God Present In A Confused Situation The Mixed Influence Of The Charismatic Movement On Classical Pentecostalism In The United States

God The

33

Present in a Confused

Mixed Influence of the Movement on Classical

in the United

Frank D. Macchia

especially many, especially

Situation:

Charismatic Pentecostalism States

Beyond question

we face a confused situation in

Christendom, and

in today’s Charismatic Movement. It is extremely difficult for

those who have adopted inflexible standards of doctrine and behavior, to see how God can be in the present, seemingly confused, , situation.’ I

in the United States have decades to come to terms extraordinary

the chief

opponents

of the

latter-day wonders.

Apparently,

members Pentecostals,

The Pentecostal

confusion,

and,

most

surprisingly

for

was due not

only

to the

of

revival,

but

This confused

response

to the Charismatic movement2

by

an official of the Assemblies of God is typical of what

many

classical Pentecostals

felt in their

struggle

over the

past

three

with the obvious

proliferation

of

signs

and

gifts

of the

Holy Spirit among

members of mainline churches. In the

past,

Pentecostals viewed these churches as

bestowal of

supernatural signs

and

without the

permission

of Pentecostals, the

Spirit of God was

suddenly being

felt in Charismatic Renewal

among

of

major

Protestant churches

in the Roman Catholic Church.

however,

unexpected

work of the

Spirit among alleged opponents

also to the influence that these Renewal movements were

having

on

In other

words,

Pentecostals not

only

had to wrestle with the dramatic work of the

Spirit

in the mainline

churches, they

also had to come to terms with the

possibility

that the movement

renewal for Pentecostal churches. This confusion was rooted in the Pentecostal ambivalence toward a Renewal movement that both

repelled

and influenced the classical Pentecostal churches.

many

classical Pentecostals.

may

serve as a source of

Identity

The Problem

of Pentecostal

To

speak

of the influence of the Charismatic movement on classical Pentecostalism raises a number of

questions

about the

identity

and characteristics of these movements. Classical Pentecostalism is a

diverse movement both

culturally minority

and Oneness Pentecostals

Solutions,”

and

theologically.

For

example, have been less influenced

by

the

‘ Joseph Flower,

“The Charismatic Movement: Some Problem Areas and

Pt. 2, Advance 8 (October 1972): 11.

2 The term “Charismatic” is used broadly in this article to depict both Catholic and Protestant participants identified with renewal.

1

34

Charismatic movement than has the

majority

of white Trinitarian Pentecostals.’ This influence is due in part to the

compatibility

between the Trinitarian Pentecostals and the

largely

middle class social location and the Trinitarian confession of the Charismatic movement. The baptism

in the

Holy Spirit

as a post-conversion empowerment for

gifted service, especially

as evidenced

by

unknown

tongues,

was at least the most

controversial, and, therefore, outstanding

distinctive of classical Pentecostalism in its formative

years.

More

recently, however,

scholars of

Pentecostalism,

such as Donald

Dayton,

have insisted classical Pentecostalism be defined

by

a broader Gestalt of

spirituality,

or “full” Gospel,

which included

conversion, Spirit baptism, bodily healing,

and an

eschatological expectation

for the soon return of Christ.4 4

Steve Land and William

Faupel

have

argued convincingly

that the eschatological

or

apocalyptic passions

were central to the Pentecostal movement, calling

forth intense

holiness, empowered missionary witness,

and a revival of

extraordinary gifts,

such as

tongues

and divine healing.

Bom in American revivalism and the Holiness

movement, Pentecostalism came to accent a series of crisis

experiences

with God which included

conversion, holiness,

and

Spirit baptism.

Of

course, Pentecostalism has been divided

throughout

most of its history over the issue of the crisis nature of sanctification But all Pentecostals believed that the

urgency

of the moment in the

light

of the

soon-coming Parousia of Christ called forth

very

dramatic

experiences

of holiness and

empowerment

for

gifted

witness.

North

American, particularly white,

Pentecostalism has lost a

degree of its

eschatological

fervor as it has

gradually

abandoned the urban poor

for the suburban middle class. Store-front and tent

meetings

that tended to function as

eschatological

“colonies”‘ of enthusiastic believers were soon

replaced by mega

churches and ministries that focused attention on success for middle class Christians in the here-and-now. The

potential

for an

identity

crisis

among

these classical Pentecostals intensified when

they

were faced with a dramatic Renewal

‘ Kenneth

Kantzer,

“The Charismatics

among Us,” Christianity Today,

22 February 1980, 26.

‘ I am grateful to Cecil M. Robeck for this insight. Donald

Roots

Dayton, Theological

of Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987). ‘ Steve

Land. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom (Sheffeld, England:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); William

Faupel.

The

Everlasting Gospel:

The

Significance of Eschatology

in the

Development of Pentecostal Thought (Ph.D. Dissertation; Birmingham, England: University

of Birmingham, 1989).

6Those Pentecostals who emerged from a Wesleyan background held that a crisis sanctification

experience

must

precede

the

experience

of

Spirit baptism,

while “baptistic”

Pentecostals came to believe that sanctification was a

process, which excluded the

necessity of

a crisis

experience

in between conversion and

Spirit baptism. 7 I am

grateful to Miroslav Volf for this characterization.

2

35

movement of the

Spirit

of God that had some of the characteristics of early

Pentecostalism but occurred in foreign and

threatening theological and

liturgical

contexts.

Yet,

the

penchant

of

many

within the Charismatic movement to favor church renewal over

eschatological fervor offered an alternative

spirituality

to a number of Pentecostal churches that were

losing

touch with their

eschatological

roots. Herein lay

a major source of the ambivalence of

many

Pentecostals toward the Charismatics.

As

important

as the more holistic doctrinal

approach

to

defining Pentecostalism

is,

Walter

Hollenweger

believes that this “ideengeschichtliche” (“idea-historical”) approach

is not

adequate by itself Fundamental for

Hollenweger

is the

“realgeschichtliche” approach,

which focuses on the actual hermeneutics of the movement. Hollenweger

finds in

primitive

Pentecostalism a Catholic

spirituality mediated

through Wesleyanism

and an African oral

liturgy

and expression

of Christian

identity

that utilized the

story,

the

vision,

and prayers

for

bodily healing.

The

emphasis

on

prayer

for

bodily healing reveals the effort of

early

Pentecostals to overcome the Western dualism between

spirit

and matter and to

replace

it with a wholistic spirituality

that

proceeds

from an g

integration

of

body

and

soul,

nature and

spirit,

or

society

and

person.8

This

unique wedding

of Catholic and African

spiritualities

holds the key

for

understanding

the

appeal

of Pentecostalism in the Third World and

explains

the ecumenical

significance

of the movement.

Hollenweger noted that the

greatest

weakness of classical Pentecostalism has been its failure to realize its

potential

for ecumenical

diversity.

In the words of Cecil

Robeck,

Pentecostalism is ecumenical and

multicultural, though

much of the movement does not

yet

realize it.9

Perhaps,

the greatest

influence of the Charismatic movement will be in

confronting Pentecostalism with its own

potential

for ecumenism. Such a confrontation

implies

a threat and a risk for

many Pentecostals; but, then,

so did the

original

Azusa Street revival.

At

first,

the Charismatic movement did not

pose

much of a threat. Most of those involved

early

on in the movement

during

the late 1950s and

early

1960s were Protestant and

open

to

adopt

a Pentecostal theological

orientation.’° But the threat and

consequent

confusion was felt

among many

Pentecostals when the Charismatic movement reached the Roman Catholic Church in the late 1960s.

Suddenly,

Pentecostals

.

8 Walter J.

Hollenweger, “Priorities

in Pentecostal Research:

Historiography, Missiology,

Hermeneutics and

Pneumatology,” in Experiences of the Spirit, ed. Jan A. B.

