (John 3).

Since this isn’t an exhaustive review of Fresh Air, there are some points missing. At the end of the chapter, Jack gives us a constructive way forward in marrying ecstasy and the Book of Common Prayer. I suggest you pick up this book and check it out for yourselves!

Peace be with you all.

Pt. 1, Pt. 2, Pt. 3, Pt. 4, Pt. 5, Pt. 6, Pt. 7, Pt. 8.


by 17 Comments

A review of Christian Smith’s, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture

This post is a review of Christian Smith’s recent provocative book, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. My thanks go out to Brazos Press for providing me a review copy of this text.

Christian Smith is a sociologist out of Notre Dame. Although I have dabbled just a little in sociology, Smith is seemingly one of the most prominent Christian sociologists alive. In this book, Smith approaches the topic of biblical inerrancy from the perspective of a sociologist. Throughout this book, he works in a very interdisciplinary way by weaving sociology, theology, and historical and literary epistemology. This book is broken into two major parts: “The Impossibility of Biblicism”, which will be defined below, and “Toward a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture.” The first part describes the problem; the second directs us in a constructive way forward.

Smith explains what exactly biblicism is and what he describes as the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism. Before going further, it is critical to know what Smith means when he uses the word “biblicism.”

  1. Divine Writing: The Bible, down to the details of its words, consists of and is identical with God’s very own words written inerrantly in human language.
  2. Total Representation: The Bible represents the totality of God’s communication to and will for humanity, both in containing all that God has to say to humans and in being the exclusive mode of God’s true communication.
  3. Complete Coverage: The divine will about all of the issues relevant to Christian belief and life are contained in the Bible.
  4. Democratic Perspicuity: Any reasonably intelligent person can read the Bible in his or her own language and correctly understand the plain meaning of the text.
  5. Commonsense Hermeneutics: The best way to understand biblical texts is by reading them in their explicit, plain, most obvious, literal sense, as the author intended them at face value, which may or may not involve taking into account their literary, cultural, and historical contexts.
  6. Solo Scriptura: The significance of any given biblical text can be understood without reliance on creeds, confessions, historical church traditions, or other forms of larger theological hermeneutical frameworks, such that theological formulations can be built up directly out of the Bible from scratch.
  7. Internal Harmony: All related passages of the Bible on any given subject fit together almost like puzzle pieces into single, unified, internally consistent bodies of instruction about and wrong beliefs and behaviors.
  8. Universal Applicability: What the biblical authors taught God’s people at any point in history remains universally valid for all Christians at every other time, unless explicitly revoked by subsequent scriptural teaching.
  9. Inductive Method: All matters of Christian belief and practice can be learned by sitting down with the Bible and piecing together through careful study the clear “biblical” truths that it teaches.

The result of the above nine beliefs produce a tenth viewpoint:

10.  Handbook Model: The Bible teaches doctrine and morals with every affirmation that it makes, so that together those affirmations comprise something like a handbook or textbook for Christian belief and living, a compendium of divine and therefore inerrant teachings on a full array of subjects—including science, economics, health, politics, and romance.

After defining what biblicism is, Smith introduces us to different institutions and denominations that affirm a biblicist view of Scripture in their statements of faith. As he later shows, one of the issues with biblicism is that it presupposes the Bible speaks to all issues that humans experience. Thus, there are books such as Bible Answers for Almost All Your Questions, Success in School: Building on Biblical Principles, and Gardening with Biblical Plants.

Smith introduces another important term that will be used throughout this book, “Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism.” Pervasive interpretive pluralism describes a true reality of the Church (proper): we cannot come to agreement on nearly anything. Smith poignantly notes that we might say “minor in the minors and major in the majors”, but in praxis, how often does this really happen? The Church is known much more its disagreements than its agreements. Smith proves that we agree on nearly nothing – and he shows this by listing many of the three, four, and five view books. We can’t even agree on important doctrine in Christian faith as the atonement, baptism, charismatic gifts, divorce and remarriage, and the Eucharist. Because we cannot agree on nearly anything, the pragmatic purpose in holding to inerrancy is seemingly devoid of  actual reason.

