Improbable Conversations The International Classical Pentecostal Roman Catholic Dialogue

163

Improbable

Conversations:

The International Classical Pentecostal/Roman Catholic

Dialogue

Kilian McDonnell

Word is out

among

ecumenists that the future of ecumenism is to be found with the

Evangelical wing,

the new

frontier,

the

unexplored terrain. When the international

dialogue

between Pentecostals and Catholics

began

in

1972,

after

preliminary

talks had started in

1970, there was a sense of

doing

a new

thing.

The Pentecostals were in formal

dialogue

with no other world

church,

a situation which also obtains

today.

I would like to

explore

this

important dialogue

in two articles. In the first,

I will look at the

meeting

of two different

theological cultures,

the call to

repentance,

the mechanics of the

beginnings,

and what the death of

mythologies

means for this encounter between classical Pentecostals and Roman Catholics. In the

second,

I will examine five issues which define the character of the

dialogue

over the first three

quinquennia. The fourth

quinquennium

is not

yet

finished and is

only peripherally included. These issues are the hermeneutical

moment,

infant and believers

baptism, I baptism

in the

Holy Spirit,

the church as

?o//M/7/a, and

Mary.’

In

addressing

these and similar issues both

partners

in the

dialogue faced

daunting

obstacles. Catholicism and Pentecostalism stand at the two extremes of the

ecclesiological spectrum.

The Catholics

identify themselves as the oldest church, with a highly developed

ecclesiology,

a pronounced

sacramental

system,

a structured

liturgical worship,

and a centralized international

body

with a self-conscious

magisterium. Community

is the

primary category.

The Pentecostals are

among

the newest

groups,

with an

ecclesiology

which is not

highly developed,

and a non-sacramental

polity,

where

spontaneity

in

worship

is

prized.

The movement is de-centralized in

structure, having

no international embodiment which can

speak

with

authority.

The individual and personal experience

is the

religious point

of departure.

Pre-Literary

Culture Meets

Literary

Culture

Classical Pentecostals

internationally represent

a

pre-literary

culture (as

Walter

Hollenweger pointed

out some

years ago),

while Catholics are characterized

by

a literary culture.` The mode of communication for

‘ At the request of the author, these two articles were

PNEU&L4.- The Journal

published simultaneously by

of the Societv for Pentecostal Theology and One in Christ in The

England.

first article appeared in 31 ( 1995): 20-31; the second article in 31 1 ( 1995):

110-121.

2 Harvey

Cox would speak of premodern and postmodern.

1

164

a

pre-literary

culture is the

witness,

the conversion

story,

the

personal narrative, memories,

the

song.

The

pre-literary style

in Pentecostalism was influenced

by the black religious psyche. Orality

is the first mode of communication.

Religious experience

is honored. In a

literary

culture the dominant instruments of communication are

texts, reports, documents,

letters. The

printed page

is primary. Religious

experience

is suspect.

Though

Pentecostals in first world

countries,

in contrast to third world

countries,

have been

moving away

from

pre-literary

modes toward a

literary culture, they

do so with evident reluctance and

pain, knowing

that all is not

gain. Daughters

and sons of Pentecostals

go

to Yale, Harvard,

and

Princeton,

sometimes to the

dismay

of their

parents. This entrance into the best universities is true not

only

of the United States but of Pentecostals in Croatia, Chile,

Canada, Switzerland, Italy, South Africa and other countries, which has resulted in a new

openness to others’

experience

of God. To a

large

extent Pentecostals are not free to resist the move to a

literary culture,

which is driven

by sociocultural forces not

immediately

under their control.

Quite apart from the

dialogue,

this move has been traumatic for

Pentecostals, which is reflected in the

dialogue. Nonetheless,

in

many places

in the Pentecostal world the

pre-literary

culture still

reigns, something Pentecostals

struggle with,

but want to honor. The

greatest

areas of growth

come

precisely

from these

pre-literary

holdouts.

In

spite

of the

opposition of theological

cultures we drink from some of the same wells. Without the doctrine of

subsequence (after conversion there is an

experience

of

sanctification)

there is no Pentecostalism.

However,

this doctrine has some Catholic roots. Walter

Hollenweger

has

pointed

out that Pentecostalism arose out of the

meeting

of a

specific

Catholic

spirituality

and the black

spirituality of former slaves in the United States.’

