Tag Archives: book review

Called to Wonder, Called to Wander, Called to Live: Vocation in Wendell Berry’s Jayber Crow

[CAVEAT LECTOR: If you wish to read the novel, there may be things revealed in the following reflection which you may prefer not knowing before actually reading it.]
————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Maybe a lot of people could say the same—I think they could; the squeak between living and not living is pretty tight—but I have had a lucky life.  That is to say that I know I’ve been lucky.  Beyond that, the question is if I have not also been blessed, as I belief I have—and, beyond that, even called.  Surely I was called to be, for one thing, a barber.  All my real opportunities have been to be a barber, as you’ll see, and being a barber has made other opportunities.  I have had the life I have had because I kept on being a barber, you might say, in spite of my intention to the contrary.[1]

A life lived is nothing less than a story unfolding in space-time.  For example, a story may be prone to wander its way hither and thither, perhaps wandering far enough away from its presumed path (or plot) that it ends up in a swampy bog with a muddied vision and a lack of foresight.  At other times though, stories navigate their implicit path with ease, as if being led by an invisible guide.  At both unexpected change of directions in the plot and the arrival of anticipated outcomes, mystery remains until the end—or, perhaps even beyond the end.  Therefore, one must receive whatever is laid before them, good and bad alike, in order to finish well and so honor the story’s creator.

This analogy of a life unfolding before the one living it may adequately summarize the idea of vocation that is at work in Wendell Berry’s novel, Jayber Crow.  Jayber Crow, the narrator, protagonist, and namesake of the novel, tells us the story of his own life as he remembers it at the age of seventy-two.  He seamlessly navigates into the past to tell a story and then returns to the present with a simple paragraph change in order to reflect on his life and make observations about the interconnectedness of it all.  For Crow, deep reflection on one’s memories is what ends up defining us as persons, because the way we conceive of our memories will determine the kind of story our lives tell.  Throughout the story, he repeatedly notes how he is incapable of escaping the conviction that he was led to specific places in his life.  In what follows, we will explore the shape of his life as he narrates it, paying close attention to the notions of vocation underlying his life story.

Before proceeding any further, a caveat is appropriate here by demand of the author whose story is under scrutiny.  Similar to Mark Twain’s “notice” at the beginning of Huckleberry Finn, Jayber Crow prefaces “his” book with a warning sign of his own:

Persons attempting to find a “text” in this book will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a “subtext” in it will be banished; persons attempting to explain, interpret, explicate, analyze, deconstruct, or otherwise “understand” it will be exiled to a desert island in the company of other explainers.

This notice ironically begets the hermeneutical question that it is attempting to deter, “what is the author saying here?  What does he mean?”  With fear and trembling, I must venture a surmise as to why Berry has included this in his character’s personal biography.  However, this endeavor does not entail applying an interpretation directly to this warning, but rather by letting our exploration of Crow’s (or, Wendell Berry’s) idea of vocation take shape, and only afterwards discerning the untouchability of a life in its entirety. As Crow says, “But now it looks to me as though I was following a path that was laid out for me . . . and I have this feeling . . . that I have been led.  I will leave you to judge the truth of that for yourself; as Dr. Ardmire and I agree, there is no proof.”[2]  I believe it is only in hindsight that the mystery of this literary device reveals itself to be that which sets the tone for the narrative journey that is Crow’s life.

In the novel, the idea of vocation is not something that one can plan or look forward to doing.  While this may work that way for some, Jayber’s journey into his calling is exactly that—a journey.  It is something that happens to him as he lives into the identity of the person he is (at the same time) in the process of becoming.  Unlike John Bunyan’s linear, reasonable account of the vocational progress in his renowned allegory Pilgrim’s Progress, the working out of Jayber’s calling is not that simple.  Rather, he refers to himself as a pilgrim whose path has not been straight, or at least does not appear to be straight, as he has walked upon it.  “Often I have not known where I was going until I was already there,” he says.  “I have had my share of desires and goals, but my life has come to me or I have gone to it mainly by way of mistake and surprise.”[3]

