Pentecostals And The Apostolic Faith Implications For Ecumenism

61 Pentecostals and the Apostolic Faith: Implications for Ecumenism Cecil M. Robeck, Jr.* . I The Pentecostal Movement began in this country with a basic commitment to the Apostolic Faith, and a fundamental ecumenical optimism Within a few short years, however, the dominance of certain personalities, the wide cultural and theological diversity of the movement, its responses to what might be termed “perse- cution,” and its newly-forming alliances, would work together to mask the validity of the second half of this assertion. Yet a quick review of the earliest Pentecostal sources is all that is necessary to confirm it. It was not an optimism which would give rise to a formal ecumenism based upon the confession of a specific theological creed,2 nor one based upon a prescribed organizational structure.3 It was an optimism based upon a specific experience of the Spirit interpreted in the light of certain restorationist impulses. Terms such as the “Apostolic Faith,” “Latter Rain,” “Pentecostal,” even “Full Gospel” were borrowed freely by Pentecostals from their Holiness forebears and reapplied/interpreted to describe the movement as standing in continuity with all past Christians. They were also used to point to uniquenesses which separated them from the past, as well as some theologies of the present.4 Use of these terms implied a direct relationship between the teachings and. experiences of twentieth century Pentecostals and those of the first century apostolic Church. At the same time it also implied perceived inadequacies in the teaching and/ or experience of many within the historic churches where most early Pentecostals had first worshipped.s In spite of their criticisms of historic denominations, early Pentecostals believed that they were participating in the latest movement of the Holy Spirit which would ultimately sweep the entire church.6 Amelia Yeomans, M.D. was typical of many in those early years when she testified that her new experience had given her “… a sudden impulse of fellowship with all who name the name of Christ.”7 Black Pentecostal leader William J. Seymour, pastor of the “Azusa Street” Mission in Los Angeles, announced in the first issue of his very influential paper The Apostolic Faith, that this movement “stands for the restoration of the faith once delivered unto the saints-the old time religion, camp meetings, revivals, missions, street and prison work and Christian Unity , 1 62 everywhere. “8 W. F. Carothers, who served as a Field Director for the Apostolic Faith Movement of Charles Parham in Texas during those formative years, contended that “the restoration of Pentecost means ultimately the restoration of Christian unity, and the two messages have come to us together in this Movement.” Arising as they did from the more radical stream of the American Holiness tradition, the earliest Pentecostals sought first to share their experience and their convictions primarily among their holiness friends in Holiness churches, and in the popular Holiness press. In many cases they were successful in finding a receptive audience. Holiness papers such as Word and Work (Framingham, Ma.), and the Triumphs of Faith (Oakland, Ca.) were transformed into Pentecostal papers soon after news began to arrive about the meetings at Azusa Street. In addition, many congregations, and several Holiness denominations such as the Church of God in Christ (Memphis, Tn.), the Fire Baptized Holiness Church now the Pentecostal Holiness Church (Oklahoma City, Ok.), and the Church of God (Cleveland, Tenn.) became Pentecostal almost overnight. Yet for the most part secular papers treated the fledgling movement with disdain while Holiness papers urgently warned their readers against participation in the movement.” Confron- tations often took place with repudiation moving regularly between periodical and pulpit.’2 . Unlike many of their Holiness predecessors, most early Pente- costals adopted a premillennial position on eschatology. In all probability this resulted from their perception that their own existence as a movement was an indication that they were in the last days as prophesied by Joel (2:28-29), and that history was rapidly drawing to a close. Were they not the “Latter Rain” movement, a harbinger of things to come? Did it not have implications for mission, evangelization, and sanctification? While they did not share fully the dispensational interests of many who aligned themselves with emerging Fundamentalism, 13 as a result of their self-understanding, many shared a significant interest in calendars of prophetic events, an interest which, among white Pentecostals in particular, was fanned through the wide- spread reliance on the Scofield Reference Bible and attendance at various fundamentalist prophecy conferences. Yet here, too, Pente- costals were rebuffed. Whether dispensational or not, like the Holiness movement before it, as well as those within the historic churches, Fundamentalism did not wish to be identified with Pentecostals. Undoubtedly theological issues played a part, but so did social, cultural, and racial issues. Indicative of fundamentalist feelings toward Pentecostals were two pamphlets written between 1910 and 1915. About 1911 Harry 2 63 A. Ironside wrote a pamphlet titled “Apostolic Faith Missions and the So-Called Second Pentecost.” In this pamphlet he sought to describe the excesses of the movement and expose its theological inconsistencies. His findings brought him, as he put it, “unhesi- tatingly” to ask “What spirit, think you, can this be?” and “Is anything more needed to show what is the source of these manifestations?”14 His “evidence” together with his rhetorical questions, were intended to lead the reader to conclude that the movement was surely not of God. Similarly, Reuben A. Torrey, President of the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, authored a tract titled “Is the Present ‘Tongues’ Movement of God?” 1 he answer he set forth was “It is not.” He viewed it as a movement upon which God has set the stamp of His disapproval in a most unmistakable way in His Word, and also in what He has permitted to develop in connection wi-th it. It is a movement that everyone who believes and obeys the Word of God should leave severely alone except to expose, as there with it.15 may be occasion, the gross errors and evils connected lf Pentecostals needed more evidence that they were not appreci- ated by American Christians generally, it came in 1918 with the publication of Counterfeit Miracles, the work of orthodox Presbyterian B. B. Warfield, who argued that genuinely miraculous gifts had disappeared entirely “… at the death of the last individual on whom the hands of the Apostles had been laid Pentecostal claimants to the miraculous were encouraged to look elsewhere than to God to discover their source. Excluded from many segments of the church, Pentecostals often found themselves on the defensive. They had understood them- selves to be proclaimers of the Gospel, as bringers of Good News. 17 Reaction had been swift, however, with charges of fanaticism, sectarianism, and schism mongering. They were labeled with derogatory appellations such as the “tongues” movement, or “holy rollers,” terms by which attempts were made to reduce them to something they were not, a “one issue” people. 18 They sought to proclaim the immanence of a living God in human lives as experienced through the Holy Spirit, to proclaim God as one who could be experienced in power and in ways other than solely through the mind. Instead, they were told that they were “uneducated,” that they were “not very intelligent, “19 that some “seemed fit candidates for an insane asylum, evidently with small mentality and on the edge of nervous wreck,”20 and that what they had really experienced was “a recrudescence of psychic phenomena of a low stage culture. ”21 Inevitably their lower class, often black, . 