Hollenweger

and Albert Outler call attention to the influence on John

Wesely

of

Ephrem (4th c), Pseudo-Macarius

(5th c) (and through

Macarius of

Gregory of Nyssa), Thomas a Kempis

(c1380-1471),

the Italian Theatine Lorenzo

Scupoli (1530-1610),

the

Spanish

Benedictine Juan de Castaniza

(d.1598),

as well as the

Anglican

divines

Jeremy Taylor (1613-1617)

and William Law

( 1 686-1 76 1 ). Wesley was,

of

course,

also influenced

by

Puritan and Pietist sources. The Catholic influence is

specifically

related to Wesley’s

doctrine of

sanctification,

of

subsequence,

which is

Wesley’s chief

legacy

to Protestantism.

Through

Methodism

Wesley

mediated this doctrine to the Holiness Movement from which Pentecostalism emerged.

‘ Walter J.

Hollenweger,

“After

Twenty

Years’ Research on Pentecostalism,” International Review ofmission 75 (January 1986): 4.

4 Albert C. Outler, ed., John

Wesley (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1964), 9, 10, 251, 252.

2

165

Old Church Meets New Movement

If Roman Catholics are the

largest

Christian

group,

then classical Pentecostals are now the second

largest,

and

gaining

fast. In the 1980s the Pentecostals

(193 million)

exceeded the Orthodox Christians

(179 million).

Catholics now number about 944,578,000. As of 1990 Roman Catholics constitute 58% of all affiliated Christian church

members, while Pentecostals make

up

21%. In 1988 there were 176 million denominational

Pentecostals, by

the 1990 the number had

grown

to 193 million.’

They

are

multiplying geometrically. However, according

to Assemblies of God scholar, Edith L. Blumhofer, the

growth

in the United States of the world

largest

Pentecostal

denomination,

the Assemblies of God, has been

“stagnant”

in the last decade of the

1980s, showing

that Pentecostal churches are “not immune to the numerical and

spiritual stagnation

more

typically

associated with mainstream Protestantism. “6

A

related,

but distinct, movement is the

independent non-denominational PentecostaUCharismatic

churches,

sometimes called “The Third Wave.,,7 In

origin

the

pastors

associated with the Third Wave are better trained

theologically,

are less hostile and defensive,

have a better over-all track record on

orthodoxy,

are more at ease in the

patterns

of

contemporary

life. If the

growth

of the classical Pentecostals is impressive, the

independent

non-denominational

groups are

growing

even faster. Not concerned with

renewing

old church structures, they

are

planting

new churches.8 In 1990

they

numbered about 33 million.

The Charismatic movements in the main line

churches,

The Second Wave,

numbered about 4 million in

1970,

the

year

the

preliminary

talks on the

dialogue

started.

By

1990 this number had

grown

to 140 million. The total of the three waves comes to 372 million.

The three waves share the

baptism

in the

Holy Spirit, and,

to a greater

or lesser

degree,

have a stake in the international

dialogue,

even

‘David B.

Barrett, “Signs, Wonders, and

Statistics in the World of Pentecost, lvfission and Ecumenism: Essays on Intercultural

Today,” in Honor of Professor Walter J. Hollenweger, ed. Jan A. B.

Theology, Festschrift NY: 189-196. These what

Jongeneel (New York, Peter

Lang, 1992), figures of

is called “First Wave Pentecostalism” are

notoriously difficult to read because of the great variety of Pentecostals internationally and the fluidity of the categories. See David B. Barrett, “Statistics, Global,” in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, eds. Stanley

M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987), 822-824.

6Edith L.

Blumhofer, Restoring

the Faith: The Assemblies

of God, Pentecostalism, and American

Culture (Urbana, IL:

University of Illinois Press, 1993), 265.

‘ Classical Pentecostals represent the First Wave; Charismatics in the mainline churches represent the Second Wave.

‘Peter

Hocken,

The

Glory

and the Shame: Reflections on the 20th

Centurv Outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Guildford, England: Eagle, 1994), 77, 82.

3

166

Their

growth

cannot be

ignored.

Pentecostals and

Catholics,

though

not all are

represented.

should not be number-driven. However, the scandal of the

largest

Christians,

the same Christ and the

good

news of

love,

but

living

in

each

other,

often in

enmity,

calls into

Ecumenism

two bodies of proclaiming

ignorance

and

suspicion

of question

the

credibility

of the

gospel.

