A Note On Heritage
October 16, 2009
My mother was organizing some old papers from her parent’s home this week and discovered a tattered sheet of notebook paper written by my Grandma Marguerite who died last January. The short testimony describes how my grandma became a Christian. I’d grown up hearing the story from both women—but to see it written out gave it a special gravity for me. Below are the documents and my best deciphering of the faded handwriting.
|
* we think she wrote this in 1996 and was doing the math
My mom and I enjoyed going over these notes together and telling stories about my Grandma. She’d grown up without any Christian influences. She became a Roman Catholic when she married my Italian Grandpa and ended up going to Mass more than he did. The experiences she described above (as I remember her telling the stories) happened completely unprovoked while reading her Bible alone. They sparked my grandmother to announce to her priest that she was leaving the Catholic Church and joining up with the Pentecostal crowd at Fremont Tabernacle down the road.
It’s one half of my family’s A/G past and it eventually led to my grandpa’s conversion and my mother and aunt’s marrying A/G ministers. These are powerful stories that have defined the way our family talks about God and Faith.
I’m left feeling a bit nostalgic and little confused. This is my heritage and I’m proud of it—and yet I’m continuing in what would appear to be a decidedly un-pentecostal path.
Next month I’m getting confirmed in the Episcopal Church and I’m visiting an Anglican Seminary next week. Where is the connection between my family’s faith experiences and my own journey out of the Assemblies God into a Catholic body like Anglicanism? Am I betraying their legacy? Changing it? Contextualizing it? What would Grandma think?
These are the persistent questions I’m sure I’ll live with for the rest of my life.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
October 16, 2009 at 13:15
I’ve had similar thoughts. As i spoke with an old pastor friend about where I had headed theologically, and where I was heading ecclesiologically speaking, he asked whether my past experiences with God were legit, and whether my parents and grandparents had legitimately experienced God in our AG setting. I said yes.
Then why leave? I don’t feel like I’m betraying or contextualizing anyone’s legacy. Changing…maybe a little. I think of it as building upon.
Very cool notes, by the way.
October 16, 2009 at 18:08
I admire your honest and nostalgia. It is hard to tell what your grandmother went through. It is clearly different than you. Yet the temptation to say it is all the same salvation has to be huge. But another interpretation is that their is salvation in neither case, just the mind working on itself. If we gathered the conversion experiences of all the different sorts of Christians, this would be obvious. Then if we added he conversions of many other religious believers, we’d see similar patterns. When it comes down to it. We share more in common with those who differ from us than we comfortably like to admit.
October 16, 2009 at 21:44
Those are excellent questions. Obviously I sympathize. What are two AG pastor’s kids in The Episcopal Church supposed to do to honor our pentecostal heritage.
We almost had “deconversion” experiences and the Catholic tradition was able to lift us up.
October 17, 2009 at 5:12
I just read a fascinating article asking if the Bible itself can bring us to salvation (a contention of some protestants — you will see the point if you read it). The article illustrates the Catholic counter offer of valuing tradition and sacraments.
Ironically, when I was at Wheaton I learned that the Bible was not sufficient — as far as internal logic goes. My prof. (Bob Webber – author) was a Bob Jones grad and converted to Episcopal while teaching at Wheaton — it was a huge scandal and he was one of my heroes. He argued for tradition too. Again, albeit, internal logic. (don’t want to come across a softie)
October 17, 2009 at 5:13
Ooops — Here is the link about Bible Salvation
October 17, 2009 at 9:10
As a Pentecostal who was confirmed in the Episcopal Church on Trinity Sunday, I can definitely relate to this one. My priest recommended this blog, and this is the second post I’ve read. It’s definitely relevant, since economic circumstances are forcing me (at 44) to move back in with my mother in a small midwestern town, and I will be expected (and glad) to resume my former responsibilities as a musician at the church formerly known as First Pentecostal.
I was drawn (driven) to TEC by my appreciation for good liturgy and good ecclesiology. Back in Smallville, the nearest Episcopal church will be six miles away, and as the Bishop (and the Diocese) is sympathetic to the Anglican Province of North America, I’m unlikely to feel as “at home” as I do in sunny, liberal, inclusive Arizona, but they have Friday noon Holy Eucharist services at least twice a month, which I will attend as I am able.
