Reflections of Heritage and Pentecostalism

The Hebrew Bible records these words in the poetic passage Ecclesiastes 3:1 “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.”  Tradition holds that Solomon, the wisest and wealthiest of all of Israel’s Kings, penned Ecclesiastes or The Preacher to convey to the people “knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care. The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth.”  While Solomon had at his disposal all the luxuries great wealth could afford, he ultimately concluded that all of life “under the sun was vanity.”  Solomon’s conclusions are interpreted in light of his refrain “under the sun”, indicating that beyond the sun, there is a far greater purpose to all of history. History has a point. This is Heritage. The interpretations, preservations and perpetuations of these points and perspectives are Heritage Studies.

At the intersection of our personal histories and collective lives emerges a cultural heritage. Heritage Studies involves reflection, contemplation, and recording of those personal and collective histories.
As Lynn Meskell observes, “There is no unmediated past. Our negotiations and endless iterations reveal that the past is always already a representation of a representation.”  All of collective history and personal heritage is viewed through the lens of personal experience and interpretation. This presents challenges to those who seek to preserve heritage for future generations.

It is difficult for me to think of my own personal heritage apart from the religious and cultural perspectives I have inherited. My earliest memories are of kneeling next to my grandmother as she prayed to God in the name of Jesus, and listening to her read aloud from the King James Version of the Bible while offering commentary on its declarations and narratives. My grandmother was the matriarch of her family, practically raising her five children (three boys and two girls) by herself after her husband died shortly after the birth of the fifth child. She chose not to remarry, but instead scraped together a meager existence with her children on a plot of land in the Arkansas Delta just south of the Missouri State line. According to family tradition, and my own memories of her testimonies (perhaps exaggerated), my grandmother came to her particular brand of Christianity through personal Bible study and private interpretation. She would later refer to this as “personal revelation from God”. She passed these personal revelations on to her children and grandchildren and found expression of her religion in a small but enthusiastic sect of Christianity known as Pentecostalism.

Pentecostalism is defined by its exuberant emotional outburst, literal interpretations of Scripture, apocalyptic emphasis, and most importantly a belief that  “Speaking in tongues”, or supernaturally speaking in a foreign language is the initial evidence of “receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost”.  The Pentecostal movement also downplayed the importance of education, emphasizing action over contemplation.

The actions that were rewarded were typically those of a perceived spiritual nature. The most emotional, vocal and enthusiastic responses to Christian songs and Bible expositions were rewarded with recognition within the group that gathered for Sunday and Wednesday worship. It was on the pews of the small Pentecostal church in Blytheville, Arkansas that my religious education continued.
It is difficult for me to imagine a more formative experience than that of my religious upbringing in the Pentecostal Church. In my life, these experiences were central to my personal identity. Therefore, heritage for me has been defined in the relics of my religion. And generally the role of religion in the interpretation, preservation and perpetuation of heritage is one of undeniable influence.

American Southern culture continues to be influenced by religion, and although my particular brand of Christianity may be somewhat obscure, Christianity, in all of its expressions dominates the culture of the Southern United States. This presents challenges to understanding how to best preserve, not just my personal heritage, but also that of the American Southern culture collectively.

For example, progressive times demand that things change. This presents inherent challenges for any institution of conservative leanings, such as the Christian Church. The Church faces the pressure to attract new believers and must at the same time wrestle with the questions of preserving what it believes to be old truths. These challenges are forcing church leaders to grapple with the questions of “What does it mean to be a Christian?”  And central to these questions of identity are also the questions of “sacred places”. Who determines and defines legitimate places of worship and legitimate expressions of worship? Ultimately, these are questions that will be answered, as they are in every age, by those who lead and by those who are willing to follow that leadership.

The nature of defining Heritage Studies will be central to the survival of Christianity in pluralistic societies. There is perhaps no other institution that is wrestling more with the cultural pressures of relevance than the Church. The central question that must be addressed is “What is the point of this two-thousand year old institution in the 21st Century?” The Christian Church with its leaders and constituents must decide how to accurately and effectively represent its core beliefs without denying the problematic aspects of its history. And at the same time recognizing that it will always be at odds with the greater culture due to the exclusivity of its message.

In the final analysis, Heritage Studies is the recognized and recorded point of history as interpreted by preservationist. And any given point of history may look different depending on the perspective of those involved in its preserving and perpetuating. As C.S. Lewis has observed, “What you see, depends on where you stand.” In the case of the Christian Church, its survival will depend on those with the insight to be careful preservationist of heritage with a keen eye on the evolving cultural landscapes, in order to perpetuate its influence.