Smith proposes that as Christians we need to embrace the multivocality, polysemy, and multivalency of the Christian Scriptures. Only a reading of Scripture that is formed out of the Princeton Fundamentalist/Modernist debate would assume such a wooden hermeneutic that rests, ironically, on the paradigm of modernity itself. Not only is this view philosophically dead, but by incessantly needing to base Scripture on modernity, it exalts modernity above Scripture itself. This leads to another point Smith makes: such a view of inspiration is entirely unwarranted. There have been many conclusions drawn from a few texts of Scripture that need to be rethought. It is our obsession with verification and knowing something as true through logic or science, that we have undermined the true authority of biblical Scripture, Jesus Christ.

In the second half of the book, Smith first proposes a theological/hermeneutical way forward and then an epistemic way forward. The first way forward is by adopting Barth’s Christocentric hermeneutic key. One of the most profound and freeing theological discoveries for me was the Christocentric hermeneutic key. As people who have the revelation of Jesus, Smith argues the need to interpret Scripture through the revelation that we have, not the revelation of the biblical writers. This is what Jesus did on the road to Emmaus. He diermeœneuoœ all the Scriptures concerning himself. For Barth, the Scriptures were not the central revelation of God. Rather, they were the witness to the logos. The logos was and is the true revelation of God and the Scriptures are the attestation to this revelation. Thus, when we view Scripture as attesting to the logos (in Old Testament and New Testament) we are released in assuming that Scripture speaks to all every-day issue that we experience. He contends that Scripture is not primarily there for that reason. Scripture is there to attest to what God has done and will do in Jesus Christ.

Smith argues that we need to learn to be fine with accepting the ambiguity of life and the ambiguity found within Scripture. The reason we’re not fine with this is because how heavily influenced we are by epistemic modernity. So what do we do about our obsession with a modernistic epistemology? We let go of it. The key thing matter of important is to swing to the other extreme. Smith says, “A more evangelical reading of scripture also requires Christians to break from modern epistemological foundationalism once and for all, but without sliding into a problematic postmodernism” (Smith, 149). Thus, he suggests we embrace a critical realistic epistemology (if you’re looking for a thorough treatment of critical realism, I highly recommend the first chapter of Tom Wright’s book The New Testament and the People of God).

In conclusion, I have found Christian Smith’s book to speak a lot of prophetic truth. Scripture does point to Jesus – this is the point that it’s there. Personally, as a Pentecostal, I think there needs to be a little bit more openness to Pneumatic interpretation. Reading Scripture Christocentrically and Pneumatically is not something I find to be in opposition to each other. A Christocentric hermeneutic paves way to a Pneumatic reading of the text that occurs within community and alone. Although I do not fully embrace every single thing said in Smith’s book, I do strongly recommend you pick it up, read it, wrestle with it, and apply it. This is no time for slacktivism – it’s time to do what Smith is prophetically saying to the church – to be unified despite differences.


by 3 Comments

A breath of fresh air: Jack Levison on the Holy Spirit (Pt. 7)

Brian and I have been reviewing Jack Levison’s recently released book, Fresh Air: The Holy Spirit for an Inspired Life (thanks to Paraclete Press!). Today I continue the review by writing a bit about chapter seven. 

Jack Levison, in chapter six, or ”Ezekiel’s Valley” brings us to two different communities. First, a devastated, hope-stricken community. Second, a thoroughly flourishing community. Using these communities, he explores two questions that he, in turn, answers. These questions are, 1) “How does the spirit work in communities as a whole?” and 2) “How can communities prepare themselves to receive the fullness of the spirit?” 

