Early Christian Worship: Part 1

                Here I Intend to begin the first of four posts on the nature of early Christian worship as it can be gleaned from the bits and pieces as referred to in the New Testament.

                While to greater or lesser extent the earliest Christians still participated in both the temple (until its destruction) and the synagogue (until it became impossible to continue), they also began distinctively Christian worship. While such Christian worship was not directly connected to either temple or synagogue, it drew from temple motifs and synagogue patterns.

                Jesus left no formal order of worship, though he did leave two mandates for the sacramental practices of baptism and Eucharist. The earliest Christian worship services in Jerusalem seem to have been somewhat informal and convened on a daily basis:

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. (Ac. 2:42) 

Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. (Ac. 2:46-47a) 

They [Sanhedrin] were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. (Ac. 4:2) On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported… When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer… After they had prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly (Ac. 4:23-24, 31)

All the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. …more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number. (Ac. 5:12, 14) 

Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ. (Ac. 5:42) 

At this early juncture, it is probably fair to say that Christian worship was not yet normalized, that is, that there were as yet no formal principles regulating the service of worship. This is no more than would be expected of a group that had no formal mandate for a worship order. The expression “they broke bread” probably refers to the observance of the Eucharistic meal (Ac. 2:42, 46), and of course, baptisms were conducted for converts (Ac. 2:41). The apostles taught and preached the message of Jesus (Ac. 2:42; 4:2), and communal prayer was offered (Ac. 2:42; 4:24). The fact that they met in the temple courts suggests that they retained the basic concept of sacred space set apart for the worship of God (cf. Ac. 2:46; 5:12, 19-21, 42a), but the fact that they also met in homes implies their confidence that the indwelling of the Spirit sanctified all places where they gathered (Ac. 2:46; 5:42). The fact that the early Christians followed the “teaching of the apostles” (Ac. 2:42) distinguishes Christian allegiance from the teaching of other groups (Pharisees, Essenes, etc.) and implies that Christians believed the Torah had been fulfilled in Jesus. Only after the Christian circle expanded beyond the environs of Jerusalem do we find the nucleus of an order of Christian worship.

Mostly what we find concerning early Christian worship services are bits and pieces. There exists in the New Testament no objective description of an early worship service. When Peter was arrested, “the church was earnestly praying to God for him” in the home of Mary, the mother of John Mark (Ac. 12:5, 12). In a gathering of Christians for worship at Antioch, Syria, Paul and Barnabas were commissioned as missionaries (Ac. 13:1-3). At Troas in western Asia Minor, Christians gathered on Sunday evening “to break bread”, which implies the Eucharistic meal (Ac. 20:7, 11). In this context, Paul taught at length in an upstairs room illuminated by oil lamps (Ac. 20:8-9). In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul could assume that his converts would gather for worship in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Co. 5:4; 11:18). He also could assume that in their corporate worship they would observe the Eucharistic meal (1 Co. 10:16-17; 11:17-34). Their meetings typically would be on Sunday, the first day of the week (1 Co. 16:2). During their worship gatherings, considerable room was afforded for congregational participation in song, instruction, and the expression of spiritual gifts (1 Co. 14:26). Both women and men were allowed to pray and address the congregation, though there were expected patterns of decorum (1 Co. 11:4-5; 14:39-40).

Some corporate, liturgical elements are clearly indicated, such as, “the Thanksgiving” (1 Co. 14:16), “the Amen” (1 Co. 14:16; 2 Co. 1:20), and the closing “Maranatha” (= “Our Lord, come!” 1 Co. 16:22).

And so through him the ‘Amen’ is spoken by us to the glory of God. (2 Co. 1:20).

The references to “the thanksgiving” and “the amen” clearly have the definite article in the Greek text, which implies a formal element. Paul refers not merely to some incidental or spontaneous “thanksgiving” and “amen,” but rather to the amen and the thanksgiving. Unfortunately, some translations, such as the NIV, omit the definite articles, thus obscuring the liturgical framework. Maranatha is given in Aramaic. The fact that Paul would give a closing prayer in a language that ordinarily would hardly be understood by Corinthians in the Greek Peloponnesus almost certainly denotes a liturgical element, since otherwise it would have been incomprehensible unless it was a regular part of the service carried over from Palestine. What is true for Maranatha is equally true of Amen, which is a Hebrew word transliterated into Greek (and eventually, into English). Similarly, the word ‘Abba in addressing God, the Aramaic word for father, goes back to Jesus’ prayers and the Lord’s Prayer (cf. Mk. 14:36; Ro. 8:15; Ga. 4:6). The most natural context in which a Greco-Roman Christian in Italy or Asia Minor would employ the Aramaic word ‘Abba would be in reciting the Lord’s prayer.