3 64 often uneducated, They sought passages approach Fundamentalism, were genuine often rural, often enthusiastic character of God, as often poor, ‘ biblicism worked against them. to emphasize the unchangeable revealed in Jesus Christ, through frequent appeals to such biblical as Hebrews 13:8. Aimee Semple McPherson, like many of her day, sought to clarify that point by asking “Is Jesus Christ the Great I Am? or Is He the Great I In response, the answer came that their movement as a whole was not demonstrative of the unchanging character of God, but rather was a work “of the flesh and the devil.”23 They were told that they needed a more critical to Scripture. To say, however, that all fault in the interchange lay with the historic churches, with the Holiness Movement, or with emerging would clearly be to misread the evidence. There excesses which resulted from unrestrained exhuber- ance at the freshness of their new experience sometimes a naive acceptance of ever newer and sometimes as preachers and evangelists sought differentiate themselves from one another. There were sometimes employed, also because they lacked mentors earlier Christian leaders who took questionable teaching, questionable methods excitement, but among their “experience.” assessment of spirituality which often led to unnecessary evangelization In spite church, country. Through published purpose of God. There was more to in part because of their own and models seriously which came in their in general There was a certain triumphalism and of spiritual experience and unfair judgments upon those who did not share the same world-view, interpretation of Scripture, or experience. There was little distinction made between genuine and what could properly be called proselytism. And there were those among them who merely saw the movement as a way to further their own careers. of their own faults and their criticisms of the larger there were those Pentecostals who kept the true ecumenical vision in the forefront. W. F. Carothers was one such person in this the mid-1920s he convened several “unity conferences” in St. Louis, Chicago, and Owensboro, Kentucky. He a periodical called The Herald of the Church, with the of carrying news of these conferences, and he placed a number of non-Pentecostal bodies on the mailing list, hoping to draw them into dialogue with Pentecostals. He envisioned inter- of the Church,” regional bodies. He even circulated Unity of the Church” which had appeared World Conference on Faith and Order, complete with an apolo- for doing so. In Europe, Anglican vicar Alexander A. Boddy, one who had a national “Councils getic to settle differences between a “Prayer for the Peace and in the literature of the , 4 65 Pentecostal experience, but remained an Anglican throughout his life was instrumental in unity efforts throughout Europe, hosting a series of conferences at his All Saints Church in Sunderland, England, and providing news and teaching in his periodical called Confidence. 24 It was not until the 1940s that Pentecostals were taken very seriously in the United States by those who were themselves not identified with the movement. Pentecostals had formed into a number of clearly defined groups several of which were asked in November, 1941 to participate in what would become the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).25 This openness to Pente- costalism was due largely to the vision of one man, Dr. Harold John Ockenga, who would later become the first President of the NAE. But this acceptance was almost too good for many Pentecostals to believe. Writing to Ockenga as late as 1943, J. R. Flower, secretary of the Assemblies of God, spoke for many Pentecostals when he said: ; ‘ Previously, we have been held off at arms length. The attitude of the NAE has encouraged and emboldened us. And still, some are their crossed lest the . holding fingers good fortune that has come to them be finally lot.26 To be sure, other coalitions already existed. Some Funda- mentalists, following the lead of Carl McIntire, had formed the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC) in 1940, but they clearly opposed any Pentecostal participation. As a result they were viewed neither as conciliatory nor constructive.27 The older Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America (FCCCA), soon to be restructured to form the National Council of Churches of Christ (NCCC), as Robert Handy has pointed out, was dominated by “those informed by liberal theology and the social gospel. 1128 It was apparently the “liberal theology” which had kept many Pente- costals from affiliating with the FCCCA. Flower, cited the “decidedly evangelical” nature of the Assemblies of God, for instance, as a primary factor in why that Pentecostal group had not previously affiliated with the FCCCA.29 Pentecostal participation in the NAE did not` come easily. It was challenged both from within3° and from without.31 Yet in the end, Pentecostals were brought into wider contact with fundamentalist and evangelical Christians than ever before. Those Pentecostal groups which joined the NAE were also brought into closer contact with each other. As a result, in 1948 they formed the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America (PFNA) for further cooperative efforts.32 The 1940s brought greater cooperation between Pentecostals worldwide as well. In May, 1947 a meeting was convened in Zurich, 5 66 Switzerland as the first Pentecostal World Conference. Out of it grew the Pentecostal World Fellowship with a new periodical, Pentecost, edited by British Pentecostal, Donald Gee. His forward look in worldwide Pentecostal circles was decidedly centrifugal. His regular editorials in Pentecost were frequently filled with information from, and interaction with, non-Pentecostal Christians, and he regularly exhorted his subscribers to work for greater Christian unity.33 His voice was soon joined by that of the secretary of the Pentecostal World Conferences, David J. du Plessis, through guest editorials.34 While Donald Gee was unable to convince the Pentecostal Movement of the value of interacting with the larger Church, or of the importance of working toward visible expressions of Christian unity35 he never lost his ecumenical vision.36 Yet the vision was picked up and furthered by David du Plessis who, from 1954 onward, frequented a host of ecumenical gatherings of the World Council of Churches, ministered in hundreds of historic and Pentecostal churches, provided wisdom to scores of leaders in the charismatic renewal of the church, co-chaired a decade of bilateral dialogues with the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity of the Vatican, and ultimately moved to Pasadena where he acts as the Resident Consultant on Ecumenical Affairs for Fuller Theological Seminary. From 1950 onward, the larger church became even more aware of the impact that Pentecostalism was having around the world. Dr. John A. Mackay, President of Princeton Theological Seminary, encouraged du Plessis to participate in ecumenical activities. Leslie Newbegen’s book The Household of God and Henry Pitney Van Dusen’s assessment in “Carribbean Holiday,” Christian Century (August 17, 1955) drew special attention to the growing Pentecostal contributions to the worldwide church. Charismatic renewal among members of virtually all Christian groups has pointed even more significantly to the contributions of Pentecostals through the years. As we near the end of 1986, estimates of the impact of Pentecostalism based upon its reported size are substantial.37 The movement as a whole points toward an ever increasing commit- ment to the worldwide church, but it does not do so without some difficulty. 