CTS Thompson Scholars • Dec. 31, 2001

By Jin S. Kim

A Pentecostal Vision for the Church
A Reflection on Acts 2:1-11
Thompson Scholars Independent Study in Mission and Evangelism 

It has often been said that 11:00 A.M. on Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America.  How has a pluralistic nation, the land of immigrants once known as a melting pot, come to a state of such racial segregation in the church?  Americans by and large work together, shop together, and play together, but they do not worship together.  If we are at our core spiritual, then the fact that we seem unable and unwilling to relate to one another elbow-to-elbow in the pews of the local congregation reveals how fragile the integrity of the church is.  While “one nation under God” is the articulated ideal, it is perhaps more accurate to say that we are many religio-ethnic ghettos under God.  How good is the “good news” if it extends only to those in one’s cultural, racial-ethnic enclave?  How powerful is the gospel if it cannot break down the walls of racial separation?  How authentic is our evangelistic witness if it is proclaimed only to those in one’s socio-economic circle?

According to the US Census for the year 2000, over 30% of the population is non-White, and yet most mainline denominations remain overwhelmingly White.  The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), for example, is 94% Caucasian as of 1999, and the other denominations, whether they be mainline or conservative, share similar statistics.  In the 19^th century, slavery prevented an integrated church; up until the Civil Rights era of the 20^th century, it was the impact of the Jim Crow laws.  What excuse does the church have for continued segregation?  One could argue that in a free country, people are free to worship and associate with whom they choose.  Fair enough, but the question remains: Why do Christians choose to worship separately?  Upon closer inspection, this truism merely covers over a deeper, uglier truth of the church’s failure to embody a gospel in its original splendor, power, and scope.  To borrow a phrase from J. B. Phillips, the God of the dominant church is too small to include the various cultures and ethnicities of the increasingly diverse American demographic.  The church’s failure is in remaining monocultural while society has become multicultural.

A clear distinction must be made between a multiracial church and a multicultural church.  A White church with a spattering of minorities is nominally a multiracial church because the membership consists of people from more than one race.  It is not a multicultural church, however, if there is room for only one dominant culture, and all others are marginalized.  I hear this lament often from my colleagues: We open the door and welcome the minorities in our community, and they will visit, but they will not stay.  Little do people realize that most congregations exude an “understanding” that there is one dominant culture operative in that congregation – the White culture – and all non-Whites are expected to check their cultural assumptions at the door.  This is no less true for an African American church, or other ethnic churches.  In a Korean congregation, for example, a few White, Black, or Hispanic members may be scattered in the pews, but everyone understands that the prevailing culture is Korean, the dominant language is Korean, the leadership is Korean, and most impacting of all, the gospel will be interpreted through the lens of the Korean experience.  Most multiracial churches are, in fact, monocultural[1].

Our race, ethnicity, and culture are integral to who we are; more than that, they are God’s gift to God’s people.  If a White believer must check his “whiteness” at the door of a Black church, or if a Mexican Christian must check her “Mexicanness” at the door of a White church, or even if a Korean adoptee must check his unique adoptee culture at the door of a Korean church, then the price of admission is grossly distorted.  Incorporation into a church should depend solely on a person’s willingness to be exposed to the liberating Word and Sacraments of the God of boundless grace.  The natural consequence of an insistently monocultural church is a monoracial membership.  The problem of racial segregation in the church is persistent because it is so insidious.  No external factors compel a congregation to be of one color, but the unspoken insistence that the “identity”, “tradition”, and “heritage” of a congregation be preserved becomes the justification for remaining a monocultural church.  We American Christians suffer from poor memory if we forget that the first church described in Acts was a multiracial, multilingual, and multicultural church.  That is our identity, tradition, and heritage.

