Empowerment - a comparison of Pentecostal and Liberation theologies

A contextual approach to Christian leadership development in Possilpark: reflections on empowerment in Paulo Freire and Cheryl Bridges‐Johns By: Paul Ede M a st e r of Th e ology: M in ist r y in a n Ur ba n W or ld Ye a r 2 ( 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 ) UM 2 / 3 – Syn opt ic Essa y D a t e : 1 st March 2010 Tu t or : Dr. Wes Whit e W or d Cou n t 8,223 1 Introduction The question of how to establish freedom from poverty and oppression is an urgent one for the community of Possilpark. These exist on many levels: in the behaviours of individuals (alcoholism, eschewal of personal responsibility), on the level of local social networks (relational dysfunction, family breakdown), in terms of exploitation (criminality), and within political and economic structures (economic disparity and worklessness).1 Douglas McKnight has recently claimed that “the freedom of all creatures is the task of all other creatures,”2 a statement which echoes the resounding words of Christ at the inauguration of his ministry: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.”3 St Paul, in diagnosing a key cause of oppression points to the existence of ‘principalities and powers’4 which hold sway to varying degrees, in varying forms, over all of creation. Oppression is the result of a complex web of inter‐weaving distortions of the power God has imbued into creation: be it power actively used to enslave, power neglected, or power inappropriately channelled (on both individual and corporate levels). It is for this reason that a similarly complex and often contradictory discourse around the concept of ‘empowerment’ has arisen in both secular and Christian literature. But what approach to empowerment can I hold to with integrity as a charismatic Christian in a community broken by poverty like Possilpark? And what approach to personal spirituality will enable me to walk alongside broken people in Possilpark in a way that will most support their empowerment and development as leaders? In Part One I tackle the first question, using Colin Gunton’s Trinitarian theology of creation in The One, the Three and the Many to critique modernist conceptions of freedom and sociality. I also draw on insights from both Paulo Freire (a key thinker behind Community Learning and Development and liberation theology) and Cheryl Bridges‐Johns (a Pentecostal theologian and pedagogical theorist) to this end.5 In Part Two, I look at the latter question, taking a more reflective and personal tone as I explore (with the help of Mark Stibbe’s 1 See diagnosis of causes of poverty by Ruby Payne in Ruby Payne, A Framework for Understanding Poverty (aha! Process inc: USA, 2005) p167 2 Douglas Knight, The Eschatological Economy – Time and the Hospitality of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) pxvi 3 Luke 4: 18‐19, NIV 4 Ephesians 3:10 5 An important caveat in this essay is that when I use the first person pronoun I am very conscious that I am part of a team, a community of Christians, and that my empowerment praxis is deeply informed by a commitment to the inter‐relationship between the individual and the community. 2 Orphans to Heirs and Eugene Peterson’s The Contemplative Pastor) how my own spiritual practices can support the empowerment process. Part 1 What approach to empowerment can I hold to with integrity as a charismatic Christian in a community broken by poverty like Possilpark? 1. Introduction In part 1, I want first to highlight the complexities surrounding a discussion of empowerment because of the wide variety of models and approaches that can be used (1.1), by looking at the tension between individual empowerment and empowerment through community (1.1.1). I then begin to investigate how Enlightenment culture (modernity) has approached these issues (1.1.1), looking at concepts of ‘displacement’, ‘immanence’ and ‘autonomous human individuation’. Finally, I offer an alternative set of concepts rooted in a Trinitarian theology of creation: ‘perichoresis’, ‘substantiality’ and ‘relationality’ (1.1.3). In the second section of Part 1 (1.2), I use these concepts to critique the theories of Paulo Freire (1.2.1) and Cheryl Bridges‐Johns (1.2.2), so as to develop an approach to the empowerment of leaders in Possilpark (1.3). 1.1 Empowerment – a slippery term Empowerment is a word that can be imbued with very different meanings depending on which discursive field a practitioner is drawing on when they deploy the term. Any given approach to empowerment may be in tension or even contradiction to an alternative approach in terms of epistemology, teleology, methodology and ontology.6 Untangling these weaves of meaning is complex because different Christian and secular discourse(s) can be both commensurable and incommensurable with one another.7 6 In discussing the latest official attempt to define what community education is about, Ian Martin writes: “It is the misguided preoccupation with proposing a supposedly consensual interpretation of what community education is about that explains the trivial banality of much of what this paper has to say.” See Martin, Ian ‘Signposts to Nowhere’ in McConnell, Charlie (ed) Community Education : the making of an empowering profession (Edinburgh: Scottish Community Education Council, 1997) p99 We must also be cautious about implying that there is only one approach to these questions within any given field, be it social work, community learning and education or church‐planting. 7 For example, Luke Bretherton has recently argued for a theological reading of Saul Alinsky’s approach to community organising, arguing that it is readily adapted as a distinctly Christian approach to community empowerment. Bretherton, Luke Christianity and Contemporary Politics (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons: 2010) p71‐125. And Paulo Freire has not only been embraced by CLD practitioners but also Christians working in a ‘liberative key’ because of his close association with the World Council of Churches and the intellectuals behind the movement of Liberation theology. 3 According to Paul Spicker’s definition from the perspective of social work,8 the teleology of empowerment is ‘reducing powerlessness stemming from the experience of discrimination,’ the methodology of empowerment is of a ‘social worker or other helping professional engaging in a set of activities with the client’ and its epistemology is rooted in identifying that a client belongs ‘to a stigmatised collective.’ Each of these concepts may or may not be acceptable to practitioners in an alternative field to that of social work, be it the related but distinct discipline of Community Learning and Development (CLD)9, or a grassroots approach to church‐planting as practised by a Christian lay‐ person. For a CLD practitioner influenced by Paulo Freire, the aim might instead be the full humanisation of life experience for the person involved,1011 replacing the implied ‘banking model’12 methodology with a dialogical approach, and using a very different (Marxist‐influenced) grid for defining the reasons behind the experience of marginalisation. Finally, a grassroots church‐planter committed to ‘re‐neighbouring’ a community might object to the assumption of professionalism in this definition’s methodology, aim towards developing a community of disciples being transformed into the image of Christ, struggle with the idea of empowerment as achieving mastery over our own lives rather than interdependency with the Godhead, and assume that the foundational causes of powerlessness is humanity’s fallen nature and the rule of principalities and powers in the structures of society. In my ministry, I have been influenced by and practised elements of all these different approaches to empowerment. Through the Unlock method of bible study13 I have introduced Freirian pedagogy, (reworked by British liberation theology) to methadone addicts in a Pentecostal church. With an awareness of Saul Alinsky’s14 work, I have embarked on a low‐key local approach to broad‐based community organising through a ministry of hospitality among local community activists. And influenced by Anabaptist and charismatic theology and practice I have devoted myself to an 8 Spicker, Paul Social Policy: Themes and Approaches ‐ Revised 2nd Edition (GB: The Policy Press, 2008) p192 A recent report to Scottish ministers proposes the following definition of CLD: “Work with individuals and groups which is developed in dialogue with them and based on their communities. It identifies and organises activities that strengthen communities and promote personal growth.” McConnell, Charlie (ed.) Community Education : the making of an empowering profession (Edinburgh: Scottish Community Education Council, 1997) p522 10 Alastair MacIntosh offers the following definition: “Properly used, then, ‘development’ means ‘a gradual unfolding; a fuller working out of the details of anything; growth from within’ (OED). Community development should therefore be about enabling a community to become more fully itself. Development ought therefore be spirituality expressed socially.” 