African Pentecostalism and World Christianity. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Acts 8; 11; and 18—caused Christian communities to break up, scatter or re-locate in a random fashion. As well as such involuntary movement, the empire also facilitated mobility for some, like Paul himself, his fellow tent-makers Priscilla and Aquila, and Lydia, the business woman (Acts 16).89 But in this period, Christianity was not the imperial power; it was subject to imperial whims. The spread of the early church was not one of relentless expansion and its limited growth was not by conquering territory. Third, expansion is a misnomer because it misses half of the story. As the EMW report points out, the direction of spread was not only outwards from Jerusalem; at Pentecost there is also a movement in the opposite direction.90 Moreover, later in Acts we read that Paul himself frequently returns to Jerusalem, sometimes bringing Gentiles with him (Acts 12:25; 15:4; 18:22; 21:17).

      Luke may have an agenda to lay the ground for peace between Christianity and Rome, but—and this is the third reason why he cannot be charged with imperialism—Luke is at the same time subversive of Roman power. Luke’s narrative, with its message of “good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18), has equally provided a key foundation for liberation theology. Luke may admire elements of the Roman Empire; for example, as in the Christian community, within the empire Jew-Gentile distinctions are transcended; and in Acts, Paul calls on Roman justice and experiences Roman protection. But Luke is all the while claiming supremacy for the kingdom of God, which transcends and sometimes counters Rome because Jesus is revealed as “Lord” (e.g., Acts 9:1–28).

      Finally, Luke’s narrative, which follows Paul around Asia Minor, into Greece, and on to Rome, does not imply a special place for the West in Christian history. It is true that Luke does not refer to Paul’s years in Arabia (Gal 1:17; 2 Cor 11:32–33) but he does mention the spread of the gospel to Africa—Ethiopia—by a native of that place (Acts 8:27–39), and this is the implication also of the reference to diaspora representatives in Acts 2. We are meant to assume that they took they gospel back with them and that this is therefore not only the best record of the Jewish diaspora in that period but also, plausibly, a record of the location of the first churches. They extended from Pontus in the north of Asia Minor south to Egypt, from Rome in the west to Elam, which is east of Arabia.

In this connection, it is important to note that the “Macedonian call” (Acts 16:9–10) is not described by Luke as a call into Europe—that is a later European interpolation. It is true that, after his circular journeys, Paul travels from Jerusalem to Rome. However, this is not primarily because it is west but because it is the heart of empire. There is no indication in Acts that Jerusalem, or Antioch, or any of the other centers mentioned are superseded by Rome as a Christian center. The witness in the other places continues. Arguably neither Jerusalem nor Rome nor anywhere else is the center for Luke, but only heaven, where Jesus is. The book begins with Jesus’ ascension to there (Acts 1:1–11) and the most exemplary witnesses in Acts—Stephen and Paul—both have visions of heaven (Acts 7:55; 9:3; 10:11, 16).91

It is often said that Luke’s second volume, the Acts of the Apostles would be better named “the Acts of the Holy Spirit.” It is true that the Holy Spirit initiates, guides and empowers the church’s mission in Acts.92 We could also say that the filling of the Holy Spirit is a prerequisite for all Christian witness—not only in the iconic case of the disciples at Pentecost but in every case. Following the first Pentecost there are repeated pentecosts in Acts. The believers in Jerusalem received the Holy Spirit a second time (4:31) but in most cases the reference is to the Spirit coming on different communities. After their baptism, the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit through the ministry of Peter and John (8:14–17). The Gentiles associated with the Roman centurion Cornelius received the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Jews had, which convinced Peter and the church in Jerusalem that the Gentiles had also gained the new life of salvation (10:44–48; 11:17–18) and contributed to their being counted as Christians on equal terms as Jews by the Jerusalem Council (15:8–9).93 The Holy Spirit came upon the Ephesians through Paul’s ministry with the same manifestations of power (19:1–7). The ending of Acts leaves open the possibility of continued manifestations of the Spirit’s power. Pentecostals—as their name implies—but also Pietist, Holiness, charismatic and other movements before them—expect such continued blessing and look for the signs of the Spirit described by Luke.94 They see themselves as undergoing the same experience as that of the early church. Luke’s somewhat idealized picture of the early church is directly informing the identity and practice of many newer churches today

We could take one example of a contemporary Pentecostal-charismatic movement to illustrate this. Protestant Christianity in Korea experienced a revival movement in 1903–1907, the period in which Pentecostalism emerged in the USA, and which has much in common with it and other similar movements in Wales, India, and other parts of the world around that time.95 Its effect in Korea was not to create separate Pentecostal churches but to strengthen and indigenize the existing Presbyterian and Methodist churches which were inclined to accommodate it. Because of its parallels with Acts, the revival was described as “the Korean Pentecost” and descriptions of the event are heavily influenced by the account in Acts, chapter 2. For the Koreans and the foreign missionaries who experienced it, this was a watershed moment in which the Koreans understood that they, having the Holy Spirit, were now an autonomous Korean church, and the missionaries came to believe that the Koreans believers really were Christians as much as they were because they manifested the Spirit in the same way.96

      A New Approach to Apostolicity

All the autonomous churches in existence to this day, including European ones, have at some point been through such a moment, whether they express it in Pentecostal terms or not. At some point they were recognized as churches in their own right, endowed with the Spirit of God, and therefore able to determine their own futures. We read about such a moment in Acts in the history of the church of Antioch when the mixed community of Jews and Gentiles became a distinct community known as “Christians” (11:26). From this point on in the narrative, Antioch stands in mutual relationship with the Jerusalem church and it becomes an independent center of mission activity.97

      It is difficult to determine historically if the original Jerusalem community descended directly from that first Pentecost is extant today. The different churches that exist all over the world, and which we encounter in our ecumenical and mission relations, each have a distinct origin that was after the first Pentecost. The logic of the Pentecostal narrative of the book of Acts is that all “there is no distinction” (Acts 15:9). If other churches also manifest the same signs of the Spirit, then they are Christian every bit as much as those who brought the message to them. They are “filled with the Spirit” and there are no half measures. So, whether it was two thousand years ago, two hundred years ago, twenty years ago, or two years ago makes no essential difference. Their apostolicity is confirmed by the evidence of their baptism in the Spirit. Pentecostals, like other free or independent churches claim apostolicity on the grounds of faithfulness to the apostles rather than the apostolic succession in the sense of a continuous historical line back to the apostles through a series of bishops. If they claim to be filled with the Spirit as we do, then, as Peter asked, what is to prevent us recognizing them as partners in the same mission, brothers and sisters in Christ? (Acts 10:44–48)

Luke’s application of the word “apostle” to individuals is notoriously slippery. At first, he seems to apply it only to the Twelve, who are eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry (1:21–22). But later, both Paul and Barnabas are (14:4, 14) are referred to as apostles. Furthermore, although Stephen and his fellows are appointed deacons in a way that seems to give them an inferior place to the original apostles, Luke gives two of these “Seven”—Stephen and Philip—great prominence in his narrative and it is clear that they combined the waiting on tables with the prayer and preaching that the Twelve apparently considered more important. Noting the prominence and unqualified praise of Stephen particularly, and considering the fact that the Lord Jesus gave considerable importance to waiting on tables, David Pao wonders if Luke is actually criticizing the Twelve here?98 At any rate, it is clear from the narrative that the apostolic function is carried out most fully like people like Stephen, Philip, Barnabas, and later Paul, who were filled with the Spirit of God, regardless of the credentials possessed by the Twelve. СКАЧАТЬ