The development of Crow’s sense of vocation begins before he is old enough to recognize it.  His mother and father both die when he is only four years old.  By the time he is ten, his “aunt” and “uncle”, who take him in subsequent to his parents’ passing, both die, and he is sent to live in a church orphanage.  Besides developing a lifetime supply of anti-authoritarianism, Jayber also encounters his first brush with the occupation element of his vocation happens at the orphanage.  At the age of twelve, he is given the job of assisting the orphanage’s barber, Barber Clark.  Clark, a “good and brave man” by Jayber’s own description, treats him as an apprentice, and Jayber enjoys the work.  But despite the fact that ‘barber’ will end up being the “particular calling” of his, it is around this time that Jayber thinks he is called to be a preacher.  After all, this is the highest expectation he can live up to as an orphan boy taken in by church:

 I had been hearing preachers tell in sermons how they had received “the call.” . . . Not one of those men had ever suggested that a person could be “called” to anything but “full-time Christian service,” by which they meant either the ministry or “the mission field.” . .  .What was so frightening to me about this call was that once it came to you, it was final; there was no arguing with it.[4]

Berry’s characterizations of the preachers that pass through The Good Shepherd orphanage epitomize the idea of vocation prominent in the medieval church.  The only “vocation” to them is a religious one; all occupations outside the sphere of religion are inferior and mundane.  Interestingly, Berry depicts most preachers in the novel as itinerate types who lack a sense of place and, more importantly, a theology of incarnation.[5]  Nevertheless, feeling led to preach at this point in his life, Jayber enrolls in the seminary in Pigeonville.  But in his studies and meditations on the Bible, his doubts and unanswered questions lead him to an impasse, a kind of vocational crisis.  Discussing this with Dr. Ardmire, a professor at the seminary, he receives advice that will end up shaping his life from this point forward.  The professor confirms that Jayber has indeed been called, but he is probably not called to into ministry.  “You have been given questions to which you cannot be given answers.  You will have to live them out—perhaps a little at a time.”[6]

Left to wrestle with questions and discover how one must “live them out,” he leaves the seminary en route for Lexington; he figures its time to try the urban life.  But the social scripts incurred at the hand of his own intelligence are still at work informing his wants and desires.  A learned and educated young man has expectations to live up, so if he is not going to be a minister, he reasons that he might be able to amount to “something else that would be . . . a cut or two above [his] humble origins.”[7]  What he is unaware of at this time, and what is only discernible through future reflection, is that he is on a path, on a specific journey even as he seems to wander around Kentucky.  The deep irony at play in Jayber’s wandering season, however, is that the form of his life will take as the Port William’s barber is exceedingly more pastoral than the archetypal pastor of the time.  He will become a barber, yes, but he will also be for others a particular sort of presence.

Once he makes it home and has settled into his life as the Port William barber (a occupation which, almost literally, “floats” out of nowhere), a new insight occurs to him in connection with God’s creation from nothing: “’And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’ . . .  I seemed to have wandered my way back to the beginning—not just of the book, but of the world—and the rest was yet to come.  I felt knowledge crawl over my skin.”[8]  To be sure, his life from this point on is full of suffering—loss, pain, doubt, and loneliness, among other types of hardships.  The transformation of his life is not the loss of such things, but the discernment to see these hardships as part of his story, part of what it means to be a relational and local being.  “I could no longer imagine a life for myself beyond Port William.  I thought, ‘I will have to share the fate of this place.  Whatever happens to Port William must happen to me.’”[9]  Upon returning to that place, to the place for him, Crow discovers that the land will shape his life and vocation.  He discovers it always has.

If anyone really endeavor to know who Jayber Crow is, he or she must begin by learning the stories, the customs, the names, and the faces of the town with which this character shares a fate: Port William.  As Jayber Crow recounts retrospectively the story of his life, the town of Port William figures prominently in that retelling.  This includes the land, the animals, the river, et cetera; in short, it includes all of the parts that constitute Port William as a concrete location.  It is not stretching it to say that Port William is just as much of a living and breathing character as any particular friend or foe in relation to Jayber.  Early in his narration Crow says, “My relation to that place, my being in it and my absences from it, is the story of my life.”[10]  Therefore, the notion of Christian vocation, which is the particular interest at hand, should be examined as if the notion itself belonged organically to the world Berry creates; for Crow’s understanding and living into his sense of vocation are as dependent on the setting in which these things exist and occur as it is on the form and content that materialize from that sense.

Port William Map_Berry's Fiction

            The novel’s motif of place is quite evident in Berry’s reoccurring descriptions of the Kentucky River, the transformation and destruction of Athey’s farm (especially the “Nest Egg”), and the overlooked details of dilapidated buildings—all of which are textured with story and memory.  The thing about place in relation to vocation is that the particularity of a place affords one with all the necessary knowledge and wisdom for living out one’s vocation well in the idiosyncracies of that place.

“If you are a barber and you stay in one place long enough, eventually you will know the outlines of a lot of stories, and you will see how the bits and pieces of knowledge fit together. . . . You don’t have to ask.  In fact, I have been pretty scrupulous about not asking. . . . And yet I am amazed at what I have come to know and how much.”[11]

But the conditions of the world in general are not particularly agreeable with an honoring of what is local.  This fact is exemplified in the overly ambitious Troy Chatham, who is to Jayber Crow a perpetual test of Jesus’ call to love our enemies.  Troy’s environmental ethics (or lack thereof), his self-interested striving for faster and more production, and his ignorance of his surroundings make Troy’s life and the ways in which he undertakes his work a subversion to Crow’s understanding of vocation and calling.  The contrast between Crow and Troy’s inhabitation and presence in Port William is a central thread throughout his story, which culminates in Troy’s destruction of the Nest Egg.  But it is at that moment when Jayber is able to see even Troy as loved and therefore redeemed.  Jayber says, “I stood facing that man I had hated for forty years, and I did not hate him. . . . For finally he was redeemed, in my eyes, by Mattie’s long-abiding love for him, as I myself had been by my love for her.”[12]  The difficulty of loving one’s enemies confounded him for a lifetime; indeed, it took him a lifetime to live into the questions he posed to Dr. Ardmire about such.

In the end, Jayber Crow is content with what he has received and been able to give to others during his life.  This detail is poignantly illustrated in the tender bond he recognizes between himself and Mattie Chatham, the woman for whom he made a living by loving and being faithful to, despite the impossibility of any kind of formal romance developing between them.  It is not until she is on the precipice of death that Jayber’s love and fidelity are affirmed with Mattie’s small and yet profound gesture of opening her hand to him as she lays in a hospital bed dying.  But as grace goes, Jayber ends up receiving more than was due to him.  It is in light of this, and other “mundane” offerings from the world, that he is able to write the following words near the end of his life: “Troubled or not, grieved or not, you have got to live.  And the facts of the case are even harder than that, for however troubled and grieved you may be, you will often find, looking back, that you were not living without enjoyment.”[13]


[1] Wendell Berry, Jayber Crow (Washington, D.C: Counterpoint, 2000), pp. 65-6.  Unless otherwise noted, the following citations come exclusively from this text.

[2] p. 66.

[3] p. 133.

[4] p. 43.

[5] See, e.g., p. 49.

[6] p. 54.

[7] P. 56.

[8] p. 79.

[9] p. 143.

[10] p. 12.

[11] p. 94.

[12] p. 361.

[13] p. 358.

 

Thinking In Tongues – a book review

A few months ago, I posted a quote from James K.A. Smith‘s book Thinking In Tongues. For those interested, I’ve posted below my review of it that I mentioned there. It’s more of a chapter-by-chapter summary than a critical review, as that was part of the assignment. If you don’t want a summary of each chapter, I recommend reading the introductory paragraphs and the conclusion.  

Smith’s book is worth the read for those interested in a philosophical exposition of pentecostal and/or charismatic theology, or if you’re simply suspicious about the how the Enlightenment affected theology. 

—————————————————-

James K.A. Smith has a conviction about pentecostal philosophers: They should philosophize as pentecostals rather than adopt ‘acceptable’ options available in the current fields of theology and philosophy.  In the last chapter of Thinking In Tongues, the literary offspring of his conviction, he concludes a philosophical discussion on glossolalia by stating that it is “the language of an eschatological imagination that imagines the future otherwise—the foreign speech of a coming kingdom.”[1]

