PENTECOSTAL SPIRIT

• The Holy Spirit and Affect Theory by Sharon Willoughby, 6/4/98
  
  

David McShane sent the following as an e-mail with the understanding that I would attempt to post it to the discussion group. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sharon Willougby's so well-stated post here on "The Holy Spirit And Affect Theory" is very stimulating and also difficult to respond to. The subject covers so much ground as Don Nathanson's very helpful reply states in his first sentence.

My own upbringing, lifetime membership, and professional leadership has been in a sector of Protestantism which eschews excitement and is suspicious of wild emotionality in religious practice. That very emotional sterility may be a cardinal reason why Silvan Tomkins' affect theory has been so appealing to me.

I have attended a number of Pentecostal worship services with keen interest, and with approbation for the obvious enhancement of positive affect which the large majority of worshipers manifest at the conclusion of the service. However, my own religious ideology is offended by the apparent narrow personal, self-concerned focus of the services and the worshipers.

In Tomkins' script theory the religious ideological script fulfills three functions: 1-Orientation (one's ultimate origin and destiny); 2-Purpose (how one should live); 3-Sanctions (what will happen if one does or does not live as one should). The self-centered emphasis which "being saved" has traditionally received in Pentecostal religious experience has focused #2 (Purpose) primarily on personal behavior and morals with minimal attention to societal issues of justice, diversity, etc..

Those latter issues are rife with ambiguity. The Pentecostal experience tends to absolutize. It is likely, therefore, to appeal to persons whose ideological scripts give them a normative rather than humanist approach to life. Don Nathanson suggested looking at the Tomkins Polarity Scale material in the Tomkins Institute home page where in the SSTI Bulletin the Stone article explains and demonstrates the polarity between humanist (liberal) and normative (conservative) scripts.

Sharon Willoughby suggested that "there does not seem to be any shame involved in the religious experience unless you count the experience of `humility before God' (which is also considered a positive experience)."

I think this is crucial, Sharon.

It is my view that shame is ordinarily a profound element in the Pentecostal's religious motivation. Separation from God is the ultimate danger. Sin is the provocation for that separation. That separation is bridged by Jesus sacrifice which is imputed to the worshiper by the Holy Spirit in the paroxysms of ecstasy orchestrated by the worship leader. This makes the worshiper very vulnerable to the orchestrator. If that leader is unscrupulous the consequences are shameful.

I also believe that the experience is so compelling because most, if not all, of the worshiper's affective repertoire is addressed in the worship. Obviously INTEREST-EXCITEMENT is generated by the preacher's demeanor, the music, and the crowd's rhythmic responses. ANGER is engaged by the castigation of the Devil and his works. FEAR is also entertained at that point and paradoxically also related to the Holy as well in "The fear (awe) of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." DISGUST with or CONTEMPT (dissmell) for misbehavior is encouraged. SHAME, mentioned above, and DISTRESS are appealed to because one must "get right" with God. And certainly there is ENJOYMENT on the faces of many of the worshipers.

The hegemony of mainline religious institutions in America has given way to more socially and theologically conservative religious convictions. And this as a concomitant to the `resurrection of the body' in the sense that Norman Brown used that phrase in Life Against Death: A Psychoanalytic Interpretation of History, some forty years ago. Brown understood and predicted that the then recent decades of sexual and bodily repression would erupt in overcompensation.

It is no surprise that there is some correspondence between Elvis Presley's legitimization of `bumps and grinds' in entertainment and the physical abandon of Pentecostal worship.

The intellectual dominance of theologians like Paul Tillich and the Neibuhr's during and after World War II was at the sacrifice of sufficient attention to emotionality. Since the affective system is our primary motivating apparatus the door was left wide open for the paroxysms of frenzy which Sharon describes. Order has given way to ardor on the American religious landscape. Affect/Script Theory can certainly help us understand that.

Thank you, Sharon, for triggering this thread.

No Replies