Jongeneel (Bern: Peter Lang Verlag, 1989), 82 9 Cecil

M.

of a

Robeck, Jr.,

Stock of Pentecostalism: The Personal Reflections

Retiring Editor,”

PNEUMA: The Journal “Taking

of the Sociely for Pentecostal Theology 15

(Spring 1993): 39-51. ‘° Walter

J.

Hollenweger, “After Twenty

Years’ Research on

87

Pentecostalism,” Theology (November 1984): 407-409.

3

36

had to

make,

in the words of Vinson

Synan,

an “agonizing reappraisal” of what it meant to be Pentecostal.”

Commenting

on the Sixth International Conference on the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church

(1972), Synan remarked, “They

were

singing

‘our’

songs

and exercising

‘our’

gifts.

It was more than I could take.”‘2 The

presence

of the Charismatic movement in the Catholic Church was most unexpected

for Pentecostals and

posed significant theological

and ecumenical

challenges

for Pentecostalism.

This

challenge

and the

accompanying

confusion was due to the use by

Catholic Charismatics of critical biblical

scholarship

and sacramental theology

to

interpret

Pentecostal

experience,

both of which were taboo for

Pentecostals, especially during

a decade in which

they

were passionately seeking

to

identify

with American

Evangelicalism.’3 Aspects

of Catholic

piety

and life that seemed

strange

or sinful to classical

Pentecostals,

such as devotion to

Mary,

remained vibrant among many

Catholic Charismatics.

The Charismatics

among

the

Protestants,

who shared basic features of Pentecostal

doctrine,

have been

generally

less

threatening theologically

for Pentecostals. But some of these Protestant Charismatic

groups, including

the so-called “third

wavers,” emphasized demonology

more than the God of redemption or used certain methods of

“imparting”

the

Spirit

that seemed fanatical to most denominational Pentecostals.14 The revivals of

holy laughter

and animal imitations taking place

in the Toronto revival are

receiving

mixed

responses by Pentecostals.” The Charismatic movement offers

great diversity,

which must be

kept

in mind when

discussing

the tensions

produced by

the influence of Charismatics on Pentecostalism.

‘

Tensions Produced

by the Influence

on Doctrine

As noted

above,

an

expectation

of a

post-conversion Baptism

in the Holy Spirit

was a

major

doctrinal distinctive of

early

Pentecostalism.

” Note the

struggle

of Vinson

Synan in Charismatic Bridges (Ann Arbor, MI: Word 12 of Life, 1974), 16-25.

” Synan, Charismatic Bridges, 25. Russell P. Spittler, “Theological Style among Pentecostals and Charismatics,” in Doing Theologv

in Today’s

World, eds. J. D. Woodbridge and T. E. McComiskey (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 291-318; on the

Pentecostals to

gradual attempt by gain acceptance from Evangelicals see Gerald “Word and Sheppard,

Spirit: Scripture

in the Pentecostal

Tradition, Part One,” Agora 1 (Spring 1978): 4-5, and 17-22; and,

“Word and

Spirit: Scripture

in the Pentecostal Tradition,

Part Two,” Agora 2 (Summer 1978): 14-19.

‘” Note,

for example, the tensions revealed in Thomas Pratt’s article entitled, “The Need to

Dialogue:

A Review of the Debate on

Signs, Wonders,

Miracles and

Warfare in the Literature of the Third Wave Movement,” PNEUA1A: The Journal

Spiritual

of the Societv for Pentecostal Theology I 3 (Spring 1991 ): 7-32. “Frank

D. Macchia, “The ‘Toronto Blessing’: No Laughing

Matter,” Journal Penlecostal

of

Theology 8 (April 1996): 3-6.

4

37

among

Spirit

bestowed in the sacraments. explanation

of this Pentecostal capacity

to

experience consciously fundamentally

Church.”

According

to

Henry

The Charismatic movement

produced

a variety of views

concerning

the nature of

Spirit baptism.’6 Spirit baptism

came to be viewed

popularly

Catholic Charismatics as a “release” or “actualization” of the

experience

Typical

was Kilian McDonnell’s

as a

widening

of one’s

the

Spirit

that is at work

this kind of sacramental

has also

circles.”

to

accept

other views

“release,” “actualization,”

Pentecostals, though

most of their Charismatic movement criticized the

in Christian initiation and in the sacramental life of the

Lederle,

interpretation

“comes close to

being

the official Catholic

position

and

‘8 received

support

from

Lutheran, Anglican,

and

Presbyterian

Though

Catholic and Protestant Charismatics would come

of

Spirit baptism,

the sacramental

interpretation drew the most attention from classical Pentecostals.

or the like

provoked

of the Charismatic residue of revivalistic Testament

theology

shared this criticism

The

expressions

different

responses

from

published responses

to the view of

Spirit baptism suggested

the

Spirit’s empowerment

and

‘

Charismatics because of the the

Spirit

as a “less” and a “more” bestowals.21

by these terms.”

At the same time that the Charismatic movement was

gaining force, the Pentecostal doctrine of

Spirit baptism

was

being

criticized outside

movement

by

James Dunn and Dale Bruner as a

that was inconsistent with the New

assumption concerning

gifting

of all believers

by

virtue of initiation.2°

Many

Charismatics

of classical Pentecostalism. Kilian McDonnell preferred

the avoidance of the term

“Spirit baptism” among

Catholic

Pentecostal

usage

of this term to

quantify

with

regards

to a series of

Spirit

In the words of Simon

Tugwell,

“more than fundamental Christianity

can

only

be less than the

Gospel.” ‘

1 a Lederle, ‘9E.g., Flower,

Company,

I. Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations

the Charismatic ‘6Henry

of ‘Spirit Baptism’

in

Renewal Movement (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988). “Kilian McDonnell, “The

Distinguishing

Characteristics of the Charismatic-Pentecostal Spirituality,” One in Christ 10 (1974): 117-28.

Treasures Old and New, 106.

“The Charismatic Movement,” 11; Ray Hughes, “A Traditional Pentecostal Looks at the New Pentecostals,” Christianity Today, 7 June 1974, 10. 20 James Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1970); Dale Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness (Grand

Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

1970).

22

McDonnell, “Distinguishing Characteristics,” esp.

123ff

Simon Tugwell, “Baptism in the

268.

Holy Spirit,” Heythrop Journal 13 (July 1972): This

was also Bruner’s

major criticism, to which Lederle remarked, “few Pentecostals, if any, would recognize themselves in

rightly

Bruner’s

picture.”

But Lederle still believes that Pentecostals imply stages and discontinuities in the Christian life. He suggests the

as

“Augustinian”

model of

continuity in the Christian life

preferable, Treasures Old and New, ch. 1, esp. 28-29.

