Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
135
Review
Essay
Roman Catholics
and Pentecostals
in
Dialogue
Walter J.
Hollenweger
The
Beginnings
Neither the secular nor the
religious press
nor in fact the
many
Pentecostal church
periodicals-with
the remarkable
exception
of
PNEUMA I on the Pentecostal side and of One in Christ2 on the
Catholic side-have
spotted
the
significance
of one of the most
impor-
tant events in the
religious
scene of our
century,
that is the
Vatican/Pentecostal
dialogue
which started in 1972 and is still in
progress.
One of the reasons for this silence
may
be that the Pentecostal
participants
have been afraid to talk about it. In the
past they
sometimes
asked that their
identity
be hidden. The American Assemblies of God
put
the
spanner
in wherever it could and
discouraged
its own executive –
members from
participation. “Why
this refusal to
participate?”
asked
Jerry Sandidge.
It
seems,
he
writes,
to have been due to the involve-
ment of David Du Plessis. Du Plessis was “still an embarrassment” to
the Assemblies of God.3 So the Pentecostal team entered the 1977 ses-
sion and the second
quinquennium
series
(1977-1982), Sandidge states,
“with
very
little
support
from the leaders of the
major
classical denom-
inations.”4 Du Plessis tried to
put
the
dialogue
on the
agenda
of the
PNEUMA: The Pentecostal Theology
20ne in
(USA).
Christ, a Catholic ecumenical periodical, published in England. 3 Jerry
L.
Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue: A in the Study in
Studies
Developing Ecumenism, 1971-1982, Intercultural of
1.366. Carmichaei, William, Letter, 30.6.1982. Thomas
History Christianity
44 (Frankfurt, Germany: 1987),
Zimmerman,
General Superintindent of the Assemblies of
God, was
to the
personally opposed dialogue (Sandidge, Dialogue, 1.331) but seemed to reconsider his when Du Plessis
position
whole
gave up his leading role (Sandidge, Dialogue, 1.365). On the
issue,
see Walter J.
Hollenweger,
Pentecostalism:
Origins
and Developments
Worldwide (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 165f., 350- 355.
4Sandidge, Dialogue, L 176.
1
136
World Pentecostal
Conference,5
in whose creation he had
played
a leading
role. It was turned down.6 He told me that he was
barely allowed to
say “hallelujah”
at the
meetings
of this conference whose very
existence was due to Du Plessis’
indefatigable
work.? The Advisory
Committee of the World Pentecostal Conference advised its members not to participate in the
dialogue;8 similarly,
it had
strongly opposed dialogue
with the World Council of Churches
(WCC),
and had put heavy pressure
on Donald Gee
(1881-1966)
not to assist at
any
of the WCC’s
meetings.9
Nevertheless the Vatican/Pentecostal
dialogue
took
place.
Its reports 1
and a number of
highly scholarly analyses
are available in print.
The time has come to tell the
story. Things
are
changing
so fast in the Pentecostal
camp
that the editors of
periodicals
and the authors of lexicon articles will have to work extra fast in order to
keep
abreast of the events.
One of the most
courageous
Pentecostal
ecumenists,
the Assemblies of God
professor
of
theology,
Cecil M. Robeck
says:
Not to
carry reports
of the international Roman Catholic/Pentecostal
Dialogue
in Pentecostal periodicals may be good Pentecostal politics. But
the question needs to be asked whether it helps or hinders the kingdom of
God. Pentecostals and Roman Catholics owe it to themselves to learn as
much as they can about one another since they both claim to be part of the
same Body of Christ. Pentecostals have hardly begun to realize the enormi-
ty
of change that has taken place among Roman Catholics since Vatican 11. ,. – – _ – – —
.
5Marlin Vandelderen, “Pentecostal World Conference,” in
Dictionary of
the Ecumenical Movement (Geneva, Switzerland: World Council of Churches,
1991), 792; see also Walter J.
Hollenweger, The Pentecostals,
3rd ed.
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1988), 67-69.
1.333.
7The first Pentecostal World Conference was 6Sandidge, Dialogue,
organized by Du Plessis in 1947 in Zurich, Switzerland. He remained the unpaid general secretary of this conference to 1958.
up
8Sandidge, Dialogue, 1.175. Vinson Synan, Letter to Robert McAlister 5.1.1977. (Oklahoma City, OK), Copy was sent to Du Plessis, Sandidge, Dialogue, 1.326. 90n Donald Gee see
Hollenweger, The Pentecostals, 208-213 and Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 349.
IOThe major final reports are
published in PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for
Pentecostal Theology 12
(fall 1990) and in PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for
Pentecostal Studies 21 (spring
1999). A
overview is Kilian McDonnell, “Improbable
Conversations: The Classical Pentecostal/Roman Catholic good
One in Christ 31Il
Dialogue,”
(1995): 20-31. Also Kilian McDonnell, “Five Defining Issues: The International Pentecostal/Roman Catholic
Dialogue,” One in Christ 31/2 (1995): 100- . 121. Terrance Roberts
Crow, Pentecostal Unity: Recurring Frzrstration and
IL: Peter
Enduring Hopes (Chicago, Hocken,
“Ecumenical The
of
Loyola, 1993).
Importance Evangelicals and Pentecostals,”
One
Dialogue:
Dialogue with
in Christ 30 (1994):
101-123. Cecil M. Robeck, “What Should Roman Catholics Know About Pentecostalism?” The Catholic World, Nov-Dec. 1995.
2
137
For Pentecostals to continue to respond to Roman Catholics with descrip- tions based upon time-worn stereotypes or ungracious over-generalizations is to insist upon the continued presence of specks in Roman Catholic eyes without due consideration to the logs in Pentecostal eyes. To withhold infor- mation which might help to remove both I I
specks and logs it to participate in the perpetuation of misunderstanding.
There is an even more
intriguing question.
Pentecostals
may
have
polit-
ical reasons to be silent on the Vatican/Pentecostal
Dialogue.
But
why
is there so little or almost no information on this
important
issue in the
secular and in the non-Pentecostal
.
religious press? Why
is there so lit-
tle mentioned about the
dialogue
in the flood of banal and trivial so-
called news? I must
confess,
I cannot answer this
question
because I
cannot think of
any
reason other than the usual
lethargy.
Commercial
interests cannot be the reason because for this kind of information there
is certainly a large market.
