[In this post, I share a chapter from my dissertation, The People of the Name: Oneness
Pentecostalism in the United States
(Florida State University, 1985) regarding the social functions of the Oneness
Pentecostal community and its relations with the larger social world. Several
of the examples used in these posts reflect American evangelicalism in the
1980s when the dissertation was written.]
The Oneness community/congregation serves not only as the arena
for the defining events of ritual worship and the theoretical framework these
events engender, but also as the central social institution in the believer's world.
The worshipping community acts as a primary grouping which provides a sense of
identity, belonging, and order for the individual and, in turn, bridges the gap
between the individual and the larger society. On the one hand, the Oneness
community functions as a social world unto itself which displays an
"objective existence" apart from the existing relationships of its
members, provides obvious standards for membership which define and exclude, and
raises clear boundaries which regulate the flow of members into and out of the
community. But on the other hand, individual believers continue to function in
the economic, political, and vocational life of the greater society. The
boundaries between the two worlds—the Oneness community and the larger society—remain
permeable, but this permeability is closely monitored by the framework of
belief which orders the worshipping community.
The maintenance of a given social order, according to Peter
Berger, rests in the continuing function of the society as that which is
"most real" for its individual participants. In other words, the
social base must retain its "plausibility," its believability and functionality,
among its individual adherents. Any framework of religious belief must be
undergirded by constructive social communities to maintain this plausibility.
The reality of the Christian world depends upon the presence of
social structures within which this reality is taken for granted and within which
successive generations of individuals are socialized in such a way that this
world will be real to them. When this plausibility structure loses its
intactness or continuity, the Christian world begins to totter and its reality
ceases to impose itself as a self-evident truth.1
The firmer the sense of community is, the firmer will be the
theoretical framework upon which it is built. Accordingly, social bonds within
the Oneness community both maintain and legitimate the worship forms and
distinct beliefs as the truth of Christianity and the way of salvation.
Berger sees that the "plausibility structure" of a
religious tradition is maintained in one of two ways in the contemporary world:
the religious community relates the larger society as "church" or
"sect".2 In the religious community as "church,"
the entire society serves as a "plausibility structure" for the
religious world—all social processes within the larger society confirm or reconfirm
the reality of the religious community. But such situations of religious
monopoly in the American scene have recently given way to an explosion of
pluralistic competition. In this context, the religious community as
"sect" acts as a sub-society, seeking to organize a "cognitive minority"
against a hostile or at least non-believing environment.3 The
growing secularism of contemporary society and the innumerable religious
options appearing in the 1960's have created a milieu of pluralistic
competition in American religious life and forced this redefinition of the
terms "church" and "sect." Pentecostalism, especially its
Oneness expression, has engaged and even flourished in this time of religious
pluralism and competition.
In the present, Oneness Pentecostalism continues to take
advantage of the instability and discontinuity in the contemporary religious
world, offering an alternative "vision" from the major Christian
traditions which have grown tenuous and even unacceptable to many. The ability to
convert and maintain the allegiance of the converted signals Oneness
Pentecostal successes. But such successes are not easily perpetuated: sectarian
groups like Oneness Pentecostalism must find ways to motivate individuals to remain
sectarian in light of the "attractiveness" and ease of life in the
greater society. Oneness Pentecostals have, thus, developed certain strategies
to prevent such lapses in commitment, including complex theological
apologetics, defensive attitudes in childhood training and higher education,
and restrictions on associations with those deemed "dangerous" to the
maintenance of the religious "worldview." Such defensiveness has
often limited, even replaced, the vitality of the Oneness movement, further gelling
notions of exclusivism. At this point—the "openness" and
"closedness" of the worshipping community—the central dilemma of
Oneness social life appears: in what way is the congregation to maintain its
identity and purity while also evangelizing and participating in the larger
society?