In order for this to be accomplished, the study of Heritage, and specifically the preservation and perpetuation of Christian Heritage must look more like a well and less like a fence. A metaphor employed by David Livermore, “Most farmers in the United States build fences around the land where their animals roam as a way to keep their livestock in and the livestock of neighboring farms out. But in many rural communities around the world fencing is not an option, either because of the cost or because of the expansiveness of the region. In many of those places, such as several ranches across Australia, farmers use wells instead. It is assumed that livestock, though they will stray, will never roam too far from the well, lest they die…As long as there is a supply of clean water, the livestock will remain close by.”

Inside and outside of Christianity, Heritage Studies provides the points and perspectives of history, boring wells that will continue to provide sustaining water for generations to come.

Nat Turner: A slave rebellion in history and memory

An interpretive essay of Nat Turner: A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory

As Edited by Kenneth S. Greenberg

In August of 1831, a slave by the name of Nat Turner led a rebellion in an attempt to destroy an institution that held him and many others captive. The rebellion took place in Southampton County, Virginia, and according to Nat Turner and others, the insurrection was inspired by Turner’s belief that he was called on by God to lead his people to liberty. While his actions continue to compete for their appropriate place in history, his rhetoric, marked by an emphasis on Old and New Testament interpretations and mystical propensities, continues to be echoed by those communities seeking to further their pursuits of individual and collective liberties.

The genesis of Turner’s rebellion must be examined in light of the institution that gave it birth. Slavery as an institution in America was one that devalued humanity to the status of property, justifying its existence in the faux benevolence of white landowners, who exploited the slave labor force for their own economic benefit. It was in this context that Nat Turner found his inspiration. Ironically, that inspiration would come from a “white man’s religion”, specifically Christianity. White landowners often sought to convert their slaves as a means of keeping them subservient, however, in the case of Nat Turner; they were sowing the seeds of their own demise.[1] As writer James Sidbury observes, “Nat Turner found…inspiration by interpreting the world through a Christian lens: “And now the Holy Ghost had revealed itself to me…it was plain to me that the Saviour was about to lay down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and the great day of judgment was at hand.”[2]

Even a cursory review of the literature will reveal that what Turner believed about himself and what He believed about God and Scripture played an influential role in his motivations for sedition. On this point Sidbury makes it clear, “Turner himself saw the roots of his revolutionary leadership in his ability to interpret God’s word. Early in adulthood he grew obsessed with a biblical passage-“Seek ye the kingdom of Heaven and all things shall be added unto you”-and after much prayer regarding that passage, “the spirit spoke” to him.”[3] Turner’s interpretations of the Bible were not unique for the time, but his interpretations would inflate his influence among the slave communities with which he interacted. This ability to interpret the Scriptures and make them apply to the slaves’ current experiences would serve to offer solace to those suffering and also fuel the flames of rebellion. The influence of Scripture coupled with his ability to read and communicate served to distinguish Turner from other slaves, giving credibility to his leadership skills throughout his life.

However, the record seems to indicate that Turner saw himself as much more than a mere leader, he in fact, saw himself as the “second coming of Christ.”[4] Turner’s view of himself as a messiah would explain the great lengths that he and his followers would pursue in their attempt to free themselves from the bondage of slavery, and the rhetoric he would employ to motivate his followers and craft his legacy before his execution. Given Nat Turner’s understanding of the Scripture and his mystical leanings, consider the parallels that must have been evident to him on his journey to rebellion and (in the views of many) martyrdom.

First, the childhood of Turner was, in his memory, unique, especially for one born into slavery. “Had they considered themselves or young Nat simply to be “slaves,” he would never have become a messenger. Rather, from the outset they taught him that he was meant for some special purpose (and therefore so were they), and they led him in that path.”[5] In the same way that the Christ child was nurtured by Mary and Joseph, Nat Turner was nurtured by his family and in a broader sense, the black community, to become “God’s avenging scourge against the slaveholders and their world.”[6]

