Pentecostals And Christian Unity Facing The Challenge

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

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 307

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

Pentecostals and Christian Unity:

Facing the Challenge

Cecil M. Robeck, Jr.

Where were you on September 11, 2001, the morning terrorists struck at the World Trade Center towers in New York City? That time—that date—will be one of the growing list of times and dates that many of us will remember for the rest of our lives. It will join a list of dates that we already remember—dates like that of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, or the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, or the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

In a sense, this date is no different from any other date, for tragedy has struck around the world in different ways and to varying degrees for cen- turies—an earthquake here, a volcano there, a famine in another place, a typhoon and ﬂooding somewhere else. Did you know, for instance, that more people die in Africa every day from HIV/AIDS than were killed in the World Trade Center attack—every day!1 Most of us are insulated from such horrors, even though at times they take far greater tolls on human life in the suffering and death that they bring.

This date was different for most Americans, however, because it was the ﬁrst time terrorists had hit them with such ferocity and with such suc- cess. And we brought it into our homes on our high-deﬁnition color tele- visions. It was the day and time when most Americans experienced what many in the world cope with on a regular basis. President Bush called it the “ﬁrst war of the twenty-ﬁrst century.” I would suggest that it is not

“AIDS in Africa,” Science World 58, no. 13 (October 1, 2001), 5, notes that “AIDS claimed 2 million sub-Saharan Africans in 1999—ﬁve times the total number of AIDS- related deaths in the U.S. since HIV was ﬁrst identiﬁed 20 years ago….” Two million deaths spread out over 365 days works out to 5,479 deaths per day—every day! “The Global HIV and AIDS Epidemic, 2001,” JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 284, no. 24 (June 27, 2001): 3081 notes that in sub-Saharan Africa in 2000, 25.3 million persons were HIV infected. In 16 countries in southern and east Africa, roughly 10 percent of all persons between 15 and 49 years of age are infected. This includes seven countries in which the infection rate is 20 percent, and the country of Botswana, where the infection rate is 36 percent. The average rate of infection for all sub-Saharan African countries within this age group is 8.8 percent, nearly one person in every ten.

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 308

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

the ﬁrst such war, for there were other armed conﬂicts in the world already, conﬂicts that might also be called wars. But for the United States of America it marked a baptism of ﬁre into a more or less postmodern type of warfare. The rules of engagement suddenly changed. In fact, we aren’t even sure yet that we know what the rules are. No longer is it well-deﬁned military personnel and targets that are at stake. Now it is ordinary people. No longer is it a massive military presence that has attacked. It is a slip- pery, somewhat ill-deﬁned group of individuals in many countries around the world who seem to be frustratingly elusive. And many Americans are asking for the ﬁrst time why they are so upset with us. What did we do to deserve this treatment?

It is not my purpose to launch into an analysis of American foreign policy at this point, though Pentecostals ought to be looking very care- fully at it and asking some penetrating questions about it. Nor is it my intention to talk further about September 11. What I want to do is to note from this event how so many people in this country suddenly found them- selves to be united with so many other people in this country in spite of their many differences. In spite of their frequent tendency to be contentious with those who are different from them, they found something in com- mon. This country includes an incredibly diverse population, coming from many different countries of origin—a kaleidoscope of colors, ethnicities, languages, religions, political parties, vocations, sexual orientations, and the like. Yet, on September 11, those differences, even if for a moment, seemed to disappear into the background as its people found out how much they are one people—e pluribus unum (out of many, one)—Americans.

While I have watched with considerable interest and not a little fear the rise of a kind of nationalism in the United States that demands, “If you are not with us, you are against us,” the rediscovery of the meaning of something like a national identity has also made me think about the nature of the Church.2 When will we discover that we are one people regardless of our pet denominational names or our claims to indepen-

Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996), 16, shared something of his experience that stands as a parallel to the current situation in the United States. Upon his return to Croatia following the war there, everywhere he went in Croatia he was subjected to intense pressure to disown his previous loyalty to Yugoslavia, the country of his birth and upbringing, and an equally intense pressure for him to give his total “love and loyalty” to Croatia alone. This, of course, meant that he would have to take a new position over against Bosnians, Serbs, Macedonians, and other former Yugoslavians who previously had been his friends and fellow citizens.

308

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 309

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

dence? When will we discover, no, when will we ﬁnally admit that together, we are the People of God, the Body of Christ, followers of Jesus Christ, the Church? When will we ﬁnally confess that many of our reasons for separate existences or different denominations are as artiﬁcial as our national demographic differences?

Will it happen only when we come under severe attack from the out- side; will we then ﬁnally acknowledge one another as sisters and broth- ers? Do our churches have to experience a catastrophic event such as the United States experienced on September 11 in order to understand that what binds us together is much greater, much stronger, than what has torn us apart? Must we ﬁrst see the governmental curtailment of religious activ- ities or the closure of churches, mosques, temples, and synagogues in the name of anti-terrorism before we discover this fact? Must we experience the disappearance or murder of our pastors, missionaries, and church mem- bers such as we have seen in places like India and Indonesia, Guatemala and Colombia, Sudan and Nigeria, in order to see that what unites us is far greater than those things which divide us?

It is a fact that the churches in North America, our particular context, have divided and subdivided ad nauseam. While the development of splits, schisms, and new religious movements has been endemic to the history of Christianity in North America, in some ways Pentecostals have set the pace in this regard throughout the twentieth century. I have noted else- where that during the ﬁrst century of its existence, the modern Pentecostal Movement in North America has divided over virtually every issue that it took 1,900 years to divide the rest of the Church.3 In addition, our mis- sionary programs have perpetuated our divisions and spread them world- wide.

We never seem to ask the question about the differences the new con- text might bring by way of judgment to our own deeply held and care- fully guarded biases. We have simply assumed that what we believe is good for us is naturally good for them.4 As a result, our mission churches have often been placed into positions of dependency instead of being

Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Pentecostals and Ecumenism in a Pluralistic World,” in Murray W. Dempster, Byron Klaus, and Douglas Petersen, eds., The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel (Oxford, England: Regnum Press, 1999), 340–41.

Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. “The Assemblies of God and Ecumenical Cooperation: 1920– 1965,” in Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies, eds., Pentecostalism in Context: Essays in Honor of William W. Menzies, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 11 (Shefﬁeld, England: Shefﬁeld Academic Press, 1997), 123–24 for documentation.

309

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 310

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

encouraged to think for themselves. We have not sought to make them truly indigenous, nor have we genuinely hoped that they would join the ecclesial world as our peers. Yet, in growing displays of independence, our own children are showing that they are fed up with our divisions and our paternalistic ways, and in many cases they are choosing to ﬁnd their own way without our help, often without the institutional church at all.

The issue of Christian unity, especially of visible Christian unity, is a massive challenge from which Pentecostals have all too often shrunk. They have done so for a variety of reasons. Some of their reasons are under- standable, even if they are not always desirable. Others of their reasons are not understandable except within the narrowest of terms, or within peculiar contexts that have since disappeared, or in the realm of thought that exists only in the twisted minds of the fear-mongers who have made it a habit to preach division, schism, and separation regardless of the cost.

It is clear that the impetus toward cooperation with the larger church was present among many of the earliest Pentecostal leaders,5 even if, as Harold Hunter has repeatedly pointed out, they viewed true ecumenism as taking place only when all other Christians became Pentecostals.6 Since those early years, however, many Pentecostal denominations have rejected the notion of ecumenism to one extent or another.7 It is to a few of these underlying challenges that I would like, now, to turn our attention.

As we look at the classical Pentecostal Movement here in North America, there are several issues that I believe need to be addressed before we can think seriously about relating to the larger church. These issues are prac- tical internal issues, that is, practical issues within Pentecostalism itself. These are issues over which we have some control, but issues in which we have failed to control either our words or our actions in the past.

Cf. Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Pentecostals and the Apostolic Faith: Implications for Ecumenism,” One in Christ 23 (1987): 115; Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Name and Glory: The Ecumenical Challenge,” in Harold D. Hunter, ed., Pastoral Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement (Cleveland, TN: Society for Pentecostal Theology, 1983), 78 pp.

Harold D. Hunter, “Two Movements of the Holy Spirit in the 20th Century? A Closer Look at Global Pentecostalism and Ecumenism,” in Pentecostalism and the World Church: Ecumenical Opportunities and Challenges, Papers from the 31st Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology (Lakeland, FL: Society for Pentecostal Theology, March 14–16, 2002), 5.

The Assemblies of God has perhaps been the most vocal in its rejection of ecumenism, but it does not stand alone in this regard. Cf. Robeck, “The Assemblies of God and Ecumenical Cooperation: 1920–1965,” 107–50, On the other hand, there are Pentecostal denominations, especially in Latin America and in Africa, which have participated fully within such orga- nizations as the World Council of Churches for decades.

310

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 311

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

Some of these issues stand between Pentecostals and those churches out- side the Pentecostal Movement with whom we have not built relation- ships. Others of these issues separate Pentecostals from Pentecostals. These issues hurt us, they oppress us, and in the end they make it difﬁcult for us to cooperate fully with one another and impossible for us to see coop- eration with the global church as modeling a “more excellent way.” I would like to focus our attention brieﬂy upon four such issues.

