Advice to Pentecostal Philosophers

8/7/2019 Advice to Pentecostal Philosophers

1/13

235

ADVICE TO PENTECOSTAL PHILOSOPHERS*

James K.A. Smith

Department of Philosophy, Calvin College, 3201 Burton SE,Grand Rapids, MI 49456, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

In this paper, James K.A. Smith offers a program for the development ofa

distinctly Pentecostal/Charismatic philosophy, following the lead of Alvin

Plantingas seminal manifesto, Advice for Christian Philosophers. The

paper explains why philosophy is a vital area of inquiry for Pentecostalscholars, defends a robust notion of a distinctly Pentecostal philosophyrooted in a Pentecostal/Charismatic worldview, and lays out a program forfurther research in the field.

Advice to Pentecostal Philosophers

I must begin with a confession: my vision for a Pentecostal philosophyowes an original debt to Calvinists. In fact, my title hearkens back to myjunioryear in college: sitting in chapel, I excitedly opened a letter from the

University of Notre Dame. Several weeks earlier, I had the audacity towrite a personal letter to one of the leading figures in philosophy of

religion:Alvin Plantinga, then newly appointed as JohnA. OBrien Pro-fessor ofPhilosophy at Notre Dame and key figure in a Christian renewal

* This paperwas first delivered at the inaugural session of the Philosophy Interest

Group ofthe Society for Pentecostal Studies, ofwhich Smith was the first chair.

James K.A. Smith (PhD, Villanova University) isAssociate Professor of Philoso-

phy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI, USA.1. I use Pentecostal here in its weak sense to refer not to a classical or denomi-

national definition, but rather an understanding of Christian faith which is radicallyopen to the continued operations of the Spirit. Thus I use Pentecostal in an older

sense, which would now include charismatic traditions.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003, The Tower Building, 11York Road, London SE1 7NXand 370 LexingtonAvenue, New York, NY 10017, USA.


2/13

236

in philosophy both at Notre Dame and across the profession. Just before

that, I had come across Plantingas 1983 inaugural address given on theoccasion ofthis appointment and later published as Advice to Christian

Philosophers.2 Having heard what I believed was Gods call to become aChristian philosopher-through yet another Calvinist, W.G.T. Shedds

Dogmatic Theology-I began to contemplate graduate study in philosophyand turned to the obvious place: Plantinga and Notre Dame. The letter I

opened was Professor Plantingas gracious reply that encouraged me in

my pursuits.And while my training would take place at another Catho lic

university-and in quite a different philosophical tradition-I am happyin this paper, which sketches a vision for a Pentecostal philosophy, to

repay something of a debt to Plantingas influential vision for an integrallyChristian philosophy and his personal encouragement to an aspiringChristian philosopher.

Plantingas Advice quickly became something of a manifesto for amovement of Christian, and largely evangelical, philosophers-a call tothem to exercise Christian courage and display more faith, more trust inthe Lord in their development ofan integral Christian philosophy. We

must,he

urges, puton the whole armor ofGod

(p. 254).I want to issue

a similar call to the community ofPentecostal scholars to have the same

courage-maybe even Holy Ghost boldness-in the development of a

distinctly and integrally Pentecostal philosophy. I will do so by engagingPlantingas program for Christian philosophy, then considering how aPentecostal philosophy should further develop this program. But before

doing so, I need first to answer some questions.

Why a Pentecostal Philosophy?

I can anticipate-and have heard-several initial reactions and objectionsto the notion of a Pentecostal philosophy. The first comes from my

2. Alvin Plantinga, Advice to Christian Philosophers, Faith and Philosophy 1

(1984), pp. 253-71. (Subsequentreferences will be included in parentheses in the text.)One should note that this also appears in the inaugural volume of Faith and Philosophy,journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers which hasnow grown into the leadingsociety in its field and an important model for Christian academics.

3.

However,the renaissance in Christian

philosophy, spawned by Plantinga,Nicholas Wolterstorff, BillAlston, and the Society ofChristian Philosophers has alsobeen a catalyst for a renewal in Catholic philosophical circles and theAmericanCatholic PhilosophicalAssociation (see the work ofLinda Zagzebski, John Zeis, and

others).