The church of the 21^st century must be completely reoriented from one that sees itself primarily as a fellowship of believers, to one where the mission of God is preeminent – a mission that forges a new and unexpected fellowship of diverse believers committed to a common goal.  When we examine the origin of the church at Pentecost, we witness people who naturally had little in common – Jews, proselyte-Gentiles, Cretans and Arabs – filled and overwhelmed by the one Holy Spirit, speaking of the mighty deeds of God (Acts 2:10-11).  The first church consisted of people from all over the world, of diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds.[2]  In fact, they prophesied in a bewildering number of languages, so that some passers-by thought them to be drunk, but all the prophecies witnessed to the glory of the one true God.  Pentecost becomes the undoing of the curse of Babel – people still speak different languages, but they all praise one God![3]  The church of Pentecost does not begin as we might expect.  We are apt to be more familiar with churches that get their start when like-minded people gather with those of similar background in order to find spiritual comfort and fellowship.  There appears to be nothing wrong with this on the surface, except that there is a subtle but powerful understanding that the church will inevitably reflect the norms, mores, and aspirations of the foundational leadership who are, by and large, monocultural.  Darrell Guder argues, “Thus, no particular culture…may now be regarded as normative for the gospel community.”[4]  It is not necessary or desirable to rid the church of culture.  The church, however, must be on guard so that no one culture becomes an idolatrous substitute for the gospel.

The degree to which a typical congregation acts as a culturally captive organism becomes evident when a neighborhood changes, but the congregation does not.  When a downtown church loses most of its middle class Caucasian members to the suburbs, it naturally struggles over its identity.  As an increasing number of new immigrants and the poor in the surrounding neighborhood come to worship, a core member and bearer of the church’s institutional memory will typically say, “But this is not who we are.”[5]  The inner city landscape is littered with these ecclesiastical corpses, dying when the prevailing culture dies in that congregation.  Sometimes, the few remaining members will magnanimously “hand over” the church to an ethnic or immigrant group with few resources but a lot of spirit – this is known as “redevelopment”.  Rarely does such a declining congregation reinvent itself, its identity and its mission, so that the church has a new purpose for being, becoming a vital force in the community.  This phenomenon is so rare that when it happens, a book or article will be written about it.

By contrast, the Pentecostal church in Jerusalem was a church of many races, cultures and tongues.  Its unity came from the Holy Spirit who gave all the different believers one purpose: to witness to the mighty deeds of God (Acts 2:11).  Things went downhill from there.  Some 2000 years later, a church that began as a multicultural, multilingual, multinational church has become in America a Black church, a White church, a Korean church, a Coptic church, and in a dizzying array of denominations.  We have for the past 2000 years been going backward, not forward, in realizing this Pentecostal vision.  It is true that in most countries one finds a relatively monocultural, monoethnic demographic.  In the case of Korea, my country of origin, the demographic is approximately 99% Korean if counting permanent residents.  In such a context, one cannot expect a multiethnic/multicultural church.

There was a time when the United States was comprised mostly of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (excluding slaves).  In such a context, one expects the churches to reflect that culture.  Thus, the legacy of slavery’s impact is critical to understanding the persistent monocultural nature of the modern church in America.  The White masters were all too pleased to see their slaves converted to Christianity, but the slaves would be relegated to a sort of minor league Christianity with no chance of making it to the majors.  In sports, Black professional leagues created by victims of segregation dissolved when Major League Baseball, the NFL, and the NBA became integrated.  Imagine if this did not happen.  The Negro League with talent like Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds would probably eclipse MLB as the dominant league.  The consequences of a White-only NBA without players like Michael Jordan, Shaquille O’Neil, or Kobe Bryant would have been catastrophic.  The smartest thing that sports did was to desegregate.  Because this failed to happen in the church, Black Christians stopped wanting to play in the “Big Leagues” and created their own church that has become a major power in the social, economic, political, and religious landscape of America, not to mention the influence it wields in African American society.  In the same way that White abolitionists applied enormous pressure to end slavery, White Christians could have led the charge in integrating society by integrating their churches.  Could the incorporation of Black spirituality, liminal theology, dynamic preaching, and the unique charisms of the African American Christian community have brought about a revival of the church?  How is it that every area of society has been immeasurably enriched by the integration of African Americans, from arts to sports to academia to politics to entertainment, except the church?  The historic, mainline church, the PCUSA, to which I belong, is in the midst of a precipitous decline in membership, influence, and relevance.  Could this trend have been averted if Black and other racial ethnic Christians were treated as more than colorful garnish to adorn the White “meat and potatoes” church?  Needless to say, both the White church and the Black church are impoverished because of self-imposed segregation.

