Pentecostals And The Apostolic Faith Implications For Ecumenism

Pentecostals and the

Apostolic

Faith:

Implications

for Ecumenism

Cecil M.

Robeck,

Jr.*

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

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

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

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.

many

cases

they

were successful in

finding

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

premillennial position

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

prophesied by Joel (2:28-29),

and that

history

was

rapidly drawing

to a close. Were

they

not the “Latter Rain”

movement,

a harbinger

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

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

A. Ironside wrote a pamphlet titled

“Apostolic

Faith Missions and the So-Called Second Pentecost.” In this

pamphlet

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

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

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

fanaticism, sectarianism,

and schism

mongering. They

were labeled with derogatory appellations

such as the

“tongues” movement,

or “holy rollers,”

terms

which

attempts

were made to reduce them to something they

were

not,

a “one issue”

people. 18

They sought

proclaim

the immanence of a

living

God in human lives as

experienced through

the

Holy Spirit,

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,

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,

many

of her

day, sought

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

Scripture.

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

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

spite church,

country.

Through

published purpose

of God. There was

part

because of their own

and models

seriously

which came in their

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.

a periodical called The Herald

the

Church,

with the

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.

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

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

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

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)

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,

Switzerland as the first Pentecostal World Conference. Out of it grew

the Pentecostal World

Fellowship

with a new

periodical, Pentecost,

edited

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

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

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.

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.

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

so, however,

their immediate

understanding

is that Christian

unity, genuine koinonia,

or true

“ecumenism,”

is a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit

which

presupposes

personal relationship

with God through

Jesus Christ.

Unity

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”

truly

an ecumenical the visible Church contains both “wheat” and “tares.” Thus,

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

“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-

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

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

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

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

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

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”

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,”

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

great

deal. The

price

of – acceptance

has included

changes

which are viewed

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,

many

of their Holiness forebears, have

traditionally given

wide

ranging oppor-

been

severely

been

hampered,

Thus,

real fears

need once

again

afresh appears

this

century,

and contributed

divisions,

others the

opportunity bearing

From a Pentecostal

for the sake of continued

contact has involved

Yet,

‘

themselves,

need to assess

of what once

was,

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

doing

in the conciliar movement

appears

to have

too, by

“compromise”

acceptability.5′

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

changes

which are

truly

mandated

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

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

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

Rome to view

who confess Jesus Christ as

Lord,

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

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

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

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

inadequate approach to issues of social

justice.62 Yet,

if we

are,

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

the Spirit

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

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

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

Mission to the

subjects

of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic

Movement, join

several

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,

engendering

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

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.

7. If the Pentecostal witness to the

Apostolic

Faith is to be taken seriously,

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,

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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:

Bartleman, 1925), 82, rpt.

in Robeck, Witness to Pentecost.

‘3See the

helpful

assessment of this fact

Gerald T.

Sheppard, “Pentecostalism and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism: Anatomy of an

Uneasy Relationship,”

Pneuma: The Journal

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.

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

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

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:

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

Davis, December 3, 1941. In contrast to this claim, William W. Menzies, Anointed to Serve: The Story of the

Assemblies

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

Glad

Tidings

Bible Institute in San

Francisco,

meeting

was held in Oakland, California

at the Melrose

Baptist Church,

chaired Dr. Ockenga,

to discuss a Union for Evangelical

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,

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

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:

… 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

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,

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

America. Canada and Foreign Lands at Hot Springs, Ark., April 2-12, 1914 (Findlay, Ohio: Gospel Publishing House, 1914), 4.

‘

‘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

contrary

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

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

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

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),

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.,

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.

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

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

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

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,

expect

Pentecostal women to fill more “traditional” roles.

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

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),

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

Develop- ing

Ecumenism”

(Ph.D. dissertation,

Katholieke Universiteitte

Leuven, 1985).

Pentecostals And The Apostolic Faith Implications For Ecumenism

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply