|
| |
The Frog King
or the Coming of Age of Pentecostalism
Paper
presented at the 9th Conference of the European Pentecostal /
Charismatic Research Association, July 13-17,1999, Missionsakademie, Hamburg
by
Jean-Daniel Plüss, Ph.D.
Heuelstrasse 45, CH – 8032 Zürich
Time
and again I am reminded that, although many people know that Pentecostalism has
grown into a world wide Christian movement, they tend to overlook that there is
a great variety among Pentecostals and Pentecostal-like churches. The movements
diversity makes it impossible to speak about the Pentecostal movement. It
cannot be defined by a major characteristic such as fidelity to a mother church
(e.g. Rome) or a common confession (e.g. Augsburg or Helvetic) or a shared
historical heritage (e.g. the Orthodox communion) allowing some general
denominator. If the Pentecostal denominations and churches have something in
common, it is the attention they pay to the presence and power of God’s Spirit
in the ecclesial and personal life of the believer as well as in creation in
general.
If I
am attempting to say something about the coming of age of Pentecostalism, then
it can only be understood as a bird’s view perception of what has been going
on among Pentecostals for the past hundred years. But this very mix between
diverse emphases and common phenomena may, in the end, prove significant from
various points of view. Rather than comparing the Pentecostal movement with a
certain Christian tradition I suggest a more neutral approach. Let me, for that
purpose, read to you the story of the Frog King.
The Frog King
In
olden times, when wishing still did some good, there lived a king whose
daughters were all beautiful, but the youngest was so beautiful that the sun
itself, who, indeed has seen so much, marveled every time it shone upon her
face. In the vicinity of the King’s castle there was a large, dark forest, and
in this forest, beneath an old linden tree, there was a well. In the heat of the
day the princess would go out into the forest and sit on the edge of the cool
well.
She
took great pleasure in throwing a golden ball into the air and catching it, but
once it went too high. She held out her hand with her fingers curved to catch
it, but it fell to the ground and rolled and rolled right into the water.
Horrified,
the princess followed it with her eyes, but the well was so deep that she could
not see its bottom. The she began to cry bitterly, “I’d give anything, if
only I could get my ball back; my clothes, my precious stones, my pearls,
anything in the world.”
At
this a frog stuck its head out of the water and said, “Princess, why are you
crying so bitterly?”
“Oh,”
she said “you ugly frog, how can you help me? My golden ball has fallen into
the well.”
The
frog said, ”I do not want your pearls, your precious stones, and your clothes,
but if you will accept me as a companion and let me sit next to you and eat from
your plate and sleep in your bed, and if you’ll love and cherish me, then
I’ll bring your ball back to you.”
The
princess thought, “What is this stupid frog trying to say? After all, he does
have to stay here in the water. But still, maybe ha can get my ball. I’ll go
ahead and say yes,” and she said aloud, “Yes, for all I care. Just bring me
back my golden ball, and I’ll promise everything.”
The
frog stuck his head under the water and dove to the bottom. He returned after a
short time later with the golden ball in his mouth and threw it onto the land.
When
the princess saw her ball once again, she rushed toward it, picked it up, and
was so happy to have it in her hand again, that she could think of nothing else
than to run home with it.
The
frog called after her, “Wait, princess, take me with you like you promised,”
but she paid no attention to him.
The
next day the princess was sitting at her table when she heard something coming
up the marble steps: plip, plop. Then there came a knock at the door, and a
voice called out, “Princess, youngest, open the door for me!” She ran and
opened the door. It was the frog, whom she had put completely out of her mind.
Frightened, she slammed the door shut and returned to the table.
The
king saw that her heart was pounding and asked, “Why are you afraid?”
“There
is a disgusting frog out there,” she said, “who got my golden ball out of
the water. I promised him that he could be my companion, but I did not think
that he could leave his water, but now he is just outside the door and wants to
come in.”
Just
then there came a second knock at the door, and a voice called out.
“Youngest
daughter of the king,
Open
up the door for me,
Don’t
you know what yesterday,
You
said to me down by the well?
Youngest
daughter of the king,
Open
up the door for me.”
The
king said, “What you have promised, you must keep. Go and let the frog in.”
She
obeyed, and the frog hopped in, then followed her up to her chair. After she had
sat down again, he called out, “Lift me up onto your chair and let me sit next
to you.”
The
princess did not want to, but the king commanded her to do it.
When
the frog was seated next to her he said, “Now push your golden plate closer. I
want to eat from it.” She had to do this as well.
When
he had eaten all he wanted, he said, “Now I am tired and want to sleep. Take
me to your room, make your bed, so that we can lie in it together.”
The
princess was horrified when she heard that. She was afraid of the cold frog and
did not dare to even touch him, and yet he was supposed to lie next to her in
her bed; she began to cry and didn’t want to at all.
Then
the king became angry and commanded her to do what she had promised.
There
was no helping it; she had to do what her father wanted, but in her heart she
was bitterly angry. She picked up the frog with two fingers, carried him to her
room, and climbed into bed, but instead of laying him next to herself, she threw
him bang! against the wall. “Now you will leave me in peace, you disgusting
frog!”