1. Charges leveled against Pentecostalism by members of historic churches and equally strong responses set the stage for long-term separation between Pentecostals and the larger Church. Pentecostals did not invent denomi- nationalism. When the modern Pentecostal Movement emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century, it developed within a context in which denominationalism was already a fact of life. Yet, when it burst upon the scene, many of those existing denominations were unprepared for the chal- lenges that Pentecostalism would present to them. As a result, they charged these early Pentecostals with such things as spiritualism, fanaticism, divi- siveness, violating tradition, and introducing heresy. As one Baptist pas- tor put it in 1906 Los Angeles,

They come with the blare of trumpets out of tune and harmony, but lustily blown with all the power of human or inhuman lungs; they shine with phos- phorescent gleam, strangely like that of brimstone, and with odor more or less tainted; they distract the affrighted atmosphere with a bewildering jar- gon of babbling tongues of all grades—dried, boiled, and smoked; they rant and dance and roll in a disgusting amalgamation of African voudou super- stition and Caucasian insanity, and will pass away like the hysterical night- mares that they are.8

It is charges like these, and the responses that our earliest Pentecostal lead- ers gave, that help to explain some of the reticence that deﬁnes the actions of Pentecostals today. Such charges resulted in the marginalization of Pentecostals in such a way as to become seemingly impervious barriers to greater cooperation.

In the United States, Reformed Fundamentalists, advocates of Wesleyan- Holiness teaching, and mainstream Protestants alike, marginalized

An excerpt from a sermon by Dr. R. J. Burdette, preached at Temple Baptist Church, Sunday, September 23, 1906, and published the following day in “New Religions Come, Then Go,” Los Angeles Herald (September 24, 1906), 7; cf. “Denounces New Denominations,” Los Angeles Express (September 24, 1906), 5.

311

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 312

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

Pentecostals.9 They were not even on the maps of the Roman Catholic Church or of the Orthodox churches. In Europe, Pentecostals were criticized by members of the Keswick Movement and the Holiness Movement, as well as by many of the historic churches of the region. In Italy, the Fascist regime of Mussolini apparently cooperated with the Vatican to target and persecute Pentecostal churches.10 Through the years, similar charges of the persecution of Pentecostals by Roman Catholics in Latin America have been lifted up repeatedly.11 In Russia and Persia [Iran], Pentecostal churches were made the subject of persecution, ﬁrst at the hands of the Orthodox police under the Czarist regime and later by the secret police in the U.S.S.R. and its Eastern bloc satellites within the Communist world.12 When Joseph

On Fundamentalists, see regarding R. A. Torrey, “Gift of Tongue[s] Not Biblical,” Los Angeles Express (August 8, 1907), 14; “Evolution of Camp Meeting,” Los Angeles Daily Times (August 8, 1907), 2.8; H. A. Ironside, “Apostolic Faith Missions and the So- Called Second Pentecost” (New York, NY: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., Bible Truth Depot, no date), 15 pp.; “Report of the Tenth Annual Convention of the World’s Christian Fundamentalist Association,” 1928, no. 9; “Confusion,” Christian Beacon 9, no. 12 (April 27, 1944), 4, 8; “Tongues,” Christian Beacon 9, no. 12 (April 27, 1944), 8; W. O. H. Garman, “Analysis of National Association Convention and Constituency,” Christian Beacon 9, no. 12 (April 27, 1944), 1–2, esp. 2; on Wesleyan-Holiness Advocates, see Josephine M. Washburn, History and Reminiscences of the Holiness Church Work in Southern California and Arizona (South Pasadena, CA: Press, 1913 / New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc., rprt. 1985), 377; “Minister Denounces ‘Gift of Tongues’,” Los Angeles Express (October 4, 1906), 15; “Evangelist Scores ‘Gift of Tongues’,” Los Angeles Examiner (October 5, 1906), 6; G. W. Grifﬁth, “A Grievous Error,” The Free Methodist [Chicago, IL] (November 6, 1906), 2 (706); “The Tongues Excitement,” The Free Methodist [Chicago, IL] (November 6, 1906), (8) 712; L. B. Kent, “Letters from the West,” The Free Methodist [Chicago, IL] (December 18, 1906), 4 (804); Alma White, My Heart and My Husband (Zarephath, NJ: Alma White, 1923), 19; on Mainstream Protestants, see “Denounces New Denominations,” Los Angeles Examiner Monday (September 24, 1906), 5; “Minister Denounces ‘Gift of Tongues,’” Los Angeles Express (October 4, 1906), 15.

Jesse Penn-Lewis, War on the Saints: A Text Book on the Work of Deceiving Spirits among the Children of God and the Way of Deliverance (London, England: The “Overcomer” Book Room, 1912, 1916, 4th ed. 1925), 343 pp.; “An Important Letter from Pastor Barratt,” Special supplement to Conﬁdence, no. 1 (April 1908), 1–2; Giovanni Traettino, “The Fascist Regime and the Pentecostal Church,” in the papers of the 25th Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology and the European Pentecostal and Charismatic Research Association , Assemblies of God Bible College, Mattersey Hall (Mattersey, Doncaster, England: SPS & EPCRA, July 10–14, 1995), 26 pp.

Luther Carroll, Jr., “Poison from the Priest,” Church of God Evangel 42, no. 30 (September 29, 1951), 11, 15; “Foreign Notes [Paraguay],” Church of God Evangel 48, no. 45 (January 20, 1958), 8; Clyde W. Taylor, “Roman Catholic Persecution in Colombia,” Church of God Evangel 48, no. 45 (January 20, 1958), 5–6.

Frank Bartleman, Two Years Mission Work in Europe Just Before the World War, 1912–1914 (Los Angeles, CA: F. Bartleman, ca. 1925), reprinted in Witness to Pentecost: The Life of Frank Bartleman (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1985), 41; Andrew D. Urshan, “Persecutions in Persia,” The Christian Evangel 53 (August 8, 1914), 4, published

312

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 313

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

Stalin forced the Baptists and Pentecostals together into a single denom- ination, whenever the two groups met together, the Pentecostals were required to check at the door any overt forms of their spirituality, such as speaking in tongues.13 In Asia, Pentecostals fell upon hard times when voices such as that of A. T. Pierson were raised against them,14 or when missionaries who had enjoyed a “Pentecostal” experience were required to suppress that experience and were not allowed to share it even with their closest friends.15

As a result of their treatment, many Pentecostals developed a thick skin and an unwillingness to interact with many of these individuals and groups without making judgments of their own. Yet, a brief survey of Pentecostal preaching and writing makes it clear that Pentecostals have given as much pain to others as these others have inﬂicted upon them through the charges they have made and the words they have used against these others.16

under the same title in Word and Witness 10, no. 8 (August 1914), 4; Andrew D. Urshan, “A Convention in Persia,” The Christian Evangel 79 (February 27, 1915), 4; Andrew D. Urshan, “Pentecost in Persia,” The Weekly Evangel 155 (September 2, 1916), 4; Andrew Urshan, The Story of My Life (St. Louis, MO: Gospel Publishing House, ca. 1918), 73–74; Urshan, The Life Story of Andrew Bar David Urshan: An Autobiography of the Author’s First Forty Years (Portland, OR: Apostolic Book Publishers, 1967, rprt. 1982), 137–38; William C. Fletcher, Soviet Charismatics: the Pentecostals in the USSR, American University Studies, Series VII, Theology and Religion 9 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1985), 48.

Fletcher, Soviet Charismatics: The Pentecostals in the USSR, 93.

Arthur T. Pierson, “‘Speaking with Tongues’,” The Missionary Review of the World, New Series XX, Old Series XXX (1907), 487–92; Arthur T. Pierson, “‘Speaking with Tongues’—II,” The Missionary Review of the World, New Series XX, Old Series XXX (1907), 682-84.

Cf. Nancy Boyd, Emissaries: The Overseas Work of the American YWCA 1895–1970 (New York, NY: The Woman’s Press, 1986), 50–52. In a similar case, Miss Lillian Keyes, a member of First New Testament Church in Los Angeles, went as an independent Apostolic Faith missionary to China in August 1908. When, in 1910, she applied to serve with the Presbyterian Church while she was on the ﬁeld, she was required to make the following promise in order to be considered. “I promise not to teach that the gift of tongues is an essential mark of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and not to urge believers to seek the gift of tongues in preference to other gifts in connection with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, because it is contrary to my belief. I do not believe in urging believers to seek any gifts, only God, believing that the Holy Spirit gives unto us according to His will, and such gifts as he would have us have.” See the correspondence from Charles A. Killie, Chairman, Executive Committee, to Members of the Executive Committee, The North China Mission of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., Paotingfu, China, January 14, 1910, 1–2, on ﬁle in the Collection of the Department of History, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 425 Lombard St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

George L. Britt, “The Scarlet Woman,” Church of God Evangel 48, no. 30 (September 30, 1957), 4–5–10; Juan Treccani [trans. Virginia Beaty], “From Religious Slavery to Liberty in Jesus Christ,” Church of God Evangel 54, no. 16 (June 15, 1964), 12–13, 22.

313

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 314

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

This action, which may be the result of yielding to something like a per- secution complex, continues to inﬂuence the ways Pentecostals think about the church at large. Pentecostals have received a great deal of criticism, much of it based upon unjust prejudice, though if we are really honest we will admit that some of it was justiﬁed. This being said, we must also admit that Pentecostals have also made both just and unjust charges against much of the rest of the church. This receiving and giving of criticism has become a stumbling block to greater cooperation with the larger church, but a stumbling block that could be overcome if Pentecostals were to take the Gospel seriously and bless those who persecute them (Romans 12:14).

2. While many Pentecostals have failed to interact positively with large segments of the Church, this same phenomenon has found its way into the Pentecostal Movement itself. On the whole, Pentecostals have also been very successful at inﬂicting pain upon one another. Many of our own Pentecostal churches treat the members of other Pentecostal churches in the same way that they have been treated by other churches. While their inﬂiction of pain upon other Pentecostals comes in a variety of packages, the purpose and results are still the same. We Pentecostals carry deep- seated biases, and we hurl our judgments at one another. Sometimes these biases and insults are openly expressed; more often they are whispered behind the scenes where we feel freer to express them. We put the other down, and we do it, thinking that we might look better than they do in the end. But we don’t, when we look at ourselves honestly.