Next, the instance of Turner’s desire to be baptized in a very public way, and what he believed the public would witness, provides insight to his mindset about himself being a Christ-like figure. Turner believed that his baptism would serve to lend credibility to his claims of authority within the black community, and solidify his claim as a prophet to the white community. This would explain his desire to be baptized with his white convert, Etheldred Brantley. By communicating to his world that God had used him, a black slave, to convert a white man, would further serve to establish all of Turner’s claims and authority. This would certainly be a unique influence displayed in a racist culture. Turner also claimed “…whilst in the water, a dove would be seen to descend from Heaven and perch on his head.” He had hoped to “collect a great crowd” to witness this unambiguous sign from God that Turner was not a charlatan but one upon whom the Lord’s favor rested.”[7]

Finally, the sundry details surrounding the life and death of Nat Turner provide the texture of a belief system that would have served to confirm what Turner believed about himself. Consider that like the biblical Christ, Turner spent time away from the community in the wilderness, and returned claiming spiritual power and insight. Both Christ and Turner received “stripes” from the end of a whip. And both Christ and Turner would be publicly executed for their claims and actions. These details were not lost on Turner. “Was not Christ crucified?” was part of Turner’s Confessions.[8]

Nat Turner serves as a reminder that the actors in history are shaped by events and context, but also, and perhaps most importantly, by what they believe to be true about themselves. The resulting heritage in the black community, especially among those who would identify themselves as Christians, is one of an emphasis on the theology of liberation. This emphasis can still be heard today in the pulpits and among the parishioners of black churches. Although Nat Turner’s legacy will continue to be debated, his message will continue to be embraced by diverse communities in search of greater personal liberties. And this is, perhaps, his most powerful legacy of all.

---

[1] Harding, Vincent, “Symptoms of Liberty and Blackhead Signposts: David Walker and Nat Turner,” in Nat Turner A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory, edited by Kenneth S. Greenberg 81-82 (New York: Oxford University Press) 2003

[2] Sidbury, James, “Reading, Revelation, and Rebellion; The Textual Communities of Gabriel, Denmark Vesey, and Nat Turner” in Nat Turner A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory, edited by Kenneth S. Greenberg 119 (New York: Oxford University Press) 2003

[3] Sidbury, 128

[4] Ibid, 129

[5] Harding, Vincent, “Symptoms of Liberty and Blackhead Signposts: David Walker and Nat Turner,” in Nat Turner A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory, edited by Kenneth S. Greenberg 82 (New York: Oxford University Press) 2003

[6] Ibid, 82

[7] Breen, Patrick H., “A Prophet in His own Land; Support for Nat Turner and His Rebellion within Southampton’s Black Community” in Nat Turner A Slave Rebellion in History and Memory, edited by Kenneth S. Greenberg 112 (New York: Oxford University Press) 2003

[8] Ibid,

On the laps of gods

Robert Whitaker’s On the Laps of Gods: The Red Summer of 1919 and the Struggle for Justice that Remade a Nation, details the events surrounding the Elaine, Arkansas race riots of late September and early October 1919. Although a more appropriate term might be Elaine race massacre, considering the number of black people who lost their lives at the hands of whites. In the summer of 1919 the nation was consumed with a “Red” scare, fearing the rise of Communism in the world, and more specifically seeing this as an influence on blacks who were enslaved in the sharecropping system, and laboring under a white supremacist philosophy that was manifesting itself in Jim Crow segregation. Injustice was “business as usual” in the South, with black sharecroppers consistently cheated out of their fair share of cotton revenues.

Against this backdrop, a gathering had been convened on the evening of September 30, 1919 at the Hoop Spur Baptist Church, near Elaine, Arkansas.[1] They gathered with the intent of unionizing to protest the treatment they received at the hands of white landowners. With the atmosphere of violence surrounding the community, as a precautionary move, armed guards were stationed at the church. Their fears were not misplaced, a little after 11 pm, a Model T Ford pulled close to the church and two white men, Charles Pratt and W.A. Adkins, along with a black prison trustee, Kid Collins got out of the car and approached the church armed with guns.[2]  Gunfire erupted, and when the smoke had cleared, W.A. Adkins was dead and the Baptist church was riddled with bullets, sending the occupants fleeing into the darkness.