The way out of this ecclesial mess is for churches to take seriously the task of evangelism.  Through the prism of Acts 2:1-11 I define evangelism as the act of proclaiming the good news of God’s deeds of power, including the power to overcome human barriers and alienation, in multiple tongues to people of all cultures and nationalities.  Indeed, James Brownson states, “God’s presence is irreducibly multicultural.”[6]  The American church, though it has failed to seize the opportunity in the past, is still blessed to have the opportunity to become a truly multicultural, Pentecostal church.  This goal is more attainable than ever as no community in America remains untouched by vast demographic shifts.  Demographers predict that people of color will become the majority by 2050, and this is already the case in California.  Countless churches in the cities and suburbs (and increasingly in rural areas) are located in the midst of very diverse racial ethnic constituencies.  This is a crisis that can be seen either as danger or opportunity.  It is danger if the church sees itself primarily as a fellowship (longstanding members often have no idea how to incorporate “those people” into the existing monocultural fellowship).  On the other hand, it is opportunity if the church sees itself as a missional community (existing members become excited by new prospects for ministry).  A new attitude could emerge among the old members: “We ministered in one language to one culture, because that was what our neighborhood looked like then…now, we will minister in multiple languages to multiple cultures because that is what our neighborhood looks like today.”  The Christian church is enriched because we have four testimonies of the gospel of Jesus Christ – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – representing the various cultural and theological perspectives of four different evangelists.[7]  The church today can also enjoy that kind of richness if we include multicultural perspectives when witnessing to the mighty deeds of God.

A church can become a Pentecostal church only if it relinquishes its cultural identity rooted in social fellowship, and adopts the missio Dei emanating from the Trinity as its raison d’etre.  David Bosch states, “The classical doctrine on the missio Dei as God the Father sending the Son, and God the Father and the Son sending the Spirit was expanded to include yet another ‘movement’: Father, Son and Holy Spirit sending the church into the world.”[8]  The church’s mission, then, is not fellowship; rather, Christian fellowship is a gift of God to give us strength for the journey in doing the mission of God.  Fellowship is genuine only when engaged for the purpose of mission.  In a time when the fissures are turning into fractures between Christians and Muslims, Muslims and Hindus, Jews and Palestinians, East and West, it is good news indeed that God calls all peoples, nationalities and tongues to proclaim the wonderful deeds of God’s power.  As a demographic microcosm of the world, the American church should take advantage of this marvelous opportunity to become a Pentecostal church.  America in the 21^st century is much like the Palestine of the first century – cosmopolitan, mercantile, multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural, a political, social, and economic crossroads for the world.  Palestine connected three continents, but even more continents converge on the streets of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.  The church was born in that exciting context, and took full advantage of the richness of that diversity.  The early church continued to break down barriers between clean and unclean, circumcised and uncircumcised, Jew and Greek, male and female, slave and free.

Was it an accident that the first church began as a multicultural church?  Even though the church got its start in a tiny corner of a great empire, the church became global in scope from inception because “the whole world” was represented at Pentecost.  Before the church went out into the world, the world came to Palestine to form the first church.  To have the opportunity to create a Pentecostal church in 21^st century America is an unimaginable blessing, and the fruit of longsuffering and faithfulness in pursuing this vision will surely be no less bountiful than that experienced by the first church in Acts.  The church must then relinquish its identity, nurtured over the centuries, as a fellowship of Christians undergirded by a common culture.  We are to be accepted for who we are, but the true church is about who we are to become by the grace of God.  We come with our uniqueness and our particularities, but we become incorporated into the body of Christ as we witness to the saving act of Jesus for all humankind.  The church is truly the church when it accepts the call to be God’s ambassador (apostolos) in proclaiming the good news (euangelizesthai).  And the good news is that God’s goodness and power are greater than humanity’s rebellion and alienation.  God’s grace is sufficient to break down barriers that human beings have erected against God and against one another.  Is not the church the bearer of this good news, and the body ordained by God to be a demonstration of this new reality, the inbreaking of the reign of God?