I’ve got serious issues with self-taught, self-ordained, independent and unaccountable leaders in Charismatic circles, which I don’t have with my mom’s pastor, since he’s none of the above. I’ll embrace my Pentecostal heritage while maintaining my Anglo-orthodox theology, and take the opportunity to practice some ancient spiritual disciplines on my own or with any like-minded friends I manage to acquire on the way.
Keep up the good work, and I’ll keep reading!
October 17, 2009 at 10:30
@Sabio
Thanks for the link. This is obviously a difficult issue for the church—it has been for centuries! I can tell you that I’m in the church, that I’m “saved” so to speak—I can tell you that my friend Tony is as well, for instance. But, I can’t exactly tell you why… Is it mere intellectual belief? Well that seems somewhat silly when you break it down. Baptism? Hmm, that’s a good visible and traditional sign but you could baptize a labrador if you wanted to and it wouldn’t necessarily mean something. I suppose it could be because of the moral decisions we try to make, but then again lots of different kinds of people make good, moral decision all the time and they’re not necessarily Christian.
When it comes to my grandma’s experience, we’re wading through years and years of theological reflection. Did she experience *something* on Oct. 10th, 1947 while reading the Bible alone in her room? I would say yes. If you asked her later that day to explain it would she have given the same theologically-informed answer? Of course not.
This seems to be at least part of the answer. We know that we’re “saved” (you have to understand I cringe when I type the word since its become such a weighted cliche) but our reasons for knowing so are complex and constantly challenged. We go to church, we have Christian friends, we occasionally experience something we call God, we remember and admire the faith of our ancestors and try our best to loyally transfer the tradition, we decide to do something difficult because for some odd reason we think its the “right thing” to do.
Anyone who tells you why they’re “saved” and goes on to describe some narrow, super-specific step by step process isn’t necessarily wrong or deceived—they’re just not going far enough. The real reasons are always much more complex.
@Don
Welcome to the blog, Don!
It’s remarkable to find someone else with such a similar story. Let us know how things go back home at First Pentecostal (perhaps you’ll be able to sneak in a bit of “spontaneous” liturgy since you’ll be handling music.
October 17, 2009 at 11:30
Welcome Don,
There seem to be a hell of a lot of Pentecostals in TEC. I think this is because Pentecostalism is made for Catholicism and visa versa. Futures in Christianity, I think, will bear this out. My apocalyptic prediction is that “Charismatic Catholicism” will be the predominant form of Christianity 50 to 100 years out.
***
I wouldn’t completely rule out that Episcopal parish. There are still plenty of moderates in ACNA and I would feel more comfortable in a moderately conservative Anglican parish than I would in a pentecostal church. In fact I attend a moderately conservative low church Evangelical parish and I feel quite welcomed despite my Anglo-catholicism. If only we could be as strict about the BCP as we were about other things…
October 17, 2009 at 12:23
Reed,
I think you touch on something that has been very important to me in my process of re-evaluating what I believe.
I was going to put a block-quote in, but it’d contain almost everything you said about being saved, experiences, and defining what it means to be saved; in your response above.
I agree with you that when someone says their saved, and then outlines some super specific step by step, they’re probably being far too… shallow. And I don’t mean that as negative as it may come across.
But then, when I really started trying to figure out what it meant, what it took, or what it might even ‘feel’ like; to be saved, I ran into the same wall.
It seems like, even when I eschew the superficial charismatic definitions, the touchy-feely stuff, and when I move past the outward symbols like baptism or speaking in tongues; the more nuanced definitions still take on a similar tone, they just contain bigger words.
I guess I spent many months trying to reconcile that, but I gave in when I couldn’t make sense of it. Mainly, I think, because the new definitions or explanations often seem to invalidate the old ones, but then that would make it seem that no one was ever saved except those who understand all this in the here and now.
Or does God just fill in the intellectual gaps for all those in the past?
I think I’m rambling now. Sorry.
Your thoughts?
October 17, 2009 at 13:58
OK, guys, with all that “subtle” & “nuanced” talk and staying clear of all definitions, statements (creeds) or claims, tell me, am I saved?
If not, why not?
Please don’t say, “only God knows”, for if that is the case, “only God knows” if you are saved. In which case, it is utter arrogance to claim you are saved?
Did I miss something.
I am off to a wedding, no time to polish this.
Polish it for me please and respond to what you think would be my best presentation of this question.