                The widespread use of doxologies in the New Testament—standardized formulae offering praise to God—may well have been taken from worship settings (Ro. 16:27; Ga. 1:5; 1 Ti. 1:17; 6:16; 1 Pe. 5:11; Jude 25; Rv. 1:6; 7:12; 19:1). Doxologies typically begin with “Blessed be…” and are directed toward God. Typically they end with “Amen” (Ro. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; Ga. 1:5; Ep. 3:21; Phi. 4:20; 1 Ti. 1:17; 6:16; 2 Ti. 4:18; He. 13:21; 1 Pe. 4:11; 5:11; 2 Pe. 3:18). Often, they consciously refer to the Father, the Son and the Spirit (Ep. 1:3; 3:21; Ro. 16:27; He. 13:21; Jude 25; Rv. 5:13). Most naturally, such doxologies would have come at the conclusion of prayer. Similarly, New Testament benedictions—parting words of blessing upon God’s people—may also have been drawn from early Christian worship settings (e.g., 2 Co. 13:14).

                Other bits and pieces of evidence highlight music and singing. While we have no direct evidence about the use of musical instruments one way or another, it is possible if not likely that the early Christians did not use them, following synagogue practice, where they were banned. Still, vocal music clearly held a prominent place in Christian worship. Paul can assume that in Corinthian worship one of the expressions offered to the church would be “a hymn” (1 Co. 14:26). In Ephesus and Colossae, he can refer to “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” (Ep. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Psalms would have included antiphonal singing (cf. Ezra 3:11; Ne. 12:24, 31), drawn from temple and synagogue, and hymns may have been original compositions, at least if Paul’s reference to hymns is analogous to similar references by his contemporary Philo. James can urge joyful Christians to “sing songs of praise” (Ja. 5:13), and while they were not exactly in a worship service, Paul and Silas sang in the midnight darkness of the Philippian jail (Ac. 16:25). Many scholars have suggested that the poetic forms of various New Testament passages may themselves have been derived from early Christians hymns. Luke’s Gospel contains several: the Magnificat (Lk. 1:46-55), the Benedictus (Lk. 1:68-79), the Gloria in excelsis (Lk. 2:14) and the Nunc Dimittis (Lk. 2:29-32), to borrow their Latin titles. The Book of Revelation contains several more (Rv. 4:8, 11; 5:9-10, 12, 13; 7:10, 12; 11:15, 17-18; 15:3-4; 22:17). All these parallel very closely the ancient psalms, and most scholars agree that they follow to a large measure the style of the Eighteen Benedictions of the temple and synagogue service. Later, these same compositions would be taken up in the liturgical use of the post-apostolic church. Such references occur in the Apostolic Constitutions, a compilation of directives concerning early church teaching and worship and derived from various sources and periods. Some probably go back to the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries, some perhaps even earlier, others later.

                In addition to the poetic compositions more generally recognized as early Christian hymns, one should also recognize various passages in the Pauline literature that well may be fragments of early Christian hymns (Ep. 5:14; Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Ti. 1:17; 3:16; 6:15-16; 2 Ti. 2:11-13). In particular, Paul’s citation in Ephesians 5:14 is prefaced with the words, “Wherefore he [or “it] says…”

Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.

We might suppose that Paul is here quoting from the Old Testament, but in fact, he is not. Most scholars agree with the ancient opinion of Origen (AD 185-254) and Theodoret (5^th century) that this is a fragment of a Christian hymn, possibly sung in the context of Christian baptism.

                In general, it is fair to say that these fragments, if indeed they are from the hymnody of the apostolic church, focus upon the central issues of the gospel itself—deeply held truths like the incarnation, the cross, the resurrection, the messiahship and lordship of Jesus, the worthiness of God to be glorified, the Christian hope and so forth. None of them seem to give substantial attention to the psychological self of the worshipper. The center, just as with the ancient worshippers of the Old Testament, is the worth-ship of God, especially as mediated through his Son, Christ Jesus the Lord.

Belief System of Oneness Pentecostalism 5

The "Name" and the certain vindication of the future.