6 67 II As the ecumenical enterprise is assessed from a Pentecostal perspective several areas of mutual concern begin readily to emerge. Areas of agreement are also clearly present. There is reason for some optimism for the future of fruitful conciliar and Pente- costal interaction. It is on a discussion of some of these differences and similarities that our attention is now focused with the hope that some suggestions will rise from the discussion. l. Disagreement appears to exist on some basic definitions. One example of this is the subject of whaL constitutes Christian unity. Pentecostals are well known for the use of “fellowship” or koininia language. They often speak of Christian unity. When they do so, however, their immediate understanding is that Christian unity, genuine koinonia, or true “ecumenism,” is a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit which presupposes a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Unity is something which exists between individuals as a result of that relationship, and it needs merely to be recognized. It is organic, internal, and spiritual. As such, it is for the most part invisible.38 Because most Pentecostals see unity as something spiritual, they believe that they have true ecumenism or genuine koininia with all Christians who have a personal relationship with God. Because they believe Christian unity is spiritual, they place a high value on the concept of the doctrine of the invisibility of the true church pioneered by Augustine, Calvin, and others.39 They recognize the visible Church, including Pentecostal congregations, as composed of “Christians” and “not Christians,” true believers alongside the sacramentalized but unevangelized, or that in Augustine’s language, sue, Pentecostals wonder whether the “ecumenical movement” does not manifest a kind of parochial attitude in which it is assumed that outside the formal “ecumenical movement” and the structured bilateral or multilateral dialogues, no ecumenism is occurring. What is occurring is viewed as negatively sectarian, as an embarrassment, or as something simply to be ignored. Pentecostals would argue, however, that their “experience” is truly an ecumenical the visible Church contains both “wheat” and “tares.” Thus, to speak of Christian unity or ecumenism as an “ecumenical movement” is often disconcerting. Pentecostals have a difficult time accepting the notion of an ecumenical movement as an organized attempt to manifest Christian unity. To them such an idea has the earmarks of a human organization rather than a divine organism, a sort of Babel revisited. On the other side of the issue, Pentecostals wonder whether the 7 68 “ecumenical movement” does not manifest a kind of parochial attitude in which it is assumed that outside the formal “ecumenical movement” and the structured bilateral or multilateral dialogues, no ecumenism is occuring. What is occuring is viewed as negatively sectarian, as an embarrassment, or as something simply to be ignored. Pentecostals would argue however, that their “experience” is truly an ecumenical force, that their “movement” is a form of “grassroots” ecumenism. Pentecostals would contend that such cross denominational parachurch organizations as the Full Gospel Business Men’s International and Women’s Aglow Fellowship are examples of ecumenism at the grass roots. Pentecostals would assert that denominations such as the Assemblies of God which was founded as a voluntary, cooperative “fellowship” under the title of a General Council, or the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, whose founder, Aimee Semple McPherson dedicated the mother church, Angelus Temple to “the cause of interdenominational and worldwide evangelism” are truly ecu- menical. One could also submit that the appearance of Charismatic renewal within the historic, Catholic, Greek, Protestant, Holiness, and Fundamentalist churches bears witness to the ecumenism which exists in this genuine experience of God. 2. The significance of doctrine is an area of concern which could be explored. In the early days of the Pentecostal Movement, experience was stressed and doctrine was assumed. What really brought the early Pentecostals together was a mutually shared experience of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit. T. B. Barratt saw as the chief mark of all genuine Christian unity “fellowship in the Blood of Jesus ( John 1.7). “40 A second experience which brought these Pentecostals together was what they chose to identify as “baptism in the Spirit.” Initial emphasis was not placed upon doctrine. Indeed, creeds were often viewed as sectarian 41 as means of division, and as sources of persecution rather than rallying points for Christian unity. Leonard Lovett is quite correct when he notes that the founders of the Church of God in Christ “… did not have theology or creeds on their agenda, yet there was an intense desire to be doctrinally sound in deed and truth. “42 What Lovett cites as true for the COGIC could be applied almost universally to all early Pentecostals.43 Apostolic Faith as articulated in doctrine, was important. It was the focus of division between the older “Holiness” Pentecostal churches and those who, following the lead of William Durham, adopted a “Finished Work” approach to sanctification.44 It was also the doctrine of the Trinity which separated “Jesus Name” Pentecostals from all others.45 Especially among those Pentecostal groups which hold member- 8 69 . ship in the NAE, doctrine which does serve several valuable purposes,46 has become increasingly important. Hence, a concern that the Apostolic Faith as it has appeared in orthodox expressions of the past may not now be taken seriously enough by churches in the “ecumenical movement,” has led to the formulation of state- ments by some Pentecostal groups, among them the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, the International Pentecostal Church of Christ, and the Assemblies of God, that openly question whether doctrinal integrity has been sacrificed at the expense of a false sense of “fellowship,” and that the Apostolic Faith has been largely reduced to the recitation of a “creed.”47 It also forms the back- ground against which some Pentecostals in this country48 and in the worldwide Pentecostal movement49 continue to make strong and often strident pronouncements against formal ecumenical efforts. Yet, what James D. G. Dunn has written only recently is a pointed reminder of where all of us stand. We all only ‘see in a mirror dimly’. We all know only ‘in part'( I Cor. 13:12). The full light of God’s truth which will swallow up our partial insights and provisional formu- lations has ‘ yet to shine in full strength on our petty and disordered minds.5° Thus, a position which is consistent with the Apostolic Faith, as “once for all delivered to the saints,”from a Pentecostal perspective, is one which sees the strengths and weaknesses of doctrine, holds to the highest possible level of commitment to Christian orthodoxy,51 and affirms the experience of God’s power in daily life. 3. Fear is a key issue which needs to be addressed. It could probably be said that as early as 1960, Donald Gee identified fear as the single most significant issue working against Christian unity. Shortly before his death in 1966, he reminded Walter Hollenweger of its importance as a major factor from a Pentecostal vantage point.52 Fear is something which continues to dominate the agenda of Pentecostals as they look toward formal ecumenical activity, whether it be that of conciliar Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. Pentecostals fear some of the theology of more’liberal Christianity. They are not themselves highly trained theologically. They are more pragmatic in nature. Yet they do attempt to maintain some form of conservative doctrinal orthodoxy. They also fear the formalism which is sometimes apparent, and sometimes real among the more liturgical communions. Many Pentecostals came from liturgical churches originally in which they felt a lack of spiritual vitality which they associated with a too cerebral approach to faith, one which sacrificed experience to the god of scientific under- standing. They fear spiritual starvation, a kind of “Churchianity” 9 70 without the Spirit, and the potential loss of either spirituality or, more significantly, total salvation. And they fear Roman Catholics and many of the Reformation churches because of the sometimes intense opposition which these churches have encouraged in the past, and sometimes manifest in the present, particularly in Latin America. But lest it should appear that fear is only on the Pentecostal side, it should be said that many historic churches, as well as Holiness and Fundamentalist churches, have feared the exhuberance and spontaneity in worship which most Pentecostals treasure. They fear the excesses which are possible, the abuses which are often present, the possibility for chaos among people who hold dear the Pauline injunction of decency and order (1 Cor. 14:40). They fear, too, the implicit criticism inherent in a theology of a so-called “second” or even “third blessing,” a theology that implies that to experience anything less is to have less than the “full Gospel” or to bear witness to less than the whole Apostolic Faith. They fear the enshrinement of experience at the expense of rationality, and the trivialization of the mysterium. Pentecostals are feared, too, because of what is perceived as their active “proselytism” in some areas of the world. Yet, as’Gee observed, “none of us can grow to a fuller stature in Christ Jesus without that which others can supply.”53 The axiom that contact ultimately leads to compromise may