11 In McConnell, Charlie (ed.) Community Education : the making of an empowering profession (Edinburgh: Scottish Community Education Council, 1997) it is suggested that the aims of CLD are : 1: “tackling the needs of disadvantaged communities,” 2: “building an empowered learning society capable of addressing the challenges of the new millennium” pvii. 12 The banking model of education is the terminology Freire uses to describe a top‐down, teacher dominated approach which ‘fills up’ educatees with information. Freire is wary of this method because it can be co‐opted by hegemonic culture to sustain the oppression of the masses by retaining control of the educational process. 13 Unlock Glasgow ‐ Online: http://www.unlockglasgow.org.uk/ 14 The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education ‐ Online: http://www.infed.org/ 9 4 incarnational approach to building a community of Spirit‐filled Christ‐followers. However, an ongoing sense of dissonance has remained as I have sought to interweave these approaches. This tension is summed up well in the following comment by Anne McGreechin, a charismatic Christian trained in community development and interviewed for this essay:15 “I have been influence by Paulo Freire’s problem posing approach, which recognises that people need to become the subjects of their own change rather than the objects of other peoples desires and that they need to free themselves from the chains of oppression that has prevented them from becoming more fully human. Although I don’t believe we can really do this without the power and help of the Holy Spirit.”16 Like Ann, I wonder as a born‐again charismatic whether a purely Freirian approach to empowerment can ever approximate true human freedom without access also to a relationship with the Holy Spirit. Leslie Newbiggin has warned that “[There is a] need for a doctrine of freedom which rests not on the ideology of the Enlightenment but on the gospel itself...the freedom which the Enlightenment won rests upon an illusion ‐ the illusion of autonomy ‐ and therefore ends in a form of bondage.”17 The prophet Jeremiah warned Israel that human concepts of freedom can be totally incommensurate with the true freedom offered by Yahweh: “Have I been a desert to Israel or a land of great darkness? Why do my people say, 'We are free to roam; we will come to you no more'?”18 And this is a cry apocalyptically echoed by Christ himself with the words “I am the way the way, the truth and the life”19 and “the truth with set you free.”20 To what extent, given their eclectic theoretical history, significant internal tensions, and the ongoing interpenetration of secular and Christian discourses of empowerment, can I authentically use these different approaches and still operate within a scriptural and Trinitarian framework?21 15 and one of four people who filled out a questionnaires on empowerment I devised. Please see empowerment questionnaire devised by Paul Ede, available on demand. 17 Newbiggin, Leslie ‘Can the West Be Converted?’ in Princeton Seminary Bulletin 6 (1):25‐37, 1985 p10 Online: http://www.newbigin.net/assets/pdf/85cwbc.pdf 18 Jeremiah 2:31 NIV 19 John 4:16 NIV 20 John 8:32 NIV 21 An honest answer to this question must start with the biographical reality that I have been profoundly shaped by my charismatic background, which still strongly informs by biblical hermeneutic. 16 5 1.1.1 Is empowerment an individual or communal process? I want to open up this discussion by focussing on a critical tension in all the literature about empowerment: should empowerment be focussed on the individual or the community? Reflecting on these debates in secular circles, Spicker writes: “The nature of the change which has to be brought about, however, is very unclear. Miller comments that: ‘frequently there is ambiguity about whether...empowerment will be of individuals or of communities. While both individual and collective or community empowerment are desirable, the two may not always converge.’”22 A similar tension can be seen in the writings of St Paul. In Galatians 6:2‐5, he writes: “Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfil the law of Christ...Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.(italics mine).”23 ‘Empowerment’ is here seen as release from the captivity of sin. Paul is nevertheless wrestling with the intricacies of ‘convergence’ between individual and communal modes of empowerment. This tension is evident in his assertion that responsibility for empowerment can lie with the individual, but also with the wider community.24 Can an individual empower themselves in isolation? Can a community empower someone who takes no responsibility for their own empowerment? Can created beings empower themselves apart from their creator? From a theological perspective, this question can only be answered by a full‐orbed analysis of how the Godhead seeks to establish the Kingdom over creation as a whole. I contend that this is where theories of empowerment influenced by Enlightenment culture diverge from a truly Trinitarian approach. In terms of empowerment, then, what is the relationship between the collective and the individual? In 22 Spicker Social Policy p193 NIV 24 In fact, a close exegesis of this passage reveals Paul’s use of two clearly distinct Greek words (translated here as ‘burdens’ – Grk. ‘phortion’ and ‘loads’ – ‘baros’). Drawing on the original Greek meanings of these words help us to see that some weights are amenable to carrying by one person (loads) and others (burdens) are by definition to large for only one person to bear. Paul is here arguing that a key element of judicious empowerment is discerning the correct approach in any given situation (encouraging either personal or corporate responsibility). 23 6 philosophical terms, since the time of Heraclitus and Parmenides, this argument has tended to be framed in as to how the Many relate to the One.25 1.1.2 The Enlightenment and the question of how the One relates to the Many Colin Gunton in his seminal theology of creation argues that the culture of modernity26 has answered this question in particular ways which profoundly influence a range of Western theologies and secular discourses across many disciplines. Gunton contends that the prevailing conception of the Godhead in pre‐modern times was monist in nature. Attempts to build an understanding of human inter‐connectivity on this basis tended to err towards totalitarianism and oppression of individuality and diversity. The many (individual humans) were all‐too‐often subjugated to the one (a form of hierarchical community built on a monist conception of God). It was against this backdrop that the revolution of modern philosophy occurred. The monist conception of a 27 transcendent God was perceived to suppress human individuation, and so it was concluded that the very concept of a transcendent God must be rejected.28 Transcendent concepts previously assigned outside of creation become accessed solely through immanent reality, with both human reason (Kant) and creation (Rosseau) being assigned quasi‐divine status. History becomes a function of internal forces within creation without reference to any external teleology. What effect has this had on core assumptions of modern western culture, according to Gunton? 