A final arena of distinctive Oneness thought concerns the "Name" and the vindication of the future. The revelation of the divine name "Jesus" as an end time event means, for Oneness believer, nothing less than the dawning of the kingdom of God in the present age. This divine action has garnered as its corollary a heightened Satanic darkness among the evil men and institutions of these latter days. This struggle of God and Satan will climax, according to Oneness projections, with the withdrawal of the restraints on evil embodied in the church of the "Name" in the "rapture" and the onrush of a worldwide catastrophic judgment on evil in the "tribulation period." But prior to the climactic events, God will restore the church to its true apostolic power, producing a revival of worldwide proportions. The Oneness Pentecostal sees himself as a "servant of the final age of revival," a tool in the end time restoration of the church.¹⁰

This eschatological intensity and the claim of an end time revelation of the saving name of God ostracized the Oneness believers from the growing institutional stability of the Assemblies of God. Their forced withdrawal from this body in 1916 led to a strong persecution complex and the modification of their eschatological expectations. Rather than as a force for renewing the existing churches, Oneness believers came to see themselves as opposed to and a divine witness against unfaithful Christendom. Opposition to the Oneness theology of the "Name" by Trinitarian Pentecostals amounted to a full rejection of Christ himself. "Come-outism" gripped Oneness leaders as they came to make exclusive claims on knowledge of God's person and Christian salvation. Emphasis shifted from the saving message of the name of Jesus as that "name whereby we must be saved" to the eschatological vindication of the Oneness movement through the selfsame judging name "before which every knee shall bow."

In the Oneness mentality, the future coming of Christ will reverse present injustices. The believer will triumph in his daily struggle with the powers of darkness and will enjoy full fellowship with God. Human institutions—political and economic—with their powers to oppress the Christian believer will be laid powerless before the judgment of a sovereign God. But most significantly, the religious status quo will be uncovered as false Christianity and the Oneness believers will be elevated to their rightful place of prominence. Nominal Christians will either be condemned to hell for their rejection of the Oneness message or relegated to a sub-salvational position due to their ignorance. The eschatological claim of superior revelation—when reinterpreted in light of hostile rejection of the Oneness movement—reversed the role of Pentecostal eschatology from incentive for evangelism to future vindication. In this manner, Oneness Pentecostalism has maintained its eschatological intensity on a prolonged basis despite the upward economic mobility of its adherents.

_____________________

¹⁰Hollenweger, The Pentecostals, p. 413.

Belief System of Oneness Pentecostalism 4

The "Name, the"perfected humanity" of Christ, and the redeemed life of the believer

The strongest practical impact of the Oneness theology of the "Name" and radical redefinition of Christian monotheism appears in the realm of ethical life: the "Name," the "perfected humanity" of Christ, and the redeemed life of the believer. Walter Hollenweger correctly points out that the desire to "live with one's fellowman in a bearable and human fashion" is not the source of Pentecostal ethics. Rather the various practices and restrictions arise from the prospect of (or the fear of losing) the eternal glories of heaven. The invitation to the great eschatological meal, the prospect of rising above current dilemmas into an unending fellowship with God, and the contingency of such future rewards on present conduct underlies all Pentecostal ethics.

The function of ethics is to keep the believer on the narrow way which leads to heaven. As long as ethics has the function of preserving the white garment for the kingdom of heaven, the concern of Pentecostal ethics can never be for one's fellow man, but only for oneself: I must endeavor not to get my hands dirty, not to have any stain on the marriage garment, so that I might be ready when Jesus comes. To this extent it is also necessary to behave respectably toward my fellow men, otherwise my account in heaven is blotted. So a Pentecostal is friendly and patient with his neighbors and business colleagues. Even more, he regards them as potential objects of evangelism. A Pentecostal's love for these candidates is genuine in so far as he seeks to save them from hell.⁷

In addition to this eschatological orientation to ethics, Oneness believers embrace a moral perfectionism based on their understanding of the person of Christ. Christology necessarily dominates the Oneness doctrine of God. The Christological redefinition of "Father" and "Son" in terms of the divine-human interplay within the incarnate God Jesus doubly impacts upon the believer's life. First, the ready accessibility of the "human God" who is compassionate to human misery, anxiety, and limitation opens wide the possibility of salvation. Secondly, this Christology demands a "perfected life" of the believer accomplished by imitating the example of the "perfected humanity" of Christ and resting in the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life.

