The Koinonia Of The Establishment

complete and full deity of Jesus Christ, of the complete and full humanity of Jesus Christ, and of water baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ. (For the last point, see Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 1:13-15; Galatians 2:27; 2:12.) It is probable that Oneness Pentecostals tribute to a fuller understanding of God and to a fuller understanding 19:5; 22:16; Colossians the Book of Acts. could con- of Jesus Christ as both God and the Son of the Apostolic salvific pattern in From the report, it appears that the dialogue has been helpful to make clearer the theological positions of Roman Catholics and Pentecostals. are to be commended for the clear expression of their is continued, however, the views of Oneness in a positive light so that all major The participants views. If the dialogue Pentecostals should be considered theological represented… positions of the Pentecostal movement can be adequately J. L. Hall, Editor in Chief United Pentecostal Church International 8855 Dunn Road Hazelwood, MO 63042 The Koinonia understanding between Catholics and Pentecostals roots (via the Catholic heritage of of the Establishment of our time. Gone are the times-it only sectarians. Catholics is the style First I want to express my deep gratitude for the fact that this report was written and published. It breathes a new spirit of ecumenism and and Pentecostals. Gone are the times-it seems-that Pentecostals considered the Catholic church to be the great whore, the Babylon seems-that Catholics saw in Pentecostalism perhaps even begin to realize that they have common John Wesley). The second point which is worth mentioning of the docu- ment. It is written in a clear and understandable language and avoids the jargon both of the Vatican and the World Council of Churches. its study should be compulsory in Pentecostal and Catholic seminars. I would just like to mention a few points: On the critical side The Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics Section 26 is an expression (26). of Pentecostal hermeneutics which is that is just the problem, for probably acceptable to all Pentecostals. And . the Pentecostal handling of Scripture is by no means clear. If Pente- costals believe “that Scripture is clear in all essential points” and that ‘ therefore “each Christian can interpret Scripture under the guidance of the Spirit and with the help of the discerning Christian community,” the 1 question is: Who is this discerning the instruments Church has a clear-though by Pentecostals observer united Why is it Mission (which was also represented policeman friends in the Black South to judge 155 Christian community its judgments? and what are The Catholic It is the the Pentecostal World Confer- How does one is clear in all by which it expresses in my opinion erroneous-answer. teaching ministry of the Church which articulates itself in the hierarchy. But who is it in Pentecostalism-the local pastor, the denominational leadership, the ecumenical community, ence ? The first has proved to be dangerous (although many Pentecostal pastors behave as if they were the sole teachers in the church), the second has proved to be wrong many times, the third is still not accepted and the fourth does not articulate “judgments in matters of faith and practice through the use of Scripture.” Every knowledgeable knows that Pentecostalism is not in its judgment in matters of faith and practice. That is why they have many different interpretations on such important issues as the Bap- tism of the Spiritl and, more important even, on issues of social ethics. that Frank Chikane, a Pentecostal Pastor, Secretary of the South African Council of Churches and member of the Apostolic Faith in the dialogue) was tortured by a who was a member of his own church? The torturer thought he was being obedient to Scripture, the tortured (and his ever-growing African Pentecostal movement) thought he was being obedient to Scripture by opposing a regime which he believed be in strict opposition to the tenets of Christianity.2 such an issue if-as Pentecostals believe-Scripture matters of faith and practice? And who belongs to the discerning com- munity : the torturer, the tortured, or both? Similar issues arise in Latin America between those Pentecostals who consider loyalty to the United States part of their biblical obedience and those Pentecostals who take the exact opposite view. These are not secondary points. These are issues of life and death. Pentecostals can only speak on Scripture as they do by closing their eyes to the many theological and social ethical con- troversies in their ranks or-worse-by declaring heretics. That was the position which the mainline churches took at the beginning of Pentecostalism. I consider the issue of biblical hermeneutics an unsolved question in Pentecostal- ism (of course not only in Pentecostalism) who disagree with them to be the carpet by generalised statements. . Section Similar observations those Pentecostals which cannot be swept under ‘ 47: are necessary in relation to point 47: “For all Pentecostals there is no coming to Christ apart from a person’s turning ISee on this the work of the South African theologian H. L. Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of “Spirit-Baptism” in the Charismatic Renewal Move- ment. Peabody, Ma.: Hendrickson, 1988. 2See Frank Chikane, No Life of My Own: An Autobiography. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbuis Books, 1988 for an account of this incident. 