1. Freedom can be gained through ‘disengagement’: it is assumed that to correctly appropriate reality humankind can and must step back and assess it objectively from a rational perspective. To modernists this objectivity is possible from within creation without reference to anything external to creation.29 25 Colin E.Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many – God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity (Newcastle: Athenaeum Press: 1994) p11 ff. 26 I am aware of the difficulties of positing a monolithic form of ‘modern culture’ and follow Gunton in his analysis, despite his own warning in this regard: “modernity is not a monolithic phenomenon, but a range of practices and attitudes, to the past, for example, as well as of ideologies not all of which are consistent with one another...modernity is the realm of paradoxes: an era which has sought freedom, and bred totalitarianism; which has taught us our significance in the vastness of the universe, and yet has sought to play god with that same universe; which has sought to control the world, and yet let loose forces which may destroy the earth.” Colin E.Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many – God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity (Newcastle: Athenaeum Press: 1994) p13 27 Colin E. Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many – God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity (Newcastle: Athenaeum Press: 1994) “But the outcome in modern thought has been more radical because many progressive and influential minds have come to associate any belief in God at all with the suppression of the rights of the many.” p26 28 Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many "much modern social and political thought can be understood as the revolt of the man against the one, and at the same time that of humanity against divinity." p27 29 Ibid. p13 7 2. Freedom is to be found in immanence rather than transcendence – the work of Rosseau suggested that human freedom would be found in the exaltation of the natural world to the space of transcendence. Kant’s ethic meanwhile has resulted in a doctrine of freedom rooted in man’s dominance over nature,30 while eliding the agency of a transcendent, personal God. Karl Marx inherited this tradition and rejected the need for interaction with the transcendent as an integral part of human freedom. 3. It is in the elevation of human individuation that true diversity and freedom can be discovered – while classical and early Christian thought emphasised that freedom was to be found in the subordination of the many to the one, modern culture has asserted the opposite. This has resulted, ironically, in the continuing creation of unifying discourses, just without reference to the oneness of a transcendent God. The problem that has arisen, though, is that the replacement unifying meta‐narratives are just as oppressive, if not more so, than the paradigm the Enlightenment tried to leave behind.31 The attempt to eschew the oppression brought about by monist conceptions of God under Christendom rebounds into alternative forms of oppression which operate under ‘false transcendentals.’32 1.1.3 Trinitarianism as the third way between individualism and communism In what might human freedom ultimately lie, if neither solely in immanence nor transcendence? Gunton affirms that monist transcendentality was oppressive, but advocates an alternative transcendentality, rather than a collapse into immanence.33 Instead of a deist transcendence (the ‘false transcendental’ of Christendom), his approach is rooted in relationality and Trinitarian personhood because “theologies of transcendence allow for human independence and freedom by leaving a space between the divine and the human.”34 The Trinitarian aspect is crucial, however, 30 Ibid. p225 "The shift in the source of transcendentality, from God to the human will...is the root of the characteristically modern forms of alienation. In this case, it founds the deep modern unease with living in the world, in which we swing between a Kantian ethic of dominance to a Rousseau‐esque worship of nature. But how may we escape it for a more wholesome way of living in the world? The key is once more to be found in a Trinitarian doctrine of creation and theory of transcendentality." This tension has been most recently reflected in the antagonism between the Navi (nature worshippers) and the humans (dominant exploiters) in the film Avatar. The main character’s incarnation and assimilation into Navi culture should not be mistaken as a parallel of a Christian narrative of incarnation. For the leap is really between the worldview of Kant and Rousseau, neither of which offer true freedom because they both exclude a transcendental Trinitarian ‘other’. 31 Ibid. p32 32 Ibid. p31 "When God is displaced as the focus of the unity of things, the function he performs does not disappear, but is exercised by some other source of unity ‐ some other universal." Gunton identifies the following examples: evolutionism, scientism, sociobiology, psychological behaviourism, modern faith in history or the market, and the popularity of astrology. 33 Ibid. p210 34 Ibid p36 8 because “it is the relatedness of everything to God, realised in the free offering of things to him, that is the basis for a universal and open transcendentality.”35 He contrasts Coleridge’s Trinitarianism with both Marxist communism and the individualism engendered by Smith’s capitalist theories. Human freedom is discovered not in disengagement, immanence and the elevation of human individuation over the Godhead, but through interaction with ‘open transcendental’ concepts of perichoresis, substantiality and relationality. Gunton therefore follows Hardy in asserting that: “’ecclesiology’, as socially made explicit, is the true form of human being. To be a human being is to be created in and for relationship with God and with other human beings. The particular character of that being is defined and realised Christologically and pneumatologically, by Christ the creator and the Holy Spirit, the one through whom the perfection of the creation is promised and from time to time realised."36 In contrast to the modernist philosophers, Gunton therefore asserts that: 1. Human freedom can only be fully discovered through perichoresis (interdependence with the personhood of the Trinity through Christ) – The concept of ‘perichoresis’ applied as an ‘open transcendental’ does not seek to remove the role of human reason from critical reflection but instead relativises it by exalting Christ as Logos rather than rationality in itself. Truth becomes rooted in relationship with the being who embodies truth in all its various forms rather than an abstracted principle. As Gunton writes: “Revelation speaks to and constitutes human reason, but in such a way as to liberate the energies that are inherent in created rationality.”37 2. Human freedom can be discovered as the Holy Spirit reveals our substantiality in relationship to God’s purposes for creation – True freedom is not discovered in the immanent order alone, but in the convergence of immanence and transcendence of our nature and creation as the Holy Spirit draws humankind and creation towards their eschatological end. 3. Human freedom can be found in a creaturely expression of the relationality of the Godhead – a non‐hierarachical creaturely sociality can be discovered without succumbing to the tyranny of either the one or the many through ‘being‐in‐communion’ with the 35 Ibid p227 Ibid p223 37 Ibid p212 36 9 Godhead. “A theology of sociality teaches