In the hundred years of our existence, we Pentecostals have not learned how to agree to disagree with one another and still truly love and respect one another in spite of our differences. The intensity with which we feel what we believe makes it appear all too often that everything we believe is of ultimate value, and that every position we hold is one of ultimate truth. As a result, every position other than that which we hold is not only viewed as untenable in the end; it is wrong! The positions that our Pentecostal denominations have taken are not, for the most part, up for discussion. As far as we are concerned, they do not need further clariﬁcation. They require no rethinking. The words we have adopted in our doctrinal propositions are resistant to any rearticulation. These statements have become for us an irreversible and unchangeable Tradition! They defy our best attempts at rethinking, modiﬁcation, and emendation. It is as though, to paraphrase the writer to the Hebrews, “in these last days God has spoken to us” once and for all through our personal doctrinal articulations, and our formulations have been deemed sufﬁcient for all future generations. There is no room

314

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 315

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

left for humility, or the realization that must have come as a shock even to the Apostle Paul that “now we see in a glass darkly…” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Even in the Society for Pentecostal Theology, where dialogue and the airing of differences is probably more acceptable than in any other place within the global Pentecostal Movement, and where the relationships we share as a result of our common vocations and our overlapping study of the issues are in some way the most mature, this is still the case. On the surface, we follow the plea made popular a decade ago by Rodney King that we “all just get along.” But just beneath the surface, our hurts, our insecurities, our fears, and our biases smolder. Let me give you two exam- ples of what I mean, and I choose these two examples because they affect everyone in this room. In choosing these two issues, I have no desire what- ever to demean the theological enterprise in which all of us participate, though my words will sound harsh and I may come across as though I do. My concern here is primarily relational rather than theological, though my intention is also to redeem the theological enterprise in which we now engage from its use to demean others and to urge us all to redirect our theological work so that it builds up the church and brings glory to God.

Think about the way discussions have taken place in this Society around the issue of “Holiness” over the past decade. We speak to one another with a veneer of civility, but underneath we seethe. Why else do some members vigorously insist on the so-called fourfold paradigm of the Gospel that does not emphasize sanctiﬁcation, while others insist in equally vehe- ment terms on the ﬁvefold Gospel that emphasizes sanctiﬁcation? Why do our differences over the way we understand people to receive their sanctiﬁcation drive us to exhibit unholy behavior toward one another? We have used these formulations to beat one another senseless.

Do we really believe that there is only one group that is concerned with the way we live and that the other is not? Does the group that embraces sanctiﬁcation as a second deﬁnite work of grace really believe that those who do not state their doctrine in these terms and seek for this second experience are lacking in their salvation or that they are any less con- cerned with the sanctity of the Christian life? Does the group that rejects the “second deﬁnite work” articulation of the doctrine of sanctiﬁcation actually believe that those who embrace it are in some way second-class Christians because they state their doctrine in these terms? Do they really believe that these folks are any more legalistic than their own tradition is?

My guess is that both groups would answer “No” to all of these questions.

315

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 316

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

But if that is the case, if we really believe that we stand as equals before God in our concern to live the holy life, why do we boycott one another’s sessions when the issue is on the agenda? Why do we complain to our friends when it seems that the other has the advantage in any particular forum, or that the other is seeking to control the Society? Think for a moment about the kinds of sniping you have heard through the years regarding those of the other group when you are with those of your own kind—in the hallways, in our rooms, and in our denominational caucuses. If we are honest here, none of us will be able to claim innocence. Why do we criticize one another when we gather with those who are just like us—those who are Pentecostal? Why do we not join forces and bear com- mon witness to the power of the Holy Spirit to transform a person’s life in such a way that the very presence of God is obvious in the ways we choose to live with one another?

Or think about the way we have discussed the Oneness/trinitarian issues that emerge each year within this Society. At one level, this Society has embraced members of both traditions with open arms. There is no other major forum within the Pentecostal Movement in which the kinds of exchanges that we have seen in this debate or the openness to leadership of both kinds has been more apparent than in the Society for Pentecostal Theology. In one sense, the SPS is to be congratulated more fully for its willingness to bear witness to a “more excellent way” of relating to Oneness/trinitarian concerns than should any other part of the Pentecostal Movement. Its actions far surpass any of those that have been embraced by our various denominations.

Yet, even in the Society for Pentecostal Theology, we have not succeeded in truly understanding why some of our members appeal to the Nicaean- Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonian formulations that attempt to describe the trinitarian reality they see in our ultimately indescribable, ineffable God, while others contend that they were an abominable error? The Trinitarians have not yet convinced the advocates of Oneness that they are anything less than tritheists. On the other hand the Oneness among us, who were convinced that the unitive character of God was being sup- pressed or lost, and who were driven in part by a concern to be truly apos- tolic, have not yet convinced the advocates of Trinitarianism that they are anything more than modalists.

Are we each truly convinced that the concern the other has to offer regarding the nature of the Godhead is a matter so dangerous that we can-

316

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 317

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

not afford to think seriously and objectively about it—together? Do we really believe that we cannot learn something about the nature of God from one another? Are we so beholden to our “traditions” and our antag- onistic histories that we can look no further and ask whether there might be better ways to express our theological concerns about the nature of the same God that we both claim to serve—together? Do we really believe that our own position is so important and so decisive that short of embrac- ing our peculiar position, one cannot be saved? Do we honestly believe that when we stand before God we will be required to articulate a doc- trine of the Godhead that will, in some way, affect our eternal destiny?

My guess once again is that most, if not all of us, would answer each of these questions negatively. If this is so, then why do we argue that only one of these positions can be correct, when both of them emerged out of genuine concerns that are not easily dismissed? Why do we treat the other as though they were not even Christians and act as though their particu- lar formulation captures no truth, illustrates no reality, is utterly valueless, and ultimately is intended to oppress the other? Why can we not together afﬁrm this God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus, this One who ultimately deﬁes description, and agree to worship and glorify this God together in a “more excellent way” so that the world can see the one God who alone is worthy of their worship and praise?

Now let us take these two issues, our ability to articulate the ultimate response regarding the nature of the Godhead, and our understanding of the time and/or way we receive the sanctifying transformation that is wrought only by the Holy Spirit of God, together. If we really believe that these two issues are not of central or ﬁrst-rank importance as to whether or not we obtain eternal salvation, why do we treat them as though they are? Why do we treat those with whom we disagree on these two issues as though they were in some way, sub-Christian? If these doctrines are actually of a secondary nature, that is, if the ultimate Christian reality revolves around a personal relationship that we can have with God solely because of what Jesus the Christ has done for us on the cross, which is ultimately all that any of us preach is essential as marked by what we say in our invitations, then why do we treat these doctrines as though they were primary concerns, except to mark our territories and in some way provide us with a raison d’être, a reason for separate existence? If salva- tion is really as easily obtained as we claim it to be in our altar calls, why do these issues that have separated many of us from one another been

317

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 318

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

allowed to sap us of the spiritual strength and vitality that we could have were we to acknowledge our differences and move on by emphasizing what we hold in common?

Instead, we have allowed these things to become church-dividing issues. We have built little ﬁefdoms around our differences rather than submit- ting to the concerns of the Kingdom. We have allowed these differences to deﬁne us, to place us and no other in the center of what God is about. As a result we have lost sight of our ultimate goal, our ultimate purpose, which, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism has stated it so succinctly, is “to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.”17 All too often, we have made the defense of our position the most important thing we do, instead of asking what we might learn from the other, instead of asking how we might help the other, or instead of showing the other, by the lives that we live, a “more excellent way.” We have tried to force one another to see the light, rather than love one another.

What these portraits can do for us is to help us understand something of the depth of our problem and the ecumenical challenges that it poses to us within the Pentecostal Movement. If we can so easily lash out at one another and slash one another with our words and our actions when we are all supposed to be recipients not only of God’s grace but also of God’s power, how much more difﬁcult is it for us to relate to those who stand outside our Movement? How are we ever going to relate to those who “confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulﬁll together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” but who, nonethe- less, have not experienced what we claim to have experienced in our Pentecostal experience?18 Our treatment of one another has become a stum- bling block to greater cooperation within the larger Church, a stumbling block that could be overcome if Pentecostals were to take the Gospel seri- ously and love one another (1 John 3:11).

“The Westminster Shorter Catechism, A.D. 1647,” Answer to Question #1, in Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes (New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1877, 1905, 1919), 3:676.

This statement is the “Basis” for membership in the World Council of Churches. Constitution and Rules of the World Council of Churches Constitution, Section I. Basis, World Council of Churches: Yearbook 2001 (Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publications, 2001), 86. This is what is considered to be a “lowest common denominator” statement. The ques- tion to be asked is, “Is it really a ‘lowest common denominator’ statement?” and if it is, “What more do Pentecostals ask of their own members that makes their bases more than merely ‘lowest common denominator’ bases?”

318

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 319

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

3. Most Pentecostal leaders have a very limited vision for the potential beneﬁts that engagement with the larger Church might bring to them and to their evangelistic concerns. There are a number of factors that con- tribute to this problem. Among them, three stand out. They are ignorance, fear, and power.

A. Ignorance regarding those who make up the global church is an enormous problem within Pentecostalism. Setting aside the typical debate on the relationship between the visible and invisible character of the church, it must be said that most Pentecostal leaders lack any real knowledge or understanding of the theology and history of the larger church. Many of them have been reared only in a Pentecostal church, or they have come to faith in, and stayed within, a Pentecostal church. What they know about the theology and history of the global church often comes from stories that have been passed on to them by others, many of whom have similar lacunae in their understanding. Many of our people have been deeply inﬂuenced by converts to our churches who now demonize the churches out of which they came. They have experienced something new in our presence—something profound—something dynamic that has utterly trans- formed their lives. That is wonderful, a testimony to be afﬁrmed. What is not wonderful, but what is extremely common, is what they have come implicitly or explicitly to claim if not believe, namely, that leaders in their prior denomination either willfully withheld that understanding and expe- rience from them, or that they were utterly lost themselves and, therefore, incapable of leading them into it.19 Those of us who have had no ﬁrst- hand exposure to those groups have simply taken their word for it. In so doing, we have broken a cardinal rule of our own vocations. We have been satisﬁed with secondary sources.