‘
Early Reports
and
Analyses from
Arnold
Bittlinger,
Jerry
L. Sandidge, and Paul D. Lee
The
participants
in the
dialogue
included a broad
spectrum
of Catholic scholars and charismatic and Pentecostal leaders
(although only
a sprinkling from the Third
World).
The
resulting
talks
represent the
only dialogue
undertaken
by
the Roman Catholic Church with an unofficial movement’ 2-and
indeed,
one
represented
not
by
its official leaders but
by
the
personal
friends of one
catalytic leader,
David Du Plessis. In a sense this
early stage closely
resembles the
beginning
of the World Council of Churches. I shall
always
remember how Visser t’Hooft told me that the World Council of Churches was
originally
a group
of friends
(“an old-boys network”)
who decided to do something about the
disunity
of the churches. That is
why
the official documents do not tell the whole
story.
What
happened
between the
sessions,
over the
meals,
at worship
services,
in personal
conversations,
was
probably more
important
for the
change
of climate than the official
proceedings.
That is
why
the first
scholarly analysis
of the Pentecostal/Vatican dialogue by
the German Protestant
theologian
Arnold
Bittlinger,
is
very
– —
‘ ‘Cecil M. Robeck, “Specks and Logs: Catholics and Pentecostals,” PNEUMA: The Pentecostal Theology 12 ( I 990): 82.
1.384. “in retrospect it is amazing that an official Church office would
1 ZSandidge, Dialogue,
to with an unofficial of Christians described one
as ‘David Du agree
meetings Plessis and his friends.”‘ group
participant
Peter Hocken,
One in
“Dialogue Extraordinary,”
Christ 24/2 ( I 988): 204.
‘3Amold
Bittlinger, Pabst trnd Pfingstler: Der und sein okumenische romisch-katholischelpfingstliche Dialog Relevanz, Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity
16 (Frankfurt, Beme, Paris, New York: Peter Lang, 1978).
3
138
important.
He was himself a participant of this
early period.
He provides a window into this
process,
because he has the rare
gift
for
documenting such “unofficial” but nevertheless
highly important
events. Add to this that
Bittlinger
was also for a time on the staff of the WCC.14 That means that the links between the
“organized
ecumenical movement” and the Vatican/Pentecostal
Dialogue
was
clearly
established from the
very beginning.
We shall come back to this in our last section.
The second work was written
by Jerry
L.
Sandidge,
a pastor of the Assemblies of God.
Sandidge
was an extraordinary man. Bom in 1939 in
Tulsa, Oklahoma,
his
“spiritual
roots” went down in a small Pentecostal church in his home
city.
He attended Central Bible
College in
Springfield,
Missouri
(the
Bible
college
of the Assemblies of
God). In the
spring
of 1962 he served as a photographer for an
archaeologi- cal
expedition
to Tel Dotham. He served as a minister in several Assemblies of God churches.
In
1971, Sandidge
and his wife were
approved
for
foreign
mission- ary
service with the Assemblies of God.
They
served the Assemblies of God in
Belgium
for ten
years,
two of which he acted as Dean of Students at the Continental Bible
College,
St.
Pieters-Leeuw,
and for eight years
as founder and director of
University Action,
Leuven (1974-1982).
This was a kind of ecumenical
university chaplaincy.
In 1976, Sandidge completed
the M.R.Sc.
degree
from the Catholic University
of Leuven and in 1977 a
special
Ph.D. from the
Higher Institute of
Philosophy
in Leuven.
Sandidge
then embarked on a most ambitious
program, namely,
on a Ph.D. dissertation in Leuven in which he described and
analyzed
the Vatican/Pentecostal
Dialogue-especially
the second
quinquennium (1977-1982).
That an Assemblies of God minister received the
greater part
of his academic education from a
Belgium
Catholic
university
is in itself remarkable
(although
he was
by
no means the
only one;
there were a number of Pentecostals
studying
at
Leuven). During
his time there he was introduced
by
Du Plessis into the Catholic/Pentecostal dialogue
and was
subsequently given
access to all confidential
reports of the
dialogue
at the Secretariat in Rome. Du Plessis also allowed him free use of his extensive
personal
files
(now
in the David Du Plessis Center Archives of Fuller
Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California).
During
the second
quinquennium Sandidge
read a
paper
on “A Pentecostal
Perspective
on
Mary,”15
a remarkable
piece
of research
edited the report on the consultation of the WCC with the Charismatic Renewal. See Arnold l4Bittlinger
Bittlinger, ed.,
The Church is Charismatic Switzerland:
(Geneva,
WCC,
other
1981). On this Pentecostal/Charismatic/WCC consultation and
dialogues
between the WCC and the
Pentecostals, see Hollenweger, The Pentecostals, 438-451, and Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 367-387.
1 SSandidge, Dialogue,
II: 209-351.
4
139
accomplished
in the face of serious illness and
hospitalization
for a throat cancer. On the basis of unconfirmed and
highly exaggerated press reports
of the discussion on
Mary during
the
dialogue, Sandidge lost his financial
support
from the Assemblies of God
(although
not his ministerial
credentials).
His wife
stepped
in and
provided
for the fam- i1y.16 He remained undeterred in bringing
his work to a conclusion. During
the
years
1985 to 1987 he served as Assistant Professor of Church
History
at the School of Theology and
Missions,
Oral Roberts University, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
Following
several
years
on the
faculty
at CBN
University, Sandidge accepted
a pastoral call at
Evangel Temple, Springfield, Missouri,
where he served until his
untimely
death in 1992. His two volumes on the Vatican/Pentecostal
dialogue
is an extremely important work, compiling
all relevant sources and
giving
an inspiring
critical
interpretation
of the
dialogue. 17 7
The third
scholarly analysis
comes from the
pen
of a Catholic scholar Paul D. Leel8 and was submitted as a doctoral dissertation to the Pontifical
University,
Rome. Since this dissertation is not available to me I cannot evaluate it but it was
very
well received
especially
in the Catholic church.
David Cole
The fourth dissertation on our
topic
was
again
written
by
an American
Pentecostal,
David
Cole,19
from the
Open
Bible Standard Churches. At the
present
time he is
principal
of their Bible
college
at Eugene, Oregon.
Cole’s work is a first-class
scholarly analysis,
well
pre- sented,
well
written,
and
superbly
documented. Dr. Cole and
many
other Pentecostal scholars are
destroying
the
myth
that Pentecostals are sim- ply enthusiasts,
zealous and
well-meaning
but without much brain power.