that those whose being is constituted by relation to the Triune God should succumb neither to the ideology of the One nor the Many.”38 A specifically Christian assessment of western approaches to empowerment must discern the extent to which they open up connections with the ‘relationality’, ‘perichoresis’ and ‘substantiality’ of the Trinitarian Godhead, as opposed to modernist ideas of disengagement, immanence and autonomous human individuation.39 Returning to the question highlighted by Spicker and echoed in Galatians (1.1.1) about how true empowerment can function, Gunton insists that the only solution is to introduce a specifically Trinitarian transcendentality into the equation. He shows that it is only through giving access to the ‘being‐in‐communion’ of the Trinity (and the ongoing purpose of that Godhead to bring physical creation to a resurrected consummation) that human freedom can be fully experienced. To debate how empowerment can happen in individual or communitarian terms without any reference to the transcendent is to take the wrong path, and will never fully enable true human empowerment. This is why later in Galatians 6 Paul writes: “The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life,”40 while in Romans 7 he writes: “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!”41 It is important to note that not only secular communities but also Christian communities become more oppressive to the extent to which they do not open themselves up to the influence of the Trinity. 1.2 Conscientisation, Covenant community and Empowerment In conversation with my support group around the question of empowerment, the simple but profound question was asked “what is it that gives that ‘spark’ back to people who have been crushed by poverty and relational breakdown?” In the ensuing discussion I was struck by the stories of two men from backgrounds of poverty who had come to faith and gone on to serve their communities. Both gentlemen had overcome significant brokenness within their own lives as well as socio‐political barriers to their empowerment. They had both undergone a life‐changing Pentecostal experience of new birth, been nurtured amidst a community of committed disciples, 38 Ibid p223 Or, indeed, a return to the monist hierarchical tendencies of pre‐modern Christianity. 40 Galatians 6:8 NIV 41 Romans 7: 24‐25 NIV 39 10 proceeded to train in community development, and now serve both their communities and their churches in a leadership capacity. A similar experience has been shared by a local Christian leader in Possilpark. Here are three stories of successful Christian leadership development of people from backgrounds of poverty. By any yardstick or criteria, it was clear that these men and women had experienced significant empowerment in their personal lives and ministries. What then were the core elements of their experience? All three have experienced a new birth and baptism in the Holy Spirit, all three have been nurtured amongst a community of committed disciples, and all three have to some degree been sensitised towards the transformation of their socio‐political context. In the next section, I want to reflect on these experiences in light of key theoreticians of each mode of empowerment as a way of dialoguing with Liberative and Pentecostal approaches to empowerment, discipleship and leadership development. In each case I take a representative dialogue partner and scrutinise them both in light of each other and also Gunton’s Trinitarian theology of creation. 1.2.1 Conscientisation as Empowerment: Paulo Freire Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educationalist, has been a seminal thinker underlying the theory, theology and praxis of both British liberation theology and Community Learning and Development. He has also had huge influence globally in both secular and Christian education: the INFED website asserts that his Pedagogy of the Oppressed is currently one of the most quoted educational texts (especially in Latin America, Africa and Asia).”42 His approach has undoubtedly galvanised significant efforts towards transformation and empowerment across the world, and there is much to learn from his insights. Alastair MacIntosh, who has practiced a brand of Scottish liberation theology in urban Glasgow as well as rural contexts, has written that: “Most modern liberation theology traces its roots to the post‐Vatican II theology of Latin American priests who worked amongst the landless and urban poor, like Gustavo Gutierrez. Gutierrez was, himself, partly inspired by the educational work of the late Paulo Freire...I would see him as expressing a theology of liberation in secular language.”43 42 ‘Paulo Freire’ at The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education. Online: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et‐freir.htm Alastair McIntosh 'Liberation Theology in Scottish Community Empowerment' in Ian Martin, Jim Crowther and Mae Shaw, (eds.) Popular Education and Social Action in Scottish Communities, National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, Leicester, 1999, p207. Also Online: http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/2008‐phd‐thesis‐alastair‐mcintosh‐web.pdf 43 11 Similarly to other liberation theologians, Freire talks of the aim of liberation as the “problem of humanisation.”44 Empowerment to Freire is that process which enables us to become ‘fully human’. Freire’s method is described as ‘conscientisation’, which has been defined as: “the capacity to perceive reality objectively and to devise options for the interpretation of the problems of reality.”4546 While Freire places great emphasis on the experience of participants, the high‐ground of the reflective process is human reason. The primary locus or community of conscientisation are the poor, the oppressed. It is the poor, and those committed to their liberation, who have the inherent capacity for discerning how humanity and creation can be made free. Empowerment for others can only begin once a person has been converted or reborn into a community of solidarity with the poor. Liberationists in South America have termed such communities ‘base ecclesial communities.’ Freire stresses that true knowledge is knowledge that leads to action (or praxis).47 This is caused by his insistence that the aim of empowering education is to enable the oppressed to become Subjects within history and in so doing effect the transformation of oppressive structures and situations in the world. He has a black‐and‐ white view of society as either ‘the oppressed’ and ‘the oppressors,’48 which can lead to a naive political analysis.49 All of which reveals his indebtedness to a Marxist epistemology. It is interesting that the dualistic tendency of his social analysis exists in tension with his preferred mode of education. It is through genuine dialogue with the educatee that issues crucial to them (‘generative themes’) become the focus of any empowerment process. His methodology has been adapted in various ways, but can be summed up in the hermeneutic spiral of “Look, Reflect, Act.”50 Freire in light of Trinitarian theology Freire’s approach to empowerment owes more to Enlightened concepts of ‘disengagement’ than a Trinitarian concept of ‘perichoresis’. Although Freire encourages the empowerment process to be rooted in people’s lived experience, the exalted mode of assessing this experience is human reason, disconnected from a relationship with the Godhead. Abstract human reasoning rather than the 44 Freire, Paulo Pedagogy of the Oppressed (London: Penguin, 1996) p25 Ibid. p20 46 ibid p34 "The oppressed must confront reality critically, simultaneously objectifying and acting upon that reality." 