But
when the frog came down onto the bed, he was a handsome young prince, and he was
her dear companion, and she held him in esteem as she had promised, and they
fell asleep together in pleasure.
A Contemporary Interpretation of the Frog King
Before
we can apply this story in any way to Pentecostalism we need to take one more
step, namely to consider an interpretation of that tale. I suggest to follow
Bruno Bettelheim’s psycho-analytic
approach.
He compares the events of the story with the process of maturation of
young people. In the beginning the princess is a young girl carelessly
playing with a ball. The ball is important for various reasons. First,
everything begins to happen because of the ball falling into the well.
Furthermore, the ball is a symbol of perfection, it is a sphere and it is made
of gold. Bettelheim compares the ball to the girl’s undeveloped narcissistic
psyche, it contains all potentials, none yet realized.
“When the ball falls into the deep, dark well, naïveté is lost and
Pandora’s box is opened. The young princess mourns the loss of its childish
innocence as desperately as that of the ball. Only the ugly frog can restore
perfection – the ball – to her out of the darkness into which the symbol of
her psyche has fallen. Life has become ugly and complicated as it begins to
reveal its darker sides.”
The
rest of the story is a beautiful illustration how an adolescent has to learn to
move from the pursuit of pleasure to an acceptance of consequences and
commitments in life. Closely related to that, the young person develops an
ability to love. What is different, even ugly and revolting can turn into
something lovable. Like a frog that seems disgusting to touch, a child may
naturally feel uneasy to touch the other sex. As the princess learns to assert
herself,
so does her ability to appreciate otherness increase. First she follows the
commands of her father, the king (super ego), but in the end she decides
(against her father’s orders) to throw the frog against the wall. As she
becomes more herself so does the frog, he turns into a prince, and both enjoy
each others company.
Thus the story of the Frog King illustrates a person’s development from
a self-centered life style to a committed life in communion with others. What
first seems dark, ugly and disgusting ends up being not that bad after all; even
more – essential for life.
A Pentecostal Interpretation of the Frog King
By now
we need not say much as we apply this fairy tale to the coming of age of the
Pentecostal movement. We can read the early days of Pentecostalism as the time
its members rejoiced perfect bliss with the new gifts discovered as a grace of
God. The sphere of the new Pentecost seemed perfect. The golden harvest time had
come. But suddenly there came the
time where the help of others was called for. There may have been a lot of
distrust to other forms of religious life, theological convictions and moral
beliefs, but little by little total otherness gave way to an appreciation of
what is held in common and what constitutes enriching differences. In this sense
one hundred years of Pentecostalism should not only be seen in terms of its
remarkable numeric growth, but also in terms of its ideological development. Let
us end this reflection by focussing on the theological, missiological, social
and ecumenical development of Pentecostalism.
The Theological Development
Early
Pentecostal leaders considered themselves as people coming from a variety of
traditions that had been brought together by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Granted the Holiness Tradition, especially in the United States and northern
Europe played a catalytic role in relating personal experience, popular piety
and professed doctrine.
But early Pentecostal spokespersons came from a variety of backgrounds,
religious, social, and cultural. In Europe for instance, it was only after a
decade and the turbulence of World War I, that theological reflection lead to a
focus on denominational identity rather than on communion with other Christians. The rejection of
Pentecostal spirituality by mainline churches led Pentecostals to focus on
spiritual gifts as opposed to the apparent lack thereof in the other churches.
It was not unlike the princess’s preoccupation with her golden ball. The gifts
of the Spirit were so sublime and wonderful, they just had to be quintessential.
But
soon Pentecostals met otherness: in the often uneasy relationship with
Evangelicals, in opposition to liberal theology (whatever that meant), on the
mission field, in community efforts, in evaluating and appropriating theological
material. What first appeared to be an utterance of darkness, turned out to be a
valid expression of faith; once it was beheld in the proper light and
personally, yet critically, addressed.
Today,
Pentecostals world wide are pursuing critical historical research, raising
contemporary ethical issues, and engage in contextualized theological debate.
The emergence of various Pentecostal theological journals over the last decades
witnesses to that effect.
The Missiological Development
“In
olden times, when wishing still did some good, there lived a king whose
daughters were all beautiful, but the youngest was so beautiful that the sun
itself, who, indeed has seen so much, marveled every time it shone upon her
face.” This phrase with all its metaphorical connotations illustrates the
pre-reflective stage of early Pentecostalism. The power of the Holy Spirit, so
vividly experienced, seemed second to none. The gift of tongues, was not only
assumed to be a symbol of a new Pentecost. It was thought to be the missionary
gift “par excellence”, equipping the saints to communicate and minister in
foreign countries. Soon of course, xenoglossa, the ability to speak a foreign
language without first having learned it, turned out to be, in many instances,
wishful thinking. Furthermore, early Pentecostal missionary endeavors soon began
to rely on the help of larger and established missionary societies.
Many lessons had to learned the hard way.