Evangelism, then, is the preaching and embodying of the infinite grace of God.  Evangelism is engaging in the act of wonder, and inviting others to share in that wonder, recognizing that the story of God is greater than our capacity to grasp it.  Evangelism is admitting: God is bigger than we.  The church must see itself as having no beginning and no end; it is always in the present witnessing to the incarnational presence of God.  The particular church in its institutional form may perhaps mark a time when it was founded, and when it closes its doors for the last time, but a church with a theological and missional understanding of its identity can never point to itself in regards to origin or destination.  “The entire drama of evangelism is definitionally unfinished and must be rendered repeatedly in all its parts the gospel is not a ‘done deal’ when its dramatic character is understood.”[9]  We never finish telling the story…we just tell it in new ways.

In the film “Raging Bull”, there is a scene where champagne glasses are stacked one on top of the other.  As champagne is poured into the top glass, it overflows onto the next one until all are filled.  The church is like such a champagne glass – grace is received without limit, until the church cannot contain it and grace overflows to the next vessel.  Evangelism is demonstrating to the world that God is indeed gracious, and desires to pour this grace into the world as God has done for the church.[10]  The fact that the church is a penultimate sign of the grace of God in no way diminishes the power and magnitude of that grace.  The church receives new mercies when it pours out God’s grace.  A church that is endlessly pouring out, endlessly evangelizing (giving the gospel away), is a church that will always be filled with new life.  Our cup runneth over only when we are being poured out as a libation.[11]  Indeed, this is possible because “God is a fountain of sending love.”[12]

The prospect of giving the gospel away to new communities, receiving the gospel through new interpretive lenses, and engaging in mission together with new partners ought to elicit excitement, not dread.  The church is merely a vessel, so its form is not as important as its content.  A church, however beautiful externally, that does not submit to the leading of the Holy Spirit, that does not become soft clay for God to mold and remold at His pleasure and for His purpose, is a church that will be shattered.  Each individual, tradition and culture reflects only a few facets of God.  But when believers of multiple traditions gather to worship the one true God, faith becomes more dynamic and brilliant as the glory of God is seen through many facets.  The denomination to which I belong has no vision of this.  Alas, the best that our leadership can imagine is a church that includes an increasing number of racial ethnic churches, so that we may have the appearance of diversity.  But this “diversity” only turns up in the aggregate, and rarely in the local church.  There are two main reasons for the lack of a Pentecostal vision in the midst of a Pentecostal situation.

First, the church in America has become a hoarding church.

1)      The church hoards money.  Not satisfied with tithes and offerings, many churches aggressively seek bequests and endowments – death money, I call it.  There are special cases where this may be appropriate, of course.  In general, insufficient offerings of the people to support the ministry may be a sign that the church needs to reinvent itself for a new mission, or close its doors, releasing its people to join more vibrant congregations.  Let it be noted that a pastor must not be used as an executive director of a foundation, for the church is never a foundation; it is the living body of Christ.  A pastor ought never to function as a development officer, raising funds to prop up a dying congregation, or worse, seeking the perpetual financial security of an already wealthy church.