Thanx — Sabio
October 17, 2009 at 14:02
Sabio,
To me, if we don’t stay clear of concrete definitions, we can’t be so totally sure we’re actually saved. Saved from what, exactly, (Hell, eternal separation from God, annihilation?) and by what mechanism (blood, really?)?
October 18, 2009 at 15:50
Reed:
If I may, I would assert you’re continuing your heritage by simply being sensitive to the Holy Spirit. Take most recent confirmation service: though you went through the classes, though your friends were all being confirmed (and received) you chose based on your sensitivity to god’s leading to wait.
I think I know your family well enough to say – they care less about the denomination you claim membership to than they do about your being charismatic. Your claiming christian faith is a continuing testimony to this.
Sabio – Christians claim that only god saves. Further, they claim only god knows who is saved. We follow Christ so that we might be saved. Anyone’s personal claim to salvation is a proclamation in faith and hope, not in fact.
Either way, as a fundamentalist atheist, you seem to be asking questions that shouldn’t be of interest to you. The sheer fact that you spend so much time attempting to engage in dialogue with Christians places you in the same position of any evangelical attempting to convert an agnostic to faith. Since you have been at this for a while – and it is all null in void no matter the outcome at the end of the day, I ask:
Why are you in dialogue with these Christians?
October 18, 2009 at 16:09
@ doshoe
(heads up, I use to be Christian, charismatic at that)
ADJ asks the obvious – Only God saves “from what”?
You said, “We follow Christ so that we might be saved.”
People follow Krishna, Buddha, Mohammed etc for the same simple reason. Such a motivation is banal, actually.
Some claim that they follow because they admire and love.
It is interesting that you label me as a “fundamentalist atheist” — first time I have been called that. How did you figure that out, and what does it mean?
Christianity, like Islam, like democrats, affect my world. I do not ignore those who I disagree with. I am not an Amish Atheist. I find it very interesting that you would be curious why I engage those with whom I disagree. It seems to say more about you — and what is that?
October 18, 2009 at 21:00
Thanks Shoe!
@Sabio
You would have no way of knowing this but doshoe is probably one of the biggest dialogue enthusiasts I know. He lives his life in conversation with people who disagree with him—for some of the same reasons you list.
@ADJ
I think you raise a good question. Ultimately, the best way to figure out “what it means to be saved” is probably to ask the people who convinced you that you were in need of saving to begin with. They’re often custom designed to fit together—like a love seat/sofa kind of thing. (As a side note, I find it ironic that so many people reject the Church’s notion of salvation but continue going through life with an unconscious desire to be saved from something or other—I think they’d be better off if they threw out the whole system!)
@all
Ultimately, I believe that “salvation” (whatever THAT means)is a sacred mystery. First, one must decide if he or she prefers living in a world where such a thing could exist—from there they’re not much further from finding it. Until you’re ready to consider that God exists, that (s)he might actually have something to do with how you live your life—I see no reason to speculate on how such an abstract concept like “saving” might actually be accomplished.
At least for me, I found “salvation” in the Christian faith as outlined in Scripture which, “…contains all things necessary to salvation.”
October 18, 2009 at 21:49
Reed,
I do think your position is at least the most intellectually humble and honest in maintaining that salvation is a mystery. I appreciate that because it is exactly what I think of salvation.
For the moment, it’s a mystery I can’t figure out why I need, but I don’t mean that in the pejorative. I mean it literally, I was totally convinced I needed it, but never convinced why in any real way. I think it must remain a mystery as well. Definitions and concrete ‘evidence’ would seem to undermine the faith necessary to be saved in the Christian tradition.
And you’re right. We do continue to seek something in this life, something quite intangible. Whether it should be called salvation or not may end up being semantics.
Yet again, something to think on…
ADJ
October 19, 2009 at 4:21
@ Reed : wow, lots to unpack there
(A) You are right, from the little (s)he wrote there, I wouldn’t guess doshoe’s love for real dialogue. I will take your word for it.
(B) “Salvation is a sacred mystery” — That is just another way of saying — “I want to talk about it until I am challenged and then run behind “sacred” which means don’t touch ! Seriously, religious folks love to talk all about their religion until they are pinned down to their claims. If their language, up to that point, was all poetic and mysterious, it would be one thing. But it is full of claims and then when challenge, they run to “mystery” or “sacred”. I get it. It is common. But it is always disappointing. So, when Buddhists claim salvation or Muslims claim it or Krishnivites or Shiites or … claim they now how I can avoid damnation or annihilation or moral corruption, I can discuss it until I think it is true. I can’t discuss the claims of String Theory, until I think it is true. I can’t discuss New Age Ideology until I think it is a possibility. Really?
