Sketches Of Perspectives On Koinonia

161 Sketches of Perspectives on Koinonia I welcome this opportunity to reflect as a theologian independent of the proceedings on selected portions of this monumental document. The magnitude of this achievement was immediately obvious during my initial perusal on board an airplane headed toward an ecumenical confer- ence (NAAE) in Washington, D.C.1 It is abundantly clear that the last quinquennium has succeeded in taking the discussions to higher ground. Not only is the writing style superb and the choice of words excellent, its penetrating analysis is of value to all those affected by this exchange. The report deserves a wide reading not only in the academic community, but also by ecclesiarchs who should be stimulated by these informed challenges. Although the document does not side-step legitimate criticism (for example see Section 79), the discussions were mercifully void of refer- ences to conflicts between Roman Catholics and Pentecostals in Latin America. North American Pentecostals who have thought this ordeal one-sided have lived without benefit of the kind of revelations unleashed by David Stoll in Is Latin America Turning Protestant? (Berkeley: Uni- versity of California, 1990). Meanwhile, a larger question has been avoided that must eventually be examined. The Orthodox Church accepts only an “ecumenical council” to address issues like the fllioque being absent from the original text of the Nicene Creed. If such a his- toric gathering were convened today would the call come from Rome and Istanbul? Would Anglicans and Lutherans be invited? What would be Geneva’s role? Would the observers/participants include Pente- costals ? Emil Brunner saw the roots of dogmatics in the struggle against false doctrine, catechetical instruction, biblical investigation, and the character of Scripture which calls for systematization. These ingredients seem to be part of the mix that continue to make the dialogue relevant. An unplanned by-product has been the systematization of beliefs previously known primarily in oral narrative among Pentecostalists. Also unex- pected is that some Pentecostal scholars reading this manuscript will at times find themselves more sympathetic with the posturing of the Roman Catholics than the positions identified with the Pentecostal Movement. One final comment of a general nature. The text before us demon- strates the impact of an elusive definition of that which is “Pentecostal.” In contrast to the sometimes perceived monolithic character of Pente- costalism, it is the considerable diversity that complicates this process. , . ! The NAAE is the North American Academy of Ecumenists. Its goal is “to inform, related, and encourage men and women whose profession of ministry involves them in ecumenical activities and studies.” 1 162 Attempts at inclusive categories for Pentecostal positions is akin to unearthing “the” Protestant view. Even if the focus were limited to the USA, no single Pentecostal denomination/fellowship/communion/asso- ciation can speak authoritatively on behalf of all Pentecostals. The Assemblies of God is the most popular typology in current use, and despite lack of explicit sanction of the dialogues by Springfield the Pen- tecostal team is dominated by AG scholars. The danger of being narrow in focus is illuminated by looking at the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America, the North American Renewal Service Committee, and the Pentecostal World Conference. Greater elasticity is evident when dealing with the Society for Pentecostal Studies and the European Pentecostal Theological Association. That which is labeled Pentecostalism is a movement constantly evolving around the world which lacks a common confession. Therefore, most non-specific uses of the word “Pentecostal” can have a misleading edge.2 1. Koinonia and the Word of God In view of the practice of most Pentecostalists around the world, the use of “revelation” in Section 16 deserves an explanation. Also clamor- ing for clarification is “filled with the Spirit” (32), “grace” (46), and “blessing” (63). Most Pentecostals seem to deny the continuance of special revelation unique to Scripture, while owning contemporary pneumatic insights and inspirations. The theological problem may differ little from that raised by the existence of the “inerrant” Roman Catholic teaching office. The problem here is neatly stated in Section 25. At the same time, Section 26 shows the effects of 15th Century technology and emerging theology. Pentecostalism has been radically influenced (76) by Gutenberg’s invention which made possible the world-wide parade of Bibles, along with the proliferation of deviant commentators spawned by Luther’s idea of direct access to God.3 The Pentecostal Movement’s universal predilection for oral narrative and praxis is not incidentally related to the belief that (pneumatic) experi- ence subject to extensive analysis can become entombed in layers of theological formulas which do not stimulate the faithful. Many of the movement’s pioneers in the USA exerted considerable energy in remov- ing what they saw as debris of artfully worded, yet irrelevant if not damaging, creeds which had led most of Christendom astray. However, when current Pentecostal leaders examine ancient, ecumenical creeds, they often find themselves unable to fault the contents. Thus, they have 2The only protestant charismatic to survive the first quinquennium is Howard Ervin (American Baptist Convention). Some related issues are discussed by Peter Hocken in “Dialogue Extraordinary,” One in Christ 26; 1-2 (1990) 202-213. 3See: Randall Balmer, Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: A Journey into the Evan- gelical Subculture in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989) chapter 8; Mark E. Chapman, “The Spirit and Magisterium,” The Ecumenical Review 42 (July- October, 1990) 268ff. . 