Our first community is the devastated and exiled Israel. Sometime after 587 BCE, Ezekiel wrote about hope within despair, about life in the midst of everything dead. In a vision, Ezekiel was taken by the Spirit to a place any Jewish priest of that day shouldn’t have been – a place where there are bones. The place Ezekiel was taken to was a valley of death, a place without hope. Levison writes, “And yet, it is in this valley of death that the spirit has deposited him. It is in this valley, amongst these very many, very dry bones, that the spirit will accomplish its most outlandish life-giving act” (144).

When this story is read in its entirety, you will see that this act of life bestowed upon Israel is not something that happened immediately. Rather, there were steps: promises from God of sinews and flesh and breath, of bones coming together, of bodies being restored, and so on. The same is often true of communities today. The process is hard, but the Spirit enables and brings restoration. As people of the resurrection, we need to believe that the same Spirit that rose Jesus from the dead, can – and not only can – but does proleptically act powerfully in our lives, communities, and world today. And it is in regards to what would be seemingly dead churches that Jack says writes the following: “It is important, I think, never to resign ourselves to the belief that deadened communities are beyond the pale of the spirit’s influence” (148). 

But what about a vibrant community? What is the picture of the Holy Spirit working in a community that is bursting forth with the life that is from God’s Spirit? Jack takes us to Acts 13. This community in Antioch is the place where followers of Jesus were first identified as Christians.

In this community we see five attributes that local communities of worship need to really consider practicing. They are the following:

  • “A love of learning.” - In Acts 11 we see that Barnabas and Paul devoted themselves to teaching for a year. In Acts 13 there are two groups of people mentioned – prophets and teachers.
  • “An ear for prophecy.” - We need to have an ear for the voice of the Spirit speaking through prophets. Too often today churches have silenced the voices of prophets and potential prophets. As said above, the church in Antioch had two acting forms of leadership, prophets and teachers.
  • “The right practices.” - Jack makes a powerful point when talking about this; he writes, “This word of the spirit comes to Antioch while they were worshiping and fasting” (156). It was when the church was practicing the disciplines of worship and fasting that the Spirit of God communicated to them. The church needs to be serious about incorporating the spiritual disciplines of Lectio Divina, fasting, soaking prayer, song singing (which I would all sub-section off under worship) and more.
  • “Extreme generosity.” - The church at Antioch gave before there was need. In particular, before tragedy struck. Especially in relation to the recent catastrophe in New York and the surrounding region, this is something that I should have done. If already not, we ought to follow the example here.
  • “Multicultural leadership.” - Lastly, the church at Antioch wasn’t a church filled with just a bunch of white folk (actually, none of them were probably white). To the contrary, the church at Antioch wasn’t a church you could remark by saying, “That’s a black church” or “That’s a white church” or “That’s a Spanish church!”

A church that has these attributes is truly a church that is a source of grace for the Body and for the world. May we be challenged by what God speaks through the Scriptures. 

Pt. 1, Pt. 2, Pt. 3, Pt. 4, Pt. 5, Pt. 6.


by Leave a comment

Hear Dr. John R. Levison tomorrow at The Darkwood Brew!

Brian LePort and I have been reviewing Dr. John Levison’s book, FRESH AIR: The Holy Spirit for an Inspired Life. This book was truly a spiritually formative read for me. It’ll be one of those books that I annually go through (actually, it’s the first on my list!).

Well, tomorrow at 6PM Eastern Time, Dr. John Levison will be hosted on The Darkwood Brew. The Darkwood Brew is a coffee house and an outgrowth of what Eric Elnes (the host) calls Convergence Christianity. It is an interesting online community of faith. I suggest you all check it out.

If you’re interested in Holy Spirit studies I emphatically suggest you swing by tomorrow at 6 PM. Dr. Levison has a lot of great things to say. There is live chat, so I hope to talk with you all there!