The Oneness community provides the essential bridge between the
believing individual and secular society and, in so doing, colors the
believer's perceptions of the external social world and defines, even delimits,
the believer's active participation in it. Oneness believers demonstrate a high
degree of "consciousness of oneness" with the religious group. This
intense "in group" identification appears most clearly in the
distancing of Oneness life from the practices and values of the
"outside" society.4 While "Holiness"
condemnation and restrictions on certain behaviors and associations have faded
in general Pentecostal circles, Oneness practice has institutionalized this
late nineteenth century value system, changing it only through reapplication to
modern technology (note especially the United Pentecostal Church's restriction
on television viewing).5
Social roles within the Oneness community are fixed and real. Oneness
believers fully and joyfully embrace the community demands of worship and daily
ethics. These believers resist any role detachment or "front stage/back
stage" manipulation of impressions by bringing together the ideal of the
"overcoming" Christian and the reality of this ideal's performance. Such
"true believers" demonstrate a pervading authenticity (albeit out of
step with greater cultural values) in their social and ethical lives. Those
perceiving the "ought" of the Oneness Christian life, but failing to
fulfill it, are deemed outsiders, regardless of any close connection to the congregation.
This ethical clarity and exclusivism, as much as any specific behavior pattern
or restriction, sets Oneness Pentecostals apart from the dominant society.6
The Oneness community encourages strong feelings of loyalty,
solidarity, and cooperation, all of which function to draw members in and
prevent them from flowing back into the larger society. Theoretically, the
Oneness community understands itself in conflict with the values of secular
society or, perhaps better, as a participant in the great cosmic struggle
between good and evil, God and Satan—a conflict which is waged at the most
practical level in daily ethical decisions. But seldom does this rather
apocalyptic rejection of secular society work itself out in true attitudes of
world-denying. Although Oneness believers do feel themselves separated from and
incompatible with the greater society, most do not understand their restrictive
behavioral norms as a total rejection of human society (cf. the true
world-denying attitudes of the radically adventist Jehovah's Witnesses), but
rather of the evil that plagues that society. The real arenas of antagonism are
specific clashing values—the traditional Holiness norms to which Oneness
believers are emotionally committed and by which they judge behavior. The evil
in society is often projected upon the "demonic system" as a whole or
upon its leaders or specific institutions (educational centers and corrupt
governments) rather than upon individuals who are deemed, not incessantly or irredeemably
evil, but pitiable, deluded, and in need of the readily available salvation
provided by Christ.
Relationships within the Oneness community, especially in
smaller congregations, are understood as primary—intimate, invaluable,
ends-in-themselves—in contrast to the secondary and instrumental quality of the
community's relation with secular society. In Oneness circles, religious activity
serves as the basis for broader communal associations and the congregation
provides a pool of human resources from which closest associates and friends
are drawn. In larger congregations, the physical proximity of believers in
regular face-to-face contact during worship services and their frequent inter-visitation
tightly knits the community together. Accordingly, even the largest Oneness
congregation preserves the intimacy of the primary group and acts as the arena
of direct, personal contact, the haven of values, and the agent of socialization
and social control.
In light of the intimacy of Oneness congregations, it is not
surprising that the community often perceives itself in the biblical image of
the "new family," the superlative family that supplants the functions
and allegiances of all other primary groupings. The initiatory experiences of
the Acts 2:38 "plan of salvation" are constantly cast in the language
of "new birth," transitions to "new life," and rites of
passage within this "new life." The notion of the non-human leader in
ritual worship blends with portraits of God as "loving Father" to
reinforce the images of birth and family which pervade Oneness self- perception.
In the salvation process, the believer embraces not only Christ experienced in
the community as "new parent," but the worshipping community itself
as "new family." References to fellow believers as
"Brothers" and "Sisters" are commonplace; while references
to pastors or elder believers as "Mother" or "Dad" are not
unusual.