Nevertheless,
the movement grew at a breathtaking rate within a hundred years to a major
Christian force on the globe. The vision to prepare a great harvest to the glory
of the King of Kings and to the benefit of a lost world has been very real. The
desire to bring healing to torn families and weary nations came from a personal
experience of restoration as well as from a conviction that God had revealed
himself in fullness, not unlike the perfect golden sphere the girl played with.
The trouble is, the princess lost her ball. Likewise one could, for example,
expect a slowing down of missionary zeal by the time Pentecostalism entered its
third generation. The fact that this has generally not happened may point, if studied, to
important emphases within Pentecostalism and the diversity of Pentecostal
missionary work today.
The Social Development
Whereas
we may find prophetic utterances that reflect estrangement fro the world and
accordingly a spiritualization as a result of hard social and economic distress
it is no secret that Pentecostalism is in fact for many a way to climb the
social ladder. As concern for the welfare of the converts grew, so did the
various programs such as schools, child care for working mothers, medical
facilities and old people’s homes. Good examples can be found among
Pentecostal projects in Latin America
and in the developing countries in general.
As
awareness of social responsibility grows, so do the areas of concern. A fine
example is Miroslav Volf’s book on political theology in view of ethnic strife
in the Balkans. Pentecostalism is not
only a global phenomenon, many Pentecostal teachers and leaders have become
aware that fundamental questions of existence are of global significance and
need therefore, to be tackled together. The princess has finally allowed the
frog to sit at her table.
The Ecumenical Development
Many
have argued that Pentecostalism was from its beginnings an inherently ecumenical
movement. By necessity
cross-denominational contacts were called for in missionary work. In North
America and Europe contacts with the Evangelicals was sought as a means for
gaining status and identity. Some Pentecostal personalities like David Du
Plessis were ecumenical in outlook, others like Donald Gee ecumenical in
reflection. Besides the fact that some Pentecostal churches in the two-thirds
world have joined the World Council of Churches as early as in the sixties, we
have been able to follow the developments of the Roman Catholic – Pentecostal
Dialogue for almost three decades
and a similar dialogue with the World Alliance of Reformed Churches since the
early nineties. But most importantly, many Pentecostal theologians have had
exposure and have been trained by the established universities.
Following the analogy of the Frog King, we may risk
the question, When will the princess allow the frog to share her room and bed,
or the most intimate aspects of Pentecostal spirituality? This cannot mean, when
will Pentecostalism liberalize access to charismatic gifts. By theological
definition charisms are a gift from God and as such available to whosoever he
pleases. Intimate access to Pentecostal spirituality relates to something
different, to the core of its identity and the question arises, will
Pentecostalism loose its identity by welcoming others to share, and therefore
also to influence , its raison d’être? Would it perhaps lead to an
irreversible demythologization?
I believe not. As Pentecostalism is
coming of age, it is not called to give up its spirituality, its devotion to God
and the people in need. It might simply be called to understand herself and
others more clearly by way of communication, by being in communion with others,
and by learning to witness not only by means of compassion but also by means of
dialogue. And as this dialogue takes place, it is quite possible that the
dialogue partners say similarly with the frog, “I do not want your tongues,
your prophecies and visions, but if you accept me as a companion I will be
pleased.”
Conclusion
In the
beginning of Pentecostalism, one might assume, there was the phenomenon of
“speaking in tongues”. Accordingly, one could define Pentecostalism as a
“tongue movement”. The idea, at first, seems plausible, after all the
charism of glossolalia was an outstanding qualifier
in comparison with the other Christian groups of the time. But would that be
all? Cecil M. Robeck has convincingly argued that the “tongue thing” does
not satisfactorily describe the
Pentecostal paradigm.
Perhaps the Pentecostal paradigm is not by means of definition, but by
means of the Spirit. Such a paradigm has brought much
diversity, a fair amount of theological blunder, personal hurt and
denominational division. But the awareness of the Spirit has also opened doors
cross-culturally and touched millions of lives with the Gospel.
There
has been diversity within Pentecostalism from its very beginning, and that very
diversity is all the more evident a hundred years later. This apparently
successful mix between a common intentionallity, i.e. proclaiming the Gospel
with an awareness of God’s presence through His Spirit, and a variety of means
to realize this mandate. Might put Pentecostalism in a unique position to
dialogue with other Christian communities.
The
end of the Frog King tale shows that both the princess and the
frog-turned-prince are of regal blood. And either party has not lost, but gained
in maturity and beauty. May this story be a challenge to our research and
ecumenical dialogue.
Postscript
After
the first reading of this text during the 9th EPCRA Conference at the
Missionsakademie in Hamburg, Germany, the response was at first an
identification of the Pentecostal participants with the princess as my text
suggested. Soon after, however, some Pentecostals felt that they were better
represented by the frog, pointing to the rejection the movement suffered
especially in the first part of the twentieth century, and the bringing back of
the golden sphere to the surface (i.e. the awareness of the Holy Spirit and its
theological significance to the mainline churches). At this point the
non-Pentecostal participants picked up the argument and pointed to the fact that
they too felt represented by both protagonists of the story. The vivid
discussion ended that night with the realization that dialogue begins when its
partners are not so sure whether they are all one or the other.
|
