1. One element I found lacking from Jones’s work was an extended treatment of the element of primitivity. Both Pentecostals and Emergents tend to be intensely primitivistic in outlook. In sermons given from the pulpits of Pentecostal churches, the term “the Early Church” or “New Testament Christians” are referenced frequently. In my experience, this tends to be a common theme in much of emergent thought, particularly in terms of the rejection of the influence of capitalism on the church and a return to some sort of authentic, untainted, and more original form of Christianity. Whether this “New Testament Christianity” is attainable for the modern church, however, is another argument.
2. Working hand-in-hand, both Pentecostalism and the Emergent Church are at root movements of social-religious protest. Pentecostalism, in the nascent years of the twentieth-century, was extremely anti-institutional, anti-establishment, and anti-structure. While it has undeniably evolved in its 100 year history, becoming more institutionalized and formalized, it cannot deny the fact that it was at base a religious expression of rebellion from the norm.
3. Another common theme between Pentecostals and Emergents is an obvious one: both have strained relationships with the broader Evangelical community. Emergent thought is often described as being exemplary of post-evangelical Christianity; Pentecostalism has a similar relationship. Several scholarly voices from within the study of Pentecostalism have decried the relationship of the movement with Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism’s awkward step-parent. Pentecostalism’s growing relationship with Evangelicalism in the second half of the twentieth- century has been cited as the cause of Pentecostalism’s erosion of “distinctives,” in particular issues such as women’s roles in ministry, positions of anti-violence and pacifism. Many of these are argued to have been played down as Pentecostals tried to fit in with their more refined Evangelical brethren.
4. Both of the movements have been historically and continue to be beacons of civil-rights: involving both gender and race. At Azusa street, it is reported that “the color line was washed away in the blood.” Both men and women shared responsibility in ministry. For these inchoate Pentecostals, the Holy Spirit was no respecter of persons; it was poured out freely on whoever desired it. Neither skin color or gender mattered. And, they were convinced, they had biblical backing! (Yet, as I will demonstrate in my presentation, all was not perfect in the early years in regards to civil rights and equality. As time progressed, problems ensued. Not all Pentecostal denominations allowed ordination to women, and race issues constantly creeped up, even at the Azusa mission.)
5. Jones does do a fantastic job describing perhaps the most important similarity between the two movements: that of a pneumatologically-oriented theology and praxis, and a re-instatement of trinitarianism (in contrast to binitarianism). In essence, both movements see God as directly at work in the world through the Spirit, and the involvement of the Christian in God’s work. Christians co-op with God, partnering with God in this lifetime. This sort of praxis ultimately rejects Calvinism for the more experiential and participatory Armenian point of view, and as Jones eloquently demonstrates, this might make the neo-Calvinists uncomfortable as it might be seen as an undermining of God’s sovereignty. If humans are actively involved in God’s work on this earth, they might wonder, is not God then dependent upon them? Both Pentecostals and Emergents are acutely aware of the movement of God on this earth in the here-and-now; both appropriate a theology of the Kingdom as already-but-not-yet; this kingdom is one that is something that is not entirely attainable but is something to be sought diligently, and built, here and now. For both Emergents and Pentecsotals, the Kingdom of God has an important social dimension.
6. Lastly, another point of parallel is that of the hermeneutics of the two movements. Some scholars of Pentecostalism claim that the movement’s ways of interpreting the Bible are, in essence, relational and experiential, thus situating Pentecostal hermeneutics as a postmodern endeavor. This, I might point out, is difficult to conceptualize, given the common understanding of Pentecostals as biblical literalists, or the even more inaccurate description as fundamentalists. These scholars argue that in the course of its ritualization (i.e., “evangelicalization”), Pentecostal Bible scholars opted out of their hermeneutics of the Spirit for a more rigid and dogmatic interpretation of the Bible. Still, however, Pentecostal hermeneutics are characterized as Spirit-led. Such a perspective has allowed Pentecostals to ordain women, even though there are passages that, for biblical literalists, prohibit them from speaking from the pulpit. One thing is certain: if contemporary Pentecostals are more literalists than pneumatological interpreters, they are just plain bad ones. They pick-and-choose. I feel, as do a growing number of Pentecostal scholars of the Bible, that pneumatological readings of the Bible are anti-modern (perhaps even anti-historical- critical?).
Is the Emergent movement the culmination of Azusa Street? While I am hesitant to make such a presumptuous statement, I have to consider the fact that the Emergent movement may just be a continuation of, fulfillment of, or renewal movement of the original renewal movement: Pentecostalism. Yet, in its current state, the Emergent movement bears striking resemblance to the Pentecostal movement, only without its ritualized, formalized, and evangelicalized addendums. Certainly there are differences regarding particular moral and political issues (the Jones presentation controversy embodies this contention), but this simply does not do away with the fact that the movements have more similarities than they do differences. In my opinion. Currently.
So what do you think? Keep in mind that these points represent the beginning stages of my thoughts on the subject. These points will certainly become more well-defined and nuanced as I get closer to the presentation date. I appreciate and look forward to any thoughts or opinions concerning the overlapping nature or contention surrounding these two movements. If I receive any good insight, I will more than likely graft that thought into my presentation. Thanks for the interaction.