Beyond the matter of self-perception, the community's
responsibility to the believer and the believer's loyalty to the community
parallel normal family relations. The family, therefore, provides not only an engaging
image to describe the community of believers, but also an effective pattern for
ordering community inter relationships. The fact that Pentecostal recruitment follows
lines of existing social relationships means that families, as well as
individuals, are the normal targets of evangelism. Existing family bonds within
Oneness congregations only further enhance the notion of the worshipping
community as the "new family."7
The dynamic, direct, on-going contact with Christ in worship
demands a choice of community for the participant—identification with the
Oneness community with its restrictive ethical life or identification with
secular society and its relative ethical ease. The choice of Oneness life is
measured by the quantity and quality of personal associations and external
conformity to the behavioral norms within the worshipping community. The notion
of the Oneness congregation as "new family" appears strongest and
most demanding in times of community opposition and intense worship. This
notion is not so overpowering in everyday life as to disrupt normal family relations.
The compartmentalization of spiritual and natural families rationalizes Oneness
daily practice, elevating the claims of the worshipping community, but avoiding
the disruptive power of these claims. Only in times of open hostility and
family opposition toward an individual's participation in Oneness life do the
claims of the "new family" supersede existing family relations. In such
cases, the worshipping community literally replaces the old support system as a
new source of values and center of relationships for the believer.8
In addition to this family structure, Gerlach and Hine have
expounded the "segmented" nature of the Pentecostal community: Pentecostals
demonstrate both strong interpersonal relations within their congregations
close associations with members of other congregations through personal
associations, leadership exchanges, and travelling evangelists. This
"infrastructure" within the movement, as well as perceived hostility
from the larger society, solidifies the Oneness Pentecostal community within
and beyond the local congregation. Such a social network provides a
"grapevine" communication system which quickly collects and disburses
information vital to the life of the community and offers a system of support—both
prayer and financial support—that transcends normal denominational and
organizational distinctions.9
Leadership roles in the Oneness community, especially that of
pastor, have followed a pattern of development and institutionalization similar
to the changes in the elements and order of worship. Whereas early Pentecostal
leaders acted as "referees" to control and order the spontaneity of
demonstrative worship, contemporary pastors have assumed roles more comparable
to the traditional notions of ministry in evangelical churches. But in the Oneness
movement, with its institutionalized restorationism and zeal to maintain
Pentecostal enthusiasm and Holiness ethical rigorism, the minister has also
come to function as the guardian of the orthodox message and the supervisor of the
community's ethical life as well as a leader and participant in ritual worship.
Ironically, this shift has often led to excessive authoritarianism among those Pentecostals
who most emphasize divine, rather than human, leadership in the worshipping
community. With the rush toward organizational uniformity and centralized administration,
the Oneness minister has enjoyed constant elevation, in some extreme cases
apotheosis, as the "voice of conscience" within the community.
This centralizing of leadership within the congregation has also
accelerated a shift toward theological conservatism in the Oneness tradition. Rather
than retaining the "openness" to divine insight inherent in the
"end time revelation" of "Jesus" as the saving name of God
and the prominence of spiritual gifts of utterance, the Oneness movement and
message has developed its own "fundamentals of faith" which contain
not only the rejection of modernity apparent in Fundamentalist thinking, but
also Oneness distinctives as necessary ingredients in the church's orthodoxy. Also,
the Oneness statements of faith act as creedal tests for those aspiring to the ministry
and as points of censure for those deviating from the party line. This is
equally true for the unwritten standards of behavior inherited from the
movement's Holiness forebears.
Deviance in doctrinal beliefs, standards of behavior, and
attitudes toward the secular world is usually limited to individuals rather
than substantial subgroups within Oneness congregations. The rise of such a
subgroup usually leads to community fission and the formation of a new
congregation. Heterodox individuals, more often than not, keep their deviating
beliefs and behaviors to themselves, outwardly conforming to group standards. Outspoken
heterodoxy leads to community isolation, correction, and even expulsion.10
Whenever opposition to Oneness doctrine or practice becomes too vocal, the detractors
quickly find themselves outside the movement. The Oneness pastor, therefore,
acts as an agent of social control who pressures the compliant into conformity
and ostracizes and even removes those deviating from orthodoxy.