Our leaders have generally had very little, if any, primary exposure to the larger church. They get their information about the larger church from their friends, from their own periodicals, and from the news media. They may participate in a local Pentecostal or evangelical ministerial associa- tion; they may listen to the stories brought to them by missionaries or to the pleas made by mission churches, but their experience beyond this is very limited. Thus, the issue of ignorance is an issue related to the nature and content of the preparation that is expected of or offered to the leaders

I cite as an example, Mark Rutland, “Southeastern College Welcomes the Society for Pentecostal Theology,” Program of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology: Pentecostalism and the World Church (Lakeland, FL: Society for Pentecostal Theology, 2002), 2.

319

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 320

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

we produce for our churches. This is true whether they be pastors, spe- cialists in youth or music, missionaries, editors, or ecclesiastical admin- istrators, and, in some cases, even “scholars.”

With the advent and maturation of Pentecostal colleges, universities, and seminaries and the predictable pressures that our denominations put on potential leaders to see that they are trained in these schools, the oppor- tunities that once existed for our leaders to broaden their education by attending other than Pentecostal schools has declined. If their entire the- ological education is taken within the conﬁnes of these Pentecostal schools, how will they develop their global and ecumenical understanding of the church?

Frank Macchia has noted the lack of substantive reﬂection that our denominations have given to the subject of ecclesiology.20 Little has been written on the topic in any of our formal theological treatments to date.21 If the Pentecostal academy does not work on the ﬁeld of ecclesiology, where will these leaders gain the insights necessary to relate to the larger church? If we fail to take ecclesiological interaction seriously, where will our leaders receive the experience necessary to negotiate the waters of ecclesiology? Where will our leaders have the opportunity to come up against those who, because they are part of another tradition, will chal- lenge them to face and address issues that they might otherwise ignore? Where will they have the opportunity to see Christian leaders from other traditions up close and in action? Where will they be encouraged to develop relationships and friendships that will allow them to receive this ﬁrst-hand exposure at a level that can inﬂuence them? Where will they be given the information they need—primary information that will lead them past the simplistic embrace of stereotypes that currently haunt their actions?

There is an entire ecumenical vocabulary that marks major advance- ments in inter-church relationships from which Pentecostals could beneﬁt,

Frank Macchia, “The Church as an End-time Missionary Fellowship of the Spirit: A Pentecostal Perspective on the Signiﬁcance of Pneumatology for Ecclesiology,” an unpub- lished paper presented at the Pentecostal/National Council of Churches Dialogue in Oakland, CA, March 12, 1997, 21 pp.; see esp. 1–6.

There are exceptions to this, of course, and I need only to lift up the work of my esteemed Pentecostal colleague at Fuller Theological Seminary, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, to make that point. Cf. “Church as Charismatic Fellowship: Ecclesiological Reﬂections from the Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2001): 101–22; “Spirit, Church, and Christ: An Ecumenical Inquiry into a Pneumatological Ecclesiology,” One in Christ 4 (2000): 338–53. Cf. also David Cole, “Pentecostal Koinonia: An Emerging Ecumenical Ecclesiology among Pentecostals,” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1998.

320

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 321

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

but of which, for the most part, Pentecostals are completely ignorant. These advancements come with over a half-century of relevant history, but very few Pentecostals have any knowledge that this history exists and even fewer understand that it carries major implications for how Pentecostals might do their own work. Who will inform our pastors and leaders of the signiﬁcant advances that have been made in such benchmarks as Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Nostrae Aetate, the Toronto Statement, the Lund Principle, BEM, the Lima Liturgy, Apostolic Faith Study, the Leuenberg Agreement, the Porvoo Common Statement, Ut Unum Sint, or the recent Joint Declaration on Justiﬁcation, to say nothing of Dominus Iesus?22 How will our younger pastors and leaders be challenged to develop long-term relationships across denominational lines that will enable them to grow ecclesiologically? How can we help them to be open to receive from those of another tradition who have something to give to them? When will they ever have the opportunity to share with the other a “more excel- lent way” from a Pentecostal perspective?

If the ecumenical challenge that faces the Pentecostal Movement is to be taken seriously, it will require that leadership in our academic institu- tions take the initiative that they have failed thus far to demonstrate in their formation of Pentecostal leaders. They will have to transform our undergraduate and seminary curricular offerings in such a way as to see that all students preparing for ministry have the opportunity to pursue work in the ﬁelds of ecclesiology, church history, and ecumenics, and these courses will need to be taught by people who are knowledgeable and fair in their presentations. We can no longer afford to pay professors to spread their ignorance, to manipulate their students on the basis of their own fears, or to perpetuate untruthful and unfair stereotypes about other mem- bers of our Lord’s church. To do so is to bear false witness.

Our educational institutions as well as our ministerial credentialing bod- ies will also need to make it possible for their students to obtain at least one in-depth ecumenical experience before they graduate or apply for min- isterial credentials. No Pentecostal organization I know at the present has in place any means that demonstrates its interest in changing attitudes toward the larger church. They are either too intent upon deﬁning Pentecostal identity so that it looks like they do, or they are overly concerned with

A useful reference tool that includes many of these items is Michael Kinnamon and Brian E. Cope, eds. The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices (Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publications/Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1997), 548 pp.

321

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 322

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

preserving Pentecostal distinctives in order to claim their superiority over the rest of the church, or they have lost themselves in their attempts to become “respected” universities. Unfortunately, in a growing number of cases our ministerial training schools, especially at the undergraduate level, appear to be more interested in hearing what the larger academy will say about them, than they are in what the church needs from them.

To my knowledge, there is not a single academic forum within any of our Pentecostal denominations where ecumenical formation worthy of the name is taking place. May I reiterate that the reason seems clear? Our leaders see nothing positive in ecumenical cooperation because of a dif- ference in the values that they believe they see in the Ecumenical Movement, real or perceived, over against those that they claim to embrace for them- selves. But they do so because they lack both the primary exposure to those they criticize, and the “academic” tools necessary to speak their lan- guage. It is little wonder, then, that they cannot show us a “more excel- lent way.”

B. The issue of fear is a very difﬁcult issue to overcome as well. Fear frequently originates in the ignorance about which I just spoke. It is rooted in the lack of trust that comes from not knowing or understanding the whole picture. Fear appears when one feels as though he or she has either lost control, or is not in control. Thus, fear and the issue of power are also related. Without the power to insert themselves effectively within the global Christian community, many of our leaders have given up and come to fear it. Fear is something that paralyzes us and the actions that we take, and Scripture is clear that “God has not given us the spirit of fear…” (2 Timothy 1:7). Yet, there are many leaders within the Pentecostal Movement who are afraid of the challenges that the larger church presents. This is especially the case when Pentecostals think of the larger church simply in terms of what is so frequently called the “Modern Ecumenical Movement,” a movement whose agenda is not always understood by those outside of it. It is made the worse when we recognize that many of these leaders are ill prepared to enter into anything approximating a dialogue of peers. Without the history, the theological vocabulary, and any positive ecumenical formation, they are extremely limited in their ecumenical potential.

But what other reasons inform the frequently expressed Pentecostal fear or mistrust of the “Modern Ecumenical Movement”? What is it about that Movement that they fear? What is it that Pentecostals believe about the Ecumenical Movement that supports this fear? As I have read the litera-

322

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 323

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

ture in both the Church of God23 and the Assemblies of God,24 the answer seems to be rooted in our eschatologies. On the one hand, this fear seems to rest in the fact that the symbolism of prophetic and apocalyptic texts invites us to reﬂect on how they might be applied within our present-day context—hence, our interest in prophetic detail. On the other hand, our frequent confusion over the nature of the prophetic and our utter lack of comprehension regarding the genera of apocalyptic renders our reﬂections virtually unintelligible. As a result, we posit things that may not even have been intended by the Holy Spirit or, for that matter, by the biblical authors. My library is full of eschatological schemes proposed by various Pentecostal prophecy “experts,” most of which we now ﬁnd more amusing than true.25

Cf. Robert L. Vining, “The Federal Council and Communism,” Church of God Evangel 34, no. 30 (October 2, 1943), 6–7; “Super-Church Activities,” Church of God Evangel 35, no. 1 (March 4, 1944), 4; “The Pentecostals and Church Unions,” Church of God Evangel 42, no. 33 (October 20, 1951), 15; George L. Britt, “The Last Day Political, Economic, Religious Union, Part II” Church of God Evangel 51, no. 13 (May 30, 1960), 10-12; “Resolutions,” Church of God Evangel 53, no. 22 (May 13, 1963), 4; Ray H. Hughes, “Pentecost and Ecumenism,” Church of God Evangel 56, no. 45 (January 16, 1967), 12– 13, 15; Bennie Triplett, A Contemporary Study of the Holy Spirit (Cleveland, TN: Pathway Press, 1970), 115, who mistakenly argues, “The goal of Ecumenism is the establishment of one great world church. Its plan calls for the merging of all Protestant bodies into one; second, the uniting of Protestants and Catholics and ﬁnally, the bringing of all religions including Buddhism, Hinduism and the Moslems under one roof”; Clyde G. Cox, “The Vatican Ecumenical Council,” Church of God Evangel 63, no. 2 (March 26, 1973), 18; Clyde G. Cox, “The Church Uniﬁcation Movement,” Church of God Evangel 63, no. 10 (July 23, 1973), 18.