(C) “Until you consider that God exists” — wait, I did do that — for many years. You say I should not speculate unless I am committed to a god existing that saves me from something. Again, “Hands off Atheist !”
(D) your Scripture “…contains all things necessary to salvation”. Indeed? That, surprisingly, is a very protestant thing to say (and of course a bible quoter). I thought you’d like this essay about why, though claimed, it is obviously not true.
(E) Salvation in the Doctrine of Atonement which has several contradictory models offered up. You’d think something as central to Christianity would be more clear.
1) Penal Substitutionary Theory: There are several different variatons of PST. All of them growing out of Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory. – John Clavin, J.I. Packer.
a) Limited
b) Universal
2) Ransom Theory–Gustav Aulen, Christus Victor, is the major book on this position. Gregory of Nyssa in the 300′s a.d. Variation called “Christus Victor” Theory.
3) Governmental Theory–Hugo Grotius, see: http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/grotius.htm and Charles Finney, see: http://www.gospeltruth.net/1851Sys_Theo/st34.htm
(4) Participatory Theory of Atonement is relatively new–B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. See also http://consequently.org/papers/pa.pdf
(5) Moral Influence Theory: Pierre Abelard, Paul Tillich
(6) Scapegoating Theory
I am not sure how to set up the taxonomy (some may be types of another), but you get my point.
October 19, 2009 at 7:59
@Sabio
…[sigh]… I suppose I’ll dance with you a bit on this. But only because I have a lot of work to do that I want to put off. And I’m leaving on a trip today so I wont be able to read your response until later this week:
[B]
Perhaps my approach is a little more apophatic than you would prefer. Your worldview demands everything be proven according to a schema. For a long time that’s how people tried to approach religious ideas. That methodology doesn’t work.
[C]
Please stop looking for personal attacks where there is none intended. (This part of my post wasn’t directed at you specifically) If you think I am offended that you’re an atheist—that I’m shocked by your complete and utter disregard for all things holy—you need to get over it. Atheism is no scandal to me. I’m not sure if there are many Atheists where you live but its quite common here in the Twin Cities, especially at my places of work. If I reacted to every Atheist I knew the way you react to us Christians, folks would consider me to be the worst kind of intolerant bigot.
[D]
I’m very sorry for the misunderstanding but I was not trying to do a bible quote proof text. This is not a quote from Scripture but from some very old Anglican identity literature (it’s most recent incarnation is the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral). I was not so much trying to prove a point as proudly laying out a subtle reference to our particular branch of Christianity.
It’s actually quite an ingenious little formula for talking about Scripture. It doesn’t say the Bible is the ONLY thing that contains salvation, nor does it say that ALL things in the Bible are necessary to salvation.
The article you linked was interesting, however, I think we’re talking about two separate things.
[E]
Ah, Sabio you’re bringing me back to Systematics 101! Do you have any idea how lame discussions on Atonement theories are? If I refuse to discuss atonement theories with my fellow Christians, I’m certainly not going to an engage an Atheist about them! Ha!
If I may try to bring this back to the original post (gasp!) my grandma would be no match for you in this conversation. You would be asking her questions she never considered, using categories she’d never dreamed pertinent.
This isn’t just because you’ve been educated and my grandma didn’t go to college. It’s because you’re asking the wrong questions about salvation. She didn’t bother herself about the cosmic laws of atonement or the moral implications of a judgmental God. She saw Jesus.
Let me say it again with html markers, She freaking saw Jesus!
Of course, we have no idea whether or not she *actually* saw *something* and then attempt to explain how one might go on to experience a vision of some heavenly entity whether it be through delusion, a trick of the light, a couple of neurons firing wrong in her brain, the rotation of the earth or some other nonsense. Folks could go on arguing all day whether or not it *actually* happened but my grandma went on as if it did—and that’s what matters.
Ultimately, any discussion of salvation needs to focus on “why” it happened. “What it means to me” not “how.” This is what I mean when I say a person has to be interested in God and specifically God’s will before they can seriously discuss salvation.
Otherwise, all we’ve got is atonement theory.