The sinlessness of Christ plays a central role in Oneness Christology and ethics. Here, the "Father-Son" Christology, often portrayed in Nestorian terms, takes a definite Apollinarian slant. For some Oneness believers, the "Spirit of God" replaces the "human spirit" in the man Jesus, insuring that although he is tempted in every conceivable manner, he nevertheless resists all.⁸ In an interesting corollary, the Spirit- filled believer is himself presented as a miniature incarnation of the divine, weak in his humanity, but strong through the abiding Holy Spirit which calls him to and makes him capable of moral perfection. This triumphalism, although not human in origin, affirms the present, rather than eschatological, perfectibility of the believer.

Upon closer investigation, Oneness ethics reveal roots in a realized, or at least inaugurated, eschatology. The perfection of the future age is already being realized—at partial and hidden levels—in the present by the work of the Holy Spirit in the community of believers. Future communion with God is already experienced in the real presence of God in the acts of ritual worship. Eternity only extends this communion quantitatively, not qualitatively. With the Lucan tradition (the central biblical basis of Oneness Pentecostalism), these Pentecostals deal with the delay of Christ's physical return through his spiritual return in the "divine epiphany" (at Pentecost and in contemporary corporate worship). In this interim "Age of the Spirit," the cross of Christ provides a two-fold function in the believer's present life—as a substitutionary atonement for past sins and an example for self-denial in daily ethical life—and foreshadows the full victory of the "Age to Come."

Oneness restorationism is also apparent in its ethical standards and restrictions. Although many early Pentecostals—especially the Finished Work or Baptistic Pentecostals which include the Assemblies of God, the direct forbears of much of the Oneness movement—did not fully embrace the restrictions on behavior, dress, and associations held by Methodist-Holiness believers, Oneness Pentecostals, in their zeal to maintain the intensity of the earliest Pentecostal revivals, perceived themselves as the guardians of these taboos in a rapidly compromising world. This reaction parallels the Oneness retrenchment concerning displays of demonstrative worship, the centrality of Spirit baptism, and the eschatological nature of the Pentecostal revivals. This reaction also explains the apparent contradiction of Oneness "Baptistic theology and Holiness praxis."⁹ The ethical conservatism of Oneness Pentecostalism became a sure token of its restorationist purity. The farther other Pentecostals (especially those with Baptist roots) moved away from Holiness restrictions, the stronger Oneness believers embraced them. Currently, Oneness leaders continually seek a "revival of holiness," a reaffirmation of these behavioral taboos by third, fourth, and fifth generation believers.

Such rejection of worldly involvement and pleasure demands a Christian alternative. For the Oneness believer, church life serves to meet social and entertainment as well as religious needs. (Perhaps the key to the diversification of ministries lies here.) As the believer matures, he progresses closer and closer to the inner circles of conformity in personal ethics and worship participation. The Oneness community turns in on itself, packing densely the fully committed at its core and radiating out in concentric circles of commitment and participation. The non-participant, the former Oneness believer who no longer attends services but still believes in the presence of God in the community, rests on the farthest circle. Despite his lack of participation, he remains a prime candidate for re-initiation at a future date.

Redeemed life, for the Oneness adherent, is community life. Although ethical demands extend obligations to employers and the state, the majority of such demands focus on the inner workings of the community's social structure. Almost all "positive" ethical demands—those which prescribe a positive act of service toward another, rather than restrict behavior—concern inter-community relations. Neighbor-love extends primarily, if not solely, to fellow believers. The positive and social quality of inter-community ethics quickly fades in the larger context of the hostile, secular society. Beyond the community, Oneness ethics become strictly personal and negative, restricting the believer's actions and associations.
_____________________

⁷Walter J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement in the Churches (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing Co., 1972), p. 408.

⁸This tendency is especially clear in the teachings of Robert A. Sabin, an instructor at Apostolic Bible Institute in St. Paul, Minnesota.

⁹David A. Reed, "Oneness Pentecostalism: Tracing the Emergence of an American Religious Movement," paper presented at the First Occasional Symposium on Aspects of the Oneness Pentecostal Movement, Harvard Divinity School, July 1984, p. 12.
_____________________

Next Post: The "Name" and the certain vindication of the future.

