# Thinking in Tongues (James K A Smith)



## RamistThomist (Apr 26, 2015)

And before we begin the review, let's put aside questions on whether the "special" gifts really apply today. We can examine Smith's book as a philosophical exploration in pentecostal phenomenology.

Thesis: Pentecostal worldview offers a distinct way of being-in-the-world (Smith 25). Embodied practices carry within them a “tacit understanding” (27).

Is a Pentecostal Philosophy Possible?

Much of the chapter deals with the relationship between theology and philosophy. The difference is one of field, not “faith basis” (Smith 4). Smith gives us Five Aspects of a Pentecostal Philosophy:
1. radical openness to God, or God’s doing something fresh. 
2. An “enchanted” theology of creation and culture. Smith means that we see reality not as self-enclosed monads, but realizing that principalities and powers are often behind these. this entails spiritual warfare. I cringe at terms like “enchanted” because it’s more postmodern non-speak, but Smith (likely inadvertently) connected “enchanted” with demons, which is correct.
3. A nondualistic affirmation of embodiment and spirituality. Smith defines “dualism” as not denigrating materiality. Fewer and fewer Christians today do this, so I am not sure whom his target is. Even chain-of-being communions like Rome that officially denigrate embodiment say they really don’t mean it.
4. Affective, narrative epistemology. 
5. Eschatological orientation towards mission and justice.


God’s Surprise

Some hermeneutics: Smith rightly notes that “The Last Days” (per Acts 2) is connected with “today” ( 22; we accept this model in eschatology but abandon it in pneumatology). Smith wryly notes that Acts 2:13 is the first proto-Daniel Dennett hermeneutics: offering a naturalistic explanation for inexplicable phenomena (23). 

Following Martin Heidegger, Smith suggests two kinds of knowing: wissen and verstehen, justified, true belief and understanding. The latter is tacit and is at the edges of conscious action.

Per the dis-enchanted cosmos, Smith astutely points out that “There is a deep sense that multiple modes of oppression--from illness to poverty--are in some way the work of forces that are not just natural” (41). In other words, spiritual warfare assumes a specific, non-reductionist cosmology.

Promising Suggestions

“What characterizes narrative knowledge?” (65) 
a connection between narrative and emotions
Narratives work in an affective manner
The emotions worked are themselves already construals of the world
There is a “fit” between narrative and emotion
There is a good section on Pauline-pneumatological accounts of knowing (68ff). Anticipating Dooyeweerd, Paul critiques the pretended autonomy of theoretical thought (Rom. 1:21-31; 1 Cor. 1:18-2:16) and that the Spirit grants access to the message as “true.” 

While I found his chapter on epistemology inadequate, he does say that we know from the “heart” as embodied, rational beings (58). This isn’t new to postmodernism, but is standard Patristic epistemology. 

_A Pentecostal Ontology
_
This section could have been interesting. Smith wants to argue that pentecostalism sees an open ontology that allows the Spirit to move from within nature, rather than a miracle that is “tacked on” to nature from the outside. He makes this argument because he wants pentecostalism to line up with the insights from Radical Orthodoxy.

I have between 50-75 pentecostal relatives who “embody pentecostal spirituality.” I promise you that none of them think like this or are even capable of thinking like that. I do not disparge them, simply because I am not to sure Smith’s project at this point is really coherent. He wants to reject methodological naturalism (rightly) but argues for his own version of supernatural naturalism.

If Smith is successful, then he can show that pentecostalism lines up with quantum mechanics. Okay. Thus, nature is “en-Spirited” (103). While I have problems with his “suspended materiality” ontology, Smith makes some interesting points: miracles are not “add-ons.” They are not anti-nature, since “nature is not a discrete, autonomous entity” (104). 

_Tongues_ 

We are considering “tongue-speech” as a liminal case in the philosophy of language (122). Exegetical discussions are important (and ultimately determinative), but we can’t enter them here. Smith wants to argue that tongues (T₁) resists our current categories of language and emerges as resistance to cultural norms. I think there is something to that.

_ T₁ as Phenomenology
_
There is a difference between signs as expression (Ausdruck) and those that do not mean anything (indications, Anzeigen). Ausdruck is important as it means something, whereas Anzeigen serves as a pointer (127, Smith is following E. Husserl). Husserl even notes that there can be signs that are not Ausdrucken nor Anzeigen. This turns on the question: can signs which do not express anything nor point to anything be modes of communication? 

As many critics of Husserl note, his account of speech links communication with intention, so he has to answer “no” to the above question. Or maybe so. What kind of speech can there be that is not bound up with inter-subjective indication? Husserl (and Augustine!) suggest the interior mental life. Thus, signs in this case would not point to what is absent. 