47 Ibid. p48 48 See ‘Paulo Freire’ at The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education. Online: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et‐freir.htm 49 Ibid. 50 See Unlock Glasgow website, Online: http://unlockglasgow.org.uk/images/stories/resources/combined_pack.pdf 45 12 Logos himself becomes the benchmark. Freire does not avoid the reality that all knowledge is committed knowledge, but only goes so far in applying this assertion. Only the educator is called to commitment, a commitment to accept the perceptions and struggles of the poor as defining of true reality. The knowledge of the poor themselves, in contrast, is given privileged status just because of their class and lived experience. And this knowledge only becomes fully liberative through a process of specifically rational reflection. Second, Freire’s thought betrays the consistent Enlightenment tendency to slip back towards the emphasis of the immanent over the transcendent. This is likely a reaction to non‐Trinitarian transcendence derived in part from his reliance on Marx: Freire’s portrayals of God certainly show him more from a deist than a Trinitarian perspective. It is also a reaction to the materialistic aims and methods of the (capitalist) oppressors,51 and the urgency of the material concerns of the oppressed in his context. For Freire, successful praxis must lead to concrete transformative action in the immanent world, otherwise it is illegitimate – worship, prayer, seeking intimacy with God as modes of both personal and social transformation are either not considered or significantly downplayed. Liberation and empowerment tend to become functions of human effort alone in seeking to shape creation in a historical impulse, without minimal reference to collaboration with the living Spirit as one who straddles the immanent/transcendent divide as an outworking of our an outworking of our substantiality. The true turning point in the story of Esther and the liberation of the Jews from Hamaan’s oppression is actually the moment when Nebuchadnezzar remembers Mordecai’s service when he cannot sleep.52 The inference is that the prayers prayed by the Jews, as they had been exhorted to do by Esther, had caused the Spirit to intervene.53 This is just one practical example from scripture of how the sovereign influence of the Godhead, immanent yet transcendent, demonstrates the capacity of the creator to enact socio‐political transformation: Pentecost, and its reconciliation of many nations and tongues, is another. Freire is right to assert that “no reality transforms itself”54 (i.e. that human action is critical to the transformation of creation), but significantly downplays both the independent and collaborative roles of the Spirit in this process.55 51 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (London: Penguin, 1996) p40 Esther 6: 1‐3 NIV 53 Esther 4:15 NIV 54 Freire, Pedagogy p35 55 Bridges‐Johns, Cheryl Pentecostal Formation – A Pedagogy among the Oppressed (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) p38 “Freire bases a great deal of his understanding of praxis upon Marx. He divides the world up into economic categories and calls for human activity in transforming these structures. People are to be active subjects in the historical process, not passive objects caught in a world over which they have no control. While Freire considers himself a Christian, he leaves most of the responsibility for praxis up to humanity. At best, God is a subjective presence in historical process.” 52 13 Third, Freire assumes that human freedom can only be accessed by an assertion of human will. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, he writes: “Freedom is acquired by conquest not by gift.”56 While Freire is clearly also aware of the oppressed’s tendency to revert to the role of oppressor once liberation has been earned,57 and expresses the desire to see reconciliation and new equilibrium between the two, it is not made clear how he ultimately sees this coming about. In contrast, Gunton asserts that the very foundation of “human being and action is a relationality whose dynamic is that of gift and reception (italics mine).”58 Freire, along the lines of Enlightenment thinking, asserts that it is through human will alone that the one and the many can be reconciled. This is in contrast to a foundational understanding of ‘relationality’ as the basis for human freedom. It was noted above that Freire, at least in his methodology, advocates a relational approach because of his insistence on dialogic instruction. In asserting this dialogic approach, Freire is certainly opening up a space where those seeking to empower one another can access the ‘open transcendental’ of relationality. Questions have, however, been raised as to the extent that this dialogic methodology can be consistent when married to a polarising, class‐based social analysis and a worldview that downplays the transcendent. Freire himself asserts that there is no such thing as a non‐ideological system of education, but then reflects surprisingly little on how his own worldview can distort his dialogic methodology. Patrick Berger holds that “the process of 'conscientisation' is in fact a 'trade‐off' of one type of world‐view (the oppressed) for another (the one who raises the consciousness of the oppressed)...Berger calls for cognitive respect of all modes of consciousness.”5960 Berger’s view coincides both with the post‐colonial critique of liberation theologies which insists on a “contrapuntal reading”61 of texts endorsed by both oppressor‐ oppressed and oppressed‐oppressor, and a Pentecostal critique of Freire’s pedagogy. In this latter regard, Cheryl Bridges‐Johns laments Freire’s tendency to downplay the mystical and affective modes of knowledge so core to a Pentecostal worldview. She writes: 56 Freire, Pedagogy p29 ibid p27 58 Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many p227 59 Bridges‐Johns, Cheryl Pentecostal Formation p22 60 See also Infed website: “the rhetoric which announced the importance of dialogue, engagement, and equality, and denounced silence, massification and oppression, did not match in practice the subliminal messages and modes of a Banking System of education. Albeit benign, Freire's approach differs only in degree, but not in kind, from the system which he so eloquently criticizes. (Taylor 1993: 148)” 61 Sugirthirajah, R.S. Postcolonial Reconfigurations (St Louis: Chalice, 2003) p170 57 14 “The end result of the conscientisation process is commitment to radical revolutionary change in social structures...Thought patterns of conceptions of reality which do not lead to radical social action are, according to Freire, less than fully human and in need of assistance toward developing a better understanding of reality. Therefore, the oppressed are approached with a pre‐determined set of agenda, rather than a real and authentic conversion to their way of thinking.”62 Despite this, Freire’s insistence on encouraging the poor to reflect on their experience of wider creation ‐ in order to create ‘generative themes’ which they own ‐ certainly creates the space necessary to open up the fundamental ‘relationality’ of creation, a key feature of Gunton’s Trinitarian approach. 