Belief System of Oneness Pentecostalism 3

The "Name," the "concreteness" of Christian salvation, and the assurance of the believer

The late nineteenth and early twentieth century noted a steady movement of mainline Christian denominations toward more modern expressions of religious faith which sought a relevant reassessment of traditional doctrines and practices in the rapidly changing world. Against this trend, revivalists and theological conservatives reaffirmed the inherited values of their traditions and vocally opposed any modifications or revisions for the sake of relevance. The Holiness movement, with its search for tangible evidences of Christian commitment and eventual denominational divisiveness, bears witness to the dividing camps of the liberals and conservatives and the growing attempts by conservatives to define the essentials of the Christian life. In contrast to the doctrinal tests appearing in emerging Fundamentalism, the Holiness believers turned to an experiential test—specifically, the "crisis" experience of sanctification—as the evidence of true Christian commitment. This evangelical search for "evidences" expanded to include Spirit baptism and glossolalia with growing Pentecostalism and found its ultimate expression in the Oneness "Acts 2:38 plan of salvation," a tangible, measurable guideline for assessing Christian commitment. This "plan" provides the basis for the Oneness notions of the "Name," the "concreteness" of Christian salvation, and the assurance of the believer.

The "Acts 2:38 plan" of repentance, water baptism administered by immersion in "Jesus' name," and Spirit baptism evidenced by glossolalia became thoroughly linked with the elements of ritual worship in the Oneness service. Since these rites of initiation are completely measurable and tangible, the church is fully visible. The new convert's commitment is measured by these initial evidences, while the mature Christian displays commitment by full participation in worship. In both cases, the experience of salvation is "concrete," certain, and repeatable. Interestingly, this "concrete" salvation experience limits its accessibility. Oneness Pentecostalism rejects the "easy believism" that came to permeate post-Moody revivalism in favor of these more austere and demanding rites of initiation. But while these rites limit the accessibility of salvation, they also enhance the assurance of the believer. Conversion as a datable, tangible event accompanied by physical actions and a community of witnesses lies beyond the realm of doubt. Continued performance in ritual worship and the appearance of the "divine epiphany" reaffirms these initial evidences. Songs, sermons, and testimonies recount this collective journey; while in the divine confrontation, the journey itself is reenacted and the believer's experience reconfirmed.

Water baptism in the name of Jesus is neither a subjective experience nor a private act, but rather a part of the public worship. Celebrated in the community as part of the normal order of the service, the baptismal ceremony is attended by all the usual elements of Pentecostal worship. In baptism, the community as well as the individual acts in response to grace. Baptism, for the individual, reinforces the experience of forgiveness and concretely represents entrance into the believing community. Whereas baptism in most Pentecostal churches merely symbolizes a work already completed within the believer, Oneness baptism validates the entire initiation process by the application of the divine name to the candidate which foreshadows the abiding of the Holy Spirit within the believer's life following Spirit baptism. Baptism, although symbolic, is far more than symbol alone; in baptism, real initiation occurs—personal experiences of faith and repentance are validated and the seeker becomes a candidate for Spirit baptism. Water baptism—if correctly administered in the saving name "Jesus"—separates the seeker from error and establishes him in the truth of divine revelation. Water baptism, therefore, makes possible not only a passage from sinfulness to Christian salvation, but also from false to true religion.⁶

Again in contrast to the Trinitarian Pentecostal presentation of Spirit baptism as an empowering for Christian service and therefore secondary to the saving experience of faith conversion, the Oneness experience of the living Lord in Spirit baptism brings a personal dimension to the community epiphany. Oneness Spirit baptism elicits notions of the continued presence of God in the believer's life. Paul's imagery of the believer's body as the temple of the Holy Spirit is taken literally to mean that the believer physically houses the abiding Spirit of God. The initiate becomes the community in miniature, the resting place of the divine name and presence. Thus, Spirit baptism is a necessary, normal ingredient in every true Christian's life. Failure to receive this experience restricts participation in the community's "Spirit baptism" of the "divine epiphany" in worship. Reception of this experience, evidenced by glossolalia, insures the initiate's salvation and place within the worshiping community.
_____________________

⁶Kevin Mathers Ranaghan, "Rites of Initiation in Representative Pentecostal Churches in the United States, 1901-1972" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1974), pp. 536-39.
____________________

Next Post: The "Name, the"perfected humanity" of Christ, and the redeemed life of the believer.

Belief System of Oneness Pentecostalism 2

The "Name" and the Presence of God in the Community

Oneness Pentecostalism began with a new understanding of the name of God and its significance and function in the life of the believer and the church. From this new perspective of the divine name arose the Oneness redefinition of Christian monotheism, the reassessment of Christ's person as the quantitative incarnation of God, and the reevaluation of water and Spirit baptism as rites of Christian initiation. In response to this new understanding, Trinitarian Pentecostal hostility excluded Oneness believers, pronouncing the new doctrine as heterodox and its followers deluded. From this, the Oneness notion of community—the remnant community of the "Name" which stands boldly in the face of such opposition and suffering to proclaim the great revival of the end time and the impending separation of true and false Christians—emerged. "To name the name of Christ," in baptism and doctrinal reassessment, became the watchword of Oneness worship and belief.