            It is not hyperbolic to refer to the response by white posses and soldiers to this “uprising” as overkill. The white population feared that this was a black insurrection, and that fear resulted in countless numbers of white men descending on Elaine from nearby counties and the state of Mississippi, as well as soldiers from nearby Camp Pike who were ordered to put down the “uprising”. The estimates of blacks killed is debated, with some estimates as high as 856, but “What so many remembered, however, was simply the sight of corpses strewn about everywhere.”[3]

The white propaganda that emerged from the killings was quick and supported by media reports at the time. Although they were conflicting, all supported the narrative of a black uprising that had been put down by white men with guns. “The uprising, concluded the Arkansas Democrat, had been “nipped in the bud by prompt and vigorous action, which does credit to Phillips County, both for its efficiency and its notable self restraint. In spite of some very aggravating circumstances, absolutely no violence has been done to law-abiding Negroes or to Negroes who showed a willingness to surrender their arms without bloodshed.”[4]

The events in Elaine served as a bellwether perhaps in the direction of race relations in the United States, at least as events would follow in the courts. The NAACP dispatched Walter White to investigate these events in a region deemed so dangerous it was referred to as the “American Congo”.[5] White served as a secretary for the NAACP and “…returned to the scene of numerous lynchings in 1918, his vivid reports triggering a surge in the NAACP’s membership rolls…”[6] White would go on to write concerning the Elaine events, “The riot in Arkansas was about “debt-slavery” and the “systematic robbery of tenant farmers and sharecroppers.” His was an account of the exploitation of blacks, and provided a powerful counter narrative to the white story of a Negro uprising.”[7]

Eventually twelve men were sentenced to the electric chair for their part in leading the Elaine “riot”. There experience in the courtroom had been anything but fair, with members of the posse that hunted them down serving on the juries. The twelve Negroes fate was sealed it seemed, but then a black lawyer by the name of Scipio Africanus Jones stepped up to defend them. Through an extended series of appeals and legal maneuverings, Jones eventually won the release of the twelve. As one publication wrote of the victory, “Mr. Jones went down to Helena and took charge of that case when it was a tangled mess after the defendants had been beaten into making damaging statements…All hail Judge Jones! Praise him for his knowledge of the law, his nerve, his patience and his sagacity.”[8]

The legacy of the events of Elaine, Arkansas in the summer of 1919, serve as a reminder that the ideas and philosophies of white supremacist and greed are apt to contaminate any generation. Although it is hard for moderns to imagine injustice on the scale of Elaine and Hoop Spur, it is evident that injustices due to race are still perpetrated today. The streets of Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland tell those stories. Yet, in all of these instances there are individual stories of heroism that serve as beacon of light in the darkness, acts of kindness and defiance, which serve to contrast the criminal landscape against which they are cast. For instance, Frank Moore, a sharecropper and World War I veteran, who was convicted of being a leader of the Elaine “uprising”, endured the torture and humiliation of his white captors, never once offering false testimony. He refused to give up the one thing his accusers and captors could not take from him, his personal integrity. Whitaker writes, “Frank Moore was whipped at least three times to try to compel him to give evidence against himself and the other petitioners, which he never did do. He stated that he would rather die in this manner than to tell something on himself or others that was not true.”[9]

The tragedies of Elaine, Arkansas in the twentieth century, and the developing tragedies of Ferguson and Baltimore in the twenty first century serve as a reminder that injustice continues to plague the United States. Part of the answer, perhaps, is the individual acts of courage and kindness, as was exemplified by Frank Moore and others. The depths of unjust darkness can never extinguish the light of a single individual, no matter how alone they might be. May these lights continue to shine.

---

[1] Whitaker, Robert, On the Laps of Gods: The Red Summer of 1919 and the Struggle for Justice that Remade a Nation, (Three Rivers Press, New York, 2008) 1

[2] Ibid, 80-81

[3] Ibid, 124-125

[4] Ibid, 132-133

[5] Ibid, 148

[6] Ibid, 150

[7] Ibid, 157

[8] Ibid, 308

[9] Ibid, 164

Is your communication clear?

Have you ever been misunderstood? Often the words that issue from our mouths are not the words heard by our listeners. I recall speaking with a student who was working to finish a research paper. I asked her in my Northeastern Arkansas vernacular, “How much do you ‘like’ to be done?” She responded, “I haven’t finished yet, but I’ll be happy when I do!” I repeated, “But how much do you ‘like’ to finish?” We stared at each other for a few seconds, not realizing we were using different meanings of the word like. She mistakenly thought that I was asking whether she enjoyed being done with her paper, but I was actually trying to ask how many pages she lacked to complete it. Although we shared the same language, we did not share understanding. 

This phenomenon is present in conversations around the world, and it can be dangerous when it affects our gospel communication. Thankfully we can all recommit to the principles of God’s Word and of clear communication in our efforts to fully recover the impact of gospel communication.