3/13

237

brothers and sisters in the Pentecostal and Charismatic communities in

which we worship who, quoting Col. 2.8, have grave concerns about

philosophyper se and are concerned that a Pentecostal philosophy wouldbe akin to proposing Pentecostal transcendental meditation. Since theydo not comprise my audience here, however, I will not consume time and

space in response. However, I will note just two matters in reply: first,Pauls concern in the letter to Christians in Colossae is not philosophyperse but to a specific philosophy which undermined Christian faith and wasfounded according to human tradition rather than revelation. Paul speaksof the philosophy, indicating a particular philosophical school which

would have been known by the Colossian Christians. The point is illustratedby how he qualifies this philosophy: it is according to the tradition of

men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than accord-

ing to Christ (Col. 2.8). This final apposition points to the possibility of a

philosophy that would be according to Christ.4 In addition, Paul himself

employs philosophical reasoning in his proclamation of the Gospel (e.g.Acts 17), and other New Testament authors, particularly in the Johannine

tradition, take up philosophical concepts (such as logos) to communicatethe Christian faith. Second, I would argue that even such critics-as with

all persons-in fact have a philosophy, and likely one with fundamental

assumptions that run contrary to Christian faith because they have not

subjected it to philosophical reflection and critique. In other words, it isnot a matter ofwhether we adopt a philosophy but which it will be. The

development of a Christian philosophy serves a critical function bypushing us to examine ourselves and our worldview.The second set of reservations would be expressed by scholars from

within the Pentecostal community and has two aspects: first, do we reallyneed a

philosophy?Are not the

questionsthat such a

philosophy pursuesalready broached by our theologians? Doesnt the development ofa Pente-costal philosophy run the risk of treading upon Pentecostal theologysturf? Second, if we do need a philosophy, shouldnt it be enough that it bea Christian philosophy? Can we not simply adopt the conclusions ofotherChristian and evangelical philosophers?

In response to the first aspect of this concern, it is important to dis-

tinguish between the different tasks ofa philosophy and a theology and the

corresponding distinction between their fields of concern. First, we need

4. For a helpful commentary on the Greek text, see F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the

Colossians, Philemon, andto theEphesians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994),pp. 97-99.


4/13

238

to distinguish between religion and theology: theology is a second-order reflection on our faith or

religion,which indicates our

pre-theo-retical, fundamental commitments. This is just to say that a Pentecostalbeliever is not necessarily a theologian (contra some other Reformed or

evangelical assertions that all believers are theologians~); theology is amode of reflection effected by a change in attitude (in the phenomeno-logical sense). So Pentecostal faith is found not only in a Pentecostal

theology (which is theoretical) but more fundamentally in a Pentecostalworldview (which is pretheoretical). This Pentecostal faith/worldviewshould then undergird both a Pentecostal theology and a Pentecostal

philosophy. What distinguishes the theology from the philosophy is not itsfaith basis (as though philosophy were somehow neutral or autonomous6)but rather their field or topic (in German, their Sache). Theology is a

special science which investigates and explicates our being-toward-Godand Gods revelation of himself in the Scriptures.As such, theology oughtto be done in the church, by the church and for the churchy in addition, it

ought to be always a biblical theology rooted in revelation and investi-

gating the truths ofScripture (classical loci such as Incarnation, sin, grace,or

eschatological hope). Philosophy,on the other hand, also

undergirdedby (Pentecostal) faith, investigates fundamental questions of ontology and

epistemology: the nature of reality and knowledge. Further, philosophy

5. I am thinking, for instance, ofthemes in David Wells and Richard Lints. But Ihave recollections of the same claim being made by Charles Ryrie (Basic Theology[Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1986] orSurvey of Doctrine [Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1972]).

6. For my critique of this (Thomistic) notion of an autonomous, neutral

philosophy which operates on the basis of pure, unaided human reason (including a

critique of Plantingas version), see James K.A. Smith, TheArt ofChristianAtheism:Faith and Philosophy in Early Heidegger, Faith and Philosophy 14 (1997), pp. 71-81.