Such in-group exclusiveness and strong social control raises the
issue of the Oneness community's place in the larger social world. Arthur Paris
correctly states that the Pentecostal "participates in the world but does not
'live' there," that their "worldly lives are of secondary importance
to them."11 While this obviously overstates the case, it is
essentially true. The amount of time demanded by Oneness religious devotion and
the strict regimen of behavior standards limits the believer's leisure time and
recreational opportunities. Beyond work support self and family, the Oneness
believer lives his life in the context of church worship and activities.
The isolation and insulation from secular society underlies the
prevailing attitude of social quietism in Oneness churches. The "in
group/out group" conflict model defines Oneness perceptions, but offers no
significant framework for understanding the believer's participation in the
larger society. This Oneness framework of thought disallows any meaningful
recognition or discussion of the believer's secondary relation to the secular
world. Religious commitment is the sole point of reference for the believer,
but this does not discredit the believer's worldly life. It is wrong to
understand American Oneness Pentecostalism (except in its most apocalyptic
expressions) as anti-cultural and, therefore, thoroughly sectarian and world-denying.
The believer lives in an ethical paradox—a dualism of community and secular demands.
The "Christ against culture" rhetoric common within the group arises
from its limited framework of perceptions rather than real anti-cultural
sentiment.
Marion Dearman's early 1970's sociological study, "Christ
and Conformity: A Study of Pentecostal Values," clearly captures this
ethical dualism. This study tests Benton Johnson's conjecture that certain
features of religious groups rooted in the Holiness tradition socialize members
in the key values of the dominant society. Johnson, in 1961, argued that the
conversion experience in such groups leads to an "innerworldly
asceticism" which emphasizes "rational, purposive, disciplined,
efficient, steady, predictable activity directed toward self direction,
mastery, and positive achievement in occupational tasks." In short, such
religious traditions actively socialize their adherents to the dominant values of
American society.12
Using Robin Williams' list of "value belief clusterings,"
Dearman demonstrates that Oneness Pentecostals (in this case, United
Pentecostal Church members from Oregon) share these values or orientations. These
"belief clusterings" include:
(1) activity and work, (2)
achievement and success, (3) moral orientation, (4) humanitarianism, (5)
efficiency and practicality, (6) science and secular rationality, (7) material comfort,
(8) progress, (9) equality, (10) freedom, (11) democracy, (12) external conformity,
(13) nationalism and patriotism, (14) individual personality, and (15) racism
and related group superiority themes.13
ACTIVITY AND WORK. The Oneness Pentecostals interviewed unanimously
showed a positive attitude toward activity and work. The assumption that God
observed the believer while at work and that the worker represented God and his
church to his non-believing fellow workers leads Oneness believers to excellence
in their jobs or at least to "work to the limits of their capacity."
ACHIEVEMENT AND SUCCESS. Despite the rhetoric of separation
explicit in the Holiness life style and a negative attitude toward secular education,
Oneness believers learn the importance of the "power of positive thinking"
and "aggressive, self-confident action" in their church lives which
prepares them for upward mobility.
MORAL ORIENTATION. Oneness believers take American moralism to
its extreme with restrictions on liquor, tobacco, and almost every form of
entertainment.
HUMANITARIANISM. The Oneness community is only partially committed
to humanitarian values—they are forever concerned with the needs of men's
souls, not their bodies, and often attribute poverty and poor health to the
moral evil of those who suffer—but this limited commitment parallels that of
the larger society.
EFFICIENCY AND PRACTICALITY. Oneness believers recognize the
qualities of efficiency and practicality as God's standards for the Christian
worker in both religious and secular vocations.