5

38

Speaking theologically

experiences

or “actualization”

represented

a

among

Charismatics in an

theology.

groups

not

traditionally Pentecostal, release or manifestation

The British Pentecostal

giant, Spirit baptism

as a

“bubbling

of the

Spirit’s

“release”

creative

language

birthed

attempt

to be sensitive to the Pentecostal concern for

dramatically

new

from the

Spirit,

but without the

assumption

of “amounts” or “levels” of the

Spirit’s

bestowal assumed to be

part

of Pentecostal

Some Pentecostal

ministers, particularly

those active in

experience

teaching

publications

of

by shifting

referred to

Spirit baptism

as a

in the lives of believers.

forth”

that she had ever read in official

of the

indwelling Spirit

Donald

Gee,

for

example,

referred to

of the

Spirit

who indwells believers .2′ That such

metaphors typical

of Charismatic

language continue to create tensions within classical Pentecostalism is shown in a recent

flurry

of

negative responses

to an article

by

Assemblies of God Naval

Chaplain,

Stanford

Linzey,

in which he characterized the

of

Spirit baptism

as a “manifestation” of the

indwelling Spirit

bestowed at conversion.” In her letter to the Editor

of Advance, the journal that

printed

the

article,

Central Bible

College professor Opal Reddin

charged

that this characterization of

Spirit baptism

“is the most potentially damaging”

the Assemblies of God. Her reason was

simple:

“The Baptism [in the Spirit]

comes from

above,

not from within. ,21

Pentecostal scholars

Roger

Stronstad and Robert Menzies

recently have

responded

to criticisms of the Pentecostal doctrine of subsequence

the focus

away

from the entire issue of whether or not there is still “more” of the

Spirit

to be received after conversion or initiation. They

have directed attention instead to the distinction between Paul and Luke with

regard

to the

“reception”

Spirit’s reception

is identified with Christian initiation. For

Luke,

the

reception

of the

Spirit

is for

prophetic

service and is not salvific. The bestowal of the

Spirit

for Luke assumes initiation to salvation but is not an

aspect

of that initiation.26 In the words of Herman

Gunkel,

Paul’s

understanding

of the

Spirit’s reception

is

while Luke’s

understanding

is

“post-faith.”27 Defining

the

is salvific and

“pre-faith”

Gospel Publishing

Opal Reddin, Roger Stronstad,

of the

Spirit.

For

Paul,

the

“Donald

Gee, Now that You’ve Been Baptized in the Spirit (Springfield, MO:

House, 1972), 27.

24 Stanford Linzey, “Receiving the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” Advance 29 (June 1993): 9.

Letter to the Editor, Advance 29

1993): 42.

The Charismatic

(November

Theology of

St. Luke

(Peabody,

MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988); Robert Menzies, Empowered for Witness: The in

Spirit

Luke-Acts (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994).

27H. Gunkel states, “For Acts it is commonplace that to be a believer and to be seized by the Spirit are separate events. Only the believer, of course, can receive the

but whoever has faith does not on that account

to faith does not result from the already

have the

Spirit.”

Gunkel, Spirit

in Acts but is a

of receiving the

Spirit.

It is different for Paul. The Influence of the Spirit,

trans. R. A. Harrisville and P. A. Quanbeck II (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress

Spirit, According prerequisite

6

39

precise relationship

between these bestowals of the

Spirit

is the theological challenge facing

Pentecostal scholars. The

proposals put forth

by

Charismatics and their influence on Pentecostal

language should

provide

Pentecostals with the kind of creative tensions that might give

rise to more

meaningful theological

formulations.

It remains to be seen how the

exegetical

work of Stronstad and Menzies will be worked out

theologically

so as to enhance the conversation between Charismatics and Pentecostals. How are we to negotiate theologically

the continuities and creative tensions in the various

understandings

of the

Spirit’s reception

shared

by Luke, Paul, and John as well?

Many theologians

of the Charismatic movement no doubt will continue to ask if the Pentecostal

understanding

of the reception

of the

prophetic Spirit

as a

dramatically

new event not to be identified with Christian initiation still does not contradict the identification of

Spirit

bestowal and

gifting

as an

aspect

of Christian initiation.

By distinguishing

the

Spirit

of

prophecy

from the

abiding Spirit granted

at initiation and

given

to secure an

enduring

Christian identity,

do Pentecostals run the risk of

disturbing

the

continuity

of Christian faith and

service, thereby giving

rise to discontinuous levels of Christian

identity?

On the other

hand,

if Charismatics view all Christian gifting

and

experience

as

merely

an “actualization” or “release,” of that which is received in Christian

initiation,

do

they

run the risk of

viewing the

Spirit

as a

“possession”

of believers that is received and secured “once and for all?” Where in this

understanding

is the

eschatological Spirit

who is free to confront us in

radically

new

ways

that are not simply

contained in conversion or in the rites of initiation?

Elsewhere,

I have

argued

that a basic difference in

theological orientation exists between the

“theophanic” spirituality

favored

by Pentecostals and the “incarnational”

spirituality implied

in sacramental theologieS.2′

The

theophanic approach

to

pneumatology emphasizes

the eschatological in-breaking

of the

Spirit

in ways that are

extraordinary, unpredictable,

and

radically

new. The distinction that Pentecostals have traditionally

made between initiation and

Spirit empowerment

for

gifted service must be viewed in the

light

of this

eschatological orientation,

in which

experiences

of

empowerment

are not viewed as realizations of capacities already possessed (welling up

from

within)

but as

radically new

possibilities

called forth

by

the

eschatological Spirit

of God. This eschatological

context is more

helpful

for

understanding

the distinction between conversion and

Spirit baptismal experiences

assumed

by Pentecostals than the Gnostic “levels” of

spirituality

often used to interpret

Pentecostal doctrine. The incamational

approach,

on the other hand,

focuses on the

abiding presence

of Christ

through

the

Spirit

in the

.

Press, 1979), 17.

28 Frank D. Macchia, “Tongues as a Sign: Towards a Sacramental

of Pentecostal

Understanding

Experience,” PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for

Pentecostal Studies 15 (Spring 1993): 61-76.

7

40

The

Church,

which is at work in believers

through

the

sacraments.

tensions between Pentecostals and Charismatics over how to

understand the

baptism

in the

Holy Spirit

has its

roots,

in

part,

in this

difference of orientation.

In a similar

vein,

Peter Hocken has made a

helpful

distinction

between the “renewal”

theology

of

Charismatics,

which

highlights

the

renewal of the

Church,

and the “revival”

theology

of Pentecostals

which

emphasizes evangelism

in the

light

of the soon return of Christ.

is not

normally accompanied ,

awareness of the Second

Coming

as an

object

of Christian

Hope.

The

with the

past.” 29

Revival

language,

on the other

hand,

has an outlook towards the future and involves

hope

Hocken notes: “Renewal

language

future is seen as in linear

continuity

by

much more

creatively

with

if

they

would view such

of issues.

influences on their

language

of the above-mentioned cluster

the need to note a

continuity

between the abiding Spirit

in the lives of believers and the

subsequent experiences

for the Second

Coming. 30

Pentecostals can come to terms Charismatic

influences in the context

Pentecostals can

appreciate

called forth

by

visitations of the

eschatological Spirit,

without

.

of

believers from

instead to view the

Spirit’s empowerment

sacrificing

their focus on the latter. Gordon Anderson has

attempted such a formulation of

Spirit baptism recently by arguing

that Pentecostals have never meant to sever the

Spirit’s empowerment

the

Spirit

of conversion. Pentecostals have

preferred

Pentecostals

people

of God from

being toward

being

a

prophetic liberation.

Perhaps

both

and

meaningful interpretations

of believers as the

bringing

service is the fulfillment of

for

helping

to

nudge

the

.

toward more creative

of the

Spirit.

Spirit

Pentecostals interesting

of the

Spirit

of conversion to “fullness” in the lives of believers.3′ If

believe that

prophetic

conversion,

there is potential in Pentecostalism

a self-centered cult of

personal redemption

movement for both

personal

and social

Pentecostals and Charismatics can continue to influence each other in the area of

pneumatology

of the

empowerment

The Pentecostal doctrine of

tongues

as the initial evidence of baptism

has also been an

interesting

source of creative tension between

and

many

Charismatics. Vinson

Synan

made the

of the Charismatics who have avoided the doctrine of initial

evidence,

have also tended to

speak

in

more often and

enthusiastically

than Pentecostals.32 Not all

observation

that

many

tongues

Renewal,” 1981):

29Peter Hocken, “The Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement as Revival and

PNEUMA: The Journal

of the Society for Pentecostal Theology 3 (Spring 3°

42.