7. One of the laudatory elements of Plantingas Advice is to remind us thatChristian philosophers also do their work for the sake of the church. This is re-

emphasized by Merold Westphal in his Taking Plantinga Seriously, Faith andPhilosophy 16 (1999), pp. 173-81, where he calls on Christian philosophers to closethe gapbetween metaphysics and spirituality (p. 180) and to develop a different wayofdoing metaphysics, one in which metaphysical reflection grows [...]directly out of

practices of prayer and public action (p. 181). While Plantingas work provides aseminal model, I would recommend Westphals work in Christian philosophy asanother

importantresource and

exampleof

integralChristian

philosophy.8. I have provided a more detailed account ofthe relationship between theologyand philosophy in my Scandalizing Theology:A Pentecostal Response to Nolls

Scandal, Pneuma: Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 19 (1997), pp. 225-38.


5/13

239

will often provide the basic concepts (Grundbegriffe) which theology

employs.As such, a Pentecostal

philosophyand

theologywill have

different, though certainly related, domains ofconcern. But also becauseof this, it will be imperative that a Pentecostal theology utilize basic

concepts forged in a Pentecostal philosophy,. 10So the development of a Pentecostal philosophy should not be under-

stood as an attempt to usurp theologys role and place in the community;rather, a Pentecostal philosophy serves a diaconal role, functioning inthe service of the other disciplines, including not only theology, butalso biblical studies, history, ethics, and praxis. This should be illustrated

in the role of the Philosophy Group within the Society for PentecostalStudies: it is the duty and calling of Pentecostal philosophers to serveour theologians, biblical scholars, historians, ethicists, and ministers, byengaging in reflection on fundamental issues and questions which are

presupposed in the practice of the other disciplines. Our colleagues inbiblical studies, for instance, are faced with questions of interpretation and

revolutionary challenges in hermeneutics such as structuralism and decon-

struction ; it will be the task ofPentecostal philosophers-properly trainedand equipped-to reflect on these questions and share the results in a waythat can benefit and enable our biblical scholars.

In fact, the development ofbiblical studies in the Pentecostal traditionserves as an example and answer to the second concern raised above, viz.,whether a Pentecostal theology cannot simply adopt a broadly evangelicalor Christian philosophy.As our biblical scholars have repeatedly em-

phasized, broader evangelical scholarship is often undergirded by

9. For further discussion of this point, see Martin Heidegger, Phnomenologie

und Theologie (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1970); Phenomenology andTheology (trans.James G. Hart and John C. Maraldo) in William McNeill (ed.), Pathmarks (Cam-

bridge : Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 39-62. For a fuller discussion ofHei-

deggers understanding oftheology, see my Speech and Theology: Language and the

Logic of Incarnation (Radical Orthodoxy Series; New York: Routledge, 2002), ch. 3.10. For a helpful analysis ofthe relationship between theology and philosophy as

sketched here, see Herman Dooyeweerd, In the Twilight ofWestern Thought: Studiesin thePretendedAutonomy of Philosophical Thought (Collected Works, B4; ed. JamesK.A. Smith; Lewiston, KY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1999), pp. 91-106.

11. For examples ofsuch distinctly Pentecostal biblical scholarship, seetwo essaysthat were important for my own formation: Rickie D. Moore, Deuteronomy and theFire of God:A Critical Charismatic Interpretation, JPT7 (1995), pp. 11-33, and John

Christopher Thomas,"AnAngel from Satan": Pauls Thorn in the Flesh (2 Corinthians

12.7-10), JPT9 (1996), pp. 39-52.


6/13

240

assumptions that are incommensurate with the commitments ofa Pente-

costal worldview. So toadopt unwittingly

such an

evangelical (ormore

specifically, cessationist) horizon as a fundamental framework would infact compromise Pentecostal reflection at its very root. Thus it was

necessary to develop a distinctly Pentecostal approach to biblical studies-

which, we should recall, also involves the very practical task ofencourag-

ing our students to undertake this labor and mentoring them in their

training. There cannot be a Pentecostal biblical studies without Pentecostal

biblical scholars. The same is true of Pentecostal theology: we cannot

simply take an evangelical theology, append an anointed pneumatology,

and call such a theology Pentecostal. The theology must be integrallyPentecostal, radically Pentecostal, Pentecostal at its root (radix).And thesame is true ofa Pentecostal philosophy: while we owe an important debtto Christian philosophers such as Plantinga and Wolterstorff, we mustrealize that we cannot simply adopt a philosophy forged in a Reformedmill and add some Pentecostal fittings.2 The shape of a Pentecostal

philosophy must be determined from the ground up. In order for this totake place, we are also faced with the practical task of communicating thisvision and

encouragingsome ofourbest and brightest to consider whether

God might not be calling them to such a vocation. In addition, we need tocreate spaces where this kind of training can take place, or at leastnetworks which can encourage young Pentecostal philosophers (I hope the