2)      The church hoards members.  The signs and banners say something about worshiping God and serving the community, but by its actions, many churches prove that their primary mission is the gathering of members, not the sending of witnesses.  Of course, the gathering is important, even essential, to being the people of God, but we must understand that the gathering is not much more than a huddle, to use an analogy from American football.  In the huddle the people of God encourage one another, correct one another, and strategize for the coming of God’s kingdom.  Nonetheless, the real action begins when the ball is snapped, or when the gospel is proclaimed in the town square and in the marketplace.  Too many congregations aim to hoard members for the huddle, but have no appetite for playing the game (or running the race –2 Tim. 4:7).

3)      The church hoards property.  The hoarding of members and money leads to the hoarding of property.  Since most local churches are founded on fellowship and the constant enhancement of that fellowship, there seems to be no limit to the construction of larger, more comfortable, more palatial structures to house this “fellowship”.  George Carlin’s observation that Americans constantly move into bigger homes to create more room in which to put all their stuff seems all too apt for the church as well.  How many dying congregations hold on to their property for dear life, as if real estate were the equivalent of the church?  How many presbyteries choose to sell the property of a dying congregation for profit, rather than investing it with an immigrant congregation with a lot of heart but little resources?

4)      The church hoards gifts.  The obsession with the well-being of the local congregation, euphemistically called “building up the body of Christ”, limits the spiritual gifts of the church to its internal fellowship.[13]  Caring for one another is most certainly one of the marks of a healthy church, but how often do we hear, “Why are we ______________ (fill in the blank, i.e. sending money overseas, volunteering at a food bank, etc.) when we have needy people in our own congregation?”  An ecclesiastical provincialism chokes off any attempt to focus the congregation’s efforts toward mission.  This rhetorical question is just as disingenuous as the question of why expensive perfume was being wasted on Jesus’ feet rather than sold and given to the poor.  Pouring our gifts at the feet of Jesus is a kingdom value that puts the church at odds with the worldly value of rational self-interest.

Second, the church in America has become a whoring church, selling itself to the world at cut-rate prices.[14]

1)      The church is bought.  As Bonhoeffer reminded us, grace is free, but that does not make it cheap.  Sincere Christians would agree that the gospel is priceless, yet a stroll through countless local churches reveals that item after item is marked “in honor of” a clearly named donor.  The stained glass window, the organ, the pew, the couch, even the bibles and hymnals all bear the names of those who traded money for recognition.  The new addition is called the “Smith Chapel”, or the “Johnson Library”, or the “Jones Fellowship Hall,” in much the same way that Candlestick Park is now called 3Com Park, and even the New Year’s Eve celebration at Times Square is officially sponsored by Discover Card.  Church buildings are littered with human names inscribed on plaques that seem to compete with the Name above all names.  This unseemly practice gives the impression that the gospel does indeed have a price, and it appears to be low.

2)      The church is sold.  There are churches whose rental income or investment income is higher than offerings.  Although such churches would certainly be a small minority, the business mindset, I would argue, is pervasive.  What is the point of a church renting out its facilities to AA, Senior Care, YMCA, and other groups not as a form of mission, but as a way of subsidizing a shrinking congregation?  What is the point of a church that, having lost its vitality long ago, continues to exist off the interest earned on bequests left by once grateful members?  Is the purpose of the church to remain solvent, to remain operational?  Is it to provide dividends to its shareholder-members, no matter how few are left?  Is the church a church when it has no mission other than survival?

3)      The church is desperate.  The notion of membership in the modern mainline church is a joke.  No faith, commitment, learning, or service is required of a member.  A church with no mission needs bodies to justify its existence.  Devoid of a vision for becoming disciples of Jesus Christ and apostles for the kingdom of God, a congregation in its desperation will lower its membership requirements until there is no requirement at all.  What results is a congregation in which a good portion does not have a personal relationship with Jesus, and therefore cannot discern their call.  In order to increase the commitment level of members who were assured no commitment is required, they are elected deacons and elders.  It is a terrible indictment on the Presbyterian Church (USA) that we have countless officers who cannot confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of the world.  The desperation extends to the next generation.  The fact that the average age of a PCUSA member is 56 means that most churches have few or no youth and young adults in their midst.  Although there are churches that use the option of electing youth elders to truly empower and appreciate the gifts of young people, many more use this option to obscure the fact that the congregation has not made youth ministry a priority and has no viable youth program.  Instead, the session now includes a mascot called a “youth elder” to be able to say, “You see, we do care about our youth.”  The quality of both the membership and the leadership reflect the church’s desperate grasping at straws, and the congregation suffers for upholding a lowest-common-denominator standard.