” Hocken, “The Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement as Revival and Renewal,” 35. Gordon

Anderson, “Baptism

in the

Holy Spirit,

Initial

n

1-10.

Evidence, and a New Model,” Paraclete 27 (Fall 1993):

Vinson Synan, “The Role of Tongues as Initial Evidence,” paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology (Guadalajara, Mexico:

8

41

Pentecostals

world-wide have

accepted

the doctrine of initial evidence. The

majority

of Pentecostals have defended the doctrine of initial evidence but without much

theological explanation concerning

what “initial” or “evidence” mean.

Ironically,

some of the Charismatics who have

rejected

the Pentecostal doctrine of initial evidence have also offered rich

theological suggestions concerning

how

tongues

function as a fundamental

sign

of Christian

experience

and witness.33 Such insights beg

the

question

as to whether the Pentecostal doctrine of initial evidence

may

not need to be taken more

seriously by

the Charismatics who

reject

it. Can Charismatics and Pentecostals influence each other toward a

theologically insightful theology

of

tongues

as a fundamental

sign

of

Spirit baptism?

The traditional Pentecostal

argument

for initial evidence has centered commonly

on a

“pattern”

detected in the Book of

Acts,

in which tongues

function in

key places throughout

the Acts narrative as the most

striking

evidence of the

empowerment

of the

Holy Spirit.’ Pentecostals are not the

only

ones who have taken note of the

special place

that Luke

grants tongues

as the

sign

of the

Spirit’s

work in the Acts narrative.35 Charismatics critical of Pentecostal

theology

have generally rejected

the Pentecostal doctrine of initial evidence as a “law” that seeks to

guarantee

an

experience

of the

Holy Spirit,

or as a dogmatic rigidification

of an

experience

that reveals a certain distance from the

vibrancy

of the

experience

itself.36

These criticisms need to be taken

seriously among

Pentecostals. But Charismatics should note that much Pentecostal literature reveals that the

theological

intent behind the formulation of the initial evidence doctrine was not to

guarantee

or

rigidify

the

experience

of the

Holy Spirit.

The motives instead were sometimes

theological

and diverse.

.

“Note,

November 11-13, 1993).

for example, Rene Laurentin, Catholic Pentecostalism, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell

(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 78ff. Also see my discussion of a few

Charismatic views in,

“Sighs

too Deep for Words: Towards a Theology of Glossolalia,” Journal ofPentecostal Theology 1 (Fall 1992): 47-73. B.

Book

14 Gary McGee,

of

“Early Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Tongues as Evidence in the

Acts,” in Initial Evidence, ed. Gary B. McGee (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991 ), ch. 6.

33 According

to H. Gunkel in Influence of the Holy Spirit, tongues were the “most striking

characteristic

activity” of the Spirit for Luke (25, 30). More Pesch

notes that were for Luke the

recently, R

Die tongues

“Anfangswunder” (initial miracle) of the Spirit’s work, Apostelgeschichte ( 1.

Kommentar zum

Teilband),

Neuen

Testament, hrsg.

J. Blank et. Evangelisch-Katholischer al.

(Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986), 101-102, 108.

“Henry

I.

Lederle,

“Initial Evidence and the Charismatic Movement: An Ecumenical

Appraisal,”

in Initial Evidence, ed.

Hendrickson

Gary B. McGee (Peabody, MA:

Publishers, 1991), ch. 8; Jean-Daniel Pliiss, “Azusa and Other The

Long and

Road from

Myths:

The

Winding

Journal the

Experience to Stated Belief and Back PNEUMA:

Society for

Pentecostal Studies 15

Again,”

of (Fall 1993):189-201.

‘

9

42

For

example, many

of the earliest Pentecostals viewed

tongues

as the end-time

missionary language

that would aid the

people

of God in communicating

the

Gospel

to diverse nations

quickly

before the soon return of Christ. This idea was drawn from an

understanding

of the tongues

of Pentecost as the

ability

to communicate

quickly

the

Gospel to all nations before

languages

could be

learned,

a view that is at least as ancient as the time of St.

Augustine.3′

In tension with this utilitarian notion of tongues as a possible tool of evangelism,

were the various

theological

connections assumed

early

on among

Pentecostals between the nature of

Spirit baptism

and the tongues experience.

As W. T. Gaston stated in

1918, “Tongues

seem included and inherent in the

larger experience

of

Spirit baptism. “38 Over the

decades,

Pentecostals have assumed that

tongues symbolize fundamental characteristics of the

baptism

in the

Spirit,

and have granted tongues

a certain

primacy

in relation to other

signs

and wonders.39

Tongues signaled

the

mystery

and freedom involved in the divine-human

encounter,40

the total

yielding

of believers to God

(since the

tongue

is the

body’s

most

“unruly” member),4′

the

sign

of the remaking

of

language and, hence,

of the

remaking

of

history by

the eschatological Spirit

of

God,42

or the

sign

of a new ecumenical community

that is

struggling

for the

unity

of the

body

of Christ

yet

to be revealed in the

Kingdom

to come.43 Because of the

integral connections Pentecostals make between

Spirit baptism

and

tongues,

I have tried to direct attention from evidential to sacramental

language.

I have concluded that

tongues actually

function

among

Pentecostals as a fundamental

sign

of what the

Spirit

is

doing

in

Spirit baptism

to confront the

people

of God with the

overwhelming mystery

of the Kingdom

to come and to move them toward the final

gathering

of the diverse

people

of God as part of the

redemption

of creation

(Rom.

“St.

Augustine, “Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John,” Tractate 32, nos. 7-8.

38 Quoted by Lederle, “Initial Evidence,” 128.

“Macchia, “Tongues as a Sign.” Note also, “Sighs too Deep for Words.” ‘° Macchia, “Sighs too Deep for Words.”

” J. L.

Hall,

“A Oneness Pentecostal Looks at Initial Evidence,” in Initial Evidence, ed. Gary B. McGee (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 182. Murray

W. Dempster, “The Church’s Moral Witness: A Study of Glossolalia in Luke’s 43

Theology of Acts,” Paraclete 23 (Winter 1989): 1-7. As Russell

stated, tongues are “a broken speech for a broken body of Christ until

Spittler

Charismatic

perfection comes,” in “Glossolalia,” in Dictionary of Pentecostal

and

Movements, eds. Stanley M, Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1988), 441. The

ecumenical event of Pentecost in Acts 2 only involved Diaspora Jews. The story of Acts depicts a people of God struggling for ecumenism through the power of the

Spirit. Perfection will come when the whole people of God rejoice in every language before the throne of grace (Rev. 7:9).

14 Macchia, “Tongues

as a Sign.”

10

43

As the utilitarian

understanding

of initial evidence was

forsaken,

the other

understanding

that

theologically integrated tongues

with Charismatic

experience

allowed

tongues

to

play

an

enduring

role as a distinctive of the Pentecostal movement.45 This

distinctive, though

not central to the Pentecostal

witness,’ was, nevertheless, an

important aspect

of the

apostolic

character of Pentecostal

experience.”

Since tongues

was the most

striking sign

for Luke of the

newly

formed prophetic

witness of the

apostolic community (Acts 2:4-13; 10:46), Pentecostals

expected

this

sign

to

accompany

their

experience

as well.

The Charismatic criticisms of the initial evidence doctrine have provoked

Pentecostals to make certain clarifications of their stance that are sure to

inspire

future debate and discussion. Vinson

Synan responded

to Charismatics

by stating

that

tongues

are the “initial” evidence of

Spirit baptism,

but that other

signs

are “no less”

significant than

tongues

as evidences. 41

Similarly, Ray Hughes

stated in

response to Charismatics that

tongues

is by no means the “final” evidence.49 Such responses

to the Charismatic movement from these two

pillars

of classical Pentecostalism

imply

that

tongues

alone do not serve to confirm the work of the

Spirit

in

empowering

the

people

of God for gifted

service.