Philosophy Interest Group of the SPS will be one of those spaces).And

finally, we will need to have Pentecostal philosophers in place in insti-tutions that have graduate training in philosophy in order to provideenvironments where our students can receive training under the guidanceof Pentecostal scholars.13 The specific shape of this Pentecostal philosophy

will be considered in Part III below.A third question-skeptical in tone-might come from the broader

community of Christian philosophers who, after an initial surprise (andperhaps chuckle), will question what Pentecostals could possibly bring to

12. Of course, since we are all Christian philosophers, we will share much incommon.And in thinking about the distinctives ofa Pentecostal philosophy, I believewe will discover

importantnew allies in the

Wesleyan,Catholic and Eastern Orthodox

traditions.

13. Again, Plantingas role at Notre Dame is exemplary in this regard: with severalother evangelical and Catholic scholars in the program, Notre Dame has become one ofthe premier venues for training Christian philosophers.


7/13

241

the philosophical table. 14 Will there now be altar calls at meetings ofthe

SocietyofChristian

Philosophers?Would papers be delivered in tongues?

These, ofcourse, are caricatures; but they are intended to indicate that the

broader Christian philosophical community is only acquainted, second-

hand, with caricatures ofPentecostal worship and lacks an understandingof Pentecostal distinctives that would make a difference in the philo-sophical community. One of the goals of this paper will be to indicatePentecostal commitments that in fact should impact epistemological and

ontological reflection.

Plantingas Programfor Christian Philosophy

Our model for the development of a distinctly Pentecostal philosophy canbe found in Plantingas Advice to those developing a Christian philoso-phy. In this seminal article, Plantinga consistently emphasizes three keythemes: (1) an apologetic movement defending the rights ofChristian phi-losophers to philosophize from out of their Christian commitments; (2) arelated call to Christian philosophers to demonstrate more autonomy vis--vis the philosophical establishment and more integrity or integrality(p. 254) in their philosophizing; and (3) the need for Christianphilosophy to

display more Christian boldness or self-confidence. Let me briefly unpackeach of these before considering their implications for the development ofa

distinctly Pentecostal philosophy.First, Plantingas address is dominated by what we could describe,

following MaryAnn Glendon, as rights talk. Here, in response to the

(secular and anti-theistic) philosophical establishments dogma regardingthe objectivity or neutrality of philosophy, Plantinga clears spacefor the

viabilityof a Christian

philosophy by pointingout that even these

supposedly secular philosophers begin from fundamental pre-philosophicalcommitments and assumptions (pp. 255-256). So ifthe neutrality thesis ofthe philosophical establishment is a myth, and secular philosophers havea right to their pre-philosophical assumptions, then by the same rulesChristian philosophers cannot be denied their corresponding right (an

14. Ofcourse, there would also be the evenmore skeptical response ofthe broader

philosophical community, who are generally skeptical about Christianphilosophy andwhose criticisms would be intensified when faced with the proposal for a Pentecostal

philosophy. Our response to the broader philosophical community would follow thesame lines as Plantingas apologia and need not be taken up here.


8/13

242

epistemic right [p. 26 1 ] 15) to philosophize from their Christian pre-

philosophical assumptions. Plantinga functions hereas a

kind of civilrights advocate for Christian philosophers, standing on the steps of theLincoln Memorial (or, in fact, under the shadow of the Golden Dome and

the Touchdown Jesusl6) demanding, not special rights for Christian

philosophers, but simply equal rights with respect to the role of pre-philosophical assumptions in philosophizing. If W.V.O. Quine can beginfrom his pre-philosophical assumptions, then the Christian philosopherhas a perfect right to the point of view and pre-philosophical assumptionsthat he brings to philosophic work (p. 256).But while this is a persistent apologetic element of his article, it is

interesting to note that the point is precisely to free Christian philosophersfrom the self-imposed burden of only engaging in apologetics. In assertingthat the Christian philosophical community quite properly starts, in

philosophy, from what it believes, Plantinga then notes that this meansthat the Christian philosophical community need not devote all of itsefforts to attempting to refute opposing claims and/or to arguing for itsown claims (p. 268).