If scholars around the world once
begin
to take
seriously Pentecostals as their fellow researchers
they
are in for some
surprises, not only on the
topic
of ecumenicity but also on the
topics
of ethics, mis- siology, hermeneutics, systematics,
and biblical and historical studies.2°
16Sandidge, Dialogue I:iii. since
I described the publications of Sandidge extensively in my Pentecostalism (see
the index of there is no need to into more details here.
I8Paul D.
names), go
Lee, Pneumatological Ecclesiology in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue:
A Catholic Reading of the Third Quinquennium (1985-1989). Theol. Diss., Pontifical
Rome, 1994.
19David University, Cole, Pentecostal Koinonia: An Emerging Eczrmenical
Pentecostals. Ph.D.
Ecclesiology Among dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, 1998. The dissertation will be published in the Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity
series. I quote from the
20Documented in the
typescript.
section, “The Critical Root,” in Hollenweger Pentecostalism, 204-331.
5
140
David Cole
courageously
treads
through
the minefield of ecumeni- cal
ecclesiology
and he does this
competently,
with ecumenical and Pentecostal commitment. He
engages
the reader in an adventure which seems
promising
both for the ecumenical and the Pentecostal move- ment. His
grasp
and
knowledge
of the ecumenical discussion is aston- ishing
for
somebody
who has to get his information
mainly
from writ- ten sources. For an
American,
he is well informed on the
European scene. His work is far more than a run-of-the-mill dissertation. It is a pioneer
work in ecumenism and Pentecostalism. In particular he shows that ecumenical
ecclesiology
is not about
simple
co-existence of dif- ferent
ecclesiologies,
nor is it about
establishing
one’s own ideal eccle- siology against
which all the other
ecclesiologies
are measured. It is about
“dealing
with the
‘pain
of mutual criticism and correction.”‘2’ That Cole does not
shy away
from a
thorough
discussion of Roman Catholic
ecclesiology
is
something
new in
Pentecostalism–except
of course in his mentor’s
pioneering
work.22
He also includes the social and racial
aspect
into his
ecclesiological reflections.
Quoting
the
long-standing
co-chairman of the
dialogue
he establishes that
theological
ecumenism has to include social transfor- mation.23
Sociological development
dictates that the church needs “new
ways
to be
eucharistic,” possibly
in a return to basic Christian communities not unlike the New Testament house churches.24 Koinonia means the
sharing
of
sufferings
and
goods,
of mutual con- cern,
and of
corporate personality.25
He realizes that
theological
lan- guage
is co-determined
by
the
theologian’s
own cultural and
religious background. According
to Cole neither Pentecostals nor ecumenists can
simply quote
the Bible and think that this settles the issue.
Here, the work of interpretation starts. Such a hermeneutical
recognition may trigger
a new
insight
in Pentecostal,
evangelical,
and other
theologies. In his
critique
of Roman Catholic
theology
he quotes invariably Roman Catholic
theologians
in order to show that he does not criticize Catholicism from the outside but concurs with critical reflections from
2 1 Cole, Pentecostal Koinonia,
29. The inner
quote
is from John S.
Went, “Koinonia: A Milestone on the Road to Unity,” One in Christ 1996/1, 22-39, 31f. See also Lesslie Newbigin’s review of Konrad Raiser, Ecumenism in Transition: A Paradigm Shift
in the Ecumenical Movement, in One in Christ 1993/3, 271-272. 22See the paragraph on Robeck in Pentecostalism, 354f. and See also the section on “The Ecumenical Hollenweger,
passim.
Root,” in Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 334-399.
23Cole, Pentecostal Koinonia, 44.
24Cole,
Pentecostal Koinonia, 45, quoting Kilian McDonnell, “Vatican II (1962- 1964),
Puebla
(1979), Synod (1985):
Koinonia/Communion as an
Integral Ecclesiology,”
Journal
Pentecostal
of Ecumenical Studies 25 (summer 1988): 426.
25Cole, Koinonia, 47, quoting J.-M.R. Tilliard, “Ecclesiologie de com- munion et exegence oecumenique,” Irenikon 59/2 ( 1986): 230.
6
141
within Catholicism. The same
principle applies
to his criticism of cer- tain
aspects
of Pentecostalism. An
unexpected
fruit of his work are sub- stantial
suggestions
for
sorting
out some of the
longstanding
contro- versies in the Pentecostal
community,
for example, the tension between Oneness and trinitarian Pentecostals,26 and the
marginalization
of the ever
growing Hispanic
Pentecostals in the United States. “If North American Pentecostals don’t even include the
Hispanics
on their own continent,
what
hope
is there for
improved
Latin American/North American Pentecostal relations?”27
The title of the work is
perhaps
somewhat
misleading.
The book cannot deal with Pentecostal
ecclesiology
on a
global
level.
Nobody can do this as an individual. It would
presuppose
the
knowledge
of a score of
languages
and can
only
be done
by
a team of international scholars. What Cole does,
however,
is to present and discuss some
rep- resentative
ecclesiologies
within
Pentecostalism, mainly
in the Western world. To expect more would be unreasonable.
I am
quite
definite in
my
mind that David Cole
(and
the Finnish scholar Veli-Matti
Kdrkkdinen,
mentioned in the next
section)
will
play a major role in the future ecumenical scene.
Veli-M atti Kdrkkdinen
The fifth
scholarly
work on our
topic
is the dissertation
by
Veli- Matti Karkkainen.2g He is the director of the Finnish Bible
College,
a post
which is
paid by
the state-also a new
development
in Pentecostalism. I asked Kdrkkdlnen: “Where in the New Testament
does it say that a director of a Pentecostal Bible
college
should be paid by
the state?” He answered: “New Testament Christians did not
pay such massive taxes as we do.”
Indeed,
it can be argued that well-trained Pentecostal
pastors
are in the interest of society.
At his
public
defense at the
University
of
Helsinki,
his
supervisor, Professor Tuomo
Mannermaa, appeared
in the traditional Luther-frock with a violet
top-hat (the
doctoral hat of the
theologians
of the University
of
Helsinki),
the candidate in a
tail-frock,
white stiff
shirt, and white
bow-tie,
and the external examiner in a Geneva
gown.