Robert C. Cunningham, “A World Council of Churches,” Pentecostal Evangel #1802 (November 20, 1948), 15; Robert C. Cunningham, “Church Union, Pentecostal Evangel #1803 (November 27, 1948), 15; “The ‘World Church’ Movement,” Pentecostal Evangel #1820 (March 26, 1949), 10; “To Create a Superchurch,” Pentecostal Evangel #1857 (December 10, 1949); “‘Unity of the Faith,’ . . . a Faculty Panel Discussion,” in Contending for the Faith: The Theological Journal of Central Bible College (Fall 1995), 3. This “jour- nal” was printed as the latter pages of The Bulletin: The Ofﬁcial Magazine of Central Bible College (Fall 1995), a quarterly publication of the President’s Ofﬁce. Cf. Opal L. Reddin, “Church Unity,” Enrichment: A Journal for Pentecostal Ministry 1, no. 2 (Spring 1996), 69.

A. J. Tomlinson, The Last Great Conﬂict (Cleveland, TN: White Wing Publishing House and Press, 1913, rprt. 1984), 241 pp.; Charles H. Mason, “The Kaiser in the Light of the Scriptures,” sermon preached June 23, 1918 in Memphis, TN, in J. O. Patterson, German R. Ross, and Julia Mason Atkins, eds., History and Formative Years of the Church of God in Christ with Excerpts from the Life and Works of its Founder—Bishop C. H. Mason (Memphis, TN: Church of God in Christ Publishing House, 1969), 26–28; J. Narver Gortner, Are the Saints Scheduled to Go through the Tribulation? (Springﬁeld, MO: Gospel Publishing House, no date), 45 pp.; Aimee Semple McPherson, When the Fig Tree Putteth Forth Her Leaves (Los Angeles, CA: Ofﬁce of the Bridal Call, no date [ca. 1918]), 28 pp.; Frederick W. Childe, Mussolini, the United States in Prophecy, Jonah and the Whale, and other Bible Lectures (Los Angeles, CA: Frederick W. Childe, no date), 108 pp.; Ralph M. Riggs, The

323

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 324

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

It may be that those who teach Bible in our schools are doing a ﬁne job of teaching what they should teach regarding these things, but our stu- dents, and hence our pastors, are still not getting the message. Part of the problem, I believe, is the ready availability of popular expressions of Pen- tecostal religiosity.

Within the Pentecostal Movement, the study of the Bible is the one place where laypeople and poorly trained leaders will argue that their par- ticular interpretation of virtually any text is every bit as valid as that of the professionally trained Scripture specialist. More than once, I have had someone stop me in the middle of a sermon to correct me on my inter- pretation of a text—only in Pentecostalism! The claims of popular reli- gion almost always trump careful theological formulations. This is true in the church at large, and it is equally true within the Pentecostal Movement. More often than not, what our lay people are reading, or what our tele- vangelists spew forth from their television sets, is the “Gospel” they believe. In an attempt to be relevant, many of our pastors, especially those who are lacking in theological training or in homiletic preparation, preach the same popular fare. And this fare shows in the ill-conceived responses we have formulated to the challenges posed by the ecumenical question.26

Path of Prophecy (Springﬁeld, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1937), 227 pp.; Louis H. Hauff, Israel in Bible Prophecy (Springﬁeld, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1961), 82 pp.; Willard Cantelon, The Day the Dollar Dies (Plainﬁeld, NJ: Logos International, 1973), 149 pp.; David Wilkerson, The Vision (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell [Spire Books], 1974), 143 pp.

During its August 8-13, 1995 General Council, for instance, the Assemblies of God passed resolution 24, a resolution dealing with the subject of ecumenism. It came in response to the recent signing of the document “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” and read, in part: “WHEREAS, The ecumenical movement seems to be gaining momentum in the Christian community; and WHEREAS, This increased emphasis on ecumenism seems to be making inroads into evangelical circles; and WHEREAS, Several evangelical leaders and theologians recently signed a document entitled ‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together for Missions;’ [sic] and WHEREAS, this document states that evangelicals should not evan- gelize Roman Catholics [sic]; and WHEREAS, Such inroads may have a tendency to bring intense pressure upon the leadership of the Assemblies of God to bring our Fellowship in line with the ecumenical movement [sic]; and WHEREAS, Ecumenism requires compro- mise on essential biblical doctrine [sic]; therefore be it RESOLVED, That we reafﬁrm the historic [sic] position of the Assemblies of God as stated in our General Council Bylaws, Article IX, Section 11 (page 171)….” Much of the basis for reafﬁrming Article IX was, in fact, the misreading of “Evangelicals and Catholics Together for Mission,” the fear that the ability to evangelize Roman Catholics would ultimately be taken away from the Assemblies of God, and a misunderstanding of and/or a refusal to recognize the biblical basis on which much of modern ecumenism is built. Article IX, Section 11 condemns what it describes as the Modern Ecumenical Movement (read: WCC) for its alleged inclusion of people who reject certain “cardinal teachings which we [the Assemblies of God] understand to be essen-

324

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 325

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

One very clear example of how our fears have impacted our ability to interact with the larger church may be demonstrated by looking at the ways the issue of ecumenism is commonly addressed in light of frequently held Pentecostal eschatological expectations. It never gets a positive read- ing! Why, we might ask, is this the case, especially in light of the obvi- ous concern that when Jesus prayed, he asked that his disciples might all be one (John 17:21–23)? Why do we allow our fears to paralyze us with respect to developing relationships with much of the church around the world when we recognize that Jesus’ concern was not simply for the unity of his immediate followers, the Twelve, but that the unity of all his sub- sequent followers would become a sign to the world that God had sent him?

Did you know, for instance, that the Quræan, the holy book of Islam, speaks to the subject of Christian division and uses it to claim Islam’s superiority over Christianity? “With those who said they were Christians We [Allah] made a covenant also, but they too have forgotten much of what they were enjoined. Therefore, We [Allah] stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection when Allah will declare to them all that they have done.”27 Why do we fail to engage one another when we claim to share the same evangelistic agenda that Jesus seems to have had in mind in this important passage? How can we work so hard to keep the church divided and at the same time expect to carry a valid and vital witness to Muslims? The answer lies in the popu- lar eschatological schemes adopted by many of our leaders.

It might be easy for those of us in the Society for Pentecostal Theology to dismiss this kind of fear-ﬁlled thinking about ecumenism, but it is deeply rooted in an unwarranted pessimism regarding both life and the future that

tial to biblical Christianity,” for emphases and priorities that the Assemblies of God believes to be at variance with its own and with the Bible, and the fear that such an organization will give way to a “world superchurch [that] will culminate in the religious Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18.”

Al-Ma’ida 5.14–15. The reference to enmity and hatred is typically interpreted to mean the divisions and sectarianism that haunt the Christian community. Our unwilling- ness to be reconciled within the Christian community suggests to Muslims that Allah has visited this division upon the Church as a result of Christian sinfulness. In short, Christian divisions are the result of Allah’s judgment. Our willingness to remain separated nulliﬁes any otherwise compelling testimony we might bring that God is the loving and reconcil- ing God who cared sufﬁciently for us to send his only begotten Son, Jesus, so that we might be reconciled to God and to one another through him. Our unwillingness to work together serves only to validate the claims of Islam’s superiority and undercut the Christian faith and message.

325

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 326

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

continues to be perpetuated in some of our schools. In 1995, for instance, the President of Central Bible College of the Assemblies of God published what was reported to be a faculty panel discussion on the topic of “Unity of the Faith.” One faculty member gave voice to his fears regarding the World Council of Churches and the various ecumenical dialogues that exist in the following words:

Current pressures to bring together Roman Catholics, Orthodox Churches, Liberal Protestants, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Buddhists, Muslims, and every other religious group on earth must be setting the stage for the for- mation of the Church of the Antichrist headed up by the false prophet.

That those who promote the cause declare they have no intent to bring all of these together in forming one giant world-wide religious organization does little to relieve my fears because the eternal Word of God makes it clear that this is exactly what will happen in the end.28

This statement captures many misconceptions of what the Ecumenical Movement is about. In this statement we also have our fears expressed in a nutshell. Cannot our biblical, theological, and historical scholars help our leaders to weigh the legitimacy of their fears over against the expressed wishes of Jesus? On the one hand we fear a “giant world-wide religious organization” or, to quote the Assemblies of God Bylaws, Article IX, sec- tion 11, a “world superchurch [that] will [Please note the certainty of this pronouncement here—will, not may!] culminate in the religious Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18.” On the other hand, Jesus prayed that his fol- lowers should “all be one.”

The current state of affairs vis-à-vis Pentecostal eschatological schemes points to the fact that any literal reading of Jesus’ words in John 17 is powerless to overcome our as yet unrealized fears of what the forces of anti-Christ are capable of doing in the end. Given the present mindset, any literal reading of this text in which a real, tangible Church is in Jesus’ mind must necessarily fall; anti-Christian forces will have the last word. It should come as no surprise to us, then, that our leaders are forced to read Jesus’ concerns for his followers in a strictly spiritual sense. This spiritual sense may not be totally lacking in Jesus’ mind, but taken alone, it is surely a limitation that was never in Jesus’ mind. The problem is that the ignorance of our leaders regarding any ecclesiological option that takes ecumenism seriously, coupled with the general state of Pentecostal isola-

“‘Unity of the Faith,’ . . . a Faculty Panel Discussion,” 3.

326

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 327

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

tionism from the rest of the church, has produced our one-sided approach against ecumenism. And in the process, we have ended up with a deﬁcient ecclesiology; we have lost the very important human aspect of that thing we call the church.