Tongues

serve as “evidence”

only

in

continuity

with other

signs

of the

Spirit.

There is a

safeguard

in such an idea

against viewing tongues

as an absolute

guarantee

or as an inflexible dogmatization

of the

experience

of the

prophetic Spirit among

the people

of God.

Other Pentecostals have been

seeking

further clarification of the initial evidence doctrine in

response,

in

part,

to both Charismatics and Evangelicals.

Cecil M. Robeck reminded us that Pentecostal

founder, William J.

Seymour,

came to

emphasize

the

necessity

of the fruits of love and holiness as confirmations of the

Spirit’s

work

among

the

°’ Jenny Everts, “Missionary Tongues?” paper presented

at the 23rd Annual Meeting

of the

Society for Pentecostal Studies (Gaudalajara, Mexico: November

11-13, 1993). 46

Vinson Synan, for example, complained, “many have dubbed the pentecostals the ‘tongues

movement.’ Pentecostals have never accepted that appellation. It is no more logical than calling the Baptists the ‘water movement’ or the Presbyterians the ‘predestination

movement. “‘ Charismatic

Bridges, 33-34. Similarly, Wade Horton stated that Pentecostals “did, and still do not,

place

as much

importance

on glossolalia

itself… as others claim.” “Introduction,” The Glossolalia. Phenomenon, ed. Wade Horton (Cleveland, TN: Pathway Press, 1966), 16.

“Though tongues were never central to Pentecostal

Pentecostals

_

teachings,

still did value them highly as a distinctive. P. C. Nelson expressed the sentiments of when he

many

wrote, “We esteem this gift so highly that we are willing to suffer and

reproach

loss for the sake of the wonderful privilege of receiving the Holy Spirit in the way

the hundred and twenty did at Pentecost.” Bible Doctrines (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing

48

House, 1948), 90.

Synan, Charismatic Bridges, 34.

‘9Hughes,

“A Traditional Pentecostal,” 8.

11

44

Spirit’s empowerment credibility

departure

beyond

imply

that

tongues

can be as

freely

tongues

do not function

Fee to

explain

how his initial

evidence,

the fact

Without

prophetic

witness of

gifts among

of believers.”

first

century Christians,

but

criterion for

confirming

the further clarification is needed

by

as initial

evidence,

biblical

are

people

of God.50 This

insight

carries the issue of confirmation of the

the

signs

of the

Spirit

in worship to the

of

worship

found in the dedicated life. In a

potential

from the initial evidence

doctrine, 5′ Gordon Fee has depicted tongues

as “normal” but not “normative.” This distinction seems to

and

prolifically

manifested

today among

believers as

they

were

among

as a

necessary

experience

of

Spirit baptism. Though

view does not

represent

a mere

rejection

of

that he holds ministerial credentials in a major Pentecostal denomination calls into

question

the assumed

inflexibility

of Pentecostals on the issue of initial evidence.

denying

the role of

tongues

scholars

Roger

Stronstad and Robert Menzies have focused on the

the

people

of God as the Lukan confirmation of the

Spirit’s gifting

for service. 52 Stronstad understands the

diversity

of

the

people

of God as

producing

a

prophetic community,

a “prophethood

All

gifts

are to serve the

prophetic

witness of the Church in the world.” Such views

imply

that

tongues evidence of

Spirit baptism

but

only

as an

integral aspect

of a broader prophetic

witness.

All of the above diverse formulations of initial evidence in

part

are responses

to the influence of the Charismatic movement. But

they

also reflect within Pentecostal circles a much overlooked

theological fluidity and

complexity surrounding

the initial evidence doctrine. Much more discussion is

necessary, however, particularly

with

regard

to the ecumenical

implications

of the

doctrine,

both

negative

and

positive.

which holds so much

potential

for symbolizing

and

inspiring

an ecumenical vision for the

people

of

God, have,

in the view of

many,

been

interpreted by

Pentecostals in a

way that threatens ecumenical

dialogue.

Charismatics and Pentecostals must talk to each other more about these matters.

Ironically, speaking

in

tongues,

50 Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “William J. Seymour and the ‘Bible Evidence.”‘ in Initial Evidence, ed. Gary B. McGee (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 117-127.

“Fee

argues that historical precedent is never sufficient in itself to establish norms. See

Gospel

and

Spirit:

Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics

(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 94. See Roger Stronstad’s

response, “The Biblical Precedent for Historical 5Z Precedent,” Paraclete 27 (Summer 1993): 5ff.

Stronstad. Charismatic Theology of St. Luke; Menzies, Empowered for ¡Vitness.

Stronstad, “Affirming Diversity:

God’s

People

as a

Community

of

1994 Presidential Address, PNEI£E£4: The Journal

of the Society Pentecostal Studies 17

for

(Fall 1995): 145-157.

53 roger Prophets.”

12

45

Tensions Produced by the Influence

on

Holiness, Piety,

and

Worship

The Charismatic movement has made its most

deeply-felt challenge to Pentecostalism

in the area of

personal holiness, since,

for Pentecostals, “purity precedes power.”54

Pentecostals have been repelled by the absence among many

Charismatics of a holiness code of ethics. Influenced

by the

Holiness

movement,

some of the most obvious signs

of worldliness for classical Pentecostals have been associated traditionally

with such

personal

vices and social fads as

smoking, drinking,

the

wearing of jewelry, dancing,

and theater attendance. Some diversity, however,

has existed

among

North American Pentecostals on such issues. For

example,

certain ethnic Pentecostal

groups

have had little

difficulty

with moderate

drinking.

Other Pentecostal

groups

have ceased

criticizing

church members for

watching

a movie at the cinema. Have Pentecostals

given

too much attention to such matters as

personal dress, habits,

and forms of entertainment? There is little doubt that criticizing styles

of dress and various

personal

habits has functioned for some as a

self-righteous justification

for more serious crimes

against humanity,

such as racism and sexism.

Holiness

taboos, though

sometimes trivial and

hypocritical,

were also part

of the Pentecostal

attempt

to

identify

an ecclesiastical subculture that resisted and criticized the

spirit

of the

age.

The

priorities

involved were

culturally influenced,

but the

respect

for the

body implied

in a number of the taboos had relevance for a number of ethical issues. Synan,

for

example,

felt

compelled

in

response

to the Charismatic movement to note that recent scientific research has

supported

the Pentecostal criticisms of

smoking

and

drinking.55

On the other

hand, “Mr.

Pentecost,”

David du

Plessis,

warned Charismatics not to feel obligated

to inherit all of the

“superficial

matters” of classical Pentecostalism, including

some of its holiness codes of behavior. 56 Many

Charismatics have had no

difficulty following

this advice due to their view of the holiness ethics of Pentecostals as “cultural

baggage” that is not essential to the work of the

Spirit. 57

The

“agonizing reappraisal”

of what it means to be “Pentecostal” has been caused in part by

the

presence

of Charismatics who smoke and drink.

Most classical Pentecostals would not

agree

with the characterization of their ethics as mere cultural

baggage.

But the Charismatics have helped

to raise the

important

issue of the cultural influence on the ethics popular among Pentecostals,

as

among

all

Christians, including

the Charismatics. If Pentecostalism is to remain vibrant and contextual as a counter-cultural

eschatological movement,

it must continue to take this

55 “Hughes,

“A Traditional Pentecostal,” 7.

Synan, Charismatic Bridges, 33.

Edward D. O’Conner, The Pentecostal klovement in the Catholic Church (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 19’71 ), 81.

56Quoted by

S7 O’Conner.

Pentecostal Movement, 243.