SCIENCE AND SECULAR RATIONALITY. The Oneness believer accepts
the advances of technology, but vehemently opposes scientific discussions which
ignore or discredit divine guidance in nature or history.
MATERIAL COMFORT. Oneness Pentecostals do not deviate from the
desire for possessions and creature comforts prominent in secular society.
PROGRESS. Most Oneness Pentecostals are optimistic about the
future despite their eschatological beliefs.
EQUALITY. Oneness believers qualify this notion under the divine
rule: if divine authority is recognized, then human equality is advocated.
FREEDOM. These Pentecostals use the American rhetoric of freedom,
although their understanding seems to lean toward freedom to conform to
society's norms rather than any real recognition of dissent or non-conformity—a
position shared by many in the early 1970's.
DEMOCRACY. These believers praise democracy as the "American
way," but show little real understanding of the concept.
EXTERNAL CONFORMITY. Dearman found these Pentecostals extremely
favorable to societal external conformity, here understood as a return to the
"old fashion" middle class values upon which America was built.
NATIONALISM AND PATRIOTISM. Oneness Pentecostals, despite standard
conscientious objection clauses in their statements of faith, demonstrate ample
nationalism and patriotism. Displays of "Americanism" and respect for
the nation are deemed Christian duties.
INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITY. Oneness Pentecostalism asserts the value
of the individual personality, although this value is ultimately religious—the
individual as the object of divine love and the recipient of Spirit baptism.
RACISM. Dearman found the least conformity to national values
among Oneness Pentecostals in their rejection of racist notions and language,
although she admits that this finding might more reflect the geographic arena
of her study (the Pacific northwest) than the standard values of the entire
American Oneness community.14
These findings led Dearman to conclude that rather than
rejecting the values of the dominant society, Oneness believers fully embraced
them. This embrace of the establishment is "not passive, but active."
Moreover, Dearman saw that emotionally compelling conversions made it possible
for new members to change from value systems which do not prize the values of
activity, achievement, and success to a new way of life that more clearly
reflects dominant societal values. In Oneness circles, Dearman concludes,
"it should be sufficiently clear that the life God demands is remarkably
similar to that which the establishment desires."15
In light of Dearman's study, the noted social quietism of the
Oneness movement seems to blossom from limited social vision and
theological perspective rather than any apolitical leanings. Arthur Paris
comments that any discussion of the "apolitical or reactionary political position
of Pentecostal religion" is flawed by its assumption that politics or
political action is a concern, or much less a central concern, of the churches.
Such evaluations fail to take seriously the framework within which the believer
perceives himself and the community. The Oneness church's sole social action is
the salvation of the lost. This goal of evangelism shapes, almost exclusively,
the Oneness community's relation to the secular world. This purpose along with
latent millenarianism removes serious consideration of secular society, its
ills and future, from the church's corporate concern. Corporately, Pentecostals
simply do not have a political role. In questions of social, political, or
economic struggles, Pentecostals act as individuals, concerned citizens, rather
than as community members.16
With other evangelical groups, Oneness Pentecostalism limits its
understanding of Christian mission to the all-consuming aim of winning the
world to Christ. Ministries of social service are secondary, even suspect, lest
a "social gospel" replace the evangelistic imperative. Social
ministries, when engaged, uniformly work toward evangelistic ends. Those who
seek God find him within the church building or through the religious
"witness" of believers. Any notion of a non-churchly worship of God
has yet to appear in Oneness circles. For the Oneness believer, obedience to
Christ's social demands consists of being an instrument for bringing
individuals to the institutional church and the salvation it provides.17
Samuel Hill, noted scholar of southern religion, finds three
"distortions of Christian responsibility" in this evangelical
reductionism:
[First,] the degeneration of
the valid Christian belief that the life of faith produces transforming power
into the naive judgment that the conversion experience will rectify all
individual and social ills, and by itself humanize life . . . [secondly,] the tendency
to overlook persons and their need unless they are "prospects" for membership
in the local church . . .[and thirdly,] the inflation of "one portion of
the biblical message into the whole," making the "all-important
moment of conversion" dynamically separate from the rest of life.18
Oneness Pentecostal life—in the worshipping community and beyond
it in the secular world—internalizes the dichotomy of men as "Christian
brothers" or evangelical prospects. This dichotomy underlies, even
legitimates, the social and political quietism of the movement. Within the community,
ethical demands are social and positive. The community as "new
family" recognizes the vast array of needs in its membership and joyfully
assumes for meeting these needs. But beyond the community, the believer stands
alone to face the secular world. The corporate life of the community does not
extend beyond the church service or the existing relationships (familial or otherwise)
of community members. Outside the community, the believer's ethics become
strictly personal and negative, defining his behavior and separating him from
the larger culture by outward symbols such as dress and hairstyle. The paradox
of the activism of the church "as a social world" and the quietism of
the church "in the social world" dictates the values of Oneness
social and ethical life.