_Tongues as Speech-Act Attack
_
Utterances (of any sort) are performative. While such utterance-acts do convey thoughts, sometimes their intent is far more. Let’s take tongues-speak as ecstatic, private language. What does the pray-er mean to do? We can easily point to an illocutionary act of praying in groans too deep for words. We can also see a perlocutionary act: God should act in response.

_Tongues as Politics
_
Oh boy. Smith wants to say that tongues is a speech-act against the powers that be. I like that. I really do. I just fear that Smith is going to mislocate the powers. He begins by drawing upon neo-Marxist insights (147). However, without kowtowing fully to Marx, he does point out that Marx has yielded the historical stage to the Holy Ghost.

Tongues-speech begins as “the language of the dispossessed” (149). This, too, is a valid sociological insight. The chapter ends without Smith endorsing Marxism, which I expected him to do. While we are on a charismatic high, I will exercise my spiritual gift of Discerning the Spirits.” The reason that many 3rd World Pentecostals are “dispossessed” is because they are in countries whose leaders serve the demonic principality of Marxist-Socialism. Let’s attack that first before we get on the fashionable anti-capitalism bandwagon.

_Possible Criticisms
_

*Smith, as is usual with most postmodernists, gets on the “narrative” bandwagon. There’s a place for that, but I think narrative is asked to carry more than it can bear. In any case, it is undeniable that Pentecostals are good storytellers. Smith wants to tie this in with epistemology, but he omits any discussion from Thomas Reid concerning testimony as basic belief, which would have strengthened his case.

Smith (rightly) applauds J. P. Moreland’s recent embrace of kingdom power, but accuses Moreland of still being a “rationalist” (6 n14, 13n26). Precisely how is Moreland wrong and what is the concrete alternative? Smith criticizes the rationalist project as “‘thinking’ on a narrow register of calculation and deduction” (54). Whom is he criticizing: Christians or non-Christians? It’s not clear, and in any case Moreland has come under fire for saying there are extra-biblical, non-empirical sources of knowledge and reality (angels, demons, etc). 

Smith then argues that all rationalities are em-bodied rationalities. That’s fine. I don’t think this threatens a Reidian/Warrant view of knowledge. Perhaps it does threaten K=JTB. I don’t know, since Smith doesn’t actually make the argument. Smith makes a good argument on the “heart’s role” in knowing, yet Moreland himself has a whole chapter on knowing and healing from the heart in The Lost Virtue of Happiness (Moreland 2006).

Smith elsewhere identifies aspects of rationality as the logics of “power, scarcity, and consumption,” (84) but I can’t think of a serious philosopher who actually espouses this. 

Elsewhere, Smith says Christian philosophy should be “Incarnational” and not simply theistic (11). What does that even mean? Does it simply mean “Begin with Jesus”? Does it mean undergirding ontology with the Incarnation, per Col. 1:17? That’s actually quite promising, but I don’t think Smith means that, either. So what does he mean?

Is Smith a coherentist? I think he is. He hints at good criticisms of secularism, but points out “that the practices and plausibility structures that sustain pentecostal (or Reformed or Catholic or Baptist or Moonie--JBA) have their own sort of ‘logic’,” a logic that allows Christians to play, too (35). But even if coherentism holds--and I grant that Smith’s account is likely true, it doesn’t prove coherentism is true. All coherentism can prove is doxastic relations among internal beliefs, but not whether these beliefs are true. Of course, Smith would probably say I am a rationalist.

In his desire to affirm materiality, Smith seems to say that any religious materiality is a good materiality. Smith approvingly notes of Felicite’s clinging to feasts and relics (36). It’s hard to see how any one “Materiality” could be bad on Smith’s account. But this bad account is juxtaposed with some good observations on the book of Acts (38) and tries to connect the two.

*Smith says that “postmodernism takes race, class, and gender seriously” because it takes the body seriously (60). This is 100% false. If facebook is a true incarnation (!) of postmodernity, may I ask how many “gender/sexual preference” options facebook has? I rest my case.

*Smith waxes eloquently on the Pentecostal “aesthetic” (80ff), which is basically a repeat of his other works, but one must ask, “How does faith come per Romans 10?”

*Smith doesn’t miss an opportunity to criticize “rationalism” for separating beliefs and faith/practice, yet Smith himself seems mighty critical of those who focus on “beliefs” in their philosophy of religion (111). Smith's attack seems ironically dualistic. Sure, most post-Descartes philosophy of religion is overly intellectual, but I do think the Reidian/Reformed Epistemology model, if wedded to Dabney’s Practical Philosophy, integrates belief and faith-practice.