Blame

for the traditional

the World Conference London,

authored Pentecostal

Pentecostals

countries where Catholicism

(church burning,

Repentance

and

Churches

in

of the fact that classical

churches,’

a view du

sometimes

grave

by

the

The

Call for

Ecumenical

bad blood between Catholics .Pentecostals is sufficient for all to have a share. In a 1952 statement to

of International Pentecostal

by

David du Plessis and

adopted by

some

leaders,

there was

recognition

“have not been

entirely

without blame” for the

tensions between Pentecostals and mainline Protestant

Plessis would later extend to include Catholics. But

especially

in

is the dominant church Catholics have much of which to

repent. Undoubtedly injustices,

arrests, exile, beatings),

were endured Pentecostals. The

guilt

for the bad relations between Catholics and Pentecostals is a

two-way street,

but it is an

unequal

street. In this matter Catholics have more to

repent

of than the Pentecostals. We

need to

recognize

this

fact,

admit our

guilt,

and take the initiative for reconciliation.

In

spite

of the

injuries

Pentecostals suffered at the hands of

Pentecostal

Catholics

Protestants and

Catholics,

voices,

besides that of the

deceased David du

Plessis,

are

asking

for better

understanding

between the churches. John

McTernan,

an American

pastoring

in Rome, called Italian Pentecostals to

forget past injuries

and be reconciled with the Catholics. Two British

leaders,

Donald Gee

(editor

of

Pentecost,

an international

publication)

and David Allen

(lecturer

in an Assemblies of God Bible

College

in Doncaster) tried to foster better attitudes toward other churches

“especially

the once dreaded ‘Rome.””‘

Sandidge, Bittlinger, Papst

Gee saw the

9 “A Statement

by

Pentecostal Leaders” presented by David du Plessis to the conference. In no was the statement a document of the World Conference. L. Roman Catholic/Pentecostal way

Jerry

Sandidge, Dialogue [1977-1982J (2 vols.; New York, NY: Peter Lang, 1987), 1:41, 42.

‘°Kilian

McDonnell, “The Ideology

of Pentecostal

Conversion,”

Journal Ecumenical Studies 5

of

(Winter 1968): 105-126;

Walter J.

Hollenweger,

The Pentecostals

Roman Catholic/Pentecostal

(Minneapolis,

MN:

Augsburg Publishing House, 1972), 251, 252;

und Der romisch Dialogue

[1977-1982J. 1:171;

Arnold

okumenische Relevanz

Pfingstler: katholischlpfingstliche Dialog und seine

(Frankfurt

am Main: Peter

Lang, 1978), 1-16; 295-315.

“David Allen to Justus T. du Plessis,

Mattersey, Doncaster, England,

26 September

1984. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal

1:376.

Dialogue [1977-1982J.

4

167

ecumenical isolation of the older Pentecostals as

hiding

the Pentecostal witness under a bushel.”

Though

he died before the

emergence

of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal he

prepared

the

way

for a new

openness to

magisterial

Protestant churches and Roman

Catholicism,

influenced in

part by

his

friendship

with the Benedictine

priest,

Benedict

Heron, OSB. Gee

pleaded

“Pentecost is more than a

denomination;

it is a REVIVAL.”‘3 Another British Pentecostal leader and former General Secretary

of the Assemblies of God in England, Alfred

Missen, publicly asked

forgiveness

of the Catholics in 1982.’4

Pentecostals entered the formal ecumenical world in the 1960s with the entrance of a Brazilian and Chilean church into the World Council of Churches.

Indeed,

South American classical Pentecostals have taken the lead in

bringing

their churches into the structured ecumenical movement, though generally

this is an ecumenism in which Catholics have little

part.’S

Pentecostal

participation

in ecumenism should not be isolated from their

being

a

catalyst

for social

change.

In South American,

for

instance,

scholars

recognize

them as a force for

cultural, social,

and

political

transformation.’6 Pentecostalism is not a religion of pure

inwardness.” In some

places

in Latin America “a

pentecostal liberation

theology”

is

developing.’?

In South and Central America Pentecostalism has a quite different

character,

as the

poverty

and social unrest demands.

The Mechanics

of

the

Beginnings

The initiative for the

dialogue

came from the

Pentecostals,

but was warmly

received

by

Secretariat for

Promoting

Christian

Unity

and

11 Donald Gee, “To Our New Pentecostal Friends,” Pentecost 58

(December 1961-February 1962):

17.