_____________________
1Peter L. Berger, The
Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1969), p. 46.
2Berger's redefinition of these terms does not ignore or
discredit previous church/sect analysis—whether expressed in its classical form
by Troeltsch and H. Richard Niebuhr or in its contemporary forms by Yinger,
Wilson, and others—but rather reapplies these studies in light of the rampant
religious pluralism of the 1960's. This redefinition, therefore, updates and
clarifies church/sect analysis in terms of the changing situation.
3Berger, Sacred Canopy,
p. 164.
4James W.Vander Zanden, Social
Psychology (New York: Random House, 1977), pp. 218-34.
5United Pentecostal Church International, Manual of the United
Pentecostal Church International (Hazelwood, Mo.: Word Aflame Press, 1981),
pp. 22-23.
6Eric Hoffer, The True
Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (New York: Mentor Books,
1951), pp. 130-33.
7Luther Gerlach and Virginia H. Hine, People, Power, Change: Movements of Social Transformation
(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970), pp. 79-97.
8The strength of the believer's commitment to the Oneness
community as surrogate family also diminishes with time as the believer
develops broader social relations (i.e., employer/employee, teacher/student,
and neighbor/ neighbor).
9Luther Gerlach and Virginia H. Hine, "Five Factors Crucial
to the Growth and Spread of a Modern Religious Movement," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
7 (1968): 26-30.
10Arthur E. Paris, Pentecostalism:
Southern Religion to an Urban World (Amherst: University of Massachusetts
Press, 1982), p. 123.
11Ibid., p. 121.
12Marion Dearman, "Christ and Conformity: A Study of
Pentecostal Values," Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 13 (1974): 437-38.
13Ibid., pp. 439-40.
14Ibid., pp. 442-47.
15Ibid., pp. 449-50.
16Paris, Black Pentecostalism,
pp. 128-29.
17Compare the assessment of southern religion in Samuel S. Hill, Southern Churches in Crisis (Boston:
Beacon Press, 1967), pp. 195-98.
A really important post, Joe! The sociological aspect of the Oneness Pentecostal movement is without doubt one of its most salient features. Repeatedly I have observed that long after a person concludes that the theological profile of the movement is flawed, the sociological ties that involve family members may keep a person tethered for lengthy periods of time. The cost of separation can be excruciating and profoundly threatening.
ReplyDeleteMy first reservations on Oneness culture and lifestyle, if not doctrine, occurred in the early 1980s when "ACE schools" were all the rage in the UPC. I was preaching a revival in a small town in central Louisiana. I spent some time the first day in the church school where the pastor was the principal and "Sister Sally" and a couple others were the teachers. We were holding revival services every night of the week. Even though I was still a zealous pentecostal preacher, I thought: These kids spend all day and all night at this rural clapboard church. They have no other social outlet; they are not in public school. They see the same few people every day, including these unaccredited people teaching them. This cannot be good for these kids."
ReplyDelete