13

46

challenge

from the Charismatic movement with utmost seriousness. But beyond

the Charismatic

challenge, minority

Pentecostals in -the United States

might

offer ethical

challenges

to confront the lack of social concern

among

Charismatics and classical Pentecostals.

Personal

piety

has also been a point of tension between Pentecostals and Charismatics. Catholic Charismatics in

particular

offend Pentecostals

by remaining loyal

to acts of

piety

that Pentecostals have traditionally

condemned. For

example,

the vast

majority

of Pentecostals would be horrified at one

testimony

from a Catholic Charismatic concerning

a

prayer

in tongues that consisted

largely

of “Hail

Mary.”58 Marian

piety

and devotion to saints are

frequently

mentioned as

points of offense

by

Pentecostals in

response

to Catholic Charismatics.59 Though

Pentecostals have reason to be concerned about certain

aspects of Catholic Charismatic

piety, deeper

reflection on the value inherent in Catholic

piety might

serve to increase awareness

among

Pentecostals of the

possibility

of the

Spirit’s sanctifying

and

empowering presence

at work in a

diversity

of

spiritualities,

even in those that seem

foreign

and strange.

Some classical Pentecostals have

struggled

to learn this lesson.

It is in the area of

worship

that the Charismatic movement has made its most visible influence on classical Pentecostalism.

Worthy

of note is the devotion to

praise

common

among

Charismatic

groups.60

One Pentecostal commented on the

“great spiritual

freedom” and

creativity involved in the creation of new choruses for

worship among Charismatics.6′ He wrote: “sometimes

everyone gains

the same

pitch

or tone

level,

and it becomes a

song. ,,62

The “anointed”

singing

of new choruses was mentioned

by

another author as the most

outstanding characteristic of the

movement;

he further commented that he discovered in this

something

that was lost from “old-time Pentecost.”63 Indeed,

at a time when well-worn

hymnals

and

camp-meeting

favorites were

losing

their

appeal

for

many Pentecostals,

the Charismatic

flurry of new choruses came as a breath of fresh air.

They brought Pentecostals a “simplicity that is rare and

refreshing.”‘ However,

some of us who have been overwhelmed

by

the flood of new choruses are hoping

for

greater usage

of the

hymnals.

_

58 O’Conner, Pentecostal Movement, 60.

5’Flower,

“The Charismatic Movement,” 10;

Ray Hughes,

“A Traditional Pentecostal,” 10;

Melvin

Hodges,

“The Charismatic Movement in World Evangelism,”

Advance 11 (March

1975): 5.

60 J. Rodman Williams, “A Profile of the Charismatic Movement,”

28

Christianity Advance 11

Today, February 1975, 10; Elmer Bilton,

“The Charismatics Are

Coming,” 6′

(November 1975): 9.

Dwight McLaughlin, “An Appraisal of the Charismatic Movement,” Pentecostal 26

Evangel,

November 1972, 9.

6′

6z McLaughlin,

“An Appraisal of the Charismatic Movement,” 9.

Bilton, “The Charismatics Are Coming,” 9.

64 O’Connor, Pentecostal Movement, 81.

14

47

Many

Pentecostals were

impressed by

the

intensity

of

worship possible among

Charismatics without the

energetic encouragements from loud musical instruments and enthusiastic

song

leaders that tended to be

typical

of Pentecostal

song

services.65 One Pentecostal minister learned from the Charismatic movement that it is

possible

to lose “sensitivity

to the

Spirit” by having

the musical instruments all “wound up”

to a fever

pitch.’

Born in American

revivalism, Pentecostalism became accustomed to

very lively

and loud musical

accompaniment. Though

this kind of music can still be a

meaningful expression

of joy and

ecstasy,

the

presence

of intense

prayer

without it has

taught Pentecostals

something very

valuable about the

necessary

role of the Spirit

at the base of all

meaningful praise, regardless

of its cultural form. After

all,

without the

Spirit

at the foundation of Pentecostal worship,

all one would have is Maslow’s

“peak experience” produced by

certain external inducements.

Many

Charismatics

coming

from

liturgical backgrounds

have taken certain

gifted expressions

in

worship

favored

among

Pentecostals in rather novel directions. For

example, glossolalic prayers,

which have tended to be individual and

spontaneous among Pentecostals,

became harmonious

group songs among

the Charismatics.

Synan enthusiastically

remarked that the Catholic Charismatic Conference during

Pentecost

Sunday

of 1975 at St. Peter’s Basilica was similar in some

ways

to a “backwoods Pentecostal

camp meeting,” except

for the “singing

in the

Spirit”

which he described then as a

“chanting

in harmony

in glossolalia.”6′ The transformation of tongues into a form of “liturgical” prayer

has both fascinated and

repelled

Pentecostals. I have been

present

in more than one classical Pentecostal service that has benefited from this kind of

relatively quiet

and harmonious

group singing

in tongues.

But criticism has come from Pentecostals who believed that this Charismatic trend

merely

seeks to tame and to

manipulate

what is meant to be an overwhelming and dramatic self-disclosure of the

Spirit. Wade Horton

complained

about the Charismatics who

accept

“the mechanical, quiet, sophisticated tongues speaking,

but

reject

the emotional, unspeakable joy, spiritually intoxicated, rushing mighty

wind kind of Pentecostal

experience. ,,68

The orchestration of

falling

in the Spirit

and

holy laughter

as

group experiences popular among

certain Charismatic

groups

is also

part

of the transformation of

spontaneous

65 McLaughlin, “An Appraisal of the Charismatic Movement,” 9.

“David

Rees-Thomas, “Charismatic Encounter,” Advance 9 (May 1973): 5. ” Vinson Synan, “Pentecost in St. Peter’s,”

Christianity Today. 6 June Note 1975, 45;

Rene Laurentin’s reference to

congregational glossolalia as having

“an aesthetic and specifically musical function” and as analogous to “performing rituals foreign

to everyday life,” Catholic Pentecostalism, 79-80.

Horton, “Introduction,”

15.

15

48

signs

and wonders into innovative

liturgical responses

criticized in the above

quote by Horton as “mechanical.”

Of

course,

research on

glossolalia

over the

past

few decades has exposed

the ritualistic

dynamics

at work in

tongues speech,

even among

Pentecostal

groups. Yet,

there is still a difference in expression and

symbolization

between Pentecostal and Charismatic

expressions

of tongues.69

If the two sides can continue to overcome

being

offended

by unfamiliar

styles

of

worship, they

will continue to learn from each other. For

example,

the

loud, fervent,

and less harmonious

expressions of

tongues

and

styles

of

prayer

common

among

Pentecostals and potentially

offensive to Charismatics. can be

symbolic

of the

urgency of the moment and of the

depth

of the need as believers invoke the Holy Spirit

to be

present

and active in a potentially

desperate

situation. But there is also rich

symbolism

involved in the more aesthetic expressions

of harmonious

group singing

in

tongues

common

among Charismatics as

they

stretch the limits of artistic

expression.

The mutual influence that has occurred in tongues worship between the two

groups can serve to create a broader

diversity

of

worship styles

and

symbolic gestures.

Some

Pentecostals, however,

have felt

uneasy

with the desire expressed among

some Charismatics to utilize

tongues

at will as a prayer

method for

spiritual

edification.

Hughes

criticized Charismatics for

wanting

to

“manipulate tongues according

to the fancies of

men,” which he defined as a desire for

personal refreshing

or a

psychological release. For

Hughes, tongues

are

given by

God in order to be a vehicle of a divine

message.” Though

Pentecostals have

always spoken

of cultivating tongues

as a source of

personal enrichment, they

have tended to view the initiation of the

gift

as solely a spontaneous move of the

Spirit.