2 163 been known to applaud documents like the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed while not interpreting the particulars in a manner known to mainline traditions who incorporate these as confes- sons in their regular liturgy. Note the findings of an official dialogue between the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Finnish . Pentecostal Movement: . , . . . In Pentecostal circles there has always been a desire to hold to a direct . and immediate manner of Bible exposition uninfluenced by confessions or doctrinal definitions. In preaching and teaching the direct influence of the Holy Spirit has been sought. In practice this aim has usually led to the habit of responding to doctrinal questions and other questions relating to faith by giving a great number of different Bible passages without exact clarification of their background, context or meaning. However, Pentecostal teaching is clearly guided by a certain prior understanding, . that is, a strong oral tradition of doctrine and the authority of recognized leaders. The pluralization of the general religious situation and the spread of indefinite syncretism, however, oblige the Christian churches and organizations, including the Pentecostal Movement, to express clearly their confessional basis.4 – . ‘ 2. The Holy Spirit and the New Testament Vision of . Koinonia Relegating comment on Oneness Pentecostalism to a footnote (#6) illus- trates the context of the dialogue. Would the dialogues have reached the third quinquennium had the doctrine of the Godhead been central to the discussion? Authentic ecumenism within the Pentecostal Movement can . hardly dispatch this question with such ease. This is well known in the Society for Pentecostal Studies and will be evident at Brighton ’91. Matters of hermeneutics, Pentecostal personalities, and historical matrix provide some of the mix which accounts for the exclusive pronouncing of the name of Jesus at water baptism for Apostolics. It is ill-advised to forget that Pentecostals are not alone in their espousal of deviate trinitar- ian formulas. Further, a development of the trinitarian dogma in the canonical record exacerbated the dilemma of the earliest centuries that ‘ witnessed much wrestling with this theological task. The limitations of fallen humans is apparent in their inability completely to comprehend a Supreme Being. Perhaps many thinkers among the Oneness Pente- costals could affirm the World Council of Churches’ Constitution when it confesses “the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scripture” and wanting to bring glory to “the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”5 Since Apostolics occupy a distinct subculture in North 4″Results of the Discussion: DIALOGUES with The Evangelical Free Church of Finland and The Finnish Pentecostal Movement (Helsinki: Church Council for For- Ecclesiastical Board, 1990) 60. See also page 53. cf. The Evangelical- Roman Catholic Dialogue eign Affairs, on Mission 1977-1984: A Report, ed. by Basil Meeking and John Stott (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 22-24, 32. ?It is worth remembering that the original WCC statement spoke of “… a fellowship of churches which accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.” It – 3 164 America, it may be helpful to classify them as pre-Chalcedonian Chris- tians who missed the Enlightenment and chafe at post-apostolic elucida- tions of the gospel. A fresh look at this nuisance may be required since established theologians who are Roman Catholic have also the challenged traditional concept of the trinity. Sections 32-36, 54 and 65, surface the unity issue without gaining much ground. Left unresolved are biblical references to the Holy Spirit as the source of unity, but also diversity. Likewise reduced to mere comment is the considerable chasm between Roman Catholicism and Pentecostalism on the ecclesiastical ramifications of how Christ’s church is proclaimed. 3. Koinonia and Baptism The Pentecostal proclivity for the word ordinance over against sacra- ment is well known (41). However, Pentecostals can learn it is not necessary to deny that salvation is conveyed ex opere operato given the delicate handling of fundamental biblical themes in theological systems once summarily dismissed because. of post-apostolic motifs (86). Trini- tarian Pentecostals, at least, should look with renewed interest on the subject in light of the following consensus achieved by the 1977-1984 Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission: We agree that baptism must never be isolated, either in theology or in from the context of conversion. It belongs essentially to the whole process of repentance, faith, regeneration by the Holy Spirit and practice, membership of the covenant community, the Church…. . We rejoice together that the whole process of salvation is the work of the God by the Holy Spirit. And it is in this connection that Roman Catholics understand the expression ex in relation to baptism. automatic It does not mean that the sacraments have a mechanical opere operato or efficacy. Its purpose rather is to emphasize that salvation is a souvereign work of Christ, in distinction to a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian confidence in human ability.6 6 . was in response to prodding by the Eastern Orthodox that the explicit trinitarian refer- ence was added. See Konrad Raiser, “The Holy Spirit in Modem Ecumenical Thought,” The Ecumenical Review 41:3 (July 1989) 377. Manuel J. Gaxiola-Gaxiola’ balks at securing a Spanish synonym for the non-translatable “Oneness.” He leans (11-9-90) toward a term like “uni-Pentecostals.” Use of traditional language in this small document does not mean to prejudge these Classical Pentecostals. 6The Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission, 57f. See also: DIA- LOGtIES with the Evangelical Free Church of Finland and The Finnish Pentecostal Movement; Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., and Jerry L. Sandidge, “The Ecclesiology of Koinonia and Baptism: A Pentecostal Perspective,” (Emmetten, Switzerland: Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue, August 19-27, 1988); Harold D. Hunter, “Pentecostal Ordinances,” Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. by Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988). D. J. Wilson, “Church Membership,” DPCM, 197, rightly reports the official endorsement of infant baptism by the International Pentecostal Holiness Church. _ . 