James K. A. Smith. Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. xxv + 155pp. $19.00
In this inaugural volume to the Pentecostal Manifestos series, Smith presents an unapologetic articulation of a distinctly Pentecostal philosophy. In his trademark manner that marries informal, conversational style with academic rigor and that introduces elements from popular culture to hard-core issues of philosophy and theology, Smith lays out the twofold conviction that Pentecostals have a unique calling and gift in the broader Christian academy, and that this unique quality begs to be articulated. Thinking in Tongues is the articulation of this theological “genius” (xiv) implicit within Pentecostal spirituality and praxis, a map to an imagination shared by Pentecostals that contributes to a larger Christian philosophy and tradition. If you think that this book is but the portrait of a now fashionable Pentecostalism, you are missing the point. Smith’s book is not simply about a philosophy tuned in to Pentecostal sensitivities (although you can find that in the book), nor is it a critique of the dominant philosophical frameworks and operative categories (although that is also in the book), it is not even primarily about “thinking” (even though that is part of the title of this volume)–rather, Thinking in Tonguesis about that which lies ahead of philosophy captured from inside a Pentecostal spirituality: a worldview, epistemology, and ontology that test the limits of the status quo and that foreshadow a different way of envisioning the coming kingdom.
Smith’s manifesto begins in chapter one with an “advice to philosophers,” echoing the now classic text by Alvin Plantinga but here addressed to Pentecostals and placing the book squarely in the midst of a movement that seeks to renew an unapologetically “Christian” philosophy. Plantinga’s program defended the position of the Christian faith commitment for the exercise of philosophy, the consequential autonomy of explicitly Christian reflections, and the need for even more self-confidence among Christian philosophers. In turn, Smith wishes to recognize the right of Pentecostals to engage in philosophy as Pentecostals, that is, from a particular set of “fundamental pentecostal commitments” (11) among which he counts a radical openness to God, an “enchanted” theology of creation and culture, a nondualistic affirmation of embodiment and materiality, an affective, narrative epistemology, and an eschatological orientation to mission and justice (12). In turn, Smith calls for an autonomy and integrity among Pentecostal philosophers that does not simply buy into other existing options but that develops an agenda and perspective uniquely and unapologetically Pentecostal, which benefits the Christian philosophical enterprise at large.
Chapters 2-4 articulate Smith’s proposal in more detail, first unpacking the elements of a Pentecostal worldview and then exploring its implications in terms of epistemology and ontology. Chapter 5 argues that Pentecostal spirituality, worship, and praxis represent a challenge at the borderline to existing paradigms in philosophy, providing Pentecostalism with an aura of liminality (Victor Turner’s term) that leads to a revolution in the methodology in philosophy of religion. This liminal challenge is then presented in its epic form in the final chapter, suggesting that Pentecostal tongue-speech is a sociopolitical critique of the status quo, the language of an eschatological imagination. The heart of this critique, for Smith, is that Pentecostals “imagine the world otherwise.” The Pentecostal worldview is less of an interpretation than a counterinterpretation of the world that involves what Smith terms “thinking in tongues” (25). The heart of this “thinking” is close to what Charles Taylor calls a “social imaginary” or Amos Yong labels a “pneumatological imagination.” For Smith, the roots of this worldview go back to an epistemology that is grounded in an affective way of being and that places embodiment rather than thinking at the core of human identity (54). The result is an embodied aesthetic that babbles forth in narratives a vision of the world otherwise: “a space in which God’s Spirit breaks in to fantastically give a foretaste of the coming kingdom” (85). Pentecostalism thus brings philosophy to its limits; not just the limits of speech (chapter 6), but the limits of self-expression, and hence interpretation. The Pentecostal mode of being is closer to the surreal than the real, not merely in the manifestation of tongues speech but in the imagination that allows that speech to come forth. In the end, then, Smith’s book urges us to capture the essence of Pentecostal spirituality as philosophy, a proposal so radical that it may have to await the forging of appropriate philosophical categories, frameworks, and concpets before it can be fully appreciated.
Smith’s proposal is heartfelt. It is truly a manifesto for Pentecostal philosophy that holds great promise for future volumes in the series. This volume anticipates what we can expect: not the assessment that “Pentecostalism has come of age” but that Pentecostalism has remained unexpectedly young, that it does not want to “grow up.” There is in this volume more of an adolescent rebellion, a passion and excitement about seeing it all there and yet being unable to master it. The “it” in this case is a spirituality and affectivity among Pentecostals that escapes the formalities of language, knowledge, and articulation. Hence, Smith is at pains to capture the Pentecostal “understanding”– a term frequently put in parenthesis because it is really a pre-understanding, a pre-cognitive “knowing” that Smith finds among Pentecostals. The term is forced upon him by the dominant philosophical mindset, but it stands out awkwardly among a crisp, sharp text that persistently tries to imagine(not understand) the world otherwise. “Imagination,” “affectivity,” “aesthetic,” all of those terms used throughout the book capture what is otherwise covered up by the term “understanding.” In this sense, the title, Thinking in Tongues, is only an invitation to let go of the idea of “thought” as the dominant model of philosophy and to fill it with a manner of being that captures the essence of Pentecostalism more fully. Thought is thereby not abandoned but reawakened.
Smith sketches this rich and provocative proposal only in outline form, and the more embodied rhythms of Pentecostal spirituality, worship, and practices need more engagement with primary Pentecostal sources and testimony than Smith provides. To use Smith’s own analogy, the proposal needs more “color” to complete what is found here. But the sketch should be enough to offer more than a “contribution” to Christian philosophy–this is an attempt to re-envision how philosophy can be carried out. Neither Pentecostals or non-Pentecostals are privileged in this task: both have a different path to go before they can walk together.
Tags: philosophy, Smith, tongues
I was really fascinated by this review, and immediately ordered the book! It sounds to me like all good news for Pentecostal studies. My own interest is that of a charismatic Anglican minister (I was very pleased to see that Smith includes us as Pentecostals!) just starting a bit of mid-career academic work. I have always thought it really important that Pentecostalism develops a distinctive and authentically Pentecostal academic reflection, so find it exciting that Pentecostal scholars are saying this is what they want to do. Not easy though. I have been looking at Donald Gelpi and Amos Yong ‘s writings. They dig deep and very innovatively and creatively ( I think) into philosophical foundations for Pentecostal pneumatology – but ( sorry Prof Yong!) I do sometimes wonder how many Pentecostals would recognise themselves in this kind of philosophical theology. Enter this review, in which James Smith seems to be suggesting or inviting people to a new “own brand” approach. I am new to the field so I only tentatively ask this question, but here goes. Amos Yong in giving his account of “pneumatological imagination” seems to me to develop a perspective that does “buy into other existing options” ( like C.S. Peirce’s triadic scheme). But it has the advantage of offering a perspective that could account for the Spirit in terms that “all flesh” can potentially accept. It is universally credible, and therefore is able to “proclaim” the Spirit in terms that could reach well beyond the church. It loses the Pentecostal specificity ( I think), but extends the Pentecostal reach. But would not James Smith’s suggestion of a ” uniquely and unapologetically Pentecostal” theology ( which I instinctively warm to a lot) not risk resembling those forms of evangelical theology which though deeply concerned for evangelism, in reality speak mostly to those within the walls of the church , and often alienate those outside? Is it not going to be Christian-speak that this great world around us and its philosophical academy is just going to politely ignore?
Paul, first, thanks for drawing me into this; while I will let Jaime respond for himself & Wolfgang for himself – as they are motivated to do so – I will say two things: a) as the co-editor of the series in which Jamie’s book is published, although the book is unapologetically pentecostal, it is also intentionally addressed to those “outside” the movement – the series itself being designed to register pentecostal perspectives in other (non-pentecostal) conversations. The question is whether those outside can ignore its message, or if they did so, would it be to their detriment? b) your apology (even if parenthetically) accepted, Paul
I am not sure which of my books you are referring to but maybe its _Spirit-Word-Community_ and if so, that’s a special kind of philosophical theology that never asked pentecostals if it was recognizably pentecostal. But this is another conversation that perhaps we can have on another occasion – this thread is devoted to Smith’s _Thinking in Tongues_: I will eagerly anticipate your comments on the book after you read it for yourself!
Amos, thanks for your response – point taken. I will indeed post my thoughts once I have read the book – and refrain from further comment until I have done so!
On the second point, I’d gladly take it up on another occasion ( but for the record I was thinking of your foundational pneumatology in Discerning the Spirit(s) and Spirit-Word-Community).