This concluding remark on glossolalia largely epitomizes what Thinking In Tongues is all about.  Its thesis is that an implicit worldview, or “social imaginary,” lies within the pentecostal[2] spirituality, which offers a “counterinterpretation” to the regnant assumptions of culture and the academy, both of which are immersed in the presumptions of rationalism and naturalism.  Smith’s task in the book is thus to make explicit the implicit worldview of pentecostal spirituality.[3]  He posits the central components of this worldview can expose the “narrowness and insufficiency” of current philosophical paradigms when explicitly articulated.[4]  Writing as a charismatic Christian philosopher, Smith does not give an apologetic for pentecostalism; rather, he gives an “unapologetic” explanation of the elements that make up the distinct worldview of pentecostals.  This worldview however is not sectarian.  “Insofar as the pentecostal and charismatic renewal has reminded the church of her pentecostal heritage,” he says, “pentecostal spirituality is a catholic spirituality.”[5]  Thus the implied audience of Thinking In Tongues extends beyond the glass doors of storefront Pentecostal churches.  At the same time, though, he wishes to establish the groundwork of a pentecostal philosophy that can contribute to the wider conversations occurring in Christian philosophy.  In doing so, his wish is that other pentecostal philosophers will take his baton and continue running with it.

Chapter 1: “Thinking in Tongues: Advice to Pentecostal Philosophers”

            In this first chapter, Smith employs Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga’s influential article, “Advice to Christian Philosophers,” in order to lay out his programmatic goal of setting the groundwork for an unapologetic pentecostal philosophy.  Before doing this, though, Smith suggests two primary objections that might arise against his proposal for a pentecostal brand of philosophy.[6]  The first is a protestation from within the pentecostal scholarly community and consists of two parts: (a) Pentecostals probably don’t need a distinct philosophy because their theologians pursue the philosophical queries;[7] (b) If Pentecostals do need a philosophy, they can simply adopt a Christian philosophy already in circulation.   In response to (a), Smith thinks theology is a “special science” done “in the church, by the church, and for the church”; philosophy, on the other hand, probes fundamental questions of ontology and epistemology.[8]  For Smith, pentecostal theology is sustained by a pentecostal spirituality, and more specifically draws on conceptions from pentecostal philosophy, which also finds its footing in the particular worldview of pentecostals.  Thus in response to (b), Smith argues that pentecostal philosophy should “exhibit a prophetic suspicion of the regnant paradigms in Christian philosophy and its evangelical permutations.”[9]  The second imaginable objection arises (hypothetically) from the broader Christian philosophical community: what might pentecostals possibly contribute to the field?  With these possible objections in views, Smith enumerates three emphases that characterize his proposal for a distinctive philosophy, all of which are adapted from Plantinga’s “Advice”: (1) the right to philosophize from distinctly pentecostal assumptions;[10] (2) the pursuit of philosophical queries from distinct commitments and the communities from which they emerge; and (3) the pursuit of such things from within a “web of worship practices that inform and inculcate a pentecostal worldview.”[11]

Chapter 2: “God’s Surprise: Elements of a Pentecostal Worldview”

            Chapter 2 is Smith’s hinge chapter; if the reader misses what is there, she is unlikely to fully appreciate what comes afterwards.  The philosophical engagements in chapters 3-6 are a working out of the implications put forward by the five elements of the pentecostal worldview:[12]

    •  Radical openness to God;
    •  An “enchanted” theology of creation and culture;
    •  A nondualistic affirmation of embodiment and materiality;
    •  An affective, narrative epistemology;
    •  An eschatological orientation to mission and justice.

Radical openness to God, or “openness to God doing something differently or new,” is the necessary condition for all the others.[13]  Because the remaining four are further developed in subsequent chapters,[14] Smith spends most of his time here developing the implications of this kind of openness.  A radical openness to God is the underlying premise for pentecostals’ notorious emphasis on the mysterious activity and movement of Holy Spirit.  Ongoing revelation, prophecy, charismatic gifts within the ekklesia: such as these are the fruits of this radical openness.  Because the gifted charismata are operational for pentecostals, Smith asserts that pentecostal spirituality is fundamentally a mode of reception.[15]

            Caveat Lector: Smith is adamant that these elements are tacit, or implied, in the pentecostal understanding, which is received through the formation of pentecostal worship; “Implicit within pentecostal practice is a take on our being-in-the-world.”[16]  This alternative way of seeing and describing is derived from worship practices, but spills over into the day-to-day existence of those worshiping.  However, Smith believes that the narrative in Acts, the narrative of the young ekklesia empowered by God’s Spirit, is the normative model for the church catholic— not simply one for pentecostal churches.  Therefore, he “unapologetically” declares that “the key elements of a pentecostal/charismatic spirituality represent the way to be authentically Christian. . . . To be Christian is to be charismatic.”[17]  This