Bythus

outliningthe

rightsof Christian

philosophersto

beginfrom

their fundamental Christian commitments, Plantinga is led to the second

key emphasis of his Advice: the need for the Christian philosophicalcommunity to demonstrate more independence and autonomy from the

guild of philosophy at large (which is dominated by assumptions anti-thetical to Christian faith). By this he means that the agenda of investi-

gation for the Christian philosopher should not be determined by trends inthe philosophical establishment, but rather by questions that arise out ofthe Christian community and the Christian faith of the philosopher. My

plea, he emphasizes, is for the Christian philosopher, the Christianphilosophical community, to display, first, more independence and

autonomy: we neednt take as our research projects just those projects that

currently enjoy widespread popularity; we have our own questions to thinkabout (p. 268).17 Note that this alternative agenda stems from the fact that

15. This is related to Plantingas later work on the concept of warrant. See his

trilogy from Oxford University Press, Warrant: The Current Debate (1993), Warrantand

ProperFunction

(1993),and Warranted Christian

Belief(2000).16. Plantingas Advice was originally delivered at Notre Dame.17. In this light, I was impressed by John Christopher Thomas testimony, in the

Preface to his The Devil, Disease, and Deliverance, where he shared that he determines

his research projects byprayer.


9/13

243

the Christian philosopher serves the Christian community, the Church:The Christian

philosopherdoes indeed have a

responsibilityto the

philosophical world at large; but his fundamental responsibility is to theChristian community, and finally to God (p. 262). Plantinga also warns,however, that this does not mean that Christian philosophers should

withdraw from the wider philosophical community in a kind of Christian

ghetto: Nor do I mean to suggest that Christian philosophers shouldretreat into their own isolated conclave, having as little as possible to dowith non-theistic philosophers [... ]. Christian philosophers must be inti-

mately involved in the professional life of the philosophical community at

large both because of what they can leam and because of what they cancontribute (p. 270). In other words, one of the responsibilities of theChristian philosopher will be to function as a witness to the broader

philosophical community. I think we should see this philosophical estab-lishment as a kind of mission field and view philosophical research and

publication as, at times, anothermode of witness and evangelization. Thisleads to what Merold Westphal describes as the two hats thesis: theChristian philosopher has two audiences (the Church and the academy)and even two allegiances (first to the Church and secondarily to the

academy, based on the notion of integrity below).18As such, we alsohave two vocations: to serve the Christian community but also to be awitness and testimony to the academy.

Christian philosophers, then, will demonstrate more autonomy by estab-

lishing an agenda which arises from their own faith commitments and theirservice to their own (distinctive) faith communities. This demands what

Plantinga calls integrity or integrality: our philosophy and philosophiz-ing must begin from our Christian commitments, not assumptions laid

down by the anti-theistic philosophical establishment. The Christianphilosopher who looks exclusively to the philosophical world at large, he

warns, who thinks ofhimself (sic) as belonging primarily to that world,runs a two-fold risk. He may neglect an essential part of his task as aChristian philosopher; and he may find himself adopting principles and

procedures that dont comport well with his belief as a Christian (p. 264).While we may display autonomyby choosing philosophical questions thatare unique to the Christian community, we must think about those ques-tions in away that does not unwittingly adopt frameworks which are foreignto, and likely antithetical to, our fundamental Christian commitments.