4)      The church belittles its gifts.  The natural consequence of membership devoid of requirements is the administration of the sacraments without condition.  The PCUSA’s Book of Order speaks eloquently about the meaning of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and how important preparation is for the receiving of these signs of grace.  Unfortunately, the rite of baptism has become a right of individuals.  Few churches deny infant baptism, no matter how clear the signs that the parent(s) have no intention of raising their child in the way of faith and in the midst of a believing community.  Pastors recite the words of institution before serving communion, but how many teach that partaking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner invites the judgment of God?  The church’s responsibility for discerning the body of Christ has been replaced by the individual’s right to partake in the sacraments without repentance, rebirth, or renewal.  A church that intentionally desacralizes the sacraments is one whose integrity is at stake.

Only when the church frees itself from these captivities, can the church begin to reclaim the spirit of Pentecost.  Declining congregations would do well to let go of their cultural identities and find a new identity rooted in mission, not origin.  Well-to-do congregations need to drop the haughty attitude of noblesse oblige, the notion of the church as a dispenser of gifts.  Indulgent congregations need to remember that God is merciful, not indulgent.[15]  A Pentecostal church will be full of struggles, like any church, but the struggles will primarily be focused on evangelism and mission, not identity politics.  As the church at Pentecost was comprised of many cultures but one mission, the church in America has a similar opportunity to model for the world the gathering of diverse Christians worshiping together to be sent by God for a common mission.  The church must erase the ugly blot of racial segregation from among the fellowship of believers, which has been a devastating blow to its witness for centuries.  Darrell Guder advocates ecumenical exchange that promotes the “mutual conversion of Christian communities in diverse cultures,” and that “corrects, expands, and challenges all other forms of witness in the worldwide church.”[16]  I would add that my vision is to see this very “mutual conversion” happen within the life of the local congregation.

We must engage in an evangelism that not only promises the abundant life on earth, but prepares people to be in the eternal presence of God in heaven.  The good news must supplant old idolatries.  Race has been an idol in this country from the beginning, and its grip is still so powerful that White people feel compelled to worship in a White church, Black people feel compelled to worship in a Black church, and Asian people feel compelled to worship in an Asian church.  Will heaven be segregated like that?  The thought is absurd.  Heaven will surely be a multicultural place, with saints from all the nations worshiping God in unity.  If the thought of a segregated heaven is absurd, then so is the reality of a segregated church.  A monocultural church in a monocultural nation is understandable, but when we have the opportunity to become a multicultural church in the midst of a multicultural society, we must seize the opportunity.  If we can do it, but choose not to do it, will it be counted as disobedience?  When we have a Pentecostal situation, but refuse to create a Pentecostal church, will it be counted as unfaithful-ness?  Can we demonstrate that race, color, culture, language, and background are trivial obstacles before the Spirit of the Living One, before the God who has come to reconcile the whole world to himself?  The Spirit of Pentecost is stirring in America.  Can we catch the Spirit?

Bibliography

David Bosch, Transforming Mission, Maryknoll: Orbis, 1991.

Walter Brueggemann, Biblical Perspectives on Evangelism, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993.

Darrell Guder, The Continuing Conversion of the Church, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Jack Haberer, GodViews: The Convictions that Drive Us and Divide Us, Louisville: Geneva Press, 2001.

Young-Gi Hong, “Revisiting Church Growth in Korean Protestantism,” International Review of Mission, April 2000, pp 190-202.

Luke Timothy Johnson, Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel, Harper San Francisco, 1999.

Philip D. Kenneson and James L. Street, Selling Out the Church, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997.