C. If ignorance and fear are problems that keep us from opening our- selves up to the larger church, the issue of power may pose an even greater problem. Even in Pentecostal churches, fellowships, organizations, and the like, power and the abuse of power are issues that are expressed in a vari- ety of ways. Pentecostals have been at home with the subject of power since the Movement’s inception. Pentecostals have been reminded repeat- edly that it is “not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of Hosts” (Zechariah 4:6). As a result, Pentecostals have understood, or at least they have preached, that they are to avoid the excesses of human power and trust in the power of the Spirit to do what God wants. Yet, the linkage between “power of the Spirit” in this thing we call “Baptism in the Spirit,” in which we are expected to receive God’s power for the sake of ministry, is sometimes confusing (cf. Acts 1:8; 2 Timothy 1:7). Without a clear, valid, and ongoing discernment process in place, human power and God’s power sometimes get muddled.29 All too often, what is noth- ing more than human desire, and the human attempt to make that desire a reality, is ascribed to God. Human tradition is enshrined as though it were given directly by God.

Rare is the Pentecostal believer that has not had someone address him or her with the words, “The Lord has told me to tell you….” You can complete the sentence. Sometimes it may come from a well-meaning friend, intent upon helping us make a change. At other times it may come as an attempt to wrest conformity from us by those who differ with us over some issue. At still other times it may come from the pulpits of our churches. Those who lead our denominations may even speak it. From that loca- tion, it has a unique potential and an extraordinary power to assure the maintenance of the status quo and, therefore, to aid the agenda of those who wield power.

This discussion holds implications for the Pentecostal academic com- munity, when human power is mistaken for divine power. Apart from the discernment of the whole Body, it manifests itself through the imposition

Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Discerning the Spirit in the Life of the Church,” in William Barr and Rena Yocum, eds., The Church in the Movement of the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1994), 29–49.

327

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 328

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

of limits upon what Pentecostal scholars are free to pursue as legitimate academic topics.30 It shows itself when leaders come to believe that it is appropriate to attack members of the Pentecostal academic community in public forums without providing opportunity for the accused to speak for themselves or explain their actions.31 The abuse of power takes place in sermons in which pastors lash out against education without understand- ing what it is that they are criticizing. It emerges in classrooms when teachers criticize pastors while distancing themselves from the daily real- ities that pastors face. The abuse of power plays a devious role when our churches rewrite their history in order to make it say what is politically expedient at a particular moment in time. Historians know as well as any- one that telling the truth about the institutions of which they are a part is both a dangerous and difﬁcult business.32

The issue of power also rears its head when older missionary-sending churches suppress the desires of younger churches who have historically received missionaries, to express their own views regarding the nature of the church and their own unique role in that church. Such interference from the older missionary-sending churches negates the power of the younger missionary-receiving churches from participating fully in the church as equals.33 And when our relationship to other churches outside

James K. Bridges, “Assemblies of God Schools and Scholars for the 21st Century,” Enrichment: A Journal of Pentecostal Ministry 4, no. 4 (Fall 1999): 96.

James K. Bridges, “The Full Consummation of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” Enrichment: A Journal of Pentecostal Ministry 5, no. 4 (Fall 2000): 92, 95.

Cf. Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “An Emerging Magisterium? The Case of the Assemblies of God,” The Spirit and Spirituality: Essays in Honour of Russell P. Spittler, eds. Wonsuk Ma and Robert Menzies (NY: T & T Clark International, 2004), 212–52.

In recent years the subject of ecumenical involvement by Pentecostal churches has been a matter of some debate both within the World Assemblies of God Fellowship and the Pentecostal World Conference. In the former, Pastor David Yonggi Cho and Yoido Full Gospel Church have been pressured to cut ecumenical ties to the Korean Council of Churches and not develop ties with the World Council of Churches. In the case of the WCC, this meant that Pastor Cho withdrew support from the participant he had previously authorized from the Joint Consultative Group established in 2000 to work on issues of common inter- est and concern between the World Council of Churches and the Pentecostal churches. In the case of the Pentecostal World Conference, now the Pentecostal World Fellowship, I have received oral reports from members of the executive committee that the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue has been on the agenda of the executive committee in Oslo, Jerusalem, and Los Angeles. From the time of Thomas F. Zimmerman onward, various members of the executive committee have debated how to stop this Dialogue. In some cases, requests have been made that participants be disciplined by their respective denominations. In other cases, executives have resigned in protest for the lack of action they deem essential. In still others, attempts have been made to dissuade non-North American groups from participating in any way.

328

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 329

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

the Movement becomes part of the equation, it thwarts any potential we might otherwise have for addressing the ecumenical challenge. Pentecostals could address this problem if they would take the Gospel seriously, by refusing to seek more power that embraces triumphalism and instead sub- mitting to their rightful place within the Body of Christ over which Christ is the head (1 Corinthians 8:1b and 12:12–27).

4. I am very pleased to note that for over a decade the Society for Pentecostal Theology has played a continuing role in enabling interested Pentecostal leaders and scholars to keep up with what is going on in the various inter- national ecumenical dialogues in which Pentecostals participate. Through the years, the annual meetings have provided opportunities for those who

Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. “Name and Glory: The Ecumenical Challenge,” 78 pp.; Cornelis van der Laan, “Theology of Gerrit Polman: Dutch Pentecostal Pioneer,” Pentecostalism in the Context of the Holiness Revival, Papers of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology (Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, KY: Society for Pentecostal Theology, November 10–12, 1988), 135–51; Peter Hocken, “Signs and Evidence: The Need for Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue on the Relationship between the Physical and the Spiritual,” Old and New Issues in Pentecostalism, Papers of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology (Fresno, CA.: Society for Pentecostal Theology, November 16-18, 1989), 12 pp.; Ralph Del Colle, “The Pursuit of Holiness: A Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue,” Conference Papers on the Theme To the Ends of the Earth (Guadalajara, Mexico: Society for Pentecostal Theology, November 11–13, 1993), 25 pp.; Terrence Crowe, “Towards a Pentecostal Common Witness: Ground Rules and Strategies,” Afﬁrming Diversity, Papers of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology (Wheaton IL, November 10–13, 1994), 22 pp.; Edward Rybarczyk, “Pentecostals and the Eastern Orthodox: Prayer as a Window for Self-Understanding,” Memory and Hope: The SPS at 25 Years, Wycliffe College, March 7–9, 1996 (Toronto, Canada: Society for Pentecostal Theology, 1996), 23 pp.; Kilian McDonnell, “Why Should Pentecostals and Roman Catholics Dialogue?” 7 pp.; Peter Hocken, “Donald Gee: Pentecostal Ecumenist?” 14 pp.; and Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “The International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: What Hard Lessons Have We Learned?” Papers from the 25th Meeting of the SPS and the European Pentecostal and Charismatic Research Association 10–1, July 1995 (Mattersey, Doncaster, England: Society for Pentecostal Theology and the European Pentecostal and Charismatic Research Association, 1996); John Haughey, “Proselytizing as an Ethical Issue,” Purity and Power: Revisioning the Holiness and Pentecostal Movements for the Twenty-First Century, 27th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology (Cleveland, TN: Society for Pentecostal Theology, 1998), 18 pp.; Raymond R. Pﬁster, “The Ecumenical Challenge of Pentecostal Missions: A European Pentecostal Perspective for the 21st Century,” Pentecostal Mission: Issues Home and Abroad at 2000, Papers of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology, March 16–18, 2000 (Kirkland, WA: Society for Pentecostal Theology, 2000), 17 pp.; Kilian McDonnell, “New Ecumenical Challenges and Possibilities from Cardinal Ratzinger’s Declaration Dominus Iesus on Christ and the Church,” Teaching to Make Disciples, Papers of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology, March 8–10, 2001 (Tulsa, OK: Society for Pentecostal Theology, 2001), 381–89; David Zampino, “The Emergence of Convergence: A Brief History of the Convergence Movement and Its Place in Catholic/ Pentecostal Dialogue,” Teaching to Make Disciples, Papers of the 30th Annual Meeting of

329

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 330

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

are interested in the subject to offer papers at the Society meetings.34 The work undertaken to give ecumenism visibility within the Society by peo- ple such as the late Jerry L. Sandidge as well as David du Plessis were among the earliest impulses that opened the door for many to learn of the earliest ecumenical encounters by Pentecostals.35

The careful and selﬂess leadership that Dr. Cheryl Bridges Johns and others have brought to the pre-conference Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue has been a wonderful example of the Society’s support for the subject.36 The willingness of the SPS to appoint delegates to the Commission on Faith and Order of the National Council of Churches and to authorize a delegate to attend the Assembly of the World Council of Churches in

the Society for Pentecostal Theology, March 8–10, 2001 (Tulsa, OK: Society for Pentecostal Theology, 2001), 709–29; Wolfgang Vondey, “An Appeal for a Pentecostal Council for Ecumenical Dialogue,” Teaching to Make Disciples, Papers of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology, March 8–10, 2001 (Tulsa, OK: Society for Pentecostal Theology, 2001), 859–73.