Peace.


by 1 Comment

Eugene Peterson endorses Jack Levison’s Fresh Air

I found this video endorsement of Fresh Air (the book Brian and I have been reviewing) to be great. I call Eugene Peterson the grand-master of spiritual formation (and if you’ve read his books you know why). I believe he is a prophet to our world. So, the very fact that he endorses this great book should invoke you to purchase it!


by 7 Comments

A breath of fresh air: Jack Levison on the Holy Spirit part 5

Brian and I have been reviewing Jack Levison’s recently released book, Fresh Air: The Holy Spirit for an Inspired Life (thank you Paraclete Press for the review copy of this book). Today I continue the review series by noting some brief points made from chapter four of this book.

Chapter four of this book is entitled “Joel’s Dream.” Before reading, Levison presupposes that we’ve read Numbers 11:1-30, Joel 3:1-4, Acts 2:16-21, Acts 10:1-16, Acts 11:1-18, and Acts 15:1-35. 

Levison begins by talking about the enigmatic (perhaps to certain adherents of certain denominations), yet interesting story found in Numbers 11:1-30. In this story the Israelites are complaining, groaning, moaning and all of this some more about how they want meat to eat. The Lord’s anger burned against them. Moses went before the Lord and made a request. The Lord told Moses to take 70 Elders to go to the Tent of Meeting. When they come together the Lord will take some of the anointing on Moses and spread it around. When they met together, the Spirit fell on them and they began to prophesy, but did not do so again, except for Eldad and Medad. They continued to prophesy. It was then reported to Moses what was happening, and upon hearing this, Joshua said, “Moses, my lord, stop them! (Num. 11:28).” Moses then responds by saying, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them! (11:29)”

One of the first things Levison notes about this interesting pericope is this: they continued to prophesy, even being apart from Moses. You see, Joshua was all about going through the “proper channels” (Levison, 97). Moses allowed the Spirit to have his way. Moses was thrilled that the Spirit fell upon others, even when he wasn’t around, and that they were prophesying; in fact he wished that all prophesied. This leadership was Spirit-endorsed, even if it wasn’t man-endorsed. Levison says,

A better leader, a greater leader, a preeminent leader, allows the spirit to authorize people who lie outside of his or her control. And those who lie outside a leader’s control may not be those whom the leader can control at all! (We might ask ourselves why Eldad and Medad were not with everyone else.) Yet the spirit does control them, and the best leader, who knows this, can, like Moses, relinquish control to the spirit. (Levison, 98).

Now, I don’t want to and won’t give a systematic survey of the chapter, but this is how he moves to Acts 2 and Joel 2. Who is prophesying in Joel 2? The sons and daughters! This idea is scandalous. This does not conform to the religious propriety of the day.

I am TOTALLY about theological, biblical, and pastoral education. In fact, I think my tradition, the Assemblies of God, in some cases, does not place strong enough an emphasis on this. But at the same time, I think they catch a reality that we see in Numbers 11, a reality that we see in Joel 2, a reality that we see Peter says is fulfilled in Acts 2. The unexpected are the ones who are doing the prophesying. I think this idea was caught at Azusa. The Spirit fell, tongues came, and whether it was man or woman, young or old, they began to preach, they began to share the prophetic word from the Lord. The Spirit was the one who endorsed, even if man didn’t. And no, they did not have their M.Div. Again, I am not bashing education (I am all about it), but I think that if we see the Spirit is moving in a particular way, let’s be more like Moses, than Joshua, more like Peter and Joel than the religious critics of the day.

We like to be in control. But I encourage us all to remember Jesus in John 3: just the wind blows where it wishes, so does the Spirit. We see the effects of the Spirit. Let’s not ignore the winds of the Spirit by saying he isn’t blowing all around, when in fact we’re in the midst of a hurricane. Let’s be daring, let’s be undignified, let’s be radical – let’s be caught up with where the Spirit is leading. He’s God, we can trust Him.

———

Pt. 1, Pt. 2, Pt. 3, Pt. 4