be helpful to control individual, even some corporate actions, but it would not seem to be true. That contact might ultimately bring about change is a more accurate statement, but its purpose should be to bring about change which accords more closely with the Truth as it is reflected through the Word, and through persons who have mutual respect for one another based upon a genuine relationship of koinonia. Pentecostal participation in the National Association of Evangel- icals has had many positive benefits. It has helped to broaden the classical Pentecostal perspective toward the larger Evangelical world. It has broken down many walls and encouraged broadly based cooperation, theoretically, “without compromise.” Yet, it has cost some Pentecostal groups a great deal. The price of – acceptance has included changes which are viewed by some Pentecostals precisely, as “compromises.” Prior to involvement in the NAE, much of the Pentecostal movement in the US had a strong pacifistic strain. Since then, it has been virtually lost.54 Many Pentecostals had a strong “social concern,” even though it was left largely to individuals. As a result of a perspective which wrongly ties “social action” only with “liberal theology,” much of this perspective has been lost.55 Pentecostals, like many of their Holiness forebears, have traditionally given wide ranging oppor- 10 been severely been hampered, Thus, real fears need once again afresh appears 4. this century, and contributed divisions, others the opportunity bearing From a Pentecostal 71 for the sake of continued contact has involved Yet, ‘ themselves, need to assess of what once was, or the anamnfsis of ancient there is much in the larger tunity to women in ministry, but in recent years this distinctive has eroded.56 The opening up of Pentecostals to what God might be doing in the conciliar movement appears to have too, by “compromise” acceptability.5’ It appears that for many Pentecostals, compromise. Pentecostal fears of the conciliar churches are which are based upon their own past experience. neither the NAE, nor the conciliar movement, needs to be held totally to blame for this. Pentecostals, what appears actually to be a crisis of their own discipleship. They to become truly “Pentecostal,” closing themselves off from compromises in their contacts, but opening themselves to changes which are truly mandated by the Gospel as it in the Word and as it is seen lived out through the lives of others. The ‘bearing of false witness is an item of mutual concern. During many changes have occurred in all the churches which need to be evaluated on their own merit. If fear has kept us apart, then self-righteous stereotypes what might have been, misunderstandings based upon partial truth, faded memories of old battles from years gone by, have to the reinforcement of that fear. The continued propagation of time worn stereotypes, the failure to investigate fresh evidences, and to allow in for growth and change, perpetuates the of false witness. perspective, church to be affirmed, especially since the arrival of charismatic Yet Pentecostals haven’t known fully how to respond to since those who have now experi- maintain their traditional doctrines and do not necessarily adopt classical Pentecostal I has also brought with it significant changes in practice some change in doctrine. The move by Rome to view who confess Jesus Christ as Lord, as brothers and sisters, is an extremely significant still view Roman Catholics through Vatican II lenses. The current Roman Catholic/ Pentecostal Dialogue, the Secretariat for Unity (Vatican cries out for more formal leadership. misrepresentation, renewal. charismatic renewal, especially enced “Pentecost,” Vatican as well as non-Roman Catholics “separated” Yet most Pentecostals a continuing theological dialogue Promoting Christian world-wide Pentecostal movement, participation by Pentecostal ship, can lead to continued false witness. mores.58 one.59 pre- between City), and members of the To withhold clear leader- or the bearing of 11 72 To resort to name-calling such as that which treats the entire ecumenical movement as the forerunner to “the religious Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18,”60 is equally problematic. Even if it were the case that Pentecostals should have legitimate criticisms of the “ecumenical movement” concerning such things as doctrinal integrity, or the seriousness with which the message of the uniqueness of Christianity among world religions is taken, judgments which ascribe an almost demonic characterization to other Christians is tantamount to bearing false witness. 5. Review of priorities is a possible area for dialogue. In the heat of past assessments, Pentecostals and the conciliar churches have criticized one another for having what each judges to be an insufficiently prioritized agenda. Pentecostals have chided the conciliar movement for “displacing the urgency of individual salvation with social concerns.”6’ On the other side, Pentecostals have been criticized repeatedly, for having an inadequate approach to issues of social justice.62 Yet, if we are, in fact, members of the one church of Jesus Christ, for us to criticize in the other a point of weakness (especially if we consider it to be a strength to which we can bear unique witness), and at the same time to refuse to participate with the other to help it overcome its weakness, is to disobey our Lord. Much work on issues of evangelism, missions, and social justice remains undone. We need to recognize both individual and corporate dimensions of sin and salvation. We need truly to preach a “Full” Gospel. We need to take seriously how profoundly the biblical Gospel speaks even to the relationship between Pente- costals and the “ecumenical movement.” We need once again to recognize the power of the Gospel not only to transform the hearts of pagans into Christians, but Christians into true servants of their professed Lord, with agendas appropriately prioritized. Perhaps, in the interest of genuine Christian diversity these two movements, the Pentecostal and the Ecumenical, have been called forth by the Spirit to supplement the work of one another, engaging in more “blessing” and less “criticism” of one another, and providing a new and profound witness to the power of the Gospel as it is proclaimed in the form of the Apostolic Faith, which we best confess together. 6. There are reasons for optimism as we look to the future. Over the past thirty years a remarkable change has taken place among churches worldwide. Charismatic renewal, one of several renewal movements to enter the churches during these years, has emerged to bring about new vigor, greater commitment, and heightened expectations among many Christians. It may yet prove to be the most significant ecumenical factor of this century, and it is a 12 73 renewal movement very much akin to the Pentecostal ideal. Scores of groups have shown interest in this renewal as is evidenced by the fine collection of documents on the subject, edited by Kilian McDonnell.63 The World Council of Churches has also demonstrated repeated interest in charismatic developments in recent years, through a series of consultations conducted at Stony Point and Schwanberg in 1978, and in Bossey, Switzerland in 1980. The publication of The Church is Charismatic and the dedication of two recent issues of the International Review of Mission to the subjects of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement, join several previous WCC publications over a 25 year period to demonstrate an attempt by the WCC to gain a better understanding of what has been happening in these renewal movements.64 Such concern and interest cannot help but contribute to a broadened perspective. In recent years other literary voices have been added to those which seek greater expression of visible Christian unity. They are attempting to reach out and ask new questions, concentrating on areas of common agreement, reaching back to the root of the Apostolic Faith within their own traditions, and prodding Christians ever onward, toward greater acceptance of one another.65 These, too, are to be affirmed for the valuable service they are performing. The ongoing dialogue between the Secretariat for the Promoting of Christian Unity, and certain Pentecostals, is also a bright spot. Now in its third quinquennium, this dialogue has spawned two books,66 and a host of articles. It, too, is engendering a greater understanding, and hopefully, it is laying a firm foundation for fruitful contacts in the future. In recent days, a number of Pentecostal denominations have voiced an increased level of interest in this dialogue, clearly a hopeful development. The openness of the Commission on Faith and Order of the National Council of the Churches of Christ, and the support given to Pentecostal participation in Faith and Order during this triennium, during which time its primary objective is a major study of the Apostolic Faith, sends an important message to the Pentecostal churches of a genuine interest which is being expressed by Conciliar Christians in what Pentecostals think. Willingness support such a consultation as this one, and to seek for an to open dialogue on issues of mutual concern, is also indicative of that interest. Brother Jeffery Gros is to be affirmed for his willingness to expand the conciliar dialogue on the subject of the Apostolic Faith to include input from non-member traditions, and in particular, from the millions of Pentecostals represented in this country and in the Third World. 