The
26Cole, Pentecostal Koinonia, 239ff.
27Cole, Pentecostal Koinonia, 238.
2gVeli-Matti Karkkainen,
Spiritus
ubi vult
spirat: Pnezimatology in
Roman Catholic-Pentecostal
Dialogue (1972-1989) (Schriften
der
Gesselschaft
Luther-Agricola
42; Helsinki, Finland: Luther 1998). See also his “Habilitationsschrift” on a
very
controversial Agricola Society, topic: Ad Ultimum Terrae: Evangelization, Proselytism,
and Common Witness in the Roman Catholic- Pentecostal Dialogue 1990-1997 (to be published in the Studies in the Intercultural History
of Christianity series.
7
142
one hundred
guests
were clothed
mostly
in black or in
evening
dress. Amongst
them was the
secretary
of the Finnish Ecumenical
Council, half a dozen
university professors,
and
many
Pentecostal and Lutheran pastors.
That was in itself an ecumenical event.
Right
from the
beginning
it became clear to
everybody present: That
Christianity grows stronger
than the world
population29
is due to Pentecostalism,
but not in the sectors which were
present
in the Vatican/Pentecostal
Dialogue.
The
dialogue
took
place
between
repre- sentatives of the
stagnant
or even
diminishing
sectors of Pentecostalism-and of Catholicism for that matter. That will have to change pretty
soon
(see below).
One is reminded of a bitter word
by the British
sociologist
Brian Wilson: Churches become ecumenical when they
are in trouble.
Assessment
The
publications
in
question
on the Vatican/Pentecostal
dialogue pose
a number of questions on which I now want to concentrate.
The
Question
of Scripture Inspiration
Already Sandidge reported
some heated discussions on the
ques- tion of
inspiration
and the
right exegesis
of the Bible.3° Kdrkkdinen dedicates a larger chapter to this
question.31
That is understandable for this
question
needs some
clarification,32 especially
as the oldest decla- ration of faith
by Pentecostals,
the one
by
the
Apostolic
Faith Movement
(William
J.
Seymour, 1906,
Azusa Street
Revival)
has no paragraph
on the
inspiration
of Scripture. There is no doubt in my mind that
Seymour
believed in the
reliability
of Scripture but he did not think it was
necessary
to spell this out. In fact, the
topic
of inspiration or even
29Karkkainen, Spiritus, 5,
37. David
Barrett,
World Christian
Oxford
Encyclopedia (Oxford, England: University Press, 1982), 838. David Barrett, “Statistics, Global,” in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed.
M.
and Gary B. McGee MI: Zondervan
Stanley Burgess (Grand Rapids, Publishing House, 1987),
810-829. David Barrett, “The
Twentieth-Century Pentecostal/Charismatic Renewal in the Holy Spirit With Its Goal of World Evangelization,” International Bulletin
of Missionary
Research 12/3 119-129. David
Barrett, Wonders,
and Statistics in the World of (1988):
“Signs,
Today,”
in Pentecost, Mission and Ecumenism: Essays on Intercultural
Theology. Festschrift in Honour of Professor Walter I
Hollenweger, ed. Jan A.B. Jongeneel, Studies in the Intercultural
of Christianity
75 (Frankfurt, Berne, Paris, New York: Peter 189-196. History Lang, 1992),
31 30Documented in Hollenweger Pentecostalism, 168. Karkkainen, Spiritus, 86-149.
32See the chapter on “Hermeneutics” in Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 307-331. This chapter reports the academic discussion by Pentecostals on “Who
_
Interprets Scripture Rightly?”
8
143
the verbal and full
inspiration
of
Scripture
is a later
import
of Pentecostalism, mainly
under the influence
of evangelicalism
and fun- damentalism-the arch enemies of Pentecostalism at that time.33
The Catholics have been more careful.
They speak
of the trustwor- thiness of
Scripture
but
only
in relation to salvation.34 Pentecostals seem to be in some trouble. If
pressed
on this issue
they
will
say:
Not the translated text in our Bibles is
inspired
but the
original
Greek or Hebrew text. And here
they
refer to the
original autographs.
Now,
this is a position which is as
impregnable
as it is highly dubi- ous,
because none of the
original autographs
have come down to us. So,
“what use is an inerrant
Scripture
which is unavailable?”35 Pentecostals in general trust the biblical scholars that
they
have done a good job
in reconstructing the
original
text of the Bible. But that means that the
guarantors
of the
original wording
are fallible human
beings, and mostly
not Pentecostals !36
Today’s
Pentecostal scholars
usually
work with modem tools of interpretation,
such as text
criticism,
form
criticism,
and redaction crit- icism.
However,
this critical
scholarship
has no
bearing
on their
public preaching-as
in most Protestant and Catholic churches.
Scholarship
is for the scholar’s
study.
In public this remains a closely guarded secret. As we know from the Protestant and Catholic
churches,
this
dishonesty will sometimes become revealed-with
far-reaching consequences
for the churches.37
Karkkdlnen tackles this
problem by referring
to Howard
Ervin, pro- fessor at the Oral Roberts
University, Tulsa,
Oklahoma. Ervin seems to sense the
problem
in the old doctrine of
inspiration,
in
particular
the Reformation stance of “sola
scriptura.”
He
prefers
to
speak
of a
declaration of faith in Hollenweger, The Pentecostals, 513. Original text in 33Seymour’s
Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles), Sept. 1906. Russ
“Are Pentecostals and Charismatics Fundamentalists? A Review of American Spittler, Uses of These Categories,”
in Charismatic
Christianity As a
Global Culture, ed. Karla Poewe (Columbia,
SC:
University
of South Carolina
Press, 1994),
104-116. Also Hollenweger, Pentecostalism,
190ff.
34Karkkainen, Spiritus, 101, with ample Catholic documentation.
35pau1 J. Achtemeier, The Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and
PA: Westminster
Proposals (Philadelphia, Press, 1980), 52.
36Karkkainen, Spiritus,107 n.1 11, especially in relation to the composition of the biblical canon.
37Walter Wink, The Bible in Human Transformation: Toward a New
Biblical
Paradigm for
Study (Philadelphia,
PA: Fortress
Press, 1973). Also see Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 75, 106-116, 282-286; and Walter J. and the Church of the in
Hollenweger, “Theology
Future,” Companion Encyclopedia of Theology, ed. Peter Byrne and Leslie Houlden
(London, England: Routledge, 1995),
1017-1035. Walter J. Hollenweger,
“The Other Exegesis,” Horizons in Biblical Theology and International Dialogue
3 (1981): 155-179.