“Donald

Gee, “‘Tongues’

and Truth,” Pentecost 26 (September 1953): 25; Peter Hocken,

Streams of Renewal (Washington, DC: Word Among Us, 1986), 62-65. “He was a member of the dialogue in 1985.

“Roger Cabezas,

“The Experience of the Latin American Encuentro,” PNEUMA:

13 (Fall 1991): 175-188. The Jaurnal of the Society for Pentecostal Theology 13 (Fall 1991): 175-188. 16David Martin, Tongues of Fire : The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin America ?4/nenca (Oxford:

Basil Blackwell, 1990); David Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics of Evangelical Growth (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,

1990). ‘7

Walter J. Hollenweger, Pentecost Between Black and White: Five Case Studies on Pentecost and Politics (Belfast: Christian Journals, 1974); Lidia Susana Vaccaro de Petrella, “The Tension Between Evangelism and Social Action in the Pentecostal Movement,”

International Review of Mission 75

(January 1986): 34-38; Harvey Cox, “Healers and Ecologists: Pentecostalism in Africa,” Christian Century 111 l (November 1994): 1042-1046; Harvey Cox, “Lifting the Curse of Babel,” New York Times, 6 November 1994, 15.

Harvey Cox,

Fire From Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal

Spirituality and the in the

Reshaping of Religion Twenty-First Century (New York,

NY: Addison-Wesley, 1994), 173; Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics

of Evangelical Growth, 114-117; 314-321.

5

168

preliminary meetings

took

place

in 1970 with the actual

dialogue beginning

in 1972. From the classical Pentecostal side, the rise of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal made such initiative

possible.

Had the Charismatic Renewal not existed, no

dialogue

would have been conceivable for the Pentecostals. The Charismatic Renewal

opened

the eyes

of the Pentecostals to a

depth

of Catholic life

they

had not suspected.

Catholics shared the same

experience

of the

baptism

in the Holy Spirit,

exercised the same

gifts,

were drawn to the same

depth

of prayer.

Their

experience

of the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist at Charismatic conferences told them

they

could no

longer speak

about dead

liturgies.

Here was an

Evangelical commonality

without which Pentecostals would not be able to

proceed

to the

dialogue.”

The Catholic Charismatic Renewal was the

single

most

significant

factor in creating

an

atmosphere

in which Pentecostals would

judge

that dialogue

was thinkable. 211

This

meeting

of a structured church with an unstructured movement had some built-in

disadvantages.

Most international

dialogues

build on ecumenical conversations at the local and national level. In this case these intermediate

stages

did not exist, and the ecumenical entrance was

immediately

at the international level. Because of this want of ecumenical

experience

some were unsure of the task.2′

In the

beginning

the classical Pentecostal side wanted the

help

of Protestant Charismatics

(Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Orthodox), a fact reflected in the title of the

dialogue.22 Quite understandably,

this expanded participation

led some to think that the

dialogue

was between the Catholics and the broad Pentecostal/Charismatic movement which later

developed

into a

dialogue

with the classical Pentecostals.’3 This development

was never so. The

Protestant, Anglican,

and Orthodox Charismatics were

present only

as an aid to the classical Pentecostals. 21

‘9The Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic church was a source of new

proselytizing

membership for the Pentecostal churches, by no means all of them the result of

on the part of the Pentecostals. Catholics who received the baptism in the Holy Spirit and came alive spiritually, decided, for or bad

in

reasons, that they could not be fed spiritually

their own

good

church, and so went where they felt they

could find food.

Among these were some of the most active and

devoted members of their Catholic

Roman Catholic/Pentecostal parishes.

Dialogue [1977-1982J.

1:325. Peter Hocken thinks that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal has forced the Pentecostals to 20 Sandidge,

think in a way not true of the Charismatic Renewal in the Protestant churches. The international ecumenically

dialogue

is a concretization of that conviction. “Dialogue Extraordinary,”

21

One in Christ 24 (1988): 209.

Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 110.

Dialogue

Between the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church and leaders of some Pentecostal Churches and in the Charismatic Movement within Protestant and

23 Peter

Anglican

Churches. Participants

Hocken,

“Ecumenical

Dialogue:

The

Importance

of

Dialogue

with Evangelicals

24

and Pentecostals,” One in Christ 30 (1994): 118.