4 165 . Progress made in this direction will require a line-by-line treatment of Section 42. As to the matter of water baptism actually incorporating the initiate into the body of Christ (52), North American (trinitarian) Pentecostalism has tended to tie the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to union with Christ and thereby consider the believer united to the entire body of Christ. The Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission drew attention to the Evangelical inclination to see “conversion as the means of entry into the invisible church and baptism as the consequently appropriate means of entry into the visible church.” In practice, many Pentecostals, in the ‘ USA at least, carry on with this first belief, but link the latter with a public confession of faith before the congregation when one enrolls in a church membership. The question of rebaptism is clouded by the fact that some Pentecostal leaders have not been able to count infant baptism and perceived “indiscriminate baptism” as actual baptisms. Major Pentecostal denomi- nations in the USA practice rebaptism for reasons ranging from reported improper trinitarian formulas to a mode judged inadequate. The decision to rebaptize a believer from another Christian tradition is especially easy for the Church of God of Prophecy because they do not hesitate to rebaptize people baptized and discipled in their own community over an issue like “backsliding.” Clearly, there is much room for improvement. I believe the World Council of Churches’ Lima document known as Bap- tism, Eucharist and Ministry points toward reasonable convergences. In contrast to the impression left by section 85, the community of the faithful is an important part of the Pentecostal process of discernment. (Section 87) Major Holiness Classical Pentecostal denominations in . the USA have essentially episcopal infrastructures. Whatever label is . hung on the Assemblies of God (presbyterial congregational?), the con- siderable authority of Springfield is well known in this denomination. I think Pentecostal criticism of Roman icons (100) is hypocritical. Pentecostal practice has been at odds on more than one occasion with the idea of “Holy Place” as expressed in John 4:21-24. In less than a cen- tury, North American Pentecostalism has produced parishioners who put much faith in living icons and 20th century relics. During my visit to the Vatican, a tour guide took me to bones beneath the focal point of St. Peter’s Basilica. Who can say such a thing will never happen in the Pentecostal Movement? Since Pentecostals are notorious for their right- brain orientation, should it occasion that _ surprise various sorts of things tangible would gain in prominence?7 7A growing number of Pentecostals would look favorably on the contents of “The Icon of Pentecost: A Liturgical Bible Study on Acts 2: 1-4,” The Ecumenical Review 42:4 (April, 1990) 92-97, prepared by George Lemopoulos in the shadow of the World Council of Churches, 1991 Canberra theme “Come, Holy Spirit.” 5 166 There is a certain irony in the scholarly disdain heaped on the myths that are part of the fabric of Pentecostalism. Many of these same schol- ars highly esteem sections of canonical materials they judge to be mythi- cal. The inconsistency of valuing one set of myths while unilaterally condemning all such things when associated with Pentecostalism may demonstrate an ethnocentric view of reality. Analysis of the belief sys- tems of ordinary people has often been held in disrepute by intellectuals and always provided an easy target for ridicule. The lack of interest in popular religiosity can be measured by the level of disinterest among Roman Catholic theologians toward teachings prevalent among their own masses. Voices from the pew have been muffled or conveniently not heard. Theological tomes, erudite expositions, and Vatican pro- nouncements virtually eliminate any concern for interacting with grass- roots thinking. In the meantime, scholarly treatments of popular religion is edging ahead.8 The fourth phase of the dialogue will require contin- ued patience from both teams as they chart the future. Harold D. Hunter, Executive Director Sunday School Department Church of God in Prophecy Bible . Place Cleveland, Tennessee 37320 8See: Peter W. Williams, Popular Religion In America (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989) 5f, 144; Clarke Garrett, Spirit Possession and (Baltimore: Michael Kinnamon, Truth and Popular Religion John Hopkins Press, 1987); Community: Diversity and Its Limits in the Ecumenical Movement (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1988) 94; Juan Sepulveda, “Pentecostalism As Popular Religiosity,” International Review 78:309 (Jan.’89) 80-88, Anton Houtepen, “Toward An Ecumeni- cal Vision of of Mission the Church, One in Christ 3 (1989) 226, 230-233; David Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant? 318f; David Martin, Tongues of Fire Basil Blackwell, 1990); Randall “Local (Cambridge: Balmer, Religion In America,” American of Academy Religion (11-19-90); Donald W. Dayton, “Yet Another Layer of the Onion: or the Ecumenical Door to Let the Riffraff Opening in,” The Ecumenical Review 40:1 1 (Jan ’88) 88,94-96. Response to Perspectives on Koinonia I want to express my kindest regards and extreme gratitude for having been asked to respond to such a well presented document. Discussions regarding conversion, baptism and sacramentalism are not really novel, but have been re-cast in a new way. Much praise has to be accorded participants in a Catholic-Pentecostal dialogue that has sought to be rele-. vant at a time when shifting theological priorities leave ‘ us gasping for breath. 6