9
144
“cumulative consensus of the Church to the
deposit
of
faith,”38
includ- ing
the contribution of unbelievers.39 But here Pentecostals meet the same difficulties as other churches. What is meant
by
“the Church”? All Christian
churches,
the Pentecostal
churches,
or the
congregations in one
(my own)
denomination? And what instruments do Pentecostals have to
investigate
and articulate the “cumulative consensus of the Church”?
Or do we
perhaps
have to turn the whole
question
around and not start with the text and then
go
to its
application (as
is the traditional way
of
exegesis)
but rather
start from
the context and then
go
to the text,
as most Third World Pentecostals That means that each cul- ture and social
group
has other
questions
and
priorities
and therefore also comes to different conclusions and answers.41 That is of course the program
of “intercultural
theology.”42
The
price
for such an approach-or perhaps
the
chance-is,
that we shall
get
a great number of
differing
biblical
theologies
in one and the same
church, something which is de.facto happening in all churches.
In his oral
defense,
Kdrkkdinen
pointed
to the fact that Pentecostals have not invented the doctrine of
scriptural inspiration
but
accepted
it from other church bodies. That is
obviously
true.
However,
since Pentecostals have now come of age, they can be expected to contribute something enlightening
to this dilemma. Just to repeat the
evangelical position might
no
longer
be
good enough.
38Howard Ervin, “Hermeneutics: A Pentecostal Option,” PNEU?1?IA: The Journal of the Society for
Pentecostal Theology 3 (fall 1981): 11-25. Kärkkäinen, Spiritus, 141, 125, 129, 144.
‘
39Karkkainen, Spiritus, 142.
40Karkkainen, Spiritus, 126, note 190, quoting John Christopher Thomas (Church of God School of Theology, Cleveland, Ohio), “Women, Pentecostals and the Bible: An Experiment in Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” Journal
of Pentecostal Theology 5 (October 1994):
41
50.
Which explains the in the New Testament, see James Dunn, Unity and Diversity
in the New Testament: An pluralism
Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (London, England:
SCM Press,
42Kdrkkainen, Spiritus ,94,
with reference to WCC 1977).
publications, e.g., loan Sauce, “One
Gospel-Diverse Expressions,” International
Review of Mission 83 (April 1996):
253-256 and further articles in this issue of International Review of Mission.
10
145
The
Question
of Present Revelation and the
Spirit
outside the Church
Catholics and Pentecostals
agree
that “to
deny present
revelation is to doubt the active
power
here and now of the
Holy Spirit
as
guiding the Tradition and
mediating
the
presence of
the risen Christ.”43 The dif- ference is that a Pentecostal believer can receive-under certain condi- tions-present revelation,
while Catholics believe that this revelation must be judged by
the official church institution. I
suppose
that Pentecostals will more and more come to this same
position!
There is an
important example
of
“present
revelation” in Pentecostal
history, namely,
the
prophecy
of the British
plumber
Smith Wigglesworth
to David Du Plessis.
Wigglesworth
told Du Plessis that he,
the General
Secretary
of one of the most
reactionary
Pentecostal denominations, namely,
the South African
Apostolic
Faith
Church,
had to go to all churches,
including
the Catholic
church,
and revive them
by bringing
them the
message
of Pentecost. For Du Plessis this was entirely unexpected.
He did not care for the non-Pentecostal churches and
thought
them to be
entirely beyond hope.
In spite of this Du Plessis began
his
ministry
to the
Vatican,
to the WCC and
many
other church bodies and was-to his astonishment-well received.
However,
he was disfellowshipped by
the American Assemblies of God. But when he was showered with honors from the secular and
religious
world
they reinstated him without
any
further comment.
Although
for Du Plessis the
prophecy
of Wigglesworth was a clear
example
of
“present
revela- tion” and in
spite
of the fact that this
story
is well-documented and well-known in Pentecostal
history,
it has
played-up
to this
day- rather a minor role in Pentecostal
theology.44
“Present revelation” has also to do with Karkkainen’s
title, “Spiritus spirat
ubi vult.” Does this mean that Pentecostals
begin
to understand the Orthodox
position
which sees the
Spirit
also at work outside the church? But where? For instance in those thinkers and
rep- resentatives of the
Enlightenment
who
fought
for
religious
freedom in Europe?45
Neither the Catholic Church nor the Protestant churches were
great champions
of
religious
freedom. In
fact,
Catholics and Protestants
disagreed
on almost
every thing during
and after the Reformation. But on one
thing they agreed, namely,
that
Anabaptists and Jews had to be
harassed, burned, drowned,
and driven – —_ -_– – -, – —
persecuted,
43Karkkainen, Spiritus, 132, quoting from Gerald O’Collins, “Revelation Past and Present,” in Vatican II: Assessment and Perspectives: Twentv-Five Years After (1962- 1987), ed. Rene Latourelle (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1988), 129.
44petailed with literature in Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 350f.
45Walter J. Hollenweger, “Thirteen Responses to ‘Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness, “‘ Pentecostal Theology 21 (spring 1999): 63-67, especially 65-67 which focuses on “The Question of Tolerance.”
11
146
away. Religious
freedom was
championed by people
outside the church or at least
by people
who were at odds with the churches.
Or think of the last war.
Very
few Christians
(Catholics
and Protestants)
and to
my knowledge only
one
Pentecostal, namely
Louis Dalliere from France,46
fought
for the Jews. Pentecostals did not move a finger and Catholics were not
exactly taking
side with the Jews. Other people-for
instance Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Karl
Barth,
but also many
secularists-defended the Jews.
So,
was
perhaps
the
Holy Spirit blowing
more outside Pentecostalism and Catholicism? And if that is true, might
we also
expect
him
(or her) today
outside the
church, according
to the
testimony
of Acts 2:17
(the Holy Spirit
is poured out on all
flesh),
or also
according
to the
prophetic testimony
which saw in the
pagan king Cyrus
an anointed
one,
a
Messiah,
a Christ
(Isaiah 45:1)?
Are Pentecostals
prepared
to realize that the
Holy Spirit
blows also outside the Christian
community?