The most pronounced impact of the new theology of the "Name" came to be felt in Oneness notions of the "Name" and the presence of God in the worshiping community. The Oneness Pentecostal lives in a world crowded with spirits, both divine and demonic. Men are tossed between these moral extremes, free to choose the good, but always weak before temptation. The church, the worshiping community, provides a bastion of protection and support in this maelstrom of spirits. Here, the believer directly confronts God and from this confrontation derives strength for moral victory. The recurring image of the church as the "filling station"—a place for recovering strength and preparing for daily spiritual battles—permeates Oneness testimonies and sermons.

But the God confronted in Oneness worship is not merely a portion of the divine, nor some far removed spiritual force which does not and cannot feel compassion for human infirmity. Rather, the God confronted in community worship is the risen Christ, the quantitative whole of the divine being incarnate in humanity. This "humanity of God" overcomes that "infinite qualitative" distance between God and man in the most practical terms (terms accessible to the layman's understanding), without denying divine transcendence. Rather than heterodox, this understanding offers a thoroughly "Christian," albeit simplistic, interpretation of the presence of God—his accessibility and providence—in worship. It is this "humanity of God," the divine capacity for identification with and compassion for human frailty, which undergirds the Oneness "theology of experience" and resounds again and again in the recounting of spiritual biographies in songs, testimonies, and sermons.

Such an understanding recognizes the worship service as the arena of the miraculous. The real presence of Christ, the great miracle worker, infuses the service with receptiveness to healing, deliverance, and salvation. Oneness Pentecostalism, in many ways, approximates the experience of the resurrected Christ in the primitive Christian communities by recognizing the "open-endedness" of the divine voice which reveals God directly to individuals and the community. Such directness in the risen Lord's activity supplants the accepted voices of authority: clergy, tradition, and scripture. Because of the power of God perceived present in the invoking of the divine name "Jesus," its public use elicits expectation of the miraculous, a key ingredient leading to the spiritual "overflow" and demonstrative worship of the "divine epiphany." This use of the divine name, contrary to any connotations of magic asserted by Oneness detractors, parallels the theophanic function of the divine name in the Deuteronomistic traditions of the Hebrew scriptures: the church is the place where the divine name rests, prayers are effectual when the divine presence is invoked through this name, and all worship—songs, sermons, and testimonies—are performed under the auspices of this name.

The real presence of Christ in the divine name is also apparent in the sacramental life of Oneness Pentecostalism. Although not formally recognized or theoretically explained, the entire physical arena of Oneness worship is understood in symbolic and sacramental terms. The service itself, brought to life by the invoked name and presence of God, is a sacramental drama of initiation. All the props of this drama—physical posturing, hand-clapping, raised hands, prostration, kneeling, dancing, shouting-play in this obvious symbolism. In these acts—their ritual performance and attendant verbal prayers and proclamations—the believer appropriates the grace of God. This is nowhere more true than in the act of initiation/conversion in water baptism which is performed in a highly structured manner accompanied by a specific verbal formula and the invoking of the divine name and presence. This act, along with the other rites of initiation (repentance, Spirit baptism, the worship service itself), is clearly sacramental despite the Oneness rejection of this term. The infusion of ritual worship with the divine presence redefines the ready accessibility of grace and the sacramental life of the Oneness community.

The Oneness encounter with the divine which separates true Christians from secular society and false Christendom produces an interesting paradox. The Oneness claim of superiority (of experience) rests solely in an act of grace which is freely available to all. Despite this admission, the notion of superior experience necessarily points out the inferiority of non-Oneness belief and experience and often leads to more intense evangelistic activity among "nominal" Christians than among the unconverted. Although Oneness believers seldom deny God's actions among other Christian groups, they do emphasize the partiality, and therefore insufficiency, of these actions—hence, the Oneness designations of their faith as "full," "complete," or "New Testament" salvation.

Accordingly, Oneness theological defensiveness arises not from a desire to rationally explain unique doctrines, but in response to opposition which threatens superior claims. Oneness propositional doctrine always fails to grasp the "positive" dimension of the "theology of experience" in worship due to its reactionary stance. Assuming the categories of their opponents, Oneness thinkers, armed with the common sense hermeneutic, construct "rational" defenses of their distinctives. But volumes of Oneness exegesis and apologetics fail to present even the faintest glimmer of the persuasive power of the divine confrontation in worship. The determination to be "right" marks the Oneness writer as the "guardian" of the faith, the protector of the supreme claim, and in turn, limits the possibility of any positive theological endeavor.
_____________________

Next Post: The "Name," the "concreteness" of Christian salvation, and the assurance of the believer.