13 74 7. If the Pentecostal witness to the Apostolic Faith is to be taken seriously, a comprehensive plan for increasing respect among all members of the one church of our Lord Jesus Christ should be sought, a plan which should include several components. (A) Any attempt for further dialogue should note the places where these various traditions agree, in light of the fact that Pentecostals, like their Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Holiness, and historic Christian sisters and brothers, hold to a basic commitment to the Apostolic Faith as it is revealed in Scripture. There are many. Dialogue should be encouraged which makes it clear that no form of imperialism, whether it be theological, creedal, sacramental, or experiential is at stake. What matters first is the mutual discovery of the points where we do agree. (B) Continued patience with one another is of critical impor- tance in all future contacts. Fear is a critical problem to be overcome, and the conquest of fear is a direct result of genuine love ( 1 John 4:18); consistent pursuit, and boundless patience. If Christian unity is, as Pentecostals claim, a spiritual phenomenon based upon a work of the Holy Spirit who has baptized us into one Body ( Corinthians 12:13), yielding genuine koinonia, then for us to live ion that koininia means that there is no future for one member without the other. If that be the case, then an abundance of patience is called for when there are disagreements on all matters of doctrine, polity, lifestyle, and priorities. (C) It is important both to affirm each others strengths and to acknowledge our own weaknesses. Pentecostals have much to give to the Church, and much to learn from their sisters and brothers. Any dialogue must set aside issues of pride or arrogance, and the fear that to acknowledge someone else’s strengths means merely to confess our own weakness. Vulnerability can be an important asset, for out of it can come renewed strength. The continual development of new apologies has only limited value. Let us become known as a generation of Christians who has emphasized giving and serving rather than merely guarding and protecting. (D) The entire American church needs to catch a vision that the church is truly universal, that a narrow form of nationalism, a nationalism which sees God as being only on our side, has no legitimate part in the life of the Church. The American church has been involved far too long in a mode of ecclesial existence which has been experienced as ecclesiastical imperialism by our brothers and sisters in the Third World. Might it be the case, that we perceive them as in some way less than who they are, i.e. our brothers and sisters? Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals alike need to hear the legitimate reflections of the Church in the Third World, and seek ways to respond to their reflections and insights. Much of the Third . 14 75 World church is noncreedal, and if it is Protestant, it is often Pentecostal. Like the American church it has weaknesses, but a renewed affirmation of its strengths, and our willingness to respond to our brothers and sisters of the Third World in a truly collegial manner, is important to any true ecumenical consideration. (E) Forgiveness of past hurts is also important. Pentecostals have often acted as they have because they were forced from their churches, challenged for their experiences, ignored because of their social standing, and criticized for their lopsidedness and narrow- ness. Often, they have been treated by the conciliar movement as an embarrassment. Pentecostals have contributed much to this alienation also, by making harsh judgments on their predecessors in the faith, by developing triumphalistic attitudes, by preaching false pictures of what constitutes genuine spirituality, and too often by mani- festing responses all too familiar among those with “persecution complexes.” It is a fact that there are differences. It is true that hurts run deep: But it still seems possible that genuine dialogue can help to break the bondage in which today’s Church finds itself, a bondage rooted in the hurts and fights of previous generations. Do they really have to be our battles, and those of our children? Can we not move past them by reaching out and forgiving one another, attempting to allow ourselves to be addressed by the Word and the Apostolic Faith, together as brothers and sisters? (F) Energies should be concentrated on breaking down barriers at all levels of the church, but particularly among those in church leadership. In some ways, the leaders of the churches hold the churches captive. Often it is the case that as leadership goes, so goes the church. The development of credible initiatives from the conciliar movement toward Pentecostal leadership will take time, but it is possible. It is also critical to the vision of any long term visible expression of Christian unity. For the most part Pente- costals will not take the initiative because of their history, theology, experience, fear, and their apparent success in this country. Patience, understanding, and persistent cultivation of trust must play a significant role in the ultimate vision that we “may all be one … so that the world may believe…”. *Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. is ordained with the Assemblies of God. He serves as Assistant Dean for Academic Programs and Assistant Professor of Church History at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. 15 76 ISO, too, Walter J. Hollenweger, “The Pentecostal Movement and the World Council of Churches,” Ecumenical Review 18:3 ( 1966), 313 who has observed that “… the Pentecostal Movement started as an ecumenical revival movement within the traditional churches….” See also Kilian McDonnell, Charismatic Renewal and Ecumenism (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), 7. , 2Early Pentecostals tended to be more open to doctrinal diversity than they are today. Lilian B. Yeomans, M.D. noted that “The Church in all her divisions recognizes the Holy Spirit as indispensible to her life and have to do with it, nor differing genuine growth; …. Differing theologies nothing Church nomenclature. The need confessed by all churches is Pentecostal greater spirituality.” Amelia Yeomans, Papers (Columbia, S.C.: J. M. Pike, circa 1908), 48-49. Thomas Ball Barratt, In the Days of the Latter Rain (London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd., 1909) 223 noted that Pentecostals could be found “in all denominations, as well as among Christians who do not belong to any denomination. “He noted that in spite of this, there would always be doctrinal differences especially on the sacraments and in matters of ecclesiology (p. 145). 3Charles F. Parham, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness Faith ( 1902, 1910, Baxter Springs, Ks.: Apostolic Bible College, rpt. no date), Third Edition, 65, articulated very early the suspicion of Pentecostals when he wrote: concerning “organized” ecumenism Unity is not to be accomplished by organization or non- has been tried for 1900 years organization. Unity by organization and failed. Unity by non-organization has been tried for several years and resulted in anarchy, or gathered in small ‘cliques’ with an unwritten creed and regulations which are often fraught with error and fanaticism. 