Chapter 3: “Storied Experience: A Pentecostal Epistemology”

If it was unclear before that his pentecostal manifesto is a sort of marauding attack on the assumptions of modernity, chapter 3 leaves no doubt.  Smith thinks the inherited rationalism of the Enlightenment—á la Descartes and Kant—construes humans primarily as “thinking things”[18] and presupposes the universality of reason.  Supposing that rational minds are really what define humans (hence the claim of universality), the enlightenment project disgracefully downplays and devalues the particularities and contingencies of embodied existence.[19]  Pentecostal spirituality, therefore, is a “countermodernity” and performative postmodernism”—an “enacted refusal of rationalism.” [20]  In Smith’s view, pentecostal epistemology is grounded in “narrative knowledge,” a knowledge relying more on emotive faculties and experiences than propositional beliefs.  Regarding the connection of the pentecostal emphasis on “affection” with a storied epistemology, Smith says, “Narratives work on this affective register precisely because the emotions are themselves already ‘construals’ of the world.”[21]  Furthermore, it is by participating in the distinct worship of pentecostals that emotions are trained to view the world in a particular way.  In short, pentecostal worship shapes and inculcates a pentecostal worldview.  Constructing an analogy between film viewing and worship, Smith proposes that the “prefocused narratives” in films, or the worldviews at work in them, are analogous to how pentecostal worship trains the emotions; “it is the inculcation of a preconscious hermeneutic.”[22]  And it is with this distinct hermeneutic, this lens through which reality is interpreted, that pentecostals are empowered by the Spirit to imagine a world otherwise, a world not bent on power, consumption, and violence: a world in which God’s Kingdom reigns.

Chapter 4: “Shattering Paradigms, Opening the World: Science, Spirit, and a Pentecostal Ontology”

            In chapter 4, Smith continues the onslaught on influences of modern rationalism by denouncing various types of metaphysical (“disenchanted”) naturalism and proposing in their stead a pentecostal ontology defined by an “enchanted” (open) naturalism.[23]  As a reminder, Smith’s aim is to articulate what is oftentimes unsaid in pentecostal spirituality—in this case ideas about nature and the cosmos.  In sum, a pentecostal ontology will be one grounded in the mystery of God the Spirit’s dynamic presence in creation.  Unlike some “correlationist” theological projects,[24] in which one attempts to conform theological claims to the “neutral,” rational standards of secular science, Smith suggests that pentecostal philosophers not abandon their distinct commitments.  Rather than concede to a kind of “interventionist supernaturalism,”[25] pentecostals should develop an ontology that does not require pawning the Spirit’s miraculous presence—the very core of pentecostal spirituality.[26]  For Smith, the result of such “Holy Ghost boldness” will be a conception of nature that is ‘already En-Spirited’, one where God does not “intervene” or break laws of natures in order to be present in the world.[27]

Chapter 5: “From Beliefs to Altar Calls: A Pentecostal Critique of Philosophy of Religion”

            Smith argues in chapter 5 that philosophy of religion is attentive to beliefs but not believers.[28]  As currently practiced, philosophy of religion works from a paradigm in which doctrine is prior to worship and ideas trump practices.[29]  He proposes that the “affective” philosophical anthropology of a pentecostal worldview challenges the Cartesian “thinking thing” assumption about doctrine and practice and also enables it to better conceive of religious practice.  Having described pentecostalism as a “spirituality” rather than a theology throughout the book thus far, he sets the reader up to recognize here the potential in his wider thesis.  Moreover, in relation to his argument in chapter 2, he calls upon Heidegger to make the point that “we don’t think about a world of objects; rather, we are involved with the world as traditional actors.”[30]  Therefore, phenomenological attention to the religious forms of life will reveal missed observations by the “overly-cognitivist” models at work in philosophy of religion.  Specifically, how practices within faith communities show us that human being-in-the-world is more oriented by desire than thinking, and will thus play out more in the practitioner’s behavior than thoughts.[31]