Belief System of Oneness Pentecostalism 1

[In the next several posts, I will share a chapter from my dissertation, The People of the Name: Oneness Pentecostalism in the United States (Florida State University, 1985).  Each subsequent post will deal with one of the unique themes of Oneness Pentecostal belief and life listed in the final paragraph of this post.]

Oneness Pentecostal thinking can only result in a "theology of experience." Regrettably, the apologetic and polemic literature produced by Oneness publishers fails to even approximate any positive expression of the belief system apparent in the ritual worship of songs, testimonies, and sermons. This belief system, which arises from the act of worship, demands more than intellectual affirmation or moral obedience; rather it requires a passionate embrace of the Oneness forms of worship and sense of community as the root of Christian identity and the foundation for theological constructions and ethical obligations. The acts of worship become embedded in the emerging belief system and provide a unity for the larger framework of beliefs and meanings shared by Oneness Pentecostals. This belief system, arising from the act of worship—acts back upon Oneness worship—interpreting its significance and impact upon the arena of everyday life.

Peter Berger points out that the acts of religious ritual consist of two parts: "the things which have to be done" and "the things which have to be said” (usually words of interpretation for ritual actions). In these acts and accompanying interpretations, the participant confronts an ultimate reality and is "made contemporary" with the acts and words of the sacred realm. In such interpretations, the believer "recalls" the traditional meanings embodied in the religious society. Succinctly stated, "Religious ideation is grounded in religious activity." For Berger, the acts and interpretations of religious rituals "restore ever again the continuity between the present moment and the societal tradition, placing the experiences of the individual and the various groups of the society in the context of a history which transcends them all."¹ It is precisely in the interpretations given to the acts of ritual worship—most specifically, the song, testimony, and sermon—that the distinctive Oneness belief system most clearly appears.

These interpretations impose a meaningful order upon the experiences of the individual and the community. This system of meaning, whether created or received, constitutes the basis for order through a consensus of "basic knowledge" within the community—shared interpretive schema, moral maxims, and collections of traditional wisdom. Berger points out that this "knowledge" is "pre-theoretical," that is, it is readily available to all within the community, not just to the scholar or theoretician. To participate in the society is to share this "knowledge," to apprehend and internalize its meaningful ordering. When socialized to the order, the individual can correctly interpret his own biography of experiences. The society, in turn, comes to act as the guardian of this meaningful order, objectively through institutionalizing its values and subjectively by structuring individual perceptions along uniform lines.²

Oneness ritual worship encapsulates in action the beliefs of its participants. Regular church services provide a "routinized framework" around which believers orient their lives. The shared symbols and beliefs of this framework give meaning to the intensity of the divine-human encounter in worship and serve to structure social relationships within the community.³ This framework also sets the community apart from the values of the dominant society (although at many times the two "worldviews" intersect).⁴

From the ritual acts of worship and the interpretations ascribed to them, the entirety of Oneness Pentecostal theological perception, social orientation, and moral direction arises. In testimony, the believer confirms his own experience of overcoming past disorder and despair when embracing the new religious "worldview" and its attendant notions of community. Such individual affirmations edify and encourage the congregation, and, in turn, elicit the communal seal of acceptance upon the individual. In song, the community relives the moment of its collective past: the journey from burdened, misdirected heaviness to joyful, ordered freedom. The stirring gospel message set to music strengthens communal bonds and demonstrates the impact of the "theology of experience" back upon the ritual worship itself. In the sermon, the preacher and the congregation join voices in the proclamation and experience of the divine presence. Here, the message is "fleshed out"—the realm of belief ceases to be abstract and cerebral and becomes real, substantial, and concrete in the experiences of community initiation and renewal.⁵

Several recurring themes emerge from Oneness testimonies, songs, and sermons which function as the central foundations in the Oneness belief system. The themes, although not systematic, to a great extent encompass the whole of Oneness distinctiveness. Focusing on the eschatological "revelation" of the divine name "Jesus" and its centrality in the life of the believer, these themes differentiate Oneness life and worship from other expressions of Pentecostalism. These themes include: (1) the "Name" and the presence of God in the worshiping community; (2) the "Name," the "concreteness" of Christian salvation, and the assurance of the believer; (3) the "Name," the "perfected humanity" of Christ, and the redeemed life of the believer; and (4) the "Name" and the certain vindication of the future.