18. Westphal, Taking Plantinga Seriously, pp. 174-75.


10/13

244

Now, in order to display this autonomy, the Christian philosopher-as part

ofthe Christian philosophical community-will need to be reflective andcritically consider just what those fundamental Christian commitmentsare and what they entail. Then she or he will be in a place to evaluate

critically trends in the broader philosophical community.As a result, theChristian philosopherwho demonstrates such integrity may have to rej ectcertain currently fashionable assumptions about the philosophic enter-

prise-he (sic) may have to rejectwidely accepted assumptions as to whatare the proper starting points and procedures for philosophical endeavor

(p. 256).This is why Plantinga also argues that the development of an autono-

mous, integral Christian philosophy will demand Christian boldness orChristian self-confidence (p. 254). The integrity and autonomy of aChristian philosophy will require Christian philosophers to display lessreadiness to trim their sails to the prevailing philosophical winds ofdoc-trine and more Christian self-confidence (p. 258). Why, he asks, shouldwe be intimidated by what the rest of the philosophical world thinks

plausible or implausible (p. 269)? Plantingas own work is a testament tosuch

courage.~B

A Program for PentecostalPhilosophy

I believe Plantingas clarion call and program for a Christian philosophyprovides a model for the development of a distinctly Pentecostal

philosophy. 19 My only major criticism of Plantinga, voiced elsewhere, is atoo easy identification of Christian philosophy with a merely theistic

philosophy (see, e.g., pp. 254, 264, 267, 270). I think this compromises the

distinctiveness of a Christian philosophy which begins, not with thesimple affirmation of the existence of God (p. 261), but a relationshipwith the Triune God who has revealed himself-uniquely-in Christ, and

19. As noted above, by a Pentecostal philosophy, I do not mean, of course, somekind of official denominational philosophy, but rather a philosophy that begins fromPentecostal or charismatic pre-philosophical commitments. In Advice, Plantingaemploys only the broad term Christian (and even broader theistic). Elsewhere,

however, Plantinga speaks ofa

distinctlyReformed

epistemology.So it seems to me

that the more specific project of a Pentecostal philosophy is not excluded by his

program for a Christian philosophy. Indeed, we might askwhether a philosophy couldever be simply Christian. Would it not always already be Reformed or Wesleyanor Catholic, etc?


11/13

245

more specifically God in Christ as he gave himself on the cross. Thus aChristian philosophy must be fundamentally incamational and rooted, not

simply in theism, but the revelation of the Incarnation.And it should be

just this incamational starting point which distinguishes a Pentecostal

philosophy from merely theistic philosophy. But with that proviso in

mind, let me sketch how Plantingas program can be specified for the

development ofa Pentecostal philosophy.First, we should recognize our right to philosophize not only from out

of our Christian pre-philosophical commitments, but from our distinctlyPentecostal assumptions; indeed, itwould be difficult-and ill-advised-to

separatethe two. But this raises the

question of justwhat these fundamen-

tal Pentecostal commitments would be andhow they would differ from thebroader Christian or evangelical philosophical community. Permit me hereto repeat five key aspects of a Pentecostal worldview that I have articulatedelsewhere2: (1)A positioning ofradical openness to God, and in particular,God doing something differently or new.21 In postmodern terms, we mightdescribe this as an openness to alterity or otherness.22 More traditionally,we might simply describe it as an openness to the continuing (and some-times surprising) operations ofthe Spirit in church and world. (2) Because

of this, Pentecostal communities emphasize the continued ministry of theSpirit, including continuing revelation, prophecy, and the centrality ofchar-ismatic giftings in the ecclesial community. (3) Included in this ministry ofthe Spirit is a distinctive beliefin the healing of the body as a central aspectof the work of theAtonement. (4) Because of an emphasis on the role of

experience, and in contrast to rationalistic evangelical theology, Pentecostal

theology is rooted in an affective epistemology.And finally, (5) a centralcommitment to empowerment and social justice, with a certain preferentialoption for the marginalized.Now, I would be very happy to see this list of Pentecostal distinctives

challenged, revised and supplemented-indeed, the task ofidentifying and

20. See James K.A. Smith, What Hath Cambridge To Do WithAzusa Street?:Radical Orthodoxy and Pentecostal Theology in Conversation, Pneuma: Journal ofthe Society for Pentecostal Studies (forthcoming).

21. I take the central point of the narrative ofActs 2 to be Peters courage and

willingness to recognize in these strange phenomena the operation of the Spirit and

declare it to be a work ofGod. To declare this is that (Acts 2.16) was to be open toGod working in unexpected ways.

22. In Emmanuel Levinas ethical phenomenology, to be open to the Other is

precisely to be open to novelty, to something new.