Chapter 6: At the Limits of Speech: A Pentecostal Contribution to Philosophy of Language”

            In chapter 6, the last chapter of Thinking In Tongues, Smith constructs a dialogue with contemporary philosophy of language in order to exemplify how tongues-speech, or glossolalia, might contribute to Christian philosophical discourse in challenging and exciting ways.  Using tongues-speech as a “liminal case,” his aim is to exemplify how this pentecostal distinctive offers a counterinterpretation to the regnant paradigms pervasive in the academy and culture.  Methodologically, theological questions concerning tongues-speech are bracketed in this chapter, but Smith assumes that tongues-speech is indeed an authentic mode of discourse within the church.  To begin his argument, Smith states that tongues-speech defies existing categories within the discipline and this defiance can illuminate philosophico-linguistic analysis.  Therefore, a consideration of tongues-speech vis-à-vis phenomenology, hermeneutics, and speech-act theory will render, in Smith’s mind, a “well-rounded philosophical engagement.”[32]  He reports the following conclusion: First, tongues-speech is a mode of speech that functions as a sign (or gesture), a gesture that calls into question Husserl’s phenomenological rejection of gesture as an expression.[33]  Second, with respect to hermeneutics tongues-speech is communicative speech which, when mediated by interpretation, opens up the community’s horizons of expectation.[34]  Third, tongues-speech is a type of speech act that does something (i.e., prays—expresses an inarticulate desire to God),[35] and the perlocutionary effect is that God might enact a healing.  But tongues-speech also resists Searle’s idea that only comprehensible sentences can do something.[36]  Taking up these finding, Smith closes the chapter by claiming that the action performed in the locutionary act of tongues-speech is “to effect a kind of social resistance to the powers-that-be.”[37]  By this Smith does not mean that pentecostals everywhere should stage a proletariat revolt.  Instead, he is alluding to the global phenomenon that the poorest and most oppressed Christians are usually pentecostal Christians.   

Conclusion   

            Overall, Thinking In Tongues is a delightful and highly informative read, one I will heartily recommend to almost anyone decently well versed in post-liberal theology.  Smith’s aversion to poorly written theology and philosophy shines forth in his articulacy, an uncanny ability to simplify difficult concepts, and his bold inclusion of personal narrative.  (The latter, by the way, is a clever means of corroborating and substantiating the “affective, narrative epistemology” of pentecostal spirituality.)  Moreover, I commend Smith for the Pentecostal Manifestos series he and Amos Yong are heading up, as I do think it will breed fruitful dialogue in the realm of Christian academia, a realm in which pentecostal thinking is all but scoffed at.

Alas, having said that, I do have a few criticisms to name.  The first begins with post-liberal theology.  How much of Smith’s “pentecostal” worldview is simply a byproduct of post-liberal minus the valorization of high-church liturgy, the necessity of creeds, and a lack of references to George Linbeck and Hans Frei?  As a prominent ‘camp’ among what Smith calls the “regnant” strands of theology and Christian philosophy, post-liberalism currently stands as a ubiquitous faction among academic theologians.  It appears that Smith is employing many of the same premises that they do (a cultural-linguistic approach to religion, postmodern hermeneutics, an emphasis on narrative).  Second, I think Smith could have stuck closer to the post-liberals in some areas and consequently helped himself out.  For example, it seems anomalous that Smith would write a book about the contours of Pentecostal thinking and then pay little attention to the doctrine of the Trinity.  Moreover, I like Smith’s usage of spirituality as a means of describing lived faith as a Wittgenstenian form of life, but must this come at the expense of doctrine?  These may seem like petty criticisms, and perhaps they are. 

But my main strife with Smith’s book is that it offers no way of “norming” ones encounters with the Holy Spirit.  Here, I believe Thomas Smail’s stress on the Spirit both proceeding from the cross and taking believers back to the cross is a needed corrective.  Otherwise, what is to prevent the pentecostal triumphalism we’ve seen so much of at least since the charismatic renewal?  I think the added element of cross as the characteristic of a Christian hermeneutic would have fortified his protestations against the regnant systems and “powers” of this world.  What’s more subversive than God revealing himself through the cross?  How much more of a counterinterpretation to the standing paradigms of hermeneutics, epistemology, and ontology can you have?