40n the use of these terms see Donald W. Dayton, “Theological Roots of Pentecostalism,” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1983), IOff., esp. 17-27. 51t is inherent in a restoration approach to historical theology that one starts with an ideal, for some reason loses it, but ultimately finds it again. Frank Bartleman preached such an idea when he addressed the Stone Church in Chicago, May 1910. There he told the congregation that the Lord “…showed me the fall of the early church, then showed me the process of restoration.” Luther had recovered justification by faith. Wesley had recovered the importance of sanctification. But, contended Bartleman, the Lord is now “bringing a greater revelation than anything in the past.” Frank Bartleman, “God’s Onward March through the Centuries,” The Latter Rain 1910), 2-5. 6See, for Evangel (July, example, the ongoing assessment of this movement as it was described by Frank Bartleman, the foremost chronicler and critic of the movement in Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “The Writings and Thought of Frank Bartleman,” in Witness to Pentecost: The Life of Frank Bartleman (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1985), xviii-xxiii. 7Yeomans, Pentecostal Papers, 25. 16 77 8″The Apostolic Faith Movement,” The Apostolic Faith 1: 2. The I (September, 1906), byline carried on the masthead was “Earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”-Jude 3. 9W. F. Carothers, The Baptism with the Holy Ghost and Speaking in Tongues (Houston: W. F. Carothers, 1906-7), 25. ‘°See, for example, the overview of the movement’s beginnings in Kansas described in Lyle Murphy, “Beginning at Topeka,” Calvary Review 13:1 1 (Spring, 1974), 2-5, 8-10 which cites many such articles. The Los Angeles Dailv Times printed five such articles in as many months, including “Weird Babel of Tongues,” April 18, 1906; “Rolling on Floor in Smale’s Church,” 1906; “Weird Fanaticism Fools Young Girl,” July 12, 1906; “Queer `Gift’ Given Many,” July 23, 1906; and “Baba Bharati Says Not A Language,” September 19, 1906. lisle, Phineas Bresee, “The Gift of Tongues,” Nazarene Messenger I 1:24 (December 13, 1906), 6. The Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene ultimately dropped the term “Pentecostal,” in part, because the “so-called ‘tongues people’ have taken up the name ‘Pentecostal’, and we are in danger of being mixed up with them,” so John Norberry, “Changing Our Church Name,” Herald of Holiness (April 30, 1919), 6; The Church of God (Anderson) ran a series of such articles in its house organ The Gospel Trumpet including “Seeking Pentecost,” December 27, 1906; “A Craze for Tongues,”January 17, 1907; “Unknown Tongues,” January 31, 1907; and “Letters of Warning,” February 14, 1907. 12Compare the fascinating account of J. F. Washburn regarding the case of Willia-m Pendleton, a prominent Holiness Church pastor who became Pentecostal, in Josephine M. Washburn, Historv and Reminiscences of the Holiness Church Work in Southern California and Arizona ( 1912; New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., rpt. 1985), 388-390 with the account given by Pentecostal Frank Bartleman, How Pentecost Came to Los Angeles: As It Was in the Beginning (Los Angeles: F. Bartleman, 1925), 82, rpt. in Robeck, Witness to Pentecost. ‘3See the helpful assessment of this fact by Gerald T. Sheppard, “Pentecostalism and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism: Anatomy of an Uneasy Relationship,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 6:2 (Fall, 1984), 5-33. A. Ironside, “Apostolic Faith Missions and the So-Called Second Pentecost,” (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., Bible Truth Depot, circa 1911), 15. ‘ 5 R. A. Torrey, “Is the Present , ‘Tongues’ Movement of God?” (no city: Biola Book Room, circa 1915).. ‘6Benjamin B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles ( 1918, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, rpt. 1972), 24. 11J. R. Flower, writing an untitled editorial in his paper The Pentecost l : I (August, 1908), 4 claimed that “Carrying the gospel to hungry souls in this and other lands is but a natural result of receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The Gospel is a Go-spell.” ‘ 8See above, notes 11, 14 & 15. 17 78 19George Barton Cutten, Speaking With Tongues: Historically and Psychologically Considered (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1927), 121-122. 2°D. A. Hayes, The Gift of Tongues (New York: Eaton and Mains/ Cincin- nati : Jennings and 21 Graham, 1913), 87. Frederick G. Henke, “The Gift of Tongues and Related Phenomena at the Present Day,” The American Journal of Theology 13 ( 1909), 206. 22Aimee Semple McPherson, Divine Healing Sermons (no city: Aimee Semple McPherson, circa 1921), 11-22. z3Alma White, Demons and Tongues (Zarephath, N.J.: Pillar of Fire, 1936), 43. 24The ministry of Boddy is assessed in two recent articles, Edith Blumhofer, “Alexander Boddy and the Rise of Pentecostalism in Great Britain,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 8:1 1 (Spring, 1986), 31-40; William K. Kay, “Alexander Boddy and the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Sunderland,” Bulletin of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 5:2 (1986), 44-56. A recently published booklet is Peter Lavin, Alexander Boddy: Pastor and Prophet (Monkwearmouth, Sunderland: Wearside Historic Churches Group for All Saints’ PCC, 1986). 25Among these groups were the Pentecostal Holiness Church (Oklahoma City, Ok.), the Open Bible Standard Churches (Des Moines, Iowa), the Church of God (Cleveland, Tn.), and the Assemblies of God (Springfield, Mo.). Unfortunately there were no Black or Hispanic Pentecostal groups which joined the NAE at that time (Were they even invited?), and to my knowledge, there are none with NAE membership today. “Jesus Name” Pentecostals or “Oneness” Pentecostals were apparently not invited to participate because of their views on the Trinity. 26Letter from J. R. Flower to Dr. Harold J. Ockenga, July 5, 1943, p. 2. Similar remarks had already appeared in a letter from Flower to Ockenga, June 1, 1943, p. 1. 270n this attitude, see James Deforest Murch, Cooperation without Compromise: A History of the National Association of Evangelicals (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956), 52-53. 28 Robert T. Handy, A History of the Churches in the United States and Canada (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 306. 29Letter from J. R. Flower to Ralph D. Davis, December 3, 1941. In contrast to this claim, William W. Menzies, Anointed to Serve: The Story of the Assemblies of God (Springfield: Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1971) 220, has observed that “Prior to 1941 the Assemblies of God participated, into the 1950 on an unofficial basis, in several agencies subsequently gathered organization of the National Council of Churches of Christ in America.” Among these agencies were mission, library, and world service groups. 30As late as 1947, Harold Ockenga was still defending the inclusion of Pentecostals in “The ‘Pentecostal’ Bogey,” United Evangelical Action 6: 1 (February 15, 1947), 12-13. According to a March 9, 1943 letter to Stanley H. Frodsham the editor of the Pentecostal Evangel from J. Narver Gortner [Marjoe’s Grandfather] who was at that time serving, as the President of 18 79 Glad Tidings Bible Institute in San Francisco, a meeting was held in Oakland, California at the Melrose Baptist Church, chaired Dr. Ockenga, to discuss a Union for Evangelical by Action. The church in the pastor of a large Presbyterian area stood up and said that … there are many groups who regard themselves as evangelical and that some of them are very extreme, and he intimated that some among us would not care to be associated with them. After he had been speaking along this _ line for three or four minutes Brother Moon of Bethel Tabernacle in Oakland, a [pastor Pentecostal church] who was sitting just behind me punched me in the back, and said, `He means us.’That was apparent. I did not need to be told. We all knew it. When he sat down there was an ominous silence. 