In the

beginning

David du Plessis felt somewhat insecure in

engaging

in

6

169

When tensions arose between the

Pentecostals and some of their Protestant advisers over infant baptism

at the 1974

meeting

both realized that in the next

quinquennium

the Pentecostals needed to

go

it alone.

The

purpose

of the

dialogue

is carefully limited. If visible

unity

were the

goal

the Pentecostals would not be interested.

Repeatedly

over the years

it was said that such visible

organic unity

is not the

goal.

Rather a preliminary meeting

in October 1971 said the

purpose

is to

dispel mutual

ignorance,

to share

“prayer, spirituality,

and

theological reflection,”

and “to

grow together,”

in a non-structural

way.2′

The final reports

of each

quinquennium

in no

way

commits either the Pentecostals or the Catholic church to

any

doctrinal

position.

Rather they

are the results of

responsible persons

from both

sides,

which

they commend to the consideration of their

respective

churches.

Obviously, the churches are free to

reject

the

reports.

Participants

In the

early stages

of the

dialogue

the determination of Pentecostal representatives

was the sole

responsibility

of David du Plessis. Even after the Pentecostal

steering

committee

began

to take a

larger part

in the

selection,

du Plessis often acted on his own,

partly

due to

problems of communication.

Though

the

participation

of Protestant Charismatics in the first

quinquennium

was

recognized

as “an

important

and necessary step,”

their

presence

constituted “a certain

ambiguity.”‘6

The joint steering

committee decided on 29

May

1976 that in the future

only

classical Pentecostals would be

part

of the Pentecostal

delegation, a decision not

completely

honored. 21 Justus du Plessis saw the decision to have

only

classical Pentecostals as

taking

the

dialogue

“out of the Protestant

camp,,,28

evidence that Pentecostals do not want to be simply identified with Protestantism since

they

are not a Reformation

body. 21 A number of Pentecostal churches did

designate

either

delegates

or official observers.3°

Leaders,

some with international

ministries,

took

theological discussions with Catholic scholars, and therefore called on Protestant Charismatics. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue [1977-1982J. 1:79. But soon they found they did have the resources within Pentecostal denominations. Catholic/Pentecostal 26

2′ “Steering

Committee

Report,”

28 October 1971.

Sandidge,

Roman

Dialogue [ 19 77-1982 J, 1:74.

Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue [1977-1982J. 1:103, 21, 22. Howard M.

Ervin,

a

Baptist

and one of the earliest

academically trained in the

participants

Charismatic movement, became a

28 Justus T. du Plessis to

Jerry

L.

Sandidge,

I June regular participant. 1982; Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue 11977-1982J, 1:343.

291n the second preliminary meeting in Rome on June 22-23, 1971, the Pentecostal

said that they did not want the Pentecostal movement to be with Protestantism. “It is Protestant

participants equated

by an accident of origin.” Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal

Dialogue [1977-1982J.

1:70.

)0 The sources are not always clear as to whom was officially delegated by their

7

170

part

in various sessions.3′ In order to make the

dialogue

known the Pentecostals invited a number of observers

at each session. One can only

be

impressed

with the zeal and

tenacity

with which David du Plessis,

and later Justus du Plessis

and Cecil

Robeck,

tried to

get official

representation

from Pentecostal denominations.

The Pentecostal

delegation

made

repeated requests

that the Catholics included members of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. 32 This suggestion

Catholics resisted,

principally

because in the

beginning

of the

dialogue

it was

thought

that the conversations would have more credibility

with the

general

Catholic

population

if the Charismatics were not

present. Further,

it was said that the Catholics are not in

dialogue with themselves.33 In the third

quinquennium (1985-1989)

Catholic Charismatics were invited as

delegates,

and have been members ever since. 34

The Death

of Mythologies

Ecumenism

represents

the death of

mythologies.

Both sides have lived with

myths

about the other

partner,

not

surprising

in

groups which have lived in

ignorance

of each other and in

hostility.

Catholics have some

dying

to do.

They

need to disavow the mistaken notion that all Pentecostals are sectarians and fundamentalists.

Nonetheless,

when

churches. In the first quinquennium (1972-1976) there were official

from the

representatives

Apostolic

Faith

Mission,

the Elim

Fellowship,

and the International Evangelical

Church. In the 1986 session there were official delegates or observers from the International Communion of Charismatic Churches, International Church of the Four

Square Gospel (2 representatives), Apostolic

Faith Mission

(2), Apostolic

Church of

Mexico,

Church of God of

Prophecy,

Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee). Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal

Dialogue

1:130, 410.