The
Question
of
Spirit Baptism
and Adult
Baptism
For the South African Pentecostal
dialogue partner, Moller,
the peak
of
Spiritual experience, wrought by faith,
is “baptism in the
Holy Spirit.”4?
There was an
attempt
from the Catholic side to see in the Catholic tradition a similar
experience.
Kilian McDonnell48 was
pretty successful in show that
baptism
in
patristic
times was
usually
accom- panied by
a special
experience
of the
Spirit.49
Of
course,
Catholics did not
buy
the doctrine of “initial
evidence”150
but this is also controver- sial
among
Pentecostal.51 On the other
hand,
Catholics value the
prac- tice of prayer which does not use semantic
categories. They
also value speaking
in
tongues
as a form of
nongrammatical prayer,
a “language of the heart.”52
However,
neither the Pentecostal nor the Catholic
position
is as clear cut as these documents seem to suggest. For the Pentecostal side,
– ..- .,.–…-.–..– ..-. – —
460n Louis Dallidre, see Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 338-342.
47Kiirkkainen, Spiritzrs, 176. F. P. Möller, “Faith and Experience,” Dialogue paper, 1977 (The Dialogzre, vol. 2, 61
480n the Benedictine and cochairman of f.). remarkable the
dialogue
Kilian McDonnell, see Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 356-360.
49Kilian McDonnell and George T. Montague, Christian Initiation and
Evidence
Baptism in the Holy Spirit:
from
the First
Eight
Centuries
(Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991 ).
51
50Kdrkk5inen, Spiritus,
379-384.
Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 222-224.
Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of “Spirit Baptism
” in the Charismatic Renewal Movement Henry
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988).
52Karkkainen, Spiritus,
378. Kilian McDonnell, “The Function of Tongues in Pentecostalism,” The Dialogzre, Vol. 2, 45.
12
147
one has to mention William J. Seymour who had no “initial
sign”
in his declaration of faith.53 A number of
high-placed
Pentecostals did not and do not subscribe to this
doctrine,
for
instance,
the founder of the German Pentecostal
movement,
Jonathan Pau1.54
David Barrett55 also states that
only
35% of Pentecostals
speak
in tongues-and
this in denominations which teach the doctrine of “initial sign.”
If we add to this number those Pentecostal denominations who refuse to subscribe to the doctrine of “initial
sign” (for instance,
the very strong
Chilean
movement56),
the
percentage
is even
higher.
It is clear that the
dialogue
with Catholics could
help
Pentecostals to come to terms with a long-standing problem in their denominations which not
only
divides the movement but
separates
Pentecostals also from their fellow non-Pentecostals. There is more to this! F. P. M611ers7 was also a
strong supporter
of the South African
apartheid regime. Hence,
there were
hardly any
black Africans in the
dialogue
team. He attacked his fellow
pastor,
Frank
Chikane,58
because Chikane was defending
blacks who
fought against
the
apartheid regime.
Chikane was and is
pastor
of the South African
Apostolic
Faith Church. He became
general secretary
of the South African Council of
Churches, although
his own church was not even a member of this council.
Now,
Chikane is a
highly placed
civil servant in the
government
of Nelson Mandela. But he was also
cruelly
tortured
by
a fellow Pentecostal- who was a
police
officer-because of his
support
of the blacks. So what about this
peak experience
of the
Spirit
if it does not hinder its recipients
from
persecuting
each other in the most cruel
way?
A similar
problem
arises with adult
baptism
which was the most controversial issue
during
the
dialogues. 59 This controversy
is
strange since adult
baptism
is not contained in the earliest Pentecostal declara- tions of faith and there are a number of Pentecostal denominations who practice
infant
baptism. Baptism
of adults was a later
import
from the Baptists
and is an in-house
controversy
in Pentecostalism.
Both
dialogue partners,
Catholics and
Pentecostals,
defined
bap- tism as “a
passing
from the
kingdom
of darkness to Christ’s
kingdom
‘
53Above, note 33.
54 Jonathan Paul, “Was sollen und wollen die Pfingstgrusse?” Pfingstgrzïsse I (Feb. 1909): 2. More on this in Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 337.
55Barrett, “Statistics, Global,” 820.
‘
56Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 57F. P.
117-131.
‘
Moller, Church and
Politics: A Pentecostal View of the South Situation
African
(Braamfontein,
South Africa:
Gospel Publishers, 1988).
Also see Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 43, 48f.
58Frank Chikane, No Life of Atv An Autobiography (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989). Also see Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 48-52, 176, and 354. 59Kdrkkainen, Spiritits, 6.
13
148
of
light.”6°
This is a
very
biblical
statement,
but is it true in
reality? Against
this
question
all differences on adult or infant
baptism
sink into insignificance.
Is it true that the
baptized
ones
passed
from the
king- dom of darkness into the
kingdom
of
light? Especially
if we consider that a
great
number of Catholics and Pentecostals allied themselves with National Socialism or
fascism,
or do
ally
themselves
nowadays with
capitalism?
What is the
meaning
of
passing
from darkness to the kingdom
of light if great masses of those who have been
baptized
in the Catholic and Pentecostal churches make common cause with the
1
king- dom of darkness?61
Justification
by
Faith and
Ecumenicity
Many
Pentecostals and some Catholics want to defend the term “supematural”62 although
it is not a biblical team.
Hyperphysikos
is not in the New
Testament,
and it is not translatable into Hebrew or Aramaic. Modem Catholic
scholarship63
and some Pentecostals64 have given up
the term.
So,
this is
again-on
both sides-an in-house dis- cussion. Pentecostals come
probably
near to the Catholic statement Gratia non tollit
sed perfecit
naturam
(freely
translated: Grace does not destroy
nature but
brings
it to its
fulfillment).
This becomes even more relevant if we consider that there was no disagreement
between Pentecostals and Catholics on
justification by faith,
the
very
heart of Reformation
theology.65
It was not even a topic worthy
of discussion, which
suggests
that Pentecostals are on this issue nearer to the Catholics than to the Reformers. That had been discovered
– —- -.
60Final Report of the Dialogue I, 19 (1976). Karkkainen, Spiritus, 209. 61 On Pentecostalism and National Socialism, see Hollenweger, The Pentecostals, 232-235 and Jean-Daniel Pliiss, “European Pentecostal Reactions to Totalitarianism: A Study of Ethical Commitment in the 1930s,” EPTA Bulletin 4/2
Italian
( I 985): 40-55.; 4/3
88-100. On Fascism and Catholicism see the amply documented ter in
(1985): chap-
Hollenweger,
The Pentecostals, 254-260. On
capitalism,
see Walter J. Hollenweger, “Syncretism
and Capitalism,” Asian Journal ofPentecostal Studies 2/1 1 (1999): 1-16.