Once again, Thinking In Tongues is written with precision, and Smith’s faithfulness and sophistication are nowhere questionable.  And he’s right: tongues-speech certainly challenges the assumptions of the philosophy of language.  But this is only a framework, only a starting place for a distinct pentecostal philosophy.  We can be sure, though, that when the philosophers whom Smith hopes will pick up and carry on his work do just that, they will undoubtedly have a friend in one who has gone before them.


[1] p. 150. All citations refer to Smith’s text, and thus I drop the use of “Ibid.”.

[2] A note of clarification is needed here.  In its classical sense, Pentecostalism refers to those theological traditions affirming a “second work” of Holy Spirit baptism occurring after salvation—that is, a separate and subsequent experience of grace and sanctification through a spiritual baptism marked by tongues-speech (Assemblies of God, for example).  Smith, however, uses the small-p “pentecostal” more broadly to denote “an understanding of Christian faith that is radically open to the continued operations of the Holy Spirit” (p. xvii).  By doing so, pentecostal indicates a “shared set up practices” that one might recognize in Pentecostal traditions, charismatic Presbyterians or Catholics, or the so-called “third wave” movement of charismatics.

[3] His choice of “spirituality” instead of “theology” is to express his notion that pentecostal spirituality is not based on dogma or doctrine, but rather an “integration of beliefs and practices in the affections which are themselves evoked and expressed by those beliefs” (p. xix).

[4] p. xxii.

[5] p. xviii.

[6] Smith actually mentions three, but sparsely deals with the first objection—an appeal to Col 2:8—due to the unlikelihood of anyone arguing on these grounds in the philosophical community.  See pp. 2-3.

[7] Note that Smith thinks both theology and philosophy are second-order disciplines that theoretically reflect on first-order spirituality or religious experience.  As such (and with Wittgenstein in the mind’s eye), one might say that theology and philosophy are to spirituality what grammar is to speaking a language. See pp. 3-4.

[8] p. 4.

[9] p. 6.

[10] At this point, Smith names the five key aspects of a pentecostal worldview, but I will save naming these until the summary of chapter 2.

[11] p. 15.  Thus he says, “A pentecostal philosophy will not simply be a detached philosophical reflection on charismatic phenomena; it will be a charismatic reflection on philosophical questions (p. 16).

[12] Smith utilizes a description of “worldview” from James Olthius: “A framework or set of fundamental beliefs through which we view the world and our calling in it” (p. 27).  While he employs many synonyms for worldview throughout the text, fundamental to this project is his aversion to equating worldview with a system of doctrine.

[13] p. 33. Another way of describing this radical openness is to say that God is capable of shattering our “horizons of expectation,” as Gadamer called it.

[14] Likewise, I will reserve further descriptions of the other four for the remaining chapter summaries.

[15] p. 39.

[16] p. 25.

[17] p. 32.  This, of course, is a rhetorical move, but nonetheless a clever one.

[18] “Thinking thing” denotes the idea that the essence of a person is thinking, thus what matters most in this world is what can be thought of and then expressed in logical propositions.  See p. 54.

[19] p. 55. Smith says, “The lineaments and conclusions of universal reason are, at the end of the day, only one particular perspective writ large as if it were not a perspective but ‘just the way things really are’” (p. 57).

[20] p. 59. Smith is not attacking reason per se, but rather the reductionism inherent to rationalism.  See p. 53.

[21] p. 65

[22] p. 80.

[23] Notice that chapter 4 is unmistakably Smith’s attempt to expound on his second element of a pentecostal worldview, “an enchanted theology of creation and culture.”

[24] See pp. 94-5. In these instances, one might say that theology becomes the custodian of naturalism.

[25] See pp. 93-9.

[26] Neither does it require a “naive” supernaturalism. See p. 87.

[27] Smith says that some Pentecostals have misunderstood the Spirit’s steady, “lawlike” presence in the world, and thus have found it difficult to affirm both the dynamism of the Spirit and the regularity of natural processes. See pp. 103-4.

[28] p. 110.

[29] p. 111.

[30] p. 114.

[31] p. 114.

[32] p. 126.

[33] p. 134.

[34] pp. 138-9.

[35] Rom. 8:26.

[36] pp. 145-6.

[37] p. 147.