Devotion to the

Eucharist, interpersonal prayer

for one

another, intimate

group encounters,

and a concentration on

teaching

from the Bible are listed

by

one Pentecostal minister as

practices

he believes Pentecostals are

adopting

from the Charismatic movement.? He claims to have learned to

prefer

these avenues of the

Spirit’s

work to “church games, competitions,

socials. ,,73 He has learned from the Charismatic movement to value the

quality

of

ministry

over

charting

“the number of people

in

Sunday School,

the size of the

church,

the amount of offerings,

or how

many

‘souls’ were saved.”‘4 Pentecostalism has fostered its own

types

of

interpersonal prayer

and devotion to the

69 Note my treatment of this issue in “Tongues as a

“Edward

Sign.”

O’Connor describes how offended Catholic Charismatics were the ”

many by

worship styles of classical Pentecostals in Pentecostal Movement, 80-81.

Hughes, “A Traditional Pentecostal,” 10.

n Rees-Tbomas,

“Charismatic Encounter,” 5.

‘°

7’Rees-Thomas,

“Charismatic Encounter,” 4.

Rees-Thomas, “Charismatic Encounter,” 4.

16

49

Bible.

Yet,

the Charismatic movement

may

have served to

help

remind some Pentecostals who have lost touch with these

priorities

that church renewal is a much better concomitant to

serving

the

Kingdom

of God in the world than

church-growth techniques.

The

aspects

of Charismatic

worship

mentioned above have

actually been

quite appealing

to the so-called

“baby-boomer” generation. Ironically,

some Pentecostals have tried to use the

positive aspects

of Charismatic

worship

as a kind of

“church-growth” technique.

For example,

the theme of the 1973 Pentecost Crusade of the Assemblies of God was “Charismatic Encounter.” The official ministerial

publication of the denomination

explained

the theme as an

opportunity

to “take advantage

of the current

surge

of

public

interest in the Charismatic Movement.” The

publication

noted

further, “any

church that advertises a ‘charismatic encounter’ will attract visitors.” A

seven-part

sermon series on Charismatic Renewal was

prepared

and made available to Assemblies of God ministers to aid in the new “charismatic crusades

A number of Assemblies of God churches

actually

had success in attracting

Charismatics to their services. One minister

reported

that “about 50

percent

of our

congregation

are

people

from the Charismatic Movement.”‘6 One

particularly

successful Assemblies minister boasted of

having

close to 90

percent

of his

Thursday evening

“charismatic Bible

study”

consist of Charismatics.” The

presence

of Charismatics in Assemblies of God churches

encouraged

these

congregations

to

adjust to Charismatic

styles

of

worship

and

interpersonal

interaction. One Assemblies minister

asked,

“would

I,

as a

pastor,

allow this

spiritual renewal to

pass

without

making proper alignment?’,71

Tensions Produced

by the Influence

Toward Ecumenism

The most

significant potential

influence of the Charismatic movement, particularly

of the Catholic

segment

of the

movement,

has been in the area of ecumenical vision.

Synan

stated in

response

to the Charismatics that he

gained

from them a sense of the “world-wide scope

and

power”

of the Pentecostal movement in the twentieth century.’9

But

Synan

admits that this

insight

did not come without a struggle.

He

spoke

for

many

Pentecostals when he stated that memories of

persecution

and resistance from mainline churches made Pentecostals

skeptical

about the

possibility

of the renewed empowerment

of the

Holy Spirit erupting

from within these churches. How could these

opponents

of revival receive so

easily

an

experience that the Pentecostals have

historically

suffered so much to maintain and

.

.

7S “Theme Announced for

1973 Pentecost Crusade: Charismatic

Encounter,” Advance 9 (April 1973): 9.

‘6 Bilton, “The Charismatics Are Coming,” 9.

“Bilton,

“The Charismatics Are Coming,” 9.

‘8 Bilton,

“The Charismatics Are Coming,” 9.

711 Synan,

Charismatic Bridges, 17.

17

50

challenge

to cherish?g° The ecumenical respecting

self-righteousness.

memories of

suffering

and sacrifice without

among

Pentecostals was

for Pentecostals was in

being

led to

A hindrance in the

process

of

forgiveness

and ecumenical

openness

the

occasionally inadequate generalizations made about Pentecostalism

by

certain Charismatic

theologians

who showed little

exposure

to Pentecostal literature or

fellowship

and little sensitivity

to the Pentecostal memories of

rejection

and

persecution from mother churches. What little was said about Pentecostalism

by

went them as

beyond viewing

but not much

theological

or ethical

of

early

Pentecostalism leaves

to the

Charismatic authors

rarely fundamentalists with an

experience insight

to offer.81 This

description unexplained

fundamentalists.

encourage

Charismatics.

Note,

for

example, Charismatics:

why

Pentecostals were

historically

so

threatening

The Charismatic

descriptions

of Pentecostalism did not Pentecostals toward an

openness

opposing

Wade

to the

insights Horton’s

response

of to

It is difficult to understand, however,

why

it is

supposed

that these newcomers to Pentecost, who have spent many years either avoiding or

the experience, can become such authorities It seems a little inappropriate for them to almost immediately assume the overnight.

position of authoritative teachers…. Would it not be more charitable for them to re-examine the total Pentecostal picture and seek to be taught rather than to teach … ?”

Similarly,

after

Synan expressed gained

from

Charismatics,

appreciation

for the

insights

that he

them that there is still much that

of their

In

addition,

movement to be reduced to

he reminded

they

could learn from Pentecostals as well.83

Pentecostals did not want the

significance

a historical

background

for enlivened denominational traditions. As one Pentecostal

preacher stated,

background

While God has not called us to

play

Mother

Superior

to all of the Charismatics,

neither has He

placed

us like some drab curtain in the

to form only a historical setting.8′

something

Ranaghans argue

theological

‘Synan

Charismatic Bridges, 16.

8′ Edward O’Connor does allow Pentecostalism to teach classical

about

theology

tongues

and

prophecy,

Pentecostal Afovement, 214, but his discussion of the

“dangers”

of Pentecostalism is much

larger, 221 ff, including Pentecostal

teachings

that

allegedly

alienate one from the

Church,

239ff. The

that Pentecostalism centers around the issues of

and

Spirit baptism

Spiritual gifts because, originating

in “fundamentalist

churches,”

it lacks a

and

liturgical

context within which to

interpret them,

Catholic Pentecostals (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1969), 1 54-1 55 .

83

“Introduction,” 15.

Synan, Charismatic Bridges, xii. g° J.

B. Oaks, “The Call of the Spirit,” Pentecostal Evangel, 28 October 1973, 4.

Horton,

18

51

Certainly

the

Spirit

of the

Kingdom

of God

plays

a far more critical role vis-d-vis the Church than that of being a mere source for

enlivening denominational structures,

theologies,

and

worship.

If the

significance of the Pentecostal movement is in its witness to

neglected

dimensions of this

eschatological Spirit’s work,

then Pentecostalism must have enduring significance

for the Charismatic movement in

every aspect

of church

belief, worship,

and life.

Recognizing

this

significance

does not mean that Charismatics should simply adopt

Pentecostal

theologies, worship styles,

or codes of ethics. It is understandable that

many

Charismatics would seek to

interpret Pentecostal

experience

in the context of mainline

theological

and ethical traditions. It is

important,

for

example,

to view the Catholic Charismatic tradition in relation to other Renewal movements in the Catholic Church that

help

to

open

one to the rich

depth

and

diversity

of Catholic

belief, worship,

and life.” After

all,

Pentecost does not

just belong

to the Pentecostals.