31Carl Mclntire gave extended attention to it in his Christian Beacon 9:12 (April 27, 1944). ”-See Harold A. Fisher, “Progress of Pentecostal Fellowship,” (M.A. thesis: Brite College of Texas Christian University, 1952), 19-28; Menzies, Anointed to Serve, 217-218. Because there were no black Pentecostal groups with membership in the NAE, the founding of the PFNA found them also notably absent. To date the PFNA is almost entirely a white fellowship. As in the case of the NAE, “Jesus Name” Pentecostals have not been asked to participate because of their views on the Trinity. 33See for example, Gee’s editorials, all of which appear on the inside back cover (p. 17) of the magazine, “Are We Too ‘Movement’ Conscious?” Pentecost 2 (December, 1947); “So We are the Extreme Left,” Pentecost 4 (June, 1948); “Missionary Cooperation Is Vital,” Pentecost 5 (September, 1948); “Amsterdam and Pentecost,” Pentecost 6 ( December, 1948) “Thank- You. Brother, but-,” Pentecost 8 (June, 1949); “Missions and `Prophets’,”, Pentecost 10 (December, 1949); “Possible Pentecostal Unity,” Pentecost 13 (September, 1950); “Sympathy and Statesmanship,” Pentecost 16 (June, 1951); “What Others Are Saying About Us,” Pentecost 22 (December, 1952); “Pentecost and Evanston,” Pentecost 30 (December, 1954); “Catholic, Protestant and Pentecostal,” Pentecost 32 (June, 1955); “I Believe in the Holy Ghost,” Pentecost 44 (June, 1958); “Contact Is Not Compromise,” Pentecost 53 (September-November, 1960); “What Manner of Spirit?” Pentecost 57 (September-November, 1961); “Pente- costals at New Delhi,” Pentecost 59 (March-May, 1962); apd “Deserving Independent Existence,” Pentecost 75 (March-May, 1966). 34″Are We Going Back to the Churches?” Pentecost 34 (December, 1955); “Pentecostals Revival and Revolution, 1947-1957,” Pentecost 41 (September, 1957). 35Donald Gee’s assessment of Christian unity may be summarized as follows: (A) At its most fundamental level it is a “… personal matter. When our Lord prayed ‘That they all may be . one’ he meant individual disciples-not denominations and churches. The apostolic exhortations to unity are to personalities. My ultimate unity is with my brother, 19 80 irrespective of whether we belong to the same, or different outward communions.” “Possible Pente- costal Unity,” Pentecost 13 (September, 1950). B) That “we do not come together to ‘make’ unity for it already exists by the grace of God. It only needs to be cherished. Its test is mutual acceptance of the of Jesus Christ. Its Lordship energy is in the one baptism in the Holy Spirit that He bestows. Its aim is that ‘the world may believe’.” “Possible Pentecostal Unity,” Pente- cost 13 (September, 1950). (C) To avoid misunderstanding it is very necessary to stress that contact does not involve compromise. What is valuable is the personal contacts Christians of widely differing views about faith and order can make at … ecumenical conferences. To fire long theological missiles at one another range while we remain rigidly apart is not the best way to arrive at the truth as it is in Jesus. We ought not to fear personal encounters on either side. “Contact Is Not Compromise,” Pente- cost 53 (September-November, 1960); and (D) Regardless of whatever arguments one might bring to bear on the struggle over whether or not one should ; ‘ work for visible expressions of Christian unity, “there still remains the great prayer of our Lord that His disciples may all be one (John 17:21-23). What are we doing about it? What is our constructive alternative? Those who testify to the fulness of the spirit of Christ cannot lamely accept the divided state of Christen- dom, and particularly of Protestantism. Our many divisions call for hearty repentence before God…. The Pentecostal Movement has its own confessions to make before it criticizes others….” “Pentecostals At New Delhi,” Pentecost 59 (March-May, 1962). ‘ . 36WalterJ. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement in the Churches (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972), 213, provides a moving illustration of this in his memory of Donald Gee’s final farewell in which he was exhorted, “Never give up hope of winning the Pentecostals over to an ecumenical outlook! It will be a long time for the Pentecostals are afraid. And fear is hard to overcome.” 37According to David B. Barratt, World Christian Encyclopedia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), there are well over 50 million Pentecostals and over 10 million “charismatics”. Some estimate that there may be as many as 100 million Pentecostals worldwide. 38Cf. Gee, “Possible Pentecostal Unity,” I Corinthianss 1:9; 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14). The current Assistant General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God, Everett R. Stenhouse, “Unity of the Spirit,” Gwen Jones, ed. Conference on the Holy Spirit Digest (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1983), 2:68, for example, observed that: 20 81 … the unity of the Spirit to which the apostle Paul referred is not external and mechanical. It is internal by its very nature. It is organic in unquestionably that it is not and cannot be produced by human effort. The unity of the Spirit is not produced by the superhuman efforts of denominational polity or eccumenical [sic.] agreements. This unity of the Spirit has as its author the blessed Holy Spirit. And this unity exists! We are not told to The produce it. It simply exists. Holy Spirit brought it. However, we Christians may become disobedient and insensitive to the Holy Spirit and in so doing we may lose the manifestation of that unity. 39Cf. Augustine, In Answer to the Letters oJ’ Petilian 3:3; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.1.7. 4fiBarratt, In the Days of’the Latter Rain, 221. ‘”One example of this may be found in the “Preamble and Resolution”to the constitution adopted at the founding meeting of the Assemblies of God which proclaimed optimistically: “We … do not believe in identifying ourselves as, or establishing ourselves into, a sect, that is a human organization that legislates or forms laws and articles oJfaith….” Instead, it understood itself to be merely a ” General Council of Pentecostal (Spirit Baptized) saints from local Churches of God in Christ, various [previously existing] Assemblies of God, and Apostolic Faith Missions and Churches and Full Gospel Pentecostal Missions, and Assemblies of like faith in the United States of America, Canada, and Foreign Lands” whose agenda it would be to encourage [non-creedal] unity of doctrine, foster cooperation and stewardship in the establishment of home and foreign missions. Its purpose, then, was understood to be a utilitarian one based upon a shared experience, perceived needs, and limited resources. While they made an explicit attempt to be non-creedal, they understood themselves implicitly to be in agreement with many of the doctrines taught in the conservative wing of the American church, indeed, they incorporated a number of them into their constitutional preamble. Among those doctrines affirmed in the “whereas” or presuppositional portions of the “Preamble and Resolution” were ( 1 ) the Fatherhood of God, (2) the only begotten nature of the Son, (3) the fallen nature of humankind, (4) the redemption of humankind available through the shedding of Christ’s blood, (5) the election of the saints, (6) the Lordship of Jesus Christ, (7) the foundational role of the apostles and prophets to the Church with Christ as chief cornerstone, (8) the organizational, baptizing, and ongoing govern- ance functions of the Holy Spirit in the Church, (9) the integrity and strength of the Church [Mt. 16:18], ( 10) the primacy of a divinely inspired Scripture consisting of both old and new covenants as the “all sufficient rule for faith and practice” and to which nothing would be added [even by continuing revelation or prophetic gifts] and from which nothing would be deleted. Minutes of the General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America. Canada and Foreign Lands at Hot Springs, Ark., April 2-12, 1914 (Findlay, Ohio: Gospel Publishing House, 1914), 4. ‘ _ . 21 82 ‘2Leonard Lovett, “Aspects of the Spiritual Legacy of the Church of God in Christ: Ecumenical Implications,” Midstream: An Ecumenical Journal 24 ( 1985), 391. 43William J. Seymour, “Christ’s Messages to the Church,” The Faith 1:l Apostolic (Oct., 1907-Jan., 1908), 3, however, did argue that whenever something was. found to be wrong or contrary to Scripture, doctrine “… it must be removed.” including 44Holiness Pentecostals follow the Wesleyan teaching of sanctification as a crisis experience. “Finished Work” Pentecostals view sanctification in positional, progressive, and ultimate terms in the generally leading to Christian walk. greater maturity 45″Jesus Name,” “Oneness,” or more identified,”Jesus Only” Pentecostals cite Acts 2:38 as the pejoratively appropriate formula for water baptism, believe “Jesus” to be the name of God, and tend to hold to a more or less modalistic understanding of the Trinity. 