“H. Edwards

(USA), V. Synan (USA), D. Tarr (USA), C.

Kuzmic

Spencer (USA), P.

(Yugoslavia), A. Missen (England), F. P. Moller (South Africa), J.

du Plessis (South Africa), T. Roberts (France), J. E. Worsfold (New Zealand). C. Krust (West Germany)

3T

and L. Steiner (Switzerland) took part in

In the second the Secretariat for Promoting Christian

preliminary meetings. said that Catholic Charismatics would preliminary meeting not be invited as

Unity

as if the that

participants, but invited might be

consultants, Catholics thought helpful. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal

Dialogue [1977-1982J. 1:70. In the meeting of the Pentecostal committee in

steering

Rome

May 4-5, 1984,

the Pentecostals recommended that

“strongly”

Catholic Charismatics be

part

of the Catholic Sandidge,

Roman Catholic/Pentecostal

Dialogue [1977-1982J.

1:380.

delegation. criticizes the second

quinquennium

for its lack of Catholic Charismatic

Sandidge representation. Sandidge,

Roman Catholic/Pentecostal

1:268.

Dialogue [1977-1982J. ‘

“Interview of Arnold Bittlinger with Basil Meeking recorded in

und

Bittlinger, Papst

Pfingstler. 24. H. Mühlen became involved in the Charismatic Renewal after he had been a

participant in the dialogue. Kilian McDonnell was a sympathetic critical observer of

the renewal, but never a member of a

prayer group

or covenant communitv. ‘° J.

Haughey, R. Cantalamessa, and H. Mihlen.

8

171

Catholics find that

many

of the Pentecostals in the

dialogue

are exegetically sophisticated,

this does not

necessarily

mean Catholics will agree

with the Pentecostal

interpretation

of

Scripture.

When Pentecostals learn that Catholics do not

put

tradition on the same level with

Scripture,

Pentecostals do not

thereby agree

with the Catholic position

on the relation of

Scripture

to tradition. The death of mythologies

is not

invariably

the birth of agreement. It is the removal of a roadblock. The ecumenical task is to

identify

both areas of agreement and

disagreement.

To mask

disagreements

is to insure failure of the ecumenical

relationship. 35

Tilted to the

Disadvantage of the

Classical Pentecostals?

Jerry Sandidge

has

suggested

that the discussions in the first two quinquennia

were tilted to favor the

Catholics, putting

the Pentecostals at a disadvantage. “Tilting” in this case refers to

“discursive, scientific, and intellectual

approaches,”

which are

typically Catholic,

to the detriment of “oral or narrative

theology, testimony, spiritual experience validating truth,

and the exercise of

spiritual gifts

as a context for theological exchange,”

more

typically

Pentecosta1.36 The

pre-literary style

needs to be

part

of the

dialogue, suggested Sandidge.37 Further, Peter Hocken has

suggested

that “the

prevailing

Catholic model of dialogue

can create a pressure to conceive other traditions in the

image and likeness of Catholicism. “38

Undoubtedly

more could be done in the

dialogue

to redress the balance. If one looks at the Constitution on Divine Revelation

(Dei Verbum)

of Vatican

II,

one sees revelation not in

propositional, discursive

terms,

but more in narrative form: a

personal

God sends the Son to initiate a dialogue with

us;

God

inviting

us to listen to the divine Word of revelation and to

respond

in personal faith.39 Event is primary. This narrative view could

provide

a Pentecostal/Catholic

theological model. The current broader interest in narrative

theology presents

a common

meeting ground.

Personal

testimony

and narratives could have a larger

role, especially in the

prayer

sessions. But

perhaps

more

place

was

given

to the spiritual gifts

than

suggested.

Before

Sandidge

was a member of the dialogue

there were some sessions of Pentecostal

prayer

in which the spiritual gifts

of tongues, prophecies, and

healing

were exercised

by the Pentecostals, giving

the Catholics an

insight

into the more

experiential dimension of Pentecostalism. As to the exercise of the

spiritual gifts

in

“It is not true that Catholics in the

dialogue have stressed agreements

in a one-sided ‘6

manner, as Peter Hocken suggests in “Dialogue Extraordinary,” 203, 211.

Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue ?1977-I98.2J, 1:123. “Sandidge,

Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue [1977-1982}, 1:351. “Hocken, “Ecumenical Dialogue: The Importance of Dialogue with

and

Evangelicals

Pentecostals,” 119.

“See

especially articles 1-6.

9

172

deliberative

sessions

operative discussing

theological

one can ask the

question:

How

denominations

the

plenary

are

they

in executive sessions of Pentecostal

issues? One should work from

real,

not ideal models. Some

years ago

Christian Lalive

d’Epinay pointed

out that half

classical Pentecostals do not

speak

in

of the

pastors tongues

of the Chilean

early years

advanced

degrees

are now imposing

a Catholic model, ecumenical

model,

not ecumenically

dominated,

but Pentecostals

with

model

adopted

is an

It was worked out Baptists, Lutherans,

and

The Catholics were at an

advantage

in that

they

came to the

dialogue with ecumenical

experience

which the Pentecostals did not have. In the

Catholic

scholarship

more in evidence. As to the Catholics

the

dialogue

a Catholic model.

in

experience

with

Methodists,

Evangelicals,

to mention a few.

In the first

quinquennium

the

topics

of

special

interest to classical

while in the second

quinquennium

there was a

and in the third the

topics

were more

Catholic,

and in the fourth

again

a balance. If the Catholic

agenda

had dominated

there would

certainly

have been

major papers

on

trinity,

‘

and

ordination,

which are absent from the

Pentecostal dominated,” balance,

throughout, christology, dialogue.

Eucharist,

leadership’s (canon

ecumenical hesitations.

Conference.

good

Leaders

of the classical Pentecostal

Animos

( 1928)

Limited

Acceptance by Pentecostal

Catholics need to be

understanding

The 1917 Code of Canon Law

1325

paragraph 3)

warned Catholics about

taking part

in interconfessional

meetings

without Rome’s

permission.

In 1927 Catholics were forbidden to attend the Lausanne Faith and Order

Pius XI issued the

encyclical

Mortalium

rejecting

ecumenism because it was a new form of modernism. Pius IX said it

promoted

the erroneous view that “all

religions

are more or less

and

praiseworthy,”

thus those

“pan-Christians” engaged

in the ecumenical endeavor “distort the true idea of

religion….

It is an

easy

to the

neglect

of

religion

or indifferentism. ,,42 Catholics were also forbidden to attend the

founding meeting

of the World Council of Churches in Amsterdam

(1948), though

some came as members of the

For Catholics

today

these texts have

only

historical interest.

step

press.

“ecclesiological Activity

‘° Christian Lalive d’Epinay, Haven

of the

Masses: A Studv of the Pentecostal Afovement in ” Chile (London: Luttcrworth Press, 1969), 197.

Cardinal Willebrands remarked that after

eight years

of conversations

issues are being discussed for the first time.” “Some

of the Secretariat for

Aspects of the

Promoting Christian Unity,” Information Service 44 (1980):

119. This observation would indicate that, as regards the topics, the first sessions were tilted in favor of the Pentecostals.

42 Mortalium Animos

2, 9;

The Papal

Encyclicals 1903-1939, ed.

C. Carlen

McGrath, 1981), 313. 314, 316, 317.

(Wilmington:

10

173

The

Evangelical

distrust of ecumenism comes from a series of fears: the

pre-literary

distrust of

theological

finesse

(of

those without university degrees being managed by

those

with; however,

the opposition

comes not

only

from the

uneducated);

dislike of “the world-church” which

they

see in terms of

heavy corporate mergers;

the suspicion they

will have to

adjust

their

testimony

and

engage

in theological compromise;

unease in

consorting

with those who have abandoned what

they

consider central biblical

tenets;

concern about the futility

of contact with a church without real life (“a dead

baptism

into a dead

organization”); and,

doubt

concerning

those who have no transforming spiritual experience. They

look at the decline in growth of ecumenically

committed churches and wonder “What is in it for US?”.13 Sometimes it comes from

dangerous

memories of real

injuries

of a minority

in a Catholic

country, feeding

resentment and

prompting

them to

quote

Paul: “come out from

among

them and be

ye separate” (2

Cor 6:17;

Isa.

52:11 ), popularly

known as “come-outism.” Sometimes national

churches,

which have

positive

attitudes toward the

dialogue and would like to

participate,

have branches in Catholic countries which would cut ties with the mother church if they sent

delegates

to the

dialogue.”