But unless one is

willing

to maintain that there is nothing new under the

sun,

one should be

open

to the

possibility

that a movement such as Pentecostalism,

that was bom as an

eschatological

and ecumenical movement on the

margins

of

society

and the

Church, might

serve as a source of

theological

and ethical

insight

for mainline churches. A “Pentecostal

experience”

is not “Pentecostal” at all if it is devoid of

any theological

or ethical

implications

and can be assimilated

merely

as a spark

to

ignite existing

ecclesiastical

structures, beliefs,

and

practices. There are radical

theological implications

in the beliefs and

worship

of early

Pentecostalism that should not be

ignored by

Charismatics who wish to

merely

enliven their own

theological heritages.

Walter Hollenweger concluded,

for

example, “[i]f

charismatic

spirituality

does not

change

our traditional

denominationalism,

what

good

is it?”86 In agreement

with the thrust

of Hollenweger’s question, Synan expressed the wish that the Charismatic movement would renew Catholicism “from

top

to bottom. ,,87 The radical

implications

of Azusa Street call for

nothing

less. In

fact,

both Catholics and Pentecostals can become agents

of

significant change

in their

respective

denominations from a renewed look at Azusa Street.

Actually,

the most

significant

influence of the Charismatic movement on Pentecostals

may

be in

directing

them back to

aspects

of the ecumenical vision of Azusa Street. A number of Pentecostals found themselves

pushed

to an

appreciation

of other

spiritualities

and theologies

due to the influence of the Charismatic movement.

Synan testified that the Charismatic movement

encouraged

him to move from a

reactionary position

toward Catholics to a

deep appreciation

of the

‘

” Hocken, “The Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement as Revival and 37-41.

Renewal,” 86

87 Hollenweger, “After Twenty Years’ Research on Pentecostalism,” 408. Synan, Charismatic Bridges, 31.

19

52

orthodoxy preserved by

Catholicism.”

Synan’s response

to the Charismatic movement

implies

an

understanding

of

orthodoxy

that transcends the narrow definition of “orthodox”

espoused

and presumably

owned

by Evangelicals. Synan

also discovered that the Pentecostal

appreciation

for conversion

experiences

is not

foreign

to the Catholic tradition. He

implies

that the ex

opere operato (grace given objectively through

the sacrament

“by

the work

performed”)

does not

preclude

a

place

in the Catholic sacramental tradition for the conscious

acceptance

of God’s

grace by

the believer who

partakes

of the sacraments.89

Other Pentecostal leaders were

encouraged by

the Charismatic movement to a certain ecumenical

openness.

One Assemblies of God official

responded

to the offensive doctrines of the Charismatics with the

insight

that Pentecostalism itself has

always

had “diverse shades of theological thought” potentially

offensive to various

groups

within the Pentecostal movement.9° More

significantly,

he noted that even the apostles

were not in full

agreement

on

every point

of Christian belief 91 He located the

urgency

involved in

transcending

denominational barriers in the

eschatological

direction of the

Holy Spirit’s

work. 92

Similarly,

one of the

speakers

at an Assemblies of God General Council exhorted those who wish to

reject

the Charismatic movement because of doctrinal

disagreement

to concentrate on the

glory

of the Lord in the movement.93 Even the

Study Report

on the Charismatic movement

produced by

the General

Presbytery

of the Assemblies of God

accepted

the Charismatic movement as a

“greater”

fulfillment of the Book of Joel in the twentieth

century, revealing

that “no organization fully represents

the

body

of Christ.”

According

to this report,

the essential

unity

of all Christians is potentially revealed in the Charismatic movement.”

William Menzies noted that the Charismatic movement was not making significant

inroads in Evangelicalism because of the

Evangelical doctrinaire attitude of

being

“so sure of

theological

convictions.”95 Though strong theological

convictions have

always accompanied Pentecostal

revivals, implied

in Menzies’s statement is

insight

into the need to

temper

convictions with

humility

and

openness.

Such attitudes contradict the

“prejudices

and

provincialism”

that one Assemblies of

88 Synan, Charismatic Bridges, 26. Charismatic

Bridges, 31; Synan referred to the ex

the work

” Synam opere operantis

of the

(“by

worker”) to support the need for conscious acceptance of vows in

baptismal

the Catholic tradition, though he does not discuss any further

of the

implications

concept.

9′ ‘° Flower, “The Charismatic Movement,” 10. Flower, “The Charismatic Movement,” 11.

”

“Flower, “The Charismatic Movement,” 11.

Oaks, “The Call of the Spirit,” 4.

9, “Charismatic Study Report,” Advance 8 (November 1972): 3.

9′ Quoted by

Kenneth Kantzer, “The Charismatics among Us,” 28-29.

20

53

God official reasoned

lay

behind the

hesitancy

of some classical Pentecostals to

accept

what the

Spirit

was

doing among

the Charismatics.96 The same

official, however,

contrasted

unity through the

Spirit inspired

in the Charismatic movement with the “coerced” and “organizational” unity attempted by

the Ecumenical movement. 97 Implied

in a

purely “spiritual” attempt

at

achieving unity among Christians is a docetic view of the Church.

Surprisingly,

one can find this contrast of the Charismatic and Ecumenical movements

among both Pentecostals and Charismatics. 98

Of

course,

not all Pentecostals

accepted

the ecumenical

challenges

of the Charismatic movement.

Hughes argued

that Charismatics

may

use the same

terminology

as

Pentecostals,

but

very

different

meanings

are implied

between them.99 Since Pentecostals

proceed

“from doctrine to experience,”

no

unity

is

possible

with Charismatics while there exists such serious doctrinal differences. He concludes that “we cannot be unified

by

common

experience.”‘°°

T. F.

Zimmerman,

former General Superintendent

of the Assemblies of

God,

was

willing

to

accept unity with Charismatics but

only

because he was convinced that the

Holy Spirit

will

eventually

make them “orthodox

Evangelicals.”

God is gracious by being willing

to bless them before such a transformation occurs.’°’

The tensions and ambivalence

exposed

in the Pentecostal

responses to the Charismatic movement are

complex.

As

might

be

expected,

the influences of the Charismatic movement on Pentecostalism have been equally complex.

The Charismatics confront Pentecostals with the possibility

of Pentecostal

vibrancy

in the contexts of foreign theologies, spiritualities,

and

styles

of

worship.

The

agonizing responses

of Pentecostals to this Charismatic

challenge

has

begun

to make a number of them aware that the

Spirit

of the

Kingdom

to come is not limited to the Pentecostal movement. The Charismatic

challenge, however,

must be related to a

deeper challenge facing many

middle class Pentecostals because of their

departure

from the

eschatological fervency

and the solidarity

with the

poor

and the outcast that so characterized

early Pentecostalism.

These commitments could result in both Pentecostals and Charismatics

coming

to terms with

challenges

and influences that lie beyond

their most radical ideas about what the

Spirit

has in store for

Hogan

Pt. Pentecostal “Philip

quoted by Joseph Flower, “The Charismatic Movement,” 1,

Evangel, 22 October 1972, 23. “Ecumenical or Charismatic?” Pentecostal

17 Philip Hogan, Evangel,

25 March 1973, 17.

981. Rodman

Williams,

“Profile of the Charismatic Movement,”

11; Williams, however,

does imply that there is some value in the Ecumenical movement. “Hughes,

“A Traditional Pentecostal,” 9.

101

‘°°Hughes,

“A Traditional Pentecostal,” 7-10.

Quoted in Kenneth Kantzer, “The Charismatics among Us,” 29.

21

54

the churches. The recent formation of the Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches of North America on the basis of racial

justice

and reconciliation is

symbolic

of a trend in the direction of accepting such a challenge.

But the fact that there was

only

one

Charismatic,

one Hispanic,

and one female in attendance as

participants

at the formation of the

Association,

reveals that we still have a long

way

to

go. Perhaps, in the

end,

Charismatics and Pentecostals can end

up helping

each other toward a renewal and revival of the

Holy Spirit

that are

greater

than any single

movement could ever

imagine.

22