62Discussion in Karkkainen, Spiritus, 365f.
63For instance, Kilian McDonnell, Karl Rahner, and others (Karkkainen, Spiritus, 365f.).
64For instance, Russ
Spittler, “Glossolalia,”
in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand MI: Zondervan
Rapids,
Publishing House, 1987), 340. Also see Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 224-226.
65K5rkkiiinen, Spiritus, 165: “Whatever one thinks of the Pentecostal doctrine of salvation-if there is any distinctive doctrine at all-it seems evident that their under- standing
of the relationship between nature and grace leans toward the Catholic…. It is not uncommon at all to find Lutherans and other Protestant Reformation Christians criticizing both Pentecostals and other Evangelicals for Pelagianism in win souls and
their zeal to
encourage people to make a public confession.”
14
149
many years ago by
the Prince Abbot from
Loccum,
the Lutheran Paul Fleisch,66
and confirmed
by
the
Norwegian
Lutheran Nils Bloch- Hoell.67
So, perhaps
Pentecostalism is a “catholicism without priests,”68
a kind of Catholic
spirituality
without the Roman
juridical superstructure.
At
any rate,
there are more
agreements
between Catholics and Pentecostals as one would think.69 This
spiritual
near- ness would also
explain why
Pentecostals are
extremely
successful in Catholic cultures.
That Pentecostalism is a kind of folk-catholicism is not
acceptable to Karkkainen because-so he said
during
his oral defense- Pentecostals are still
violently
anti-Catholic
although de facto they
are much nearer to the Catholic and Orthodox
positions
than to the
posi- tions of the Reformers. A very
striking self-misunderstanding,
indeed.
The Crocodile and the
Elephant
At the Catholic
University
of
Fribourg (Switzerland),
a Puerto Rican Pentecostal defended his dissertations The
story
of his exami- nation shows in an instant both the
promises
and the
problems
of the Vatican-Pentecostal
dialogue.
Assembled were a number of
experts
on the
theology
of
liberation,
on Puerto Rico and Latin
America,
on Catholic and Pentecostal
theologies, plus
three or four Dominican
pro- fessors of the
university.
Thc
dean,
a
highly
cultured
Frenchman, clothed in the beautiful white
gown
of a Dominican
scholar,
asked the candidate Ruben Perez-Torres:
“Why
is ecumenical
relationship between Catholics and Pentecostals
necessary?”
The candidate answered: “At the
university,
where I
teach,
there are two
major Christian
groups, namely
the Pentecostals and the Catholics. If we as Christians want to witness to our faith at the
University
we can no . – – — —.—–..-
66paul Fleisch, Zur Geschichte der
Heiligungsbewegung,
Heft.
1,
Die Heiligungsbewegung
von Wesley bis Boardman (Leipzig, 1910), 42. See also Die
Fleisch,
Pfingstbewegung in Deutschland (Hanover:
Heinr. Feesche
in the
Verlag, 1957).
series, “The Higher Christian Life,” ed. D.
NY and
Reprint
Garland
Dayton, vol. 18 (New York,
London,
67Nils
England: Publishers, 1985).
Bloch-Hoell, The Pentecostal Movement: Its Origin, Development, and Distinctive Character (Oslo, London: Universitetsforlaget, 1964), 115.
68Harvey Cox, Fire
Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion
in the from
Twenty-First Centttry (Reading, MA: Addison Welsey Publishing Co., 1995), 178.
69For Catholic elements in
Pentecostalism, see also Walter J.
“Common Witness Between Catholics and
Hollenweger,
Pentecostals,” PNEUMA: The Journal the
Pentecostal Sttrdies 18
of
(fall 1996): 185-216; and the section, “The Catholic Society for
Roots,” in Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 143-180.
Ruben Perez-Torres, Classical Pentecostalism in Puerto Rico: History Catholic Roots and
Theological Significance (Th.D. Diss.;
Switzerland:
University
of Fribourg, Switzerland, 1996).
,
15
150
longer
afford to
ignore
or even
fight
each other.
Furthermore,
our country
is in such a plight that the two
principal
denominations must work
together.”
The Dominican was not amused. He had
expected
the candidate to refer to the documents of Vatican II and said so. Ruben Perez-Torres smiled: “Mr.
Chairman,”
he
said,
“the documents of Vatican II have not yet
reached Puerto Rico. The Catholic
bishops actively
block their dis- tribution.” The
experts
on Puerto Rico on the examination
panel
nod- ded.
They
knew that this was true. But this did not
impress
the chair- man. He further asked:
“Why
is it then
necessary
for a Puerto Rican Catholic to become Pentecostal?” In true Pentecostal manner the candi- date answered with a testimony: “That is a question which I have asked my
mother. She said: ‘As a Pentecostal I know that I am saved
by grace alone. As a Catholic I was never
really
certain of
my
salvation. “‘ That is of course a
highly
controversial statement since-at least since Vatican II-the
understanding
of salvation in Catholicism is based on God’s unconditional and free
grace.
But the
experience
of Puerto Rican Catholics did not
correspond
to these
insights
of Vatican II.
The
dialogue
between the Puerto Rican Pentecostal who
argued
in oral
terminology
and the Dominican
professor
who could
only
think in definitions and
propositions
looked like the famous
dialogue
between the crocodile and the
elephant.
The crocodile
opened
its mouth and beat the water with its tail. The
elephant
waved his trunk and roared at the crocodile.
They
talked at each other on different
levels,
in different languages,
and the result was total
misunderstanding. (Nevertheless, the dissertation was
approved.)
Third World
theologians may say
whatever
they
want-as
long
as they
use our tools and our
language.
If not,
they
are not
scholarly.
This problem
is still unsolved at our universities and in ecumenical dia- logue.
