members may view the entirety of the Bible as a book of rules that prescribe
beliefs, attitudes and behaviors for all situations. Yet, there is as much vari-
ation in worship behavior between the two Assemblies of God Churches as
there is similarity.
We argue that the relationship between the Assemblies of God doctrines
and practices is one of retrospective justification of situated action, as described
by C. Wright Mills (1940[1990]:207–218) and not a prospective ordering of
practices by beliefs. While members of the Assemblies of God Church attend
to the overarching doctrines as a context of accountable motivation for their
worshipful behavior, those doctrines are not specific enough to specify the
details of every practice expected in each next case.^10 Nor could they be.
Members must develop a shared vocabulary of motive regarding how each
tenet is to be fulfilled, and be able to use that vocabulary retrospectively to
justify their actions. But, they must also be able to reproduce practices in rec-
ognizable details before they can associate those practices with their shared
vocabularies.
It is through their participation in these material practices, which vary from
church to church, that individuals internalize and learn to reproduce the
orderliness of Spiritual gifts. As Mead (1938 [1964]:448–449) argued, when
acting within the context of a social group, the worshiper internalizes the
reactions of others to their own actions. Each group member ’s knowledge of
the local order and their production of future action is then formulated in a
reflection on this process. Garfinkel ([1948]2006) refers to this process as
“reflexivity.” Goffman (1956:13) argued that participants in social groups must
commit themselves to a “working consensus,” a condition that Garfinkel
(1967) referred to as “Trust,” interacting in ways that are expected by and
acceptable to others. Through this commitment to the details of local prac-
tices, participants create an intelligible order of practice. But unless they are
able to do this in witnessable material details, others will not be able to rec-
ognize what they are doing (Garfinkel 1967, 2002).
Speaking in Tongues: A Dialectic of Faith and Practice • 261(^10) Context of accountability is an idea developed elsewhere by Rawls and Meehan.
It builds on both Mill’s argument that institutional order is managed largely by act-
ing in accordance with institutional vocabularies of motive, or accounts and on
Garfinkel’s idea (as elaborated primarily in “Good Reasons for Bad Clinic Records,”
(1967) that local practices are responsive for the need to account to institutional supe-
riors for one’s actions. It means basically that people operating in institutional con-
texts are sensitive to what they will be rewarded and sanctioned for doing and attend
to this rather than following rules as they engage in practices in details.