Relics of “the whore of

Babylon” syndrome

are still with us. In

varying degrees

these are all

present

in some sectors of world Pentecostalism,

which in

part

accounts for the reluctance of the international

body,

the Pentecostal World Conference

(PWC),

and the continental Pentecostal

Fellowship

of North America

(PFNA),

to lend their

support.

The

issuing

of a brief

press

release after the Marian discussions in Vienna in

1981,

which will be discussed in the next

article,

was the occasion of a misunderstanding, eliciting an international

protest

in the classical Pentecostal world. Because of this

misunderstanding concerning

the Marian

discussions,

and because the Catholics withdrew from a conference on the

Holy Spirit sponsored by

the Assemblies of God,

the local

dialogue

in

Springfield,

Missouri between Pentecostals and Roman Catholics was terminated

by

the Assemblies. In 1983 the Assemblies of God wrote into its

bylaw

a resolution

against participation

in the ecumenical movement.`5 Now Assemblies of God

“Dean M.

Kellcy, Why Conservative Churches are Growing (New York,

NY: Harper

& Row Publishers, 1972); R. G. Hutcheson, Jr., Mainline Churches and the Evangelicals:

A Crisis? (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1981). “Sandidge,

Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Challenging

Dialogue [1977-1982]. 1:175, 216, 348.

“The General Council of the Assemblies of God disapproves of ministers or churches participating in any of the modem ecumenical organizations on a local, national or international level in such a manner as to promote the Ecumenical Movement, because: a)

We believe the basis of doctrinal of said movement to be so broad that it includes people who

fellowship

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. b)

We believe the emphases of the Ecumenical Movement to be at

11

174

Christians are faced with structural

opposition

to ecumenism similar to what Catholics faced earlier.

In

spite

of

daunting

difficulties successive Pentecostal

co-chairs, David du

Plessis,

Justus du

Plessis,

and Cecil

Robeck,

have been able to obtain official

representation

from a number of

churches,

sometimes as

delegates,

sometimes as observers. Heads of churches have

given their

support.

Some leaders

wholeheartedly support

the

dialogue,

but cannot

participate

because of their constituencies. The

Society

for Pentecostal

Studies,

a

scholarly association,

has

encouraged

the dialogue

from the

beginning.

The

participants

receive much unofficial affirmation of the

importance

of the

undertaking,

also from churches which for various reasons cannot

participate. Privately

there is a large measure of

interest,

even enthusiasm. Some who come to the

dialogue with the

knowledge

of their

denomination,

but not as official

delegates, pay

their own

travel,

board and room

expenses year

after

year.

These are

persons

with families to

support.

Ecumenical commitment of this magnitude

would be hard to

duplicate.

The

dialogue

has been criticized as too

white,

too

American,

and too limited in

representation.

The Third World

representatives

have been almost

non-existent,

the area where the

growth

of both Pentecostalism and Catholicism is the

greatest.

Nonetheless the

dialogue

has had an international

impact.

It has

spawned dialogues,

sometimes national in character,

and other ecumenical

contacts,

in South

Africa, Brazil,

New

Zealand,

and

Belgium

The

meeting

between a

pre-literary

and a

literary

culture is still groping

in finding its way. We still have much to learn from each other. But the basis of an

on-going relationship

of mutual trust based on mutual

knowledge

and

fiiendship

has been established. We have left the offerings

before the

altar,

have started the

process

of

reconciliation,

so we can come with clean hands and hearts to offer our

gift (Mt. 5:23,24).

As the two

largest

Christian

bodies, formerly hostile,

enter the

twenty-first century,

this

growing

mutual

respect

is a

sign

of

great hope.

variance with what we hold to be Biblical priorities, frequently displacing the urgency

of individual salvation with social concerns.

c)

We believe that the combination of into a world will culminate in the religious Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18.” Minutes of the 40th

many religious organizations superchurch Session of the General Council

1983

of the Assemblies of God: Anaheim, CA, 11-16 August (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1983), 124. Roman

Catholic/Pentecostal

Sandidge,

Dialogue [/977-1982J. 1:171, note 259 interprets the bylaws as not banning participation in interdenominational activities on the local level.

Roman Catholic/Pentecostal

355-359. “Sandidge,

Dialogue [1977-1982J. 1:273, 275,

12