As we seek to be clear presenters of the gospel, the words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:1–5 are a great guiding resource: “And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 

For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” This passage reveals Paul’s intent that there is only one message that can transform human hearts: the message of the cross of Christ.

The normative pattern for Paul and the other apostles in the New Testament was a consistent presentation of the gospel of Christ. Christ’s life, death, and resurrection were the hallmarks of the church’s message. This must define our communication as Christians today. But although the message of Paul and the apostles did not change, it is clear that they crafted their messages intentionally to reach specific audiences. For example, Paul approached the gospel in different ways in Thessalonica and then at Mars Hill. Acts 17:1–3 reads, “They came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews…On three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead” (emphasis mine). In the synagogue, Paul started with the scriptures, but later in Acts 17, Paul spoke to a very different audience in Athens. He started not with the scriptures but with their cultural artifacts: “He saw that the city was full of idols…So Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: ‘Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, “To the unknown god.” What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you’” (Acts 17:16, 22–23, emphasis mine). Paul then proclaimed Christ to them. The starting point for both groups was very different, but the destination was the same: the gospel of Christ.

Like Paul, we must be intentional in our efforts to persuade others of the truth claims of Christ and scripture, not simply relying on the skills of rhetoric but having those skills sharpened and transformed by the Holy Spirit.

In his book Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon, Bryan Chapell points out, “Craft cannot make a message powerful if one’s heart and character do not validate its truths.” Certainly preaching is a craft of persuasion, as the Apostle Paul points out in 2 Corinthians 5:11: “Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.” But so is our everyday calling to the effective communication of gospel truths. As echoed by the voice of the wise man in Proverbs 16:23, “The heart of the wise makes his speech judicious and adds persuasiveness to his lips.” Preaching from the pulpit is a strategic act of persuasion, but all of our speech should be used for the propagation of the gospel. The difference between the goals of gospel communication and persuasion alone is this: persuasion by itself centers on behavior modification, but the point of gospel communication is regeneration, or the changing of a person’s heart—something that only God can do through His Word.

This is something Paul points out clearly in his opening admonition to the Thessalonians: “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction” (1 Thes 1: 4–5).

Whether spoken from the pulpit or in the marketplace, then, the pervasive lack of clarity of our age demands that our gospel communications be CLEAR:

Centered in Christ, the gospel, and the text of scripture: If these elements aren’t at the center of what we communicate, then we run the risk of relegating Christianity to just another self-help mantra. We must communicate Christ and his Good News from every text of scripture, because not to do so reduces the Holy Word of God to a mere collection of inspirational principles rather than what it is—a book of transformational power.

Intentional in Language: Jesus gives this warning in Matthew 12:36–37: “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give an account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” How often do we throw about careless clichés long devoid of meaning in an effort to communicate the timeless truth of the gospel of Christ? Using such vague clichés can be lazy: “If God brings you to it, he’ll bring you through it.” “Where God closes a door, he opens a window.” While these may be true, we’ve heard them so often they lack resonance. The greatest message ever shared with humanity is worthy of our best efforts to communicate that message. Choose words that will effectively and powerfully demonstrate the simplicity of Christ.

Empathetic in expression: As effective gospel communicators, we must craft our message to meet the perceived needs and deep concerns of those in our audiences. Whether our audience consists of one or one hundred, our fallen world has resulted in broken people in need of a Savior. We must see and feel the brokenness in every aspect of our communities and relationships, leveraging the Good News to restore what has been broken.

Action-oriented: The gospel of Christ demands a response from all those who hear it. As communicators of the gospel, it is our responsibility to ask for that response. It is not enough to share news and leave the hearers without a path to apply the gospel to every area of their lives. When crafting effective gospel communication, remember to always include an appropriate action to guide your listeners in their response.

Reflective in nature: Effective gospel messages challenge both the speaker and the listener to reflect on their own lives and areas where the gospel of Christ has yet to fully penetrate. Reflection is a gift of the gospel, calling us to more fully surrender every part of ourselves to Christ.

We have been entrusted as heralds of the king of Kings to declare his message. This is both a privilege and responsibility that calls upon us to speak with Holy Spirit–inspired clarity to an ever-increasingly ambiguous world. 

The Spirit of God charges us to communicate the gospel deliberately, productively, and substantively. May we rise to the challenge given to us in Ephesians 4:29: “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.”