David J. du Plessis, The Spirit Bade Me Go: The Astounding Move of God in the Denominational Churches, rev. ed. (Plainﬁeld: Logos International, 1970); David du Plessis as told to Bob Slosser, A Man Called Mr. Pentecost (Plainﬁeld: Logos International, 1977), 247 pp.; David du Plessis, Simple and Profound (Orleans, MA: Paraclete Press, 1986), 207 pp.; Martin Robinson, “David du Plessis—A Promise Fulﬁlled,” in Jan A.B. Jongeneel, ed., Pentecost, Mission and Ecumenism: Essays on Intercultural Theology: Festschrift in Honor of Professor Walter J. Hollenweger (SIHC 75: Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992), 143–55; Brinton L. Rutherford, “From Prosecutor to Defender: An Intellectual History of David J. du Plessis, Drawn from the Stories of His Testimony,” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2000; Jerry L. Sandidge, “The Pentecostal Movement and Ecumenism: An Update,” Ecumenical Trends 18 (July-August, 1989): 102–6; Jerry L. Sandidge, “An Update on the Ecumenical Activities of Pentecostals,” in Jan A.B. Jongeneel, ed., Experiences of the Spirit: Conferences on Pentecostal and Charismatic Research in Europe at Utrecht University 1989 (SIHC 68: Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1991), 239–46; Jerry L. Sandidge., “A Pentecostal Response to Roman Catholic Teaching on Mary,” Pneuma 4, no. 2 (Fall 1982): 33–42; Jerry L. Sandidge, “Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue: A Contribution to Christian Unity,” Pentecostal Theology 7, no. 1 (Spring, 1985): 41–60; Jerry L. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977– 1982): A Study in Developing Ecumenism, Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity 16, 2 vols. (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987), 933 pp.; Jerry L. Sandidge, “Contextualizing Roman Catholicism,” Evangelical Review of Theology 13 (April 1989): 157–66.

John Haughey, SJ, “Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue,” Panel Discussion on “Healing: Common Belief, Common Practice?” including Donald Gelpi, Ronald A. N. Kydd, Bob Canton, Joe Sneed; The Fivefold Gospel, Patten College, Oakland CA, March 13–15, 1997. Thanks to the work of Liz Mellon, the entire exchange held at the 2000 meeting of the SPS was later published in Ecumenical Trends. Cf. Elizabeth Mellon, “Introducing this issue: A More Excellent Way,” Ecumenical Trends 29, no. 10 (November 2000): 1/145– 2/156; Ralph Del Colle, “Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness: A Roman Catholic Response,” Ecumenical Trends 29, no. 10 (November 2000): 3/147–7/151; Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Do We Agree as to When Evangelism Becomes Proselytism?” Ecumenical Trends 29, no. 10 (November 2000): 7/151–14/158.

330

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 331

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

Harare, Zimbabwe in 1998 is another example of this support. The emergence of the interest group on Ecumenism that has been inaugurated in 2002, largely at the initiative of the Ph.D. candidate Wolfgang Vondey, is yet another ﬁne example of the ecumenical support the SPS has offered. And now we ﬁnd ourselves with a major portion of an annual meeting given over to the discussion of ecumenical issues under the title “Pentecostalism and the World Church.”

The willingness of the Society to provide Pneuma as the foremost Pentecostal literary forum for ecumenical exchange is yet another way in which the SPS has nurtured the ecumenical spirit. If I am not mistaken, Pneuma was the ﬁrst place (Fall 1990) in all of Pentecostal literature to publish the reports of the ﬁrst three quinquenniaof the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, though they had been published previously outside the Pentecostal Movement.37 The report of the third round, “Perspectives on Koinonia,” was published separately in the Dutch Pentecostal periodical Parakleet, the following year.38 The results of the fourth round of discussions were published in Pneuma in 1999, as well as in the Asian Journal of Pentecostal Theology, thereby opening up still more of the Pentecostal world to the discussion.39 More recently, Pneuma,

“Perspectives on Koinonia,” Pentecostal Theology 12, no. 2 (1990): 117–41. The report of the Third Quinquennium of the Dialogue between the Pontiﬁcal Council for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church and some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders, 1989. This document was published in the Pontiﬁcal Council for Promoting Christian Unity’s Information ServiceN. 75 (1990/IV), 179–91.

“Perspectieven op Koinonia,” Parakleet 11, no. 39 (Fall 1991): i–xii.

“Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness,” The Report from the Fourth Phase of the International Dialogue 1990–1997 Between the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders, Pentecostal Theology 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 11-51. This document has been published in English in The Pontiﬁcal Council for Promoting Christian Unity’s Information Service N. 97 (1998/I–II): 38–56; the Asian Journal of Pentecostal Theology2, no. 1 (January 1999): 105–51; and in One In Christ 35, no. 2 (1999): 158–90. It has appeared in French in Service d’information N. 97 (1998/I–II): 38-57; in Portuguese in Diálogo Católico-Pentecostal: Evangelização, Proselitismo e Testemunho Comum (São Paulo, Brazil: Paulinas, 1999), 77 pp.; in Spanish in Diálogo Ecuménico n. 108 (1999): 103–52; and in German with all pre- vious reports in Norbert Baumer and Gerhard Bially, eds., Pﬁngstler und Katholiken im Dialog: Die vier Abschlussberichte einer Internationalen Kommission aus 25 Jahren (Düsseldorf, Germany: Charisma 1999), 59–95. All four of the ﬁnal reports have been pub- lished in Jeffrey Gros, FSC, Harding Meyer, and William G. Rusch, Growth in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical conversations on a World Level 1982– 1998 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans / Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publications, 2000), 713–79.

331

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 332

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

as well as the Asian Journal for Pentecostal Theology, published the ﬁrst report of the International Dialogue between the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and Pentecostals.40

What is every bit as signiﬁcant in the appearance of these reports is the fact that responses to the material have been solicited from scholars representing a variety of ecclesiastical traditions, and these responses have been published with the reports. This practice has served both to continue and to broaden the discussion within the Pentecostal academic commu- nity as well as in the larger church world. Participants in these dialogues have already taken seriously some of the criticisms raised in these responses as these dialogues have continued. Other issues have yet to be addressed.

At the same time, some of the responses that have been published to date have troubled me at points. They have not troubled me because they are not true. They are often very true and they have been very perceptive. They have not troubled me because they have not addressed real issues— they have. Nor have they troubled me because these responses are inap- propriate. They are quite appropriate. The reason some of them have troubled me is because they speak the truth without measuring the polit- ical consequences that some of these criticisms carry for the very exis- tence of these fragile dialogues. In a sense, they are like the proverbial pearls being cast before swine (Matthew 7:6). Clearly, this last statement calls for some careful explanation.

It is unfortunate that we must even consider political consequences when we work in the ﬁelds of history, theology, and ecumenics, but if we are going to call Pentecostal churches to account on the issue of ecu- menical cooperation, we must be careful about the political consequences that our words and actions may trigger when we talk about such things. If we are going to bring about meaningful progress on the issue of ecu- menism, we cannot afford to do what is good in our own eyes as schol- ars, without also helping those who are neither good scholars, nor those who stand “with us,” to see how participation in ecumenism is also good for them. In the words of Jesus, we must be as “wise as serpents and harm- less as doves” (Matthew 10:16). One of the most signiﬁcant reasons for

“Word and Spirit, Church and World: The Final Report of the International Dialogue between Representatives of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders 1996–2000,” Pentecostal Theology 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 9–43; Cf. also the Asian Journal of Pentecostal Theology 4, no. 1 (January 2001): 41–72. It was also published in the Reformed World 50, no. 3 (September 2000): 128–56.

332

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 333

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

this concern comes from the fact that there are Pentecostal leaders who search for weaknesses that they can exploit in order to undermine those who work tirelessly on these and other issues. Let me give you a couple examples of what I mean.

In a recent issue of Pneuma, I found the exchange between Professors Lyle Dabney and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen to be both stimulating and instruc- tive.41 Before I go further, I want it to be known that I consider Lyle Dabney and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen to be good friends. I happen to know that they are very interested in successful ecumenical engagement between Pente- costals and other Christians. As a result, I do not want anyone to understand what I say to be a criticism of either of these scholars or even of the issues raised in their conversation. What I am trying to do is to demonstrate how words may carry implications or consequences that we may not intend.

That being said, I found Professor Dabney’s opinion that the Pentecostals involved in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue “are clearly immo- bilized by a set of cultural and theological assumptions that render them virtually helpless before the theological task that now faces them” to be both interesting and provocative. Dabney goes on to note that aside from a few brief ﬂashes of insight that emerge from their work, they have not developed a theological identity of their own.42 One obvious implication is that the ecumenical project is hampered by the piecemeal acquisition of theologies that do not quite ﬁt Pentecostals; hence the allusion to Saul’s armor. I would guess that most of us in the SPS already know this, and would admit that this was the case. The questions Dabney has raised deserve the best we can give them in terms of our work—both theologi- cal and ecumenical. But what do these concerns, expressed in this way, do for those who are looking for weaknesses to exploit—for ways to under- mine all ecumenical dialogue?

Given that Pentecostals do not have a coherent theological position that is drawn either solely or primarily from the wells of Pentecostal experi- ence, spirituality, and hermeneutics, those antagonistic to ecumenical dia- logue are likely to claim that Pentecostals are currently being disadvantaged in harmful ways at any ecumenical table. Therefore, the Dialogue must end.

D. Lyle Dabney, “Saul’s Armor: The Problem and Promise of Pentecostal Theology Today,” Pentecostal Theology 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001) 115-46, and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “David’s Sling: The Promise and the Problem of Pentecostal Theology Today: A Response to D. Lyle Dabney,” Pentecostal Theology 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 147–52.

Dabney, “Saul’s Armor,” 116.

333

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 334

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

Given that a piecemeal theology is at work in the various dialogues with other churches, a theology that is not truly “Pentecostal,” those Pentecostals who are currently engaged in dialogue are betraying Pentecostal interests. They must be stopped at all cost. Pentecostals must put on hold (read: must cease) all ecumenical dialogue until such time as a mutually accept- able, universal, Pentecostal theology is in place before it can enter into either a genuine or a meaningful ecumenical relationship.