Thanks, Paul, for your interest in Renewal Dynamics and your comments on my review. You emphasize an important aspect of Pentecostal philosophy and theology in general: the question if Pentecostals would recognize themselves in this perspective. Your question assumes that the person answering is speaking of the same Pentecostals as you. In other words, if you are implying that Pentecostals would not recognize themselves in Jamie Smith’s or Amos Yong’s writings, what kind of Pentecostals do you have in mind? And if you were correct, what would this say about that kind of Pentecostals? In response, the Pentecostal Manifestos series is casting the net a bit wider–not only in terms of the audience and definition of Pentecostalism but also in terms of what can and should be expected from a Pentecostal audience. As I state at the end of my review, the book’s proposal needs to be supported more explicitly by primary sources from within Pentecostalism in order to assess its applicability to Pentecostalism. Doing that would also define more closely the kind of philosophical Pentecostalism Smith has in mind. How far does a uniquely and unapologetically Pentecostal philosophy take us in your opinion? Beyond Pentecostaslism?
Well, I must say I really appreciate the ecumenical and theological hospitality of Regent University in engaging in this kind of dialogue. Long may it continue. And I feel the need to make clear – in case it wasn’t in my first post- that I am unreservedly enthusiastic about what I have read about your project of Pentecostal Manifestos. My question reflected ambiguities in my own thinking. In response to Wolfgang ( I’m making another assumption about universal Pentecostal attributes here – namely that unlike anglicans who love pomposity and titles, Pentecostals are sisters-and-brothers-in-Christ, so first names are OK!) I can only admit that, yes, I made a big assumption. I assumed that there is such a thing as Pentecostal identity and that it corresponds with my idea of what it is. I suppose I’d better put my hands up and surrender. But I didn’t intend to suggest that pentecostals shouldn’t or can’t do hard theological thinking… But what is “Pentecostal”, then? Is it a word that doesn’t acutally correspond with any identifiable set; Or does it change and evolve? Or is it a non-concept? I’ve thought a bit and decided the best way to explain my own response is to quote one of your Pentecostal colleagues. I hope he’ll forgive me as I think it was an “ unfinished, unquotable” paper; but let’s just say that at a GloPent conference in Heidelberg in 2008 Matti-Velli Karkkainnen might have said something like “ What, if any, is the underlying spiritual common denominator that despite radical ecclesiastical, cultural, theological and socio-political differences, still makes it reasonable to speak of Pentecostalism as a generic term? Does it have to do with their understanding of the Spirit?” . When I heard that, like a good pentecostal anglican I said in my spirit “ Hallelujah! Amen! At last!”
My intution (hunch, attestation, abduction, sense in my spirit) has always been that Watchman Nee was right, and that pentecostal experience reveals “ spirit” as a realm that is almost a “parallel universe” to mind – parallel but accessible. My own hope for a truly, unapologetically, “indigenous” pentecostal philosophy is that it would find some way to articulate this realm of “spirit” which I suggest is at the core of pentecostal experience – and therefore of pentecostal identity. So if I happened to be right about that, why should Pentecostals thus defined have a problem with certain philosophical theologies, one might ask? Well the problem I find with traditional philosophies I have come across( including C.S. Peirce, though I resonate with Amos Yong’s endorsement of Peirce) is that in the end one senses that “spirit” has been reduced back to “mind”. The discussion always comes back to operations of the mind and I don’t find that the “realm of the spirit” that the pentecostal “moves” in, has been adequately described. When I examine my own experience of the Spirit I find that I want to talk about a receiving, a “perceiving” and a being that are entirely non-cognitive. Sure, a prophetic word may end up presented to the mind and mediated through the mind, but that ain’t where it first arrived. It arrived in the spirit. It is that concept of the spirit – that I submit is absolutely essential in order to account for pentecostal spiritual practice – that is just absent from most discussions I have seen. I believe that a truly Pentecostal philosophy ( ie one that attemps to account for the pentecostal experience of the spirit) needs to articulate what would probably be a very simple philosophy of spirit that could account for this realm of the spirit and give it some credibility such that it can be talked about and taken account of in theological discussions.
So I’m basically saying, not that Pentecostals wouldn’t recognise themselves because philosophical theology is too difficult ( though I may have inadvertently implied that, and if so I was wrong to do so – I agree with your point), but that pentecostals ( allowing my definition) won’t recognise themselves if the philosophical theology offered does not give an account of the realm of the spirit and if it conflates that realm with the realm of mind/soul. They may see something “intellectual” which they may value, but will be left feeling that something crucial is missing. I’m aware of Nancey Murphy’s ( and others’) physicalist view ( “we are just spirited bodies, and that’s OK”), but I personally I’m convinced that that just doesn’t describe pentecostal experience.