1.2.2 Empowerment in Covenant Community: Cheryl Bridges‐Johns What does a Pentecostal view of empowerment entail, and what can be learnt from such an approach? Cheryl Bridges‐Johns has recently attempted to explain such an approach in her work Pentecostal Formation, A Pedagogy Among the Oppressed, in critical dialogue with Paulo Freire. Bridges‐Johns affirms the importance of the process that Freire calls conscientisation as an ongoing process of stimulating the transformation of creation and human freedom. But she distinguishes her position in important respects. Although humanisation remains an important aim of the conscientisation process, she insists that this humanisation cannot fully happen apart from a relationship with Christ. This echoes St Paul’s assertion that the true teleology of human existence is to be transformed into the image of Christ.63 To become like Christ is to become fully human: a Christological rather than anthropological teleology, in distinction to Freire. She asserts that the primary locus of conscientisation should be a community covenanted in Christ, whether members of this community are materially poor or not, in contrast to Freire. She works to what she calls a ‘yada’ epistemology (referring to the Hebrew word for knowledge which is relational rather than objective and dispassionate) rather than a ‘praxis’ epistemology, asserting that true knowledge is not solely devised from human action and reflection, but in and through intimate relationship with the creator God.64 The conscientisation process involves dialogue and the sharing of testimonies of 62 Bridges‐Johns, Cheryl Pentecostal Formation p43 “And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever‐increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” 2 Corinthians 3:18 NIV 64 . “Yada” is the Old Testament word “to know.” Bridges‐Johns defines this as “’a knowing more by the heart than by the mind, a knowing that arises not by standing back from in order to look at, but by active and intentional engagement in lived experience.” ‘Yada’ knowledge is derived from relationship and is dynamic and personal: “Within the concept of 63 15 the ways the Holy Spirit has been at work in the midst of lived experiences of life, facilitated by a teacher who is themselves submitted to the reality that the Holy Spirit is the true teacher of the whole group.65 There is a deep commitment to be challenged and converted both by the scriptures and the Spirit into new modes of thinking and behaviour, both in terms of yielding to the Spirit and responding to his call. Her methodology for conscientisation therefore follows a four‐stage pattern: 1. Sharing our testimony 2. Searching the scriptures 3. Yielding to the Spirit 4. Responding to the call This approach would be broadly recognised among many urban Pentecostal Christian communities in the UK, such as the Eden Projects, part of the Message Trust in Manchester.66 Bridges‐Johns in light of a Trinitarian theology How should we assess this Pentecostal process of conscientisation? First, it is clear that Bridges Johns is more committed to ‘perichoresis’ as a mode of transformative reflection than ‘disengagement.’ Her approach foregrounds the necessity of modes of knowledge rooted in relationship to the transcendent, because of her insistence that true knowledge (‘yada’ knowledge) is derived primarily from a relationship with the Logos ‐ Christ. There is an expectation that the process of transformative action be grounded in the activity of the Trinity in the lives of the poor, rather than being rational reflection on their lived‐experience without reference to transcendental involvement. Second, Bridges‐Johns’ approach to transformation foregrounds Gunton’s ‘open transcendental’ of ‘subsidiarity,’ rather than conceptualising human freedom as occurring solely within the immanent realm. It is wrong to see the goal of the process of conscientisation solely as ensuring that the poor are able to become Subjects within history, because the Pentecostal experience points to the deep empowerment and freedom derived by being the Objects of the work of the transcendent Spirit. This is certainly the testimony of the three people from backgrounds of poverty mentioned earlier in this essay. Bridges‐Johns writes: ‘yada’, if a person knows God, she or he is encountered by the one who lives in the midst of history and who initiates covenant relationships.” Bridges‐Johns, Pentecostal Formation p35 65 Bridges‐Johns, Pentecostal Formation p132 66 Eden Network – Online: http://www.eden‐network.org/ 16 “Transformation of the knower has to occur before that person can contribute to the righteous transformation of the world. This transformation requires the knowing person to be known and exposed and changed, thereby becoming an object, as well as an active subject in the historical process...if the basic nature of persons remains unchanged and human praxis remains separated from responsiveness to revelation, a self‐serving, sinful praxis will emerge.”67 A simpler way of putting this is simply to quote the words of Christ in John 3:3: “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”68 Nevertheless, the importance of perceiving oneself as a subject able to transform reality remains critical and Bridges‐Johns does recognise that Pentecostal practice in this regard has often failed to outwork itself in transformative social action in wider creation. But according to her, this may be because Pentecostal pedagogy has tended to rely on other methodologies and epistemologies, especially modernist, evangelical approaches. From her perspective, there is an urgent need to discover a wider, pneumatically informed theology of creation and eschatology. And for Bridges‐Johns, Freire points Pentecostals in this direction: “While Pentecostals have historically emphasised that they are the objects of God's transforming grace, they often neglect to acknowledge that via transformation humans become partners with God in the redemptive process...The solution may well rest in the integration of ‘praxis’ methodology into the epistemology of ‘yada’.”69 Thirdly, Bridges‐Johns clearly affirms that human freedom can only be discovered through ‘relationality’ with the Godhead and wider creation. Her emphasis on covenanted community as the constituency within which true conscientisation and empowerment can be effected is echoed by Gunton: “Covenant expresses above all the call of the human race into free and joyful partnership with God, and so with each other.”70 Contra Freire, it is not just any community that can establish the conditions necessary for full human freedom. Instead a communal and individual openness to the work of the Trinity is foundational for the ongoing process of establishing human freedom. Stuart Murray writes in this regard: 67 Bridges‐Johns, Pentecostal Formation p39 John 3:3 NIV 69 Bridges‐Johns, Pentecostal Formation p39 70 Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many p222 68 17 "Base communities are not believers churches. The shared commitment of Anabaptists and liberation theologians to communal hermeneutics must not disguise the very different kinds of communities involved.”71 If Gunton is correct that only a Trinitarian theology of creation rooted in ‘perichoresis’, ‘substantiality’ and ‘relationality’ can be a firm foundation for human freedom, can base ecclesial communities be a legitimate locus for genuine empowerment and emancipation? However, it is also important that we do not limit the capacity of the Spirit to influence and emancipate wider creation with an inappropriately dogmatic portrayal of who the Holy Spirit can empower, whether inside or outside of the covenant community. 1.3 Lessons for the empowerment of Christian leaders in Possilpark Given our exploration of Freire and Bridges‐Johns in light of Gunton’s Trinitarianism, what approach to empowerment can I hold to with integrity as a charismatic Christian in Possilpark? 1. A praxis methodology is helpful, as long as the person of Christ himself is assumed to be the source of rationality and the ‘high‐ground’ from which reflection takes place and upon whom transformative action is modelled. Bridges‐Johns approach to integrating a ‘yada’ epistemology with a praxis methodology is helpful in this regard. This should open up the space for genuine dialogue between all human modes of knowing, and avoid the potential for human reason (disconnected from the transcendent) being elevated too highly. 2. An emphasis on the need for a response which transforms the immanent world through human agency is appropriate and emancipatory, but should not be divorced from an openness to the influence and work of the Holy Spirit both within the disciple and wider creation to lead us into a more full freedom. True empowerment requires that we accept ourselves as Objects of the Spirit’s work as well as Subjects collaborating with the Spirit in history. This also involves allowing other members of the community to pray for us to be filled with the Spirit. This certainly holds true in terms of empowering people to effect changes to their socio‐political environment. It is important, however, not to underplay the importance of covenant community in enabling the baptism of the Spirit by the laying on of hands. 