12/13

246

reflecting upon Pentecostal philosophical commitments should be part ofthe

agendaof a Pentecostal

philosophy.In

anyevent, I believe that if we

engage in reflection we will be able to see, and then demonstrate, that

these distinctively Pentecostal assumptions have significant implicationsfor classical philosophical questions.And we will be well within our

rights to pursue such questions out of these pre-philosophical commit-ments. For example (to name just a few), in epistemology, the Pentecostal

emphasis on experience and affectivity would be the ground for a critiqueof dominant rationalisms (particularly in evangelical philosophical and

theological circles) and provide a fund for unique developments in

phenomenology and our accounts ofknowledge. In ontology, the Pente-costal beliefin a continually open universe, evidenced in the central beliefin the miraculous and Gods continued activity in the world, should makea fundamental difference in the way we construct our metaphysics.AndPentecostal beliefs in the holistic nature of the gospel, healing both souland body, should contribute to a unique philosophical anthropology and

theory about the nature ofthe human person. Further, Pentecostals wouldalso approach the history of philosophy with a different set of com-mitments and questions which could open up historical figures and texts innew ways. (I am thinking, for instance, of the unique readings and new

insights which might result from a Pentecostal engagement with Pascal or

Augustine-the way in which unique sympathies might open new inter-

pretations which might be instructive for the philosophical community as a

whole.) I also think that Pentecostal research in the history ofphilosophywould raise interesting questions about the philosophical canon, insofaras Pentecostals would find resources in more marginal sources in the his-

tory of philosophy. Indeed, it seems to me that a Pentecostal history of

philosophy would work from the margins, so to speak, seeking to givevoice to voices that were ignored or silenced by the dominant Western

(and rationalist) tradition.23 So when I advocate the development of aPentecostal philosophy, I am also advocating a Pentecostal history of

philosophy.Second, Pentecostal philosophers will need to display autonomy and

integrity, pursuing philosophical questions and a research agenda that

23. I think a Pentecostal history ofphilosophy would have some sympathy withMichel Foucaults method of historical investigation which participates in aninsurrection of subjugated knowledges. See Foucault, Two Lectures, in Michael

Kelly (ed.), Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate (Cam-bridge : MIT Press, 1994), pp. 17-46.


13/13

247

grows out of their Pentecostal commitments and the Pentecostal com-

munities ofwhich they are a part. In this way, they will display autonomynot only vis-d-vis the broader philosophical establishment, but even with

respect to the broader Christian or evangelical philosophical community.For instance, we would expect Pentecostal philosophers to engage theclassical question of miracles in a way that poses the issue not only as amatter ofhistorical possibility,24 but rather as a question ofcontemporarypossibility, given our belief in the continued miraculous work of the Spiritin the Church. Or Pentecostal reflections on philosophy of language andthe possibility ofGod-talk might develop uniquely, given a core belief in

glossolalia. Our philosophical curiosity should grow out of our Pente-costal commitments-and we must be alert to the possibility ofadoptingeven Christian philosophical commitments and methods which run coun-ter to our Pentecostal beliefs. One of Plantingas concerns was the numberofChristians whowere trained in philosophy but never trained to integratetheir faith with their philosophy; in the same way, we want to avoid havingPentecostals develop a philosophy which is unconnected to their distinctlyPentecostal faith. In this waywe will display integrity as Pentecostal phi-losophers who have integrated our philosophical projects and methods

with our Pentecostal beliefs.

Finally, given the fact that we are within our epistemic rights and

pursuing our own agenda, we need to exhibit confidence and boldness-

Holy Ghost boldness-in the development and pursuit of such a

philosophic program. Indeed, we need to ask for grace and perhaps an

anointing to undertake such a task with courage found in humility and

dependence. With Paul, we need to pray that we may not be bold with theconfidence with which I propose to be courageous to some, who regard usas ifwe walked

accordingto the flesh

(2Cor.

10.2).For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for

the weapons ofour warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful forthe destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every loftything raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking everythought captive to the obedience ofChrist (2 Cor. 10.3-5).

So letus undertake the task ofdeveloping a Pentecostal philosophy as our

calling and vocation, as our mission and part of the Great Commission.

24. As seen, for instance, in Norman Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind

(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992).

Advice to Pentecostal Philosophers

Documents

Transcript of Advice to Pentecostal Philosophers