If we look at their concern from another perspective, however, we might be greatly helped. How does this piecemeal theology fare when it is com- pared to or contrasted with what we ﬁnd within our Pentecostal congre- gations or in Pentecostal denominational statements of faith? It strikes me that what is believed by those who frequent Pentecostal churches and what is declared from Pentecostal pulpits is precisely this same kind of eclec- tic theology, a mix of theological positions wedded to aspects of the cul- tures in which the various Pentecostal churches exist. But how are Pentecostals supposed to obtain a truly Pentecostal theology when such a theology has not made its appearance in the ﬁrst century of the Movement’s existence? Who is best suited to develop a coherent Pentecostal theology that is really representative of global Pentecostalism? Is the development of such a theology even possible? And if it is, is it desirable? Is this a the- ology that represents the best thinking of an individual, or a group of scholars like that which is found in the Society for Pentecostal Theology, or is it to be developed elsewhere? Should it be written by scholars, by the people, or solely by those responsible for administrative oversight in the church?

It is as much a result of such questions as it is of Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen’s response to Dabney’s probing that I believe we are still a long way from the successful negotiation of such a process. The issues of Pentecostal identity, Pentecostal hermeneutics, and Pentecostal theology have long been debated within this society, and we are far from agreeing on the con- tours of all of these issues as yet. Such an observation does not give us permission to abandon our quest, but it should place our quest into better perspective. The nature of dialogue is very much a process of discovery, especially when we must work within the limitations that deﬁne Pentecostalism. Perhaps it would be more fruitful if those who are not directly involved with the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches-Pentecostal Dialogue, and the Joint Consultative Group between the World Council of Churches and Pentecostals were to read their reports as “snapshots” along that process

334

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 335

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

of discovery rather than as sophisticated summaries of all that Pentecostals and the others believe on the subjects covered.

Dabney’s assessment and Kärkkäinen’s response point, however, to a second issue that has been picked up elsewhere. It has to do with the enor- mous diversity to be found within the Pentecostal Movement.43 This diver- sity raises questions that need to be answered any time one talks about an international dialogue. If the Pentecostal identity that ﬁnds a place at any ecumenical table is to be taken seriously, it must be self-conscious of its limitations. The same can be said of any Pentecostal theology that might be presented. Both the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches-Pentecostal Dialogue have led respondents to make comments regarding those who sit at the ecu- menical table. Their judgments are that these people are not fully repre- sentative of global Pentecostalism.44

Once again, those who are looking for reasons to end any ecumenical conversation can look at these observations, which are entirely true, and without a context they can move for dismissal. “If we can’t trust the com- position of the participants, how can we trust the results they achieve?” they might ask. What often fails to get noticed in the criticisms regarding the participants is the progress that has been made in getting such dis- cussions going. The criticisms feel as though we must expect the compo- sition, method, language, and outcome to be clear before we can begin any dialogue.

The International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue provides a very clear example of what I mean. When David du Plessis ﬁrst approached the Vatican about the possibility of entering into an international dialogue between Pentecostals and other Christians, he could not get sufﬁcient inter- est within the Pentecostal world to staff the Pentecostal team on the Dialogue. Leaders within the Assemblies of God, in which du Plessis had been a minister, worked tirelessly to put an end to du Plessis’ ecumeni- cal ventures. As a result, du Plessis went outside the classical Pentecostal community to staff the Dialogue. He drew some participants from the

Kärkkäinen, “David’s Sling,” 149.

Cf. the observations of non-member David F. Wells, “Conservative Congregational Christian Response,” Pentecostal Theology 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001), 48; and members, Jennie Everts Powers, “Non-Denominational Pentecostal Response,” Pentecostal Theology 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 73–75; and Paul N. van der Laan, “Dutch Pentecostal Response,” Pentecostal Theology 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 79.

335

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 336

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

ranks of classical Pentecostalism, while others he recruited were active within the Charismatic Renewal within older denominations. Whether the initial participants were Classical Pentecostals or Charismatics, they were all friends of du Plessis. It was as much this friendship and their trust of this one man that brought them together as it was anything else. It was this group that began to provide the outlines of Pentecostal identity and theology that would be passed along to those who participated in the sec- ond round of discussions.

While this method of participant acquisition was sufﬁcient to get the Dialogue started, it was not sufﬁcient to carry it on. Before the second round of discussions began, Rome asked that the Charismatics be replaced with classical Pentecostals. Their reasoning was compelling. Catholics could talk to their own or to Presbyterians or Methodists if they wanted to talk with Charismatics. What they really wanted to do was to talk with classical Pentecostals. The Pentecostals wisely agreed. But du Plessis did not have a full range of academic scholars from which to choose. He was not a scholar himself, so he turned ﬁrst to others of his friends, many of whom were pastors, others of whom were church administrators, a few were interested lay people, and a very few were scholars.

The second round of dialogue was conducted with this new group of people who didn’t always embrace a common understanding of either the nature of the dialogue or the sometimes complicated theological language that was used by Catholics. The lack of training among those who par- ticipated took a toll. The participants did the best they could in their responses to Catholic questions, with occasional bursts of insight. In spite of their overall academic deﬁciencies, the quality of theological material that came from the second round of discussions and its consistency with a range of Pentecostal theologies is clearly better than it was in the ﬁrst round of discussions.

By the third round of discussions, the Society for Pentecostal Theology was open to having some of its members recruited into the dialogue. Attempts were made to recruit scholars from outside North America as well. Several came from the former Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, South Africa, and even Latin America. These scholars were matched with church leaders and pastors from Europe, the United States, and Latin America. Some of these were scholars, but others were pastors and even senior church leaders. In each round of discussion, the Pentecostal delegation changed, matured, and built upon the foundation that the previous round of participants had established.

336

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 337

Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge

If all we do is take the stafﬁng and development of Pentecostal teams into consideration, we must give credit for the growth and maturation of the Dialogue. One simply cannot set this issue aside as if no progress were being made, or claim that the Dialogue is so “helpless” that it cannot engage in any useful theological discussion. It is simply impossible to conceive that the issues of Marian devotion or proselytism could have received the treatment that they did apart from this maturing process. In spite of the progress made, it is still important to remember that Jerry Sandidge lost his missionary appointment after he wrote the Pentecostal paper on Mary.45 The political repercussions are genuine, and as a result, several leaders, including some denominational executives, have partici- pated on the provision that they could remain anonymous.

Financial constraints limit the number and kind of person who can be involved in dialogue at the present time. Today, the number of English- speaking, ﬁnancially viable, experienced persons who are fully capable of representing Pentecostalism in ecumenical dialogue is approaching one hundred. Currently, they must all provide their own ﬁnancial support. Increased ﬁnances would enable translation to occur, with the potential result that the pool of globally representative dialogue candidates for the Pentecostal teams might be doubled. The threat of ministerial discipline to thwart various attempts to recruit participants into the Dialogue has also imposed limitations on the Dialogue’s success in being truly global in its representation.

Perhaps a host of discussions need to take place within the Society for Pentecostal Theology regarding the best way(s) in which to staff all future ecumenical discussions, how they might be successfully funded, what methodologies might be best suited for these discussions, what venues would best serve to bring Pentecostals into contact with the worshipping communities of the other groups, what venues might best serve to show- case the Pentecostal worshipping communities of which we are a part, and what language(s) should be used to make the Dialogue accessible to all. These discussions would also need to factor in the seemingly endless array

The paper presented by Jerry L. Sandidge may be found in his dissertation published in two volumes as Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982): A Study in Developing Ecumenism, Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity 44 (Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang, 1987), 2:289–351. His account of his rejection by Pentecostal lead- ers can be found in 1:332–341. Correspondence between the Assemblies of God and Jerry L. Sandidge is housed in the David du Plessis Archive, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, 91182, USA.

337

Pneuma 26,2 f7_307-338II 2/27/06 11:57 AM Page 338

Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 2, Fall 2004

of Pentecostalisms that have emerged around the world and ask whether we don’t need a variety of such dialogues at various levels. If these dia- logues are to have any impact on the life of the local church, we will need to assess the language and values that are held by our churches and see that they are fairly represented at the table. Furthermore, we will need to decide whether scholars are, in the end and by themselves, the best rep- resentatives of Pentecostal theology, spirituality, and identity, whether the best representatives come from elsewhere, or from a combination of rep- resentatives somewhat similar to that which is already employed.

Because of the differences both in our ecumenical experience (espe- cially given that we have no supportive means of ecumenical formation in any of our churches at present), and because of our differences in denom- ination and training, we will approach ecumenical dialogue with different expectations. Some of these expectations will be extremely resistant to dialogue. Others will be open but sectarian, regional, and/or divergent.

To date, the majority of scholars within the various international dia- logues still come from the Society for Pentecostal Theology. The SPS is, after all, the oldest of academic societies to grace the Pentecostal Movement. Should it be surprising that it has provided the largest number of schol- ars in these dialogues? But things are changing. There are now a series of scholarly academies in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, and in Latin America that are emerging, ready to take their place as peers. How do we tap into these sources in such a way as to enable them to participate fully as peers within this process, in spite of their often more limited ﬁnancial base, in spite of their inability to express themselves adequately in English, and in spite of attempts by our own church leaders to discourage them from participating in any ecumenical forum? The answers are difﬁcult at best, but these are the kinds of questions that will lead to a much fuller repre- sentation and, hence, to a better articulation of what Pentecostalism is about.

Pentecostal interest and participation in ecumenism are still in their infancy. Those who enter the ﬁeld at this time will help to deﬁne the ﬁeld for the future of Pentecostal participation. A variety of churches and orga- nizations exist that are open to Pentecostal participation. The building of bridges between denominations is a rewarding challenge that can bear good fruit. Perhaps most importantly, participation in ecumenical dialogue can open up personal relationships that will enable later cooperative efforts that will help us contribute something positive to the world’s ability to hear the heart of Jesus when he prayed “that they may be one.”

338

Pentecostals And Christian Unity Facing The Challenge

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

Be first to comment Click here to cancel reply.

Cancel reply

He redeems our troubles He heals our scars