71 Murray, Stuart Biblical Interpretation in the Anabaptist Tradition (Kitchener: Pandora, 2000) p235 18 3. It is also critical that the locus of empowerment as a covenant community is esteemed, where meaningful dialogue with all three figures of the Trinity can also be practised. A dialogical approach to education and discipleship should be foundational to the empowerment process. Asserting the empowerment potential of relationship building in his work Building a People of Power, Bob Linthicum writes that “talking with one another [is] the primary means for building power.”72 But to be truly emancipatory, the facilitator should attempt to discern and honestly interact with the worldviews of the educatees, as well as render transparent their own world‐view and assumptions. 72 Robert C. Linthicum, Building A People of Power (Milton Keynes: Authentic, 2005) p117 19 PART 2 ‐ What approaches to my personal spirituality will enable me to walk alongside broken people in Possilpark in a way that will most support their empowerment and development as leaders? 2. Introduction A point previously made is that mutual dialogue, open to the work of the Spirit and drawing on everyone’s experience of life and god‐given gifts, is foundational for true empowerment to occur. Empowerment is therefore mutual as the Spirit flows freely between members of the community. This requires the capacity of individuals to be open to the work of the Trinity in their own lives in profound and transformative ways – accepting with humility the necessity to be the object of the work of the Spirit even they take responsibility as a subject for collaborating with Him. In what ways have I been open to the work of the Spirit in my life in this fashion, and how can I nurture this transformation even more? 2.1 The Orphan Spirit and the work of the Father in my life. Last Christmas I travelled to the home of my wife’s parents to share time with them and her wider family. Esther’s family is warm and loving, and has a long tradition of Christian faith. Ever since this ritual began, however, I have always had a nagging sense of unease, a tendency to withdraw within myself and feel insecure, and a desire, most of the time, to be on my own. This year Esther’s brother‐in‐law was also present. He too comes from a broken home where he was let down significantly by one of his parents. The main difference is that the broken relationship in his life was with his father, while with me it was with my mother. It was helpful to encounter Esther’s brother‐ in‐law and share with him. He confessed to me that years before, when he had first been in my position, he had also struggled to cope with the warmth and love and intensity of relationships. There were clear parallels between his experience and mine. Mark Stibbe has written in From Orphans to Heirs that “so many believers today find that their image of God is coloured by their painful experiences of their own father.”73 I would argue that this is also true of the maternal relationship. This is certainly the case with regards to many residents of Possilpark. Stibbe identifies the parental wound as one of the most damaging and long‐lasting that anyone can face, and yet holds out a scriptural message of hope for those who have been affected: the doctrine of adoption. He affirms that this doctrine has a Trinitarian foundation: “All three 73 Mark Stibbe, Orphans to Heirs (Abingdon: The Bible Reading Fellowship, 2005) p56 20 persons of the Godhead are therefore involved in our adoption as sons and daughters”74 (with Christ as the elder brother). And he builds his theology on two key scriptural passages: The parable of the Prodigal Son and Ephesians 1:5.75 I had heard this teaching at CLAN Gathering a few years ago and began reflecting on it while at my wife’s home. I subsequently asked for her brother‐in‐law to pray for me, and he prayed that I would increasingly come to accept God as my loving parent, so that in turn I might be able to fully enjoy the experience of being a part of my wife’s family. Stibbe helpfully demonstrates that resurrecting this oft‐forgotten doctrine is a crucial part of the equation in solving a works‐driven, perfectionist mentality. In the following diagram, we see how the doctrine of adoption ‐ union with the Father through Christ by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit ‐ is an essential element bridging the ‘Adoption Gap’ between the declaration of righteousness which occurs at justification and the ongoing process of sanctification. Stibbe writes that ”these three links comprise Justification (getting right with the Father), Adoption (becoming a son of the Father) and Sanctification (becoming more and more like the Father).”76 He asserts that it is the Holy Spirit, the ‘spirit of adoption’ which effects the knowledge of acceptance into God’s family within us. On a pastoral level, receiving more of the ‘Spirit of sonship’ would deal more deeply with layers of rejection from my childhood experience. Although I have had at least two deeply healing experiences like this in my journey with God so far, “there are often more layers of the onion to peel” as one member of my support group pointed out. It may also help me to deal better with criticism from others. A continuing choice to explore and meditate on the biblical truth of Psalm 27:10 (“Though my father and mother reject me, the Lord with receive me”), a commitment to enter into healing experiences of the Spirit, and talking over these experiences with a pastoral 74 Ibid. p58 Ephesians 1:5 NIV: “He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.” 76 Stibbe, Orphans p60 75 21 counsellor may prove very helpful. Mark Stibbe writes that “abandonment to God can only occur once we have been delivered from the trauma of our abandonment by others.”77 It is also the case that we cannot lead others into the embrace of the Father without having deeply experienced that ourselves. This is foundational if I am to lead local friends in Possilpark who have such parental wounds towards healing. 2.2 Compassion for the suffering, ‘Kenosis’, and the icon of the Byzantine Christ While on retreat last November my retreat leader asked me to choose an image from amidst several that were available and spend some time alone meditating on the meaning of that image. I chose an image of the Byzantine Christ (see next page). Meditating first of all on the image, it spoke to me in several different ways: 1. The face of Christ is split into two halves. 2. The left side of his face (as the gazer looks at the image) seems very knowing, as if he understands the meaning of suffering. 3. The right side of face (as the gazer looks at the image) has a ‘gammy’ eye. It appears to be gazing if expecting another blow, similar to how someone would look if brow‐beaten and hammered down. Also the red marks on his right cheek (as the gazer looks at the image) are deeper, as if he has just been hit. This made me think of the phrase “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”78 4. The left half of his body has his hand raised in blessing, which made me recall the teaching “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”79 As I moved from appreciation of the icon itself into letting Christ gaze on me through the icon, I felt Christ identifying with me in my expectation that blows will continue fall upon me in my leadership. This drew me into weeping, not rooted in concern for myself, but a deeper understanding of compassion for all those who are broken and damaged. I realised at that moment that such moments of being sensitised to weakness and brokenness will enable me to grow in my ability to enable resurrection life to 'empower' the poor. This was a work of the Holy Spirit in which my 77 Ibid. p142 Matthew 5:38 NIV 79 Matthew 5:10 NIV 78 22 wilfulness and pride were broken