2 156 . away from sin in repentance…. Baptism is withheld until after a per- son’s conscious conversion.” Here the question is: What constitutes a conversion? A turning away from the sin of violence and racism, from the sin of greed and lust for power? If that is part of “turning away from sin,” the Pentecostals would have to withhold baptism from a great many of their members. But if it is not part of conversion, what kind of a conversion is this? Or to take the above mentioned example: Who has turned away from sin and experienced a conscious conversion-the torturer, or the tortured, or both, or neither of them? Of course I do not oppose the practice of adult baptism, but, if “con- scious conversion” is a pre-condition for baptism, the term “conversion” must either be so watered down as to make it virtually meaningless or else-and that would be the way forward-adult baptism is not adminis- tered on the basis of a person’s turning away from sin but on the basis of his/her confession and in hope and faith that Christ begins a new work in him or her-which no longer makes adult baptism substantially different from infant baptism. ‘ ‘ Section 87: It would have been helpful if Pentecostals had discussed in more detail the status and the position of the Pope. As it stands now, section 87 is a very tame text. A Roman Pontiff who has “full, supreme, and universal power over the Church” is in my opinion not only thoroughly unbiblical but also probably the greatest hindrance to growth and spirituality in the Catholic Church and to ecumenical fellowship with other Christians. This is realized by many Catholics. They oppose the “full, supreme, and universal power of the Pontiff over the Church” both in theory and in practice, and they do not cease to be Catholics. Some Catholic re- searchers have even told me that only Protestants still believe in the infallibility of the Pope. One would have wished a more thorough dis- cussion of this great obstacle to ecumenism and on this controversy within the Catholic church. That does not mean that there is no room for a “Petrine ministry” but there is no room for a juridical power for the Pontiff. Perhaps Pentecostals did not dare to tackle this point because they know only too well that they themselves have become very clerical and that some Pentecostal pastors or executives have powers which would make the Pope envious. But would that not be a ‘ case for mutual repentance? Finally a word on the composition of the dialogue committee. Pente- costalism is now mainly a Third World movement. Its growing poinxs and its spiritual vitality lie in the Third World. The greater part of Catho- lics equally live in the Third World. This fact, however, is in no way expressed by the composition of the committee. It is mainly a “koinonia of the establishment.” The Catholics and the Pentecostals of the West have met (with a few exceptions) to talk about koinonia. That is a glar- ing weakness. I know how difficult it is to bring the Christians of the ‘ ‘ ‘ 3 157 . Third World into the discussion. But difficulties are no reason for failing to do it. If one talks about “koinonia” one should tackle the real issues of koinonia. Some of the issues which I have mentioned-and many more-would have been treated in quite a different way had the commit- tee been representative of the world church. These critical statements should not detract from the extremely helpful quality of the report. However, it is to be hoped that now the dialogue has come of age, the controversial issues within and without Pente- costalism and Catholicism are boldly articulated and that those con- cerned, namely the poor and the powerless (and those not speaking English!), are no longer excluded from koinonia. It is always an omi- nous sign when the powerful of this world put aside their ideological differences in order to present a common front against the have-nots. This is not to say that this has happened in the Catholic/Pentecostal dia- logue. It is up to the next phase of dialogue to show that this is a com- . pletely wrong impression. If such a thing is attempted, Pentecostals and Catholics will find out how difficult koinonia is because of the different styles of debate, the different languages, the division between “oral” and “literary” speech and the vastly different cultures, in spite of a common ideology or theol- ogy. It could well turn out that Western Catholics find it easier to speak to Western Pentecostals, and Third World Pentecostals find it easier to speak to Third World Catholics. It is also well known that the intercul- . – .. tural dialogue has proved extremely difficult both in the Vatican and in the World Council of Churches. But Pentecostals who, hopefully, are still nearer to their grassroots, who know something of the surprise of the Spirit, and who believe in the guidance of the Spirit more than any other Christian body-why should they not break new ground in this thorny issue? – Professor Walter J. Hollenweger CH-3704 Krattigen, Switzerland. Perspectives on Koinonia: A Response . This is an impressive document. It scans a wide range of issues yet stays in focus. It spotlights common concerns of Roman Catholics and Pentecostals yet illuminates brightly the differences between the two traditions. It canvasses the theological developments of our century yet stakes out new claims yet to be explored. Its drafters are to be commended on its clarity, honesty, and win- someness. Rarely does a committee do its work with such grace. In this posture of wide-eyed admiration I offer a few brief comments-largely 4