I’m not sure I can answer your last question, as I need to read your book. Nothing daunted, I’ll try. For me a uniquely and unapologetically Pentecostal philosophy would take us back to the source of pentecostal experience and accurately account for it. I can’t recall who wrote this, but I agree that the heart of Pentecostalism is to be found in its infancy more than in its later expressions, and I think that pentecostal theology needs to express in a thoroughly pentecostal way the philosophy or perhaps ontology that underlies its experiences of God in the spirit. And of course “infancy’” for me does not mean intellectual infancy or immaturity, but perhaps a spiritual simplicity; Wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
Sorry, that was a bit of a long post.
Thanks, Wolfgang, for your review, and Paul Yiend for your query here.
@Wolfgang: I take your point re: “understanding” being a bit clunky. As you note, I’m trying to work with some existing philosophical categories (perhaps you’d prefer that I just use Heidegger’s term Verstehen, ja?
I do allude to “imagination” as a bit of a synonym in this regard, pointing to some of Amos’ work. All this just to say that, like the young Heidegger, when one is trying to articulate a philosophical project that calls into question existing paradigms, one ends up both using existing terms in a new way, or one can basically “invent” words like Heidegger–but then risk losing an audience.
@Paul: I certainly don’t intend for this pentecostal philosophy to only be for pentecostals. Rather, as I think you’ll see in the book, I’m suggesting that since all philosophies come from some starting point, and yet can be illuminating for those who perhaps don’t share that starting point, so perhaps can a philosophical account of, say, language which begins from pentecostal intuitions might nonetheless be instructive and illuminating even for those who might not share those intuitions. For example, there are all sorts of philosophers who are sympathetic to Plantinga’s “Reformed epistemology” who are not otherwise “Reformed.”
Thanks for your interest.
Paul, thanks for your thoughts. Let me say only two things briefly. First, I’m not sure why you would say that in my retrieval of Peirce, “spirit” seems reduced to mind; for Peirce, thirdness is fundamentally legality/law, habits, & tendencies, although yes, that includes rather than neglects mentality. But this thread is not about a defense of Peirce, although I will say that your questions push the issue: what exactly does a philosophy of spirit entail? This leads to my second comment: that Smith’s book is practically the first that explores the nature of a pentecostal philosophy; the early Gelpi developed what might be called a charismatic philosophy in dialogue with Whitehead, particularly, but his agenda was also quite different from the task of articulating a distinctively pentecostal philosophy. In any case, as a first salvo, perhaps it is a bit ambitious for Smith to have attempted to both define a pentecostal philosophy & then to use that as a springboard to make a difference in the broader discussions of academic philosophy. But that is vintage Smith, to speak boldly & to venture forth into unknown territory. In any case, there is still a lot of work to be done, as you note, in defining pentecostal philosophy. My claim would be that such a definition will always be heuristic and dynamic – I don’t think there is any essential notion of pentecostalism since I consider this “experience” to be of a centered-set variety. This potentially counters your intuition that what is needed is “a very simple philosophy of spirit” – which brings a smile to my face since I’m not sure when the Spirit has ever been “very simple” – philosophically, that is. Part of the work of pentecostal philosophers in the future will be to engage with this question in dialogue with JKA Smith, Gelpi, & others like Steven G. Smith and Philip Clayton, etc., who have thought substantively about the philosophy of spirit, in order to see if there is common ground that can be forged. I personally think that a pentecostal philosophy of spirit, as a authentically philosophical enterprise, needs to be engaged with the philosophical community. Since pentecostalism as a philosophical undertaking is still in its infancy, there is not yet a community of pentecostal philosophers (even most of the members of the Philosophy Interest Group in the Society for Pentecostal Studies are neither trained philosophers nor in philosophy PhD programs – most are theologians!) that can sustain an intra-pentecostal discussion on the nature or spirit of pentecostal philosophy. But its precisely the kinds of conversations that Smith’s book has precipitated that need to continue. I also agree that for such a philosophical conversation to be about pentecostal philosophy, it needs to be in touch with the pentecostal ground in some respect. Here is where your contributions & reminders need to be noted.