_____________________

¹Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1969), pp. 40-41.

²Ibid., pp. 19-22.

³Arthur E. Paris, Black Pentecostalism: Southern Religion to an Urban World (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982), pp. 93-99.

⁴See Marion Dearman, "Christ and Conformity: A Study of Pentecostal Values," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13 (1974): 437-53.

⁵For a comparative analysis of these elements in black Pentecostalism, see Paris, Black Pentecostalism, pp. 99-106.

_____________________

Next post: The "Name" and the presence of God in the worshiping community.

Personal Distinctions in the Godhead

Recently in a correspondence with a very sincere lady who is struggling between the non-Trinitarian versus Trinitarian views of Scripture, she asked me to comment on Jn. 1:1-3 and Jn. 17:5. These two passages are problematic for non-Trinitarian Pentecostals, and in her question she pointed out that in older English translations, the pronoun “he” is translated as “it” in Jn. 1:1-3. Such a translation, at least from the non-Trinitarian point-of-view, might suggest that the logos was not personal. Further, she suggested that in later English versions (KJV and after), the use of the word “he” instead of “it” was imposed on the text, implying that this was an inappropriate rendering. In the Jn. 17:5 passage, non-Trinitarian Pentecostals tend to take the words “glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (KJV) to mean something along the lines of “glorify thou me as thine own self…”, thus, once again, removing from the passage any personal distinction between the Father and the Son. Should you be interested in reading over my shoulder, so to speak, here is what I said to her.

...let me briefly address the passages you cited, beginning with the prologue to John's Gospel. You are correct: some of the early English translations of John's Gospel translated the Greek personal pronoun autou and the Greek demonstrative pronoun houtos as "it" in Jn. 1:2-3 (this was true in the Tyndale Version, the Great Bible and the Bishop's Bible), though John Wycliffe, who was earlier than all three, translated the pronoun as "him", not "it".  I doubt that the rendering "it" should be taken to mean that the logos was impersonal, however. Whether it is to be translated as "him"/"he" or "it" is merely a translator's choice. The personal pronouns can be translated either way, and both are grammatically correct. The deeper issue is one of grammatical agreement and contextual meaning. When one uses a word like logos, grammatical agreement might lead one to use the word "it" as a pronoun, since typically we don't think of a "word" as personal. However--and this is quite important--the larger context of the passage indicates that the logos WAS personal. The logos was the one through whom God created the world (Greek dia with the genitive case, which means "through the agency of"). The logos was the light that shined in the darkness but was not understood. The logos was the light that illumines every human person born in the world. This logos, in his incarnation, was "in" the world that he himself had made, but the world did not recognize him. The logos "became" flesh and tented among us, and here, the verb ginomai (= became) is especially important, for it cannot be swept aside as some sort of "dwelling" Christology (which is typical in non-Trinitarian thought) but must be taken as a true incarnation. By the time all three of these early versions cited above (Tyndale, Bishops, Great Bible) reach Jn. 1:10, without exception they all begin to use the pronouns "he" and "him", based on that same Greek pronoun autou. Hence, I don't think one should make too much of the translation "it" as though it favors a non-Trinitarian doctrine. It doesn't. Further, the charge that the idea of pre-existence was "imposed" on the text by later versions, such as the KJV and following, cannot be sustained. The actual Greek text, which twice says the logos was "with" God (Greek proposition pros with the accusative case), directly describes pre-existence and cannot mean anything else.

The language of Jn. 17:5 is described as "the glory that was before the world began". This, if you'll pardon me saying so, is an unfortunate way of phrasing it (and the way non-Trinitarian folks would like to phrase it as they attempt to escape what the passage plainly says). What the text plainly says in Greek is this: "Father...now glorify me with yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world [came] to be." Twice the text uses the preposition para, once in a genitive construction as para seautou (= alongside yourself) and the other in a dative construction as para soi (= by the side of you). This passage is crystal clear in describing Jesus' pre-existence, and grammatically it cannot be taken any other way! The prepositional constructions "alongside yourself" and "by the side of you" are death knells to the modalistic teaching. Non-Trinitarians want to say something like "Father...glorify me as yourself (instead of alongside yourself)", but the preposition para simply cannot be taken in this way. Such an interpretation is not possible in the Greek NT.