46Christian doctrine (A) helps to define the Church in continuity with the Church of the apostles over against all other social groups, (B) helps to nuance the thought of various portions of the whole and Body of Christ, (C) helps to maintain stability, (D) a context which enables a body to accomplish a mutually valued provides task. 47See for instance the Bylaws, Article VIII, Section II of the Assemblies of God in the. 1985 Minutes, 140, which state that “we believe the basis of doctrinal fellowship of said [the ecumenical] movement to be so broad that it includes people who reject the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the universality of sin, the substitutionary Atonement, and other cardinal teachings which we understand to be essential to Biblical Christianity.” 48See, for example, a recent article by leading Pentecostal television evangelist Jimmy Swaggert, “The Unity of the Body … At Any Cost?” The Evangelist: The Voice of the Jimmy Swaggert Ministries 18:8 (August, 1986), 4-10 in which he claims that he is honored by the fact that “A representative of the National Council of Churches cited me as the individual most responsible for disrupting the Ecumenical Movement in the State of Louisiana” and his fear that the ecumenical movement is lacking in proper “discipline, correction, and sound doctrine” is the reason he cites for his concerns over the formal ecumenical movement. One should also note his controversial work titled “A Letter to My Catholic Friends,” (Baton Rouge, La.: Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 1982), 56 pp. which caused considerable hurt and frustration among Roman Catholics, “Father Roberts Answers Jimmy e.g., Kenneth J. Roberts, Swaggart” (Florri- sant, Mo.: Pax Tapes, Inc., No date), 20pp. and Michael C. Schwartz, “Jimmy Swaggart: Why Did He Write That Letter?” Our Sunday Visitor 72:5 (June 12, 1983). Swaggart’s position on Roman Catholics has now been published in book form as Jimmy Swaggart, Catholicism and Christianity (Baton Rouge, LA: Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 1986). 49Jakob Zopfi, “1906-1985 Now What?,” World Pentecost 6 (July, 1985), 3 and “Answer to a Call for Cooperation” World Pentecost 9 (March, 1986), 9 in which he writes even of those who presumably have the “experience” so valued by Pentecostals in the following manner. 22 83 We are very happy that liberal theologials [sit-.] are baptized in the Holy Spirit. But what does it help to talk if they go on in their liberal understanding of the Bible? And praise God again, when of the state church are baptized in the pastors Holy Spirit! But if they stay in their state church ecclesiology-what should we course, we could speak about? Of speak with many, many people of this whole world. We are not against that. But when the Holy Spirit, who wants to lead in all truth, does not have more success, does anybody in this world believe that our talks will be more fruitful? I am not talking about nonessential Bible understanding. Ecclesiology is of vital importance to me. 50James D.G. Dunn, The EvidenceforJesus: The Impact of Scholarship on Our Understanding of How Christianity Began (London, SCM Press, 1985), 109. 51 Doctrine may be based upon an incomplete or inaccurate reading of the Biblical material. “You have heard it said”was correct doctrine as far as it went, “6ut I say unto you” (Cf. Matthew 5:21-22) put it into its proper perspective. It can also be used to eliminate Doctrine can become a substitute both for truth and for fellowship. the genuine, even healthy. diversity. Furthermore, priority given to some doctrine is often given at the expense of other doctrines. Hence, it is clear that there are weaknesses as well as strengths in the role which doctrine can play. 52Gee, “Contact Is Not Compromise,” 17; see above note 36. 5-‘Gee, “Contact Is Not Compromise,” 17. 540n the history of pacifism among Pentecostals see Jay Beaman, “Pentecostal Pacifism: The Origin, Development, and Rejection of Pacific Belief among Pentecostals,” (M.Div. thesis, North American Baptist Seminary, 1982), 118pp. 55A number of early Pentecostals such as Mother Wheaton (Tabor, Iowa), Carrie Judd Montgomery (Oakland, Ca.), Dr. F. E. Yoakum (Los Angeles, Ca.), and A. J. Tomlinson (Cleveland, Tenn.) had significant social outreach ministries including work among the poor, unwed mothers, the physically ill, street people, orphans, battered women, prisoners, etc. Aimee Semple McPherson’s Angelus Temple was a primary source of aid to the indigents of Los Angeles County 1927 and during the depression years. Between August 1, January 1, 1929 the Angelus Temple commisary gave out 40,830 pieces of clothing and fed 39,331 indigents who were referred by the county of Los Angeles. -16While clergy rolls carry the names of many credentialed women, fewer and fewer may be found as senior pastors. It is more often the case that the women listed are the wives of pastors, or they serve as missionaries or evangelists. In reaction to the rise of secular feminism and feminist concerns in the larger church, there has been a tendency, especially among the younger male clergy, to expect Pentecostal women to fill more “traditional” roles. 23 84 the article by W. Stanley Mooneyham, “Pentecostals and the WCC,” United Evangelical Action 20:4 (June, 1961), 28-29 contributed to this according to du Plessis in an article “Agora Talks to David du Plessis,” Agora 2:1 (Summer, 1978), 8. 58For a Pentecostal article which provides a somewhat balanced perspective, yet raises these issues, see Joseph R. Flower, “The Charismatic Movement,” Harris Jansen, Elva Hoover, Gary Leggett, eds. Live In the Spirit: A Compendium of Themes on the Spiritual Life as Presented at the Council on Spiritual Life (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1972), 200-213, esp. 206-212. S9See, for instance, “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church” (Lumen Gentium) 2.15 and “Decree on Ecumenism”( Unitatis 1.3-4, in Austin Flannery, O.P., ed., Vatican Council II: Redintegratio) The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents ( 1975; Collegeville, Mn. : Liturgical Press, rev. I 984) 1:366-367; 455-459. 6oSee above, note 47. 61See above, note 47. 62Donald L. Gelpi, S.J., “Ecumenical Problems and Possibilities,” Kilian McDonnell O.S.B., ed., The Holy Spirit and Power: The Catholic Charismatic Renewal (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1975), 181-183; Rex Davis, Locusts and Wild Honey: The Charismatic Renewal and the Ecumenical Movement (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978), 76-80; Lidia Susana Vacaro de Patrella, “The Tension between Evangelism and Social Action in the Pentecostal Movement,” International Review of Mission LXXV No. 297, (January, 1986), 34. 63Kilian McDonnell, ed., Presence, Power, Praise: Documents on the Charismatic Renewal (Collegeville, Mn.: The Luturgical Press, 1980), 3 volumes. 64Among these publications are Arnold Bittlinger, ed. The Church Is Charismatic: The World Council of Churches, and the Charismatic Renewal(Geneva: Renewal and Congregational Life, WCC, 19$1), Davis, Locusts and Wild Honey, and Christian Lalive d’Epinay, Haven of the Masses: A Study of the Pentecostal Movement in Chile (no Lutterworth city: Press, 1969). 65See, for example Michael Harper, Three Sisters: A Provocative Look at Evangelicals, Charismatics, and Catholic Charismatics and Their Relationship to One Another (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1979), Eric Houfe, Visionfor Unity(Eastbourne: A. Snyder with Daniel Kingsway Publications, and the recent Howard 1980), V. Runyon, The Divided Flame: Wesleyans and the Charismatic Renewal (Grand Rapids, Francis Asbury Press, 1986). 66Arnold Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler: Der romisch Katholisch pfingstliche Dialog und seine okumenische Relevanz (SIGC 16, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1978) and Jerry L. Sandidge’s soon to be published “Roman Catholic/ Pentecostal Dialogue (1977-1982): A Study in Develop- ing Ecumenism” (Ph.D. dissertation, Katholieke Universiteitte Leuven, 1985). 24