It goes back to our doctrine of the soul. The soul includes both mind and will. You really can’t isolate them. Unmasking this was Dabney’s genius in Practical Philosophy (Sprinkle Publishing), pp. 3ff.


----------



## MW (Apr 26, 2015)

I haven't read this book, but if this and other reviews are anything to go by, I have the following observations:

(1) The idea that practice includes a tacit understanding ignores the fact that people might practice the same thing for different reasons. Within a religious group the devotees might have very different understandings of what is being done. The problem with an unwarranted religious practice is that it loses its objectivity and leaves it open to each individual to make of it what they will. Thus religious superstition multiplies.

(2) The "last days" related to the prophetic program for Israel in light of the inauguration of a new era for Gentiles. Joel was an old testament prophet. We live under the new testament. The idea that the "last days" relate to "today" would take us back to a point where Israel was a theocratic nation and the Gentiles were still in process of being recognised as fellow-heirs.

(3) The redefinition of "miracle" to include everything will ultimately undermine the divine attestation of Christ and the apostles, and thereby destroy the possibility of speaking of Christian miracles at all.

(4) Any view which allows for principalities and powers to function in the same manner as they functioned under the division of nations is a rejection of the truth that Christ is now Lord of all. It is an under-realised eschatology which annihilates the great commission.

(5) Babble is not "speech." This babble-act only serves to reinforce non-understanding and confusion, as 1 Cor. 14 makes plain enough for anyone who is not prejudiced by the need to justify their babble-act. That this should be done in the name of Jesus Christ is a mockery. Nobody is any the wiser as to whether the speaker is saying Jesus is Lord or accursed.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2015)

MW said:


> I haven't read this book, but if this and other reviews are anything to go by, I have the following observations:
> 
> (1) The idea that practice includes a tacit understanding ignores the fact that people might practice the same thing for different reasons. Within a religious group the devotees might have very different understandings of what is being done. The problem with an unwarranted religious practice is that it loses its objectivity and leaves it open to each individual to make of it what they will. Thus religious superstition multiplies.
> 
> ...



Per (1), I suppose. I think Smith was just repeating things found in Wittengstein, Polyani, and others.
Per (2), That's new to me. I always thought that Reformed already-not yet types believed we are in the last days. 
Per (3) I agree, and I also think that warns against saying the most mundane things are 'miracles."
Per (4), I am not using principalities as coextensive with nations in this particular context.
Per (5), I don't speak in tongues and really have no interest defending it. I do think Smith's speech-act analysis was quite good.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Apr 27, 2015)

MW said:


> (5) Babble is not "speech." This babble-act only serves to reinforce non-understanding and confusion, as 1 Cor. 14 makes plain enough for anyone who is not prejudiced by the need to justify their babble-act. That this should be done in the name of Jesus Christ is a mockery. Nobody is any the wiser as to whether the speaker is saying Jesus is Lord or accursed.


----------



## MW (Apr 27, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Per (2), That's new to me. I always thought that Reformed already-not yet types believed we are in the last days.
> Per (4), I am not using principalities as coextensive with nations in this particular context.



The "reformed" who follow the progress of revelation (biblical theology) understand the phenomenon of Pentecost to fall under the historia salutis, not the ordo salutis.

The only biblical warrant for "using principalities" is in the context of God suffering the nations to walk in their own ways and choosing Israel to be His own holy nation. With the exaltation of Christ these principalities now come under His headship, which means that believers are constituted as one holy people.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 28, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Per (2), That's new to me. I always thought that Reformed already-not yet types believed we are in the last days.
> ...



I don't disagree with that, but Paul calls us to pull down intellectual strongholds and I can only see, for example, socialism and Marxism as demonically-inspired.

And with regard to demonic warfare, I've been face-to-face with demons in the room (and coincidentally, it was when I was reading neo-Marxist literature).


----------



## MW (Apr 28, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> I don't disagree with that, but Paul calls us to pull down intellectual strongholds and I can only see, for example, socialism and Marxism as demonically-inspired.



Your view of "demon" approaches to the idea of "genius," something intellectually and socially identifiable, and able to be dealt with by taking every thought captive and subjecting it to Christ. The Pentecostal view presents "demons" as non-physical personalities which override the intellectual and social life of men, and they require men to personally confront these things as if they exercised some independent influence over men.



ReformedReidian said:


> And with regard to demonic warfare, I've been face-to-face with demons in the room (and coincidentally, it was when I was reading neo-Marxist literature).



Perhaps read more reformed biblical theology and less sceptical and borderline philosophy.


----------