within me and space was created within me by the Trinity for personal vulnerability and identification with others. In The Contemplative Pastor Eugene Peterson has spoken of the ‘kenosis’ or self‐emptying of Christ, reflecting particularly on the famous passage from Phillipians. He writes that “St Paul's description of Jesus, ‘emptied himself’ (Phil 2:7) is often cited as the centre point in the work of incarnation, the making of our salvation. ‘Kenosis’.”80 He makes a link with the poet Keat’s concept of ‘negative capability’, which is the capacity of any master craftsman to suppress their identity in order to allow the creation they are working on to express themselves: “Real workers, skilled workers, practice negative capability ‐ the suppression of self so that the work can take place on its own. St John the Baptist's 'I must decrease, but he must increase' is embedded in all good work.”81 This analogy only goes so far, as Peterson is not advocating a self‐emptying rooted in the human will alone. Rather he is talking of a process of emptying and infilling assented to by a Christian but 80 81 Eugene Peterson, The Contemplative Pastor Ibid. p101 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) p102 23 carried out by the Spirit, in the manner of Christ’s own ‘kenosis’. This process is a significant insight into a specifically Christian spiritual discipline to enable the Spirit to empower others through mutual relationship. It stands in contrast to a Freirian – and Enlightenment – approach to freedom in which freedom is a fruit of assertion and conquest by the human will, rather than a gift given and received. Instead, it is a function of the human Subject collaborating also as an Object with the Holy Spirit. Peterson helpfully makes an analogy with Greek grammar in this regard when he writes that “The ‘middle voice’ is that use of the verb which describes the subjects as participating in the results of the action. I read that now, and it reads like a description of Christian prayer.”82 Here is another way of describing a ‘yada’ epistemology of empowerment, as Bridges‐Johns defines it.83 Gunton points out that it is this type of ‘kenosis’ that stands in deepest contrast to the spirit of Enlightenment humanism: “it is also true that a Christian view of life will here come into sharpest conflict with modernity and what Leslie Newbiggin has called its ‘myth of fulfilment’. The doctrine that the calling of the person is to fulfil himself or herself is both individualist and a characteristic fruit of the transcendental pretence that would make the world circle around the sun that is the person.”84 On a personal level, practicing ‘kenosis’ will not only require a radical commitment to the ongoing filling of the Spirit, but also to more praxis‐oriented disciplines such as service, generosity and prayer. Both the experience of the Byzantine Christ and my reflection on the Orphan Spirit are helpful approaches to the process of empowerment outlined above (see section 1.3). Both are which I have experienced a deepening experiential knowledge of God (‘yada’). In so doing I have been released into the perichoretic relationality of redeemed creation in the Trinity, and the Spirit has begun to initiate (as an object of the loving work of the Godhead) my substantiality within creation. Not only are these practical examples of approaches to my own spirituality that I can pursue over the coming months, they are also important tools for myself and the team as we seek to empower others. 82 Ibid. p103 See section 1.2.2 above 84 Gunton, The One the Three and the Many p226 83 24 3. Conclusion What approach to empowerment can I hold to with integrity as a charismatic Christian in a community broken by poverty like Possilpark? And what approaches to personal spirituality will enable me to help people become empowered? Any approach to empowerment that I take must: 1. Embrace ‘perichoresis’ rather than ‘disengagement’ – privileging all forms of human knowing equally, including the relational knowledge that comes from intimacy with the Godhead, especially reason centred on the being of Christ and affective experiences of the Spirit 2. Affirm the reality that our freedom is only fully realised as the Spirit establishes our ‘substantiality’ in relation to creation and its ultimate purpose according to the Godhead. This in contrast to merely promoting an empowerment rooted in immanence and controlled by any form of ‘false transcendental’. This will in part involve a deeper healing from rejection by allowing the ‘Spirit of adoption’ to be at work in me, as well as seeking to enable potential leaders from my community to come into this radically empowering truth. 3. Assert the foundational relationality of creation in connection with the Trinity as the only true means of ensuring healthy unity‐in‐diversity among humankind, as opposed to various Enlightenment assertions of false‐transcendence which variously deny a Trinitarian approach to transcendence and thus ultimately affirm that empowerment is derived by an assertion of the human will alone. It is through the practice of emulating Christ’s kenosis as a means of being in‐filled by the Holy Spirit that both myself and other potential leaders, in mutual dialogue and relationship, can enter into this freedom. In summary, I would like to return the Lukan Isaianic manifesto first mentioned in the introduction: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.”85 Within this vision for his ministry Christ does not dissociate the ongoing redemption of material creation from the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Freire and other Liberation theologians largely missed the import of the first phrase, while Pentecostals have often failed to outwork in concrete terms a properly Trinitarian understanding of creation and its liberation. Christ held both together. And so empowerment in Possilpark must retain some form of integrated understanding of both a ‘yada’ epistemology and a ‘praxis’ methodology, as we have seen outlines in this essay. 85 Luke 4: 18‐19, NIV 25 Bibliography Books Bretherton, Luke Christianity and Contemporary Politics (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons: 2010) Bridges‐Johns, Cheryl Pentecostal Formation – A Pedagogy among the Oppressed (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) Crowther J, Martin I, and Shaw, M Popular education and Social Movements in Scotland Today (Niace: Leicester, 1999) Freire, Paulo Pedagogy of the Oppressed (London: Penguin, 1996) Grenz, Stanley Theology for the Community of God (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994) Gunton, Colin E. The One, the Three and the Many – God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity (Newcastle: Athenaeum Press: 1994) Knight, Douglas H. The Eschatological Economy – Time and the Hospitality of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) Linthicum, Robert C. Building A People of Power (Milton Keynes: Authentic, 2005) McConnell, Charlie (ed) Community Education : the making of an empowering profession (Edinburgh: Scottish Community Education Council, 1997) Murray, Stuart Biblical Interpretation in the Anabaptist Tradition (Kitchener: Pandora, 2000) Newbiggin, Leslie ‘Can the West Be Converted?’ in Princeton Seminary Bulletin 6 (1):25‐37, 1985 p10 Online: http://www.newbigin.net/assets/pdf/85cwbc.pdf Peterson, Eugene The Contemplative Pastor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) Payne, Ruby A Framework for Understanding Poverty (aha! Process inc: USA, 2005) Spicker, Paul Social Policy: Themes and Approaches ‐ Revised 2nd Edition (GB: The Policy Press, 2008) Stibbe, Mark Orphans to Heirs (Abingdon: The Bible Reading Fellowship, 2005) Sugirthirajah, R.S. Postcolonial Reconfigurations (St Louis: Chalice, 2003) Websites Unlock Glasgow ‐ Online: http://www.unlockglasgow.org.uk/ The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education ‐ Online: http://www.infed.org/ Eden Network – Online: http://www.eden‐network.org/ 26