Some of these difficulties
appear
also in the Vatican-Pentecostal dialogue. Nevertheless,
I believe that the statements of the
dialogue
are true,
but their
implications
are in many ways still
pending. One gets
the impression
that
they
are the
agreements
of some
leading
Catholic and Pentecostal scholars. It is a great pity,
however,
that
people
in the tra- dition of Helder
Camara,
Leonardo
Boff,
and the
theology
of liberation (many
of whom
being specialists
in Latin American Pentecostalism and
highly
relevant for our
topic71)
were absent. From the Pentecostal
see for instance Abdalazis de Moura, Import6ncia des Igrejas Pentecostais a Igreja Cat6lica
para
(44 pp., dupl.). Idem, “0
Pentecestalismo como fen6meno no Revista Ecclesi6stica Brasileira 31 78-94. This
popular
Brasil,”
was written
(March 1971): important paper by the research assistant of Helder Camara. See an English sum- mary in Hollenweger, The Pentecostals, 105-107.
16
151
side, people
like Frank Chikane and Arthur Brazier72 were
missing. This decision was a conscious one on both sides. The South Africans Moller and Du Plessis and the Catholic
dialogue partners opposed
the participation
of
people
who
represent
what are
thought
to be “irregular”
ideas. Those
“irregular” leaders, however,
believe
they
are in line with Vatican II and with the
original
Pentecostal vision.
The Catholics even
fought against making Santiago
de Chile a dia- logue
venue which would have involved the successful and ecumenical Chilean Pentecostals in the
dialogue.73 Yet,
the real
growth
area of Pentecostalism “is not in America
(certainly
also not in Europe), not on television and not
among
white
people”
but in the Third
World, because it represents a “down-to-earth this-worldliness
secularity.”74
So,
the
dialogue,
as it stands so
far,
is only a beginning, an
impor- tant
forward-looking beginning.
Thank God for it. But much more work has to be done. The
dialogue
has to include contr-oversial
partners from each tradition and tackle the
unveiling
of the
discrepancy
between theological
statements and
reality.75
For the Pentecostals that means to rediscover their ecumenical beginnings,
as Pentecostalism started
everywhere
as an ecumenical revival movements. 76 They will have to address the
painful question: What is our contribution to Christ:S
prayer
that Christians shall be one?
They
know
only
too well that.so-called
“spiritual unity”
is not an option.
Implications for
the WCC
Many
observers-also within the WCC??-come to the conclusion that far too much is at stake for our ecumenical future that we could leave this task to Kilian McDonnell and Cecil M. Robeck alone
(the two co-chairmen of the Vatican-Pentecostal
dialogue).
What
they
have
– — –.-
72Arthur
Brazier,
Black
Self-Determination:
The
Story of
the Woodlawn Organization (Grand
MI:
Eerdmans, 1969).
Brazier and other black Pentecostal leaders are described in the section, “A Kite Flies Against the Wind:
Rapids,
Black Power and Black Pentecostalism in the USA,” in Hollenweger, Pentecostalisrn, 25-40.
73More on this movement in the
chapter,
“Chile: Methodism’s Past in Pentecostalism’s Present,” in Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 117-131.
74Harvey Cox,
“Some Personal Reflections on Pentecostalism,” PNEUMA: The Pentecostal Theology 1 S (spring 1993): 31.
75Walter J. Hollenweger, “The Koinonia of the Establishment,” PNEUMA: The Journal
of the Society for Pentecostal Theology 12 (fall 1990): 154-157. 76See the
section, “The Ecumenical Root,” in Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 334- 387.
77Konrad Raiser, “Interview,” Der Saemann (Berne) 109 (August 1993): 5.
17
152
achieved so far is astonishing. But we cannot let these two
pioneers
and their friends battle on their
own,
almost to the
point
of exhaustion. The WCC must-if it really wants to do its job-enter this field with sub- stantial funds
and
staff.
There are
hopeful signs
that the WCC takes on board this task in several locations.78 In order to do this some old
pro- grams
must be sacrificed.
Leadership
in the ecumenical scene is about setting
clear
priorities.
Jeffrey Gros,
a Roman Catholic on the staff of the National Council of Churches of Christ
(USA)
at the time observed that
“indeed,
after the
Santiago meeting,
it will be difficult for Pentecostals in the future to disown the World Council and the Faith and Order movement and their
theology,
without
disowning
the contribution of their own church- es and movement. “79
There are
interesting
links between the Vatican/Pentecostal Dialogue
and the WCC. For
instance,
the
(Pentecostal)
International Evangelical Church, operating
in the
USA,
in Italy, and in other
places was introduced to
membership
in the WCC
by
Kilian McDonnell.8° Cecil M. Robeck and other Pentecostals work
actively
and almost full- time in the sections of Faith and Order
(NCCUSA
and
WCC).
Eventually,
this massive
cooperation
will have to bear fruit. There
are, however,
still
many
obstacles on both sides to overcome.
For the moment the secular media will not be
very helpful.
In
gen- eral
they perpetuate
the old
prejudices-partly by ignorance, partly by indifference. It is all the more
important
that
bona fide
ecumenists from all churches
put
their resources
together.
For
instance,
I expect a break- through
at the Full
Assembly
of the WCC at Harare
(1999)
in particu- lar in relation to the
“Organization
of African Instituted Churches” (Nairobi),
an all-African
organization comprising
Pentecostal and Pentecostal-like African churches,.8′
The tools to
bring
the
organized
ecumenical movement nearer to these Pentecostal churches will be
prayer, worship, music,
and testi- monies-and
only
then
theological
debates. I believe that the WCC is ready
to go into its second
fifty years
with a strong mandate to become fully
ecumenical. It is well-known that the
present
member-churches of the WCC are in general diminishing while the new Pentecostal church- es are
growing exponentially, mostly
in the Third World. The ecu-
78Hubert van Beek from the WCC has
organized
several
consultations; see Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 367-387.
79Jeffrey Gros,
“Toward a Dialogue of Conversion: The Pentecostal, and
Evangelical
Conciliar Movements,” PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 17 (fall 1995): 195.
8?On the International Evangelical Church, see Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 387. 8 1 Michael Bergunder, “Die Afrikanischen Kirchen
OekumenischeRundschau 47
Unabhangigen (AUK) und die Oekumene,” ( 1998): 504-S 16, in particular 510-516.
18
153
menical movement will read the
signs
of the times
telling
us that our mode of
being
the church is
slowly
but
surely losing
its
impact.
New churches are
arising.
It would be a great
pity
if the WCC-who started with a
fascinating pioneering
vision–confined itself to the “old churches.” New and old churches need each other if
they
want to achieve
anything
substantial.
19
